ex landlord advertising house for rental!

Summer In the City

davo10 wrote: »

At an average cost of €300k in Dublin, it would cost billions and then the state would become a landlord having to invest in maintenance and upgrades, it would cost trillions and bankrupt the country.

So are you suggesting the private rental market in Ireland is running at a loss?

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

Because I know otherwise, been on both sides of the fence. I've rented property, it was my home. I've rented out property to people, it was their home.

After work, I went home. After work, people that rented my property went home. Simple as that.

If you've overstretched, if the market is against you, if you've miscalculated you suck it up. It's a risk investment that will probably stand to you in years to come, but if you think it's profit making from day one you're sadly mistaken.

After work you went home, after work your tenants went to your property. Though it's their home, it's your mortgage. If they stop paying their rent, it's your problem, simple as that. If I didn't think of it from a profit point of view, I wouldn't invest, who would?

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

So are you suggesting the private rental market in Ireland is running at a loss?

Of course it is, most property owners today bought when prices were higher, there has been no significant builds in the last seven years. Do you read the news?

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

After work you went home, after work your tenants went to your property. Though it's their home, it's your mortgage. If they stop paying their rent, it's your problem, simple as that. If I didn't think of it from a profit point of view, I wouldn't invest, who would?

If my car gets robbed, it's my problem too Davo. That's life.

I was highlighting the fact that some Irish landlords can't seem to get their heads around the fact that their property is someone elses home. They use inverted comma's and asterisks when describing tenents homes like this;

"their" home
*their* home

Regarding investing in property to rent from a profit point of view from day one? That's simply naive. It's a high risk slow burner, a long term investment that's going to have good years and bad years over the repayments that will eventually and hopefully be a good investment a long time down the line.

It's not going to be plain sailing, money in the bank covering the cost and interest every month. Not ever.

To prove my point look at the current situation.

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

If my car gets robbed, it's my problem too Davo. That's life.

I was highlighting the fact that some Irish landlords can't seem to get their heads around the fact that their property is someone elses home. They use inverted comma's and asterisks when describing tenents homes like this;

"their" home
*their* home

Regarding investing in property to rent from a profit point of view from day one? That's simply naive. It's a high risk slow burner, a long term investment that's going to have good years and bad years over the repayments that will eventually and hopefully be a good investment a long time down the line.

It's not going to be plain sailing, money in the bank covering the cost and interest every month. Not ever.

To prove my point look at the current situation.

Ok, seen as you used the car analogy.

You buy a car, take out a finance agreement whereby you pay back €500 every month for 5 years. You let someone borrow it but they don't pay you or total it, is your car, or their car?

Summer In the City

davo10 wrote: »

Of course it is, most property owners today bought when prices were higher, there has been no significant builds in the last seven years. Do you read the news?

Why isn't everyone selling up then?

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

Ok, seen as you used the car analogy.

You buy a car, take out a finance agreement whereby you pay back €500 every month for 5 years. You let someone borrow it but they don't pay you or total it, is your car, or their car?

"OK" If you want to concentrate on that part of my post and ignore the rest of it that's cool... go for it.

But, if you're letting someone borrow your property you're doing it wrong, or at least looking at the whole deal wrong. You're not lending anything, you're not doing anyone any favours. It's a proper contract between adults.

Renting your property to someone means it's their home. Like it or not. It's their home. They see it as their home, if you can't stretch to see it that way you're on the wrong foot from day one.

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

Why isn't everyone selling up then?

They are, Landlords are fleeing the market unless locked in negative equity or looking at other modes of renting such as Airbnb.

Hesthea

Muahahaha wrote: »

I am not sure if I understand you here.

If a property is registered with the RTB then yes, you can be pretty sure that the property is rented out to someone.

Landlords have to pay a fee to the RTB to register the property so I cannot think of any reason why they would do this unless they are renting it. They have to register it within one month of a lease being signed with the tenant so the registration comes after the actual renting of the property and not before it.

This is not entirely true. I lived for more than 3 years in an apartment only to find out when i made a phone call to the PRTB that it had never been registered. If in a month (tops) after you have started to live in the property, you don't receive any document informing you that your property is registered, phone them.

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

"OK" If you want to concentrate on that part of my post and ignore the rest of it that's cool... go for it.

But, if you're letting someone borrow your property you're doing it wrong, or at least looking at the whole deal wrong. You're not lending anything, you're not doing anyone any favours. It's a proper contract between adults.

Renting your property to someone means it's their home. Like it or not. It's their home. They see it as their home, if you can't stretch to see it that way you're on the wrong foot from day one.

I hate to point out the obvious, but renting a property is letting someone borrow it to live in. Landlords are not expected to do anyone any favours, they are entering a business transaction, not an emotional one. Renting a property means just that.

