RTB 2016 Report

sk8board

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yup- so while there was an increase of 6,000 in the overall number of registered tenancies- but a whole new batch of 30,000 from AHB controlled tenancies- which *do* feature in the overall number- but did not in 2015- this infers a net fall of 24,000- despite the RTB sending out 20,000 odd letters to landlords who previously had tenancies registered?

Something strange going on.........

"In 2016, the remit of the RTB expanded to encompass regulation of Approved Housing Body tenancies, increasing our customer base of landlords and tenants."

also:
" Approved Housing Bodies had one year to register their tenancies following commencement of the legislation in April 2016."

and most importantly:
"By the end of 2016, some 5,550 AHBs had registered their tenancies with the RTB. "

in other words, that 5,500 are counted as LL's, its far more in terms of tenancies.

they are genuinely fudging the LL numbers. Its definitely down YoY on a like-with-like basis. They've simply found 5.5K AHA LL's down the back of the sofa, and also registered a bunch of new cash LL's, like they do every year.

gizmo81

Tribunals
47% (243 cases) were from landlords,
+ 52% (263 cases) were from tenants, and
+ 1% (6 cases) were from a third party.

Enforcement Requests
A total of 235 (66%) of the 359 requests received by the RTB in 2016 were from landlords.
Tenants made 118 (32%) requests for enforcement
Only 6 requests (less than 2%) were submitted by third parties (neighbours).

Of the 204 Circuit Court Orders obtained in 2016, 171 were against tenants and 33 against landlords.

Very clear in these figures that the RTB is not biased in favour of tenants.

wordofwarning

gizmo81 wrote: »

Tribunals
47% (243 cases) were from landlords,
+ 52% (263 cases) were from tenants, and
+ 1% (6 cases) were from a third party.

Enforcement Requests
A total of 235 (66%) of the 359 requests received by the RTB in 2016 were from landlords.
Tenants made 118 (32%) requests for enforcement
Only 6 requests (less than 2%) were submitted by third parties (neighbours).

Of the 204 Circuit Court Orders obtained in 2016, 171 were against tenants and 33 against landlords.

Very clear in these figures that the RTB is not biased in favour of tenants.

AFAIK as a tenant you need a potential case that is a fraction of the size of a case needed by a landlord. It is far easier for a tenant to bring a case, than a landlord to bring a case

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

At the end of 2016, there were 325,372 registered tenancies, up 6,000 on 2015.

If you factor the 30,000+ AHB tenancies which were registered with the RTB for the first time (and this is not all the AHB tenancies!) its actually down 24,000 year on year.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Over 106,000 new tenancies were registered in 2016, compared with 111,000 in 2013, suggesting many households are staying longer in tenancies as supply stays constrained.

Once again- the AHB tenancies- mean the number of new tenancies- is actually down somewhere in the 60,000-70,000 area (if you consider that they're not all registered yet). This is an indication of just how constrained supply is- and while you mentioned it shows people staying in tenancies longer- they're probably staying in tenancies significantly longer than you figure- the RTB mention in their report how the length of tenancies is now akin to continental style tenancy length- however, they don't enumerate it.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Tenancies up and tenants staying put. Great result.

Sadly though as expected:

Almost eight in 10 landlords in rent pressure zones wrongly imposed rent increases on tenants, according to the State authority that handles landlord-tenant disputes

Of the disputed rent increases which feature tenancies in RPZs (fewer than 50 in total reached determination stage) the RTB had this to say:

Since the introduction of Rent Pressure Zones
(RPZs) in December 2016, there has been
a notable increase in rent review disputes
cases coming before the RTB. In 2016, 44
cases involving rent of more than market rate
reached Determination Order stage. Of these
cases 10 (23%) rent review notices were found
to be valid and 34 (77%) were found to be
invalid.]

I.e. a grand total of 44 cases were brought by tenants to the RTB- who believed they were being served with invalid notices of rent increase and/or invalid increases- while in an RPZ. Something a bit strange that almost a quarter were found to be fully justifiable- you'd imagine the tenant would have a stronger case than simply lob a complaint into the RTB. Also- 44 cases- is less than 0.014% of all tenancies- statistically, it is termed 'insignificant'.

Finally-

No mass exodus by landlords in the rental market says RTB spokeswoman on Pat Kenny

170,282 landlords in the 2015 report up to 175,000 in 2016 with 70% being one property landlords.

If you strip out the 5,500 AHBs- who are counted in the 175,000 landlords- we have a small drop in the number of landlords in 2016- in the range of 700-800 (and also keep in mind- there is a disclaimer than not all the AHBs are included in the 2016 statistics- so they will have an effect on the 2017 figures too...........)

I.e. there is a small fall in the absolute number of landlords- a lot smaller than most of us imagined- however, in this forum a lot of the posters have consistently been looking at 2017 as a watershed- and implying the mass exodus is in this year....... Time will tell.........

Colking

Johan Polite Porterhouse wrote: »

This is the most wildly incorrect statement (being put across as the truth) I've read in a long time. This needs to be edited as its nothing but an anti-LL slur.

