Media: 3 Tenants awarded compensation after their landlord refuses to engage in HAP

khamilto

khamilto wrote: »

Yes. You seem to have heard of it, but you clearly don't know what it is seeing as:

I know exactly what it is and I know that in certain business capital allowances can be claimed against assets that don't reduce in value and which increase the value of the business.

godtabh

awec wrote: »

What rubbish.

Why?

A blanket statement doesn't cover all landlords.

I had previous tenants that required 2-3 hours of contact per week either with 'issues' in the apartment or dealing with the management company regarding tenant issues.

Current tenant is grand. My an hours contact per month.

khamilto

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

I know exactly what it is and I know that in certain business capital allowances can be claimed against assets that don't reduce in value and which increase the value of the business.

Capital Allowances can be not claimed for dwelling units, as per Subsection 7) of Chapter 1 of PART 9. Principal Provisions Relating to Relief for Capital Expenditure.

So, that's strike 1 against you.

Secondly, industrial units that receive capital allowance are subject to a balancing charge upon disposal if sold for higher than the remaining capital allowance (limited to the full amount of the capital allowance).

Thirdly, capital allowance as a whole is predicated on the notion that it only applies to devaluing assets. Investment properties simply do not fit in this definition.

I suggest you read the Principal Provisions Relating to Relief for Capital Expenditure, before you reply to me with your oft-quoted example of a shed on a farm!

khamilto

khamilto wrote: »

Capital Allowances can be not claimed for dwelling units, as per Subsection 7) of Chapter 1 of PART 9. Principal Provisions Relating to Relief for Capital Expenditure.

So, that's strike 1 against you.

!

I never said they could so its no strike against me. The question that was being asked is why are people running a rental business not entitled to more reliefs if improving their property which in turn benefits the tenants.

A start would be allowing full write off against tax on renovations along with VAT reclaim on all materials (even if not vat registered).

khamilto

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

I never said they could so its no strike against me. The question that was being asked is why are people running a rental business not entitled to more reliefs if improving their property which in turn benefits the tenants.

Businesses can't get capital allowances on dwelling units. You're arguing that businesses getting capital allowances on depreciating assets (but not dwelling units) is an example of why landlords should get capital allowances on dwelling units. I think? I'm not sure where tax relief on improvements fits in to that segue, but if you read the Revenue report I named, it defines what constitutes 'refurbishment' and it only covers bringing a property up to its previously existing specification.

Askthe EA

khamilto wrote: »

So, that's strike 1 against you.



I suggest you read the Principal Provisions Relating to Relief for Capital Expenditure, before you reply to me with your oft-quoted example of a shed on a farm!

Why the aggression?

khamilto

khamilto wrote: »

Businesses can't get capital allowances on dwelling units. You're arguing that businesses getting capital allowances on depreciating assets (but not dwelling units) is an example of why landlords should get capital allowances on dwelling units. I think? I'm not sure where tax relief on improvements fits in to that segue, but if you read the Revenue report I named, it defines what constitutes 'refurbishment' and it only covers bringing a property up to its previously existing specification.

I wasn't suggesting capital allowances for LL at all, I was simply pointing out that you were wrong to say that a business can't claim capital allowances on something that increases the value of the business. Some businesses can.

You appear very lost by what is being discussed if you cannot see why tax relief on refurbishments was mentioned. The discussion was on the fact the business of being a LL is treated differently to other types of business and that they are unfairly taxed (or are not able to avail of the same level of tax relief open to other businesses). So some suggestions were made on what relief could be allowed for LLs.

khamilto

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting capital allowances for LL at all, I was simply pointing out that you were wrong to say that a business can't claim capital allowances on something that increases the value of the business. Some businesses can.

You're changing the goalposts, I never said that a business can't claim capital allowances on something that increases the value of the business.

You appear very lost by what is being discussed if you cannot see why tax relief on refurbishments was mentioned.

No sir, the Revenue definition of refurbishment is the same whether applied to Landlords or Businesses. If you read the Revenue document I named you will see this.

The discussion was on the fact the business of being a LL is treated differently to other business and that they are unfairly taxed (or are not able to avail of the same level of tax relief open to other businesses). So some suggestions were made on what relief could be allowed for LLs.

