Will lifetime renting in Ireland become viable?

steddyeddy

Will we ever be happy to give up ownership aspirations like they do in other countries and be happy to rent for life? I personally think for that to happen the concept of a rented accommodation as a home has to be accepted by landlord and tenant.

zell12

No.
3bed semi-d's everywhere

Captain Chaos

Right now average rent on a 260k house is 2k pm. Mortgage over 35yrs on the same is around 920pm.

Buying is cheaper. I can live within my means by buying but not renting. Can't afford to rent as it is.

tommyombomb

Orange Tennis wrote: »

It would be pretty sh1t if you had to rent your entire life, never havng the peace of mind that nobody can kick you out of your home.

Does it no eventually get to the stage where they can't kick you out?

shivermetimber

I'd love to see it be possible for people but it probably won't ever happen in backwardarse Ireland. To do so will require proper rental regulations enforced for both parties, unfurnished properties so you can take your stuff with you when you move, something to entice landlords back into rental and of course more units need to be built to stop the backward situation where rent is more expensive than mortgage repayment. Sure why would anyone do any of these things here...

punisher5112

No as the system isn't suitable.

I rented for near 7 years and was in 4 different sh1te holes.

We were pushed further and further away from Dublin down to prices and I will own my own home for much less then what we were paying.

ELM327

No, why would you want to be renting and paying rent from your pension.
Not viable.

Frostybrew

Berties_Horse wrote: »

It's down to a shift in attitude. People have no problem living within their means on the continent, and don't turn their noses up at renting property long-term.

Nothing to do with living within your means. It's due to lack of tenant protections, rights. There is a complete lack of security of tenure for tenants. Not to mention the exorbitant rents and the ability for a tenant to alter the residence to their liking.

What a homeowner is entitled to do to their residence is far greater than what a tenant can do under current legislation.

kneemos

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Right now average rent on a 260k house is 2k pm. Mortgage over 35yrs on the same is around 920pm.

Buying is cheaper. I can live within my means by buying but not renting. Can't afford to rent as it is.

Rents will vary. A 35 year mortgage would be unusual.

Captain Chaos

kneemos wrote: »

Rents will vary. A 35 year mortgage would be unusual.

For me a 35 year is only option due to join income with the current rules. Anything less the banks won't approve.

Rent are only going one way, up. Interest rates are on the deck and staying there for long term.

So choices for us are paying 2k pm minimum for life or 920pm for 35 years. Buying is a no brainer.

BattleCorp

Frostybrew wrote: »

What a homeowner is entitled to do to their residence is far greater than what a tenant can do under current legislation.

Well the homeowner does own the home. Of course they should have more rights.

That said, landlords shouldn't be cnuts.

rgodard80a

Frostybrew wrote: »

Nothing to do with living within your means. It's due to lack of tenant protections, rights.

Landlords are leaving the market in droves.
Renters stop paying rent and dig in for month/years until forcibly evicted = tens of thousands of Euros in losses for landlords.

You've rights if you agree and sign long term leases, e.g. 5 years+ if you really want security of tenure, but can't have it both ways.
But landlords should be able to evict non-paying tenants after no more than 3 months. Laws have swung too far in favour of tenants, where the government is beating private landlords with legislation to solve a public housing crisis of their making.

Vast towns and suburbs were built by the council/corporation 40 years ago, now there's little or nothing.

James Brown

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will we ever be happy to give up ownership aspirations like they do in other countries and be happy to rent for life? I personally think for that to happen the concept of a rented accommodation as a home has to be accepted by landlord and tenant.

It's not about getting real. It's about government enabling private speculators to price the average Irish tax payer out of the market.
Indeed, the time will come where the vast majority of working Irish tax payers pay rents to the wealthy, state assisted, foreign and homegrown few.
Shameful and likely.

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not about getting real. It's about government enabling private speculators to price the average Irish tax payer out of the market.
Indeed, the time will come where the vast majority of working Irish tax payers pay rents to the wealthy, state assisted, foreign and homegrown few.
Shameful and likely.

In many cases, it's the County Councils outbidding the average Irish taxpayer when they are bidding for a house.

Frostybrew

rgodard80a wrote: »

Landlords are leaving the market in droves.
Renters stop paying rent and dig in for month/years until forcibly evicted = tens of thousands of Euros in losses for landlords.

