More costs for landlords suggested

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

Using my logic you would have rental properties fit for purpose and the cowboys gone.

I really cannot get what relevance apartment complexes built during the boom that cannot be certified fire safe have unless you are saying these properties are being rented without a fire safety certificate, or you feel they should be allowed to be used as rental properties without fire safe certification.

It has nothing to do with the type of person who will rent properties that bad. It has to do with the people who rent out properties that bad and getting them out off the market. Similar to how the NCT test got shot of cowboy dealers trading in clapped out cars.
DCC as another poster pointed out have no interest in enforcing regulations (something that was very clear from the RTE program) for their own reasons.
So give responsibility for enforcement to the HSA, with legislation similar to that in the food industry, where the HSA have a proven record on compliance

The Garda Siochana not enforcing the law on intoxication in public places I would not blame the government on.
No more than I would blame them on the million and a half (and rising) fake breathalyzer tests.
Both are down to the Garda Siochana simply swinging the lead.

I don’t think anyone said DCC are not interested in enforcing the regulations?
What other poster said this?

handlemaster

charlie14 wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

I doubt that many of the apartment complexes built during the boom could be certified safe. The original fire fighting plan for an apartment fire was to contact the residents and tell them to bunker down, now they get everyone out and that was before Grenfell. So a huge amount of rental property would be removed from the system. While the landlords not complying with current legislation will continue to make money.

If a rental property does not comply with fire safety regulations than I cannot see why they should not be removed from the system.
Watching last night the Stardust tragedy crossed my mind as and I imagine it did a few politicians with responsibility in that area.

As I said earlier, if a certificate of fit for purpose was a rental requirement, and stiff penalties for any landlord operating without one, then those not complying I would not see surviving long.

Buildings already have to be fit for purpose. This proposal is just a means of charging landlords more. The landlords that dont care still will not care. There are a number of people driving without nct s on their cars in this country why dont we put another certificate on for all drivers because of this ? Putting additional requirements on landlords will just increase rental costs over time.

Mrloverlover

__..__ wrote: »

4% won't cover all increasing costs never mind new charges not yet even thought of. Sure most landlords are losing money already. And then there is the huge risk of a tenant just stopping paying rent. It's impossible to make property investment pay now as it is.

What are the increasing costs? Just curious as a renter

The Student

Mrloverlover wrote: »

What are the increasing costs? Just curious as a renter

Similar to uninsured drivers all other insured drivers are levied with a contribution to cover the uninsured. You can bet there will be costs for rental certification which must be borne by someone and no doubt there will be a fund for those affected to claim against (the same way people can claim against uninsured drivers from the levies paid by the insured drivers).

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

I don’t think anyone said DCC are not interested in enforcing the regulations?
What other poster said this?

Post #30.

charlie14

handlemaster wrote: »

Buildings already have to be fit for purpose. This proposal is just a means of charging landlords more. The landlords that dont care still will not care. There are a number of people driving without nct s on their cars in this country why dont we put another certificate on for all drivers because of this ? Putting additional requirements on landlords will just increase rental costs over time.

From the RTE documentary it is obvious that some rental properties operating are not fit for purpose.
From my understanding of what has been floated, the proposal for a certificate of fit for purpose is that it would be valid for 3 years.
In rent controlled areas rent increases are allowed up to 4% every 12 months which is near as makes no difference a compound interest increase over a 3 year period of 13%.
Even disallowing for that and passing all the cost on to the renter over a period of 156 weeks is not going to increase weekly rent by any major amount I would imagine.

The NCT certificate ensures that any such driver caught without it can have their car seized instantly plus prosecution through yhe courts
If a similar certification process, carrying the same penalties is applied to rental properties, then the landlords who do not care now would begin to care very quickly imho.

airy fairy

It's always the landlord who is the bad guy, there will always be rougue landlords, rougues in all walks of life.
When is the government and the so called state agencies that are supposed to be there for both landlord and tenant, going to side with the landlord?
Soon there will be very little rental accommodation left, because they've squuezed them too far.

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

Using my logic you would have rental properties fit for purpose and the cowboys gone.

