Its bash the landlord time again

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

Would you have any evidence of these claims apart from the noises coming out of the landlord lobby? Genuine question, I hear about these problems a bit, but the only piece of evidence provided is private landlords leaving the market, which isn't evidence in itself.

In a very recent post The Conductor linked to an RTE report which made it fairly obvious:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057937707

"Number of landlords and the overall number of verifiable tenancies- are both falling- with an absolute fall in the number of landlords of about 1,700- representing a little over 9,000 properties (which it appears were almost exclusively sold as PPRs to owner occupiers- rather than to other landlords)."

Mickiemcfist

kalych wrote: »

Would you have any evidence of these claims apart from the noises coming out of the landlord lobby? Genuine question, I hear about these problems a bit, but the only piece of evidence provided is private landlords leaving the market, which isn't evidence in itself.

You need evidence to point out that tax is high here? Do you work?
Did you happen to see the roscommon debacle in the news? Evictions here are incredibly difficult. Re interference, look up rent pressure zones & the new airbnb restrictions.

Old diesel

10pennymixup wrote: »

In a very recent post The Conductor linked to an RTE report which made it fairly obvious:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057937707

"Number of landlords and the overall number of verifiable tenancies- are both falling- with an absolute fall in the number of landlords of about 1,700- representing a little over 9,000 properties (which it appears were almost exclusively sold as PPRs to owner occupiers- rather than to other landlords)."

Is there anyway of measuring where those owner occupiers were living before.....

I mean if many of these owner occupiers came from been tenants - that in turn frees up supply.

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

In a very recent post The Conductor linked to an RTE report which made it fairly obvious:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057937707

"Number of landlords and the overall number of verifiable tenancies- are both falling- with an absolute fall in the number of landlords of about 1,700- representing a little over 9,000 properties (which it appears were almost exclusively sold as PPRs to owner occupiers- rather than to other landlords)."

I recongnise this may be a contentious issue, but I don't agree that private landlords exiting the market as a sign of increased regulation. a CGT exemption being brought forward and competition with institutional investors at the top of the market could equally be the cause of the increased number exiting the market.

I don't agree that we need to subsidise private landlords by reducing regulation just because they find it hard to compete at the top end of the market.

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

Is there anyway of measuring where those owner occupiers were living before.....

I mean if many of these owner occupiers came from been tenants - that in turn frees up supply.

A lot would have been living at home to save for the mortgage, we have a large quantity of emigrants that are looking for accomodation here and we cant meet the demand for them. And thats at current levels. With the supply decreasing, only one thing can happen. Rental prices will go up further, tenants will blame the greedy ll. And ll will either stick out the market due to higher and higher rents or leave if they are getting fed up with how the goal post is changed so often. Its a mever ending cycle where both ll and tenants are in a loose loose situation.

beauf

10pennymixup wrote: »

My post was a comment on the poor journalistic standards of a news article.

You quoted me and asked how many of the new 200 presentations of homelessness per month did DCC actually build??!? and then link to an Irish Times article on fast track housing.

Can you please clarify whatever point you were trying to make at 02:30 in the morning.

DCC are delivering less houses than last year. So it's a inevitable that most evictions are coming from private rentals. Because who else is providing stock to rent. DCC subletting from private market is still private stock. Most rental housing is from the private rental market.

As everyone has pointed out it's a click bait article with no journalism or facts in it what so ever. It's a PR piece for the govt to deflect from their abject failure on housing, and health.

It populist as so many are effected by the housing crisis.

10pennymixup

Old diesel wrote: »

Is there anyway of measuring where those owner occupiers were living before.....

I mean if many of these owner occupiers came from been tenants - that in turn frees up supply.

Hold on I'll go ask them

I replied to someone looking for more than anecdotal evidence of LL's leaving the rental market. As such it doesn't matter if the houses were sold to former tenants, what matters is LL's were the ones who sold and didn't sell to other LL's. ie the the properties were removed from the rental market

beauf

kalych wrote: »

I recongnise this may be a contentious issue, but I don't agree that private landlords exiting the market as a sign of increased regulation. a CGT exemption being brought forward and competition with institutional investors at the top of the market could equally be the cause of the increased number exiting the market.

