2017 RTB Annual Report

DubCount

Here it is (I hope the link works)

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2018/07/rtb-annual-report-2017.pdf

I think this makes pretty sad reading. Rent inflation continuing. Number of tenancies registered increasing only because of increase in Approved Housing Body (AHB) registrations (number of landlords and private tenancies falling). 1547 cases opened by landlords in relation to overholding/rent arrears - thats about 0.5% of total registrations - so 1 in 200 of all the states registered tenancies were referred to the RTB by the landlord for overholding & arrears just in 2017. Bucket loads of cases from tenants on invalid notices and inappropriate holding of deposits.

For all the bluster from our politicians on all sides about housing - I have heard nothing that will make this report look any better for 2018.

Carlos Orange

Kinda surprised that callers are 3 times as likely to be landlords as tenants.

Claw Hammer

A woman from the RTB was interviewed on the radio this morning. She talked about the amount of money found to be owed to the landlords. She then went on to say that the tenants need support. What about the landlords who are found to be owed thousands, most of which is uncollectible?

sk8board

The fall in private landlords (exiting the market) was masked in the 2016 report by the addition of the Approved housing bodies, but they appear to have addressed it this year, albeit a bit of a fudge:
174k landlords, a drop of 1k from 2016 - (page 2)
Drop of 6k in private tenancies (319k to 313k) (page 2)

However, on page 4 they say "In 2017 we contacted 20,400 landlords who had not registered their tenancies after which the majority registered."
BTW, its great that they are getting these unregistered LL's into the regulated net and indeed the tax net.

in other words, just how many of the 175k LL's in 2016 are still in the market? - it seems like about 20-25k of them aren't there any more

as an aside, its always been the case that Landlords have made up a large % of calls to the RTB, so I was disappointed that stat is left out when they report in the news the 170k calls, +30% YoY figures, without mentioning the split - it misleads the public into thinking its all calls from desperate tenants at their wits end.

(I'm a full-time LL, for disclosure. one of the responsible ones ).

Fol20

I love the way they say 1.6m was awarded to ll for rent arrears. I’d be interest to see how much of that was actually collected...

Claw Hammer

Fol20 wrote: »

I love the way they say 1.6m was awarded to ll for rent arrears. I’d be interest to see how much of that was actually collected...

Even more bizarrely, why do the tenants need support?

DubCount

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Even more bizarrely, why do the tenants need support?

The number of deposits incorrectly withheld is shameless. Existing processes do deal with these cases.

However, why are politicians or the RTB concerned about the reducing number of landlords and private tenancies in a market where prices and demand are both rising ? Why is €1.6m of uncollected (and will never be collected) rent arrears just passed over ?

Anyone who wonders why we have madness in the rental market should just read that report.

Claw Hammer

DubCount wrote: »

The number of deposits incorrectly withheld is shameless. Existing processes do deal with these cases.

However, why are politicians or the RTB concerned about the reducing number of landlords and private tenancies in a market where prices and demand are both rising ? Why is €1.6m of uncollected (and will never be collected) rent arrears just passed?

Anyone who wonders why we have madness in the rental market should just read that report.

The number of deposits found to be incorrectly withheld, is only after a very severe process of presuming everything against the landlord. For example landlords time in cleaning up after a filthy tenant is not allowed. Neither is the full replacement cost of items round by the tenant. The tenant may destroy a five year old carpet. The RTB will say that the carpet would have had to be replaced anyway and won't allow the full reinstatement cost. The landlord has to provide, not alone evidence of the condition of the property at the start of the lease but also corroborating evidence. I was at a PRTB hearing once where the adjudicator said in his report that he believed an estate agent about the condition of the property but then said that he produced no evidence, so he wouldn't allow the damage done. How is anybody supposed to operate with this kind of nonsense on stilts?

The_Conductor

DubCount wrote: »

The number of deposits incorrectly withheld is shameless. Existing processes do deal with these cases.

However, why are politicians or the RTB concerned about the reducing number of landlords and private tenancies in a market where prices and demand are both rising ? Why is €1.6m of uncollected (and will never be collected) rent arrears just passed over ?

Anyone who wonders why we have madness in the rental market should just read that report.

A lot of it is phrased in such a way to gloss over inconvenient facts- such as of the fines on landlords- how much are paid- and of the fines on tenants- how much are paid.

Also of interest- of the determinations- how many are actually acted on- no indication whatsoever.

There is also a statement that the RTB are streamlining their structure to facilitate a significant increase in their number of legal cases/determinations/adjudications etc- however- this is wholly deaf to whether the current structure is working or not- because its inconvenient to suggest its as one-sided as it appears to be.