I really cannot get what relevance apartment complexes built during the boom that cannot be certified fire safe have unless you are saying these properties are being rented without a fire safety certificate, or you feel they should be allowed to be used as rental properties without fire safe certification.

It has nothing to do with the type of person who will rent properties that bad. It has to do with the people who rent out properties that bad and getting them out off the market. Similar to how the NCT test got shot of cowboy dealers trading in clapped out cars.
DCC as another poster pointed out have no interest in enforcing regulations (something that was very clear from the RTE program) for their own reasons.
So give responsibility for enforcement to the HSA, with legislation similar to that in the food industry, where the HSA have a proven record on compliance

The Garda Siochana not enforcing the law on intoxication in public places I would not blame the government on.
No more than I would blame them on the million and a half (and rising) fake breathalyzer tests.
Both are down to the Garda Siochana simply swinging the lead.

You want an NCT type of certification that a property is safe for rental. The problem is that no one can certify that any building built during the boom is fire safe, unless they do major intrusive testing. So what will happen is that no engineer or surveyor can issue a certificate to say that x building is safe, because there will be severe repercussions on then if there is a fire, so there'll be no rentals at all.

Have a look at the Motors and Consumer Issues forums to see that cowboy car dealers are still making a fortune. With cars there are several methods of verifying that the vehicle is safe before purchasing yet people are still buying dangerous vehicles. So the NCT, RSA and Gardai can't stop dangerous vehicles from being sold.

Even the idea that the HSA is doing a good job on inspections of food premises. Every month they release a list of premises that they have shut down. If they were doing a good job there would be no closure orders, because that's closing the stable door after the horse is in the knacker yard (or already eaten by the customers)

So we currently have an NCT for cars enforced by at least 3 government agencies. A hygiene standard for food preparation enforced by 1 agency. Yet there are still cowboys operating. We have plenty of laws to deal with the current problems, enforcement is the issue not the lack of law.

charlie14

VonBeanie wrote: »

I just cant agree with you.

We already have the legislation, the rules and the regulations to close down the cowboys. Official Ireland are just not enforcing the rules. Whether that's because of under resourcing or just not wanting the hastle of confronting the problem or whatever.

Why does anyone think new rules will do anything to improve things? Why should the new rules work any better than the old ones? The NCT for cars works because the Guards enforce it.

All extra red tape will do is add another reason for potential landlords to say this is just too much hard work and money to enter the market. It will add extra cost and effort to legitimate Landlords that are already wondering it there are easier ways to make money. The cowboys will just ignore new regulations.

For those that think that "big fines" will ensure enforcement. Why not just levy those fines on those breaking the existing laws? As a law abiding landlord, I'm already hoping to get out of the business soon because of existing legislation. I don't need more incentive to leave, such as additional cost, additional hastle, and more potential costs of I unintentionally fall below whatever new benchmark people think I should reach.

The problem is that for whatever reason it is now obvious to anyone that the regulations are not being enforced.
The NCT test works because there is an original assessment of a vehicle and a certificate granted if it is deemed fit for purpose. To operate a vehicle without one can result in the vehicle being seized and prosecution of the owner.
If the same was applied to rental properties how many of those we saw on the RTE documentary would receive certification of fit for purpose ?
If cowboys choose to operate without one then they would be running the same risks as the vehicle owner driving without an NCT certification.
Imho that would weed them out pretty quickly.

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

You want an NCT type of certification that a property is safe for rental. The problem is that no one can certify that any building built during the boom is fire safe, unless they do major intrusive testing. So what will happen is that no engineer or surveyor can issue a certificate to say that x building is safe, because there will be severe repercussions on then if there is a fire, so there'll be no rentals at all.

Have a look at the Motors and Consumer Issues forums to see that cowboy car dealers are still making a fortune. With cars there are several methods of verifying that the vehicle is safe before purchasing yet people are still buying dangerous vehicles. So the NCT, RSA and Gardai can't stop dangerous vehicles from being sold.

