Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Are any landlords her only renting to people that are chaseable for damage and money
Options
Comments
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »I don’t know why we got into this tangent but of course a market can collapse when there is undersupply and high demand - it has to first transition to a case of oversupply and low demand.
It isn’t. As you probably know since I’ve explained it twice I am interested in what is meant by “chaseability” as mentioned in the title.
I have no idea how a person with a good job with over two years service is more chasable than someone with a job recently achieved. Which would be more common for immigrant.
There’s some reading between the lines needed here but there’s a clear potential for discrimination there.
We got on to this tangent when reference was made to market changes and LLs being prepared to rent to anyone. Can you honestly say you see a likelihood of over supply in the current houseing market anytime soon? And even in the unlikely event that change did occur, LL would still look to limit the risk on people they rent to.
"Chasability" is not about tracking down an immigrant who has gone back home, it's about chasing the Irish guy/gal who has trashed your home or stopped paying rent and is refusing to leave. It's about the tenant being held accountable and being in a position where they can suffer a loss, monetarily and/or reputationily by having been pursued by the property owner for damage done or rent owed.
A person in a good long term job is more likely to have the means to pay the rent, is less likely to be transient and more likely be concerned about a landlord arriving at their place of work looking for their money, or having their name on the RTB site.
As the op has simply pointed out, you can't get blood from a stone, if a tenant has no money and no means, there is no chance of recovering what you are owed.0 -
We got on to this tangent when reference was made to market changes and LLs being prepared to rent to anyone. Can you honestly say you see a likelihood of over supply in the current houseing market anytime soon? And even in the unlikely event that change did occur, LL would still look to limit the risk on people they rent to.
You’ve moved from a general question about economies in general to the specific Irish case. Since this is off tangent I won’t continue the segue."Chasability" is not about tracking down an immigrant who has gone back home, it's about chasing the Irish guy/gal who has trashed your home or stopped paying rent and is refusing to leave. It's about the tenant being held accountable and being in a position where they can suffer a loss, monetarily and/or reputationily by having been pursued by the property owner for damage done or rent owed
Hmm. That’s a bit odd. I mean a foreign worker would be less chasable since they can leave the country for good.A person in a good long term job is more likely to have the means to pay the rent, is less likely to be transient and more likely be concerned about a landlord arriving at their place of work looking for their money, or having their name on the RTB site.
The long term side of that is a bit dubious. I vaguely get what you mean by “good” although I bet you couldn’t really define it. A new immigrant can’t have a long term job, unless you mean likely to be long term. It’s also discriminatory against contractors, self employed etc.As the op has simply pointed out, you can't get blood from a stone, if a tenant has no money and no means, there is no chance of recovering what you are owed.
No money isn’t the same as chasable, or in a long term job for two years. If in fact you applied those criteria nobody could emigrate here, or even return home, and expect to rent.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »You’ve moved from a general question about economies in general to the specific Irish case. Since this is off tangent I won’t continue the segue.
Hmm. That’s a bit odd. I mean a foreign worker would be less chasable since they can leave the country for good.
The long term side of that is a bit dubious. I vaguely get what you mean by “good” although I bet you couldn’t really define it. A new immigrant can’t have a long term job, unless you mean likely to be long term. It’s also discriminatory against contractors, self employed etc.
No money isn’t the same as chasable, or in a long term job for two years. If in fact you applied those criteria nobody could emigrate here, or even return home, and expect to rent.
Clearly you don't get the point of the thread.
I can't explain it any simpler.
I thought it was rather easy to grasp. Everyone else grasps it though.0 -
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »You’ve moved from a general question about economies in general to the specific Irish case. Since this is off tangent I won’t continue the segue.
Hmm. That’s a bit odd. I mean a foreign worker would be less chasable since they can leave the country for good.
The long term side of that is a bit dubious. I vaguely get what you mean by “good” although I bet you couldn’t really define it. A new immigrant can’t have a long term job, unless you mean likely to be long term. It’s also discriminatory against contractors, self employed etc.
