Not worth the hassle?

Ragnar Lothbrok · 25-10-2018 11:12am

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

If I were to inherit a house in the morning, the last thing I'd want to do is rent it out - I'd sell it as quickly as possible, even under market value. If I won the Lotto, the last thing I would do is buy properties with the intent of renting them out.

beauf wrote: »

I guess it's about do you spend the money till it's gone or invest it so you lose less or even grow it. Greed or prudent?

Just because I wouldn't buy houses to rent them out doesn't mean I'd spend the money till it's gone. There are other options, you know :rolleyes:

Pretty much everything I've ever read on boards, whether it's from a landlord or a tenant, has convinced me that (to answer the question in the thread title) becoming a landlord is most definitely not worth the *possible/probable* hassle.

beauf · 25-10-2018 11:14am

_Brian wrote: »

Nobody wants to acknowledge that’s a problem. It has driven down rentals across the country.

The tax aspect has been talked to death.

Do you have numbers for your driven down rentals suggestion.

Look at what the REITs are doing. Buying and selling older rentals. Then either going new build or major refurb. Then target the very top end of the market where the rents are highest and because of how its structured tax is less.

Its the Apple model of going not for market share and a race to the bottom. But only cream off the top, where profit is the only thing that matters.

I don't see how it makes sense to enter the market as a smaller landlord now. People who've been in the market a while are still ok if they are not over extended. Especially with the lack of protection compared to the UK for example.

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 11:18am

beauf wrote: »

Bedsits left the market ages ago. Even before the crash. How long are you going to carry that torch. People don't register a tenancy if you are leaving the market. .

Bed sits were banned in 2013 so how was that before the 2008 crash? Due to the costs to change them most were sold as they stood with people returning them to family homes or much less number of rentals.

Many landlords weren't registered and they have a better processing those that weren't. In order to sell people are forced to register the property as rental so yes people do register to leave the market.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 11:22am

beauf wrote: »

The tax aspect has been talked to death.

Do you have numbers for your driven down rentals suggestion.

Look at what the REITs are doing. Buying and selling older rentals. Then either going new build or major refurb. Then target the very top end of the market where the rents are highest and because of how its structured tax is less.

Its the Apple model of going not for market share and a race to the bottom. But only cream off the top, where profit is the only thing that matters.

I don't see how it makes sense to enter the market as a smaller landlord now. People who've been in the market a while are still ok if they are not over extended. Especially with the lack of protection compared to the UK for example.

What are you talking about!REIT aren't paying the tax native landlords are so they have a massive advantage to start with. They can do it at any market level and make profit

The fact they have a better tax situation doesn't concern you is shocking.

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 11:23am

Are landlords just too expensive to keep happy if you can do housing at 170 k a unit with Hugh Brennan and co housing.

Those 170 k units could also be delivered as affordable rental via housing associations based on 170 k purchase price.

So on a site Hugh Brennan delivers his 170 k houses. Many go to home buyers who are part of the co op. But a housing association could also get Hugh to build units as part of the co op.

Current HAP tenants could access the housing association part of the developmeny with a HAP style payment covering any shortfall between what's financially sustainable for the HAP tenant and what the cost of provision to the housing association is.

170 k a unit gets you an 850 a month mortgage apparently - for a brand out of the box 2018 A2/A3 rated home.

Why would anyone want to pay 1800 euro to a landlord for a random standard property if potential opportunities to do a SUPERIOR property for LESS can be pursued.

Browney7 · 25-10-2018 11:29am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to equate 8% plus increase to 1% and below increase with one be the end of tax reduction?

That increase on landlords is hugely different due to restriction of entry and exit.

Neither the hotel are gambling industry are suffering drops in revenue when this tax is being added.

You know a hell of a lot of detail for your friend. Did they have a contingency for 2 years of non payment for the 3 properties and them losing a salary? According to you that is what they should have. I would be very surprised they have a bigger contigency than their intial investment.This is what they would need according to you. I don't believe it and it stinks of BS.

What friend? All my friends are paying rents that are at the highest level in the history of the state (who have never as much as broken a plate let alone blowing up the property they rent and looking to live rent free for a million years as is often made out on here)whilst paying sky high taxes to fund among other things generous public service and old age pensions that we'll be lucky to see even a smidgeon of the same generosity in 40 years time.

Income taxes increased for everyone in the property crash and that is what rent is - it's income. I'm not happy with the high taxation burden on higher rate tax payers but it's what we've voted for as a society.

The levy was a % of the fund, the increased tax was a % of the income generated by the asset so yes I am saying that was a severe increase in the taxation burden of citizens.

Look it, you're entrenched in your view that LLs are the most hard done by people in the state and that capital repayments on mortgages are losses and landlords are on the express train to penury. I disagree and neither of us are going to agree so good luck buddy.

mrslancaster · 25-10-2018 11:30am

RayCun wrote: »

https://rentassured.ie/

For anyone who is interested in this link for rentassured....

unfortunately that insurance product is NOT available in ireland.

The insurance broker could not give any indication as to when it might be available and the website has no details.

It seems an earlier poster was correct when he pointed out that there is currently no insurance policy a 'LL can take out to protect them against losses from unpaid rent, overholding or tenant damage. :rolleyes:

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 11:35am

Part of the argument in public transport privatisation is that if we take buses as an example.

Bus Eireann drivers will generally be considered to be on superior pay to JJ Kavanagh or Aircoach etc.

If JJ Kavanagh also has more flexibility in their contracts then JJ Kavanagh can do cheaper fares on a route vs Bus Eireann.

Could a similar arguement be made in the rental sector.

That 170 k a unit to delIver an A3 rated home guy is the way and not the 250 to 300 k and more randomly bought by random "Pat on daf.ie" a bit of a pension on the side types

The Student · 25-10-2018 12:14pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Are landlords just too expensive to keep happy if you can do housing at 170 k a unit with Hugh Brennan and co housing.