Even the idea that the HSA is doing a good job on inspections of food premises. Every month they release a list of premises that they have shut down. If they were doing a good job there would be no closure orders, because that's closing the stable door after the horse is in the knacker yard (or already eaten by the customers)

So we currently have an NCT for cars enforced by at least 3 government agencies. A hygiene standard for food preparation enforced by 1 agency. Yet there are still cowboys operating. We have plenty of laws to deal with the current problems, enforcement is the issue not the lack of law.

If there is no fire safety certificate for a proposed rental property, especially one with multiple occupancy I do not see how it should be expected to be allowed to operate. No more than a hotel would be.

The purpose of the NCT is that drivers of vehicles are responsible under the law for their vehicle having a current NCT certificate.
The onus is on the owner of the vehicle, same as a rental fit for purpose certification would be on the owner of the rental property. Not on who he/she previously bought the property from.

There are some food premises that have been shut down after customer complaints, same as there would be I imagine under a rental fit for purpose certification, but to my knowledge the majority of food outlets shut down have been due to being found on inspection either not certified or in non-compliance.

wordofwarning

The Student wrote: »

If the REITS run the market they will then have power over the Govt and they will dictate to the Govt what they want. I feel sorry for renters out there at the moment. Home ownership will be out of reach for so many. REITS lack the personal touch with tenants. Tenants are just a number to them. They wont show any latitude if the tenants needs help.

I am personally in favour of more REITS. I would love for Irish tenants to be renting off one of them for a few years.

Irish tenants are always on about how they want to rent from a 'professional'. Let them rent from a professional. They will see a professional will fire off a rent increase let at every opportunity, as they are one of their 2,500 tenants. They will see that someone in the office does not care about them getting their hours cut from work and will struggle with the tenant. They will see that REITs do not mess around when it comes to unpaid rent and will be destroyed by a professional solictor.

A lot of Irish tenant need a slap of reality. Instead of trying to screw over and moan about small landlords all evading taxes, regulation etc. They should rent from a massive PLC who does not give two ****s about them. That will make them think if they want professionals being the future of renting. A lot of REITs here have a bad reputation. They genuinely do not care about tenants

The Student

wordofwarning wrote: »

I am personally in favour of more REITS. I would love for Irish tenants to be renting off one of them for a few years.

Irish tenants are always on about how they want to rent from a 'professional'. Let them rent from a professional. They will see a professional will fire off a rent increase let at every opportunity, as they are one of their 2,500 tenants. They will see that someone in the office does not care about them getting their hours cut from work and will struggle with the tenant. They will see that REITs do not mess around when it comes to unpaid rent and will be destroyed by a professional solictor.

A lot of Irish tenant need a slap of reality. Instead of trying to screw over and moan about small landlords all evading taxes, regulation etc. They should rent from a massive PLC who does not give two ****s about them. That will make them think if they want professionals being the future of renting. A lot of REITs here have a bad reputation. They genuinely do not care about tenants

Exactly as the saying goes be careful what you wish for as it may not necessary better than you already have. I have friends who have rented from REITS and they said they would never rent from them again.

elperello

The Student wrote: »

Exactly as the saying goes be careful what you wish for as it may not necessary better than you already have. I have friends who have rented from REITS and they said they would never rent from them again.

Interesting point.

See this guy over on the Journal saying they can't make money renting at 2.4k per month.

http://www.thejournal.ie/river/fora-business-news-magazine-2472315-Nov2017/

__..__

The Student wrote: »

Exactly as the saying goes be careful what you wish for as it may not necessary better than you already have. I have friends who have rented from REITS and they said they would never rent from them again.

The REITS are going to take over anyway. Just have to resign to it.
I have just signed the papers to rent a property to a REIT for 2 years and they will be subletting it. Its too much risk for me to take care of it myself with regular letting, so I was going to do Airbnb but our government dont want me to be able to do that either so I just gave in and am handing the keys over to a REIT. They pay me and then rent to whoever they like under their own rules.
I'll probably sell up in 2 years unless this works out.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

The REITS are going to take over anyway. Just have to resign to it.
I have just signed the papers to rent a property to a REIT for 2 years and they will be subletting it. Its too much risk for me to take care of it myself with regular letting, so I was going to do Airbnb but our government dont want me to be able to do that either so I just gave in and am handing the keys over to a REIT. They pay me and then rent to whoever they like under their own rules.
I'll probably sell up in 2 years unless this works out.

