Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

welcome to Dublin rental market :/

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting illegal rent increases are fine. It seems like you were in the post I quoted.

    My mistake it sounded like you were.

    I'm always curious that we make all these changes to rules and legislation yet the rents keep rising. No one seems to wonder why or make any connection between the two.


  • Options
    #33
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    beauf wrote: »
    My mistake it sounded like you were.

    I'm always curious that we make all these changes to rules and legislation yet the rents keep rising. No one seems to wonder why or make any connection between the two.

    It could be for numerous reasons. New builds and places never rented before are an obvious factor. To add to that, it's difficult to find out what the previous rent was for a place. If you moved into a place tomorrow how would you know if the current rent was illegal? There are a couple of ways you could try but it's not easy.

    Also, I imagine a lot of tenants don't say anything out of fear of an eviction. If they question or complain about the increase, then they might worry the landlord might say they are selling the place or refurbishing and evict them. Then they have to find somewhere to live which is a pain in the hole and they're still paying increased rent (on the new place).


  • Options
    #34
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,380 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    In fairness, sometimes it can be difficult to see if there was substantial works done.

    Internal insulation looks like a new paint job when in fact all the old plaster boards are removed and replaced with better / higher spec to current regulations and when the walls are replastered and painted, it looks exactly the same as before, just looks like it was freshened up.

    External insulation is not that obvious either likewise re-wiring, re-plumbing, new rads, new boilers etc etc. As other poster said, it's not always easy to see when substantial works like that are carried out. Does anyone get up into an attic to check out the insulation?

    IMO, it makes sense for a LL to take photos before during and after any work they have done at any time.

    If both LL's and tenants had signed photos of the property at the start of the tenancy, at inspections and at the end of a tenancy it would save disputes about any damage / rents and a lot of stress on both sides.

    no landlord on this earth is going to do something like that... sure what does insulation matter to them? They neither live there nor pay the bills for the heating.


  • Options
    #35
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    It could be for numerous reasons. New builds and places never rented before are an obvious factor. To add to that, it's difficult to find out what the previous rent was for a place. If you moved into a place tomorrow how would you know if the current rent was illegal? There are a couple of ways you could try but it's not easy.

    Also, I imagine a lot of tenants don't say anything out of fear of an eviction. If they question or complain about the increase, then they might worry the landlord might say they are selling the place or refurbishing and evict them. Then they have to find somewhere to live which is a pain in the hole and they're still paying increased rent (on the new place).

    The legislation seems a bit pointless then.


  • Options
    #36
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    lawred2 wrote: »
    no landlord on this earth is going to do something like that... sure what does insulation matter to them? They neither live there nor pay the bills for the heating.

    Not what I have been told by a family member involved in building. Most of the work he has been doing in the past year or so in rented properties is to do with increasing the BER as well as general updates to the property. Most LL's want to maintain and protect their property and keep it up to date.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    beauf wrote: »
    The legislation seems a bit pointless then.

    Not pointless but could be better. If it wasn't there rent increases would be a lot worse. We definitely need a rent register though.


  • Options
    #38
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Not pointless but could be better. If it wasn't there rent increases would be a lot worse. We definitely need a rent register though.

    The legislation and a rent register really only targets those who kept rents low.

    It does nothing for new rentals, either new builds, or new newly rented.
    If you’re wondering why the much-vaunted rent controls, first introduced this time last year, are having so little impact on stalling price growth, consider this investor’s tale.

    He had a house rented out close to Dublin that was bringing in €1,300 a month – far below the market rates, which were more than €1,800. Stymied by the rent controls, which limit rent increases to 4 per cent a year (and 2 per cent a year for tenancies in place before the end of 2016), when his tenants left he was looking only at marginal increases in his rent.

    So what did he do? Sold this property and bought the one next door. Previously owner occupied, it wasn’t subject to rent controls, which meant that he could slap a new, higher rate of €1,900 on it. The difference in rent quickly covered his legal and stamp duty costs.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/will-rent-controls-start-to-work-in-2018-1.3347505

    The idea thats RPZ have worked is laughable. If anything they've acted as a accelerant to the market.


  • Options
    #39
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    beauf wrote: »
    The legislation and a rent register really only targets those who kept rents low.

    It does nothing for new rentals, either new builds, or new newly rented.



