Poor quality of rental properties in Ireland..

beauf

There's another side to it too. New regulations, and enforcement of regulations actually took a lot of properties off the market. Making the shortage worse. I would assume its also has an effect on the quality of what people will rent too.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/nearly-75pc-of-rented-homes-inspected-in-dublin-not-fit-to-live-in-31225186.html

Sleeper12

The legacy of the outgoing government. A glut of accommodation when they came into power.100s of thousands left the country and we still ended up with less units. They really took their eyes off the ball

KomradeBishop

beauf wrote: »

are more people becoming LL or are they leaving the market.

That doesn't say anything about profit levels. A lot of landlords are moving to AirBnb short-term renting, which effectively removes property from the main rental market (where tenants aim to rent longer term, rather than higher-rent short-term, for tourists, like AirBnB), pushing up rents in the process - because this makes them a lot more money.

Stuff like that shows the market has become more profitable, through this method of sidestepping regulation (which should be banned/clamped-down on, as it's helping to wreck the rental market) - not less profitable or even unprofitable as you say.

You have nothing to cite, to show the market becoming unprofitable for landlords (and counting e.g. mortgage payments, is invalid here).

KomradeBishop

beauf wrote: »

Long term tenants in my experience tend to want their own furniture. That seems to work out better for everyone.

Landlord supplying furniture almost never works out because no two tenants want the same furniture. (one wants a double the next wants two singles the next want it as a study with no bed etc).

Then it gets damaged a lot, and after its been all replaced for the nth time, the LL just stops spending any money on it. Because its not economical to do so.

Its probably why unfurnished is so popular in other countries. You get a new painted rental. You give it back newly painted. No furniture. No arguments about the furniture.

If you want to claim replacing furniture is not economical for landlords, you need to provide some stats to prove this.

It's not acceptable for landlords to pass on the cost of proper quality furniture to a new tenant, just because a previous one wrecked it - that's not the new tenants fault...(but it is the landlords responsibility, even if not their fault)

Either provide proper furniture (to justify the increased rent a furnished place is put out for), or provide it unfurnished (at the reduced rent an unfurnished place is put out for).

Macha

I rent in Belgium where the quality and availability of rental stock is light years beyond Ireland.

I rent a lovely 2 bed apartment of over 100m² with a big private terrace for €1000. I rent unfurnished so the landlord doesn't have to bother about furniture and I can use my furniture, which makes it even more like my home.

I signed a 3 year contract and neither I nor my landlord can break the contract without 3 months notice and fines of a few months rent(you can come to agreements) . My landlord can only increase the rent every 3 years and can only increase it based on an officially published index.

I dread coming back to Dublin.

Why is it so different? I think in part because
- higher density housing automatically increases housing stock in areas people want to live
- proper system of rental contacts means adults /families with good jobs want to rent & demand good quality
- proper system of contacts means landlords are happy to invest in their property. It's normal to get the whole place painted between tenants here.
- far less of the us vs them attitude between renters & landlords as both are properly protected under the law.
- on a political level, because so many people rent, politicians respond to these voters' needs. In Ireland, home ownership is so high, politicians feel very little pressure to improve the lot of tenants, who have had to put up with an unacceptable market for a very long time, especially in Dublin

armabelle

kneesox wrote: »

Hello, I rent houses in Ireland since 2006 and even being able to rent once on a more expensive side I was never able to find quality, modern house or apartment.
Please could anyone explain to me why it is so bed?
It seems landlords don't put any money whatsoever to make houses more attractive.
I feel nearly sick when I see the same tacky tiles and furnitures from 70's even in every single time. My choices where somehow limited because of the dog, but even apartments and places that wouldn't allow pets are just as bad, its close to ridiculous and one would wonder if those ads and prices are not a jokes only!

Why should they when people will rent what there is? Society makes decisions for us in this case. If everyone started demanding higher standards, there would be higher standards

Speedwell

armabelle wrote: »

Why should they when people will rent what there is? Society makes decisions for us in this case. If everyone started demanding higher standards, there would be higher standards

Oh, bless me, it's a wild free-marketeer.

