Daft Rental Report is Out

jamesthepeach

Look at the apartment block in balally where they just got notice that now they have to pay over and above the rent for services they got for free up till now.
That's where we are going now.
So the daft rent report will be obsolete unless it shows rent + extras.

antoinolachtnai

But at least these properties are available. The underlying problem isn't with the supply that is available. The problem is the houses and apartments that aren't available, because they are vacant or haven't been built yet.

beauf

Fol20 wrote: »

And at the same time cause more financial burden on some people who may already be struggling. How about the people who paid a large chunk of change 10 years ago for stamp and now have to pay lpt. A separate charge on unused properties might be good. At least then nama or whoever owns them might put them on the market for rent and alleviate the rental crisis until everything settles down again

Fol20 wrote: »

I understand that everything needs some amount of legislation but as we have seen in building property. Too much legislation adds extra costs and acts as a disincentive as well. Renting is getting too many requirements now days. Speaking from ll point of view, inwould much prefer to drop the rental per month by x amount if i didn't have to supply people with crappy beds etc that nobody wants. Likewise give people a blank slate where they can do what they want with it but give it back to me in the same condition I gave it to you in.

The problem is not legislation. Not that we check much of it anyway.

Considering the Govt through Nama is selling off property instead of using it for housing, I think you have to realise the Govt is fueling this shortage.

Th problem is we are not building the property we need (low cost and social), and in enough volume. If you want to buy an expensive property you can buy it.

beauf

Villa05 wrote: »

Some of it is a bit ingenious In achieving a reduction in supply so that makes me think is it a side effect of policy or actual policy.

IMO, the policy seems to be, to encourage, incentivise big business, and funds, at any social cost.

Yes we want the country back on its feed. But I wonder will we still own any of it, by the time that happens.

beauf

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We put too much faith in market equilibrium models, they fail time and time again in dealing with our actual needs. I'm disturbed watching this tragedy unfold when our housing shortfall was spotted almost 10 years ago

We haven't had a market equilibrium model. We keep interfering. Sometimes thats by doing nothing somewhere else. For example allowing unregulated borrowing by people and banks.

We also stopped building social housing. Much of which is a means of home ownership for many people. That just stopped overnight.

There was a ton of little things all done, which have the cumulative effect of reducing supply. In fact we (the Govt) have done almost nothing to increase supply. They literally done everything they were warned not to.

antoinolachtnai

Well there have been a lot of things done that were intended to have a positive effect, but instead have had a negative impact.

For example, the regulations on bedsits were supposed to increase standards, and they they did, but they also resulted in a reduction in supply.

Similarly, the increase in quality standards and certification requirements is supposed to make houses easier to heat and make it less likely that homes will turn out to have major flaws like pyrite or fire safety deficits. And it will have this effect, but it also increases costs.

The regulations on floor area and aspect are intended to increase comfort of properties that are built, and they will, but it is also having the effect of making it illegal to build small, simple accommodation for single people and making costs higher for all entry-level property.

The result is that it now costs as much or more to build a home than what you can sell it for when you take everything into account, and that means that nothing is really being built. The Central Bank has put a ceiling on borrowings, so house prices won't go up to the level where building could really start in earnest. (Even if we reached that point, we would hit other problems.)

It is too easy to say that the international funds are the bad guys here. They are just doing their jobs. They at least keep their apartments all occupied. They would love to finance and buy more apartments, I am sure, but they don't have the opportunity. The problem is all the homes that haven't been built or the homes that aren't being rented out.

quadrifoglio verde

beauf wrote: »

The problem is not legislation. Not that we check much of it anyway.

Considering the Govt through Nama is selling off property instead of using it for housing, I think you have to realise the Govt is fueling this shortage.

Th problem is we are not building the property we need (low cost and social), and in enough volume. If you want to buy an expensive property you can buy it.

Most of the property being sold by nama was already rented out. It's 2012 since I remember seeing an empty apartment block, except for ones with fire safety concerns

Bob24

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Most of the property being sold by nama was already rented out. It's 2012 since I remember seeing an empty apartment block, except for ones with fire safety concerns

I live in one with fire safety concerns, and the situation is so tense that even that one hasn't been evacuated in spite of threats from the fire brigade and everlasting delays with the remediation works. I'd even say people are so desperate they are queuing to pay almost 1500 euros per month for a 1 bed apartment there. Crazy city!

beauf

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Most of the property being sold by nama was already rented out. It's 2012 since I remember seeing an empty apartment block, except for ones with fire safety concerns

2016...

