Poor quality of rental properties in Ireland..

KomradeBishop

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.

Yea why do so few people understand, that 'free market' principles don't apply to the property/rental market.

In a 'free market', supply is supposed to catch up with demand, to reach mythical 'equilibrium' between the two - that doesn't happen with dysfunctional property/rental markets, they stay in a state of dis-equilibrium, where supply doesn't just automatically catch up, it requires outside intervention in the market (the opposite of 'free market' principles).

KomradeBishop

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.

Your post is a non-sequitur, it is effectively unrelated to what you're replying to.

You do get to tell the other party to provide proper standards in rentals, through regulations - if the standards aren't up to scratch, there needs to be proper regulation and enforcement of standards.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Eh, rents don't 'even up' by becoming massively inflated, to compensate for a period of low rents...that's not how the rental market works.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea why do so few people understand, that 'free market' principles don't apply to the property/rental market.

In a 'free market', supply is supposed to catch up with demand, to reach mythical 'equilibrium' between the two - that doesn't happen with dysfunctional property/rental markets, they stay in a state of dis-equilibrium, where supply doesn't just automatically catch up, it requires outside intervention in the market (the opposite of 'free market' principles).

And some could argue that outside intervention is the reason why Ireland's property market and especially the rental market, are in a state disequilibrium.

KomradeBishop

Valentina Unimportant Food wrote: »

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.

You're paying off a mortgage to end up with full ownership of an asset at the end of it - people are having a laugh if they want to portray paying for that as 'unprofitable'.

Mortgages are simply not a valid thing to consider as an 'expense' that makes renting unprofitable.

If a part-time worker is doing a job that pays less than their mortgage repayments require, their job is not 'unprofitable' - that's the kind of idiotic reasoning you're trying to pull off.

Speedwell

beauf wrote: »

The question actually was why don't they.

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

If I ran a restaurant, and you came to eat a meal there, and you thought the food was a bit fly-blown and not up to standard, I am sure you would not defend me if I were to say that if you didn't like the food, you could bring food more to your liking. You would probably say I was unfair to you if I told you to eat elsewhere, particularly if the available selection of restaurants in town was sparse and not any better than my place. If I told you to cook in your own kitchen, and you said, "I don't have a kitchen" (perhaps you're traveling for business), I would not have the right to tell you to take what you could get and shut up.

In other industries, people are required to provide healthful and decent products that work. Other industries prosper under those conditions. It might be instructive for the rental property industry in this country to consider this.

KomradeBishop

anothernight wrote: »

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.

Was there proof of landlords being driven out of the market though? Nobody has shown landlords renting as being unprofitable, and a lot of landlords have effectively removed themselves from the primary rental market, in order to go after the AirBnB 'grey' market, which is a lot more profitable but which should be illegal in how it sidesteps regulations.

KomradeBishop

beauf wrote: »

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

Actually no, that doesn't agree with you at all - AirBnb is effectively a 'grey' market, a market where the rentals are more profitable because they sidestep regulations, that would otherwise make such rentals illegal.

That is not a sign of an unprofitable rental market - it's a sign of an unregulated/should-be-illegal market, being more profitable.

KomradeBishop

beauf wrote: »

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

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

That's false logic - the existence of this thread, doesn't prove that anything is uneconomical for landlords - as there are plenty of other potential explanations for poor rental quality, which have been discussed throughout the thread.

Where are costs going to go, that makes rental income unprofitable exactly? You can't count mortgage payments in this btw.

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

And some could argue that outside intervention is the reason why Ireland's property market and especially the rental market, are in a state disequilibrium.

Yea well where are they? I'd like to see someone try and argue that here, and watch while other posters tear such shoddy arguments apart.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea well where are they? I'd like to see someone try and argue that here, and watch while other posters tear such shoddy arguments apart.

Well go ahead then.

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

Well go ahead then.

I don't see any arguments here matching what you claim - there have pretty roundly (even among landlords) been calls for increased regulation.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Was there proof of landlords being driven out of the market though? Nobody has shown landlords renting as being unprofitable, and a lot of landlords have effectively removed themselves from the primary rental market, in order to go after the AirBnB 'grey' market, which is a lot more profitable but which should be illegal in how it sidesteps regulations.

And where is your proof of this?

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't see any arguments here matching what you claim - there have pretty roundly (even among landlords) been calls for increased regulation.

So that is how a shoddy argument is torn apart, in your opinion.

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

And where is your proof of this?

According to InsideAirBnB.com, [...], a total of 1,469 homes/apartments are currently available to rent in the Dublin city council area alone, with 1,682 homes/apartments available to rent around Dublin.

This figure does not include homes that have a private or shared room to rent alongside the occupants of the home. A total of 3,773 homes/apartments currently have private or shared rooms to rent via Airbnb around Dublin.
...
“To put things in perspective, currently on Daft.ie there is about 1,200 houses and apartments available to rent in Dublin. This is a serious issue but no one seems to be talking about it,” O’Brien said.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/Dublins-Airbnb-rental-stock-adding-to-homeless-crisis.html

Given this, AirBnB appears to be a huge contribution to the rental crisis - and it's a method of renting which sidesteps regulations, and should be illegal.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

According to InsideAirBnB.com, [...], a total of 1,469 homes/apartments are currently available to rent in the Dublin city council area alone, with 1,682 homes/apartments available to rent around Dublin.

