Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Vulture fund to sell currently tenanted homes in Dublin 15

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Not that I think the govt should buy these houses but if they did would the people who live there now qualify to live in them as they would become social housing houses?


  • Options
    #183
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Not that I think the govt should buy these houses but if they did would the people who live there now qualify to live in them as they would become social housing houses?

    Under current council housing rules nope
    And if they change the rules, they just make the housing list problem a hell of a lot worse
    Cheap houses for all


  • Options
    #184
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    Nova Howling Millipede wrote: »
    As I posted above you will most likely be forced to move which is a hassle and an expense.

    You will more than likely not. Banks dont take houses willy nilly neither do they pass up paying tenents in favour or the unit being empty.

    Do you, as an example, require financial statements from all companies you deal with? If for example, your car insurance company are paying their bills?


  • Options
    #185
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    I had a quick look on Daft for rental houses in Dublin 15 .. there around 1500 now . I would say this issue is sharping the LLs minds to get the going rental rates as there will be no thanks for under charging


  • Options
    #186
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    esforum wrote: »
    You will more than likely not. Banks dont take houses willy nilly neither do they pass up paying tenents in favour or the unit being empty.?

    They seem very keen to sell properties than retain tenants. No wants to be a LL it seems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    handlemaster wrote: »
    I had a quick look on Daft for rental houses in Dublin 15 .. there around 1500 now . I would say this issue is sharping the LLs minds to get the going rental rates as there will be no thanks for under charging

    Perhaps they are anticipating some intervention which will prevent them doing something.


  • Options
    #188
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Not that I think the govt should buy these houses but if they did would the people who live there now qualify to live in them as they would become social housing houses?

    The people living there have no entitlement to cheap housing. They have the means to support themselves and need to do so like everyone else with the means in the country.


  • Options
    #189
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    beauf wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    I had a quick look on Daft for rental houses in Dublin 15 .. there around 1500 now . I would say this issue is sharping the LLs minds to get the going rental rates as there will be no thanks for under charging

    Perhaps they are anticipating some intervention which will prevent them doing something.
    Add your reply here.

    Its been done just last year... fixing rents for two years


  • Options
    #190
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    esforum wrote: »
    You will more than likely not. Banks dont take houses willy nilly neither do they pass up paying tenents in favour or the unit being empty.

    Do you, as an example, require financial statements from all companies you deal with? If for example, your car insurance company are paying their bills?

    Again I clearly stated that I would not agree with LL's looking at tenants bank statement or tenants looking at LL's. Bank statements are a private document imo and should only be given to regulated bodies such as other banks.

    But that doesn't change the fact that its most likely a person will be asked to move out if a bank takes over. I never said they will want to leave the place vacant but they will almost definitely want to vacant for selling and its in their interest to sell it as soon as they can so unless you are in a lease expect to receive your notice very soon after a bank taking over a property.

    I've seen this first hand with people I know living in an apartment which the bank took over and also in case you didn't notice that's pretty much exactly what this thread is all about too except it's a fund instead of a bank.


  • Options
    #191
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    beauf wrote: »
    They seem very keen to sell properties than retain tenants. No wants to be a LL it seems.

    Well the banks the receivers and the builders, never wanted to be landlords in the first place.
    When the property market collapsed and builders were left holding hundreds of unsold properties and the banks breathing down their necks, some builders got the notion of finishing them off and renting them out.
    The idea behind it was that the income would go towards servicing the loans to keep the banks at arms length in the hope the the downturn was only going to be a short term thing and that they could sell off the properties as things picked up again.
    But that didn't work out so well, as we all know.
    This is how so many rented properties ended up in the hands of the banks and subsequently in the hands of receivers.
    This is not the first time financial institutions have cleared out tenants in order to sell off properties.
    As an example, a few years ago in Carrickmines approx 100 apartments were vacated to make way for selling.
    But we didn't have the shortage of available rentals back then as we do now, so no big noise was made about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0323/776852-tyrrelstown/

    Council looking to buy some of the houses. This is really knee jerk housing policy. The council are now looking to house private renters !!! This is just stupid thinking


  • Options
    #193
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,619 ✭✭✭Villa05


    handlemaster wrote:
    Council looking to buy some of the houses. This is really knee jerk housing policy. The council are now looking to house private renters !!! This is just stupid thinking


    Are most people on the housing list private renters?


  • Options
    #194
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    davo10 wrote: »
    What has that got to do with the tenant? The tenants rights are protected even if the property is repossessed by th bank. If the LL is "pocketing" the rent, that is a matter for Revenue and the bank, not the person renting the property.

    That's incorrect. Tenants can end up getting evicted legally inside the period of a lease and also lose their deposit because they had the misfortune of renting from an insolvent landlord.

