Why I'm taking my rental off the market

appledrop

Not true. If the new owners are currently living at home with their parents then it's one less house available for the rental market. A lot of people who are homeless are in that situation due to lack of rented houses. They don't tend to be in a position to buy their own home. We were also very fair landlords who never increased the rent, which is another fact for rise in homeless numbers.

Sleeper12

appledrop wrote:

Not true. If the new owners are currently living at home with their parents then it's one less house available for the rental market. A lot of people who are homeless are in that situation due to lack of rented houses. They don't tend to be in a position to buy their own home. We were also very fair landlords who never increased the rent, which is another fact for rise in homeless numbers.

What if the council buy the property and put someone off the housing list into it? Maybe a family of 5 or 6. It might actually help reduce the homeless numbers.
It goes both ways.

appledrop

That's not going to happen as it's a small house so council won't house a family of that size in it.

Sleeper12

appledrop wrote:

That's not going to happen as it's a small house so council won't house a family of that size in it.

Small house so you didn't fit too many Tennants in it either.

Does not sound like the homeless numbers will sky rocket when you sell it

appledrop

Your totally missing the point. I posted in response to someone else who is also quitting as landlord. They are more + more of us getting out of market so that's what will effect the homeless figures.

AndrewJRenko

appledrop wrote: »

Not true. If the new owners are currently living at home with their parents then it's one less house available for the rental market.

Same would apply if the new renters were previously living with their parents.

delboythedub

Pkieman can you not take a civil action against your former tenant.

Sleeper12

delboythedub wrote: »

Pkieman can you not take a civil action against your former tenant.

He will have to find him first. I'm guessing he didn't leave a forwarding address when he vanished. He could get in touch with his employer, assuming he got employer reference at time of letting & he's still in the same job.

handlemaster

delboythedub wrote: »

Pkieman can you not take a civil action against your former tenant.

Thats the issue the laws arent strong enought. Even if all went to court a sob story to the judge and their off Scott free

beauf

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He will have to find him first. I'm guessing he didn't leave a forwarding address when he vanished. He could get in touch with his employer, assuming he got employer reference at time of letting & he's still in the same job.

They can't tell a LL anything.

Sleeper12

beauf wrote:

They can't tell a LL anything.

No but the landlord can tell them that they trashed the place & owe 4 months rent. That is assuming that they still work there.

Doing this helps protect future landlords as employer won't /shouldn't give another reference.

Amirani

appledrop wrote: »

We are selling up too. We have been very lucky with good tenants who are now leaving the area.

It's a joke being a landlord on this country. Half of the rent goes in tax so we still have a small shortfall between rent + mortgage payment

Do you feel you should be exempt from income tax?

davo10

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No but the landlord can tell them that they trashed the place & owe 4 months rent. That is assuming that they still work there.

Doing this helps protect future landlords as employer won't /shouldn't give another reference.

Should make for an interesting case with the Data Proptection Commissioner. The LL would do well to have a nice wad of cash ready for when the adjudication is handed down.

The_Conductor

Guys- the standard of posting in this thread has been significantly below acceptable standards for this forum.
This forum is regularly used by tenants, landlords, buyers, sellers, social welfare recipients and all manner of other posters.
First and foremost- there is an expectation that posters will be civil towards one another.
If/when you find a poster something you disagree with- you are expected to refute the post factually- without attacking the poster- and to remain civil towards the other poster.

Low grade trolling, deliberate misconstruing of situations- and uncivil behaviour in general- are not acceptable behaviour- and will not be tolerated.

If you are incapable of posting without remaining civil towards the OP and other posters- then don't post, period.

No more warnings- cop the hell on.

Sleeper12

davo10 wrote:

Should make for an interesting case with the Data Proptection Commissioner. The LL would do well to have a nice wad of cash ready for when the adjudication is handed down.

Nope. References are provided by the tenant for landlords to check. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with the person giving the reference about the tenant. Landlord is using data provided by the tenant in connection with the exact same reason data was provided. Reference. Honesty, trustworthiness etc. Now if landlord used the data provided for purposes other than this then he might have a problem.