You've rights if you agree and sign long term leases, e.g. 5 years+ if you really want security of tenure, but can't have it both ways.
But landlords should be able to evict non-paying tenants after no more than 3 months. Laws have swung too far in favour of tenants, where the government is beating private landlords with legislation to solve a public housing crisis of their making.

Vast towns and suburbs were built by the council/corporation 40 years ago, now there's little or nothing.

I agree landlords should be able to evict non paying tenants who don't engage. But non paying tenants isn't a major problem, as this type of situation is only relevant to about 1% of tenancies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent, and is really a borderline red herring argument.

You must also remember that landlords also have to also agree to long term tenancies and I honestly can't see the majority of landlords doing this.

Landlords are not getting beaten by the government with regulation. What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical.

As for those leaving in droves, any landlord who is unable to manage the very high rents that they are receiving should not be in the business of providing rental accommodation. I suspect though that most of those who are leaving are doing so to liquify capital gains as they believe that the housing market has peaked. They'll more than likely buy back property at a lower price in the years ahead.

fash

Frostybrew wrote: »

What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical.

Please provide a reference for this statistic.

fash

shivermetimber wrote: »

of course more units need to be built to stop the backward situation where rent is more expensive than mortgage repayment. Sure why would anyone do any of these things here...

How or why would rent be lower than a mortgage repayment?
Someone borrows money to provide a service and incurs additional costs in providing that service - and should sell their services for less than cost?

As regards the general question, the only way long term rental could be a thing is if there are non-profit /local authority rentals. Anything else will have to be geared at getting a profit which means rents rising over the long term and potentially out of the range of a pensioner tenant - it doesn't make sense to rely on the rental market in that case.

mvl

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will we ever be happy to give up ownership aspirations like they do in other countries and be happy to rent for life? I personally think for that to happen the concept of a rented accommodation as a home has to be accepted by landlord and tenant.

No.

- You also know many ppl in other countries can't afford to pay the rent from the pensions they would be getting - and state doesn't support them at all.
Anyway - I think one of the issues here is that everyone seem to like owning bigger houses than they need. I've a small house atm, but I'd be happy to retire in a nice 2 bed apartment - as central I could afford (bare in mind, I am hoping to retire early).

steddyeddy

mvl wrote: »

No.

- You also know many ppl in other countries can't afford to pay the rent from the pensions they would be getting - and state doesn't support them at all.
Anyway - I think one of the issues here is that everyone seem to like owning bigger houses than they need. I've a small house atm, but I'd be happy to retire in a nice 2 bed apartment - as central I could afford (bare in mind, I am hoping to retire early).

Yes price is one thing but I get the impression that Irish landlords have great difficulty handing you the keys and walking away. In other countries I've lived in as long as I pay the rent on time I never seen the landlord.

punisher5112

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes price is one thing but I get the impression that Irish landlords have great difficulty handing you the keys and walking away. In other countries I've lived in as long as I pay the rent on time I never seen the landlord.

Many it's a family home, they have personal items in the house, memories etc etc.

It needs to be treated as a business.

DS86DS

I am renting off of my parents who own a few properties. I don't mind renting off of them as the money is going back into the family and will probably inherit the property one day.

But renting off of a complete stranger and paying their mortgage is a mugs game. Not only will you never own the property but you will be left paying rent in your retirement.

Much better to be a part of home ownership than to be some fuedal vassal for the rest of your life, paying all the tent and with little to no rights.

There are literally no advantages in the long term of renting over a mortgage and home ownership. The latter will allow you to enjoy your retirement and maybe even travel the world.

DS86DS

rgodard80a wrote: »

Landlords are leaving the market in droves.
Renters stop paying rent and dig in for month/years until forcibly evicted = tens of thousands of Euros in losses for landlords.

You've rights if you agree and sign long term leases, e.g. 5 years+ if you really want security of tenure, but can't have it both ways.
But landlords should be able to evict non-paying tenants after no more than 3 months. Laws have swung too far in favour of tenants, where the government is beating private landlords with legislation to solve a public housing crisis of their making.

Vast towns and suburbs were built by the council/corporation 40 years ago, now there's little or nothing.

Really it should be 1 month, or 2 months at the maximum. You have low lifes who have stopped paying rent and not looking after the property and using constant threats about the RTB.

