'If could bring in legislation to goddamn jail landlords, I would jail the Bastards"

trobbin

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The majority of Landlords (and even business owners) in Ireland are one man/woman bands. Yes many of us have modest household incomes beyond our rental properties and do it for a number of reasons. Personally I was forced into it by being a silly boy during the boom, others do it as a little side line as they want to, others got in before the tiger and do it because despite it all it's profitable for them.

My household income is a little over €80K - okay not bad at all, but I'm paying every cent I should (we should) in tax. Fair enough if you want to begrudge me that - frankly is't not entirely unreasonable for a couple in Dublin to be earning that. My wife is the main breadwinner and I'm retraining as a barrister. Her prospects are probably a modest increase is salary, she has a pension. Me I'll be 50+ before I have a decent (over 40K) income and the likelihood is I'll never have a pension.

Do you really want to take the rental sector out of the hands of people like myself and push it into the realms of companies, generally large multi-nationals, who'll pay sod all tax? Personally I want the rental sector to go away almost entirely and the majority of people to own, that's not happening anytime soon though.

I don't think anyone would begrudge you for what you've said. I also think most people would prefer to have LL like yourself, instead of large corporations of private investors, but LL's have a bad name, simply because rents are too high and the first finger gets pointed at LL, people pointing fingers don't inform themselves with all relevant info, before making an assumption.

I do think large hedge funds are already operating as LL's in Ireland. They bought up large chucks of property at all the Allsop auctions, which is what actually created panic and started the price hikes in housing.

I honestly at this stage have no idea what the solution is. Of course build loads more, but who'll fund it at the scale that's needed?

As for the article in discussion, it's more like drunken pub talk, than an elected minister.

newacc2015

trobbin wrote: »

I don't think anyone would begrudge you for what you've said. I also think most people would prefer to have LL like yourself, instead of large corporations of private investors, but LL's have a bad name, simply because rents are too high and the first finger gets pointed at LL, people pointing fingers don't inform themselves with all relevant info, before making an assumption.

I do think large hedge funds are already operating as LL's in Ireland. They bought up large chucks of property at all the Allsop auctions, which is what actually created panic and started the price hikes in housing.

I honestly at this stage have no idea what the solution is. Of course build loads more, but who'll fund it at the scale that's needed?

As for the article in discussion, it's more like drunken pub talk, than an elected minister.

I spoke to an Economist on what was his opinion on the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords. In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords. This weird relationship has existed since. You will see the odd nut job try to make the connection between the absentee landlords of the 1800s and a landlord who has a single rental property who is trying to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year

There is tons of cash in Ireland. In fact we probably have never had so much savings in Ireland. But savings rates have never been lower. The Government could set up a separate semi-state company to build housing. Sell bonds to fund it. I imagine a ton of savers would jump at the idea of getting around 0.3% interest tax free a year from the state. The state should set up a private company to provide social and market rate housing. I imagine the Government would make a healthy profit from it

The state could order the NTMA to use the National Pension Reserve Fund to build housing. It doesnt matter if you build social housing or full market rate housing. Building any housing will drive down rents or stop them rising. I'm sure there is a few civil service pensions who could invest in housing

4ensic15

newacc2015 wrote: »

I spoke to an Economist on what was his opinion on the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords.

In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords. This weird relationship has existed since. You will see the odd nut job try to make the connection between the absentee landlords of the 1800s and a landlord who has a single rental property who is trying to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year

What is the significance of economist with a capital 'E'?
The issue is more one for a sociologist/anthropologist in any case.

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is tons of cash in Ireland. In fact we probably have never had so much savings in Ireland. But savings rates have never been lower. The Government could set up a separate semi-state company to build housing. Sell bonds to fund it. I imagine a ton of savers would jump at the idea of getting around 0.3% interest tax free a year from the state. The state should set up a private company to provide social and market rate housing. I imagine the Government would make a healthy profit from it

The state could order the NTMA to use the National Pension Reserve Fund to build housing. It doesnt matter if you build social housing or full market rate housing. Building any housing will drive down rents or stop them rising. I'm sure there is a few civil service pensions who could invest in housing

There are no Civil Service pension funds. There are state aid rules on investing by the state. The state is already over-borrowed and can't/won't borrow more.
Aside from that, throwing money at it is not the way to solve a problem.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

There are no Civil Service pension funds. There are state aid rules on investing by the state. The state is already over-borrowed and can't/won't borrow more. Aside from that, throwing money at it is not the way to solve a problem.