There is nothing wrong with the landlord using any information left in the apartment in attempts of finding him. Any addresses or phone numbers. It's all fair game.

davo10

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Nope. References are provided by the tenant for landlords to check. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with the person giving the reference about the tenant. Landlord is using data provided by the tenant in connection with the exact same reason data was provided. Reference. Honesty, trustworthiness etc. Now if landlord used the data provided for purposes other than this then he might have a problem.

There is nothing wrong with the landlord using any information left in the apartment in attempts of finding him. Any addresses or phone numbers. It's all fair game.

The first thing you need to bare in mind is that when a tenant hands over their personal information, name, address, dob, PPS number, work address, references etc, the Landord becomes a data controller. How that information is then stored, processed and used is subject to GDPR and data protection law. On another thread an op was concerned about being contacted at a place of work, that could be hard for a tenant to argue with as the LL is using the information given, to get in contact with him. What you are advocating is the processing and use of the tenants private information in the dissemination of sensitive information/ data. That could land you with a very hefty fine.

When you receive a reference it is for the purpose of checking the tenants standing with an employer/previous LL. Processing that information and then using it 3 years down the line to trash the subjects reputation is a whole different kettle of fish.

This is a UK website, but the GDPR regulations are EU wide.

https://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/data-protection-legislation-for-landlords.shtml

listermint

davo10 wrote: »

It makes a lot of sense if he/she is going to rent it on Airbnb and/or keep it for personal use.

Maybe when pushing through Airbnb restrictions like in Toronto, the Government might also push through some new tenancy legislation which offers LL's a little bit more protection from bad tenants and in the process makes renting their properties out to long term tenants safer and more appealing. Personally I don't see either happening any time soon because it would take guts and political will to do both.

100% they need to look after landlords which is why I think thinks such as deposit escrow are needed for both sides. And a clear and true means and methods to get rid of problem tenants.

These things are needed to make the market fair for everyone. Renting is a service and it needs better regulation.

Air BnB isn't the answer and it's distorting the market. Badly for everyone.

Sleeper12

davo10 wrote:

When you receive a reference it is for the purpose of checking the tenants standing with an employer/previous LL. Processing that information and then using it 3 years down the line to trash the subjects reputation is a whole different kettle of fish.

This is not true. You can check the references at any stage. Even after three years. You can have a conversation with the employer or anyone that gave a reference. You are using the data for the very reason it was intended for.

No breach on that at all

If you use the employer details for reasons other than references you may be in trouble

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

100% they need to look after landlords which is why I think thinks such as deposit escrow are needed for both sides. And a clear and true means and methods to get rid of problem tenants.

These things are needed to make the market fair for everyone. Renting is a service and it needs better regulation.

+1

Deposit escrow is a great idea. Also needed is a better eviction mechanism for non payment, and making overholding a criminal offence. We also need to get state sponsored bodies and regulated charities, to stop giving advice to tenants to illegally overhold without paying rent.

In addition to deposit escrow there should be a way to garnish the cost of repairing any damage caused by tenants from their wages or SW payments

listermint wrote: »

Air BnB isn't the answer and it's distorting the market. Badly for everyone.

It shouldnt be the answer, but for landlords it often is due to the risk shift (100% LL 0% tenant). As in the OP's example. There is no legal recourse for the LL.

davo10

listermint wrote: »

100% they need to look after landlords which is why I think thinks such as deposit escrow are needed for both sides. And a clear and true means and methods to get rid of problem tenants.

These things are needed to make the market fair for everyone. Renting is a service and it needs better regulation.

Air BnB isn't the answer and it's distorting the market. Badly for everyone.

Sorry listermint, but a deposit in escrow would be of no benefit to a Landlord. The rental property is an expensive asset and damage is rarely restricted to the equivalent of one month's rent. That might buy the op a new cooker.