I don't agree that we need to subsidise private landlords by reducing regulation just because they find it hard to compete at the top end of the market.

You're missing the main issue.

The issue for LL is high risk of losses. Overholding and damage. It's the lack of regulation for protecting LL that's the issue.

That has got worse not better. Is less risk for a new or larger LL as they can charge higher rents to migate the risk.

If the response to that is they should just get out of the business then yes that's exactly what they are doing. But that makes the crisis worse.

The new regulations are just pouring fuel on the fire.

beauf

10pennymixup wrote: »

...As such it doesn't matter if the houses were sold to former tenants, what matters is LL's were the ones who sold and didn't sell to other LL's. ie the the properties were removed from the rental market

Increased supply only works if it matches demand. Demand is increasing far beyond supply.

mikemac2

Calina wrote: »

I lived in Dublin for 17 years. In that time, I had one decent landlord and plenty of distinctly average to lousy ones. When I left Dublin, rent accounted for over 50% of my income. I now live in Luxembourg, where rent is less than 30% of my income. To get in Dublin what I have in Luxembourg, I would have had to pay at least 800e a month more than I do if it even exists. Rents in Dublin are outrageous, in particular as a function of incomes. It is galling to hear/read landlords whinge about how hard they have it in that context.

Rents in Luxembourg are sky high !!

The same grumbling about feckless landlords robbing deposits for spurious reasons and rip off rent prices happen in Lux just as much as Dublin.

A poster here earlier was happy with their rent in Belgium and I’m sure they are. I don’t think Luxembourg can be held up as an example of a tenants paradise

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

I recongnise this may be a contentious issue, but I don't agree that private landlords exiting the market as a sign of increased regulation. a CGT exemption being brought forward and competition with institutional investors at the top of the market could equally be the cause of the increased number exiting the market.

I don't agree that we need to subsidise private landlords by reducing regulation just because they find it hard to compete at the top end of the market.

Do you really believe making it possible for a LL to remove a bad tenant easier would somehow subsidise LL's.
A lot of property being sold is not subject to CGT, you have to make a gain to pay that tax.
And in this market, what LL fears competition from REIT's or any other LL?


A little while ago you wanted empirical evidence that LL's are leaving the rental market, that you didn't believe the stories. Now it's they're leaving because of competition from REITs?

beauf

The problem is all over Europe it coincides with a lack of investment in social housing by governments.

kalych

beauf wrote: »

You're missing the main issue.

The issue for LL is high risk of losses. Overholding and damage. It's the lack of regulation for protecting LL that's the issue.

That has got worse not better. Is less risk for a new or larger LL as they can charge higher rents to migate the risk.

If the response to that is they should just get out of the business then yes that's exactly what they are doing. But that makes the crisis worse.

The new regulations are just pouring fuel on the fire.

I'm not missing anything, I just don't agree with your view.
There are alternatives to resolving the rental crisis that does not involve reducing renters' rights, which is always an easy way out, but not productive for our economy.

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

Do you really believe making it possible for a LL to remove a bad tenant easier would somehow subsidise LL's.
A lot of property being sold is not subject to CGT, you have to make a gain to pay that tax.
And in this market, what LL fears competition from REIT's or any other LL?


A little while ago you wanted empirical evidence that LL's are leaving the rental market, that you didn't believe the stories. Now it's they're leaving because of competition from REITs?

I wasn't looking for evidence of LL leaving the market. You must have misread my post.

10pennymixup

beauf wrote: »

The problem is all over Europe it coincides with a lack of investment in social housing by governments.

I like this style of post, one with out quotes from other posters that have no real correlation to your posts.

I also happen to agree with it.

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

I wasn't looking for evidence of LL leaving the market. You must have misread my post.

Then what were you looking for?

beauf

kalych wrote: »

I'm not missing anything, I just don't agree with your view.
There are alternatives to resolving the rental crisis that does not involve reducing renters' rights, which is always an easy way out, but not productive for our economy.

I didn't mention reducing tenant rights.

Because that's not the issue.

Ignoring the root cause and just looking at the symptoms is why we are in the middle of the crisis. You seem determined to keep doing that and this making it worse.

Good luck with that. Seems to be working exactly as predicted.