Pretty much the very first thing the Troika instructed the government to do- before any aid was advanced to Ireland- was that the National Pension Reserve Fund was to be used to bail out the banking sector. We may have gotten back our investment in BOI- perhaps even made a billion on it- and AIB may repay its debts- the rest of the sector- including of course Anglo- is down north of 40 billion- money which we will never see again. Even good companies like Irish Life- were handed over to new ownership for a song.

There are specific public sector 'pension levies' however- they are not ringfenced (nor is PRSI etc) for pension purposes- they are simply siphoned off into general taxation.

The suggestion of setting up a company to build housing and sell shares in it (made by newacc2015) is a complete non-runner too- aside from a very strong probability of running afoul of state aid rules- it would almost certainly go on the State's books- creating yet more budget mayhem- a-la Irish Water- we really do not need yet another quango to contend with- whether it had share capital- or not.

The Local Authorities were provided with 2 billion Euro for the provision of housing in the 2015 budget. This was an unusual multi-annual budget. So far they've spent less than 200 million- with the stated reason for the non-expenditure and non-construction of LA housing- being they don't have the expertise to manage large scale LA housing projects any longer. So- why the hell don't they gear up- get reasonable scale- and get going?

Mrs OBumble

newacc2015 wrote: »

... the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords. In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords. This weird relationship has existed since. You will see the odd nut job try to make the connection between the absentee landlords of the 1800s and a landlord who has a single rental property who is trying to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year

Indeed. It's not only the odd nut job. These connections get made all the time.

There's certainly an element of people chancing their arm. But I've been reading some stuff about the cross-generation effects of trauma, and am wondering if it's possible that Irish people are now genetically pre-disposed to thinking like this.

murphaph

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The disengagement from building social housing is part of the strategy. The objective being to herd the tenant class like cattle into the milking parlours of the "private" sector.

They can't give a higher state pension to people of a higher social class, so they rig the market. It's all wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Increase supply with the intention of lowering property prices and rents is not on. That would crash the banks. Whose only business model is property prices rising at a rate higher than wages.......Wages being what makers earn...rents being what takers take.

None of this is backed up by fact. Compared to Germany (I'm a small time landlord in both countries) you can write off virtually nothing against your tax bill in Ireland. You can't even deduct 100% of your mortgage interest. Pre letting expenses are disallowed completely. Landlords are leaving the sector in Ireland. Why would they do that if the system is rigged in their favour as you suggest?

Claw Hammer

newacc2015 wrote: »

I spoke to an Economist on what was his opinion on the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords. In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords.

An economist should know that there was no famine. There was always plenty of food in Ireland. It is not like Ethiopia or South Sudan where there is literally no food. People were put off the land for non payment of rent. It doesn't meant that nearly 2 centuries later people should not pay their rent.

TheDoc

FG getting everything they deserve, taking onboard the likes of Halligan and totally unable to control him. What a tremendous reflection on the electorate that voted him.

Have to laugh, can only assume the case is a person from Waterford where he is from. Would absolutely LOVE to pay Waterford level rent.

I could probably get myself and family set AND pay for that persons monthly rent, and still come out with money left over from Dublin rates.

The_Conductor

Guys- back on topic please- if you want the thread to remain open..........

Lux23

It is just indicative of the anger that many people feel towards landlords. It might not be fair or even logical, but landlords are fast becoming one of the most hated groups in the country. And that is something that suits the government.

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

It's not because they can, rather they must. This is a business we're talking about. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Elemonator

1. As much as I sympathise with tenants, landlords are not a charity. They did not invest to give people homes, they invested to make money.

2. A lot of landlords bought at the height of the boom and have mortgages of 1400 plus per month, plus management fees (extortionate for what they actually provide these days) and on top of that all rents are taxed at 51%...so a landlord charging 1500 PCM after tax and expenses may very well have 700 to go against a mortgage. Landlords also lost the the option of off setting mortgage interest against tax relief. It went from 100% to 75%. So essentially you can be renting for more than the mortgage payment but you still pay tax on the full payment.

3. There is also the issue of supply and demand. Simple economic theory that the government cannot seem to understand.

4. Last time I was in London, I saw family 3 beds going for 2000-3500 pound sterling, contrary to the fact that landlords are vilified for having "the worst rents in Europe".

5. My whole family own properties that are leased out and the properties are very well looked after and a reasonable rent is charged. While some landlords will take advantage, there is a majority of people out there that wouldn't care to admit that if they knew they could get more money, they would charge it.

Not intended as an insensitive rant, but I feel these points are relevant to this thread, especially No. 2. Landlords shouldn't be a scapegoat for all problems.

That is a previous post of mine (albeit slightly amended) but the message and facts are still there. If the government got involved, watch the rental properties disappear into thin air and the problem would be even worse. Landlords are getting squeezed too and its not working for anybody.