No money isn’t the same as chasable, or in a long term job for two years. If in fact you applied those criteria nobody could emigrate here, or even return home, and expect to rent.
I'm not so sure you do understand. The op has made it very clear what he/she means. You haven't blown holes in it, if anything you've shown you don't understand it.
You said in an earlier post that when the market turns, LLs will be glad to rent to HAP. My point being, the market is not likely to turn soon based on undersupply, even a rudimentary grasp of economics would make it obvious to most, that in any sector of the economy, where there is enormous demand and undersupply, the market will not turn therefore LLs will continue to be "picky" about who they rent to. Due to lack of building, experts including Ronan Lyons say it could be 10-15 years before supply meets demand. Do you understand this?
Current legislation makes all tenants difficult to deal with when they stop paying rent or trash the place. You have a better chance of recovering what's owed from someone who has a well paying job than someone who doesn't. Of course this is not always the case as even people in well paying jobs can be broke. Yes it can be discriminatory against contractors or self employed, for the same reason banks prefer mortgage applicants to have a steady income. Surely you are not saying this is illegal?0 -
Advertisement
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »This proves nothing except that in a tight market landlords can be picky. Come any recession and they will be accepting HAP.
Come the recession the type of people seeking HAP will change and it'll be more viable to accept certain HAP tenants.0 -
Surely you are not saying this is illegal?
Well technically it is if you're discriminating against tenants of the enumerated grounds but I get what you're saying. People need to understand that discrimination isn't illegal per se. We all discriminate.
Given the massive costs involved of a bad tenant I'd too leave the apartment vacant rather than rent to someone I wasn't sure about; not that - that's going to happen in central Dublin for the next while.
Undersupply is only going to get worse as many of us small time LL's, the majority of the market is 3 or less properties, exit the market.0 -
Some people might not agree with me but I believe landlords should be entitled to discriminate when choosing who to rent to. Companies that rent houses out as their business model maybe not but I don't think companies should be allowed to own property zoned residential either.0
-
I'm not so sure you do understand. The op has made it very clear what he/she means. You haven't blown holes in it, if anything you've shown you don't understand it.
You said in an earlier post that when the market turns, LLs will be glad to rent to HAP. My point being, the market is not likely to turn soon based on undersupply, even a rudimentary grasp of economics would make it obvious to most, that in any sector of the economy, where there is enormous demand and undersupply, the market will not turn therefore LLs will continue to be "picky" about who they rent to. Due to lack of building, experts including Ronan Lyons say it could be 10-15 years before supply meets demand. Do you understand this?
Even if the market can’t ever turn again it wouldn’t invalidate my point that landlords are picky because they can be not because they wouldn’t rent to HAP tenants in bad times. You don’t seem to understand abstract ideas ( I also think that the claim it will take 15 years unbelievable but its not relevant.).Current legislation makes all tenants difficult to deal with when they stop paying rent or trash the place. You have a better chance of recovering what's owed from someone who has a well paying job than someone who doesn't. Of course this is not always the case as even people in well paying jobs can be broke. Yes it can be discriminatory against contractors or self employed, for the same reason banks prefer mortgage applicants to have a steady income.
The trivial claim that landlords will rent to people less likely to trash the place in good times isn’t contested by me. I was querying what was meant by “chaseable”. Or indeed by a “stable job”.Surely you are not saying this is illegal?
Surely you can be less obvious when inventing straw men?0 -
The problem here is that landlords want to security of what is long term rental arrangements but without the rental system that would make it attractive for tenants
Bring in third party held deposit's, secure long term leases, actual rent controls, ability to furnish/modify rental properties and you can talk about quality tenants.
Instead you get what we have now, silly rents and wham bam thank you ma'am tenancies0 -
Advertisement
-
The problem here is that landlords want to security of what is long term rental arrangements but without the rental system that would make it attractive for tenants
Bring in third party held deposit's, secure long term leases, actual rent controls, ability to furnish/modify rental properties and you can talk about quality tenants.