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

Then what were you looking for?

Evidence that LL leaving the market is caused by the factors outlined in the post I quoted.:)

Calina

mikemac2 wrote: »

Rents in Luxembourg are sky high !!

The same grumbling about feckless landlords robbing deposits for spurious reasons and rip off rent prices happen in Lux just as much as Dublin.

A poster here earlier was happy with their rent in Belgium and I’m sure they are. I don’t think Luxembourg can be held up as an example of a tenants paradise

Compared to Dublin, in my experience, they are not. Salaries in Lux tend to be higher so the relationship between salary and rent is less horrific. Reform is coming in terms of agency fees and the industry is less broken in terms of trust. Services in Lux are way, way better than in Dublin.

I didn't say Lux was a paradise. But I did say it was a far better experience than Dublin is. And I stand over that.

beauf

I think the govt plan was always to create value for big investors to pump money into the govt.

So housing is now an investment vehicle rather than a social need, requirement.

The housing crisis doesn't effect the govt as they keep getting elected regardless So they don't care about that.

Which explains why they have done less each year to increase supply or fix the crisis.

beauf

Small Landlords are are less effective in creating income for the govt than larger ones. So they don't care about them either.

kalych

beauf wrote: »

I think the govt plan was always to create value for big investors to pump money into the govt.

So housing is now an investment vehicle rather than a social need, requirement.

The housing crisis doesn't effect the govt as they keep getting elected regardless So they don't care about that.

Which explains why they have done less each year to increase supply or fix the crisis.

On this we definitely agree. One point however, anyone can invest into REIT or Hibernia or even Green REIT. Other than that you're absolutely correct.

Raging_Ninja

kalych wrote: »

Evidence that LL leaving the market is caused by the factors outlined in the post I quoted.:)

Well you don't seem to believe the reasons given by landlords associations.

kalych

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Well you don't seem to believe the reasons given by landlords associations.

It's not that I don't believe them. just above the poster perfectly outlined the government policy: replace private LL with institutional ones.

I believe that the landlords association realises this and is trying to use any means possible to fight back, including trying to survive at the expense of delaying regulations aimed at strengthening renters rights. Notice that REITs while the biggest property investors in this county do not protest renters' rights being strengthened.

Just an observation, guys :P I'm not looking to attack anyone. Just believe private LL argument is disingenuous. The issue in reality is competition.

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

Evidence that LL leaving the market is caused by the factors outlined in the post I quoted.:)

Sorry can't provide you with this evidence, only that LL's are leaving after a period in time when more and more regulation has been introduced that lessens their property rights. And at a time of record rents

If you can't make the connection then keep on believing it's because of competition from REITs etc

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

Sorry can't provide you with this evidence, only that LL's are leaving after a period in time when more and more regulation has been introduced that lessens their property rights. And at a time of record rents

If you can't make the connection then keep on believing it's because of competition from REITs etc

Thank you for your honesty

amcalester

beauf wrote: »

Small Landlords are are less effective in creating income for the govt than larger ones. So they don't care about them either.

Is that true? The REITs pay very little tax in Ireland, they’re set up in a similar way to charities whereas the 1 or 2 property landlord is paying through the nose (like a lot of non-landlords TBF).

Grumpypants

kalych wrote: »

I recongnise this may be a contentious issue, but I don't agree that private landlords exiting the market as a sign of increased regulation. a CGT exemption being brought forward and competition with institutional investors at the top of the market could equally be the cause of the increased number exiting the market.

I don't agree that we need to subsidise private landlords by reducing regulation just because they find it hard to compete at the top end of the market.

No one wants a subsidy. We just want legal protection when a tenant refuses to pay rent or does thousands of euros worth of damage. And a register of those who have a track record of not paying rent.

It would be nice if the REITS paid some tax in line with the 58% we pay. It would just be fair.

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

It's not that I don't believe them. just above the poster perfectly outlined the government policy: replace private LL with institutional ones.

I believe that the landlords association realises this and is trying to use any means possible to fight back, including trying to survive at the expense of delaying regulations aimed at strengthening renters rights. Notice that REITs while the biggest property investors in this county do not protest renters' rights being strengthened.

