Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

Berserker

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I can assure you they were not happy to pay it. They were forced to pay it because of the current market.

Bollocks does she only break even on a gaffe in GCS, she'll have significant equity paid off each year.

People like your mate make it almost impossible for the rest of us.

Fair enough on the forced to pay it point. She doesn't charge the tenant for maintenance, car parking etc. She pays that out of the rent. She had a really good tenant for years who left Dublin, so the rent on the apartment is below the normal rate for that area. She can't increase it that much because of the restrictions in place. Told me that she just about breaks even on the repayments every month.

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

You're friend is an idiot. A fee to view a property ffs this country is bonkers.

Why is she an idiot?

Samuel T. Cogley

Fair play and maybe I did sound harsh but I guarantee you she's actually in profit to the tune of thousands each year but it's tied up in equity.

cruizer101

Berserker wrote: »

One of my friends has an apartment in Grand Canal Square in Dublin and she used it early this year. She charged people €100

Berserker wrote: »

My friend is a very honest and decent sort who wouldn't screw you over.

I'm sorry but there is nothing honest and decent about charging people to come and view a property. In what other market do you have to pay a fee just to see the thing you are considering buying/leasing.

Samuel T. Cogley

cruizer101 wrote: »

I'm sorry but there is nothing honest and decent about charging people to come and view a property. In what other market do you have to pay a fee just to see the thing you are considering buying/leasing.

Hookers.

Berserker

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Fair play and maybe I did sound harsh but I guarantee you she's actually in profit to the tune of thousands each year but it's tied up in equity.

I understand your point about equity and you are correct. I was talking about the balance at the end of the month. There are some absolute __ out there landlord wise. The other lad I posted about is a classic example. Complete ___ to work with and I'd say he's a nightmare to deal with as a tenant. He gets the tenant to pay for parking but he parks his car in there when he is working, so the tenant is paying for it. Thinks that's hilarious.

Sultan_of_Ping

Berserker wrote: »

Like most things, some landlords are just about getting by, while others are doing very well for themselves. My friend is just about getting by but I've another ex-colleague who only works three days a week now because he makes a small fortune out of the place he rents out in Dublin. My friend is a very honest and decent sort who wouldn't screw you over. My ex-colleague runs with every scheme under the sun to get money out of his tenants. He charges them €700 for a professional cleaning of the apartment once every six months but it's actually a minimum wage eastern European girl that he found.

sorry, calling shenanigans on your posts......either your mate renting one property in Dublin must be getting way above market rates if he can parlay that into cutting his working week by 40%

Also, both your mates seem to have done well finding such gullible individuals to pay viewing fees and, separately, cleaning fees!!

Deebles McBeebles

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Hookers.

Costs nothing to look through a window.

Samuel T. Cogley

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Costs nothing to look through a window.

I was thinking more of the German mega brothels where you have to pay to go in... oh matron... so I'm told.

cruizer101

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Hookers.

Haha, fair enough I did think someone would come back with some market I hadn't thought of but have to admit thats not one I'm familiar with so never would have thought it.
Possibly auctions also.
My point still stands though in the case of renting it is pure disgusting greed and I hope it is legislated against

Deebles McBeebles

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I was thinking more of the German mega brothels where you have to pay to go in... oh matron... so I'm told.

Mega brothel? Any links?

Samuel T. Cogley

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Mega brothel? Any links?

Google FKK clubs or Artemis in Berlin.

The Germans are light years ahead of us... in rental policy... :pac:

Berserker

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

sorry, calling shenanigans on your posts......either your mate renting one property in Dublin must be getting way above market rates if he can parlay that into cutting his working week by 40%

Also, both your mates seem to have done well finding such gullible individuals to pay viewing fees and, separately, cleaning fees!!

Firstly, I'd say that there are plenty out there who are paying for maintenance and parking costs. Secondly, the lad in question bought the apartment during the 2008 bust. Mortgage repayments on it are well below the market rental value, I'd imagine. Now, he could have inherited money etc but he says it's because of the money he is making from renting and he is the type of fella who would screw you for every penny he could get.