    Anybody suggesting credit checks for only one side of the transaction and objecting stringently to the other has a wee agenda methinks. Credit checks on both parties is perfectly normal in regular business transactions and that's what this should be treated as.


  • Options
    #195
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    esforum wrote: »
    What are you talking about? You pay rent per month, what the landlord does with that money has no impact on you at all.

    If he is not paying his mortgage he will lose the house, you will get your required notice period and suffer no financial fall as a result

    And your deposit?

    You are incorrect on the notice period btw. Because of a legal loophole, tenants can be evicted immediately with no notice because the lease is a legal agreement between the tenant and the landlord. And the landlord no longer owns the property.


  • Options
    #196
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,942 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    gaius c wrote: »
    And your deposit?

    You are incorrect on the notice period btw. Because of a legal loophole, tenants can be evicted immediately with no notice because the lease is a legal agreement between the tenant and the landlord. And the landlord no longer owns the property.
    They closed or are closing that hole according to the radio the other day.


  • Options
    #197
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    gaius c wrote: »
    davo10 wrote: »
    What has that got to do with the tenant? The tenants rights are protected even if the property is repossessed by th bank. If the LL is "pocketing" the rent, that is a matter for Revenue and the bank, not the person renting the property.

    That's incorrect. Tenants can end up getting evicted legally inside the period of a lease and also lose their deposit because they had the misfortune of renting from an insolvent landlord.

    Anybody suggesting credit checks for only one side of the transaction and objecting stringently to the other has a wee agenda methinks. Credit checks on both parties is perfectly normal in regular business transactions and that's what this should be treated as.
    Add your reply here.

    Have you ever credit checked before renting a car ?


  • Options
    #198
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    gaius c wrote: »
    That's incorrect. Tenants can end up getting evicted legally inside the period of a lease and also lose their deposit because they had the misfortune of renting from an insolvent landlord.

    Anybody suggesting credit checks for only one side of the transaction and objecting stringently to the other has a wee agenda methinks. Credit checks on both parties is perfectly normal in regular business transactions and that's what this should be treated as.

    Complete tosh. The only accurate point about this post is your reference to the legality of the eviction when a property is being sold. But you didn't even get that fully right, the tenant cannot legally be evicted during the term of a tenancy, they can however be evicted when they have Part 4 rights on account of the property being sold.


  • Options
    #199
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,619 ✭✭✭Villa05


    davo10 wrote:
    Complete tosh. The only accurate point about this post is your reference to the legality of the eviction when a property is being sold. But you didn't even get that fully right, the tenant cannot legally be evicted during the term of a tenancy, they can however be evicted when they have Part 4 rights on account of the property being sold.


    Irrelevant, a good tennant should have the wherewithal to protect themselves from rogue LL and property flippers pretending to be LL

    We need an alternative to buying, and that is long term renting. Current rental market is hopelessly inadequate


  • Options
    #200
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    1) Whats a Rogue LL?
    2) Why would a property flipper pretend to be LL?


  • Options
    #201
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    davo10 wrote: »
    Complete tosh. The only accurate point about this post is your reference to the legality of the eviction when a property is being sold. But you didn't even get that fully right, the tenant cannot legally be evicted during the term of a tenancy, they can however be evicted when they have Part 4 rights on account of the property being sold.

    I'll quote my post that followed the one you've replied to:
    You are incorrect on the notice period btw. Because of a legal loophole, tenants can be evicted immediately with no notice because the lease is a legal agreement between the tenant and the landlord. And the landlord no longer owns the property.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Thargor wrote: »
    They closed or are closing that hole according to the radio the other day.

    Linky?
    I'll believe it when my facebook feed shows that it's no longer happening.

    It still doesn't help tenants get their deposits back.

    We're a great little country sometimes. Don't pay your mortgage for years on end and get the utility value of the property for free. Pay your rent on time but still get the boot.


  • Options
    #203
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,942 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    gaius c wrote: »
    Linky?
    I'll believe it when my facebook feed shows that it's no longer happening.

    It still doesn't help tenants get their deposits back.

    We're a great little country sometimes. Don't pay your mortgage for years on end and get the utility value of the property for free. Pay your rent on time but still get the boot.
    Seems to be just another thinking about it exercise:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0308/773299-housing-government-plan/


  • Options
    #204
    Canadel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    So a Master of Law (Edmund Honohan) just said live on RTE that it would be quite simple to introduce compulsory purchase orders on properties purchased by vulture funds to help solve the national housing crisis. He said they would get their money back but wouldn't make any profit, while the housing crisis would be eased short term and supply could then be increased long term.

    Can't find the video online yet but it will be interesting to see if this is buried or brought up in the Dail as it should be.