Ireland at the moment is not a very attractive market to be a landlord in, hence the diminishing number of properties available to rent

EdgeCase

The current system isn't really designed for life time rental. I don't know why we can't just have two systems, one that's more like long-term commercial leases which apply in business contexts all the time without any issue and the other for shorter term arrangements as we have now.

whisky_galore

People on the continent rent all their lives, here we still have the backward tenant farmer/absentee landlord or tenement dweller/slum landlord setup. Renting here is a precarious existance, seen as something that only students, separated people or failures at life do.

fash

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes price is one thing but I get the impression that Irish landlords have great difficulty handing you the keys and walking away. In other countries I've lived in as long as I pay the rent on time I never seen the landlord.

Also you are effectively required to inspect your rental property every three months by the RTB or face financial penalties if damage is done to the property by a tenant.
Aside from that, Ireland is a damp climate and a lot of damage can be done very quickly by the elements compared to drier environments. Frequent inspections are a necessity in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

DS86DS wrote: »

I am renting off of my parents who own a few properties. I don't mind renting off of them as the money is going back into the family and will probably inherit the property one day.

But renting off of a complete stranger and paying their mortgage is a mugs game. Not only will you never own the property but you will be left paying rent in your retirement.

Much better to be a part of home ownership than to be some fuedal vassal for the rest of your life, paying all the tent and with little to no rights.

There are literally no advantages in the long term of renting over a mortgage and home ownership. The latter will allow you to enjoy your retirement and maybe even travel the world.

You’re renting off your parents, you might as well be living at home ffs :pac:

As for the question in the opening post, it’s not currently viable for the majority of people, in the sense that they don’t have the freedom to be able to decide one way or the other whether they want to rent a property for their lifetime, or whether they would prefer to buy property.

I’m renting in the same property for the last 20 years, and I could easily be here for the rest of my life as I’d rather not go into a retirement home or one of those retirement villages. I don’t care much for travelling either so I have no wish to see the world in my retirement. I could afford to see the world now and I would encourage people to see and experience the world and travel while they’re young. I was planning early retirement, but I’m actually in a place in my life now where I enjoy my work and I enjoy my current lifestyle. Being able to afford the rent in my retirement isn’t something that keeps me awake at night when to be perfectly honest, I don’t plan on retiring. I have made provisions for giving myself that choice if I feel like it later on, and because I’m prepared for it now it’s not something I give much more thought to.

TL:DR; lifetime renting is viable already. It would require a massive cultural shift though to get us out of the mindset where we are compelled to be lumbered with a 35 year loan as a measure of our success, only to die and leave the property to an ungrateful little shìte! :pac:

c.p.w.g.w

Captain Chaos wrote: »

For me a 35 year is only option due to join income with the current rules. Anything less the banks won't approve.

Rent are only going one way, up. Interest rates are on the deck and staying there for long term.

So choices for us are paying 2k pm minimum for life or 920pm for 35 years. Buying is a no brainer.

My mortgage is 30% of what I was paying in rent before I bought. The place I was renting was damp, impossible to heat and neighbor was a drug dealer

steddyeddy

Frostybrew wrote: »

I agree landlords should be able to evict non paying tenants who don't engage. But non paying tenants isn't a major problem, as this type of situation is only relevant to about 1% of tenancies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent, and is really a borderline red herring argument.

You must also remember that landlords also have to also agree to long term tenancies and I honestly can't see the majority of landlords doing this.

Landlords are not getting beaten by the government with regulation. What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical.

As for those leaving in droves, any landlord who is unable to manage the very high rents that they are receiving should not be in the business of providing rental accommodation. I suspect though that most of those who are leaving are doing so to liquify capital gains as they believe that the housing market has peaked. They'll more than likely buy back property at a lower price in the years ahead.

DS86DS wrote: »

I am renting off of my parents who own a few properties. I don't mind renting off of them as the money is going back into the family and will probably inherit the property one day.

But renting off of a complete stranger and paying their mortgage is a mugs game. Not only will you never own the property but you will be left paying rent in your retirement.

Much better to be a part of home ownership than to be some fuedal vassal for the rest of your life, paying all the tent and with little to no rights.

There are literally no advantages in the long term of renting over a mortgage and home ownership. The latter will allow you to enjoy your retirement and maybe even travel the world.

Well that's grand for someone like you or on the housing list waiting for free housing but most people don't have that option.