Deebles McBeebles

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Google FKK clubs or Artemis in Berlin.

Hahaha fair play, I was joking! I'm old school, prefer a good walk down a canal while window shopping.

Bredabe

I've lived in rented accommodation for a long time, as a mature person I always treated anywhere I rented as if it was my home. Its only since being a landlord became a business were they any problems. My last LL could put my unit back on the market within 48 hours.

I know well that there are plenty of potential tenants that are happy to take mad advantage and wreck rented accommodation, at this stage dam all would surprise me as to the bad behaviour of some ppl that are in rented accommodation.

I was treated badly by landlords because of other's people behaviour and their perceived lack of power to deal with troublesome renters, but not once has a landlord said to me that s/he was approaching a local politician to change the legislation that allows them to evict badly behaved tenants, one even told me he would be happier to see me leave(because of constant anti social behaviour and harassment) than speak with a cllr friend who was helping me pack to leave. while Im well aware its a hard business to be in, treating all renters as badly as each other is not going to make it any easier.

Sultan_of_Ping

Berserker wrote: »

Firstly, I'd say that there are plenty out there who are paying for maintenance and parking costs. Secondly, the lad in question bought the apartment during the 2008 bust. Mortgage repayments on it are well below the market rental value, I'd imagine. Now, he could have inherited money etc but he says it's because of the money he is making from renting and he is the type of fella who would screw you for every penny he could get.

Sure, but I cited neither the maintenance nor the parking costs......I merely highlighted how providential it was that your mates were able to find people willing to pay viewing fees, and more people to pay just over €100 per month (€700 bi-annually) for cleaning.

FishOnABike

Berserker wrote: »

It's not a con. It's a way of making more money from your asset/property. One of my friends has an apartment in Grand Canal Square in Dublin and she used it early this year. She charged people €100 but they were happy to pay it. She just about breaks even on that place at the moment. She paid €650K for that two bed place back in the boom.

Berserker wrote: »

Fair enough on the forced to pay it point. She doesn't charge the tenant for maintenance, car parking etc. She pays that out of the rent. She had a really good tenant for years who left Dublin, so the rent on the apartment is below the normal rate for that area. She can't increase it that much because of the restrictions in place. Told me that she just about breaks even on the repayments every month.

Does this mean that the rent she receives just about covers the mortgage repayment?

Ray Palmer

Geuze wrote: »

Are you sure?

I'm reading that rents are higher than 2007/2008.

See here:

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/quarterly-bulletins/qb-archive/2018/quarterly-bulletin-q4-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=2#page=11

CBI latest quarterly bulletin, see p32:


"Turning to the rental market, the latest Daft.ie report shows continued increases in rents to Q2 2018.

In July, the annual rate of increase in rents throughout Ireland was 12.4 per cent. This can be broken down into city rents, which are up 13 per cent, and non-city rents, which have risen by 10.4 per cent.

Despite the continued price inflation, positive signs have been seen in seen in availability, with the number of properties available to rent growing in year-on-year terms on a national basis.

Rents now stand 27 per cent higher than 2008 levels. Nationally, average rents have risen by 75 per cent from their low in late 2011. In Dublin, rents are an average of 34 per cent above their previous peak while in Galway, rents are 41 per cent above levels recorded in 2008. Outside cities, the average rent is 17 per cent above its previous high"

Absolutely positive.What you fail to realise is the daft reports massive flaws as is does not look at actual rents but advertised rents. There are less places up for rent so the report is based on a smaller sample set and ignores what rent people are actually paying. I know lots of landlords like myself who can't raise the rent and are getting less than they were before but paying higher taxes on it.

Ray Palmer

Berserker wrote: »

Like most things, some landlords are just about getting by, while others are doing very well for themselves. My friend is just about getting by but I've another ex-colleague who only works three days a week now because he makes a small fortune out of the place he rents out in Dublin. My friend is a very honest and decent sort who wouldn't screw you over. My ex-colleague runs with every scheme under the sun to get money out of his tenants. He charges them €700 for a professional cleaning of the apartment once every six months but it's actually a minimum wage eastern European girl that he found.