Just to demonstrate the sheer lies, the post above is claiming 80% of LLs in rent pressure zones have wrongly imposed a rent increase so that would be 143,163 LL (yes the is not the number of LLs but the number of tenancies but the claims above will be using the number of tenancies too not actual no. of LLs).

However as we can see below the actual number of cases raised was 348 (which may be all tenancies not just pressure zone) and of that 73% were upheld so which is 257.

So 257 tenancies/LLs out of 178,995 had illegal rent reviews which is approximately 0.14%.

So the op is claiming 80% whereas as a rough estimate of the actual number is 0.14%. Astonishing misrepresentation of stats.

Why hasn't Gizmo corrected their wildly inaccurate and inflammatory post ?

Edited after Gizmo edited their post.

Sadly though, once the fallacy of Gizmos post has been pointed out to them they have refused to edit their original post to reflect the truth of the matter, but seems to prefer to continue to peddle salacious falsehoods and propaganda. I am disappointed.

Askthe EA

Devil is in the detail on these figures and the RTB haven't released enough detail.

subrosa

The figures in the press release are all over the place and they confused the matter by statements in the media. The number of landlords is up 5000 on 2015, and while some of that may be AHBs it could by 548 max (the number of AHBs). The number of tenancies is up 6000 or so.

Askthe EA

subrosa wrote: »

The figures in the press release are all over the place and they confused the matter by statements in the media. The number of landlords is up 5000 on 2015, and while some of that may be AHBs it could by 548 max (the number of AHBs). The number of tenancies is up 6000 or so.

But you need to remove the total tenancies held by AHBs which were pre existing. The actual figure is WAY down.

subrosa

I assume when they say that 5,550 AHBs had registered their tenancies, they mean that the AHBs had registered 5,550 tenancies (makes no sense otherwise - there are nowhere near that number of AHBs.) So the number of tenancies is pretty stagnant (up a couple of hundred,) but that doesn't marry with an increase of 5000 in the number of landlords. Unless large institutional landlords have sold off properties to smaller landlords in large numbers (which hasn't happened.)

The RTB are basically claiming that the existing number tenancies have (more or less) been redistributed among a greater number of landlords.

jamesthepeach

The rtb have just proven themselves to be spin doctors and political.
If they were anything else they would answer questions truthfully, and answer the questions asked instead of acting like politicians and answering a different question than the one asked, even though they know exactly what is asked.
I wouldn't trust a word out of their mouths now.
Let's see if the media pick up on it today, or will they just publish press releases from the spin doctors instead of analyzing the data and pointing out the lies and spin.

The_Conductor

Colking wrote: »

Why hasn't Gizmo corrected their wildly inaccurate and inflammatory post ?

Edited after Gizmo edited their post.

Sadly though, once the fallacy of Gizmos post has been pointed out to them they have refused to edit their original post to reflect the truth of the matter, but seems to prefer to continue to peddle salacious falsehoods and propaganda. I am disappointed.

In all fairness to Gizmo- the RTB report has been presented in a manner to obsfusciate the information and make it quite incredibly to compare with previous years on a like-for-like basis. That it purports to do just this (comparisons with previous years) is a remarkable slight of hand- but was 100% definitely not done by a politician- as they tripped themselves up by highlighting the Association Housing on Page 3- and stating explicitly that it was included in the overall stats for the first time- which gave anyone who wanted to drill into the data a roadmap to work from (though- good luck trying to assert that any particular set of figures are accurate.

As for tribunal cases prosecuted by the RTB- which is something else that many commentators are interested in- they have buried in the report somewhere- that slightly over half the cases prosecuted related to determinations and adjudications which happened in previous years (and indeed- there are over 80 cases being brought to court from 2016- in 2017 which will duly feature in the 2017 stats- in a years time).

You nearly need some sort of qualification to decipher what the report does, and does not, implicitly and explicitly, state.

There is a campaign for 'Plain English' in the UK- that is a grassroots organisation who are trying to persuade government, state bodies and other organisations- to release data in straight forward, easily understandable and utilisable form. This report simply highlights that we would be well advised to try a similar approach here.

Also- just an observation- the 2016 report has bloated by over 40 pages from the 2015 report- but doesn't appear to have any compelling reason for turning into the tome it now is. It is well indexed and has a reasonable table of contents- however, it continually makes comparisons- which by its own admission in other parts of the report- are not valid comparisons to make- and are misleading in the extreme. Why can't the statistics be aggregated and published as an appendix (or made available separately)- for anyone who wishes to do their own analysis of the data. Other state bodies and government organisations- already use this open format- we should be insisting it is applied across the board.

Tossing in the Housing Association stats- and then trying to infer they are doing a like-for-like comparison with previous years- is a big no-no- and in some organisations, would get you fired.

sk8board

subrosa wrote: »

I assume when they say that 5,550 AHBs had registered their tenancies, they mean that the AHBs had registered 5,550 tenancies (makes no sense otherwise - there are nowhere near that number of AHBs.).

There are 548 registered AHB's in the country, so for sure the report is ambiguous
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/voluntary-and-cooperative-housing/register-housing-bodies-approved-status

The RTB report on pg 20 says:
By the end of 2016, some 5,550 AHBs had registered their tenancies with the RTB"
This 5.5k number is clearly tenancies, not LL's.