Its bash the landlord time again

murphaph

kalych wrote: »

Because otherwise he will not be a LL for too much longer.
People are happy to pay REITs the money, because they get a professional service, best quality product (with updates and upkeep) AND you can actually invest into REITs and as the price of rent increases so does your investment.

Private LL proposition does very little in return in terms of competing and instead blames the said renter for wanting more rent controls.

You can surely see how that's a losing battle. Nobody is saying the private LLs are bad or anything, it's just that their product is obsolete. It only survives on constrained supply, but market does change. As soon as the renter has a choice they choose not to consume a private LL product.

I can tell you that my one Irish residential property can be let in minutes. It's a 3 bed semi in a Dublin suburb and these sorts of properties are becoming as rare as hen's teeth in the rental sector.

REITs have no interest whatsoever in offering this type of property to rent and as landlords sell up fewer and fewer of these properties remain available.

If the government succeeds in driving everyone but the REITs out then you will have availability of apartments in cities and larger towns and nothing anywhere else.

handlemaster

The irish people will be very soon paying out ig fines for missing climate change targets. Better for the government to pay for upgrading property in the form of tax deductable expense than throwing the money abroad.

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

The irish people will be very soon paying out ig fines for missing climate change targets. Better for the government to pay for upgrading property in the form of tax deductable expense than throwing the money abroad.

Its only 350m per annum lads- whats that among friends? A hospital or two?

the_syco

Old diesel wrote: »

If you want Government and the public to buy into your offering then you need to show why your product is superior to REITs, Vienna style public housing or subsidised housing, Co Op housing etc.

And cheaper.

Old diesel wrote: »

You would need to show how with the changes you need - lower tax, faster evictions of tenants and other changes you think will help - how you can deliver a value for money affordable decent quality offering.

"faster evictions of tenants"? Good luck with that!

Old diesel wrote: »

Why would I want to pay 2300 for a 1980s 3 bed per month if I can get an A3 rated house on a mortgage via Co Op housing for 850 a month.

What is the benefit of paying the difference of 1450 euros a month.

Usually location. Bad areas may be subsidised, but only the locals will want to live there.

kalych wrote: »

Because otherwise he will not be a LL for too much longer.

Actually, he will be. He just won't be able to take on HAP tenants.

kalych wrote: »

People are happy to pay REITs the money, because they get a professional service, best quality product (with updates and upkeep) AND you can actually invest into REITs and as the price of rent increases so does your investment.

And because they are the cheapest option for what they get.

kalych wrote: »

Private LL proposition does very little in return in terms of competing and instead blames the said renter for wanting more rent controls.

The only LL's that don't like the rent controls are the LL's who kept their rent low for the good tenants. The LL's that charged as much as they could don't have this problem.

kalych wrote: »

You can surely see how that's a losing battle. Nobody is saying the private LLs are bad or anything, it's just that their product is obsolete. It only survives on constrained supply, but market does change. As soon as the renter has a choice they choose not to consume a private LL product.

LL's will always exist. Haven't seen any REITs exist outside the cities.

kalych wrote: »

I disagree with your point above, as per this:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/landlord-body-rebuked-for-telling-members-to-introduce-charges-1.2944666

The IPOA are fairly useless. When there are only REITS left in Dublin, they'll all be the maximum price they can operate at, and rents will only rise. Giving anyone "a break" is bad for business, and will not be entertained. If you can't pay, eviction will occur, and 100 more people will line the halls to apply for the place.

terrydel

Calina wrote: »

In my experience there were not many of these good ones. There were impossible to deal with clowns who didn't sell on trading up but still saw their first/now investment as "their" home and their tenants as living in "their" home. I have always felt that the rental market in Dublin was immensely damaged by the excessive numbers of casual landlords.