Small fortune would be right because how could they make serious money to give up two fifth of their income and make it back from the property?
Even if they are getting €3000 a month and own the property out right the max they are getting from the property would be €1440. Their wages would need to be kind of low for that to be worth it. Of course for that to be the situation they would need to have no mortgage, no expenses on the property and getting a very high rent which is all pretty doubtful.
What happens if the tenant doesn't pay rent he then is completely screwed.

Either they are lying to you or you are to us

FishOnABike

Berserker wrote: »

I understand your point about equity and you are correct. I was talking about the balance at the end of the month. There are some absolute __ out there landlord wise. The other lad I posted about is a classic example. Complete ___ to work with and I'd say he's a nightmare to deal with as a tenant. He gets the tenant to pay for parking but he parks his car in there when he is working, so the tenant is paying for it. Thinks that's hilarious.

This is much of what is wrong with amateur landlords in this country. Looking on the balance at the end of the month as their profit (or loss) is a big part of why the current rental market model is systematically dysfunctional and unsustainable in the long term.

On a functional market, property is seen as a long term investment in acquiring equity an an asset, realistically returning an average of 5% to 7% annual return over the lifetime of the investment.

In a functioning market is is not a get rich quick scheme where you can invest seed capital in a deposit, have the rent received more than pay the monthly mortgage costs and flip the property in a few years at a massive profit.

If the government does not address this disfunctionality the wheels are going to come off the bus all over again.

Ray Palmer

FishOnABike wrote: »

This is much of what is wrong with amateur landlords in this country. Looking on the balance at the end of the month as their profit (or loss) is a big part of why the current rental market model is systematically dysfunctional and unsustainable in the long term.

On a functional market, property is seen as a long term investment in acquiring equity an an asset, realistically returning an average of 5% to 7% annual return over the lifetime of the investment.

In a functioning market is is not a get rich quick scheme where you can invest seed capital in a deposit, have the rent received more than pay the monthly mortgage costs and flip the property in a few years at a massive profit.

If the government does not address this disfunctionality the wheels are going to come off the bus all over again.

To an extent that is true. The thing is the government increased tax over 13% on gross rental income when rents were falling. So if you are doing the sensible investment you were then shafted by the government.
To catch back up on the losses it takes over €2 rental increase to get €1 back to bring the rent back to profit levels.
So tenants see a €440 increase as a landlord being greedy but they only get €200 extra and may well have subsidised the rental income for years. It may still take years to recoup those losses from the previous years.
That is how all businesses work and nothing amateur about it.

steddyeddy

So there are reports that LLs and agencies have started asking people for viewing fees. If true I'll hope the majority of LLs will condemn this practice.

http://www.thejournal.ie/landlord-viewings-4278896-Oct2018/

hatrickpatrick

I ask this in these threads repeatedly and no one can give a convincing counter argument or answer: Why was it ok for Michael Davitt & co to demand fair rent and fixity of tenure (as a legislative measure) back in the 19th century, but it's not ok for tenants in the 21st century to do the same?

Samuel T. Cogley

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I ask this in these threads repeatedly and no one can give a convincing counter argument or answer: Why was it ok for Michael Davitt & co to demand fair rent and fixity of tenure (as a legislative measure) back in the 19th century, but it's not ok for tenants in the 21st century to do the same?

bunreacht na heireann

Sultan_of_Ping

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I ask this in these threads repeatedly and no one can give a convincing counter argument or answer: Why was it ok for Michael Davitt & co to demand fair rent and fixity of tenure (as a legislative measure) back in the 19th century, but it's not ok for tenants in the 21st century to do the same?

I think one of the issues is cultural. Back then tenants were trying to establish permanent or semi-permanent freehold tenancies.

Letting accommodation is really about establishing leasehold tenancies. Imo, in Ireland, both tenants and landlords see these as temporary and transient (esp compared to Germany, France etc) therefore incentives are aligned towards short term "gains" - tenants want accommodation at minimal cost, landlords want leases that give maximum profit.

If you are renting land, you are going to invest your time and labour in it, therefore you want a much stronger form of tenure.