...Nama says it had offered all the apartments at the Tallaght Cross West complex to the Housing Agency and to Dublin's local authorities before deciding to sell the majority of them....

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/nama-defends-tallaght-cross-west-sale-as-rent-forecasts-improve-sharply-34374863.html

beauf

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

....It is too easy to say that the international funds are the bad guys here. They are just doing their jobs. They at least keep their apartments all occupied.....

Who is saying they are bad guys?

The point is we have a housing shortage. Yet we are selling off housing. The Govt aren't building anything to replace it, for those that can't afford it.

TheDoc

cherryghost wrote: »

I consider myself lucky reading this. Got a house Jan last year, 4 bed and paying 1100 a month incl insurance. Beforehand I was paying only 800 p/m in a 1 bed apt in the city centre. Same place was advertised at 1200 there a few months ago....

Feel absolutely blessed to get landed with some good luck where I'm out of the renting game.

Our 4th place in 5 years. Started of paying 700pm for a two bed apartment in a lovely area, then €1250 for a large three bed house, got a good price for €1000 a month for a 3 bed in a lovely area. Thankfully now in a home where a family member asked me to take over with my family.

Was being absolutely broken month to month when I moved into the €1250, the €1000 deal was marginal breathing space but price increases elsewhere ate it up.

Had a proper breakdown back in January due to the financial pressure I was under keeping a roof and things going for my family as the only income. I'd consider myself mentally strong, I'd have been flippant at the "depression culture" I felt was becoming an excuse in Ireland and never would have thought I would succumb to anything like it.

But there I was in the kitchen, grown man, curled in a ball against a kitchen press just uncontrollably crying and freaking out.

I'm only two weeks or so in my current house, but my paycheck came in, and I nearly cried again at the relief I wasn't losing near half to rent and just felt immediate relief.

The RPZ stuff looks like a nightmare. Again just government involvement that is short sighted, get a quick win with voters and again just not longterm plan or vision.

TheDoc

beauf wrote: »

Who is saying they are bad guys?

The point is we have a housing shortage. Yet we are selling off housing. The Govt aren't building anything to replace it, for those that can't afford it.

Literally only speaking to a friend yesterday who owns property. To break even he would need to jack the price to a level that a)might breach RPZ controls b) Is absolutely ****ty he feels to do to the good tenants he has and c) Is much more now then if he was to break even just 4 years ago.

With the controls as he outlined, there is no incentive to maintain the property or do anything outside the bare minimum, especially in the situation where he is making a loss on it.

He is selling up. He's a nice guy, not a professional landlord just got some good luck and knew he was sitting on a nice lump sum. So he has told his tenants unofficially, he is in no rush so he won't be pushing them out, and they can keep renting on a month to month basis after their notice time lapses if they havn't got sorted no problems.

But like, as mentioned above, its another house removed from the market. Where supply is already a problem.

Baby01032012

I gave notice to my tenants who will be moving out in 3 weeks. They were renting at 30% under market rate. They were coming to end of their Part IV so  took the opportunity to end tenancy while i could. I couldnt keep them with the new rules. Will either sell or refurbish in order to charge market rate.

Lumen

TheDoc wrote: »

Literally only speaking to a friend yesterday who owns property. To break even he would need to jack the price to a level that a)might breach RPZ controls b) Is absolutely ****ty he feels to do to the good tenants he has and c) Is much more now then if he was to break even just 4 years ago.

How is it harder for him to break even now compared to 4 years ago?

Maybe I've misunderstood the sentence "to break even he would need to jack the price to a level that ... is much more now then if he was to break even just 4 years ago."

Samuel T. Cogley

Baby01032012 wrote: »

I gave notice to my tenants who will be moving out in 3 weeks. They were renting at 30% under market rate. They were coming to end of their Part IV so took the opportunity to end tenancy while i could. I couldnt keep them with the new rules. Will either sell or refurbish in order to charge market rate.

It's interesting that one camp think this will hamper standard while others are doing the above. Now I'm not opening the 'does it qualify as refurbishment' debate but it's interesting that those talking asbout it publicly do seem to be doing some substantial refurbs, if nothing else to strengthen any potential case with the RTB.

antoinolachtnai

beauf wrote: »

Who is saying they are bad guys?