Those 170 k units could also be delivered as affordable rental via housing associations based on 170 k purchase price.

So on a site Hugh Brennan delivers his 170 k houses. Many go to home buyers who are part of the co op. But a housing association could also get Hugh to build units as part of the co op.

Current HAP tenants could access the housing association part of the developmeny with a HAP style payment covering any shortfall between what's financially sustainable for the HAP tenant and what the cost of provision to the housing association is.

170 k a unit gets you an 850 a month mortgage apparently - for a brand out of the box 2018 A2/A3 rated home.

Why would anyone want to pay 1800 euro to a landlord for a random standard property if potential opportunities to do a SUPERIOR property for LESS can be pursued.

Answer me a simple question then. If the Housing Association model is so good why are they not being built in large numbers to solve the crisis?

I will tell you why because the State don't want to house people because of all the hassle involved. Evicting people does not happen to the extent it should either in the private rental sector nor the social/approved housing bodies.

Why do you think small landlords are leaving the sector if it was easy money?

The posts on this site proves to me exactly how little people actually know about the sector.

But sure hey feel free to target the landlords (we are not the problem) if the State actually engaged with us we could come up with a solution to all concerned. Keep changing the legislation and keep up with the anti landlord stance and we will find ways around it.

Even if we sell up remember this is one less property for the rental market. The property does not disappear but the number of bed spaces on the rental market will. Very few properties are now being bought as investments most are first time buyers who are couples.

Samuel T. Cogley · 25-10-2018 1:04pm

My direct experience of housing assocations is, if there is anyone who gives a shìt less about who they dump on a community than a county council it's a housing assocation.

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 1:50pm

The Student wrote: »

Answer me a simple question then. If the Housing Association model is so good why are they not being built in large numbers to solve the crisis?

I will tell you why because the State don't want to house people because of all the hassle involved. Evicting people does not happen to the extent it should either in the private rental sector nor the social/approved housing bodies.

Why do you think small landlords are leaving the sector if it was easy money?

The posts on this site proves to me exactly how little people actually know about the sector.

But sure hey feel free to target the landlords (we are not the problem) if the State actually engaged with us we could come up with a solution to all concerned. Keep changing the legislation and keep up with the anti landlord stance and we will find ways around it.

Even if we sell up remember this is one less property for the rental market. The property does not disappear but the number of bed spaces on the rental market will. Very few properties are now being bought as investments most are first time buyers who are couples.

Unfortunately I've yet to see a landlord advocate a sustainable model that could deliver great long term solutions.

I get bored when I see stuff like the following....

1) rather then spend 3 k to pass the inspection "I'm selling the house".

2) "tenant never turned on the dehumidifier so I failed the inspection". Grand but at current rents you should get a property that DOESNT need a dehumidifier. Dehumidifier is only disguising an issue.

3) "the house should only need to meet the standards of the day it was built" - on a pre 1978 home that means it may not need insulation.

That's when I start questioning how random folk making random decisions with random ideas could ever be the solution.

The pure randomness of it is the challenge

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 1:59pm

Browney7 wrote: »

Income taxes increased for everyone in the
Look it, you're entrenched in your view that LLs are the most hard done by people in the state and that capital repayments on mortgages are losses and landlords are on the express train to penury. I disagree and neither of us are going to agree so good luck buddy.

I don't think LL are the most hard done .

You are however not stating what happened nor acknowledging that LL are treated unfairly by being consider partially a business and partially an investment getting the worst terms of both.

Income tax didn't just raise on landlords as it did for everybody else they were also treated as an investmen. On top of the income tax increases they pay USC and PRSI on the rent. If they were a business they would be allowed the full cost of mortgage as an expense and not pay those.

No other industry got that much extra tax added. You giving out about a 1% increase on recreational pursuits as comparable to accomadation costs is riddiculious.No matter what costs go up on the supply side of anything expect prices to increase.

You can disagree with the profit margins LL expect but don't deny costs increased disproportionately as that is not a dusputable fact. Are you disputing that?

The Student · 25-10-2018 2:06pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Unfortunately I've yet to see a landlord advocate a sustainable model that could deliver great long term solutions.

I get bored when I see stuff like the following....

1) rather then spend 3 k to pass the inspection "I'm selling the house".

2) "tenant never turned on the dehumidifier so I failed the inspection". Grand but at current rents you should get a property that DOESNT need a dehumidifier. Dehumidifier is only disguising an issue.

3) "the house should only need to meet the standards of the day it was built" - on a pre 1978 home that means it may not need insulation.

That's when I start questioning how random folk making random decisions with random ideas could ever be the solution.

The pure randomness of it is the challenge

Lets look at the above so.

Spend on improving a property may or may not be allowable to increase the rent (there is no list of allowable improvements with the RTB rather they list some vague criteria which you may interpret as allowable but they don't).

Dehumidifiers are not needed if people actually opened windows and did not dry clothes in the property or actually hang clothes on a line.

Are you aware of exactly how much it costs to insulate a house and if you insulate it is it an allowable expense Revenue might say yes but the RTB might say you can't increase the rent. So you have spent money without being able to get a return on it. Great business logic!

Then we have the biggest issue of being a landlord, the eviction process for non payment of rent.

Can you name me one industry where you are legally obliged to continue providing a service knowing full well you are not going to get paid for it. The RTB is not fit for purpose and the whole eviction process is (intentionally) too time consuming.

It never ceases to amaze me the comments people make without knowing the full facts and the risks actually involved.

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 2:18pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Unfortunately I've yet to see a landlord advocate a sustainable model that could deliver great long term solutions.

I get bored when I see stuff like the following....

1) rather then spend 3 k to pass the inspection "I'm selling the house".