I strongly suspect the landlords are paying the vast bulk of the fees/fines levied against them- and the tenants not- but its not possible to tell.

Also- there is absolutely no consequence to taking a spurious case and loosing it (for either a tenant or a landlord). How on earth is that equitable? Compliant tenants and landlords- are subsidising the RTB to facilitate a large case load- because it doesn't cost the non-compliant applicant tenants and landlords a sod to take a case. How is that fair?

Claw Hammer

The RTB hasn't prosecuted a tenant in years. They are constantly prosecuting landlords. They are also forcing landlords to pay compensation to tenants in ridiculous circumstances. Of the findings of arrears owed by tenants, how long will take the landlord to even get to the Determination stage? How long after did it take the landlord to get possession? How much for the arrears and what was the cost of the damage by the time the landlord eventually did get possession? The RTB is a monster which is now going to be given even more powers to screw up an already badly screwed up property market.

Fol20

Conductor. I completely agree with your last statement. If someone looses a case, they should have to pay. For legal fees for the defendant. That way both parties have skin in the game and something to loose(even if tenants can’t afford to pay for a defense, they should still be required to contribute x amount of money so they also have something to loose)

The_Conductor

Fol20 wrote: »

Conductor. I completely agree with your last statement. If someone looses a case, they should have to pay. For legal fees for the defendant. That way both parties have skin in the game and something to loose(even if tenants can’t afford to pay for a defense, they should still be required to contribute x amount of money so they also have something to loose)

Even a token gesture- 50 Euro or 100 Euro- to bring a case- which is paid upfront to the RTB- and refunded in full if/when a case is found in an applicants favour- but forfeit in the absence of a ruling against the defendant in a case. It doesn't have to reflect the actual cost of bringing a case- it has to act as a deterent to bringing spurious cases.

godtabh

The_Conductor wrote: »

Even a token gesture- 50 Euro or 100 Euro- to bring a case- which is paid upfront to the RTB- and refunded in full if/when a case is found in an applicants favour- but forfeit in the absence of a ruling against the defendant in a case. It doesn't have to reflect the actual cost of bringing a case- it has to act as a deterent to bringing spurious cases.

Just call it a fee to make an application. If you are lodging an appeal/observation to a planning application you have to do this and I'm nearly sure one of the reasons was to stop objections for the sake of it

Claw Hammer

godtabh wrote: »

Just call it a fee to make an application. If you are lodging an appeal/observation to a planning application you have to do this and I'm nearly sure one of the reasons was to stop objections for the sake of it

There is a fee to make an application. €25. Hardly a great deterrent to frivolous applications!

Fol20

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is a fee to make an application. €25. Hardly a great deterrent to frivolous applications!

Especially if the opportunity cost is for them to hold tight and not pay rent for another few months while it is being processed. Personally If it has anything to do with rent arrear. To make an application it should be mandatory that they put the pro rata amount due into a trust that can’t be accessed until the decision is made. This would really save on a length and time consuming process for the RTB and clear out a good few of the requests

sk8board

On pg22, it’s a pity they don’t split out the cash landlords they’ve enforced into the net, from the existing landlords.
There were 212k registered landlords in 2012 and just 174k today, but when you account for 10-20k cash LLs being registered each year, it would appear that almost half the people who were LLs in 2012 are no longer LLs

The_Conductor

sk8board wrote: »

On pg22, it’s a pity they don’t split out the cash landlords they’ve enforced into the net, from the existing landlords.
There were 212k registered landlords in 2012 and just 174k today, but when you account for 10-20k cash LLs being registered each year, it would appear that almost half the people who were LLs in 2012 are no longer LLs

And the 174k also includes 30k odd 'housing association' tenancies- which are registered individually, rather than grouped- which gives an unnatural bump to the overall figures.

Its almost like its written in a manner to deliberately obfuscate and hide inconvenient facts- undoubtedly it doesn't tell any untruths- but it deliberately doesn't look at the elephant in the corner of the room either.

beauf

psinno wrote: »

Kinda surprised that callers are 3 times as likely to be landlords as tenants.

The critical information is finding out the outcome of those calls. In that did they of the tenants and landlords who contacted the prtb how many got their money back.

All the other stuff is irrelevant.

They are just a quango tax if they can't achieve that. For both tenants and LL.

beauf

The_Conductor wrote: »

...Its almost like its written in a manner to deliberately obfuscate and hide inconvenient facts- ...

.. That they are toothless...

Claw Hammer

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its almost like its written in a manner to deliberately obfuscate and hide inconvenient facts- undoubtedly it doesn't tell any untruths- but it deliberately doesn't look at the elephant in the corner of the room either.