Absolutely, there should be a clear, speedy and effective way to remove errant tenants, but that is not going to happen because it would add significantly to homeless numbers and they, along with a&e numbers are an anchor around the neck of a party in government.

Again, I strongly disagree with your statement that Airbnb is bad for everyone. It certainly is not bad for the property owner, it is not bad for the economy as tens of thousands of visitors come to the areas where the properties are, it is not bad for the guests, many of whom are Irish, who get accomadation at prices significantly lower than Hotels.

Edgware

Amirani wrote: »

Do you feel you should be exempt from income tax?

Rental income is no different from income earned by working overtime or any other money earning enterprise. Landlords have to accept this. All across the board the Revenue have tightened up their tax gathering capability. The rental market is a lot more regulated now than 20 years ago where cash was king and there was massive undeclararation of income.
Many landlords cannot accept this. There are also too many amateur landlords who own one rental property, maybe bought in the boomtime and still in negative equity.
It is nobodys fault but their own that they are not getting the return they think they should.
If landlords think that they should get more favourable tax relief then why shouldnt every other income earner get the same

listermint

davo10 wrote: »

Sorry listermint, but a deposit in escrow would be of no benefit to a Landlord. The rental property is an expensive asset and damage is rarely restricted to the equivalent of one month's rent. That might buy the op a new cooker.

Absolutely, there should be a clear, speedy and effective way to remove errant tenants, but that is not going to happen because it would add significantly to homeless numbers and they, along with a&e numbers are an anchor around the neck of a party in government.

Again, I strongly disagree with your statement that Airbnb is bad for everyone. It certainly is not bad for the property owner, it is not bad for the economy as tens of thousands of visitors come to the areas where the properties are, it is not bad for the guests, many of whom are Irish, who get accomadation at prices significantly lower than Hotels.

I strongly disagree with your point of view that a deposit in escrow isn't fair. You are coming at this one sided , changes needed to be made on both sides for fairness but if your are looking at it in a sense from just the landlord setting the your on a path to failure.

Landlords using airbnb are undercutting legitimate businesses you know the type of businesses that are forced to have rates , insurance regulations alot more costs than you.

If your willing to suffer the same rates as those businesses and inspections then by all means yes Airbnb all the way. But i somehow think you would not be a fan .

Also you don't care about the neighbours in your let. That much is evident.

Would you like me to open a regular Airbnb listing next door to yours ?


Chickens come home to roost when people only come at if from a selfish angle.

uck51js9zml2yt

davo10 wrote: »

The first thing you need to bare in mind is that when a tenant hands over their personal information, name, address, dob, PPS number, work address, references etc, the Landord becomes a data controller. How that information is then stored, processed and used is subject to GDPR and data protection law. On another thread an op was concerned about being contacted at a place of work, that could be hard for a tenant to argue with as the LL is using the information given, to get in contact with him. What you are advocating is the processing and use of the tenants private information in the dissemination of sensitive information/ data. That could land you with a very hefty fine.

When you receive a reference it is for the purpose of checking the tenants standing with an employer/previous LL. Processing that information and then using it 3 years down the line to trash the subjects reputation is a whole different kettle of fish.

This is a UK website, but the GDPR regulations are EU wide.

https://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/data-protection-legislation-for-landlords.shtml

Probably comes under domestic exemption.

ELM327

Edgware wrote: »

Rental income is no different from income earned by working overtime or any other money earning enterprise. Landlords have to accept this. All across the board the Revenue have tightened up their tax gathering capability. The rental market is a lot more regulated now than 20 years ago where cash was king and there was massive undeclararation of income.
Many landlords cannot accept this. There are also too many amateur landlords who own one rental property, maybe bought in the boomtime and still in negative equity.
It is nobodys fault but their own that they are not getting the return they think they should.
If landlords think that they should get more favourable tax relief then why shouldnt every other income earner get the same

When you have to purchase your overtime hours at a cost of €x and then when you get paid for them you have to pay €0.5x in tax, then it's the same.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is not true. You can check the references at any stage. Even after three years. You can have a conversation with the employer or anyone that gave a reference. You are using the data for the very reason it was intended for.