I consider myself very left wing, especially in the economic sense.
However, and possibly at odds with that, at least in the eyes of some, I am a landlord. Myself and my brother bought a small apartment in 05, when both single, lived there for a time and in 08 where trying to buy a semi detached when it all went tits up. We always wanted to live in the semi detached and rent the apartment out. We'd cross the bridge of selling / buying one another out on the house if it came to that. We had no desire to be landlords for anything beyond that apartment.
Long story short, we spent years thru the courts with the builder on the house, ultimately not buying it but losing a fair chunk of money in the process. I managed to keep my job but my brother has a tough time like many thru the recession. I became a renter in 2010 after a period back home, he moved abroad to work after time out of work, and went thru various careers for a number of years.
During that time we rented out the apartment, in the main to SW tenants, who I've no issue with at all, I take people as I find them. For many years particularly later on, we rented way below market value, mainly due to having a long term tenant who we did not want to see on the streets. That never bothered us, we weren't trying to get rich from it, only to cover the mortgage and management fees. It would be a nest egg for us once the mortgage was cleared.
For the last 6+ years we've each paid on average about 2k a year in tax, sometimes my brother has paid less due to being out of work and /or earning less. We've always paid the taxes by the book and registered with the prtb, regardless of how tough our financial situation was at any given time.
I'm still renting, now with a partner, with a first time landlord who as you've alluded to, treats the house as his own, and with a fair amount of contempt in terms of simply not having any cognisance of our rights. He is up at the house (30 odd km from where he actually lives) on a weekly basis. I'm sick of seeing him in all honesty. At 40 years of age I want my hard earned time outside work to myself to spend with my partner, not looking at him around the place for whatever excuse of a reason he finds to be here. It annoys me more because as a landlord I never behaved this way, respecting the professional business type relationship that should exist between a landlord and tenant.
I believe the taxes on small landlords are very onerous, overly so, but at the same time I think people like me who are one property landlords are in a very real sense lucky to be able to do so. It is in some senses a first world problem to coin an oft used phrase.
In any case, from January my brother will move into the apartment and we will no longer be landlords. He has no choice because he cannot afford anything else on his own. The mortgage is low on the apartment thankfully.
My own economic beliefs mean I have differing emotions about being a landlord, I am slightly uncomfortable about it and have been for a long time. I absolutely abhor what fine gael are doing regards housing in this country. It is nothing short of a human rights abuse in my mind. But our citizens keep voting for them. Many obviously have no issue with their callous hatred for the less well off and working classes. I consider myself staunchly working class, that is my background, my family on both sides, and my ethos. To me Ireland is a country of me feiners, with no interest in a society, only in what a government offers them, in the form of tax cuts of whatever.
We have banks that ruined us, given sweetheart deals to pay no tax, how can our population condone this in the form of votes for those who dole out these deals? "it's truly beyond me.
Small landlords are not the cause or solution to our housing crisis, that comes from selecting political parties that see the world different to those currently in power, in an economic and social sense.
I pray Irish people will one day realise this in enough numbers to finally move away from the horrid, hateful neoliberal economic model that prevails here and causes so much unnecessary suffering, and is the overriding cause of our homeless and housing crisis.

beauf

kalych wrote: »

... it's just that their product is obsolete. It only survives on constrained supply, ... ...

...Before the housing crisis when supply was plentiful and rents were low, lots of places were empty.. and standards were far lower it survived just fine...Even now it's 70-80% of the market.

beauf

This thread was started about how the new changes will make the shortage worse.

Unexpectedly those complaining most about the shortage are desperate to make it far worse.

At this point there is no fixing it. The lemmings are firmly in charge.

terrydel

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

No, it's been a wild ride with every government for at least the last 20 years.

Pretty much all measures are short term and reactionary.

The same folks who complain that house prices are too high here will return to complain if they drop after they have bought.

I watch politicians who complain about lack of housing and demand a "housing emergency" be declared later object to large developments in their constituency.

They will complain about the lack of rentals and celebrate the eradication of the "landlord class"

Etc etc etc

That's because Irish people in the main see property as an asset, not as the home it should be. That mentality needs to change, so if/when the value drops for whatever reason, people are far less concerned.

terrydel

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Load of bull. I grew up in a private rented house, my mother buying the house wouldn't have instantly changed us or made us more driven to succeed. Good parenting does that, not taking handouts from the government.

The idea of encouraging those availing of social housing to buy those social housing properties is thatcherite stuff, encouragement of greed dressed up as empowering the less well off, done to create a market for the private sector to reap the rewards.
The social housing stock should remain so, anyone who's situation changes so they can afford to stop availing of it can move to buy in the private housing market.