Instead you get what we have now, silly rents and wham bam thank you ma'am tenancies
I think most people just want a fair deal on both sides of the fence.
Tenants want not be able to be thrown out on a whim when paying their rent and behaving, but on the landlords side being able throw out someone not paying rent or effecting their investment negatively before they lose thousands.0 -
I think most people just want a fair deal on both sides of the fence.
Tenants want not be able to be thrown out on a whim when paying their rent and behaving, but on the landlords side being able throw out someone not paying rent or effecting their investment negatively before they lose thousands.
You've hit the nail on the head there. All recent legislation has been to aid security of tenure for the tenant, to stymie the rents being charged and to provide a forum for disputes. Unfortunately there has so far been no balancing legislation which allows easy removal of errant tenants. Ironically, the removal of bad tenants would free up more properties for good ones. If a tenant stops paying rent or trashes the place, property owners should be able to remove them at the end of the 14 day eviction notice period, instead it can take up to a year and a court order.
This is why owners want to mitigate risk, if a bad tenant could be quickly and easily removed, then there would be no need for all these checks.0 -
The problem here is that landlords want to security of what is long term rental arrangements but without the rental system that would make it attractive for tenants
Bring in third party held deposit's, secure long term leases, actual rent controls, ability to furnish/modify rental properties and you can talk about quality tenants.
Instead you get what we have now, silly rents and wham bam thank you ma'am tenancies
Rent controls are a terrible idea. They're unconstitutional for one thing and counter productive for another.
People rarely want long term leases either they want flexibility. I'm completely in favour of the German model (Hi Murph and Dr. F :P) of long term, unfurnished lets but the flip side of that has to be a relatively onerous requirement of returning the property painted etc. and paying for the break in tenancy.
The current sector has no shortage of quality tenants and bringing in your suggested changes will do nothing to change the quality of tenant out there. What needs to change is HAP etc. for people on a lower income needs to be made attractive to LL's as a no hassle alternative.
Silly rents are just a reflection of lack of supply which is also hitting house prices - which arguably are equally as bonkers and more damaging. One thing that won't help supply though is driving out LL's which is what some in Government want to do.0 -
davo10 wrote:You've hit the nail on the head there. All recent legislation has been to aid security of tenure for the tenant, to stymie the rents being charged and to provide a forum for disputes. Unfortunately there has so far been no balancing legislation which allows easy removal of errant tenants. Ironically, the removal of bad tenants would free up more properties for good ones. If a tenant stops paying rent or trashes the place, property owners should be able to remove them at the end of the 14 day eviction notice period, instead it can take up to a year and a court order.
Thats what the authoritys want its keeping people off the housing lists.0 -
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »Rent controls are a terrible idea. They're unconstitutional for one thing and counter productive for another.
.
Unconstitutional is not really a criticism though, lots of things were unconstitutional.
There are solutions to the housing situation but they're not cheap, they are risky, and with all the money that's being made in the current shambles the government won't upset the apple cart to change things0 -
Unconstitutional is not really a criticism though, lots of things were unconstitutional.
There are solutions to the housing situation but they're not cheap, they are risky, and with all the money that's being made in the current shambles the government won't upset the apple cart to change things
Is a valid criticism IMO. There is a fundamental law of the State that private property can't be interfered with unless certain conditions are met. Rent controls have been adjudicated on in the past. That shouldn't be changed unless 50.1% of the (voting) population agrees. It's one of the truly democratic things about Ireland.0 -
-
Unconstitutional is not really a criticism though, lots of things were unconstitutional.
There are solutions to the housing situation but they're not cheap, they are risky, and with all the money that's being made in the current shambles the government won't upset the apple cart to change things
The constitution is there to protect long term principles that should endure and should be protected. The thinking on housing is so short term. Rent controls may help short term, but eventually they reduce the quality and quantity of rental units available in the market, and loopholes eventually circumvent them. Encouraging overholding provides a short term answer for one tenant and then takes rental units and landlords out of the market for ever.0 -
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »Rent controls are a terrible idea. They're unconstitutional for one thing and counter productive for another.