No breach on that at all

If you use the employer details for reasons other than references you may be in trouble

I don’t get your train of thought. Say you have a tenant for the last 3 years, he provided you with an employment reference at the time which you checked and all was ok. 2 1/2 years later the tenant leaves that job for another and also start to have rent arrears.

What use is the employer reference now, 3 years later? What difference would it make?

Sleeper12

Kinsley Nervous Fumble wrote:

Probably comes under domestic exemption.

Davo is 100 percent correct. Landlord & Tennant does fall under GDPR. Many small landlords aren't aware this. However so long as you use the data for its intended purpose you will be fine

davo10

listermint wrote: »

I strongly disagree with your point of view that a deposit in escrow isn't fair. You are coming at this one sided , changes needed to be made on both sides for fairness but if your are looking at it in a sense from just the landlord setting the your on a path to failure.

Landlords using airbnb are undercutting legitimate businesses you know the type of businesses that are forced to have rates , insurance regulations alot more costs than you.

If your willing to suffer the same rates as those businesses and inspections then by all means yes Airbnb all the way. But i somehow think you would not be a fan .

Also you don't care about the neighbours in your let. That much is evident.

Would you like me to open a regular Airbnb listing next door to yours ?


Chickens come home to roost when people only come at if from a selfish angle.

A deposit is escrow would certainly make conflicts over retention/return of the deposit easier to settle. But when the cost of damage exceeds the deposit, it being in escrow is of little benefit to the landlord. The op is €17k out of pocket, I really don't think an escrow arrangement would mean a lot.

Airbnb is a legitimate business, unless the laws have changed recently. And I'm sorry, I really can't muster any sympathy for the hotel sector when the double their prices everytime there is an event on. I suspect hotel prices in Ireland are at the more expensive end of the international index.

davo10

Edgware wrote: »

. There are also too many amateur landlords who own one rental property

What is an "amateur landlord"? As opposed to a professional one.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

Airbnb is a legitimate business, unless the laws have changed recently.

Airbnb may itself be a legitimate business but that glosses over the fact many of the accommodation providers could hardly be described as such.

Lack of enforcement of planning laws does legitimise anything.

Lack of enforcement of head leases does not legitimise anything.

Sleeper12

Strawberry Milkshake wrote:

I don’t get your train of thought. Say you have a tenant for the last 3 years, he provided you with an employment reference at the time which you checked and all was ok. 2 1/2 years later the tenant leaves that job for another and also start to have rent arrears.

OP doesn't know if Tennant has changed jobs or not. How do I know that he has moved job without getting in touch with the employer?
You can check with the employer if employee is still working there. You can challenge the employer on the reference & compare it to your own experience.

I did say from the get go "if he is still working there". I said this in post 59

Sleeper12

davo10 wrote:

Airbnb is a legitimate business, unless the laws have changed recently. And I'm sorry, I really can't muster any sympathy for the hotel sector when the double their prices everytime there is an event on. I suspect hotel prices in Ireland are at the more expensive end of the international index.

Yes it is a ligitimate business assuming that you gain planning permission for Airbnb first. If you don't have planning permission then it's not really ligitimate though is it?

They are now starting to regulate Airbnb and limit the amount of nights per year

davo10

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes it is a ligitimate business assuming that you gain planning permission for Airbnb first. If you don't have planning permission then it's not really ligitimate though is it?

They are now starting to regulate Airbnb and limit the amount of nights per year

From a practical point of view, local councils will not have the manpower nor the will to regulate short term lets. So let's assume that legislation is enacted to limit the amount of time a property can be rented using Airbnb. The only way I can see to enforce this is by Airbnb putting a limit on the number of nights which can be booked through its site per year.