  • Options
    #205
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Canadel wrote: »
    So a Master of Law (Edmund Honohan) just said live on RTE that it would be quite simple to introduce compulsory purchase orders on properties purchased by vulture funds to help solve the national housing crisis. He said they would get their money back but wouldn't make any profit, while the housing crisis would be eased short term and supply could then be increased long term.

    Interesting theory, I wonder if he expects compulsory purchase is going to stop the houses being exported or if compulsory purchase will somehow multiply the number of houses in the country :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #206
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Canadel wrote: »
    So a Master of Law (Edmund Honohan) just said live on RTE that it would be quite simple to introduce compulsory purchase orders on properties purchased by vulture funds to help solve the national housing crisis. He said they would get their money back but wouldn't make any profit, while the housing crisis would be eased short term and supply could then be increased long term.

    Can't find the video online yet but it will be interesting to see if this is buried or brought up in the Dail as it should be.

    Graham is entirely correct.
    If the properties are current tenanted (as they are)- how the hell is changing ownership going to have any effect whatsoever on the supply of residential property on the Irish market.

    I was discussing this in work yesterday- and there are some people who thought it a brilliant idea to do just what the good economist is suggesting- so they could buy the properties instead...........

    There is a fundamental mind block happening here for a lot of people- simply having a different owner for a property does not mean there is one extra house in the market- indeed, in the short term- if vacant possession is a requirement of sale (as it is for anyone who can't buy it outright with cash)- you'll actually be reducing the housing stock by a commensurate amount until the property is inhabited again..............


  • Options
    #207
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,499 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Canadel wrote:
    So a Master of Law (Edmund Honohan) just said live on RTE that it would be quite simple to introduce compulsory purchase orders on properties purchased by vulture funds to help solve the national housing crisis. He said they would get their money back but wouldn't make any profit, while the housing crisis would be eased short term and supply could then be increased long term.

    Ah another thing that probably won't be done to help this travesty. Nice idea though


  • Options
    #208
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Ah another thing that probably won't be done to help this travesty. Nice idea though

    as others have mentioned, the houses don't vanish

    As for the current tenants who rent privately, they most likely won't be able to remain there even if the state did own them as they'd be outside income limits


  • Options
    #209
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,619 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I think Honohans point was to do with the supply of affordable accommodation and for the short term until something more long term was in place. I think compulsory purchase orders on already sold stock is over the top and instead they should go after the existing distressed loans of which there are plenty.

    In fairness it's not rocket science to sort the housing mess out. It just requires removing the obstacles to making it happen. Land, labour and capital are plentiful plus housing is highly priced therefore it should be profitable to build for selling or rental


  • Options
    #210
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Canadel wrote: »
    So a Master of Law (Edmund Honohan) just said live on RTE that it would be quite simple to introduce compulsory purchase orders on properties purchased by vulture funds to help solve the national housing crisis. He said they would get their money back but wouldn't make any profit, while the housing crisis would be eased short term and supply could then be increased long term.

    Can't find the video online yet but it will be interesting to see if this is buried or brought up in the Dail as it should be.

    He's the Master of the High Court meaning that he deals with pre trial matters. If you google him you'll find most references are to judges criticising him and issuing injunctions to stop him trying to exercise powers and make decisions that are outside his area.

    He's talking abut CPO type powers which are most often exercised to acquire land for roads, hospitals etc. The cases being talked about in this thread are about houses which are fully occupied and proposed to be out on the open market for sale. It's hard to see what justification the State could have to interfere in matters such as that - there is no social policy benefit. They are fully occupied and will remain fully occupied.

    Empty estates, undeveloped land etc would, I think, be more appropriate targets.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    Marcusm wrote: »
    He's the Master of the High Court meaning that he deals with pre trial matters. If you google him you'll find most references are to judges criticising him and issuing injunctions to stop him trying to exercise powers and make decisions that are outside his area.

    He's talking abut CPO type powers which are most often exercised to acquire land for roads, hospitals etc. The cases being talked about in this thread are about houses which are fully occupied and proposed to be out on the open market for sale. It's hard to see what justification the State could have to interfere in matters such as that - there is no social policy benefit. They are fully occupied and will remain fully occupied.

    Empty estates, undeveloped land etc would, I think, be more appropriate targets.

    The state would be much better off taking said money and using it to build housing, actually increasing the supply of housing instead of changing the name on the deeds

    The problem for the state is that it can't be seen to be building a new ballymun or darndale but at the same time to avoid that happening, it'd need to give significant discounts on the sale price to entice members of the so called squeezed middle.
    However as we've already seen the loony left of coppinger and Co, are totally against members of the squeezed middle buying houses so the states fecked if it does and fecked if it doesn't

    Are there even empty estates left in areas where people want to buy?


Advertisement