People rarely want long term leases either they want flexibility. I'm completely in favour of the German model (Hi Murph and Dr. F :P) of long term, unfurnished lets but the flip side of that has to be a relatively onerous requirement of returning the property painted etc. and paying for the break in tenancy.
The current sector has no shortage of quality tenants and bringing in your suggested changes will do nothing to change the quality of tenant out there. What needs to change is HAP etc. for people on a lower income needs to be made attractive to LL's as a no hassle alternative.
Silly rents are just a reflection of lack of supply which is also hitting house prices - which arguably are equally as bonkers and more damaging. One thing that won't help supply though is driving out LL's which is what some in Government want to do.
Also hitting rent prices is the fact that it is far from in a landlords interest now to be nice to tenants and give them cheaper rent for being a good tenant. The landlord is just shooting themselves in the foot doing that, as much as they might like to do it for a good tenant.0 -
What I'd like to understand with the long term tenancies is where people advocate for long term rent certainty: this to me sounds like a one way bet against the landlord: if the rent ends up being below market rent, the tenant stays long term, if it ends up being above market rent, the tenant breaks the lease and goes elsewhere (and good luck trying to recover).Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »People rarely want long term leases either they want flexibility. I'm completely in favour of the German model (Hi Murph and Dr. F :P) of long term, unfurnished lets but the flip side of that has to be a relatively onerous requirement of returning the property painted etc. and paying for the break in tenancy.
In general, I think having a house owner as a tenancy guarantor - to act as the fall back if the tenant breaches the rental agreement is a necessary requirement in Ireland's rental market0 -
Advertisement
-
One perhaps unforeseen consequence of rent control is that it paralyses the market over time. I’ve tenants currently paying €300-€400 below market value. They have zero incentive to move. Before rent control tenants often moved property - maybe to be closer to a job or because they found a better property or a more competitive rent elsewhere.
There was a more fluid market before rent control came in.0 -
One perhaps unforeseen consequence of rent control is that it paralyses the market over time. I’ve tenants currently paying €300-€400 below market value. They have zero incentive to move. Before rent control tenants often moved property - maybe to be closer to a job or because they found a better property or a more competitive rent elsewhere.
There was a more fluid market before rent control came in.
I've actually no problem with the rent controls as they are at the moment. It's taken me a while to get there I have to admit. I also don't mind the security of tenure. Although I'd suggest five years is a happier medium with a ten year being an option under different conditions. What gets me though is the rent control between tenancies. I know why it's there but really due to lack of enforcement it's just being flouted.
What we should have is proper controls in place for LL's that evict just to put up the rent and then the right to put the rent to market rate once a new tenancy arises. IMO with a few tweaks this is the best all round solution. Certainty and flexibility for tenants - no more than a 4% per year rise. Scumbag LL's punished for dodgy evictions and decent LL's allowed to get back to market rate once the tenant moves on.
I'd love to see a ten year model introduced too where the min standards did not apply and the property was rented unfurnished. People could then put in their own stuff and I'd reduce the tax on these lets to 33% in exchange for there being no break clauses whatsoever. I'd also scrap HAP and only have a system where properties are managed by the council under a ten or longer term guarantee. Furthermore I'd have the councils paying a net fee directly to the LL so councils aren't involved in this double taxation issue.