This figure does not include homes that have a private or shared room to rent alongside the occupants of the home. A total of 3,773 homes/apartments currently have private or shared rooms to rent via Airbnb around Dublin.
...
“To put things in perspective, currently on Daft.ie there is about 1,200 houses and apartments available to rent in Dublin. This is a serious issue but no one seems to be talking about it,” O’Brien said.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/Dublins-Airbnb-rental-stock-adding-to-homeless-crisis.html

Given this, AirBnB appears to be a huge contribution to the rental crisis - and it's a method of renting which sidesteps regulations, and should be illegal.

To use these statistics as proof that your opinion is correct perhaps you could show how many properties were "holiday lets" or let on a similar basis to Airbnb before these stats were created.

Perhaps you could also show how in your opinion this method of short term/ holiday lets sidestep regulations.

And is, again your opinion why the Airbnb method of letting should be illegal.

BTW a regurgitation of an article of an "IrishAMerican" news website, that in turn lifed it from what appears to be no more than free advertisement circular, doesn't give me much faith in your stat's.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, rents don't 'even up' by becoming massively inflated, to compensate for a period of low rents...that's not how the rental market works.

Yet this is how the rental market is performing right now.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If a part-time worker is doing a job that pays less than their mortgage repayments require, their job is not 'unprofitable' - that's the kind of idiotic reasoning you're trying to pull off.

No your example is idiotic as the job and mortgage are in no way linked.

In a buy to let (or with an accidental LL) the mortgage and rent are very much linked as they are part of the same business.

You can think what ever you want but it doesn't change the fact the people who are investing in property to rent want a clean return after taxes and mortgage has been paid and they are getting out of the market or not getting into the market because it's difficulty to even cover the mortgage after the extremly high taxation faced by LL. At an absolute minimum 100% of mortgage interest should be allowable against tax but even that isn't enough imo.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Given this, AirBnB appears to be a huge contribution to the rental crisis - and it's a method of renting which sidesteps regulations, and should be illegal.

What regulation does it sidestep?

Airbnb should be illegal? Please. People who own property should be entitled to operate a business with it in a a way they see fit. LL are not charities or obliged to provide housing if they don't want. You cannot serious suggest interfering in private business and stopping people from short term letting if they wish, it's total instantly.

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

...

I don't need to meet your arbitrary 'shifting the goalposts' standards - anyone who reads up on AirBnB rentals, can quickly find out that they create a hole in regulations, which allows a specific type of short-term rental which would otherwise be illegal.

You can see the raw stats yourself, without bothering with the article:
http://insideairbnb.com/dublin/
http://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/residential-property-for-rent/?s[advanced]=1&searchSource=rental
http://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/rooms-to-share/?s[room_type]=either&s[advanced]=1&s[gender]=on&searchSource=sharing

AirBnB = 1,682 homes/apartments + 1,979 rooms = 3,661 total
Daft = 1,244 homes/apartments + 935 rooms = 2,179 total

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Your post is a non-sequitur, it is effectively unrelated to what you're replying to.

You do get to tell the other party to provide proper standards in rentals, through regulations - if the standards aren't up to scratch, there needs to be proper regulation and enforcement of standards.

And how in your words, does this post of yours effectively relate to the OP, like bumpsys did.

In the OP, the poster says that houses should be more attractive, and that they "feel nearly sick when I see the same tacky tiles and furnitures from 70's".

Bumbsy was quite right to say that if viewing a property where the decor was from the 70's with "antique" furniture then the prospective tenant is free to accept or walk away.

Nothing to do with min standards of rental accommodation.

newacc2015

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

Except you dont you cant tell the condition of a taxi until you get into it and the meter has started. But you can view a house before you let and decide it is not up to your standards. They arent comparable. If you dont like that the house hasnt been painted in 5 years, dont take it. Why should the state have to employ hundreds of people because tenants incapable of not taking houses that arent to their standards? How many stupid posts are there on boards of people looking an apartment and then a few months later "not liking the carper" or "wanting to change the wall colour".

We dont "lots of regulation" we need people to cop on. If you dont like the standard of a property dont take it. Dont come onto boards 3 months later moaning about how you didnt like it, but took it anyway. We have minimum regulation, most issues you listed are cosmetic. I serious doubt even the most tenant favourable countries of Germany and France dont require landlords paint their properties for the sake of it

All the issues you listed could be addressed if we changed if we switched to the German style of renting, which is 4 bare walls and floor. You buy everything including a kitchen. But I seriously doubt tenants would be happy with that.

Honestly I dont see how you can belittle landlords treatment of property when you have gone into properties, lied to tenants and taken back a shower and left them without it for a week. You are treating your business like a business, likewise a landlord not doing cosmetic things like painting walls for the sake of it, is treating his business like a business. I guess only when a landlord treats his business like a business it is morally wrong?