Please acquaint yourself with basic economic concepts such as "asymmetrical information" and "he who has the gold makes the rules" before you invoke that naive so-called "free market" nonsense again. I would do more to address your argument but that's as much of an "argument" as I can find in that post.

PMBC

Gator88 wrote: »

I've been a landlord with several properties for over 30 years and even I have to say we need much more regulation. The standard of a lot of rented accommodation is absolutely terrible. If you are getting good money in rent its simply not good enough to send down cast off furniture and appliances from the big house. I've plenty of friends think it is ok but its not the right way to do things. Treat your tenants badly and you'll have bad tenants.
Some people should not be in the business plain and simple. Tenants should be treated with dignity and respect. I can see from the general tone of the comments here that many look down on their tenants. Some of the comments here are down right shameful. It is pure snobbery to suggest that all bad landlords have property on the scr but not in other areas.

Well stated.

stefanovich

Rent unfurnished. Buy your own furniture. That's what I did to avoid cheap crap.

PMBC

armabelle wrote: »

Why should they when people will rent what there is? Society makes decisions for us in this case. If everyone started demanding higher standards, there would be higher standards

So tenants need to get together and pressurise as a group for better standards.
On the landlords side they need better protection from 'nightmare tenants'.

armabelle

Speedwell wrote: »

Oh, bless me, it's a wild free-marketeer.

Please acquaint yourself with basic economic concepts such as "asymmetrical information" and "he who has the gold makes the rules" before you invoke that naive so-called "free market" nonsense again. I would do more to address your argument but that's as much of an "argument" as I can find in that post.

Is that how you really feel?

armabelle

kneesox wrote: »

Would like to hear constructive opinions from people who actually know more about this situation on market and is reasons.

this may be difficult because there is a lot of bias here LL vs tenants

armabelle

defrule wrote: »

Probably because demand far exceeds supply, so you either take the ****ty place or have nowhere to stay.

Yes, I posted something similar actually. I totally agree with you!

But in all fairness, not all rentals are rubbish quality. You could find some decent ones but you would have more work to do and then have to compete with even more people for it.

handlemaster

Speedwell wrote: »

If the landlord is going to treat their property with contempt and me with contempt, then I will be happy to oblige them by treating the landlord with contempt as well.

And there we have it. Im sure your a prize tenant

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not acceptable for landlords to pass on the cost of proper quality furniture to a new tenant, just because a previous one wrecked it - that's not the new tenants fault...(but it is the landlords responsibility, even if not their fault)

Either provide proper furniture (to justify the increased rent a furnished place is put out for), or provide it unfurnished (at the reduced rent an unfurnished place is put out for).

The landlord offers a property for rent at an advertised price, the tenant inspects the property and accepts the condition or walks away.

You don't get to tell either party what to do, they make their own decisions in their own best interests.

Macha

Macha wrote: »

on a political level, because so many people rent, politicians respond to these voters' needs. In Ireland, home ownership is so high, politicians feel very little pressure to improve the lot of tenants, who have had to put up with an unacceptable market for a very long time, especially in Dublin

Ireland's home ownership rate isn't particularly high by international standards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

Nobody complained when rents collapsed in 2007/2008 now they're up, so probably evens out over the last decade.

DoozerT6

You think standards are bad now? Try looking for shared accommodation back in the early/mid 90's when you stood in a phone box on the street with a copy of the Evening Herald in your hand, ringing every number in the 'Accommodation Sharing' section, queueing up outside the door with twenty other people to view a boxroom in a house that hadn't been decorated since the '70's with furniture to match I viewed rooms with no windows, houses where the smell of damp and mould was so bad it stopped me in my tracks as soon as I walked in the door, and a bedsit in Rathmines that was like something out of Strumpet City. Even the previous guy viewing it (who I passed on the way in) shook his head at me and silently mouthed 'noooooooo' as he walked, wide-eyed, down the path away from me.

However, I can sympathise. I have owned my own place now for several years, but lived in shared houses for many years before that, both in Dublin and other places. It would be nice to think that a landlord would at least have carpets cleaned or put a fresh coat of paint on a house every couple of years as a matter of course, not to mention repairing/replacing household items in a timely manner, but that was never the case IME.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You have nothing to cite, to show the market becoming unprofitable for landlords (and counting e.g. mortgage payments, is invalid here).