Common sense and also complete pie in the sky.0 -
As another poster has said though a lease isn't worth the paper it's written on if the tenant wants to break it. If the landlord breaks it however ....0
-
I think part of the difference between here and countries which are held up as a model of ideal long term leases is that, there letting property is seen as a long term investment, where rent doesn't necessarily cover all costs and the mortgage, the landlord covers the difference and treats this as an ongoing investment where when the time comes to sell they get a decent return on the entire thing, not too dissimilar to a pension. Whereas here it's generally expected that rent will cover mortgage and all costs and the new landlord expects an immediate post-tax income. The focus is on the immediate return rather than the long term, hence the concept of maximising market rent, which fluctuates wildly as a result. You can't blame landlords for this as they exist in a system which encourages property ownership.What I'd like to understand with the long term tenancies is where people advocate for long term rent certainty: this to me sounds like a one way bet against the landlord: if the rent ends up being below market rent, the tenant stays long term, if it ends up being above market rent, the tenant breaks the lease and goes elsewhere (and good luck trying to recover).0 -
I disagree that that is the reason for fluctuating rents or high returns. Ireland is a small market ( which causes greater fluctuations) and in particular has a highly growing population ( with some exceptions in 2008 etc). Population growth ( together with the decimation of the construction industry) leads to tight rental markets while the whiplash of the boom bust economy coupled with the small market causes the extent of the fluctuations. The only difference between Ireland and the continent that prices and rents would have in my opinion are the risk premium required by the boom bust cycle. Given that it is a smaller market, there is also some market inefficiencies.TheChizler wrote: »I think part of the difference between here and countries which are held up as a model of ideal long term leases is that, there letting property is seen as a long term investment, where rent doesn't necessarily cover all costs and the mortgage, the landlord covers the difference and treats this as an ongoing investment where when the time comes to sell they get a decent return on the entire thing, not too dissimilar to a pension. Whereas here it's generally expected that rent will cover mortgage and all costs and the new landlord expects an immediate post-tax income. The focus is on the immediate return rather than the long term, hence the concept of maximising market rent, which fluctuates wildly as a result. You can't blame landlords for this as they exist in a system which encourages property ownership.0 -
So I am both a LL and a tenant as I own a small apartment but have to rent a larger place for my family.
I have a lot of experience now on both sides and as a LL I am in fear I will be mobbed when I advertise my 1 bed in April. My tenants will move out but due to the rental rules I will advertise at almost €500 less the what the same size apartment was let out for last week in the same building.
If I want to sell an investor would also have these rules on rent meaning my apartment is much less valuable then the one next door.
As for tenants I have chosen well enough in the past with no one ever not paying rent or damaging the apartment. Maybe luck but I meet the people and go with the people who are claim and make me feel at ease. Not the normal way to go but it has worked so far.
As a tenant I am lucky and got in when the price was low and have the peace of mind to know there will not be a big jump in my rent.
I got on to the RTB and ask what would need to be done to bring the apartment up to market value. Very vage answer with a new kitchen not enough but if I also done floor it maybe. I just want good tenants who pay near time and look after the place.
I blame the past governments and the current for not building social housing. The lower end of the market would be looked after and the rest could get on with the real world without these caps on rent.0 -
So I am both a LL and a tenant as I own a small apartment but have to rent a larger place for my family.
I have a lot of experience now on both sides and as a LL I am in fear I will be mobbed when I advertise my 1 bed in April. My tenants will move out but due to the rental rules I will advertise at almost €500 less the what the same size apartment was let out for last week in the same building.
If I want to sell an investor would also have these rules on rent meaning my apartment is much less valuable then the one next door.
As for tenants I have chosen well enough in the past with no one ever not paying rent or damaging the apartment. Maybe luck but I meet the people and go with the people who are claim and make me feel at ease. Not the normal way to go but it has worked so far.
As a tenant I am lucky and got in when the price was low and have the peace of mind to know there will not be a big jump in my rent.
I got on to the RTB and ask what would need to be done to bring the apartment up to market value. Very vage answer with a new kitchen not enough but if I also done floor it maybe. I just want good tenants who pay near time and look after the place.
I blame the past governments and the current for not building social housing. The lower end of the market would be looked after and the rest could get on with the real world without these caps on rent.
In your situation I would be looking at trying to do enough refurbishment work to get to market rates. I think there was some clarification published on it recently but no one has tested the requirements in court & it still seems like a grey area. If your tenants are leaving voluntarily then there will be no one who really polices the increase in rent.
Your next tenancy could last for 6 years. That’s potentially €36,000 in increased rent ( €500 x 12 x 6) and with your property back up to market rent you will protect the market value of it too for resale. That’s worth making the refurbishment investment.0
Advertisement