This gives rise to two questions:

1. Given that there is no crossover in booking platforms, what is to stop a property owner registering with another platform and using that to fill the other nights? God knows it's easy to do on Facebook/bookings.com/owners direct/daft etc.

2. If a limit is put on nights per year, how can that be applied to Airbnb and not to standard bnb's? Many airbnb's are owner occupied just like b&b's. If it was applied only to fully let properties, a bit of lateral thinking makes this easy to get around.

There is an article on this on from of today's Times, the proposals are limited to Dublin and are "under consideration".

Pussyhands

So what rights are you looking for OP?

The_Conductor

davo10 wrote: »

From a practical point of view, local councils will not have the manpower nor the will to regulate short term lets. So let's assume that legislation is enacted to limit the amount of time a property can be rented using Airbnb. The only way I can see to enforce this is by Airbnb putting a limit on the number of nights which can be booked through its site per year.

This gives rise to two questions:

1. Given that there is no crossover in booking platforms, what is to stop a property owner registering with another platform and using that to fill the other nights? God knows it's easy to do on Facebook/bookings.com/owners direct/daft etc.

2. If a limit is put on nights per year, how can that be applied to Airbnb and not to standard bnb's? Many airbnb's are owner occupied just like b&b's. If it was applied only to fully let properties, a bit of lateral thinking makes this easy to get around.

Lots of people also use Airbnb (and other platforms) to leverage their apartment in Dublin or Galway- to see the world. I could name more than a dozen people I am personally familiar with (including family members) who go to Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal- or elsewhere- on cheap flights- and do straight property swaps for their Galway or Dublin apartments- most weekends. Lots of people *do* this- it might have once been a rarity- now its just part of everyday living for many people.

Airbnb- does not mean a property is being taken out of the rental market- contrary to the Minister's assertion- and akin to the tens of thousands of vacant properties he suggested were available for immediate habitation (on the publication of the census statistics)- I strongly suspect that the actual numbers being let by erstwhile landlords- are a hell of a lot smaller than the numbers he is currently bandying around.

I honestly think its yet another red herring- however, it provides for discussion in the media- and detracts from discussing the actual shortcomings (such as the abject failure to deliver social and affordable housing units).

Sleeper12

davo10 wrote:

From a practical point of view, local councils will not have the manpower nor the will to regulate short term lets. So let's assume that legislation is enacted to limit the amount of time a property can be rented using Airbnb. The only way I can see to enforce this is by Airbnb putting a limit on the number of nights which can be booked through its site per year.

I wonder can they be compelled to do this. Maybe they will be happy to do this.

They already provide revenue with landlords details and how much they get paid. I think revenue like Airbnb. All payments are reported to them. All payments are made via bank transfer (I believe). There is no or little chance of cash in hand. It's like a dream come true for revenue.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Airbnb- does not mean a property is being taken out of the rental market- contrary to the Minister's assertion- and akin to the tens of thousands of vacant properties he suggested were available for immediate habitation (on the publication of the census statistics)- I strongly suspect that the actual numbers being let by erstwhile landlords- are a hell of a lot smaller than the numbers he is currently bandying around.

Anecdotal evidence from this forum alone suggests otherwise.

Number of posters discussing frequently short term letting their home while they take a quick jaunt to Europe: 0

Number of landlords discussing switching their residential letting to AirBnB: too many to count.

The_Conductor

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I wonder can they be compelled to do this. Maybe they will be happy to do this.

They already provide revenue with landlords details and how much they get paid. I think revenue like Airbnb. All payments are reported to them. All payments are made via bank transfer (I believe). There is no or little chance of cash in hand. It's like a dream come true for revenue.

My understanding is that it is proposed to trial this in GCC and DCC and they are to be cajoled into properly funding the policing of it (with a threat of Ministerial interference if they don't grasp the bull by the horns themselves).

Its not an issue countrywide- and honestly- it may be a much smaller problem than is being suggested- but the current proposal is pragmatic (which appears to be a first for the Minister)- Dublin City Council and Galway City Council- get their houses in shape (excuse the pun)- and if it works- it gets rolled out to the other 3 Dublin local authorities and Cork City Council (no proposals to implement it nationally).