Claw Hammer

Lux23 wrote: »

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

5 years ago many people negotiated down their rent, just because they could. Do you find that to be of questionable morality?

Canadel

Lux23 wrote: »

It is just indicative of the anger that many people feel towards landlords. It might not be fair or even logical, but landlords are fast becoming one of the most hated groups in the country. And that is something that suits the government.

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

That's like saying a business should not seek higher profits if they are legally available. Or a worker should not seek a better pay package if it's available.

It's interesting how you talk about landlords though, because reading it I immediately thought of the luas workers. And this isn't off topic before anyone yelps. The comparison is entirely valid.

Both landlords and luas drivers have acted in their own best interests to increase their respective profits, and both have been accused of "greed" and questionable "morals" and so on. Both receive a lot of hate and vitriol from various elements of society. An interesting difference though is, that the majority of more conservative viewed people will make the argument that landlords are simply increasing profits as a business, but simultaneously absolutely destroy luas workers for exploiting their position to do likewise.

Anyway, complainign that landlords are somehow immoral for putting rents up just because they can is a non runner. However, complaining that the same landlords are not investing any of that increased profit in maintaining and improving their property is certainly an argument for some sort of rent control for the foreseable future, until the supply issue is sorted out.

partysmants

Lux23 wrote: »

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

The Government washed their hands of the Social Housing problem, deflected the attention to landlords and now it's open season on landlords.

Successive governments have made being a landlord an absolute nightmare. I'm not talking about the developers/landlords who own multiples of properties. I'm talking about people like me with 1 apartment rented out. I presume we make up the majority of the private rented sector.

My tenant can today decide to stop paying rent, and can go on to live in the place rent free, for 12, 18 and possibly more months. The PRTB (who are very much in favour of tenants) take months to do anything.

At the end of the 18 months, I would then have to pay to have them evicted and theres a very strong chance I would not get my rent back.

So forgive me if I decided to put the rent up to market value when Alan Kelly introduced the 2 year rent freeze. Forgive me if I decide to charge what I want to charge (within the legal limits).

I'm not a social worker. I don't have an obligation to subsidise another persons life. I have my own family to feed. People who rent my apartment choose to rent it of their own accord and choose to pay the going rate. I don't force them to.

Mr. Halligan is supposedly angry at people being forced to live in hotels. Aren't we all? Besides the inhumanity of it, it's surely costing about 10 times more to house a family in a hotel than to provide a permanent house for them. You're in government now Mr. Halligan. You're not in opposition any more so it's YOUR responsibility.

trobbin

It's crazy to think the Land League was set up in 1879, which introduced the 3 F's (fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale).. Obviously this led to the Land War and many other acts, but the 3 F's where introduced.

It's wonderful to see how far we've come as a country. Who ever said U.S. Irish were backwards?

Lux23

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It's not because they can, rather they must. This is a business we're talking about. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Plenty of businesses make decisions that are based on morals.

There is nothing stopping a landlord from not raising rent if they are covering their bills and already making a profit, in fact, many don't raise the rent just because it isn't at market rates. So ethics, morality, whatever you want to call it is a factor in the rates that many landlords choose to charge.

Canadel

Lux23 wrote: »

Plenty of businesses make decisions that are based on morals.

Nope, personal morals don't make most businesses act morally. Government regulation does.

There is nothing stopping a landlord from not raising rent if they are covering their bills and already making a profit, in fact, many don't raise the rent just because it isn't at market rates. So ethics, morality, whatever you want to call it is a factor in the rates that many landlords choose to charge.

There is. Human nature. Good luck getting around it.

MarkAnthony

Lux23 wrote: »

It is just indicative of the anger that many people feel towards landlords. It might not be fair or even logical, but landlords are fast becoming one of the most hated groups in the country. And that is something that suits the government.

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

Businesses need to be profitable, Economics 101.

If the rent was covering the expenses of the apartment I probably wouldn't raise the rent at the risk of losing good tenants. As it is the current system is very fair to tenants; 90 days notice, proof of comparable rents and a dispute process.

As it is I negotiated on rent to get good tenants. The issue is the expenses associated around renting out property. Taking the very best case scenario it's loss making for many. Get a bad tenant and you need to make up for months of losses.

Edit: Just saw your post there about moral decisions in business. I absolutely agree but that's profitable businesses. There is a legal requirement for businesses (limited liability at least) to be solvent. I'd wager the majority of let apartments in Dublin would be wound up if they were actual businesses! To say nothing of the fact that the majority of private LLs have no limited liability!