Just an observation, guys :P I'm not looking to attack anyone. Just believe private LL argument is disingenuous. The issue in reality is competition.

No LL association in Ireland has lobbying power strong enough to "fight back".

Two years ago the IPOA tried to advise their members on how to introduce charges different to rent. They were investigated by the CCPC for breaking anti competetion laws and had to retract, enter into legal agreements to stop their arses being dragged into court.

titan18

kalych wrote:

Just an observation, guys I'm not looking to attack anyone. Just believe private LL argument is disingenuous. The issue in reality is competition.

I think that argument is retarded. The Reits are earning far more of their rent than smaller scale landlords as they're not paying anywhere close to the same tax rates. A lot of their properties seem to me be at a higher end of the market too, and of course if they've got a few problem tenants, it's not a huge concern as most will be fine and paying rent. If a smaller landlord has 1/2 tenants not paying, that could be their whole income gone.

Any little bit of thinking about it would see competition argument as retarded tbh.

kalych

Grumpypants wrote: »

No one wants a subsidy. We just want legal protection when a tenant refuses to pay rent or does thousands of euros worth of damage. And a register of those who have a track record of not paying rent.

It would be nice if the REITS paid some tax in line with the 58% we pay. It would just be fair.

Agreed, however that's not the argument most private LL go to when new renters' rights are announced. They go straight to renterbashing. I fully agree that REITs need to be made pay more taxes. That's a completely separate issue though.

Private LL need to stop piling everything together: renters, PRTB, taxes, REITs, etc. The reason people don't support their argument is that they are prepared to blame anyone and everyone instead of correctly pointing out to the rest of the country to pressure politicians to make REITs pay more taxes.

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

Thank you for your honesty

There is no evidence to present, it's never been collated.

Simple_Simone

Deleted User wrote: »

I really believe that funding should be stopped immediately to ALL homeless charities. Vouched costs only should be considered.

Alternatively, maybe the government should fund Landlords' Representative organisations as well as the many charity/lobby groups representing tenants and the homeless!

We could call it "parity of esteem"!

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

No LL association in Ireland has lobbying power strong enough to "fight back".

Two years ago the IPOA tried to advise their members on how to introduce charges different to rent. They were investigated by the CCPC for breaking anti competetion laws and had to retract, enter into legal agreements to stop their arses being dragged into court.

So the LL solution as evidenced on this thread is to bash the renters? :eek: you do see how the private LL are alienating the rest of the country? We all want the properly functioning rental market. Let's just make sure our messages are clear. Renters' rights aren't your problem.

kalych

titan18 wrote: »

I think that argument is retarded. The Reits are earning far more of their rent than smaller scale landlords as they're not paying anywhere close to the same tax rates. A lot of their properties seem to me be at a higher end of the market too, and of course if they've got a few problem tenants, it's not a huge concern as most will be fine and paying rent. If a smaller landlord has 1/2 tenants not paying, that could be their whole income gone.

Any little bit of thinking about it would see competition argument as retarded tbh.

As I continue to say, your solution is to bash renters' rights in response? Good luck with that :rolleyes:

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

So the LL solution as evidenced on this thread is to bash the renters? :eek: you do see how the private LL are alienating the rest of the country? We all want the properly functioning rental market. Let's just make sure our messages are clear. Renters' rights aren't your problem.

Where's the renter bashing on this thread.

I've read posts about journalist bashing over poor standards, government bashing over unequal and mostly unworkable (for LL's) legislation.

I see how populist base journalism and certain politicians alienating and demonising LL's, not LL's alienating the rest of the country.

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

Where's the renter bashing on this thread.

I've read posts about journalist bashing over poor standards, government bashing over unequal and mostly unworkable (for LL's) legislation.

I see how populist base journalism and certain politicians alienating and demonising LL's, not LL's alienating the rest of the country.

Posts 17, 19, 32, 44 are some examples. Luckily in the last 2 pages out of 6 we actually had some semblance of a discussion, so there seems to be less of it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t agree that the government is responsible for the housing crisis. Personal responsibility has a huge part to play. ie, one works, saves and buys a home. By all means have the Government come to the aid of those who fall on hard times. If one is unfortunate enough to find themselves homeless it shouldn’t matter a jot if a home is provided for them in Ballymun, Ballyhaunis or Ballygobackward. One refusal and they’re on their own.
I really believe that funding should be stopped immediately to ALL homeless charities. Vouched costs only should be considered.
ALL outstanding rents to be collected immediately.