So you claim renting is profitable by deciding you can't count the biggest expense of renting a property (the mortgage repayment). You can't be serious.

If you are not taking clean money away after tax, expenses and mortgage repayments you are not in profit.

As for furnature etc, a LL is under no obligation to provide high quality furnature or other goods. They should provide functional items that are in good condition and do the job they are supposed to, they should not have to spend their money on high quality expensive items. They are trying to run a business to attempt to make money in an expensive area that attracts insane levels of taxation, they are not there to provide a life of luxury for tenants.

Now there are luxury lettings that are decorated to a very high standard but you pu the price is extremely high rent. You can't have it both ways.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

The landlord offers a property for rent at an advertised price, the tenant inspects the property and accepts the condition or walks away.

You don't get to tell either party what to do, they make their own decisions in their own best interests.

If it's in a tenant's best interests to accept crappy lodgings rather than be homeless because callous landlords have created a market in which crappy lodgings are all that is available because cheaters have forced out fair players, that is not an OK state of affairs.

Sleeper12

kneesox wrote:

Hello, I rent houses in Ireland since 2006 and even being able to rent once on a more expensive side I was never able to find quality, modern house or apartment. Please could anyone explain to me why it is so bed? It seems landlords don't put any money whatsoever to make houses more attractive. I feel nearly sick when I see the same tacky tiles and furnitures from 70's even in every single time. My choices where somehow limited because of the dog, but even apartments and places that wouldn't allow pets are just as bad, its close to ridiculous and one would wonder if those ads and prices are not a jokes only!

Gator88 wrote:

I've been a landlord with several properties for over 30 years and even I have to say we need much more regulation. The standard of a lot of rented accommodation is absolutely terrible. If you are getting good money in rent its simply not good enough to send down cast off furniture and appliances from the big house. I've plenty of friends think it is ok but its not the right way to do things. Treat your tenants badly and you'll have bad tenants. Some people should not be in the business plain and simple. Tenants should be treated with dignity and respect. I can see from the general tone of the comments here that many look down on their tenants. Some of the comments here are down right shameful. It is pure snobbery to suggest that all bad landlords have property on the scr but not in other areas.

Best comment so far and we are up to 140 comments.

anothernight

Speedwell wrote: »

that is not an OK state of affairs.

I think that's something we can all agree on.

As it is, the market isn't particularly inviting to landlords (and as beauf showed, it has actively been driving landlords out of the market). No housing stock for rent means less choice and higher prices. Less competition brings lower quality of service.

I wouldn't go calling landlords "callous" because they're providing a service and they don't owe prospective tenants anything beyond the minimum legal requirements. But I can't help but sympathise with tenants looking for housing in what is essentially a very broken market.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

If it's in a tenant's best interests to accept crappy lodgings rather than be homeless because callous landlords have created a market in which crappy lodgings are all that is available because cheaters have forced out fair players, that is not an OK state of affairs.

How about all those callous people who leave money in their "retirement account" rather than use the funds to provide provide subsidized rental accommodation for strangers?

If you can't find good modern accommodation in Dublin, you're doing something wrong. The price on the other hand is horrendous but everything is more expensive in Ireland it seems.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

How about all those callous people who leave money in their "retirement account" rather than use the funds to provide provide subsidized rental accommodation for strangers?

If you can't find good modern accommodation in Dublin, you're doing something wrong. The price on the other hand is horrendous but everything is more expensive in Ireland it seems.

Are you going to subsidize my retirement so I can provide rental accommodation to help you prove your point? Of course not.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Are you going to subsidize my retirement so I can provide rental accommodation to help you prove your point? Of course not.

You are the person looking to be subsidized in both the above cases???

You are asking other people to subsidize rental property for strangers, and you are only willing to do the same if I subsidize you retirement.

Neither option involves any net contribution from you, so both are essentially you receiving free money from others.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

You are the person looking to be subsidized in both the above cases???

You are asking other people to subsidize rental property for strangers, and you are only willing to do the same if I subsidize you retirement.

Neither option involves any net contribution from you, so both are essentially you receiving free money from others.