Lux23

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Businesses need to be profitable, Economics 101.


Edit: Just saw your post there about moral decisions in business. I absolutely agree but that's profitable businesses. There is a legal requirement for businesses (limited liability at least) to be solvent. I'd wager the majority of let apartments in Dublin would be wound up if they were actual businesses! To say nothing of the fact that the majority of private LLs have no limited liability!

And this is why I have a problem with smaller landlords. They claim it is all business, but when it comes down to taxes and regulation, they don't want to be treated like a business. So maybe my morality thing is taking it a bit far, I would just be happy with a landlord that understood their obligations and carried them out without whining or poor-mouthing to me about their tax bill!

Sad Professor

My current landlord hasn't increased the rent in over 6 years. We're currently paying about 500 below market value. He's not profiting. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's been behind on his mortgage payments since before we even moved in a decade ago. Not much of a business man obviously, but a good guy. He even sent us info to save on our bills when he heard we were struggling. It was his home previously and he always said he just wanted good tenants to look after it.

He's now selling due to pressure from the bank and we're getting ready to be raped by the current market.

MarkAnthony

Lux23 wrote: »

And this is why I have a problem with smaller landlords. They claim it is all business, but when it comes down to taxes and regulation, they don't want to be treated like a business. So maybe my morality thing is taking it a bit far, I would just be happy with a landlord that understood their obligations and carried them out without whining or poor-mouthing to me about their tax bill!

We'd love to be treated like a business and larger landlords do that, however see my post further up in reference to that. The tax rates they pay can be tiny. In regard to regulation I've certainly not complained, although the eviction process in Ireland is a bit of a joke.

I don't whine to my tenants and similarly they don't whine to me. They pay slightly under the market rent and I maintain the property to a high standard. The vast majority of tenants and LLs have this relationship. The problem is people like to try and set the world to rights without understanding the issues involved. I think it's pretty appalling that renters are essentially doubled taxed, but that's the government not LLs.

If you want to move accommodation into the realms of big business I think you'd be in for a bit of a shock, as would the country in relation to a massive fall off in tax revenue. While most of us act and want to be treated like a limited liability company, the route into the market is completely different and doesn't allow us to do that.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

Plenty of businesses make decisions that are based on morals.

There is nothing stopping a landlord from not raising rent if they are covering their bills and already making a profit, in fact, many don't raise the rent just because it isn't at market rates. So ethics, morality, whatever you want to call it is a factor in the rates that many landlords choose to charge.

If you must, morality doesn't come into it. Raising the rent is not inherently immoral. Very few landlords are covering their bills. Those with scope to keep the rent below market rate can do so, but some landlords have been subsidising tenants through the dip in the market following the 2008 crash.

Landlords charged the market rate then and they're charging it now. This is simple supply and demand and what the market is willing to pay. If the landlord raises the rent to cover their costs in a rising market what's wrong with that. If a tenant can't afford it, that's hard luck for them but not immoral to charge the value of the property.

An analogy can be drawn with the sales market. Should the builders/developers be selling below cost and below market rate for moral reasons? Should the fact that costs and market rates have been rising faster than wages and inflation have a bearing on that decision?

DubCount

Lux23 wrote: »

And this is why I have a problem with smaller landlords. They claim it is all business, but when it comes down to taxes and regulation, they don't want to be treated like a business. So maybe my morality thing is taking it a bit far, I would just be happy with a landlord that understood their obligations and carried them out without whining or poor-mouthing to me about their tax bill!

I'm a small landlord and have been self employed. For my "normal" business, I can claim 100% of my interest on business loans against my taxable profits, but for my "Landlord" business I can only allow 75%. For my "normal" business, I will stop providing service to a customer who stops paying me. For my "Landlord" business, I have to wait up to 2 years to withdraw service, even when my customer is no paying me and is damaging my business assets.

For the benefit of the Junior Minister and anyone else, I pay all my taxes (fair or unfair) and conform to all the required regulations. In 2006, I rented out my property for €1350 per month. That fell to as low as €1050 per month. Market rate is now about €1450 per month. Thats a 7% increase over 10 years and I dont think thats deserving of a jail sentence.

murphaph

Lux23 wrote: »

And this is why I have a problem with smaller landlords. They claim it is all business, but when it comes down to taxes and regulation, they don't want to be treated like a business. So maybe my morality thing is taking it a bit far, I would just be happy with a landlord that understood their obligations and carried them out without whining or poor-mouthing to me about their tax bill!

Wtf? I'm a small time landlord and absolutely do want it to be professional and absolutely do pay every penny due in tax to a state I believe wastes a good deal of it. You want both a landlord that behaves professionally but doesn't keep your rent at market rates!