Curious as to how can a real estate investment trust lease properties, pay the owners of the properties for the leases and still make a profit from renting out the properties when, from what appears to be the case going by some posts here, property owners cannot make it pay when having no leasing fee to pay.

VonBeanie

charlie14 wrote: »

Curious as to how can a real estate investment trust lease properties, pay the owners of the properties for the leases and still make a profit from renting out the properties when, from what appears to be the case going by some posts here, property owners cannot make it pay when having no leasing fee to pay.

REITs Own property and lease it to individuals - just like private landlords. The difference in the business model is the effective tax rate. Individual landlords pay over 50% tax, while REITs pay 0%. REITs also have economies of scale to absorb the risks of the Irish tenancy market. If an individual landlord draws a rogue tenant in the rental lotto, it could spell financial disaster and ruin. For a REIT, they can expect problems with x% of properties and will have in-house legal staff to handle the issue rather than paying mad fees to your local solicitor.

charlie14

VonBeanie wrote: »

REITs Own property and lease it to individuals - just like private landlords. The difference in the business model is the effective tax rate. Individual landlords pay over 50% tax, while REITs pay 0%. REITs also have economies of scale to absorb the risks of the Irish tenancy market. If an individual landlord draws a rogue tenant in the rental lotto, it could spell financial disaster and ruin. For a REIT, they can expect problems with x% of properties and will have in-house legal staff to handle the issue rather than paying mad fees to your local solicitor.

Is there anything to prevent a landlord or a group of landlords getting together and forming a retail investment trust and availing of the same tax rate. ?
I may be incorrect, but I seem to recall from somewhere that it requires a minimum of 3 properties with some condition that there is a maximum percentage value in relation to the other properties in the trust that any one individual property value cannot exceed ?

VonBeanie

charlie14 wrote: »

Is there anything to prevent a landlord or a group of landlords getting together and forming a retail investment trust and availing of the same tax rate. ?
I may be incorrect, but I seem to recall from somewhere that it requires a minimum of 3 properties with some condition that there is a maximum percentage value in relation to the other properties in the trust that any one individual property value cannot exceed ?

One of the requirements for a REIT is that its shares must be listed on a publicly traded stock exchange. Its only for big boys !!

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Curious as to how can a real estate investment trust lease properties, pay the owners of the properties for the leases and still make a profit from renting out the properties when, from what appears to be the case going by some posts here, property owners cannot make it pay when having no leasing fee to pay.

Its not even about the profit for me. Its all about risk / reward for me.
That does not compute for me with regular lets.
Too much risk, too much red tape, too much loss of control of my own property to the government. Anyway thats all for another topic.

charlie14

VonBeanie wrote: »

One of the requirements for a REIT is that its shares must be listed on a publicly traded stock exchange. Its only for big boys !!

I have no idea what a listing on the stock exchange for retail investment trust company is but with corporation tax @ 0% as opposed to 50% for individual landlords, plus the benefits of economy of scale mentioned here earlier I would imagine for all the landlords on here and others like who are saying they are struggling it would be with getting together and finding out.

That said, it is really off topic based on the thread subject matter as pointed out by the above poster

AmberGold

I’m part of the negative equity generation & have a few RIP’s, I can’t wait till they have appreciated enough to move them on at a break even. Despite what the media & general public think there is no profit in being a small time landlord. It is in fact a total pain in the arse.

Any more fees imposed by the Gov will be just passed onto tenants via dubious charges like key money.

I was really surprised to read of the tax situation for REIT’s.. wow, what a joke.

As other posters have stated there’s been dodgy landlords since time began, no amount of legislation is going to rectify this. Look at the RTB as an example of effectiveness in this area.

The Student

Being a landlord is a business. Like any business costs will be included in the sale price. The majority of small landlords are good decent people (the majority of people have friends who are one).

The Govt are now saying landlords should fear the RTB if they are not registered. Some landlords will never register no matter what. Whether the Govt realizes it or not they need landlords. If they continue with their witch hunt against landlords they may be sorry with the outcome. Remember its not the politicians who suffer its the renters.