The_Conductor

Yup- selling off our public residential housing stock (and you know they are still selling it off)- is the worst most half brained idea that anyone ever came up with. The theory is- it encourages tenants into buying their own property and consequently have a vested interest in its upkeep/care- however, there is also a presumption that local authorities will both replenish their stocks of housing- along with building/buying additional units- which quite simply stopped happening at some stage in the mid 1980s.

We need to stop selling off public housing units immediately. We need to move all our housing association stock- onto local authority books- and they need to be used on a needs basis (and deliberately making yourself homeless- needs to be moved to the bottom of the list- not the top of the list).

Local authorities need to be told to cop the hell on by the Minister- and buy or build sufficient units for their respective functional areas- and penalised if they do not.

The current mindset is to offload local authority and any public housing obligations on the private sector- and if/when it goes titsup- as its bound to- to use the private sector as a bogeyman and a scapegoat- 'of course its not our fault- its those evil landlords who aren't housing all the HAP tenants- we need to bash them some more to meld them to our wishes............'

Eventually if you keep beating a goat- the goat will turn on you and beat the living crap out of you. That is the direction we're heading in. The goat is very close to abandoning the sector and giving the government a good kick in the goolies on the way out the door.

terrydel

kalych wrote: »

I disagree with your point above, as per this:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/landlord-body-rebuked-for-telling-members-to-introduce-charges-1.2944666

All of your arguments do not change the government policy. Everything you might accuse REITs of doing LL have done or have tried to do. Government does think it can police 4 REITs in the country much better than thousands of private LLs though.

You have faith in our government policing /regulating anything, or even wanting to? Seriously?
They are dyed in the wool neoliberals, that let the market 'look after' itself, that's their ideology, it won't change.

beauf

terrydel wrote: »

The idea of encouraging those availing of social housing to buy those social housing properties is thatcherite stuff, encouragement of greed dressed up as empowering the less well off, done to create a market for the private sector to reap the rewards.
The social housing stock should remain so, anyone who's situation changes so they can afford to stop availing of it can move to but in the private housing market.

That's still encouraging people to buy houses just not in Their own community. I'm not sure how that is different ideologically. It seems to suggest a house is not a home, it's just roof. That community is irrelevant.

terrydel

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yup- selling off our public residential housing stock (and you know they are still selling it off)- is the worst most half brained idea that anyone ever came up with. The theory is- it encourages tenants into buying their own property and consequently have a vested interest in its upkeep/care- however, there is also a presumption that local authorities will both replenish their stocks of housing- along with building/buying additional units- which quite simply stopped happening at some stage in the mid 1980s.

We need to stop selling off public housing units immediately. We need to move all our housing association stock- onto local authority books- and they need to be used on a needs basis (and deliberately making yourself homeless- needs to be moved to the bottom of the list- not the top of the list).

Local authorities need to be told to cop the hell on by the Minister- and buy or build sufficient units for their respective functional areas- and penalised if they do not.

The current mindset is to offload local authority and any public housing obligations on the private sector- and if/when it goes titsup- as its bound to- to use the private sector as a bogeyman and a scapegoat- 'of course its not our fault- its those evil landlords who aren't housing all the HAP tenants- we need to bash them some more to meld them to our wishes............'

Eventually if you keep beating a goat- the goat will turn on you and beat the living crap out of you. That is the direction we're heading in. The goat is very close to abandoning the sector and giving the government a good kick in the goolies on the way out the door.

All that talk of getting LA's to tackle the problem is great, but it's asking a government who want little or no state involvement in anything, who are only interested in letting 'the market' run things, to deal with it. It's asking a turkey to vote for Christmas.
Until we have a new government, but the current neoliberal thatcherites, it'll not change. They don't give a ****e. The electorate will decide when this crisis ends.

beauf

The_Conductor wrote: »

...

We need to stop selling off public housing units immediately. ..

The flip side is it allows local authorities to build new more efficient housing to replace the old stock. All the eco targets etc.

beauf

terrydel wrote: »

...
Until we have a new government, but the current neoliberal thatcherites, it'll not change. They don't give a ****e. The electorate will decide when this crisis ends.