    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/will-rent-controls-start-to-work-in-2018-1.3347505

    The idea thats RPZ have worked is laughable. If anything they've acted as a accelerant to the market.

    That isn't an option for every landlord. There is a lot of hassle, costs and taxes involved in selling and buying. A lot of landlords are renting properties they used to live in themselves and are not on a buy to let rate (some are even on low trackers). If they sell, they either might not get a mortgage to buy another property or they will pay a much higher rate.

    RPZ has worked in keeping downward pressure on rent increases. Sure, they are not perfect and there are ways around them but they have worked. If it wasn't for them rental increases would be much higher.


  • Options
    #40
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    ...RPZ has worked ...

    I expect once supply strengthened and the market softens, it won't be supply that given credit, it will be all these changes which had minimal if any effect.

    Because if they worked people wouldn't need more things like a rent register, to make it work.


  • Options
    #41
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    beauf wrote: »
    I expect once supply strengthened and the market softens, it won't be supply that given credit, it will be all these changes which had no effect.


    They have had an effect. Not as much as most people would have liked but that doesn't mean they haven't had an effect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    .... We definitely need a rent register though.

    would that work with all the gdpr rules and data privacy? If a rent register was public is that disclosing personal information of both the tenant and the LL?
    What about the publication of rtb disputes also. I know most court cases are held in public except family law cases afaik but is an rtb determination the same? If it is then why does non-compliance have to go to the actual courts?


  • Options
    #43
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    would that work with all the gdpr rules and data privacy? If a rent register was public is that disclosing personal information of both the tenant and the LL?

    We have the property price register and that hasn't fallen foul of GDPR rules.


  • Options
    #44
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    would that work with all the gdpr rules and data privacy? If a rent register was public is that disclosing personal information of both the tenant and the LL?

    They dont need a register its working perfectly well without it. Rents dropping all over the place. :) Maybe all these threads are made up.
    mrslancaster wrote: »
    What about the publication of rtb disputes also. I know most court cases are held in public except family law cases afaik but is an rtb determination the same? If it is then why does non-compliance have to go to the actual courts?

    Not sure what compliance has got to do with publication.

    However, I assume it has to go to court because a RTB has no powers of enforcement. Open to correction.


  • Options
    #45
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    lawred2 wrote: »
    no landlord on this earth is going to do something like that... sure what does insulation matter to them? They neither live there nor pay the bills for the heating.
    I did and the early grant system made it a very good investment. Cheaper to externally insulate a large building than my own smaller home as a result.

    You would need to be blind not to see external insulation on a property as it adds a good 4 inches onto the exterior. Internal insulation by pumping won't be noticeable. If you put in new insulated plaster board also very noticeable.

    The new legislation proposed would not qualify it as not needing occupants to leave while being carried out. Cant raise the rent so won't get done now at all. Shows how rent caps stifles upgrading property


  • Options
    #46
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭Fian


    dennyk wrote: »
    From what I understand, there is actually no such exception to the RPZ legislation. That idea comes from a misinterpretation of some RTB guidance notes' rather unclear summations of Part 3, Section 19, Subsection 5 (a) of the RTA:



    In effect, the "two year" exemption only applies to properties that were not tenanted at any time in the two years prior to being declared an RPZ, and only applies to setting the initial rent for the first tenancy of that property after the RPZ took effect. Once a property has been tenanted for any period of time while under the RPZ legislation (or at any time during the two years prior to becoming subject to an RPZ), there is no mechanism for the RPZ rent increase limitation on that property to "expire" at a later date regardless of how long the property remains untenanted afterwards.

    I absolutely agree that the "two year" exemption only arises for the two years prior to the RPZ coming in anda two year break in tenancy does not reset the RPZ rules. However I believe that the exemption does not disappear as soon as you rent under RPZ legislation - the exception continues to apply so that you are not limited to 4% per annum increases. Which was not intended I imagine, but that is what the legislation says.


  • Options
    #47
    JJJackal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭JJJackal


    Fian wrote: »
    I absolutely agree that the "two year" exemption only arises for the two years prior to the RPZ coming in anda two year break in tenancy does not reset the RPZ rules. However I believe that the exemption does not disappear as soon as you rent under RPZ legislation - the exception continues to apply so that you are not limited to 4% per annum increases. Which was not intended I imagine, but that is what the legislation says.

    I am very confused re 2 year exemption - read legislation plus RTB website plus dail questions


Advertisement