Landlords, what have you decided to do about the new amendments?

syndrome777

tuisginideach wrote: »

Why would you have to sign it/What would you be signing? The LL is telling you of a rent review. There is nothing for you to sign, as far as I know.

maybe I said that in a wring way.
In fact what I want to know if I hand in my notice in 2 months, by how much can the LL increase the rent for the new tenants.

This question can also be ask in a way if I was to move in 2 months will I be paying the rent on a property set before I rent it, or can the LL increase to what ever, or only 4%?

Parchment

Can i clarify something? I heard conflicting information regarding this last night.

Situation: LL has two long term tenants in situ - raised the rent (rent review) in Dec 2015. The Tenants will be likely moving out soon - can the LL then raise the rent again for the new tenants (let it at a higher rent) or is he stuck with the rate the last tenants were paying until the two year period passes and he can review the rent again and raise it?

Hope that makes sense and apologies if it has been done to death on the board.

76544567

Parchment wrote: »

Can i clarify something? I heard conflicting information regarding this last night.

Situation: LL has two long term tenants in situ - raised the rent (rent review) in Dec 2015. The Tenants will be likely moving out soon - can the LL then raise the rent again for the new tenants (let it at a higher rent) or is he stuck with the rate the last tenants were paying until the two year period passes and he can review the rent again and raise it?

Hope that makes sense and apologies if it has been done to death on the board.

If it is below market value and he is in a position to go with short term let's instead then he will probably do that. However if he has no other options he will either stick to the lower rent or just sell up. Many people are weighing up their options at this stage. We will know more in the new year about what people have e decided to do.

Parchment

76544567 wrote: »

If it is below market value and he is in a position to go with short term let's instead then he will probably do that. However if he has no other options he will either stick to the lower rent or just sell up. Many people are weighing up their options at this stage. We will know more in the new year about what people have e decided to do.

Thanks for the reply - the apartment is in a high demand area, it will let quickly. Why are longer term lets out of the question - the tenants gaining more rights?

Selling up seems the best route.

76544567

Parchment wrote: »

Thanks for the reply - the apartment is in a high demand area, it will let quickly. Why are longer term lets out of the question - the tenants gaining more rights?

Selling up seems the best route.

If its a high demand area he may very likely have other options, so he can stay away from long term let's.
Longer term let's leave a LL open to the whims of the government. He is in shackles so to speak. And before he gets out of these shackles he will probably slapped with leg irons too in a year or two.
It's just not a good environment for landlords now, especially for those who have been nice with below market rents in the past few years.

Parchment

76544567 wrote: »

If its a high demand area he may very likely have other options, so he can stay away from long term let's.
Longer term let's leave a LL open to the whims of the government. He is in shackles so to speak. And before he gets out of these shackles he will probably slapped with leg irons too in a year or two.
It's just not a good environment for landlords now, especially for those who have been nice with below market rents in the past few years.

I understand - thanks for clearing that up. Its a pity that landlords who terated good tenants well are being penalized now.

I'd expect even more LLs to move towards renting rooms seperately and choosing people unlikely to want to stay longer than 1-4 years such as PhD students, mid-20's young professional etc. This also means the rent for a full house is never really set as such as it's by the room. On the other hand families with kids could be the last choice as they most likely want to settle in an area longer term.

For LLs local to the property/properties they are letting I can also see them retaining a room and making it their business to be in and out of the house regularly thus making the other people there licensees.

As others have said airbnb will also be the choice of LLs in areas with a high footfall of tourists.

Over regulation like this results in people going out of their way to get around things or to stack the cards in their favour (first example above).

_Jamie_

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

Ditto AirBnB. If there is an exodus of landlords to the AirBnB rentals market, that's going to mean less business for everyone. So you have the uncertainty of not really knowing who you are renting to (I know AirBnB allows people to rate guests but it's not a foolproof system, people might not always be on their best behaviour just because they were in their last AirBnB rental) and there might not be enough business to make up for that lack of certainty.

Every scenario has its downsides!

76544567

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

Ditto AirBnB. If there is an exodus of landlords to the AirBnB rentals market, that's going to mean less business for everyone. So you have the uncertainty of not really knowing who you are renting to (I know AirBnB allows people to rate guests but it's not a foolproof system, people might not always be on their best behaviour just because they were in their last AirBnB rental) and there might not be enough business to make up for that lack of certainty.