Lantus

Air bnb good idea. There's a company called Air hosted that will manage property, change sheets etc for a percentage of the fee.

backspin.

niallers1 wrote: »

Media are not interested in these type of stories at the moment. Don't suppose you have any cruel landlord stories? They'll bite the hand off you for those.

Even better if you can shoehorn race or sexism into it.

A house next to me has been empty for 2 years, I asked the owner why he wouldn't rent it and he said he will never rent a property again. It had been destroyed twice previously and refurbished at great expense.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

1. Given that there is no crossover in booking platforms, what is to stop a property owner registering with another platform and using that to fill the other nights? God knows it's easy to do on Facebook/bookings.com/owners direct/daft etc.

Mandatory licensing/registration of booking platforms.
Mandatory registration of properties being made available for short term lettings.
Mandatory reporting of nights booked by each of the booking platforms.

Naturally you are likely to have some property owners trying to skirt around any limits but the above would make it much harder.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence from this forum alone suggests otherwise.

Number of posters discussing frequently short term letting their home while they take a quick jaunt to Europe: 0

Number of landlords discussing switching their residential letting to AirBnB: too many to count.

To be fair, we don't get a lot of posters on here who say they let rooms in their homes, that doesn't mean there aren't thousands who do just that.

The posters on here tend to be the ones like the op, and myself, who have lost faith in the rental market and see Airbnb as a much better, more lucrative, less risky alternative.

Samuel T. Cogley

Pussyhands wrote: »

So what rights are you looking for OP?

Not the OP but for my input



1. A proper credit rating system which can be checked by LL/Agencies with negative effects on a tenantrs credit should they stop paying the rent/trash the place.


2. The ability to evict within 90 days for non payment of rent with a corasponding, First & Last Month's rent and security deposit system (of one month).


3. The ability to evict for antisocial behaviour/trashing the place within 14/30 days - although the former exisits good luck in enforceing it.


4. HAP to be brought in line with the way rent is paid - in advance - and paid in full from the local authority. Not this mishmash of part from the tenant. This would also hamper top-ups.


5. The ability to charge market rent to new tenants. Stiff penalties for LL's the evict to do this.


6. The ability to sell property and prevent tenantrs from overholding unless a lease with no break clause is in place.


7. Tax breaks for longer term leases with no break clauses.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

Mandatory licensing/registration of booking platforms.
Mandatory registration of properties being made available for short term lettings.
Mandatory reporting of nights booked by each of the booking platforms.

Naturally you are likely to have some property owners trying to skirt around any limits but the above would make it much harder.

Difficult to see all that being achieved, but even with that, you would still require manpower to regulate it countrywide. Also, none of what you posted can stop an owner advertising on Facebook.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

To be fair, we don't get a lot of posters on here who say they let rooms in their homes, that doesn't mean there aren't thousands who do just that.

We aren't discussing the ones occasionally letting a spare room. Arguably the original purpose of AirBnB and the 'sharing' economy.

It's the approximately 50% of listings (in Dublin) where the entire property is used year-round as a holiday letting, or the 43% of 'hosts' that have multiple properties listed.

Somewhere in the region of 4000 residential properties in Dublin, repurposed as full-time holiday accommodation.

davo10

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not the OP but for my input



1. A proper credit rating system which can be checked by LL/Agencies with negative effects on a tenantrs credit should they stop paying the rent/trash the place.



You are going to run into problems with this from the off, credit rating is provided by the ICB. Landlords would not be able to give nor receive info from the ICB.

Samuel T. Cogley

It all well and good cracking down on AirBnB but, there wouldn't be AirBnB if there wasn't a huge demand for it. It's certainly colourable that not-inconsequential damage would be done to tourism if AirBnB was knocked on the head. Of those 4000 yes some would end up back in the rental market, and many more sold but many would simply sit empty with the current reglatory backdrop and risk involved.