Mad_maxx

Frostybrew wrote: »

Nothing to do with living within your means. It's due to lack of tenant protections, rights. There is a complete lack of security of tenure for tenants. Not to mention the exorbitant rents and the ability for a tenant to alter the residence to their liking.

What a homeowner is entitled to do to their residence is far greater than what a tenant can do under current legislation.

The legal framework re renting in Ireland may be less clear than in the likes of Germany but no other country in Europe provides better security and rights for rogue tenants than Ireland, politicians and the media will even portray deadbeats who decide to stiff a mortgage payer, as some kind of hero

Franz Von Peppercorn

fash wrote: »

How or why would rent be lower than a mortgage repayment?
Someone borrows money to provide a service and incurs additional costs in providing that service - and should sell their services for less than cost?

As regards the general question, the only way long term rental could be a thing is if there are non-profit /local authority rentals. Anything else will have to be geared at getting a profit which means rents rising over the long term and potentially out of the range of a pensioner tenant - it doesn't make sense to rely on the rental market in that case.

Rent and mortgage payments can easily decouple. Interest rates go up. Rents go down.

No idea why you think gearing would affect rental prices.

Mad_maxx

Frostybrew wrote: »

I agree landlords should be able to evict non paying tenants who don't engage. But non paying tenants isn't a major problem, as this type of situation is only relevant to about 1% of tenancies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent, and is really a borderline red herring argument.

You must also remember that landlords also have to also agree to long term tenancies and I honestly can't see the majority of landlords doing this.

Landlords are not getting beaten by the government with regulation. What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical.

As for those leaving in droves, any landlord who is unable to manage the very high rents that they are receiving should not be in the business of providing rental accommodation. I suspect though that most of those who are leaving are doing so to liquify capital gains as they believe that the housing market has peaked. They'll more than likely buy back property at a lower price in the years ahead.

Non paying tenants is a huge problem and why wouldn't it be, there is no consequence for going rogue.

Just because the media never report this, doesn't negate the fact its why so many landlords are running for the exits

Ronaldinho

steddyeddy wrote: »

Will we ever be happy to give up ownership aspirations like they do in other countries and be happy to rent for life? I personally think for that to happen the concept of a rented accommodation as a home has to be accepted by landlord and tenant.

Lifetime renting would be more viable now if there wasn't such a squeeze on the housing stock.

I have some sympathy with your second point - housing shouldn't be seen purely as an investment but that's precisely what a BTL is from a landlord's perspective and there's no getting around that.

BeerWolf

Buying a home is an investment that you can sell off if needed... renting is money down the drain!

Better off paying a mortgage and treat that like rent.

James Bond Junior

I will be a landlord soon enough, semi intentionally and I am half scared shítless that when I need to move back into the house in a few years time I will be unable to do so without a huge battle due to overly tenant biased regulations.

suicide_circus

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I will be a landlord soon enough, semi intentionally and I am half scared shess that when I need to move back into the house in a few years time I will be unable to do so without a huge battle due to overly tenant biased regulations.

rack rent the bastards!

Ray Palmer

Frostybrew wrote: »

I agree landlords should be able to evict non paying tenants who don't engage. But non paying tenants isn't a major problem, as this type of situation is only relevant to about 1% of tenancies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent, and is really a borderline red herring argument.

You must also remember that landlords also have to also agree to long term tenancies and I honestly can't see the majority of landlords doing this.

Landlords are not getting beaten by the government with regulation. What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical.

As for those leaving in droves, any landlord who is unable to manage the very high rents that they are receiving should not be in the business of providing rental accommodation. I suspect though that most of those who are leaving are doing so to liquify capital gains as they believe that the housing market has peaked. They'll more than likely buy back property at a lower price in the years ahead.

According to you I have been marvellously unlucky with tenants not paying their rent on time or fully. Tenants regularly skip payments with most not paying their last months rent so as to avoid deposit deductions. Where you got 1% is a mystery. When it does happen the lost to a landlord is at least a years rent.

Nonsense about avoiding tax. The government has increased tax and charges and changed regulations all to favour tenants and adding costs to landlords while restricting rent increases. How that is not hammering landlords. Costs and charges mean many tenants are paying more rent while the landlord makes less profit.

Landlords leaving the market aren't coming back they are leaving due to regulations.

steddyeddy

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I will be a landlord soon enough, semi intentionally and I am half scared shítless that when I need to move back into the house in a few years time I will be unable to do so without a huge battle due to overly tenant biased regulations.