I would be all for greater regulation if fir one second I thought it would help with dealing promptly with genuine problem tenants and over holders. Any regulation introduced in recent years has benefited tenants.

Pkiernan

It would be nice if we could jail dead-beat tenants too.

DubCount

murphaph wrote: »

Wtf? I'm a small time landlord and absolutely do want it to be professional and absolutely do pay every penny due in tax to a state I believe wastes a good deal of it. You want both a landlord that behaves professionally but doesn't keep your rent at market rates!

I would be all for greater regulation if fir one second I thought it would help with dealing promptly with genuine problem tenants and over holders. Any regulation introduced in recent years has benefited tenants.

I 100% agree with that.......

newacc2015

The_Conductor wrote: »

The suggestion of setting up a company to build housing and sell shares in it (made by newacc2015) is a complete non-runner too- aside from a very strong probability of running afoul of state aid rules- it would almost certainly go on the State's books- creating yet more budget mayhem- a-la Irish Water- we really do not need yet another quango to contend with- whether it had share capital- or not.

The Local Authorities were provided with 2 billion Euro for the provision of housing in the 2015 budget. This was an unusual multi-annual budget. So far they've spent less than 200 million- with the stated reason for the non-expenditure and non-construction of LA housing- being they don't have the expertise to manage large scale LA housing projects any longer. So- why the hell don't they gear up- get reasonable scale- and get going?

How is it a violation of state aid rules? Tons of European nations provide public housing for rent. In fact there are academic papers that state if a company structured in a certain way, that it remains off the state balance sheet

Don't set it up as a quango. Set it up as a private company like Eirgrid or the ESB. Leave the management to private companies who know what they are doing like the way REITs only own the apartment blocks but leave the day-to-day running to other companies

LA are willing to enter PPRs with private companies. Developers often dont have access to affordable capital to build housing. Who wants to build housing when finance costs 10-12% pa?

the_syco

scream wrote: »

It's ridiculous that you have a single person or a couple, whose children are now adults and living in their own homes and are still in 3 or 4 bedroom houses while people are living in emergency accommodation in hotels/hostels.

I think it's ridiculous that the old people should be moved out of the house that they paid for, so you can move people into it that won't be paying for it.

The_Conductor wrote: »

The Local Authorities were provided with 2 billion Euro for the provision of housing in the 2015 budget. This was an unusual multi-annual budget. So far they've spent less than 200 million- with the stated reason for the non-expenditure and non-construction of LA housing- being they don't have the expertise to manage large scale LA housing projects any longer. So- why the hell don't they gear up- get reasonable scale- and get going?

I'd say they don't want to as they know what the tenants are like.

=-=

As per the OP, if legislation came in to jail landlords, the minister would be sacked following a massive increase of homeless.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I decided to reach out to 3 of my local TDs and get their opinions on this. I sent an email to FG's Michael Noonan, FF's Willie O'Dea and Labour's Jan O'Sullivan.

Minister Noonan/Deputy O'Dea/Deputy O'Sullivan,

I am getting in touch with you on this issue as you are my local public representatives I respect the most.

I am alarmed at the recent comments by government member, Minister of State John Halligan, regarding landlords, of which I am one. Mr. Halligan said "If I could bring in legislation to goddamn jail landlords, I would jail the b**tards". This he believes is a reasonable solution to our current housing issue.

Of all the solutions I have heard regarding the housing issue, this is by far the most extreme and dangerous. To make it worse this person is not some average guy sitting on a bar-stool preaching, he is as Minister for State, representing the Irish government when he speaks.

I do not make any large profits from the property I own in Raheen, in fact I do well to break even after I settle my taxes. Why then should I be targeted by our government and treated like a criminal? It is the government that needs to take ownership and responsibility for the housing issue, not dodging the issue by throwing the blame onto people like me. it is an erosion of property rights and a slippery slope, landlords today, farmers tomorrow etc.

What are your responses to these comments? Minister Noonan, as one of Mr. Halligan's colleagues, is this a view you and the rest of the cabinet support? If not then Mr. Halligan should be asked to withdraw these comments and apologise.

I can assure you and Mr. Halligan that if the government wants a "b**stard" like me arrested I will not go peacefully, resistance by landlords, farmers and other property owners will be a just action.