What counties have a better system. Not all do it the way it's done here. Some have a better integrated social housing policy.

terrydel

beauf wrote: »

That's still encouraging people to buy houses just not in Their own community. I'm not sure how that is different ideologically. It seems to suggest a house is not a home, it's just roof. That community is irrelevant.

It's not encouraging them at all, it's saying that you can have this house as long as you want, it's your home. We need to break away from the obsession with ownership, it can be your home without holding the deeds.

terrydel

beauf wrote: »

What counties have a better system. Not all do it the way it's done here. Some have a better integrated social housing policy.

And do these countries have a government with the same ideology as ours?
As fintan o toole so eloquently said, this crisis is policy, not an accident.

murphaph

I think I've read four solid suggestions in this thread:
-un-ban bedsits immediately. Some people simply can't afford a one room stand alone apartment and a bedsit is a thousand times better than a hostel or cardboard box.
-extend the rent a room relief to landlords. It would bring some units onto the market that the owners deem "too much hassle to rent given the tax paid if you're already on the top rate". The first 14k should be tax free.
-Make the eviction process for non-payment of rent really swift. People who genuinely can't pay their rent are entitled to supports to enable them to pay it. Landlords need to know that non-payers will not be their responsibility to house.
-Fix the above support systems to make them work with the private rental sector rather than trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Deposits and rent are paid in advance!
-Stop selling off local authority housing. If you no longer need to rent from the council you should be moved out to buy or rent in the private sector.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

The flip side is it allows local authorities to build new more efficient housing to replace the old stock. All the eco targets etc.

Hardly- when you're giving the tenant a 40-50% discount on open market selling prices- as is the norm. They are flogging these in such a manner that its impossible to run it as a going concern- when they're discounting the sales........ In Galway- it takes the proceeds of at least 3 local authority disposals- to fund one new purchase or build......... 3:1 is not a good ratio. 1:1 is ideal (and achievable- given a lot of the old local authority stock is in far more desirable areas than new stock they're buying/building).

Fol20

murphaph wrote: »

I think I've read four solid suggestions in this thread:
-un-ban bedsits immediately. Some people simply can't afford a one room stand alone apartment and a bedsit is a thousand times better than a hostel or cardboard box.
-extend the rent a room relief to landlords. It would bring some units onto the market that the owners deem "too much hassle to rent given the tax paid if you're already on the top rate". The first 14k should be tax free.
-Make the eviction process for non-payment of rent really swift. People who genuinely can't pay their rent are entitled to supports to enable them to pay it. Landlords need to know that non-payers will not be their responsibility to house.
-Fix the above support systems to make them work with the private rental sector rather than trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Deposits and rent are paid in advance!
-Stop selling off local authority housing. If you no longer need to rent from the council you should be moved out to buy or rent in the private sector.

For the 14k. Would you make it where if its above this you tax it entirely or just for everyone. The first 14k is tax free.Would you like it on gross or netincl or excl capital expenses) I would like the latter as everyone has a level playinf field and your not segregating the market further. Does england not have a system like this where the first 10 or 12 is tax free?

GGTrek

murphaph wrote: »

I think I've read four solid suggestions in this thread:
-un-ban bedsits immediately. Some people simply can't afford a one room stand alone apartment and a bedsit is a thousand times better than a hostel or cardboard box.
-extend the rent a room relief to landlords. It would bring some units onto the market that the owners deem "too much hassle to rent given the tax paid if you're already on the top rate". The first 14k should be tax free.
-Make the eviction process for non-payment of rent really swift. People who genuinely can't pay their rent are entitled to supports to enable them to pay it. Landlords need to know that non-payers will not be their responsibility to house.
-Fix the above support systems to make them work with the private rental sector rather than trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Deposits and rent are paid in advance!
-Stop selling off local authority housing. If you no longer need to rent from the council you should be moved out to buy or rent in the private sector.

these proposals have zero chance of going ahead at political level. The lefties (which includes the vast majority of the Irish media) would start to scream that they are all huge presents to the "landlord class"

the_syco

murphaph wrote: »

-un-ban bedsits immediately. Some people simply can't afford a one room stand alone apartment and a bedsit is a thousand times better than a hostel or cardboard box.