To my mind, if tenants in accommodation want stronger tenure the government needs to reform the sector to give it to them while incentivising small landlords to sell up and get out. Larger, institutional landlords are less inclined to short-termism but to seriously interest them you'd need to make it easier and quicker for problem tenants to be evicted. Although that needs to be coupled with legislation that allows a tenant continued tenure as long as they are not a problem along with a mechanism to review and modestly increase rent on a fixed cycle.

In short, to my mind the current system serve neither landlord nor tenant because they foster unpredictability. Make the system more predictable and it'll benefit more people.

hatrickpatrick

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

bunreacht na heireann

...is something that the people can change at any time if a majority of them vote to do so.

hatrickpatrick

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

I think one of the issues is cultural. Back then tenants were trying to establish permanent or semi-permanent freehold tenancies.

Letting accommodation is really about establishing leasehold tenancies. Imo, in Ireland, both tenants and landlords see these as temporary and transient (esp compared to Germany, France etc) therefore incentives are aligned towards short term "gains" - tenants want accommodation at minimal cost, landlords want leases that give maximum profit.

If you are renting land, you are going to invest your time and labour in it, therefore you want a much stronger form of tenure.

To my mind, if tenants in accommodation want stronger tenure the government needs to reform the sector to give it to them while incentivising small landlords to sell up and get out. Larger, institutional landlords are less inclined to short-termism but to seriously interest them you'd need to make it easier and quicker for problem tenants to be evicted. Although that needs to be coupled with legislation that allows a tenant continued tenure as long as they are not a problem along with a mechanism to review and modestly increase rent on a fixed cycle.

In short, to my mind the current system serve neither landlord nor tenant because they foster unpredictability. Make the system more predictable and it'll benefit more people.

A lot of this is true, but it doesn't answer the question of why ideologically the concept that rents shouldn't be a free-for-all is scoffed at by so many people when up until a few decades ago it was mainstream. Did the Reagan/Thatcher era seriously manage to completely eradicate the idea that the economy should be designed towards working for the majority of the people and not just specifically for those on the supply side?

When the government decided to demolish the tenements and build blocks of easily recognisable flats in their place during the 1960s and 70s, I find it hard to believe there was nearly as much purely ideological opposition as there is now. NIMBYism maybe, but less of the ideological "some people just deserve to have a sh!t quality of life and we shouldn't intervene" crap we have now.

P_1

Don't the government charge 50% tax on all rental income?

Surely changing that to a progressive tax on profits is a win win for both landlords and tenants

Samuel T. Cogley

P_1 wrote: »

Don't the government charge 50% tax on all rental income?

Surely changing that to a progressive tax on profits is a win win for both landlords and tenants

It's simply that most LL's are on the higher rate of tax.


I'm actually not a massive proponent of changing it, income tax is income tax - as long as there is a fair playing field in terms of allowances. What should come back in and be massively expanded is tenants shouldn't be charged tax on rent, there always used to be a (small) reflief.

Samuel T. Cogley

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...is something that the people can change at any time if a majority of them vote to do so.

They majority would be very unwilling to charge the double protection on private property, but that's not what you asked, you asked what had changed.

Zulu

P_1 wrote: »

Don't the government charge 50% tax on all rental income?

Surely changing that to a progressive tax on profits is a win win for both landlords and tenants

Sssshhh, didn't you get the memo? Landlords are all filthy rich greedy baxtards looking to evict poor famine stricken orphans from their vast tracts of the country. Besides they don't pay tax. Get with the program.

hatrickpatrick

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They majority would be very unwilling to charge the double protection on private property.

If it was worded in such a way that excluded family homes and directly targeted residential rental property, I'd imagine the majority would be willing. Nowhere close to a majority of the Irish population are landlords, and I imagine a far greater percentage are screwed over by free-for-all rents than are profiting from them.

You'd have to word it carefully and specifically, but I'd imagine that it would pass in a landslide.

hatrickpatrick

Zulu wrote: »

Sssshhh, didn't you get the memo? Landlords are all filthy rich greedy baxtards looking to evict poor famine stricken orphans from their vast tracts of the country. Besides they don't pay tax. Get with the program.