Every scenario has its downsides!

I might just sell up. Or if I went the short term let route I would be happy to get 90 days a year and leave empty for the rest of the year.
I think at this stage there are so many hoops to jump through when renting I might just keep one as a holiday home for the famy and do airbnb or similar in the downtimes.
That or just sell and buy the apartment in Spain the better half is after.
I could rent that in the summer months stress free via an agent and the likes of airbnb or owners direct or the sort.
Lots of options. Anything really to not have the RTB involved.

murphaph

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

Ditto AirBnB. If there is an exodus of landlords to the AirBnB rentals market, that's going to mean less business for everyone. So you have the uncertainty of not really knowing who you are renting to (I know AirBnB allows people to rate guests but it's not a foolproof system, people might not always be on their best behaviour just because they were in their last AirBnB rental) and there might not be enough business to make up for that lack of certainty.

Every scenario has its downsides!

If enough LLs just decide they've had enough and sell up, then there won't be any competition for those who decide to go down the short term route.

It's the "new tenants have to get the same deal as the old tenants" that I have a problem with because it devalues my property arbitrarily. I do not actually have a problem with a 4% rent cap for sitting tenants.

_Jamie_

I don't agree with capping rent either. It's a tough to resolve situation. Landlords should be able to charge what market will bear but the rents are becoming punishing for tenants in cities. Supply needs to be increased quickly but then landlords will see their rents fall anyway.

I'm really against a mass exodus to AirBnB. It's not what it was created for and it would be a nightmare to live next to an AirBnB apartment. People deserve peaceful living in a residential zone. I expect that if that exodus happens, clampdowns will happen and it's only right, IMO.

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

I agree that undergrad students bring their own risks etc which is why I was specifically mentioning PhD students who are a completely different thing, I'd say less risky than similar aged people working due to high work loads and lower disposable income (they also almost always move on after finishing so very little chance of over holding etc). Young working professionals in the mid 20's to early 30's were the other main suggestion of which there is an almost endless supply. A mix of these two types of people is also grand, all the house shares I've lived in in the past have been let by the room and a mix of PhD students and people working and have all worked out well from the LLs perspective.

_Jamie_

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

I agree that undergrad students bring their own risks etc which is why I was specifically mentioning PhD students who are a completely different thing, I'd say less risky than similar aged people working due to high work loads and lower disposable income (they also almost always move on after finishing so very little chance of over holding etc). Young working professionals in the mid 20's to early 30's were the other main suggestion of which there is an almost endless supply. A mix of these two types of people is also grand, all the house shares I've lived in in the past have been let by the room and a mix of PhD students and people working and have all worked out well from the LLs perspective.

Right but then you are getting into an age group of people who are more discerning and would not be keen on the LL being able to drop in whenever he wants. The only way I would live in that situation is if I was getting a darn good deal on rent. If someone is paying market rent, they deserve peaceful enjoyment of their home. I guess in this market, people can't be choosy but what a crappy way to have to live. You'd never feel relaxed.

And in a tenant's market which it may well be in the future, the rentals where the landlord wants free access to the house will left on the shelf or will have to charge less than everywhere else to get in the punters. I know in a market where there was plenty of choice six or so years ago, owner-occupied rentals went to the bottom of the pile when I was looking for somewhere to live. And it'd have been the same for any landlord who wanted access whenever he wanted. Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

testaccount123

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

Sutton Modern Usher would, he thinks being a leasee in the arse end of nowhere is brilliant and cant understand why everyone isnt doing it

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Right but then you are getting into an age group of people who are more discerning and would not be keen on the LL being able to drop in whenever he wants. The only way I would live in that situation is if I was getting a darn good deal on rent. If someone is paying market rent, they deserve peaceful enjoyment of their home. I guess in this market, people can't be choosy but what a crappy way to have to live. You'd never feel relaxed.