Change the bedsit rule, tbh. Improve the minimum conditions, such as access to a common utility areas per X amount of units. EG; for every 8 bedsits, there's one cooking/laundry area.

murphaph wrote: »

-extend the rent a room relief to landlords. It would bring some units onto the market that the owners deem "too much hassle to rent given the tax paid if you're already on the top rate". The first 14k should be tax free.

This isn't a bad idea. It would certainly allow LL's to survive easier. Or exit the market quicker.

murphaph wrote: »

-Make the eviction process for non-payment of rent really swift. People who genuinely can't pay their rent are entitled to supports to enable them to pay it. Landlords need to know that non-payers will not be their responsibility to house.

So, what? They don't pay their rent, and HAP takes over? What happens when they refuse to pay their HAP contribution?

murphaph wrote: »

-Fix the above support systems to make them work with the private rental sector rather than trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Deposits and rent are paid in advance!

I actually don't know why they do this.

JennyZ

And when Brexit happens...currently the majority of Eastern Europeans are going to the UK with a small minority choosing to come here we simply are not geared up for the housing/homeless situation that will ensue.

Old diesel

the_syco wrote: »

Change the bedsit rule, tbh. Improve the minimum conditions, such as access to a common utility areas per X amount of units. EG; for every 8 bedsits, there's one cooking/laundry area.


This isn't a bad idea. It would certainly allow LL's to survive easier. Or exit the market quicker.


So, what? They don't pay their rent, and HAP takes over? What happens when they refuse to pay their HAP contribution?


I actually don't know why they do this.

I interpret Murpaphs fast eviction and HAP point as.....

1) for those genuinely struggling - then we could (should have) fast access to supports like HAP. So....

2) for those tenants that are bad tenants we go fast eviction. For a tenant who just hit a bad patch - we could go super fast kick in off supports.

3) I would also add re tenant contribution not being paid on HAP - let's not make that stop payments to landlord and have the LA/HAP take responsibility for chasing up THEIR payment with tenant.

terrydel

GGTrek wrote: »

these proposals have zero chance of going ahead at political level. The lefties (which includes the vast majority of the Irish media) would start to scream that they are all huge presents to the "landlord class"

The biggest media outlet in the country is owned by arch capitalist obrien. The Irish times owns myhome.ie and thus has a huge vested interest in driving the property market higher and higher, which it makes no attempt to hide.
Both of these account for a huge majority of the print/online media and are not even close to lefties in an economic sense, which is what matters here.
Any reason they won't go thru is because our government wants the rental market run by big profit driven business and is endeavouring to make that happen.

terrydel

terrydel wrote: »

All that talk of getting LA's to tackle the problem is great, but it's asking a government who want little or no state involvement in anything, who are only interested in letting 'the market' run things, to deal with it.

Who is asking the government to do anything?

The council's already have plenty of their own revenue raising ability.

Local "left leaning" councillors would rather saw off their own arms and legs than propose raising the necessary local property tax to house the local homeless. :pac:

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

I interpret Murpaphs fast eviction and HAP point as.....

1) for those genuinely struggling - then we could (should have) fast access to supports like HAP. So....

2) for those tenants that are bad tenants we go fast eviction. For a tenant who just hit a bad patch - we could go super fast kick in off supports.

3) I would also add re tenant contribution not being paid on HAP - let's not make that stop payments to landlord and have the LA/HAP take responsibility for chasing up THEIR payment with tenant.

I would have no issue with these but it is political suicide to agree to or introduce anything that leads too or speeds up an eviction.

murphaph

Old diesel wrote: »

I interpret Murpaphs fast eviction and HAP point as.....

1) for those genuinely struggling - then we could (should have) fast access to supports like HAP. So....

2) for those tenants that are bad tenants we go fast eviction. For a tenant who just hit a bad patch - we could go super fast kick in off supports.

3) I would also add re tenant contribution not being paid on HAP - let's not make that stop payments to landlord and have the LA/HAP take responsibility for chasing up THEIR payment with tenant.

Exactly. A nimble support system that landlords don't have to work around. Council staff still think they're doing landlords a favour.