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

Yet this is how the rental market is performing right now.

No it isn't. The increased rents now are not a 'compensation' for past low rents...

KomradeBishop

Valentina Unimportant Food wrote: »

No your example is idiotic as the job and mortgage are in no way linked.

In a buy to let (or with an accidental LL) the mortgage and rent are very much linked as they are part of the same business.

You can think what ever you want but it doesn't change the fact the people who are investing in property to rent want a clean return after taxes and mortgage has been paid and they are getting out of the market or not getting into the market because it's difficulty to even cover the mortgage after the extremly high taxation faced by LL. At an absolute minimum 100% of mortgage interest should be allowable against tax but even that isn't enough imo.

If a job and a mortgage are in no way linked, a landlords work (his job being renting...) is in no way linked to his mortgage, by the same standards.

Why the fúck should landlords be allowed cost mortgage repayments, to determine their profitability and jack up prices, if ordinary workers can't - that's absurd logic - it doesn't make sense in either case.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't need to meet your arbitrary 'shifting the goalposts' standards - anyone who reads up on AirBnB rentals, can quickly find out that they create a hole in regulations, which allows a specific type of short-term rental which would otherwise be illegal.

You can see the raw stats yourself, without bothering with the article:
http://insideairbnb.com/dublin/
http://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/residential-property-for-rent/?s[advanced]=1&searchSource=rental

AirBnB = 1,682 homes/apartments + 1,979 rooms = 3,661 total
Daft = 1,244 homes/apartments + 935 rooms = 2,179 total

You offered it as proof, weak as it is. I used your goal posts.

And where is the historical data that would prove your opinion is in some small way, correct.

And I will have to take it that it is just your opinion that Airbnb sidesteps regulation despite holiday lets being regulated under legislation to differentiate them from tenancy's

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If a job and a mortgage are in no way linked, a landlords work (his job being renting...) is in no way linked to his mortgage, by the same standards.

Why the fúck should landlords be allowed cost mortgage repayments, to determine their profitability and jack up prices, if ordinary workers can't - that's absurd logic - it doesn't make sense in either case.

A mortgage is a cost or expense directly associated and part of operating a business of renting. Paying a mortgage for your home is not a cost associated with working in an office or any other private job.

If you own a shop the cost of your premises reduces your profit it's no different for a LL.

Boater123

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No it isn't. The increased rents now are not a 'compensation' for past low rents...

I say the market is at present demanding high rents, and you say it isn't.

Mmmmm.

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

You offered it as proof, weak as it is. I used your goal posts.

And where is the historical data that would prove your opinion is in some small way, correct.

And I will have to take it that it is just your opinion that Airbnb sidesteps regulation despite holiday lets being regulated under legislation to differentiate them from tenancy's

You shifted the goalposts, so that you can make an act of being 'unconvinced' until further historical data is provided - i.e. you're just trying to set up barriers - I don't have to convince you, I think I've provided more than enough evidence to convince posters, who aren't just looking to make an act of being 'unconvinced'.

If you claim all these AirBnB rental were previously rented short-term in another fashion before, how about you provide evidence of that - I've provided more stats than anyone else in this debate, so far.

It doesn't take people much searching, to see that AirBnB is being cited worldwide, with removing normal rentals from the market, and causing a shift to more short-term/holiday rentals.

You will also find many examples - with only a tiny bit of searching - of AirBnB being banned for sidestepping regulations throughout the world.

KomradeBishop

Valentina Unimportant Food wrote: »

A mortgage is a cost or expense directly associated and part of operating a business of renting. Paying a mortgage for your home is not a cost associated with working in an office or any other private job.

If you own a shop the cost of your premises reduces your profit it's no different for a LL.

Paying a mortgage is not a cost like the way ongoing business expenses are - you end up with an asset at the end of it - and you'd need to be economically illiterate not to see that (in this case, I think you're just being wilfully obstructive instead, as usual).

At most, you can only claim the mortgage interest is a loss - not the principal repayment, because that is money going into an asset, not money which is a loss.

KomradeBishop

Boater123 wrote: »

I say the market is at present demanding high rents, and you say it isn't.

Mmmmm.

No, you're saying the market is demanding high rents, because of the previously low rents pre-crisis - and that somehow it is 'averaging out' - you have no backing for this, it is an argument which makes no economic sense.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Thanks for that, good to see it's come down. Gives me hope.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Eh.....even in 2007/2008, rents were bonkers for what you were getting. I was paying E1000 for a lovely but tiny 1-bed, probably around 50m2 in D8 and was counting my blessings.

Even if the government doesn't care about renters, they should care about how unsustainable prices and poor quality rental stock will start to impact on our attractiveness as a country to do business in. I actually pay far more rent in Belgium than I did in Ireland but I don't mind so much because my costs of living are so much lower - never mind the fact, you just wouldn't find as nice a flat as ours in Dublin (even if you were willing to pay double for it).