They're still making a choice to exploit a basic need and charge far more than they'd actually need to to break even and turn a profit.

There's absolutely no way in hell that anyone needs to charge €2,000 per month for a room which cost €800 a decade ago. We haven't had inflation of 125% in any sector that would account for such a rise in costs FFS.

Samuel T. Cogley

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it was worded in such a way that excluded family homes and directly targeted residential rental property, I'd imagine the majority would be willing. Nowhere close to a majority of the Irish population are landlords, and I imagine a far greater percentage are screwed over by free-for-all rents than are profiting from them.

You'd have to word it carefully and specifically, but I'd imagine that it would pass in a landslide.

It might if specifically targets like that, however that would mean you'd have a massive constraint on supply and the only game in town would be REITs or possibly housing assocations - the latter in the UK not being as problem free as many imagine.

hatrickpatrick

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It might if specifically targets like that, however that would mean you'd have a massive constraint on supply and the only game in town would be REITs or possibly housing assocations - the latter in the UK not being as problem free as many imagine.

And local government. And I'd be ok with that, the concept of exploiting basic needs by charging as much as one can get away with instead of thinking about what's actually a fair burden to throw at people trying to find somewhere to live is something I've always found abhorrent. Residential housing should not be considered a money making asset but a national resource, just like water, healthcare, etc.

Samuel T. Cogley

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They're still making a choice to exploit a basic need and charge far more than they'd actually need to to break even and turn a profit.

There's absolutely no way in hell that anyone needs to charge €2,000 per month for a room which cost €800 a decade ago. We haven't had inflation of 125% in any sector that would account for such a rise in costs FFS.

They do need to charge it though. You have to make a posative cash flow, and a large one, to indemnify yourself/invest ment against a rouge tenant who could cost you thousands. This is the first time LL's have ever had that option couple with record taxes.

Deadbeat tenants aren't just a fcuk you to LL's the cost has to be passed on as in any business includsing healthcare and food.

Samuel T. Cogley

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And local government. And I'd be ok with that, the concept of exploiting basic needs by charging as much as one can get away with instead of thinking about what's actually a fair burden to throw at people trying to find somewhere to live is something I've always found abhorrent. Residential housing should not be considered a money making asset but a national resource, just like water, healthcare, etc.

I'm all for proper provision of social housing, but reducing housing to the mess Irish water and the healhcare system is in? No thanks.

Sultan_of_Ping

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A lot of this is true, but it doesn't answer the question of why ideologically the concept that rents shouldn't be a free-for-all is scoffed at by so many people when up until a few decades ago it was mainstream. Did the Reagan/Thatcher era seriously manage to completely eradicate the idea that the economy should be designed towards working for the majority of the people and not just specifically for those on the supply side?

When the government decided to demolish the tenements and build blocks of easily recognisable flats in their place during the 1960s and 70s, I find it hard to believe there was nearly as much purely ideological opposition as there is now. NIMBYism maybe, but less of the ideological "some people just deserve to have a sh!t quality of life and we shouldn't intervene" crap we have now.

It's a "slippery slope" argument - mandating rents in an absolute fashion means changing the private property provisions of the Constitution......sounds great, but then maybe if we're off down that road should the State be able to CPO large houses with a single occupant? Or compel a farmer to sell his land in the interests of economic efficiency? Etc etc etc

Honestly, given the parochial, petty, localist nature of our politics any messing with property rights will only end in disaster. If people think it'll end in a more equitable distribution of wealth and accommodation they are hugely under-estimating the incompetence and veniality of our elected reps!

EDIT: I think the tenements were demolished because they were out and out sh1tholes.....it didn't matter what your politics was, knocking them was just right.

Fol20

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I'm a 31 year old man, I've met plenty of them.

That's two properties more than most folk.

Most landlords deal only cash in hand, you might be waiting for bank statements.

Honestly. Please educate yourself more on how the system works. It sounds like you have had a handful of ll that have made you jaded from it. Yes there is ll that do dodgy stuff however the vast majority do it by the book, why you ask? Because if revenue come after you, you may as well ask how low do you want me to bend over. If you don’t do anything by the book now, you have a large asset they can take off you or force you to sell so you have to be very careful.