Non payment of hap contribution should mean landlord gets paid full amount while the council evicts.

beauf

terrydel wrote: »

And do these countries have a government with the same ideology as ours?
As fintan o toole so eloquently said, this crisis is policy, not an accident.

I was asking you to give an example of a country with social housing policy that works better. You've provided none. It's just rhetoric thus far.

beauf

terrydel wrote: »

It's not encouraging them at all, it's saying that you can have this house as long as you want, it's your home. We need to break away from the obsession with ownership, it can be your home without holding the deeds.

But your idea is that they get evicted once they get on their feet. Not much of home that. Certainly not as long as you want. Also everything you say you contradict it immediately.

You seem to be confusing home ownership with tenancy Security of tenure means people who can afford to buy also don't have to. It doesn't mean ownership is vilified. It applies to everyone. Also they build apartments more suitable for family's and long tenure.

It also means strong tenant laws. But also the same for property owners. You don't have the lob sided legislation that's been introduced here.

Even where ownership isn't as high as Ireland. Pretty much the rest of Europe. They have similar housing crisis at the moment. The common cause appears to be a move away from direct state provision of social and affordable housing. It's not due to a preoccupation with home ownership. That existed long before this crisis.

That's not to say there isn't a shift to a more unequal distribution of wealth in Ireland. That's certainly happening.

beauf

The_Conductor wrote: »

Hardly- when you're giving the tenant a 40-50% discount on open market selling prices- as is the norm. They are flogging these in such a manner that its impossible to run it as a going concern- when they're discounting the sales........ In Galway- it takes the proceeds of at least 3 local authority disposals- to fund one new purchase or build......... 3:1 is not a good ratio. 1:1 is ideal (and achievable- given a lot of the old local authority stock is in far more desirable areas than new stock they're buying/building).

The whole reason they outsourced social and low cost housing was to save money. That's flawed thinking. It will never be cost neutral.

Social policy isn't simply about "stock".

Fol20

beauf wrote: »

But your idea is that they get evicted once they get on their feet. Not much of home that. Certainly not as long as you want. Also everything you say you contradict it immediately.

You seem to be confusing home ownership with tenancy Security of tenure means people who can afford to buy also don't have to. It doesn't mean ownership is vilified. It applies to everyone. Also they build apartments more suitable for family's and long tenure.

It also means strong tenant laws. But also the same for property owners. You don't have the lob sided legislation that's been introduced here.

Even where ownership isn't as high as Ireland. Pretty much the rest of Europe. They have similar housing crisis at the moment. The common cause appears to be a move away from direct state provision of social and affordable housing. It's not due to a preoccupation with home ownership. That existed long before this crisis.

That's not to say there isn't a shift to a more unequal distribution of wealth in Ireland. That's certainly happening.

For social housing, i think 10,15 and 20 year tenancies would be ok. After that, its time for them to downsize and let the next family move in. During the tenancy, its the tenants responsibility for repairs and maintenance. Charge them 20pc - 30pc of market rate so at least some funds are being built for the next batch of social houses. At least this way, the government are providing the service yet tenants still have some form of responsibility for their own well being.

beauf

I think we are well off topic at this point.

the_syco

Old diesel wrote: »

1) for those genuinely struggling - then we could (should have) fast access to supports like HAP. So....

The genuine ones generally don't know their rights.

Old diesel wrote: »

2) for those tenants that are bad tenants we go fast eviction. For a tenant who just hit a bad patch - we could go super fast kick in off supports.

It sounds well and good, if the LL wants to go HAP, if they have a tax cert, if their house is compliant to whatever standard the HAP people thinks the LL needs, and that LL is charging under what the HAP people will pay.

Old diesel wrote: »

3) I would also add re tenant contribution not being paid on HAP - let's not make that stop payments to landlord and have the LA/HAP take responsibility for chasing up THEIR payment with tenant.

If the government was going to take responsibility, the tenant wouldn't be in a private landlords house in the first place. The government wants to wash their hands of those on HAP.

The Student wrote: »

I would have no issue with these but it is political suicide to agree to or introduce anything that leads too or speeds up an eviction.