Landlords are not a business. Form a company if you want to avail of tax treatments that companies avail of. Otherwise you will be treated as investors, with rent being treated as a dividend and the asset liable for CGT upon disposal.

khamilto

khamilto wrote: »

You're changing the goalposts, I never said that a business can't claim capital allowances on something that increases the value of the business.

You are right you didn't say it, you said it twice....

khamilto wrote: »

You're showing an abject lack of knowledge of accounting if you think a business can write-off costs associated with increasing the value of an investment.

khamilto wrote: »

Revenue do not believe that expenditure that increases the value of an investment asset can be classed a business expense.

khamilto wrote: »

Landlords are not a business. Form a company if you want to avail of tax treatments that companies avail of. Otherwise you will be treated as investors, with rent being treated as a dividend and the asset liable for CGT upon disposal.

A sole trader is not a business so by your definitions :rolleyes:.

gizmo81

utmbuilder wrote: »

I reckon the next play of the Government will be to attack airbnb's , seen this coming they are going to go on a rampage passing the buck of blame onto landlords and kick the **** out of them now for their mistakes.

There's a backlash worldwide to Air BnB.

Air BnB should be/will be restricted to owner occupiers, Air BnB's original purpose.

It's not fair on tenants to have this disturbance in their home lives.

On various threads here people advocate that people should be forced out of the city to make way for Air BnB, it's just incredible and not realistic.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

There's a backlash worldwide to Air BnB.

Air BnB should be/will be restricted to owner occupiers, Air BnB's original purpose.

It's not fair on tenants to have this disturbance in their home lives.

On various threads here people advocate that people should be forced out of the city to make way for Air BnB, it's just incredible and not realistic.

I think the most sensible decision would be to implement a limit on the number of days you can rent out a place on AirBnB. In the Netherlands, they brought in a new law to limit it to 60 days a year and AirBnB now have a filter that removes a property once it has reached that limit. This can help where student flats are rented short term during the summer months.

Askthe EA

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think the most sensible decision would be to implement a limit on the number of days you can rent out a place on AirBnB. In the Netherlands, they brought in a new law to limit it to 60 days a year and AirBnB now have a filter that removes a property once it has reached that limit. This can help where student flats are rented short term during the summer months.

Too simple Mickey D.... there'll be a consultants report and in budget 2018 an Air BNB punitive tax measure.

The_Conductor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think the most sensible decision would be to implement a limit on the number of days you can rent out a place on AirBnB. In the Netherlands, they brought in a new law to limit it to 60 days a year and AirBnB now have a filter that removes a property once it has reached that limit. This can help where student flats are rented short term during the summer months.

That sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard in a while.
However....... if the rule on vacant property and tax- comes in- you simply have people lobbing their property onto Airbnb during peak season for most of their allocated entitlement, and then flogging it for a day or two off-season- to match up with the occupied requirements- and they'd still be better off net than they would be letting it on residential market?

Its a roadmap for a small scale landlord to strategically maximise their gains from a property- legitimately without having to deal with the regulatory mess we now find ourselves in.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

That sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard in a while.
However....... if the rule on vacant property and tax- comes in- you simply have people lobbing their property onto Airbnb during peak season for most of their allocated entitlement, and then flogging it for a day or two off-season- to match up with the occupied requirements- and they'd still be better off net than they would be letting it on residential market?

Its a roadmap for a small scale landlord to strategically maximise their gains from a property- legitimately without having to deal with the regulatory mess we now find ourselves in.

I find it hard to see how the vacant property tax is going to be implemented and policed regardless. How will they prove a property is or is not vacant? I think it will be very easy to avoid the tax to be honest.

gizmo81

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think the most sensible decision would be to implement a limit on the number of days you can rent out a place on AirBnB. In the Netherlands, they brought in a new law to limit it to 60 days a year and AirBnB now have a filter that removes a property once it has reached that limit. This can help where student flats are rented short term during the summer months.

It would be sensible but I just don't think people will abide by the rules.

Already people are circumventing the RTA by letting properties through Air BnB on a long term basis but believe they are exempt from the RTA.

We need to see planning enforcement of change of use for a start.

Also, a good few apartment blocks are restricting Air BnB so I'd like to see this regulated so it's consistent across the board.

If you share common areas then Air BnB should be banned.

If more and more people are going to be living in apartments more protections are needed for a peaceful and safe home environment.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

It would be sensible but I just don't think people will abide by the rules.

Already people are circumventing the RTA by letting properties through Air BnB on a long term basis but believe they are exempt from the RTA.