The point is we have a housing shortage. Yet we are selling off housing. The Govt aren't building anything to replace it, for those that can't afford it.

We are also buying. Local authorities around the country are buying houses because it is cheaper than building them.

Whether we are buying or selling properties makes not one whit of difference to the overall supply though. The only way to increase supply is buildin in the medium to long term and renting out vacant homes in the short term.

quadrifoglio verde

Lumen wrote: »

How is it harder for him to break even now compared to 4 years ago?

Maybe I've misunderstood the sentence "to break even he would need to jack the price to a level that ... is much more now then if he was to break even just 4 years ago."

Perhaps when he rented it out 4 years ago, it was at the then market rate. He may still have been making a loss.

Now if he gets new tenants, he's forced to keep making a loss. If you can explain how its fair that 2 apartments of the exact same standard in the same block can have vastly different legal rents, I'm all ears.

quadrifoglio verde

beauf wrote: »

2016...



http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/nama-defends-tallaght-cross-west-sale-as-rent-forecasts-improve-sharply-34374863.html

376 of the 442 apartments already had tenants in them when it went on the market.
Not exactly a large number of empty apartment blocks.
Selling property to the council does nothing in the short to medium term to provide supply.
In the long term it will, but not currently and most likely not in the next 5 years

Fol20

I love the stereotype you create for landlords.. not all of us are rolling in the money.. Some of us get by watching tenants have nicer cars than ourself while were trying to pay off the mortgage and topping it up with paye income.

I dont know if you know but house prices are sky rocketing at the moment.. with yields of maybe 5-8pc depending on what you buy, it isnt exactly a get rich scheme especially if you consider whatever we earn the government take over half of it off us.

Samuel T. Cogley

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

High Rent = poor Tenant now where back in time back to the good old days of the Rich Landlord like the years of 1998 to 2008 . disgusting in my opinion back to Galway tents oyster drinking before there drink. and there big 90000 euro cars.

I had a perfectly reasonable rent in Dublin CC in the years prior to 2006 when I bought. Just sayin' :pac:

Rents were no where near as bad then as they are now IMHO.

Bob24

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I had a perfectly reasonable rent in Dublin CC in the years prior to 2006 when I bought. Just sayin' :pac:

Rents were no where near as bad then as they are now IMHO.

Yes I remember 2006 was still ok but starting to go mad (I remember viewing a 2 beds new build in the docklands for 1500 euros though which is cheaper than nowadays but was starting to go a bit over the top especially as the area was still a huge construction site).

Samuel T. Cogley

Bob24 wrote: »

2006 was still ok but starting to go mad.

To buy it was bat crap mental doolally balls. Rental was okay AFAIK. The rents didn't go up much in that particular complex until 2 years ago, or did I miss an entire cycle of up and then down again - very possible I did.

Bob24

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

To buy it was bat crap mental doolally balls. Rental was okay AFAIK. The rents didn't go up much in that particular complex until 2 years ago, or did I miss an entire cycle of up and then down again - very possible I did.

Yes I am talking rent prices. What I saw is sharp rent increases in the period leading to the crash around 2008, then a period when it collapsed (for 2 or 3 years people were calling their landlord each year to reduce rent or move on), and I think it started to pick-up again around 2011/2012 and really going bananas in the past 2/3 years.

beauf

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

376 of the 442 apartments already had tenants in them when it went on the market.
Not exactly a large number of empty apartment blocks.
Selling property to the council does nothing in the short to medium term to provide supply.
In the long term it will, but not currently and most likely not in the next 5 years

Considering we have people in tents on the canals I'm not sure why almost 70 apartments is not significant. It's just one example and a recent one.

Samuel T. Cogley

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes I am talking rent prices. What I saw is sharp rent increases in the period leading to the crash around 2008, that a period when it collapsed (for 2 or 3 years people were calling their landlord each year to reduce rent or move on), and I think it started to pick-up again around 2011/2012 and really going bananas in the past 2/3 years.

They did what?! Surely not I thought tenants would have just paid the rent they agreed in the beginning, none of this free market stuff. Surely there was some control saying they couldn't ask for more than a 4% reduction?

Oh wait :pac:

beauf

The big landlords are private companies. However most landlords 70% or so only have one property. For many its income for their pension. If you have a good pension you'd be unlikely to need a rental as income. Or the hassle.