2) "tenant never turned on the dehumidifier so I failed the inspection". Grand but at current rents you should get a property that DOESNT need a dehumidifier. Dehumidifier is only disguising an issue.

3) "the house should only need to meet the standards of the day it was built" - on a pre 1978 home that means it may not need insulation.

That's when I start questioning how random folk making random decisions with random ideas could ever be the solution.

The pure randomness of it is the challenge

They are some weird things to say are common.
1) Never heard anybody make that claim ever
2)Again never heard that. Not even sure what part of the inspection it would fail on that a dehumidifier would fix.
3) What are you suggesting here that all rental property should match modern building regs? Then surely any house being sold should do the same. If a landlord lives in an identical house they should bring the rental property up to a higher standard?

It is really simple to have a sustainable model. People who don't pay rent can be evicted within 90 days. Escrow system deposits. Tenants must repaint as they leave to a professional standard. A list of all items included in lease with a scoring on how new they are. Gardens are maintainable by the resident. LPT replaced and charges to residents. Annual rent review with an official rent register. Removal of RPZ caps. Removal of USC and PRSI on rent. Tax rebate for tenants. There is probably more. Can't see why anybody would have a problem with any of this.

beauf · 25-10-2018 2:22pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What are you talking about!REIT aren't paying the tax native landlords are so they have a massive advantage to start with. They can do it at any market level and make profit

The fact they have a better tax situation doesn't concern you is shocking.

I mentioned their tax. You just ignored it. As you've done with everything else.

You want to pay no tax. Not very realistic. If you are getting out of it, its no longer an issue for you either way.

beauf · 25-10-2018 2:27pm

Maybe they should raise the taxes even further. Get rid of those just hanging on.

Fol20 · 25-10-2018 2:39pm

beauf wrote: »

Maybe they should raise the taxes even further. Get rid of those just hanging on.

Basically, your saying you want the situation to get worse before it gets better instead of having the mentality that ok. i can see both sides of the points, Lets work together to resolve it.

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 2:43pm

The Student wrote: »

Lets look at the above so.

Spend on improving a property may or may not be allowable to increase the rent (there is no list of allowable improvements with the RTB rather they list some vague criteria which you may interpret as allowable but they don't).

Dehumidifiers are not needed if people actually opened windows and did not dry clothes in the property or actually hang clothes on a line.

Are you aware of exactly how much it costs to insulate a house and if you insulate it is it an allowable expense Revenue might say yes but the RTB might say you can't increase the rent. So you have spent money without being able to get a return on it. Great business logic!

Then we have the biggest issue of being a landlord, the eviction process for non payment of rent.

Can you name me one industry where you are legally obliged to continue providing a service knowing full well you are not going to get paid for it. The RTB is not fit for purpose and the whole eviction process is (intentionally) too time consuming.

It never ceases to amaze me the comments people make without knowing the full facts and the risks actually involved.

The difficulty is that someone that will sell over 3 k isn't the person to solve housing.

The 2nd guy with the dehumidifier - his previous tenant also had to use the dehumidifier. Everything was fine once the dehumidifier was used. There was nothing in the estate agents blog post (he was criticising the standards) to suggest that either tenant had done anything wrong besides tenant number 2 not switching on dehumidifier.

We do the open the window thing in the house here. It makes the house cold when you do it in winter. So he's not the guy to solve housing

As for not drying clothes in the property - where else do you dry them. Can't use a line if its raining.

Into the dryer they go then although in many houses that's located in the property - where you say they shouldnt go.

No insulation or insufficient amounts of it becomes an issue when you are paying more in rent for a home that's cold then a nicely built A2 BER rated house will cost on mortgage.

It's about who is best placed to deliver long term solutions.

I'm sorry if you think I meant "landlords are bad" - but to me it looks like the model could be still expensive for what you get in return.

Because the model is locked into high built in cost with 2007 legacy mortgage costs and negative equity issues.

And the cost of sourcing a rental investment from current supply.

If you pay 300 k for the rental property - the full amount of that 300 k plus an attractive return - plus cost to maintain must be recovered.

Any financial return needs to recovered also.

Very soon we have a need to charge a relatively high rent just to cover costs - and try to get positive cashflow (ie you don't have to put money of your own in each month - the rent is enough to cover all costs and leave you some money).

Now is that rent low enough to hit the 1/3 of tenants income that rent ideally should be????.

I suspect not

Fol20 · 25-10-2018 2:48pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

1.People who don't pay rent can be evicted within 90 days.
2.Escrow system deposits.
3.Tenants must repaint as they leave to a professional standard.
4.A list of all items included in lease with a scoring on how new they are.
5.Gardens are maintainable by the resident.
6.LPT replaced and charges to residents.
7.Annual rent review with an official rent register. Removal of RPZ caps.
8.Removal of USC and PRSI on rent.
9.Tax rebate for tenants.

1. Yes please
2. Yes please with 3 month deposits and can be used as a saving scheme for tenants where they get something like 1pc per annum in dirt
3.Yes please, back to same way it was given to them in
4.They have something similar to this in France and can be used as a good way to protect tenants, and cant be argued with since its agreed with in advance.
5.This should be a given to begin with and if there is any damage, it can be marked in step 4.
6.This can be charged against ll however it should be expendable
7.Annual rent review that can be based on maket rate. This then allows for decent tenants to not have their rent increased for several years if the ll doesnt want to and still allows ll to charge market rate when a tenant leaves.
8. LL should be paying tax like everyone else. I do however think that USC should be deducted after capital allowances
9.This may cause rent prices to rise even further so it maybe pointless.

beauf · 25-10-2018 2:51pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Basically, your saying you want the situation to get worse before it gets better instead of having the mentality that ok. i can see both sides of the points, Lets work together to resolve it.