Yep. SF would rub their hands in glee as they bang out the line that the english used to do it over a 100 years ago to the Irish.

murphaph wrote: »

Non payment of hap contribution should mean landlord gets paid full amount while the council evicts.

Unfortunately, the HAP agreement is between the tenant and landlord.

Although the LL can lease their house on a 10 year plan to the CC, and get the payment regardless, AFAIK, the LL doesn't have any say on who is housed in that case, but I'm pretty sure the LL is still liable to evict non-paying tenants.

beauf wrote: »

I think we are well off topic at this point.

Pretty sure that there's still a few bashing LL's.

Garibaldi?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rogue-landlords-face-jail-and-30000-penalties-37614770.htm onelWhile I agree a million percent with anti-greed legislation it is, without a doubt, offensive and intimidating headlines such as this which are driving property owners away from the market!

terrydel

beauf wrote: »

But your idea is that they get evicted once they get on their feet. Not much of home that. Certainly not as long as you want. Also everything you say you contradict it immediately.

You seem to be confusing home ownership with tenancy Security of tenure means people who can afford to buy also don't have to. It doesn't mean ownership is vilified. It applies to everyone. Also they build apartments more suitable for family's and long tenure.

It also means strong tenant laws. But also the same for property owners. You don't have the lob sided legislation that's been introduced here.

Even where ownership isn't as high as Ireland. Pretty much the rest of Europe. They have similar housing crisis at the moment. The common cause appears to be a move away from direct state provision of social and affordable housing. It's not due to a preoccupation with home ownership. That existed long before this crisis.

That's not to say there isn't a shift to a more unequal distribution of wealth in Ireland. That's certainly happening.

No, I said if they want to buy it is somewhere else, this is social housing stock and not for private sale. They can remain as long as they like but cannot buy it.
I totally agree we need better stronger laws on both tenant and landlord side, I'm on both sides myself a long time so understand the issues. I am not against landlords at all, there are many good ones and I consider myself to be one. I had a great one myself for 7 years.
I'm against a thatcherite policy of selling off the social housing stock to those living in it.
I've said a number of times that for me the issue is we have a government that is ideologically opposed to state involvement in the provision of housing, this is as clear as day, they are fundamentalists in this regard. And given this is the only real solution to the problem (the private sector had had years now to solve it and failed utterly) then unless we have a real political shift, it's not going away. Economically speaking, our government is as far to the right as any in Europe if not the world, this is the kernel of the problem. And yet Irish people still vote for them in droves and seem surprised then when the problem doesn't go away. How people cannot see that our governments economic ideology is the direct cause is staggering, if they can see it and still vote for them it's even worse.
There is no perfect solution but countries like the Netherlands, Denmark have much better functioning social housing models.
I've already said that small landlords are not the problem, theres good and bad in that group but this crisis is not their doing.

murphaph

the_syco wrote: »

The genuine ones generally don't know their rights.


It sounds well and good, if the LL wants to go HAP, if they have a tax cert, if their house is compliant to whatever standard the HAP people thinks the LL needs, and that LL is charging under what the HAP people will pay.


If the government was going to take responsibility, the tenant wouldn't be in a private landlords house in the first place. The government wants to wash their hands of those on HAP.


Yep. SF would rub their hands in glee as they bang out the line that the english used to do it over a 100 years ago to the Irish.


Unfortunately, the HAP agreement is between the tenant and landlord.

Although the LL can lease their house on a 10 year plan to the CC, and get the payment regardless, AFAIK, the LL doesn't have any say on who is housed in that case, but I'm pretty sure the LL is still liable to evict non-paying tenants.


Pretty sure that there's still a few bashing LL's.

We were talking about things that would need to change to encourage more rental units to come on stream. You've just listed a bunch of failings in the current system. We know hap etc. is broken. That's the point.

Laws can be changed to make hap work. The minimum standards can be altered so any normal house built in the last 20 years would qualify without alteration. The landlord-tenant relationship can be changed in law so the council becomes the landlord like a long term lease and the owner begins letting to the council so it's their problem to evict.

The state has changed the laws around renting several times in the past few years. Why should missing legislation be a barrier to change?