We need to see planning enforcement of change of use for a start.

Also, a good few apartment blocks are restricting Air BnB so I'd like to see this regulated so it's consistent across the board.

If you share common areas then Air BnB should be banned.

If more and more people are going to be living in apartments more protections are needed for a peaceful and safe home environment.

Airbnb isn't the only show in town.

You either invite landlords back into the market by making it fair and easy for them. Or you expel them from the market by making it unfair and hard for them.

We all know which path the govt have chosen.
Is it too late to reverse the effect that this has had on the rental market. Probably. But they'll can make a choice now to.make it worse or to try and undo some of the damage they have done.

I'm willing to bet they will just make it worse again.

I've told social welfare many times.that they could have had my properties if they paid me full market rate and took a lease, but that meant that they look after the day today letting to their sub tenants and not to try and find that off no me too. That offer still stands if they want to deal. Companies are now doing that when renting from me. The govt could do it but won't.

gizmo81

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Airbnb isn't the only show in town.

You either invite landlords back into the market by making it fair and easy for them. Or you expel them from the market by making it unfair and hard for them.

We all know which path the govt have chosen.
Is it too late to reverse the effect that this has had on the rental market. Probably. But they'll can make a choice now to.make it worse or to try and undo some of the damage they have done.

I'm willing to bet they will just make it worse again.

I find it difficult to have any meaningful discussion with you when you paint this picture that landlords are an oppressed group because of the RPZ legislation.

The issues I take from this forum are:

Landlords want to be free to charge anything they want for a property of any standard and exclude people from accommodation based on discriminatory stereotypes.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

It would be sensible but I just don't think people will abide by the rules.

Already people are circumventing the RTA by letting properties through Air BnB on a long term basis but believe they are exempt from the RTA.
.

They won't abide by the rules because the rules are totally lobsided in favour of tenants, until LL are given back more control over the properties we will have people finding ways around the rules as they are extremely unfair. Rent controls, 6 year part 4, the impossibility to get rid of non-paying tenants, forced to accept HAP etc etc are all driving LL to other letting models such as Airbnb.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Landlords want to be free to charge anything they want for a property of any standard and exclude people from accommodation based on discriminatory stereotypes.

Yes this is exactly the way it should be, people should be able to rent the property they own to who ever they want and for a price that someone is willing to pay.

gizmo81

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

They won't abide by the rules because the rules are totally lobsided in favour of tenants, until LL are given back more control over the properties we will have people finding ways around the rules as they are extremely unfair. Rent controls, 6 year part 4, the impossibility to get rid of non-paying tenants etc etc are all driving LL to other letting models such as Airbnb.

When a landlord can remove a tenant for no other reason than wanting the property for themselves or their family, or for refurbishment, it is not "lobsided in favour of tenants".

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

I find it difficult to have any meaningful discussion with you when you paint this picture that landlords are an oppressed group because of the RPZ legislation.

The issues I take from this forum are:

Landlords want to be free to charge anything they want for a property of any standard and exclude people from accommodation based on discriminatory stereotypes.

It's not a conversation. I have stated only facts in that post. It doesn't matter who wants what. What I have outlined is the way it stands.
The govt have put us all here, tenants and landlords. Now they either undo it or make it worse. My own guess is they will keep digging to make it worse.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

When a landlord can remove a tenant for no other reason than wanting the property for themselves or their family, or for refurbishment, it is not "lobsided in favour of tenants".

Of course a LL should have ways to take possession of THEIR property, why on earth do you think a tenant should have the right to stay in a property they don't own. This in no way means that things are not totally lobsided in favour of tenants because it is along with the totally tenant focused RTB who are next to useless for LLs despite more LL having issues with tenants than tenants having issues with LLs.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

When a landlord can remove a tenant for no other reason than wanting the property for themselves or their family, or for refurbishment, it is not "lobsided in favour of tenants".

Landlords are not removing people for those reasons. Landlords are removing tenants because it becomes uneconomical to keep said tenants or the relationship has broken down and the landlord does not want the particular tenant having control.of their property anymore. Therefore they remove them by the only means allowed, which is not normally the actual reason.

gizmo81

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

Of course a LL should have ways to take possession of THEIR property, why on earth do you think a tenant should have the right to stay in a property they don't own. This in no way means that things are not totally lobsided in favour of tenants because it is along with the totally tenant focused RTB who are next to useless for LLs despite more LL having issues with tenants than tenants having issues with LLs.