And in a tenant's market which it may well be in the future, the rentals where the landlord wants free access to the house will left on the shelf or will have to charge less than everywhere else to get in the punters. I know in a market where there was plenty of choice six or so years ago, owner-occupied rentals went to the bottom of the pile when I was looking for somewhere to live. And it'd have been the same for any landlord who wanted access whenever he wanted. Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

You are mixing up two different suggestions I made. The first suggestion didn't mention retaining a room or maintaining access. Simply renting rooms seperately. By it's nature this is never going to be a long term thing for the people renting the rooms thus not as much worry about the very long term part 4 as people tend to move on anyway, particularly if you choose people likely to move on i.e. Postgrads and young professions who will likely see sharing as a fairly short term solution.

The retaining a room is a further step for a LL if he really wants to try keep maximum control and nowadays I wouldn't be asking a cent less for a room and I bet there would be a queue of people.

testaccount123 wrote: »

Alayna Flat Trauma would, he thinks being a leasee in the arse end of nowhere is brilliant and cant understand why everyone isnt doing it

No idea what you are on about as your post has no link to anything I've been saying.

Electric Sheep

_Jamie_ wrote: »

And in a tenant's market which it may well be in the future, the rentals where the landlord wants free access to the house will left on the shelf or will have to charge less than everywhere else to get in the punters. I know in a market where there was plenty of choice six or so years ago, owner-occupied rentals went to the bottom of the pile when I was looking for somewhere to live. And it'd have been the same for any landlord who wanted access whenever he wanted. Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

Owner-occupied rentals have always been the bottom of the barrel, and I am pretty sure will always be.

_Jamie_

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Owner-occupied rentals have always been the bottom of the barrel, and I am pretty sure will always be.

Absolutely. Anything where you have to share space with a landlord will never attract the best tenants.

Pkiernan

To get back on track, I may offer 2 pricing levels, with and without parking permits.

Crazy that it doesn't occur to the government to maybe incentivise rent reductions through corresponding landlord income tax reduction.

murphaph

Pkiernan wrote: »

To get back on track, I may offer 2 pricing levels, with and without parking permits.

Crazy that it doesn't occur to the government to maybe incentivise rent reductions through corresponding landlord income tax reduction.

It's all about the optics and being seen to do something. Landlords are a politically easy target.

KyussBeeshop

The housing minister has confirmed now, that it is illegal to use AirBnB without planning permission:

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/landlords-need-permission-for-airbnb-lets-minister-confirms-1.2914873

So, any landlords discussing a switchover to AirBnB here - or who are already using AirBnB - will need to seek planning permission, or they would be renting out illegally.

April 73

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The housing minister has confirmed now, that it is illegal to use AirBnB without planning permission:

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/landlords-need-permission-for-airbnb-lets-minister-confirms-1.2914873

So, any landlords discussing a switchover to AirBnB here - or who are already using AirBnB - will need to seek planning permission, or they would be renting out illegally.

Who is actually going to monitor this? I'd be interested in what the distinction in law is between a landlord & an owner-occupier.

KyussBeeshop

Presumably government/revenue can just force AirBnB to send a list of properties, and then cross reference the addresses against the planning database - and either force the property to be delisted, or threaten to pursue legal action against the landlords.

April 73

It's all bordering on ludicrous interference though.
Bad, greedy landlords are blamed & made out to be responsible for the housing crisis, the lack of social housing, the lack of affordable rental accomodation, the homeless families, the lack of building, the supply of zoned land and on and on.

KyussBeeshop

It's either illegal or it's not - and it turns out, that it is illegal, and has been all along.

In this case, many AirBnB landlords have been milking the rental market through illegal renting all this time, and have been lucky to get away with their current gains from that.

They should consider themselves lucky if Revenue and/or the council don't go after them, for renting out illegally.

athtrasna

Mod note
As another thread has been started about the legal status of Airbnb, let's keep that conversation to that thread from now on. Thanks

murphaph

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

It's either illegal or it's not - and it turns out, that it is illegal, and has been all along.

In this case, many AirBnB landlords have been milking the rental market through illegal renting all this time, and have been lucky to get away with their current gains from that.

They should consider themselves lucky if Revenue and/or the council don't go after them, for renting out illegally.

Revenue won't be going after anyone so long as tax has been paid at the appropriate level on the income. Kilkenny County Council with its one part time planning enforcement officer won't be going after too many bold airbnb landlords anytime soon either and from what I gather they are not unusual.

And in the end all the hounding will just see landlords sell up, reducing the overall number of bed spaces as owner occupiers make less efficient use of property as they don't share.

Is this the end goal?!