Well then why move out? It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it.

James Bond Junior

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then why move out? It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it.

Because work is taking me abroad for a few years and the mortgage still needs to be paid.

Ubbquittious

Where is the advantage in paying rent your whole life?

I dont mind renting for a while it's a service thats good to avail of if you're new or unsure about an area but unless you're constantly on the go there is no point in renting for your whole life

Frostybrew

Ray Palmer wrote: »

According to you I have been marvellously unlucky with tenants not paying their rent on time or fully. Tenants regularly skip payments with most not paying their last months rent so as to avoid deposit deductions. Where you got 1% is a mystery. When it does happen the lost to a landlord is at least a years rent.

Nonsense about avoiding tax. The government has increased tax and charges and changed regulations all to favour tenants and adding costs to landlords while restricting rent increases. How that is not hammering landlords. Costs and charges mean many tenants are paying more rent while the landlord makes less profit.

Landlords leaving the market aren't coming back they are leaving due to regulations.

You may have been unlucky. We can't say for sure as we don't know your situation. There's a also good chance that you may have been incredibly stupid and inexperienced as a landlord, as is often the case in these situations. Without an objective knowledge of the situation we can't really say for definite. It would be interesting to hear the tenant's side.

What we can comment on is factual percentage. According to the RTB approximately 1.2% of tenancies had disputes for over-holding and/or non payment of rent for the year ending Q2 2018. This is also probably higher than normal due to the housing crisis. Even so it is evidently not the major problem for most landlords, that many landlords would like us to believe.

As for the 85% this figure was widely publicised by revenue back in the early 2000s and is one of the reasons for the establishment of the PRTB in 2004 and the enactment of relevant legislation. Landlord tax evasion was widespread and accepted. Indeed all the places I rented till 2003 were strictly cash in hand affairs. Not a rent book to be seen anywhere.

What landlords also seem to be conveniently ignoring is the amount of support the government has given them over the last ten years, mainly by keeping a huge amount of empties out of the market through entities such as Nama, and being reluctant to impose measures that would prevent opportunistic hoarding of vacant properties. A great example of this situation is the Elysian in Cork, Ireland's tallest building. 244 units, only 20 occupied until 2017. 224 vacant from 2008 until 2017. Kept off the rental market. Had these been released onto the rental market it could have easily driven over a hundred landlords in the Cork area to bankruptcy as their substandard properties wouldn't have been able to compete with the state of the art newly built apartments in the Elysian.

Landlords are also forgetting recently enacted legislation which effectively guarantees their rental income to rise by 4% per annum. I'm not aware of any other business that receives this type of support, a guaranteed rise in income every year.

fash

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Rent and mortgage payments can easily decouple. Interest rates go up. Rents go down.

No idea why you think gearing would affect rental prices.

Of course they can decouple- that is a risk a LL must calculate and charge a premium for carrying that risk.
I don't understand how you think that rent can long term be below mortgage rates. You are getting a service - the LL is paying the mortgage, maintenance, depreciation, accountancy fees, PRTB and letting fees, LPT, work in organising etc. - how over time on average can or should that be below the price of paying a mortgage alone?

fash

Frostybrew wrote: »

Landlords are also forgetting recently enacted legislation which effectively guarantees their rental income to rise by 4% per annum. I'm not aware of any other business that receives this type of support, a guaranteed rise in income every year.

Perhaps you should read the respective legislation again: 4% is a maximum allowed, it is not guaranteed. The LL must also prove that they are entitled to any increase at all based on market rent. Hence contrary to your assertion, the government has not helped LLs - rather the exact opposite.

Ruraldweller56

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not about getting real. It's about government enabling private speculators to price the average Irish tax payer out of the market.
Indeed, the time will come where the vast majority of working Irish tax payers pay rents to the wealthy, state assisted, foreign and homegrown few.
Shameful and likely.

I think one day it will be the case.

I don't know why this is something people want to see happening. Is it just because "muh they do it on mainland Europe why don't we do it here"?

I'd hate for it to become the norm. Spending your entire life paying rent to some faceless conglomerate and we've lunatics here who seem to genuinely think it's a better system.