Samuel T. Cogley

davo10 wrote: »

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not the OP but for my input



1. A proper credit rating system which can be checked by LL/Agencies with negative effects on a tenantrs credit should they stop paying the rent/trash the place.



You are going to run into problems with this from the off, credit rating is provided by the ICB. Landlords would not be able to give nor receive info from the ICB.

Of course, but change that. We've already seen a move towards a proper credit referencing system.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

Difficult to see all that being achieved, but even with that, you would still require manpower to regulate it countrywide.

Not much manpower required to receive data from the booking providers.

davo10 wrote: »

Also, none of what you posted can stop an owner advertising on Facebook.

Addressed:

Graham wrote: »

Naturally you are likely to have some property owners trying to skirt around any limits but the above would make it much harder.

You're probably right though. Such legislation should probably be accompanied by some fairly harsh penalties to encourage compliance.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence from this forum alone suggests otherwise.

Number of posters discussing frequently short term letting their home while they take a quick jaunt to Europe: 0

Number of landlords discussing switching their residential letting to AirBnB: too many to count.

Number of landlords- actively leaving the sector- deliberately obsfusciated by the RTB and impossible to accurately enumerate (though they have the number of terminate tenancies stating an intention to sell the property).

Landlords leaving the sector and using booking.com or airbnb- is high yes- however, pulling the rug from under them- is not going to entice them back into the rental sector- its simply going to place the properties on the market.

How many are involved- is hard to tell- yes- we see a lot of landlords discussing it in here and over on irishlandlord.com (etc)- however, in the context of landlords in Ireland- where 36% of all properties are let by a landlord who doesn't own another property (aka they're actually renting elsewhere themselves)- and 68% of all landlords own 3 or fewer properties- a small number of very vocal landlords can have an abnormally large effect on the sector (and indeed- shape government policy- to the detriment of the sector as a whole).

I honestly think that 'accidental landlords'- should be assisted to exit the sector- and their properties made available in a controlled fashion to prospective purchasers (cognisant of the fact that there were 34,000 mortgage approvals in 2017, of which 9,000 lapsed- and we had construction of approx 16,500 units).

We need to cleanup the sector. Cleaning up the sector does not mean making more property available on the rental market- by rights it would mean normalising the market- by which- local authorities would construct social and affordable housing units in a constant and predetermined manner- and make them available to those who are unable to house themselves (for whatever reason).

Its not acceptable to suggest we banish social welfare (HAP) tenants to Connaught (or where-ever else has supply of units). However- it should be equally as unacceptable to suggest that workers drive for 3-4 hours a day to and from their place of work- and those workers have at least as strong a case to make to be offered accommodation in Dublin (or Galway or Cork- or whereever they work)- as do homeless people. It is nonsense to suggest that DLR should construct 500 social housing units- and ignore everything else (though to be brutally honest- it would be better than not doing anything at all............)

How many units are let on airbnb in Ireland and for how many days per annum- would be a nice statistic.

We see lots of landlords here- because its our bread and butter here- however, it doesn't necessarily mean that its representative of the country as a whole.............

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It all well and good cracking down on AirBnB but, there wouldn't be AirBnB if there wasn't a huge demand for it. It's certainly colourable that not-inconsequential damage would be done to tourism if AirBnB was knocked on the head. Of those 4000 yes some would end up back in the rental market, and many more sold but many would simply sit empty with the current reglatory backdrop and risk involved.

In a market where houses and apartments in high demand areas are increasing in value by 10%+ per annum- it would make a lot of sense to keep them vacant- and drip feed them onto the market when it suits............ It makes a lot of sense not to let them under Irish tenancy law- under any circumstances whatsoever.

Airbnb- is one brick in the wall. An inability to evict a delinquint tenant- or to normalise rent for people caught out by the change in legislation- is another. Its not a one-way street- and piecemeal actions like the proposals- when taken on their own- aren't going to do anything at all for the sector.