Could the Government Seize Property

Uriel. · 13-09-2017 7:58am

There is also the fact that the government would be forcing you into to becoming a landlord or they will CPO the property. Given the risk that landlords face and the ongoing of erosion of landlord rights... For example I see that today Cabinet is discussing proposed new laws to cap deposits at one month's rent...

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 9:13am

Legally right but financially wrong. The mortgage security is only worth what the property is worth, at most. In the situation you describe, the bank is better off having the property sold, taking all the money from the sale and then take its chances trying to recover the remainder of the money from the borrower.

(The hypothetical borrower managed to make full payments for years without having the hypothetical property rented. Why would they stop now?)

If you have a vacant property and so can set a rent, it is a great time to rent. The rents are good and there are few vacancies.

I would not buy a house to rent it, but if I owned a house, that's a whole other thing.

Sure, you need to know what you are doing. But if you own a vacant property and don't know how to and don't want to rent it out, then why hang on to it?

....... · 13-09-2017 9:47am

This post has been deleted.

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 9:58am

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Banks are doing it every day of the week.

http://www.newstalk.com/Permanent-TSB-to-writeoff-mortgages-for-landlords

The bank wouldn't waste legal fees (which would not be recoverable from the mortgage holder) on this. The owner clearly has plenty of income and won't have any problem paying off the balance over a few years.

Anyway, the circumstances you outline are extraordinary.

....... · 13-09-2017 10:05am

This post has been deleted.

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 10:34am

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What kind of property are you thinking of?

Generally speaking banks block sales of properties in negative equity if the owner cannot make up the missing chunk of money before the sale.

Im not sure what your point on owners paying off the balance over a few years is - the article clearly states the debt will be written off - not paid off over time. No one is going to continue paying a mortgage on a property they no longer own.

I posted it because you say that banks do not allow people sell houses that are in negative equity. They do, and have done for years. They don't always do it, but they do it.

Another option, apart from writing off the debt is for the bank to just collect the debt as an unsecured loan.

What circumstances are extraordinary? A vacant property in negative equity? What is extraordinary about that?

A vacant property in a rent pressure zone in significant negative equity where the owner continues to make the payments in full.

....... · 13-09-2017 11:55am

This post has been deleted.

....... · 13-09-2017 11:59am

This post has been deleted.

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 12:32pm

I can guarantee you, because I was there in the front-line, that 2008 was a much worse time to rent out property.

The 1970s and 1980s were also a nasty time to rent property. Taxes were higher, interest rates were much higher, and there were far fewer sober, hardworking and appreciative good tenants looking for properties.

All the things you mention are big issues, certainly. But the issue of dealing with non-paying tenants has not changed at all in decades. The rent control is in place, sure, but if your property is currently vacant, or your rents kept up with market over the years, there really isn't much of a problem. 4 percent is still a decent increase in an economy with inflation under 1 percent.

No one was talking about investing. We were talking about renting a property you already own but which is vacant.

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 12:36pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't see the local authority CPOing a vacant house if there isn't demand for accommodation in the area. They might, and maybe they should, but I don't see it being a priority.

If the owner has the property vacant and isn't making his payments in full, then the property should be sold. Full-stop, end-of. It is reckless on the bank's part to allow arrears to accumulate on a vacant property in an in-demand area. The property should be sold. If the bank decides to spend ten grand of its own money appealing the CPO decision (unlikely) it is hard to see how they are going to win.

....... · 13-09-2017 2:46pm

This post has been deleted.

....... · 13-09-2017 2:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Uriel. · 13-09-2017 7:20pm

....... wrote: »

There is an investment of time and money to become a landlord on a property you already own. You have to bring it up to minimum standards and maintain it from then on.

And assume a huge risk on a valuable asset. A risk that government is continually increasing

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 8:05pm

There is also a risk with leaving a property vacant. You can end up with squatters. It may require major maintenance. It just does not seem like a good business idea to leave property vacant.

bleary · 13-09-2017 8:48pm

The vacancy rate is about 10% in dublin that is crazy especially considering the demand for property it should be 2- 3 % in dublin.
I know 3 properties in dublin vacant for over 10 years. Still vacant. None are mortgaged . One was inherited by people who won't pay the management fees or talk to each other. In d4 . Would rent for 1400 a month .
Another family home in a really good area. Owner just lives somewhere else and cant face dealing with it. Wont sell it or rent it even when approached One more in central dublin . Again property needs some work as abandoned for 10 years . All need work now but owners will not be the ones to do it.
A Vacancy levy should be implemented with the property being forfeited.

Graham · 13-09-2017 9:00pm

Maybe if the government reconsidered its approach to private landlords, it wouldn't be necessary to threaten to take peoples property in order to force them into renting it out.