Ray Palmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I ask this in these threads repeatedly and no one can give a convincing counter argument or answer: Why was it ok for Michael Davitt & co to demand fair rent and fixity of tenure (as a legislative measure) back in the 19th century, but it's not ok for tenants in the 21st century to do the same?

Do you really not understand the massive differences?

Davitt was fighting for the livelihoods of people not just accommodation.

The state did not hand out money to people to pay landlords so they weren't expecting free housing as generations do now as a result of welfare culture.

There is security of tenure now and massive protections for tenants to the determent of the rental industry. It takes at least a year to remove a tenant for non payment now. They aren't forced to repay the debt and are not sent to debtors prison for non payment.

There are set of rules for property standards

For all the protestation for fair rent you are ignoring the charges added to landlords while expecting rent not go up. When they brought in these charges rent was at the bottom and rent couldn't go up so landlords had two choices sell up or take the hit and hope for improvement. Once rents could go up they went up to just get to a basic profit and then recoup the losses from previous years. Like all businesses and industries do. So fair rent for who and gather you don't think landlords should be paid a fair rent?

Current landlords in Ireland mostly own one property but you want to equate them to massive estates owned from basically a serf a model.


Now you can point out the people who break the law to show landlords haven't changed but they are people breaking the law and are being fine, sued, going bankrupt etc...

To compare the land wars to now is ridiculous. I don't think Davitt and co would be delighted now with how property is but I equally don't think they would be happy with lots of development to single parents, gay marriage, contraception or a whole host of things.

Church on Tuesday

Fol20 wrote: »

Honestly. Please educate yourself more on how the system works. It sounds like you have had a handful of ll that have made you jaded from it. Yes there is ll that do dodgy stuff however the vast majority do it by the book, why you ask? Because if revenue come after you, you may as well ask how low do you want me to bend over. If you don’t do anything by the book now, you have a large asset they can take off you or force you to sell so you have to be very careful.

I'm quite well educated on the matter thank you, I'm aware of my rights and responsibilities as a tenant.

Every landlord bar one was paid in cash. No rent book, no receipt, often no lease..

Samuel T. Cogley

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I'm quite well educated on the matter thank you, I'm aware of my rights and responsibilities as a tenant.

Every landlord bar one was paid in cash. No rent book, no receipt, often no lease..

You've even admitted yourself this was a given market segment which I think most will concede has more chancers in it.


The vast majority of LL's pay tax.

Church on Tuesday

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You've even admitted yourself this was a given market segment which I think most will concede has more chancers in it.


The vast majority of LL's pay tax.

And you seem to think this is a personal attack on your character or something.

You're a decent Landlord. Fair play.

I've had dealings with mostly un decent Landlords because I simply had to take what I could get, and by the look of things on this thread I'm far from the only one.

There should be no such thing as chancers in the rental market but sadly there is and it's allowed.

That then gives a bad name to the decent Landlords out there.

And that's all I have to say on the matter, it's a Friday night.

Taylor365

You have trash tenants.

You get them out, but can't "discriminate" against any new prospective tenant.

You raise rent out of reach of HAP.

???????

Here's where we're at today!

Ray Palmer

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

And you seem to think this is a personal attack on your character or something.

You're a decent Landlord. Fair play.

I've had dealings with mostly un decent Landlords because I simply had to take what I could get, and by the look of things on this thread I'm far from the only one.

There should be no such thing as chancers in the rental market but sadly there is and it's allowed.

That then gives a bad name to the decent Landlords out there.

And that's all I have to say on the matter, it's a Friday night.

If it came down to self employed tradesmen and landlords how many more chancers do you think their are?

I think when you break it down there is an issue of perception because what other people do and assumptions. All the tax dodgers think everyone else does it but justify it to them selves that they are good people but the others doing it are the worst.

I used to take cash as payment on some properties because that was easier at the time. I was paying tax, I had rent books and got used to them being lost by tenants that I kept them at home but always brought them when . Been accused of tax evasion audited because of accusations from tenants. Where the tenants had not paid rent and damaged the property. Met more dodgy tenants and tradesmen than dodgy landlords and I rented for years while managing family owned properties.