I think it would clear out these forums....;)

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 3:27pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They are some weird things to say are common.
1) Never heard anybody make that claim ever
2)Again never heard that. Not even sure what part of the inspection it would fail on that a dehumidifier would fix.
3) What are you suggesting here that all rental property should match modern building regs? Then surely any house being sold should do the same. If a landlord lives in an identical house they should bring the rental property up to a higher standard?

It is really simple to have a sustainable model. People who don't pay rent can be evicted within 90 days. Escrow system deposits. Tenants must repaint as they leave to a professional standard. A list of all items included in lease with a scoring on how new they are. Gardens are maintainable by the resident. LPT replaced and charges to residents. Annual rent review with an official rent register. Removal of RPZ caps. Removal of USC and PRSI on rent. Tax rebate for tenants. There is probably more. Can't see why anybody would have a problem with any of this.

1) I was told of the sell the house over 3 k of work. I mention it to illustrate the randomness.

2) inspection showed up damp which was a fail. The cited reason by the estate agent writing the blog post was that if the tenant had used the dehumifier provided the house would have showed no signs of damp.

3) expecting top whack 2018 rent for a house with poor insulation or even none is NOT a sustainable long term housing solution.

4) the fact that the landlord might be happy with his standard of home he lives in himself isn't necessarily a guide to what the standard of house the rental sector should provide. My old boss used to love his 1993 Audi with 250 k miles around 2004. He used to provide a brand new vehicle for the sales rep of the reps choice however.

The rep was getting a *nicer* vehicle to drive then the boss. Because when you expect someone to do 1000 miles a week they expect a proper vehicle. Adopting this logic to housing -'what someone may think is okay for their own home might not cut the mustard for the tenant paying 1700 a month.

The problem with your sustainability is that if you take away the rent caps to make investment more attractive - investors make decisions based on unsustainable rent levels higher then they should be.

Paying too much for housing based on being able to get 2 k plus now. And being unable to cope when the market corrects itself.

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 3:43pm

Old diesel wrote: »

As for not drying clothes in the property - where else do you dry them. Can't use a line if its raining.

t

If you dry your clothes inside the house and dont use the dryer or the outside line you are breaking the lease in my property. I make it crystal clear when renting. Had a place rented for 15 years with no problem s and then a new tenant after 2 months complain about damp. Walk in to see 3 clothes horses in the place.

Tried to explain she is causing the problem and would be paying for the damage she caused. Made the same claim that it was raining so where else should she dry them. If it was her own house she wouldn't let it get damaged but as it wasn't she thought I should pay.

The laminate floor was destroyed by having dripping wet clothes around. Replace the wall paper etc...

She of course didn't pay her last month's rent and there was no deposit to fix the place.

beauf · 25-10-2018 3:44pm

Force the places off the market if you are not happy with the condition or the price. Price is being driven by shortage.

There was time when LL had to improve their properties with new sofas and flooring and such to attract good rents. This has now entirely flipped.
All this time the GOVT has simply picked at this open sore making it worse rather than trying to tackle the root cause.

Damp might be caused by the tenant or it might be a structural problem with the property. Could be both. Each case is different.

25-10-2018 4:03pm

Old diesel wrote: »

1) I was told of the sell the house over 3 k of work. I mention it to illustrate the randomness.

2) inspection showed up damp which was a fail. The cited reason by the estate agent writing the blog post was that if the tenant had used the dehumifier provided the house would have showed no signs of damp.

3) expecting top whack 2018 rent for a house with poor insulation or even none is NOT a sustainable long term housing solution.

4) the fact that the landlord might be happy with his standard of home he lives in himself isn't necessarily a guide to what the standard of house the rental sector should provide. My old boss used to love his 1993 Audi with 250 k miles around 2004. He used to provide a brand new vehicle for the sales rep of the reps choice however.

The rep was getting a *nicer* vehicle to drive then the boss. Because when you expect someone to do 1000 miles a week they expect a proper vehicle. Adopting this logic to housing -'what someone may think is okay for their own home might not cut the mustard for the tenant paying 1700 a month.

The problem with your sustainability is that if you take away the rent caps to make investment more attractive - investors make decisions based on unsustainable rent levels higher then they should be.

Paying too much for housing based on being able to get 2 k plus now. And being unable to cope when the market corrects itself.

How do you know there was 3k of work required, relatively speaking 3K is very little in terms of remedial work you could get carried out, I cant see what that amount would do to fix problems, either the problem wasn't that big or it was and it cost more than 3k and you werent told the exact or correct figure, which wouldnt really be your business anyway, its probably a figure just thrown out at you.

Regarding renting a house with poor insulation, well what do you expect? the vast majority of properties in Ireland are poorly insulated, thats down to building regulations and standards, even those that are higher rated have questionable (I consider are insufficient) practicality, mainly related to airtightness, so you want a high quality house that a landlord cant recover the cost on through tax deduction that the majority of home owners dont have?

The reality is the Govt could fix the housing quantity problem & cost to rent and the housing stock quality problem very easily, but they are insistent on taking in significant taxes without alloowing costs to be offset in a reasonable timeframe that discourages or prevents landlords (Im talking small landlords) from investing, which they wont if there is no return, you can let money sit in the bank for no interest if you have it, and you'd still have it if you needed it rather than sink it into an investment and get no return for it, but if you dont have it and need to borrow then you expect someone to pay interest on this and be further into costs than they were before. All the while REITs are allowed buy up property at discount prices at the expense of taxpayers and then pay little or no tax!?

No one is saying landlords shouldnt pay tax, but if the State is not willing to invest in property (which in my opinion they should and could do, but are stage managing the whole situation) and they are willing to let REITs pay none, it would be easy to generate income in a community by allowing landlords to offset tax to have SEAI approved businesses upgrade rental properties up and down the country if landlords signed up to a set rents to set quality, to both improve the real quality of rented properties and reduce the rents, but they are so set on taking in tax, USC, prsi, there is little to nothing and thats if landlords are not already sinking money back in to keep their heads above water, yet REITs can pay no tax and you are happy for them to charge top dollar and spirit this money away out of the country.