Eric Cartman · 13-09-2017 9:03pm

Graham wrote: »

Maybe if the government reconsidered its approach to private landlords, it wouldn't be necessary to threaten to take peoples property in order to force them into renting it out.

+1 , they've treated landlords like crap for years, make it a very hard business to be in and then wonder why they're turning to short lets or just taking properties off the market.

LuckyLloyd · 13-09-2017 9:13pm

Graham wrote: »

Maybe if the government reconsidered its approach to private landlords, it wouldn't be necessary to threaten to take peoples property in order to force them into renting it out.

Equally, if property owners are showing an indication to not want to rent under your tenancy legislation and you believe in your legislation, you must pressure them to play ball.

One more time - language like 'seizing' or 'taking' is inappropriate. A choice is being offered, and compensation if necessary.

Graham · 13-09-2017 9:20pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Equally, if property owners are showing an indication to not want to rent under your tenancy legislation and you believe in your legislation, you must pressure them to play ball.

One more time - language like 'seizing' or 'taking' is inappropriate. A choice is being offered, and compensation if necessary.

Wrap it up however you like, it's not really a choice if it involves something with compulsory in the title.

Uriel. · 13-09-2017 9:38pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Equally, if property owners are showing an indication to not want to rent under your tenancy legislation and you believe in your legislation, you must pressure them to play ball.

One more time - language like 'seizing' or 'taking' is inappropriate. A choice is being offered, and compensation if necessary.

What's the compensation?

LuckyLloyd · 13-09-2017 9:43pm

Uriel. wrote: »

What's the compensation?

The purchase price.

antoinolachtnai · 13-09-2017 9:50pm

The property would be valued. You might get a generous valuation in practice to make it less likely that you would appeal it.

Graham · 13-09-2017 9:54pm

Has it been announced where the funding for these compulsory purchases is going to come from?

Does anyone know how much has been allocated?

Colonel Claptrap · 14-09-2017 8:53am

Irish Times are reporting that the number of vacant properties in the state may be grossly overstated.

Fingal CC carried out a review of the 3,000 vacant properties identified in the census. Their officials called out to a sample of properties and estimate perhaps 50 or 60 are actually vacant.

If true, this puts to bed the idea that the country is awash with thousands of properties ready to be CPO'd to house families.

I was shocked at the census number. This seems more reasonable.

....... · 14-09-2017 9:23am

This post has been deleted.

antoinolachtnai · 14-09-2017 9:43am

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Irish Times are reporting that the number of vacant properties in the state may be grossly overstated.

Fingal CC carried out a review of the 3,000 vacant properties identified in the census. Their officials called out to a sample of properties and estimate perhaps 50 or 60 are actually vacant.

If true, this puts to bed the idea that the country is awash with thousands of properties ready to be CPO'd to house families.

I was shocked at the census number. This seems more reasonable.

There is an obvious 'hole' in Fingal Co Co's story. It seems unlikely that CSO would have supplied a list of vacant properties to Fingal. But maybe they did.

If Fingal are indeed correct, that would indicate that the population of Ireland has been understated by CSO, and the underestimate is in the order of tens of thousands of people.

Topgear on Dave · 14-09-2017 9:54am

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Irish Times are reporting that the number of vacant properties in the state may be grossly overstated.

THe numbers cant be right.

For example my late grandmothers bungalow, it's along a rural road with the farmyard behind.

Externally it looks great, modern windows, nicely painted, decent slated roof, small garden nicely mowed.

Internally the youngest bit is 40 years old and the oldest a hundred, its damp, the heating doesnt work, no modern kitchen and badly laid out and it needs gutting.
Itll take thousands to put it right.

And if you CPO its almost inside the farmyard.

Topgear on Dave · 14-09-2017 10:00am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is an obvious 'hole' in Fingal Co Co's story. It seems unlikely that CSO would have supplied a list of vacant properties to Fingal. But maybe they did.

If Fingal are indeed correct, that would indicate that the population of Ireland has been understated by CSO, and the underestimate is in the order of tens of thousands of people.

I dont think the CSO are allowed give its detailed data to other departments?

Also I wouldnt be surprised if the population is understated, most Irish I know will fill in the census forms but quite a few of my foreign friends would avoid it like the plague.

Graham · 14-09-2017 10:08am

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I dont think the CSO are allowed give its detailed data to other departments?

Also I wouldnt be surprised if the population is understated, most Irish I know will fill in the census forms but quite a few of my foreign friends would avoid it like the plague.

Why wouldn't they be able to provide vacant property data?

Colonel Claptrap · 14-09-2017 10:10am

This information is public lads:

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/vac/

Could the Government Seize Property

Comments