Regards,
XXXX

==============================================================================================


Here's the response from Willie O'Dea

XXXX. I think those remarks were appalling and totally inappropriate
and should be withdrawn. I will ask our people to raise the matter. WOD

==============================================================================================


Jan O'Sullivan also responded:

Dear XXXX,
Thanks for your mail and I share your concern that a Minister of State would express such extreme views with regard to landlords. Ireland needs the private rented sector to function well and part of that has to be to respect landlords and the role they play. I will take this up in the Dáil with Minister Halligan and his colleagues,
best wishes,
Jan

==============================================================================================

Minister Noonan has yet to respond.

==============================================================================================

Claw Hammer

newacc2015 wrote: »

How is it a violation of state aid rules? Tons of European nations provide public housing for rent. In fact there are academic papers that state if a company structured in a certain way, that it remains off the state balance sheet

Don't set it up as a quango. Set it up as a private company like Eirgrid or the ESB. Leave the management to private companies who know what they are doing like the way REITs only own the apartment blocks but leave the day-to-day running to other companies

LA are willing to enter PPRs with private companies. Developers often dont have access to affordable capital to build housing. Who wants to build housing when finance costs 10-12% pa?

There is a case ongoing against NAMA for getting into property development.
Tons are not allowed in Europe.

lawred2

Haylee Hollow Musketeer wrote: »

I decided to reach out to 3 of my local TDs and get their opinions on this. I sent an email to FG's Michael Noonan, FF's Willie O'Dea and Labour's Jan O'Sullivan.

Minister Noonan/Deputy O'Dea/Deputy O'Sullivan,

I am getting in touch with you on this issue as you are my local public representatives I respect the most.

I am alarmed at the recent comments by government member, Minister of State John Halligan, regarding landlords, of which I am one. Mr. Halligan said "If I could bring in legislation to goddamn jail landlords, I would jail the b**tards". This he believes is a reasonable solution to our current housing issue.

Of all the solutions I have heard regarding the housing issue, this is by far the most extreme and dangerous. To make it worse this person is not some average guy sitting on a bar-stool preaching, he is as Minister for State, representing the Irish government when he speaks.

I do not make any large profits from the property I own in Raheen, in fact I do well to break even after I settle my taxes. Why then should I be targeted by our government and treated like a criminal? It is the government that needs to take ownership and responsibility for the housing issue, not dodging the issue by throwing the blame onto people like me. it is an erosion of property rights and a slippery slope, landlords today, farmers tomorrow etc.

What are your responses to these comments? Minister Noonan, as one of Mr. Halligan's colleagues, is this a view you and the rest of the cabinet support? If not then Mr. Halligan should be asked to withdraw these comments and apologise.

I can assure you and Mr. Halligan that if the government wants a "b**stard" like me arrested I will not go peacefully, resistance by landlords, farmers and other property owners will be a just action.

Regards,
XXXX

Here's the response from Willie O'Dea

XXXX. I think those remarks were appalling and totally inappropriate
and should be withdrawn. I will ask our people to raise the matter. WOD

Jan O'Sullivan also responded:

Dear XXXX,
Thanks for your mail and I share your concern that a Minister of State would express such extreme views with regard to landlords. Ireland needs the private rented sector to function well and part of that has to be to respect landlords and the role they play. I will take this up in the D il with Minister Halligan and his colleagues,
best wishes,
Jan

Minister Noonan has yet to respond.

========
could you retry formatting that post please? It's a mess
========

um7y1h83ge06nx

lawred2 wrote: »

========
could you retry formatting that post please? It's a mess
========

No bother, have tried to space it out a bit and divide it up.

Lux23

murphaph wrote: »

Wtf? I'm a small time landlord and absolutely do want it to be professional and absolutely do pay every penny due in tax to a state I believe wastes a good deal of it. You want both a landlord that behaves professionally but doesn't keep your rent at market rates!

I would be all for greater regulation if fir one second I thought it would help with dealing promptly with genuine problem tenants and over holders. Any regulation introduced in recent years has benefited tenants.

How many properties have you rented yourself from a small time landlord?

I have been renting since 2005 and I have had eight landlords, six of these were small time and only two of the small time landlords managed to fulfil their obligations. I have been left without a washing machine for a couple of months, in the middle of summer I didn't have a shower for nearly two weeks, my current landlord lets himself in whenever he wants and we have no working oven at the moment. I have had to go to the PRTB twice to get my deposit back for no good reason other than the landlord was chancing their arm (I still didn't the money back from one of these landlords). There was more crap (literal crap when drains backed up and the landlord refused to do anything about it), but I would be here all day.

My experience with large landlords or agencies looking after properties is largely positive, granted I had a great experience with two small landlords too, but there are an awful lot of dodgy smaller landlords out there who with a market like this are getting away with providing a low quality product. And as a small landlord, I am sure you would prefer if these could be taken out of the picture, so you're not being lumped in with them.