Why is a state body doing something like this? This there should be absolutely no need for a spin to be put on the figures. The only reason there is a spin being put on is clearly there is an agenda which is hidden as well as trying to provide some political cover. It's like Soviet Russia when they were publishing statistics showing food production was rising when in fact people were starving.

DubCount

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why is a state body doing something like this? This there should be absolutely no need for a spin to be put on the figures. The only reason there is a spin being put on is clearly there is an agenda which is hidden as well as trying to provide some political cover. It's like Soviet Russia when they were publishing statistics showing food production was rising when in fact people were starving.

In my view, the "hidden agenda" of the RTB is ensuring their own future and their own funding. More cases taken means more staff and budget for the RTB. More registrations (whether AHBs or previous cash landlords) means bigger budgets and more relevance. The uncomfortable truth for them is that we'd be better off without them. Actions should just be taken direct to the courts. Information which shows that they are failing to retain Landlords in the system, or are facilitating overholding and arrears - that is not information they will highlight in their own annual report.

The_Conductor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why is a state body doing something like this? This there should be absolutely no need for a spin to be put on the figures. The only reason there is a spin being put on is clearly there is an agenda which is hidden as well as trying to provide some political cover. It's like Soviet Russia when they were publishing statistics showing food production was rising when in fact people were starving.

Well- it was Churchill who coined the phrase- 'lies, lies and damned statistics'........

The raison d'etre of the RTB- regardless of their mission statement or any soothing noises they put out- is to act as a regulator in a manner that assumes their primary purpose is house tenants and safeguard those tenancies- save where there is a clear and unequivocal breach of legal obligations on the part of the tenant- and even then- there is a working assumption that the tenant is always in the right, and the landlord is always in the wrong- and there is an entirely different burden of proof on a landlord that they would never dream of placing on a tenant............

When you accept that they are there to safeguard tenants and their rights- and any other rights are an after-thought- then the penny falls.

Its actually damn inconvenient for them that fully 3/4 of their calls are from landlords- though even this is explained away by a comment about how over 80% of all contact with the RTB is to explain changes in legislation (this is to both landlords and tenants) and does not necessarily represent a complaint by either party. Aka- by their own admission- the legislation changes so frequently- that no-one has a foggy notion what the current position is- which is why they have 22 new staff on hand- specifically to deal with these queries (the outsourced calls that Capita answer for them won't answer any queries of this nature- they get batted back to RTB staff for follow-up).

The other item they gloss over- is the nature of the tenant calls- the single highest group of tenant calls are related to standard of rental accommodation and/or fire safety queries- not complaints by any means.

Once you accept that the RTB are there for tenants- and the burden of proof for a landlord is set at a wholly different level than that of a tenant (even if its the landlord bringing the case against the tenant, and not vice versa)- its a lot easier to see where they're coming from.

This is the societal and political position we're in- it is public policy to scapegoat landlords and blame them for the housing crisis, homelessness, rising rents and anything else that is wrong in the sector.

The future issue for the RTB will be to explain away why so many landlords are jumping ship and running- they've managed to fudge the figures for two years running- however, the supply of possible fudges has dwindled and there will have to be properly evaluated explanations in future.

The_Conductor

One figure I don't see- is the absolute number of dwellings let in the country- and how this is changing on a year-to-year basis. Even allowing for all the housing associations with their weird and wonderful tax situations- and the REITs- I strongly suspect that the absolute number of properties in the sector is actually contracting- the numbers of properties added by the housing associations and the REITs are insufficient to cover those sold off by private sector landlords.

sk8board

The_Conductor wrote: »

One figure I don't see- is the absolute number of dwellings let in the country- and how this is changing on a year-to-year basis. Even allowing for all the housing associations with their weird and wonderful tax situations- and the REITs- I strongly suspect that the absolute number of properties in the sector is actually contracting- the numbers of properties added by the housing associations and the REITs are insufficient to cover those sold off by private sector landlords.

It’s 497k dwellings according to the CSO, that’s almost exactly 25% of the housing stock.

150k of those are council houses and the rest is RTB.
You’d have to think that there aren’t nearly as many cash landlords as previous years, which is a good thing.

The number of tenancies is rising, while the number of private landlords is falling.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/tr/

sk8board

Also worth pointing out that there are just 122k buy to let mortgages in issue in ireland.

There are plenty people with residential mortgages who didn’t voluntarily move from PPR interest rate to B2L, and rented their place out.

This would apply to the OP too - your repayments on B2L rate would be far higher.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/mortgage-arrears-fall-but-70-000-borrowers-still-can-t-meet-payments-1.3436537