Tenants don't always have a great experience with the RTB either.

Yes, a landlord owns the property and tenants currently pay high rents to live in these properties, what is your argument here?

Also in bold is false. 59% of disputes in 2015 were submitted by tenants, 39% by landlords, figure 2.9 page 25.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

At least be truthful. And saying XYZ advise landlords against the RTB is not valid.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Tenants don't always have a great experience with the RTB either.

Yes, a landlord owns the property and tenants currently pay high rents to live in these properties, what is your argument here?

Also in bold is false. 59% of disputes in 2015 were submitted by tenants, 39% by landlords, figure 2.9 page 25.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

At least be truthful. And saying XYZ advise landlords against the RTB is not valid.

In all fairness to nox- of the disputes submitted to the RTB- the top two categories relate to tenants overholding either paying or not paying rent- and the absolute number of cases upheld by the RTB- relate to those submitted by landlords, rather than tenants. That said- there are more disputes submitted to the RTB in absolute terms- by tenants, rather than landlords.

Its all detailed in the RTB annual report- and to be brutally honest- neither tenants nor landlords are painted in a good light- its just a pity that the cowboy landlords can't be matched up with the cowboy tenants- and the 96% of compliant tenants and landlords- left alone to get on with it.

Its a small minority of landlords and tenants- who are giving the media a field-day- I'd throw a party if all parties who lost a case at the RTB- were named and shamed- and a list was available to landlords and tenants- giving fair warning of the calibre of person they are thinking of doing business with......... Both landlords and tenants- fair and reasonable warning- the number of tenants and landlords causing issues- are very much a minority- they are leaving a trail of mayhem in their wake however...........

godtabh

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its a small minority of landlords and tenants- who are giving the media a field-day- I'd throw a party if all parties who lost a case at the RTB- were named and shamed- and a list was available to landlords and tenants- giving fair warning of the calibre of person they are thinking of doing business with......... Both landlords and tenants- fair and reasonable warning- the number of tenants and landlords causing issues- are very much a minority- they are leaving a trail of mayhem in their wake however...........

doesnt that happen already? my last interaction with the prtb (as it was) is/was available online

The_Conductor

godtabh wrote: »

doesnt that happen already? my last interaction with the prtb (as it was) is/was available online

Yes- its online now. Wait until the tenant sees it online- and a simple phone call to the RTB and its pulled.

Fewer than 10% of all findings or adjudications are online- the rest are removed at the request of the landlord or tenant- who don't want their good name tarnished.

godtabh

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- its online now. Wait until the tenant sees it online- and a simple phone call to the RTB and its pulled.

Fewer than 10% of all findings or adjudications are online- the rest are removed at the request of the landlord or tenant- who don't want their good name tarnished.

what's the pointbthen?

Browney7

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Airbnb isn't the only show in town.

You either invite landlords back into the market by making it fair and easy for them. Or you expel them from the market by making it unfair and hard for them.

We all know which path the govt have chosen.
Is it too late to reverse the effect that this has had on the rental market. Probably. But they'll can make a choice now to.make it worse or to try and undo some of the damage they have done.

I'm willing to bet they will just make it worse again.

I've told social welfare many times.that they could have had my properties if they paid me full market rate and took a lease, but that meant that they look after the day today letting to their sub tenants and not to try and find that off no me too. That offer still stands if they want to deal. Companies are now doing that when renting from me. The govt could do it but won't.

Do you want a state guaranteed 7% yield then?

jamesthepeach

Browney7 wrote: »

Do you want a state guaranteed 7% yield then?

No. I dont want a garaunteed yied. I want nothing from the state. I want them.to fcuk off. Just the ability to strike a deal with a person and us both to be expected to stick to it, without interference from any other parties.
I made a negative yield doing that for several years.
As soon as there is any sniff of me making a profit or being able to pay for improvements then the govt Wades in. Both calling my ability to make a profit and also preventing me from choosing my tenants and removing them should they be bad.

The way it is now a lot of landlords could have garauntee d losses.

The_Conductor

godtabh wrote: »

what's the pointbthen?

None- absolutely none- it means nothing whatsoever.
That adjudication that went 100% in your favour- can be dropped next week- as soon as the other party discovers their name is on the list.........

Its completely and utterly pointless- and a waste of everyone's time and energy.