None of that even covers delinquent non paying or anti social tenants, or tenants who think they can commit criminal damage, all the problems which affect landlords have a knock on effect to tenants,

The Govt is stage managing the whole thing, they have the means to manage the media and the finger of blame is pointed only at landlords, not at themselves who are the main cause of all the problems.
Are there bad landlords, yes, and they should and could be gotten out. The State could do some very simple things to fix the current problems but are either incompetent or unwilling.

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 4:06pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you dry your clothes inside the house and dont use the dryer or the outside line you are breaking the lease in my property. I make it crystal clear when renting. Had a place rented for 15 years with no problem s and then a new tenant after 2 months complain about damp. Walk in to see 3 clothes horses in the place.

Tried to explain she is causing the problem and would be paying for the damage she caused. Made the same claim that it was raining so where else should she dry them. If it was her own house she wouldn't let it get damaged but as it wasn't she thought I should pay.

The laminate floor was destroyed by having dripping wet clothes around. Replace the wall paper etc...

She of course didn't pay her last month's rent and there was no deposit to fix the place.

I would class using the dryer in the house as "inside the property" so I thought originally you meant don't use a dryer either.

Hence question

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 6:01pm

Old diesel wrote: »

1) I was told of the sell the house over 3 k of work. I mention it to illustrate the randomness.

2) inspection showed up damp which was a fail. The cited reason by the estate agent writing the blog post was that if the tenant had used the dehumifier provided the house would have showed no signs of damp.

3) expecting top whack 2018 rent for a house with poor insulation or even none is NOT a sustainable long term housing solution.

4) the fact that the landlord might be happy with his standard of home he lives in himself isn't necessarily a guide to what the standard of house the rental sector should provide. My old boss used to love his 1993 Audi with 250 k miles around 2004. He used to provide a brand new vehicle for the sales rep of the reps choice however.

The rep was getting a *nicer* vehicle to drive then the boss. Because when you expect someone to do 1000 miles a week they expect a proper vehicle. Adopting this logic to housing -'what someone may think is okay for their own home might not cut the mustard for the tenant paying 1700 a month.

The problem with your sustainability is that if you take away the rent caps to make investment more attractive - investors make decisions based on unsustainable rent levels higher then they should be.

Paying too much for housing based on being able to get 2 k plus now. And being unable to cope when the market corrects itself.

1) so you heard a rumour that somebody did that. It is highly unlikely but very likely hood it is made up and not rue

2) If the tenant has been drying clothes inside the property (as opposed to an appliance) they should be using a dehumidifier. Maybe that is what happened?

3)Rent is more about location than anything else

4)Speaking as a landlord that has insulated all his properties I think it is a very good idea however that was when there were different allowances. They have changed them and I would not do it now and I wouldn't have done it then knowing what the government were going to do. A disincentive to invest now exists.
It costs about 12k to externally insulate a house about 5k to internally do it but about 3k to make all the internal changes so 8k. Pumped insulation is about 4k but only works on certain types of houses. The things is the first two are not an option for many houses without losing period feature like floors, coving, prick features and will cost a lot more than 3k more like 10k to address internally. Think Victorian buildings. The other option only valid on walls with block and/or layered construction. It is not very good

So you can't insulate all properties without a cost beyond money. People buy and rent property because it has original features. There are protection orders on many rented buildings.

If you were to bring in such a requirement it would not be affordable to many landlords so that means they either leave the market or take on more debt which they will be taxed on as it is capital investment later on.

The BER rating is there, tenants have a choice to rent based on rating, location and price. You want to live in a Victorian building it will not be insulated but it might be in a better location at a price they like and more expensive heating. Want to live in a modern place it is insulated, might be worse of better location and more expensive. Just because choice is limited doesn't mean it isn't a choice.

Old diesel wrote: »

I would class using the dryer in the house as "inside the property" so I thought originally you meant don't use a dryer either.

Hence question

You don't have to provide a dryer if there is a place outside to dry clothes. No dryer for those tenants and they can't dry clothes inside the property. Very difficult to put in dryers in older properties.

Old diesel · 25-10-2018 6:29pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

1) so you heard a rumour that somebody did that. It is highly unlikely but very likely hood it is made up and not rue

2) If the tenant has been drying clothes inside the property (as opposed to an appliance) they should be using a dehumidifier. Maybe that is what happened?

3)Rent is more about location than anything else

4)Speaking as a landlord that has insulated all his properties I think it is a very good idea however that was when there were different allowances. They have changed them and I would not do it now and I wouldn't have done it then knowing what the government were going to do. A disincentive to invest now exists.
It costs about 12k to externally insulate a house about 5k to internally do it but about 3k to make all the internal changes so 8k. Pumped insulation is about 4k but only works on certain types of houses. The things is the first two are not an option for many houses without losing period feature like floors, coving, prick features and will cost a lot more than 3k more like 10k to address internally. Think Victorian buildings. The other option only valid on walls with block and/or layered construction. It is not very good

So you can't insulate all properties without a cost beyond money. People buy and rent property because it has original features. There are protection orders on many rented buildings.

If you were to bring in such a requirement it would not be affordable to many landlords so that means they either leave the market or take on more debt which they will be taxed on as it is capital investment later on.

The BER rating is there, tenants have a choice to rent based on rating, location and price. You want to live in a Victorian building it will not be insulated but it might be in a better location at a price they like and more expensive heating. Want to live in a modern place it is insulated, might be worse of better location and more expensive. Just because choice is limited doesn't mean it isn't a choice.

You don't have to provide a dryer if there is a place outside to dry clothes. No dryer for those tenants and they can't dry clothes inside the property. Very difficult to put in dryers in older properties.