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

"OK" If you want to concentrate on that part of my post and ignore the rest of it that's cool... go for it.

But, if you're letting someone borrow your property you're doing it wrong, or at least looking at the whole deal wrong. You're not lending anything, you're not doing anyone any favours. It's a proper contract between adults.

Renting your property to someone means it's their home. Like it or not. It's their home. They see it as their home, if you can't stretch to see it that way you're on the wrong foot from day one.

I hate to point out the obvious, but renting a property is letting someone borrow it to live in. Landlords are not expected to do anyone any favours, they are entering a business transaction, not an emotional one. Renting a property means just that.

davo10

Summer In the City wrote: »

Why isn't everyone selling up then?

They are, Landlords are fleeing the market unless locked in negative equity or looking at other modes of renting such as Airbnb.

Bob24

Summer In the City wrote: »

Why isn't everyone selling up then?

tbh I've been a landlord in another country (which has the type laws which have been popping up in Ireland in the past few years) - and I'm selling that property at the moment and would have absolutely no interest in becoming a landlord again there or in Ireland. It's just too much trouble and too risky, and if you do it as a PAYE worker who is adding rental income to their taxable salary, taxation level is just killing your profits compared to an institutional landlord.

I'm not saying you should be sorry for landlords of course, it is their choice, but if you think it is all great and rosy for them you are deeply mistaken. If a friend wanted to make an investment and was asking me, I'd tell them to put their money elsewhere.

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

Landlords are not expected to do anyone any favours, they are entering a business transaction, not an emotional one. Renting a property means just that.

You've just posted what I said. Glad you've taken note. Have a good night.

John_Rambo wrote: »

You're not lending anything, you're not doing anyone any favours. It's a proper contract between adults

rossmores

Rent definition
pay someone for the use of (something, typically property, land, or a car).
"they rented a house”
(of an owner) allow someone to use (something) in return for payment.

Graces7

"Not having a dig at you in particular Conductor, but I've seen this a lot and like it or not, it is their home, not "their home" or *their* home! I think some Irish landlords have to much emotional attachment to their property, so much so that they just can't consider the property to be someone elses home."
John_Rambo

Excellent summing up.

To be honest even as someone who rented I never saw a rental as my home, it was a place I was staying temporarily out of necessity. I might say I'm going "home" after a days work but it was very much "home" as a figure of speech. Home home is my home place here I grew up, owning a house would also be considered home but not a rental.

At the end of the day a renter is living in someone else's property so they should understand that they may have to leave it if the owner decides, ownership should trump all tenant rights. They should expect to able to stay there indefinitely, if you rent this is simply a fact that should be kept in mind.

Paz-CCFC

For those whom maintain that rented property is not the home of the tenant, does this apply to all types of leasehold property? Many properties throughout the country are held by way of long term leasehold, are these properties not the homes of the tenants? If so, at what point does it go from being something that isn't really theirs to actually being their homes? Does the lease have to be for a certain period of time before they can call it "their" home?

John_Rambo

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

To be honest even as someone who rented I never saw a rental as my home, it was a place I was staying temporarily out of necessity. I might say I'm going "home" after a days work but it was very much "home" as a figure of speech. Home home is my home place here I grew up, owning a house would also be considered home but not a rental..

You're not everyone thought. And you have difficulty looking at things from someone elses perspective.

You're heavily anchored to where you grew up, you've posted a lot about your gifted land, building your own very large dream house on it with multiple bathrooms, server rooms, electric gates etc... and being the sole heir to the farm in the midWest along with a large inheritance, so you're never going to consider a "lowly rental" as home!

But if you were a young Lithuanian couple with two children making their way in Ireland renting a house, doing it up, personalising it, raising your kids in it and going through the milestones of life in it like xmases, first tooth, tooth fairy, birthday parties, Easter breaks etc... you'd certainly consider it home.

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

At the end of the day a renter is living in someone else's property so they should understand that they may have to leave it if the owner decides, ownership should trump all tenant rights. They should expect to able to stay there indefinitely, if you rent this is simply a fact that should be kept in mind.

Those sad days when rural farming tenants were evicted by absentee landlords are long over Nox. And they won't come back as much as you want them to. In the very unlikely scenario of you being a landlord, you're going to find it very difficult and stressful if you hold those beliefs.

The_Conductor

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

For those whom maintain that rented property is not the home of the tenant, does this apply to all types of leasehold property? Many properties throughout the country are held by way of long term leasehold, are these properties not the homes of the tenants? If so, at what point does it go from being something that isn't really theirs to actually being their homes? Does the lease have to be for a certain period of time before they can call it "their" home?