Franz Von Peppercorn

fash wrote: »

Of course they can decouple- that is a risk a LL must calculate and charge a premium for carrying that risk.
I don't understand how you think that rent can long term be below mortgage rates. You are getting a service - the LL is paying the mortgage, maintenance, depreciation, accountancy fees, PRTB and letting fees, LPT, work in organising etc. - how over time on average can or should that be below the price of paying a mortgage alone?

I’m personally not getting anything as I don’t rent. You’re making the totally invalid assumption that all landlords are mortgaged to the hilt on every property. Many are cash buyers or have paid off their mortgages. Rent just has to beat returns from banks, with a premium for risk.

Johnnyhpipe

How do you afford rent after retirement (at which time a mortgage would be paid off)?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

How do you afford rent after retirement (at which time a mortgage would be paid off)?

You would get assistance.

Of course that’s a cost to government. I don’t think the German model would work here.

Drifter50

I don`t think the rental market as it stands is sustainable for a pensioner tenant. Remember, the amount of pensions in the private sector is below 1 in 5 asides from the state pension. There is a problem here which is being kicked down the road and won`t become apparent for another 15/20 years

Ruraldweller56

The whole thing sounds both very commie and also capitalism at its very worst at the same time.

The Student

Frostybrew wrote: »

You may have been unlucky. We can't say for sure as we don't know your situation. There's a also good chance that you may have been incredibly stupid and inexperienced as a landlord, as is often the case in these situations. Without an objective knowledge of the situation we can't really say for definite. It would be interesting to hear the tenant's side.

What we can comment on is factual percentage. According to the RTB approximately 1.2% of tenancies had disputes for over-holding and/or non payment of rent for the year ending Q2 2018. This is also probably higher than normal due to the housing crisis. Even so it is evidently not the major problem for most landlords, that many landlords would like us to believe.

As for the 85% this figure was widely publicised by revenue back in the early 2000s and is one of the reasons for the establishment of the PRTB in 2004 and the enactment of relevant legislation. Landlord tax evasion was widespread and accepted. Indeed all the places I rented till 2003 were strictly cash in hand affairs. Not a rent book to be seen anywhere.

What landlords also seem to be conveniently ignoring is the amount of support the government has given them over the last ten years, mainly by keeping a huge amount of empties out of the market through entities such as Nama, and being reluctant to impose measures that would prevent opportunistic hoarding of vacant properties. A great example of this situation is the Elysian in Cork, Ireland's tallest building. 244 units, only 20 occupied until 2017. 224 vacant from 2008 until 2017. Kept off the rental market. Had these been released onto the rental market it could have easily driven over a hundred landlords in the Cork area to bankruptcy as their substandard properties wouldn't have been able to compete with the state of the art newly built apartments in the Elysian.

Landlords are also forgetting recently enacted legislation which effectively guarantees their rental income to rise by 4% per annum. I'm not aware of any other business that receives this type of support, a guaranteed rise in income every year.

You have quoted a fig of 85% which was in the early 2000's which is now nearly 20 yrs old so is no longer valid today.

What you appear to be ignoring is the tenant protection. It can take a year to evict a non paying tenant. Can you identify one privately owned business where you are forced to continue providing a service where you are not being paid and even if you do get an RTB award and try to enforce it you will get nothing as the tenant has nothing to secure the debt against.

Properties were not "kept out of the market" by Nama. Anybody who had the cash could buy them.

Mad_maxx

The Student wrote: »

You have quoted a fig of 85% which was in the early 2000's which is now nearly 20 yrs old so is no longer valid today.

What you appear to be ignoring is the tenant protection. It can take a year to evict a non paying tenant. Can you identify one privately owned business where you are forced to continue providing a service where you are not being paid and even if you do get an RTB award and try to enforce it you will get nothing as the tenant has nothing to secure the debt against.

Properties were not "kept out of the market" by Nama. Anybody who had the cash could buy them.

Very few rogue tenants are evicted within a year, more often its two, they invariably walk away scot free afterwards

Ruraldweller56

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Very few rogue tenants are evicted within a year, more often its two, they invariably walk away scot free afterwards

In fairness they do get away with a lot here.

If you ever watch can't pay we'll take it away (usually on 3e or whatever it is now) you do see in the UK the approach is much more heavy handed than it is here.

By heavy handed I just mean you know, that they actually get evicted for not paying. Sometimes they'll even track someone who's moved on and not paid a few months rent or left the place damaged and get money from them.

You never really see anything like that going on here.