What does a place outside actually mean - a shed????.

Rented a room in a place once where the dryer was in a shed out the back - was fine when paying 50 euro a week in 2003.

Ditto the insulation - I had 5 different rentals and all of them weren't great in that regard. 3 of them didn't have dryers but the landlords didn't mind about using clothes horse for drying clothes. (Perhaps they should have minded)

I would not want to pay 1500 euros or more a month for poor insulation if doing lifetime rental. A cold house is seriously annoying.

I trust the person who told me about the selling over the 3 k bill and it was their friend who had the house.

If we are going to do long term rental more as a nation - it seems clear that change is needed.

beauf · 25-10-2018 8:26pm

Old diesel wrote: »

...If we are going to do long term rental more as a nation - it seems clear that change is needed...

Well it won't happen with the current shower in power anyway.

Ray Palmer · 26-10-2018 8:33am

Old diesel wrote: »

What does a place outside actually mean - a shed????.

Rented a room in a place once where the dryer was in a shed out the back - was fine when paying 50 euro a week in 2003.

Ditto the insulation - I had 5 different rentals and all of them weren't great in that regard. 3 of them didn't have dryers but the landlords didn't mind about using clothes horse for drying clothes. (Perhaps they should have minded)

I would not want to pay 1500 euros or more a month for poor insulation if doing lifetime rental. A cold house is seriously annoying.

I trust the person who told me about the selling over the 3 k bill and it was their friend who had the house.

If we are going to do long term rental more as a nation - it seems clear that change is needed.

Do really not understand what outside means?

A dryer is not a requirement for property that has an outside clothes line. A dryer in a shed meets the regulations. My own washer and dryer are in a shed in my own home where I prefer them.

Rentals are a reflection of the housing stock. Some will not be insulated and never will without destroying part of our heritage. You won't find another country that insists historic buildings be brought to modern building standards.

The changes needed are landlord rights before any other. It is too high a risk .

Old diesel · 26-10-2018 9:57am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Do really not understand what outside means?

A dryer is not a requirement for property that has an outside clothes line. A dryer in a shed meets the regulations. My own washer and dryer are in a shed in my own home where I prefer them.

Rentals are a reflection of the housing stock. Some will not be insulated and never will without destroying part of our heritage. You won't find another country that insists historic buildings be brought to modern building standards.

The changes needed are landlord rights before any other. It is too high a risk .

So if we do the following....

Fast eviction of bad tenants.

Reduce tax to very low levels.

Remove rent caps.

Make it all landlord friendly

What rights should the tenant have in return.

Back in the day what used happen is.....

1) rent for a few years.....

2) rent while you build your house.

3) buy or build your own home.

This meant that staying in whatever rental standard was available for a short period was less of an issue. The same with landlords selling up - the tenants didn't need a rental to be their home for longer terms.

It becomes easier now to understand why HAP inspectors can be so fussy*. inspector can't really be expected to sign off a property for social housing support if said property has no insulation and no dryer.

Remember HAP these days effectively means a person's housing need is deemed to be met.

The main challenge in that regard then becomes the potential annoyance of the council running homes of their own of a lower standard then what their inspectors ask of HAP properties.

If a tenant is willing to take on no insulation because they want to live in a victorian building then great.

They should also however have the realistic option NOT to be forced to pay top money for no insulation or no dryer.

So alternative supply chains for rental accommodation is needed. When I see that Hugh Brennan delivering the co op model homes for 170 k a unit for a 3 bed then I can see the makings of an alternative model.

A model based on a 170 k a unit A2/A3 home looks a better model then one based on old random age 300 k homes.

It shouldnt be about "getting rid of landlords" - what it should be about is a rental model for the 21st century needs.

The Student was saying that with Government engagement landlords could solve the problem.

I'm not so sure

*are HAP standards too strict - possibly - but when no dryer or insulation are acceptable it makes it harder for an inspector to avoid taking a hardline.

beauf · 26-10-2018 10:05am

Make it a requirement that all rented housing is of a certain BER rating.

That would do a real hatchet job on the housing shortage

Ray Palmer · 26-10-2018 10:18am

Old diesel wrote: »

So if we do the following....

Fast eviction of bad tenants.

Reduce tax to very low levels.

Remove rent caps.

Make it all landlord friendly

What rights should the tenant have in return.

Back in the day what used happen is.....

1) rent for a few years.....

2) rent while you build your house.

3) buy or build your own home.

This meant that staying in whatever rental standard was available for a short period was less of an issue. The same with landlords selling up - the tenants didn't need a rental to be their home for longer terms.

It becomes easier now to understand why HAP inspectors can be so fussy*. inspector can't really be expected to sign off a property for social housing support if said property has no insulation and no dryer.

Remember HAP these days effectively means a person's housing need is deemed to be met.

The main challenge in that regard then becomes the potential annoyance of the council running homes of their own of a lower standard then what their inspectors ask of HAP properties.

If a tenant is willing to take on no insulation because they want to live in a victorian building then great.

They should also however have the realistic option NOT to be forced to pay top money for no insulation or no dryer.

So alternative supply chains for rental accommodation is needed. When I see that Hugh Brennan delivering the co op model homes for 170 k a unit for a 3 bed then I can see the makings of an alternative model.

A model based on a 170 k a unit A2/A3 home looks a better model then one based on old random age 300 k homes.

It shouldnt be about "getting rid of landlords" - what it should be about is a rental model for the 21st century needs.

The Student was saying that with Government engagement landlords could solve the problem.

I'm not so sure

*are HAP standards too strict - possibly - but when no dryer or insulation are acceptable it makes it harder for an inspector to avoid taking a hardline.

At no point have I said tax on rent should very little. I said it should work like other businesses and should not have increased the way it did.

Tenants already have plenty of rights far in excess of what the landlord has. The changes would be to redress this inbalance.