I live in an apartment I bought over 20 years ago.
It has 680 years remaining on its lease.
I do not consider it to be my home where I will retire etc- I am living there today- and for the foreseeable future- but I know I'll be moving in due course.
This is hammered home constantly by the manner in which I'm paying both LPT and annual management charges- whereas the former council estate across the road has no commensurate management charges- and is better kept by the council than we manage in our apartment block. Our biggest single cost- is insurance- as there have been a series of litigious people renting here and visitors to the complex- who are only too happy to lob in claims for the most spurious of reasons. We petitioned South Dublin Co. Co. to take the development 'in charge' 14 or 15 times- and while they have managed to extract a right of way through the development- all they have given us in lieu is a box outside the gate to allow the residents some hope of managing to get in and out of the development.

I'll probably move as soon as my kids finish primary school- in 4 or 5 years time- until then, I'll put up with the various inconveniences and costs associated with living here.

Our most recent inconvenience- one tenant in the block decided to get some of his mates to tamper with his gas meter- which resulted in the entire block being evacuated overnight- which the Management Company insisted was not at their cost- and the owner of the unit that was let out- insisted wasn't his fault- as he had served valid notice to the tenants- over a year previous- and the RTB were playing silly buggers with both him- and everyone else. A petition from the Management Company- signed by 27 of the 33 owners- and it is a majority owner occupied development comprising two smallish blocks of apartments and a couple of commercial units)- bore no weight whatsoever- the straw that broke the camel's back- was the evacuation over the gas meter- after which the tenant vanished into the night about a week later, rather than face the music.

This is normal for a lot of people who bought over the last 20 years- long term leases- serious issues with neighbours (right now one of my neighbours has parked a commercial van right up against the stairs- and its been sitting there unmoved for 2 days now- apparently he has some sort of a dispute with one of the residents (not me)- but there are a number of people inconvenienced by his act of civil disobedience.

I dream of a small freehold property somewhere- suitable for my kids, without neighbours who play mind games on one another- and where I don't have to pay twice for services that everyone else only has to pay once for........

I know I'm far from being the only person stuck in apartment hell- bringing up kids without anywhere for them to play (the management company doesn't like kids outside- as they're an insurance risk)- and it can take me 10 minutes or more- just to get out of the carpark in the morning- the fact that there is an ATM machine on the corner- means people seem to imagine its perfectly fine to abandon their cars in the entrance while they go to argue with the machine.

I never imagined I'd be bringing up kids here- I never imagined I'd still be here at this stage, full stop. My take-home pay was higher in 2000- 18 years ago- than it is today (ironically- my gross is significantly higher today)- and despite the boom and bust- any equity in the unit- even 18 years later- is marginal at best. I'd probably come out in the black- but I'd never qualify for a mortgage ever again, and nor would my wife (after a long list of serious illnesses).

So- no- is the short and simple. I'm one of several hundred thousand people- living as owner occupiers in apartment hell, if I were a council tenant I'd be entitled to a larger unit- based on having children of different genders- instead- I'll keep my head down, pay off my loans, eventually hopefully move to somewhere we can call home..........

Home- is not just the physical place you live- it can be as much a frame of mind- and for a great many owner-occupiers living in apartment hell- their dwelling- is anything but a home.

Paz-CCFC

Thanks for taking the time to post that Conductor, always good to get an insight into other people's situations.

I think your last post sums it up pretty well. You could have a long term lease - or a freehold for that matter (they are not without their problems - neighbours can be just as bad, the council can be as careless with road and path repairs, you can be stuck with poor connections etc.) - and no matter how long you're there, it might never feel like your home. Likewise, you could be in a short term residential lease/part 4 tenancy and it could very much be your home. It's really for the person living there to decide if they feel like it's their home or not.

Graces7

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to post that Conductor, always good to get an insight into other people's situations.

I think your last post sums it up pretty well. You could have a long term lease - or a freehold for that matter (they are not without their problems - neighbours can be just as bad, the council can be as careless with road and path repairs, you can be stuck with poor connections etc.) - and no matter how long you're there, it might never feel like your home. Likewise, you could be in a short term residential lease/part 4 tenancy and it could very much be your home. It's really for the person living there to decide if they feel like it's their home or not.

Often it is the landlord who decides that. My current dwelling is the first of the seven tenancies I have had in Ireland that feels like home. Elsewhere it was always the landlord's grudging place. Difference is that this is owned by the council. needs attention but that is as nothing when you feel the peace of mind. No landlord doing something unpredictable that may mean packing again

_Dara_

The_Conductor wrote: »

I know I'm far from being the only person stuck in apartment hell- bringing up kids without anywhere for them to play (the management company doesn't like kids outside- as they're an insurance risk)

Can't believe that! :eek: Our apartment complex has a very decent playground and green area for the children who live there. It's enclosed too so they can't run out on any roads.

