RPZ 3-year expiry

Old diesel

If I was a landlord id be laying the blame for RPZ at my colleagues who went for 20 percent and more increases in ONE hit.

That's an extra 240 euros a month if rent (pre increase) was 1200.

It's the big headline increases that led to Government deciding to take action.

You see in 2016 the thinking would have been where would rents end up if you could rise rents continually by high percentage rates.

If you allow unlimited increases - a house at 1200 will be at 1728 euros after 2 x 20 percent rises.

That's what the 2016 rules aimed to try and limit.

If you pay 1700 euros a month over 40 years, that will be 829,000 euros and you have to ask where is the money going to come from.

If tenants had an unlimited amount of funds to just throw at rent - then they wouldnt need to rent in first place

Fol20

DubCount wrote: »

RPZ is fundamentally unfair. Its unfair that 2 tenants in identical properties could be subject to vastly different maximum rents, just because of an accident of history. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow extra supply to come online before allowing normal market conditions apply after supply increased to match demand. The supply has not arrived, and RPZ's are not going to be allowed to just expire at the end of the year. Expect whatever legislation it takes to be waived through the Dail with the backing of government and opposition. RPZ's will still be in play for many years to come - they might never go away. Temporary measures, especially popular ones, have a history of lasting forever.

Your more than likely right and although it doesnt affect me yet. The ironic thing is that tenants will actually loose out as theres no incentive to improve a property, coupled with the fact that supply will never come onboard when supply is actually declining, not increasing due to this draconian legislation

Fol20

3DataModem wrote: »

I have mixed feelings about the RPZ, but changing legislation to extend it at less than a years notice is dealing a lot of landlords a bad card.

Ultimately some rent controls and stability will help (I'm all for a move to long term tenancys) but this cut and paste stuff will need to stop.

I submitted a suggestion some time ago of increasing tax breaks for landlords based on tenant tenure (e.g. 25% of interest deductible in Y1 increasing to 100% from year 4) as an incentive for landlords to seek longer-term tenants and value low turnover, but that would also cause frictional problems.

That system is overly complicated and hard to enforce. Its out of a ll control as well where one tenant will move on after 1 year and another would leave after 5years etc

3DataModem

Fol20 wrote: »

That system is overly complicated and hard to enforce.

The current system has
> zero enforcement of tenant breaches
> government funded bodies encouraging overholding
> landlords incentivised to break the notice and rent increase rules

I think anything that encourages long tenancies with security for both landlord and tenant would be an improvement.

1874

Old diesel wrote: »

If I was a landlord id be laying the blame for RPZ at my colleagues who went for 20 percent and more increases in ONE hit.

That's an extra 240 euros a month if rent (pre increase) was 1200.

It's the big headline increases that led to Government deciding to take action.

You see in 2016 the thinking would have been where would rents end up if you could rise rents continually by high percentage rates.

If you allow unlimited increases - a house at 1200 will be at 1728 euros after 2 x 20 percent rises.

That's what the 2016 rules aimed to try and limit.

If you pay 1700 euros a month over 40 years, that will be 829,000 euros and you have to ask where is the money going to come from.

If tenants had an unlimited amount of funds to just throw at rent - then they wouldnt need to rent in first place

For one, other landlords are not colleagues.
A 20% increase as you say is not a 240 euro increase, its essentially less than half that (count tax, USC? dont know why? and PRSI?), why not just tax?
Anyway, not colleagues and many landlords were charging well under market rate, the state caused anyone that was paying attention to increase rents for fear of what they might be locked into, this has come true for those who did not notice, landlords who may have done a deal for a good tenant and not increased rent in the past cannot do that now.
Why should they not be allowed ask for a rate even only closer to market for a new tenant? even new tenants would have been likely to have had reductions from such a landlord, due to the rpz and regulations, now no landlord with any sense will or can offer such a reduction?? cant you see that?


What you pay over 40 years? Dont you realise if a property costs 400K which isnt unlikely, that anyone paying down that mortgage will pay off around 800 or more thousand to the bank alone.
I can understand where people think landlords are raking it in, but they are receiving a small return relatively (many are channeling their own money in to pay down mortgage and costs), if people dont want individuals to make a profit, then no one will invest their money or a few decades of dealing with landlording, ok, let the state provide for people, they could easily, they (we) own the land, but they portion it off to developers who in the end dont even build quality products (at least in the past houses built were solid if inefficient), now they have to dig them up to replace the foundations or carry out retrofits to pass fire regulations??


rents are already high, house prices are high which pushes rents up, do you think individual landlords control that?
who controls how land is portioned off for development, overall the state and they portion it off to people who make a profit on it, the landlord is well down the food chain.

Fol20

3DataModem wrote: »

The current system has
> zero enforcement of tenant breaches
> government funded bodies encouraging overholding
> landlords incentivised to break the notice and rent increase rules

I think anything that encourages long tenancies with security for both landlord and tenant would be an improvement.

Right now. Interest is deductable at 100pc. You want to step it back to an incremental of 25pc. This isn't good for ll and can be more complicated than it needs to be. Even the HAP incentive that used to be there where HAP interest in the past could be 100pc deductible after 3 years was overly complicated..

In the current environment, it is political suicide to create measures where tenant protections are weakened even if they dont pay rent/not held accountable.Long term, it would be better for the market for both tenant and ll alike but wont happen sadly.

No 2 should never happen in the first place but is.topic 1 eould resolve this.

Not quite sure what you mean by your last bit

Fol20

Subutai wrote: »

Not at all, the market shows there is overcrowding - if not as defined in legislation then as defined by people themselves.

There is a huge incentive to rent out a room in your house, for instance, through the rent a room scheme. Yet, as you say, owner occupiers by and large choose not to avail of this when they purchase. When renting, and therefore unable to make this choice, couples in their 30s will have other people occupy the house with them. The fact that they don't continue this type of living arrangement, despite a strong financial incentive to do so, demonstrates that they, at least, considered their previous situation overcrowded.

Thats a big stretch and a lot of assumptions. Its a financial decision if you want to let other rooms in your house pure and simple.Im in that current predicament and although i had let some of the rooms for a few years. Its nice to be a home owner and have the place to yourself. Its not over crowding in the slightest but its nice to go down stairs into your kitchen or tv room without other people already being there. Or maybe walking around in your birthday suit not having a care in the world that some random person would walk in.

sworderer

Looks like the RPZ are being extended until 2021, https://www.thejournal.ie/rent-pressure-zones-extended-2021-4573419-Apr2019/

When will this be changed legally?

L1011

sworderer wrote: »

Looks like the RPZ are being extended until 2021, https://www.thejournal.ie/rent-pressure-zones-extended-2021-4573419-Apr2019/

When will this be changed legally?

REITs are unlikely to challenge it unless their tax situation is changed. Smaller landlords can't really afford to

Also - if a referendum to allow the state to institute rent controls as and when it wants, unbreakable tenancies, whatever was put to the people, I'd be fairly certain it'd pass. Poking the semi-sleeping dog may not be the best idea here; in the short to medium term.