The majority of council housing doesn't have insulated walls. The majority of Irish housing stock also doesn't have it either.

You are suggesting removing the majority of rented property off the market. That will really help supply. What about all the people that don't want to move out of the area they grew up in?

How do you even think this would work?

You have a very blinkers view of how people rent. I know lots of people who have always rented. I have a tenant for 30 years.

Fol20 · 26-10-2018 10:18am

Old diesel wrote: »

So if we do the following....

Fast eviction of bad tenants.

Reduce tax to very low levels.

Remove rent caps.

Make it all landlord friendly

What rights should the tenant have in return.

Back in the day what used happen is.....

1) rent for a few years.....

2) rent while you build your house.

3) buy or build your own home.

This meant that staying in whatever rental standard was available for a short period was less of an issue. The same with landlords selling up - the tenants didn't need a rental to be their home for longer terms.

It becomes easier now to understand why HAP inspectors can be so fussy*. inspector can't really be expected to sign off a property for social housing support if said property has no insulation and no dryer.

Remember HAP these days effectively means a person's housing need is deemed to be met.

The main challenge in that regard then becomes the potential annoyance of the council running homes of their own of a lower standard then what their inspectors ask of HAP properties.

If a tenant is willing to take on no insulation because they want to live in a victorian building then great.

They should also however have the realistic option NOT to be forced to pay top money for no insulation or no dryer.

So alternative supply chains for rental accommodation is needed. When I see that Hugh Brennan delivering the co op model homes for 170 k a unit for a 3 bed then I can see the makings of an alternative model.

A model based on a 170 k a unit A2/A3 home looks a better model then one based on old random age 300 k homes.

It shouldnt be about "getting rid of landlords" - what it should be about is a rental model for the 21st century needs.

The Student was saying that with Government engagement landlords could solve the problem.

I'm not so sure

*are HAP standards too strict - possibly - but when no dryer or insulation are acceptable it makes it harder for an inspector to avoid taking a hardline.

You Keep mentioning dryer. This is not part of the min requirements and shouldnt be one either. If people can dry their clothes outsides, why can they not do this? I got by when i was younger and dryers imo would be a luxury. Ironically i have found some of my tenants even though they live in apartments and are meant to be using dryers, due to electricity costs and other reasons, they prefer to dry their clothes on a rack instead.

You also keep talking about 170k for a home. Where exactly would you get that price in the major cities especially dublin. The cost of land alone would be over half that cost and you cant exactly build a home for 50k. Where will all this money come from. and please point me in any direction where people can get a home for around that price.

Old diesel · 26-10-2018 10:27am

beauf wrote: »

Make it a requirement that all rented housing is of a certain BER rating.

That would do a real hatchet job on the housing shortage

I'm not saying to make A3 rated BER or even any specific BER obligatory.

I'm saying that a new model is likely needed for the 21st century.

My original point really is that when I see the following....

1) A rated houses under co op housing for 170 k a unit.

2) 850 a month mortgage for said 170 k homes.

I wonder if the landlord is actually too expensive to keep happy. Or rather his or her business model.

The problem starts when you look at a 1500 per month rent over the longer term.

Over 40 years at a constant 1500 per month a tenant will have paid 720 k in rent.

Obviously inflation will cancel that out to a degree.

But 720 k is by any standard a huge amount of money.

That's when the expensive model issue starts to raise it's head.

Fol20 · 26-10-2018 10:37am

Your never going to achieve 170k homes. That’s below cost to build it incl land. Unless it’s ultra high density housing with smaller housing. This will never happen in a bigger scale that your looking for.

Ray Palmer · 26-10-2018 11:04am

Old diesel wrote: »

I'm not saying to make A3 rated BER or even any specific BER obligatory.

I'm saying that a new model is likely needed for the 21st century.

My original point really is that when I see the following....

1) A rated houses under co op housing for 170 k a unit.

2) 850 a month mortgage for said 170 k homes.

I wonder if the landlord is actually too expensive to keep happy. Or rather his or her business model.

The problem starts when you look at a 1500 per month rent over the longer term.

Over 40 years at a constant 1500 per month a tenant will have paid 720 k in rent.

Obviously inflation will cancel that out to a degree.

But 720 k is by any standard a huge amount of money.

That's when the expensive model issue starts to raise it's head.

Renting is more expensive than buying long term. That is not going to change. Subsidised accomadation provided by charity or the state is preciesely that subsidised with somebody else paying. It is being paid for. Charitues dont pay tax so that is how they afford it.

Location, location , location is always the main 3 parts to pricing.

You are only looking at costs to tenants and ignore all costs to landlords. They aren't charities and take risk and put money in to provide the accomadation services and are due a return.

It isn't going to change and is centuries old.

Old diesel · 26-10-2018 11:22am

Fol20 wrote: »

You Keep mentioning dryer. This is not part of the min requirements and shouldnt be one either. If people can dry their clothes outsides, why can they not do this? I got by when i was younger and dryers imo would be a luxury. Ironically i have found some of my tenants even though they live in apartments and are meant to be using dryers, due to electricity costs and other reasons, they prefer to dry their clothes on a rack instead.

You also keep talking about 170k for a home. Where exactly would you get that price in the major cities especially dublin. The cost of land alone would be over half that cost and you cant exactly build a home for 50k. Where will all this money come from. and please point me in any direction where people can get a home for around that price.

Hugh Brennan and O Cauleann are delivering homes under the Co op model for 170 k a unit. DCC let him have the land for 1 k a unit.

This would be regarded as unsustainably priced land by most - as in far too cheap.

But the whole housing model is @#$&÷# generally.

If buIlder A can deliver a home for 170 k on 1 k a plot land and builder B has to charge 350 k a unit for the exact same house because builder B paid 150 k a unit - then Builder Bs land was far too expensive.