4ensic15

Lux23 wrote: »

Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.

Any landlord who doesn't charge market rent is an idiot. The business is cyclical and when rents fall and interest rates rise the landlord who obtained the maximum rent and prepared for the rainy day will survive and the idiot who didn't charge the rent when it was going will be thrown to the wolves.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

Any landlord who doesn't charge market rent is an idiot. The business is cyclical and when rents fall and interest rates rise the landlord who obtained the maximum rent and prepared for the rainy day will survive and the idiot who didn't charge the rent when it was going will be thrown to the wolves.

Added to this- you can only review the rent once every two years now- so its actually prudent to try to lock in as high a rent as the market will bear- because God only knows whats going to happen to the regulatory regime, the tax regime- or costs- such as interest- over the next 2 years (esp. as the stated aim of the ECB is to try to increase inflation to at least 2%- by buying up to 30 billion of bonds every month).

Locking rents for 2 years has pros and cons for both tenants and landlords- however- the most prudent course of action is for a landlord to charge the going rate whenever possible- in the knowledge that the market is cyclical- and as soon as supply increases- rents will tank........

Its supposed to be a business- and run as a business- which means both tenants and landlords should try and keep their dealings with one professional- dealings should be fully professional and above board- landlords and tenants should be fully aware of their obligations towards one another- and fulfill those obligations- and then some.

quadrifoglio verde

The_Conductor wrote: »

Locking rents for 2 years has pros and cons for both tenants and landlords- however- the most prudent course of action is for a landlord to charge the going rate whenever possible- in the knowledge that the market is cyclical- and as soon as supply increases- rents will tank........

I find it quite difficult to see any pros for the landlord.
While a rent review can only happen once every two years, if the market rent has fallen say 15 months into those two years, theres nothing to stop a part 4 tenant going to the landlord and demanding a reduction or they'll move

Now I can't see the market rate falling unless something happens rapidly to supply or wages across a number of sectors get slashed, but 10 years down the line and it all goes pear shaped again tenants will demand a reduction

The_Conductor

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Now I can't see the market rate falling unless something happens rapidly to supply or wages across a number of sectors get slashed, but 10 years down the line and it all goes pear shaped again tenants will demand a reduction

In which case- rates will fall anyway- its simply a matter of by how much and when....... Either way- the logical thing for many landlords in that situation- is to sell the property- unless that are in a position to absorb the lower rental income.

I suspect with the large number of units under the control of REITs- that rents will not fall nearly as sharply as they have done in the past- esp. in areas of demand.

Key to all of this- is the addition of high quality supply in areas where people want to or need to live- and thats not something that is going to happen any time soon.

4ensic15

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I find it quite difficult to see any pros for the landlord.
While a rent review can only happen once every two years, if the market rent has fallen say 15 months into those two years, theres nothing to stop a part 4 tenant going to the landlord and demanding a reduction or they'll move

Now I can't see the market rate falling unless something happens rapidly to supply or wages across a number of sectors get slashed, but 10 years down the line and it all goes pear shaped again tenants will demand a reduction

A new lower rent for a particular type of accommodation takes time to become established. Landlords initially ask existing rent and find there is no demand drop their prices slightly. The new slightly lower price becomes the norm until the same thing happens again. An existing tenant will have to be very sure that alternative cheaper accommodation is available before demanding a reduction. By that time the 2 years would be almost up.
When rents fall, prices are also likely to follow suit so a landlord will have difficulty selling into a falling market. A landlord who has paid down his loan using the higher rents will be in a better position to ride out the downturn.

Fian

The_Conductor wrote: »

Added to this- you can only review the rent once every two years now- so its actually prudent to try to lock in as high a rent as the market will bear- because God only knows whats going to happen to the regulatory regime, the tax regime- or costs- such as interest- over the next 2 years (esp. as the stated aim of the ECB is to try to increase inflation to at least 2%- by buying up to 30 billion of bonds every month)......<snip>

.

Just to point out - it has been the stated aim of teh ECB (and its legally stipulated core function) to maintain inflation "close to but below" 2% since the foundation of the eurozone. All economies want inflation - 4% is bad, 0.5% is worse, 8% or -2% worse again, 2% is the sweet spot. You want enough inflation that people will not just stuff their money into a bank account rather than put it to use, but not so much that you enter a spiral and lose competitiveness.

Aside from that inflation is generally good for (mortgaged) landlords, since it reduces the real value of the debt on the property and generally increases the rent relative to the mortgage payment, although this is somewhat counterbalanced by the increased interest rates that generally accompany inflation which is above central bank targets.