Sure go after bad landlords but also go after bad tenants as well. Give people a balanced view of the landlord/tenant expierence people just might be surprised at how many decent landlords there are out there.

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

If there is no fire safety certificate for a proposed rental property, especially one with multiple occupancy I do not see how it should be expected to be allowed to operate. No more than a hotel would be.

The issue is that no one can issue a fire safety certificate without doing major invasive work. No engineer or surveyor is going to risk their reputation and business to issue a fire safety certificate for a building that they didn't design and build and it's not just apartment complexes where corners were cut. So if no one can certify any property is fire safe where will people be able to rent if nowhere is certified?

Del2005

wordofwarning wrote: »

I am personally in favour of more REITS. I would love for Irish tenants to be renting off one of them for a few years.

Irish tenants are always on about how they want to rent from a 'professional'. Let them rent from a professional. They will see a professional will fire off a rent increase let at every opportunity, as they are one of their 2,500 tenants. They will see that someone in the office does not care about them getting their hours cut from work and will struggle with the tenant. They will see that REITs do not mess around when it comes to unpaid rent and will be destroyed by a professional solictor.

A lot of Irish tenant need a slap of reality. Instead of trying to screw over and moan about small landlords all evading taxes, regulation etc. They should rent from a massive PLC who does not give two ****s about them. That will make them think if they want professionals being the future of renting. A lot of REITs here have a bad reputation. They genuinely do not care about tenants

Not forgetting that when they eventually take over the market they will have powerful lobbying to make evictions easier. Yes they can take the pain of non paying due to the large amount of units that they have, but they are purely about increasing income for shareholders and will ruthlessly chase anyway to make more money and over a year for eviction is a major cost.

smurgen

kceire wrote: »

It will also be reasonable that any renters turning up at my door with a certificate also.

BS suggestion by threshold who have openly told tenants to real the law in the past.

We have references for tentants.if you're not happy with their references don't rent to them.no such reference exists for landlords.your landlord could be a crook and you wouldn't know.also when driving a car we have and nct certificate to say the car is road worthy.can't see why a certificate to say a property meets health and safety requirements isn't in law years ago to protect the well being of occupents.

Gumbo

smurgen wrote: »

We have references for tentants.if you're not happy with their references don't rent to them.no such reference exists for landlords.your landlord could be a crook and you wouldn't know.also when driving a car we have and nct certificate to say the car is road worthy.can't see why a certificate to say a property meets health and safety requirements isn't in law years ago to protect the well being of occupents.

I know landlords that gave glowing references to tenants just to get them on their way and move out. A reference is not worth the paper it’s wrote on in my experience.

smurgen

kceire wrote: »

I know landlords that gave glowing references to tenants just to get them on their way and move out. A reference is not worth the paper it’s wrote on in my experience.

Well you can blame landlords for that so.the more landlords forced out of business and selling up the better.push house prices down.

Johngoose

Before all the landlords here jump down my throat, some rental properties are substandard and need upgrading.Some sort of quality control is needed, especially now with rents at an all time high.You are bound to get shady characters who will take advantage in the current climate.

Graham

Johngoose wrote: »

Before all the landlords here jump down my throat, some rental properties are substandard and need upgrading.

Why would anyone jump down your throat? Of course sub-standard properties should be upgraded.

Johngoose wrote: »

Some sort of quality control is needed, especially now with rents at an all time high.You are bound to get shady characters who will take advantage in the current climate.

There are standards and controls already in place, the problem is they are not being actively enforced.

audi5

charlie14 wrote: »

Is there anything to prevent a landlord or a group of landlords getting together and forming a retail investment trust and availing of the same tax rate. ?
I may be incorrect, but I seem to recall from somewhere that it requires a minimum of 3 properties with some condition that there is a maximum percentage value in relation to the other properties in the trust that any one individual property value cannot exceed ?

Yes REITs pay 0% tax at the corporate level but what do you think happens when they pay dividends to their owners or when owners sell their shareholding? Maybe google Taxation of Reits.