Fol20

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I'm quite well educated on the matter thank you, I'm aware of my rights and responsibilities as a tenant.

Every landlord bar one was paid in cash. No rent book, no receipt, often no lease..

Then your not well educated on the matter and your only speaking from a micro amount of ll. Yes you might know your rights but your not understanding why most ll play by the book. You need to look at it from both angles and your focused on the handful of ll that you have dealt with rather than if the majority are doing that. I have already agreed with you there is some cowboys out there and it’s a ticking time bomb when they get caught. If the majority of ll were like this. Do you think revenue wouldn’t change their approach so they can get their claws on it as well?

KyussB

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Go onto the Accommodation & Property forum and you'll see people suggesting, in all seriousness, that landlords shouldn't be taxed on their income and that if you're renting a house, it isn't your home. If they have it tough at a time when they can effectively name their price, then it's not a sustainable business model and they should find a more productive way of earning a living.

Yea and there's a system in place where you can't criticize other forums here, nor be able to effectively criticize these issues on the appropriate forum - or you'll start getting dinged for it - it's a disgraceful setup.

People are very gullible about this site and how it's run. You won't get the effective criticism of the housing/rental crisis, that you see elsewhere, here - there's a chilling effect in place, on this site - which is not overt, and is likely more based in groupthink, instead of consciously put in place.

KyussB

Sky King wrote: »

I had a tenant run up thousands and thousands in rent arrears. On top of this I had to meet mortgage payments and pay my solicitor. I got on to the RTB (useless) then my local TD, the ombudsman.

Eventually the overstaying tenant vacated the property. he had wrecked the place.

Never again.

Not playing the poor mouth, the law is there to protect vulnerable tenants and I totally understand and agree with this need. But it doesn't protect landlords and it needs to. It is totally deficient in this regard.

The chickens have come home to roost because landlords are voting with their feet, and if I was still one, I would do the very same. Air BNB all the way. i don't owe anyone long term accommodation and if I choose to provide it I want to be protected by the law. As it currently stands I wouldn't be.

You mean illegal AirBnB's, yes? (because sure, you'd get planning permission for that, right?) Like the law doesn't fucking apply to you...

KyussB

Brian? wrote: »

I never made a penny because the rent didn’t cover the mortgage for the first 3 years. I still had to pay tax though as you can only write 75% of the mortgage interest off against tax. So the government made a decent amount from me but I made a net loss.

I’m also selling the house at a loss to get out.

Debt payments (even forgetting the interest for the moment, talking about the principal) are not a loss - you own an asset outright at the end of the mortgage payments, that's helping pay for the house, effectively.

Such greedy reasoning, to say renting out is not profitable, that not a penny is made, simply because the tenants aren't paying the entire mortgage payment for you...

You had a shit experience with tenants, granted - but you made a fucking sizeable profit - no landlord-woe's dodgy accounting please.

Sultan_of_Ping

KyussB wrote: »

You mean illegal AirBnB's, yes? (because sure, you'd get planning permission for that, right?) Like the law doesn't fucking apply to you...

Air BnB lettings don't all require planning. We mix Air BnB with executive short term lets to stay under the threshold. Plus it's a house so there's a bit more flexibility compared to apartments.

If you can't be guaranteed a good tenant then our experience is that Air BnB is a great way to go. It gets you a decent return and allows you a lot more flexibility as to how you use your property. For example, if we go off on our hols, we just don't take any bookings for that week or so, therefore removing any concerns about what we might have to do if something happens. We can also let friends and family use the property when they need to.

Samuel T. Cogley

KyussB wrote: »

You had a shit experience with tenants, granted - but you made a fucking sizeable profit - no landlord-woe's dodgy accounting please.

I pay roughly 4K off my equity each year and contribute another 4-5K in tax; the rest goes into expenses such as management fee (of the complex), insurance, maitanance etc. One bad tenant means I lose around 5 years profit plus have 5 years expenses to catch up on. Simple accounting means when I can I need to increase my cashflow to over that. Simple business.