76544567

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The housing minister has confirmed now, that it is illegal to use AirBnB without planning permission:

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/landlords-need-permission-for-airbnb-lets-minister-confirms-1.2914873

So, any landlords discussing a switchover to AirBnB here - or who are already using AirBnB - will need to seek planning permission, or they would be renting out illegally.

That's fine with me. I won't be offering bed or breakfast. I'll just be renting to someone or a company who does not want to live e in the property may or may not do it. They may not even use airbnb. Basically I will give them the keys and take payment from them for advice or somthing and give them a discount for looking after my property and I will forget about it. There are people already working g out the ins and outs of this to start such companies. And that's if decide not to sell.

I also like the idea of charging extra for the parking spaces on top of the rent. I'm sure there are many, many other charges that can be broken out from the rent too. Agents fees comes to mind. Tenant pays agent separately on an ongoing basis and the finders fee now too.

Tenants will also get the minimum and cheapest possible response when anything needs to be replaced by a LL in future too. And new tenants will not definitely get the bare minimum when they move in. Not even a mattress I dare say.

It will take a couple of months after Christmas to see if any group will challenge this and to find out all of the possible outs. By then most owners will be armed.with enough info to know what they can do about it. It's all up in the air at the moment.

And all that because someone who was charging below market rate is being crucified by Covent.

Also expect no landlord to ever miss the first opportunity to increase to market rate in future for fear of getting stung by some out of the hole new legislation.

And market rate means nothing anymore because rents are now set randomly.

And let's not forget that even the rent a room scheme is vulnerable. You may be renting a room in your house and suddenly Coveny pulls another mystery legislation piece out and all of a sudden you can't have the room in your house back for 10 years or maybe even ever. Don't be surprised at this stage.

pwurple

Hmm.

Don't i feel like an eejit now. I have tenants in one place at below market rate. I raised the rent marginally last year when they brought in that two year thing, but not by much (hadn't raised it in the previous 3 years), because they are great tenants. And now I'm tied to that and am a complete mug for doing the decent thing. Feck anyway.

Now, I'm in it for the long term, because my pension is being raided, and I want to be able to pay for my own elder care when I get to that stage. So I'll sit tight and see if tax changes are introduced.

The thing is, with the MUDS act, me and the other owners took over the running of common areas a few years ago. Will have to have a chat with them now and see how many are in the same situation. Some of the other landlords want the current tenants out, so they can reset to new rent levels with new tenants.

murphaph

pwurple wrote: »

Hmm.

Don't i feel like an eejit now. I have tenants in one place at below market rate. I raised the rent marginally last year when they brought in that two year thing, but not by much (hadn't raised it in the previous 3 years), because they are great tenants. And now I'm tied to that and am a complete mug for doing the decent thing. Feck anyway.

Now, I'm in it for the long term, because my pension is being raided, and I want to be able to pay for my own elder care when I get to that stage. So I'll sit tight and see if tax changes are introduced.

The thing is, with the MUDS act, me and the other owners took over the running of common areas a few years ago. Will have to have a chat with them now and see how many are in the same situation. Some of the other landlords want the current tenants out, so they can reset to new rent levels with new tenants.

It's not uncommon in Berlin for a building owner to do endless renovations, generally making the common areas loud and dirty/dusty for months or years on end in an effort to drive tenants out. I know a woman living in such a situation. Tis not nice, but I wouldn't be surprised to see things like this happen as undercharging landlords have really been cheated by the state.

campingcarist

pwurple wrote: »

Hmm.

Don't i feel like an eejit now. I have tenants in one place at below market rate. I raised the rent marginally last year when they brought in that two year thing, but not by much (hadn't raised it in the previous 3 years), because they are great tenants. And now I'm tied to that and am a complete mug for doing the decent thing. Feck anyway.

Now, I'm in it for the long term, because my pension is being raided, and I want to be able to pay for my own elder care when I get to that stage. So I'll sit tight and see if tax changes are introduced.

The thing is, with the MUDS act, me and the other owners took over the running of common areas a few years ago. Will have to have a chat with them now and see how many are in the same situation. Some of the other landlords want the current tenants out, so they can reset to new rent levels with new tenants.

Not being 'au fait' with all this, but could you not (in an apartment complex) make the tenant pay the management service charges instead of including it in the rent?