The rent review restrictions were flagged as temporary measures, though I haven't checked if the legislation has a "sunset clause" to cause it to automatically lapse after a set period. Even if it does of course it would be open to the Oireachtas to extend it.

Claw Hammer

The rent restriction legislation is unconstitutional. It is was confined to a limited poeriod to avoid a challenge since the costs of taking an action by a landlord would be greater than any benefit they would obtain from having to accept lower rent. Some of the vulture funds with large portfolios are now beginning to suffer substantially as a result of the rent capping and may well have a go if
there is any further messing by the government.

The_Conductor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The rent restriction legislation is unconstitutional..

I'm genuinely curious- how do you make out that its unconstitutional?
It is the law- period.

Villa05

Claw Hammer wrote:

The rent restriction legislation is unconstitutional. It is was confined to a limited poeriod to avoid a challenge since the costs of taking an action by a landlord would be greater than any benefit they would obtain from having to accept lower rent. Some of the vulture funds with large portfolios are now beginning to suffer substantially as a result of the rent capping and may well have a go if there is any further messing by the government.

One of these professional LL recently made a statement that Dublin rents were unsustainablý high and is looking to other markets for future purchases

murphaph

The_Conductor wrote: »

In which case- rates will fall anyway- its simply a matter of by how much and when....... Either way- the logical thing for many landlords in that situation- is to sell the property- unless that are in a position to absorb the lower rental income.

I suspect with the large number of units under the control of REITs- that rents will not fall nearly as sharply as they have done in the past- esp. in areas of demand.

Key to all of this- is the addition of high quality supply in areas where people want to or need to live- and thats not something that is going to happen any time soon.

Yep. The beloved "large landlords" will be much more able to contain any collapses in rents. Rents never go down over here. Nobody would ever expect their rent to fall, ever.

Claw Hammer

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious- how do you make out that its unconstitutional?
It is the law- period.

It is the law until it is challenged, which it has not yet been. Previous attempts to restrict rents have been declared unconstitutional. In 1979 a landlord had to accept £8 a week for a 4 storey house in Elgin Road.It was the law - period. In 1982 he didn't. The law-period was not repealed. There was a constitutional challenge.
The current market restriction obliges landlords to accept less than market rent
which was found, in the absence of compensation, to be unconstitutional in the erarly 1980s.

trobbin

Leo Varadkar has today said rent supplement will be increased. As a tax payer who gets no benefit at all, I don't like this. Just throwing more tax payer money at a problem. Reports on RTE also state rents higher now than peak in 2007.

Mary Lou questioned why rent price haven't been included in the consumer price index? There's no proper answer, just clear that figures are being manipulated. If they include then, inflation will be proven to be too high, so they manipulate figures and tell us inflation is low, when we know it's clearly wrong.

I'm getting more and more confident that interest rate hikes aren't far away. As soon as inflation gets proven to be growing, rates must rise to control it. Interest rate hikes will sort out the Irish housing market. Will mainly end property speculators buying property with cheap interest loans, people who need them will be able to buy, at a lower cost, but higher rate.

Michael D Not Higgins

trobbin wrote: »

Mary Lou questioned why rent price haven't been included in the consumer price index? There's no proper answer, just clear that figures are being manipulated. If they include then, inflation will be proven to be too high, so they manipulate figures and tell us inflation is low, when we know it's clearly wrong.

I'm no economist but I'd say the inelasticity of the housing market and relatively high peaks and troughs that are seen in it would lead to an obfuscation of a meaningful number to assign to CPI.

trobbin

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm no economist but I'd say the inelasticity of the housing market and relatively high peaks and troughs that are seen in it would lead to an obfuscation of a meaningful number to assign to CPI.

But would it not be a more accurate figure. Of course it might make our CPI look very volatile and out of control, but that's a truer reflection of our CPI. Regardless.

Michael D Not Higgins

trobbin wrote: »

But would it not be a more accurate figure. Of course it might make our CPI look very volatile and out of control, but that's a truer reflection of our CPI. Regardless.

I've found a bit in the CSO figures table 7 http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/cpi/consumerpriceindexmay2016/
This deals with housing and rent. The benefit of mortgage holders is being balanced against the high rents. That seems like it is taken into account.

trobbin

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I've found a bit in the CSO figures table 7 http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/cpi/consumerpriceindexmay2016/
This deals with housing and rent. The benefit of mortgage holders is being balanced against the high rents. That seems like it is taken into account.

Shouldn't be balanced out with anything else, should be a stand alone actual figure. Rents have increased in many cases 50% in last four years, mostly 30/40% and none of these figures show the truth. I'm very untrustworthy in regards to Ireland and figures released. Good day.