The Student wrote: »

That's not the point. Every able bodied person should contribute to society.

The Student wrote: »

Trying to get the council to even cut the grass in my area is nigh on impossible. So supplying extra resources at no addition cost would ease the demand on existing employees. But sure hey let's just give the unemployed a free ride.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Sounds like you did the right thing and took personal responsibility and moved country to work and pay rent.

Unlike those that refuse to work and demand a free house in an area of their choice, turn down free houses in other parts of the country and still claim to be homeless.

It's not helped by the social left telling everyone that housing is a right and they will stop banks evicting people who don't pay their tax or bills.

kalych wrote: »

Posts 17, 19, 32, 44 are some examples. Luckily in the last 2 pages out of 6 we actually had some semblance of a discussion, so there seems to be less of it.

The posts in question.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Small Landlords are are less effective in creating income for the govt than larger ones. So they don't care about them either.

What are you talking about?

Simple_Simone

Simple_Simone wrote: »

Alternatively, maybe the government should fund Landlords' Representative organisations as well as the many charity/lobby groups representing tenants and the homeless!

We could call it "parity of esteem"!

I just think that the money would be better spent actually building homes rather than supporting a multitude of homeless charities. After all the most of the money goes on wages, followed by costs of fundraising with very little being spent on those they claim to care for.

Roger_007

Is there any way of finding out how much mullah the revenue rakes in annually from private landlords?
Every time rents go up by a certain percentage, the government benefits by the same percentage!

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Can you ask a specific question.

Big investors are building and buying large amounts of property then renting it out at high end. Which is attractive for workers coming to Ireland.

Small landlord renting one house and not raising the rent for years isn't what they want.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I just think that the money would be better spent actually building homes rather than supporting a multitude of homeless charities. After all the most of the money goes on wages, followed by costs of fundraising with very little being spent on those they claim to care for.

I agree with this. It’s a ludicrous concept.

I also think that the idea of a social house for life should be overhauled. What benefit to society as a whole is there in a single person living in a social house for their eternity whilst families struggle to find anywhere?

10pennymixup

10pennymixup wrote: »

Where's the tenant/ renter bashing. These posts could be classed as dole bashing not tenant bashing.

I dunno. I just posted them for reference.

beauf

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

The posts in question.

Seems to me...

That's nothing to do with renter rights.

But about social welfare.

.. Maybe I'm wrong.

10pennymixup

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I dunno. I just posted them for reference.

Sorry quoted you instead

Grumpypants

Landlords love a good tenant. They will routinely keep rents well below asking price rather 5han risk the unknown. That should tell you something about the rental market.

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

Posts 17, 19, 32, 44 are some examples. Luckily in the last 2 pages out of 6 we actually had some semblance of a discussion, so there seems to be less of it.

Where's the tenant/ renter bashing. These posts could be classed as dole bashing not tenant bashing.

kalych

10pennymixup wrote: »

Where's the tenant/ renter bashing. These posts could be classed as dole bashing not tenant bashing.

And there's the issue. REITs take the best tenants at the top of the market. Private LLs are left with the lower end, that have restrictive controls put in place by the government (RAS, HAP). Hence the dole bashing. Dole people are mostly renters

10pennymixup

kalych wrote: »

And there's the issue. REITs take the best tenants at the top of the market. Private LLs are left with the lower end, that have restrictive controls put in place by the government (RAS, HAP). Hence the dole bashing. Dole people are mostly renters

Sticking a smiley face at the end of your posts does not give them any credence.

"Dole people" are mostly renters. Reits get the best tenants. Smiley face, it must be true.

Wheres your evidence to back up such crass statements? (Rhetorical, I don't really need it and it doesn't exist anyway mainly because its not true.)

First you wanted evidence of LL's leaving, then it changed to evidence of the reasons they're leaving (impossible to get), then it was accusations of tenant bashing. Now tenant bashing is changed to dole bashing.

How about some consistency:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)