Um, no. I'm the one looking to pay for my own retirement with money I earned, and also pay for my own furniture and my own rent with money I earned. This is all beside the point. The question is whether landlords are in the business of providing clean, decent offerings in good repair (property and furnishings). I see a lot of people bending over backwards to attempt to prove that landlords have no such obligation. Those people are slumlords or defenders of slumlords.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Um, no. I'm the one looking to pay for my own retirement with money I earned, and also pay for my own furniture and my own rent with money I earned. This is all beside the point. The question is whether landlords are in the business of providing clean, decent offerings in good repair (property and furnishings). I see a lot of people bending over backwards to attempt to prove that landlords have no such obligation. Those people are slumlords or defenders of slumlords.

Look, I give up after this because it is "difficult" to debate with You so i will leave it at this:

You are the person who introduced your " retirement account", whatever that is, to this thread, so that is why I mentioned it.

Nobody is trying to tell you what to do with your money or where to live or what property to rent or buy, it is you who wants to tell other people what to do.

Once a landlord fulfills any legal requirements on the standard and safety of the property and contents and obeys the law when renting it out, anything else he does is up to him not you.

These are very very very simple concepts that do not require debate they are self evident.

beauf

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That doesn't say anything about profit levels. A lot of landlords are moving to AirBnb short-term renting, which effectively removes property from the main rental market (where tenants aim to rent longer term, rather than higher-rent short-term, for tourists, like AirBnB), pushing up rents in the process - because this makes them a lot more money.

Stuff like that shows the market has become more profitable, through this method of sidestepping regulation (which should be banned/clamped-down on, as it's helping to wreck the rental market) - not less profitable or even unprofitable as you say.

You have nothing to cite, to show the market becoming unprofitable for landlords (and counting e.g. mortgage payments, is invalid here).

All you're doing is agreeing me. LL are leaving the market, because its more profitably to get out of the traditional renting.

beauf

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you want to claim replacing furniture is not economical for landlords, you need to provide some stats to prove this.

If it wasn't true this thread wouldn't exist.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not acceptable for landlords to pass on the cost of proper quality furniture to a new tenant, just because a previous one wrecked it - that's not the new tenants fault...(but it is the landlords responsibility, even if not their fault)...

Its not an issue of fault. Its solely a matter of where the income to sustain the business comes from.

beauf

Speedwell wrote: »

....The question is whether landlords are in the business of providing clean, decent offerings in good repair (property and furnishings)....

The question actually was why don't they.

The answer to that its because the regulations are poor, and enforcement is even worse.

Sleeper12

I find it unbelievable that a taxi can't be older than 10 no matter how good nick it's in. It has to be clean. Paint can't be in bits. Upholstery has to be clean. Carpets have to be clean and can't be thread bare. They even have to have a first aid kit & all products in the kit must be replaced after use by date. They are inspected every 12 months but can have surprise inspection at anytime throughout the year. If any of these things are not right it's taken off the road immediately. You usually spend 10 to 60 minutes in the taxi but your comfort is guaranteed.

Now the property you rent from someone may not have been painted in 5 years or more. Furniture may be taken from skips or cast offs from landlords home. Carpet can be thread bare. Springs could be gone in upholstery, beds etc. No requirement for first aid kit. Landlord might take a week or more to rectify a repair that he / she would fix immediately in their home. Bathroom / kitchen cabinets may be falling apart. Yet no one inspects these every year. There are no random checks.

A taxi you spend minutes in & they have all these rules & inspections & yet the place where people actually live in can be outright kips. We need real regulation in the rental sector. We need annual checks. I'm shocked at some I have seen & the attitude of the landlord. I shocked at some of the comments here. It's very obvious that some look down their noses at their Tennants. I work from bray to Balbriggan & I've seen good & bad in all areas in between. Not just the south circular road. I'll tell you one thing though it's some of the snobbish areas that I have difficulty getting paid. Cheques not arriving, bank transfer not going through. I've actually had to go back, lie to the Tennant & remove the new shower fitted the week before because I couldn't get paid. I had to leave the Tennant with no shower at all because of the landlord.
We need minimum standards & regulation. Lots of it.