This ISNT builder Bs fault - he's working the land he was able to get his hands on at market rate.

Market rate sadly is too dear in housing for land, houses and rents.

Where do we get the money......

So the state invests in land - that's a huge upfront cost for the state. There is a return over the long term however

The return is the wider society benefits of people paying 850 to 1 k in mortgage or rent vs paying 2 k in rent.

Every euro someone saves on rent is equivalent to 1 euro tax free extra income a year.

This money goes back into the economy.....

1) going out to dinner.

2) weekend away in Killarney.

3) new car from the local dealer - this also means VRT for Govt.

In addition the wider economy has less upward pressure on wages.

That's the long term return on putting the money into housing for Govt. The process of building homes is itself good for the economy.

Now where is the money going to come from to keep high rents with no rent controls lubricated going to come from?????.

The reason no rent controls is seen as the best way to sort supply is that an investor will be more likely to invest if he or she has no rent restriction.

There are a number of difficulties with this....

1) rent is ALREADY at unsustainably high levels even with caps.

2) an investor attracted by the high rents and who needs uncapped rents will make decisions based on expected high rents. We know high rents are expected if a 4 percent restriction on rent increases is a barrier to entry.

3) if an investor makes investment decisions like what price to pay for a unit based on today's rent there are two potential outcomes a) he wants to undersupply the market. Or b) he hasn't done proper due diligence on what happens if rent drops. EITHER scenario suggest he's not the guy to solve housing.

I'm very much in the social and affordable housing solutions (rent or buy) camp.

At current rents it's not acceptable to be trying to find a day in November to dry your clothes on a line. That's outdated nonsense.

A dryer might sound like a first world issue but to me objecting to providing one is entirely at odds with the landlords can solve the issue with enagement point I was originally replying to.

The Student · 26-10-2018 11:56am

Old diesel wrote: »

So if we do the following....

Fast eviction of bad tenants.

Reduce tax to very low levels.

Remove rent caps.

Make it all landlord friendly

What rights should the tenant have in return.

Back in the day what used happen is.....

1) rent for a few years.....

2) rent while you build your house.

3) buy or build your own home.

This meant that staying in whatever rental standard was available for a short period was less of an issue. The same with landlords selling up - the tenants didn't need a rental to be their home for longer terms.

It becomes easier now to understand why HAP inspectors can be so fussy*. inspector can't really be expected to sign off a property for social housing support if said property has no insulation and no dryer.

Remember HAP these days effectively means a person's housing need is deemed to be met.

The main challenge in that regard then becomes the potential annoyance of the council running homes of their own of a lower standard then what their inspectors ask of HAP properties.

If a tenant is willing to take on no insulation because they want to live in a victorian building then great.

They should also however have the realistic option NOT to be forced to pay top money for no insulation or no dryer.

So alternative supply chains for rental accommodation is needed. When I see that Hugh Brennan delivering the co op model homes for 170 k a unit for a 3 bed then I can see the makings of an alternative model.

A model based on a 170 k a unit A2/A3 home looks a better model then one based on old random age 300 k homes.

It shouldnt be about "getting rid of landlords" - what it should be about is a rental model for the 21st century needs.

The Student was saying that with Government engagement landlords could solve the problem.

I'm not so sure

*are HAP standards too strict - possibly - but when no dryer or insulation are acceptable it makes it harder for an inspector to avoid taking a hardline.

People are charged what the market sets. You want the private landlord to house people on the councils rents and therefore make losses.

Landlords could help if there was a more balanced approach taken. But the State just introduces laws that make it more difficult to be a landlord.

Who invests for a long period if the State keeps changing the trading environment and then locks in any chance of actually making a profit. When the downturn happened rents fell through the floor and we had to subsidize mortgages (did you we any help from anyone - in a word no)

We have a system that we don't know what is and is not allowed to justify a rent increase.

The cost of property includes land costs so it is inappropriate to compare state supplied land with privately purchased land. If the State can provide A2/A3 rated houses for €170k then why aren't they doing so in large numbers.

If you want the housing crisis to be fixed the increase supply and then landlords will be required to improve properties to complete.

And just a comment on your view regarding the drier. I actually think your attitude to this is quiet funny. I grew up in the 70's in a house built in the 70's and never had a drier then and still don't and guess what I can dry my clothes without the need for one and I live in Ireland and yes I get the same weather everybody else does and still I can dry my clothes without a drier and without getting damp or mould in the house. And I am living in a different house on the same road I grew up in and it comes no where near A2/A3 BER.

Ray Palmer · 26-10-2018 12:04pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Hugh Brennan and O Cauleann are delivering homes under the Co op model for 170 k a unit. DCC let him have the land for 1 k a unit.

Who gets these cheap houses? What is too much to earn to get them?

Graham · 26-10-2018 12:12pm

Mod Note

Guys, it's not necessary to quote long posts in full, particularly when your reply follows on. Boardsies on mobile phones are starting to develop RSI from all the scrolling.

handlemaster · 26-10-2018 3:58pm

RayCun wrote: »

mrslancaster wrote: »

You are also not considering that most businesses can charge more to other customers to offset a loss from a non-paying customer.

In some cases they could increase their prices immediately as they are not price controlled. As far as I know that option is not available to A LL. Or they may have insurance to cover situations like that.

And landlords can increase rent. Yes, there are some limits in RPZs, but their hands are not completely tied.

A quick google shows lots of offers of landlord insurance, in Ireland.

"Loss of rent up to 15% of combined Building Sum Insured & Contents Sum Insured if a buy-to-let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

Non paying tenants is the main issue which is not insurable

Claw Hammer · 26-10-2018 5:27pm

Rent caps are making things worse. People who would have moved or downsized are staying where they are because of capped rent. This is making the use of housing less efficient. The price of non capped property is higher. The whole thing is a mess.

Not worth the hassle?

Comments