Old diesel

Do HAP even have their higher standards written down anywhere or is it inspectors making rules up as they go along.

It's easy to print out a 22 page checklist* but where are those rules coming from.

Because if a normal rental inspection asks for easier to meet standards vs HAP then one of the two sets of standards involved is either too strict OR not strict enough.

*I saw someone who had a HAP inspection mentioned this checklist

Mickiemcfist

beauf wrote: »

More to it then that. As estates changed into partial ownership they became far less anti social. You have to look at the overall trend.

Ok fair point. However with the new system of integrated social housing we shouldn't be selling them. (Although Ballymun was the initial discussion so I'm wrong on that one)

the_syco

Garibaldi? wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rogue-landlords-face-jail-and-30000-penalties-37614770.html While I agree a million percent with anti-greed legislation it is, without a doubt, offensive and intimidating headlines such as this which are driving property owners away from the market!

I'm guessing €30k equals to maybe one two years rent in Dublin? Has HAP decided what a "substantial refurbishment" is yet? Because currently it seems you should never update your house, as you won't be able to make the money back off the update.

If someone gets that fine, I'd say they'll bow out of the market.

Graces7

Old diesel wrote: »

Do HAP even have their higher standards written down anywhere or is it inspectors making rules up as they go along.

It's easy to print out a 22 page checklist* but where are those rules coming from.

Because if a normal rental inspection asks for easier to meet standards vs HAP then one of the two sets of standards involved is either too strict OR not strict enough.

*I saw someone who had a HAP inspection mentioned this checklist

HAP ask the full standards laid down in tenancy law. Which are not checked in ordinary rentals.

In all my years in private rentals I never had a house that complied fully with the rules and some were dangerous. It is so hard to find a rental that you tend to accept.

It is good that HAP enforces safety.

Old diesel

Graces7 wrote: »

HAP ask the full standards laid down in tenancy law. Which are not checked in ordinary rentals.

In all my years in private rentals I never had a house that complied fully with the rules and some were dangerous. It is so hard to find a rental that you tend to accept.

It is good that HAP enforces safety.

What people seem to be saying is that if a non HAP rental is checked - the inspector isn't looking for the same standard.

So you could (apparently) pass an inspection as a normal rental - but then the exact same house fails HAP

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

What happens if you fail the hap test?

Old diesel

ak75r0x3pjheun wrote: »

What happens if you fail the hap test?

You stop getting paid by HAP apparently.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Old diesel wrote: »

You stop getting paid by HAP apparently.

And if you can't afford the renovations?

beauf

the_syco wrote: »

I'm guessing €30k equals to maybe one two years rent in Dublin? ....

Considering this is only going to effect those below the market rate, and this will be net profit after expenses and tax. Could be 3 or 4 years.

How long does a house have to to empty before the rent can be reset. Or why not spend a fraction of that 30k on a refurb. Then you have 4yrs increased rent. Perhaps such as 33% more.

Pkiernan

I wonder if the tenant who trashed my apartment to the tune of 14k after not paying rent for 4 months will be fined or jailed?

But an an evil landlord I suppose I has that coming.

the_syco

beauf wrote: »

How long does a house have to to empty before the rent can be reset. Or why not spend a fraction of that 30k on a refurb. Then you have 4yrs increased rent. Perhaps such as 33% more.

Well, that's just it; has it been defined what a refurb is?

GGTrek

the_syco wrote: »

Well, that's just it; has it been defined what a refurb is?

It looks like you did not read this post with the new statutory definition:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108947724&postcount=98


The article in the independent is just a very short summary of the govvie proposed legislation that was discussed starting in this thread page:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057876284&page=7

Graces7

Old diesel wrote: »

What people seem to be saying is that if a non HAP rental is checked - the inspector isn't looking for the same standard.

So you could (apparently) pass an inspection as a normal rental - but then the exact same house fails HAP

Yes. I have lived in many "normal rentals" and never seen any inspected. Has anyone else?

My last private rental was a fire death trap. with a dodgy water supply . No windows or natural light upstairs. etc etc etc

Others were little better and if you objected? Plenty more tenants around

With HAP inspections there is a safety check. As there should be.

The standards are laid down in tenancy law. See RTB and Threshold sites