Samuel T. Cogley

Summer In the City wrote: »

Why isn't everyone selling up then?

34K/16% to go

handlemaster

Will all this talk of the BTL investors been better than the small time landlord, there's one big thing missing. Outside of big developments and the big cities these s companies are not interested.

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

Will all this talk of the BTL investors been better than the small time landlord, there's one big thing missing. Outside of big developments and the big cities these s companies are not interested.

Very valid point.
However, and of course there is a 'however'- there are multiple politicians on the record stating that they will support whatever measures it takes- to drive small scale landlords from the sector.

Cognisant of this- tenants should be asking themselves- do I really want a situation where I can't rent a house (at all)- where rental properties are all units in greater urban areas, and other rental categories (including some non-residential categories) are caught up in the cross-fire to drive small scale landlords from the sector- and all the while- the REITs etc are structured to be non-tax-generating entities- while in 2016 small scale landlords paid 170m in taxes and charges on their rental income (to put this into context- three years of tax on rental income from ye small scale landlords- is more than the budget for the new Children's Hospital in Dublin- which ironically- was financed by selling the national lottery- to another entity- owned by the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund- which is structured in such a manner that it will never ever be profitable (it involves the Canadian Pension fund lending the cash to its Irish subsidiary to buy the lottery at an interest rate of 14% to ensure it can't possibly be profitable)...........

I.e. politicians are cutting off their noses, to spite their faces- to drive small scale landlords from the sector.

If you look at the RTB report for 2016 (published last summer)- it was artificially flattered by the addition of the various Housing Associations in its statistics for the first time- however, given the latest EU guidance- they are no longer going to be considered private sector landlords (at all)- which will presumably mean they are taken out of the RTB stats (though I imagine both the Department and the RTB will fight that tooth and nail) leaving the RTB stats to feature the REITs and other private sector landlords (including the small scale landlords)- which will in one foul swoop enumerate the exodus from the sector.

The regulatory regime small scale landlords are operating in- is just this side of appropriation of property- while there are some landlords out there who are ostriches and are deliberately sticking their heads in the sand- and ignoring whats happening- they are in a minority- and the whole situation is 'this'' close to imploding at the moment- given the increasing number of landlords who were seeking to end tenancies- on the basis that they need properties themselves- and who have found themselves in emergency accommodation- despite owning suitable property that they cannot get their tenants to vacate (there are a number of cases in Dublin and Galway at the moment- though when they discover this- the tenancy officers in the local authorities are copping the hell on- and moving tenants- as they don't want the hell of having to deal with an inconvenient truth in the media (to steal a phrase from Al Gore).

The only manner that the current regulatory regime makes sense- is in the context that there is acceptance- that there is an active attempt underway to get small scale landlords out of the sector.............

Be careful what you wish for- you just might get it...........

Fol20

Graces7 wrote: »

"Not having a dig at you in particular Conductor, but I've seen this a lot and like it or not, it is their home, not "their home" or *their* home! I think some Irish landlords have to much emotional attachment to their property, so much so that they just can't consider the property to be someone elses home."
John_Rambo

Excellent summing up.

It’s not quite their home. They can’t just go and repair the entire place, renovate the place, replace furniture. Likewise if anything broke down, if it was their home. they would fix it them self. So they are renting it and it might feel like their own castle but it isn’t theirs.

John_Rambo

Fol20 wrote: »

It’s not quite their home. They can’t just go and repair the entire place, renovate the place, replace furniture. Likewise if anything broke down, if it was their home. they would fix it them self. So they are renting it and it might feel like their own castle but it isn’t theirs.

My tenants furnished the whole house and often replaced the furniture too, they also carried out repairs and fixed things. They considered it quiet their home and I considered it quiet their home.

Eric Cartman

Graces7 wrote: »

"Not having a dig at you in particular Conductor, but I've seen this a lot and like it or not, it is their home, not "their home" or *their* home! I think some Irish landlords have to much emotional attachment to their property, so much so that they just can't consider the property to be someone elses home."
John_Rambo

Excellent summing up.

its not their home. If you rent a house you are renting a house, bricks plaster wires and pipes , a rented house is not somebodies 'home' it is an investment by the landlord and a structure that the tenant pays money to live in temporarily, they are entitled to no other claim on those bricks and land.

John_Rambo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its not their home. If you rent a house you are renting a house, bricks plaster wires and pipes , a rented house is not somebodies 'home' it is an investment by the landlord and a structure that the tenant pays money to live in temporarily, they are entitled to no other claim on those bricks and land.

No, you're wrong there. And some people need to shift their attitude regarding their tenants and the prospect of people living in rented accommodation long term. It is their home, they may not own it, but it's where they make their home.