The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlords’ tales from the renta

The_Conductor

Very interesting article in yesterday's Irish Times:

The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlords’ tales from the rental market.

In the case described in the article, the landlord has lost over 40k in rent and has 50k in damage to the property. The property is now the subject of a receivership- as the landlord was incapable of paying the mortgage on it and living elsewhere- all the while the tenant frustrated the process to get him out of the property- despite not paying rent.

The landlord took a case to the RTB- and won (the tenant randomly stopped paying rent- the landlord issued the requisite notices of arrears etc- to no avail).
The tenant appealed the judgement- and lost.
The tenant then took a case to the workplace relations commission- claiming discrimination- and lost.
The tenant took a highcourt case- and also lost.

Now- the property is being repossessed by the bank.

Is it any wonder that landlords are heading to the door?

Its all well and good (and indeed- right) that tenants should have security of tenure in *their* home- however, if/when there are cases like this- where the tenant games the system- there really should be a streamlined process to get them out of the property if they stop paying rent.

Wonder what the property is- that commanded a rent of 3,300 per month!

NIMAN

Won't get much media attention, doesn't fit the narrative of poor downtrodden tenants.

Gumbo

About time someone printed something to show the negative spin towards landlords.
It got quite a positive feedback from posters on FB, as little as that means !

amcalester

All some people will see is €3,300 per month rent and think screw the landlord.

Cuddlesworth

You missed the bit at the end, its the second time for him. He already was 50k in the hole before that one.

CoffeeBean2

But he's a LL and can well afford it, after all he has more than one property. God love him. If he had left the hard up tenants alone, they probably wouldn't have needed to destroy the place.

We need to take care of the people that don't want to provide for themselves and squeeze those that do.

handlemaster

amcalester wrote: »

All some people will see is €3,300 per month rent and think screw the landlord.

The tenant that would be able to prove over 3k per month was managible must be on a great salary.

enricoh

He's not very good at picking tenants, when it costs 50k when you pick a dud, i would be doing a lot more research!

The_Conductor

enricoh wrote: »

He's not very good at picking tenants, when it costs 50k when you pick a dud, i would be doing a lot more research!

You can do all the research in the world- and still end up with a dud.
As it stands- tenants can have any findings made against them taken down off the RTB website- contrary to the report in the Irish Times- so even if there are significant misdeeds- unless the landlord decides to invest the time and effort in pursuing the tenant- its not going to show up in any searches people do.

The landlord in the article- is getting EUR50 a month- from a previous tenant who ran up arrears of 50k.

There is a reasonable presumption that if someone is renting a unit in D4- that they're going to be of a certain calibre- I know I could never ever dream to afford to rent in D4- nor would I try- this landlord has gotten caught by at least 2 people on this property (no idea from the article whether or not he has additional units- however, the way its worded, I suspect not).

The system is setup to protect tenants at all costs- even if they destroy property and don't pay rent. Anyone who sticks their necks up and points out the inequity of some tenants getting away with this behaviour- gets strips torn out of them. You cannot mitigate against criminal behaviour- when society and the law is stacked against you. The law- meanwhile- is meandering around the place to suit political ends- whatever makes good media- gets pushed- and crucifying landlords- while ignoring the likes of this guy's tenants and their mayhem- is what sells papers.

The Irish Times is going out on a limb even publishing articles like this- you quite simply do not get the other side of the equation in the Irish media- its all about the poor tenant- even where the poor tenant has taken a high spec unit in D4 and thrashed it- while availing of 2 years rent free accommodation- it simply is politically incorrect to call out any tenants on the actions of the few who cause such misery and hardship all round.

The RTB *is not fit for purpose*. Ideally- it should be disbanded- and a neutral body take its place- where tenants and landlords are both treated in a fair but neutral manner- and there is an expectation that both tenants and landlords will obey the law. In addition- the manner in which a non-paying tenant can play the system for 2+ years availing of rent-free accommodation- or indeed the manner in which a landlord owed 50k is only repaid at EUR50 a month- simply is inequitable- and a recipe to get any sane landlords the hell out of the system ASAP.

On the brightside- all those landlords exiting the system- are making additional units available to buy on the market for owner-occupiers- however, the manner in which the owner occupiers first time buyer inducement doesn't include second hand property- effectively devalues secondhand property by a minimum of 20k per unit.

The whole sector is so messed up- its quite unbelievable just how screwed up it is.

Sonny noggs

Animals. The tenants are probably causing hassle for a new landlord, building up arrears and wrecking the gaff again, and nothing the new landlord can do about it either.

Yer Da sells Avon

kceire wrote: »

About time someone printed something to show the negative spin towards landlords.
It got quite a positive feedback from posters on FB, as little as that means !

<SNIP>

Graham

Mod Note

Yer Da sells Avon, please read the forum charter before posting in Accommodation & property again.

Yer Da sells Avon

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

Yer Da sells Avon, please read the forum charter before posting in Accommodation & property again.

I've just done that. Can you tell me which specific part of the charter my post breached?

Sonny noggs

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I've just done that. Can you tell me which specific part of the charter my post breached?

Probably trolling

The_Conductor

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Perhaps if landlords (almost every one of them) weren't ripping people off, there wouldn't be a 'negative spin' against them. The fact that current levels of demand allow them to charge astronomical prices does not make it morally acceptable.

The average small landlord is paying up to 54% in tax- and as they have been in the sector for a protracted period of time- have been RPZ'ed at levels significantly below those that new units owned by the REITs- who often are structured in such a manner to not pay tax (at all).

3,300 for a house in D4- would not be startling even in bad times- its D4 after-all- however, a commensurate rate elsewhere- would be an entirely different story.

We discussed taxation policy in this forum before- a lot of smaller landlords thought a flatrate deduction of perhaps 20-25% would be fair and reasonable- providing it was applied across the board- and all landlords were treated in a similar manner.

Currently- the Revenue Commissioners- are the main beneficiaries of rent from small landlords- and the taxpayers and tenants of the country- are haemorhaging money to the REITs- who are doing what they do- and hoovering up cash sloshing around the sector. And why wouldn't they- when they don't have to pay tax.

I, for one- think it would be great for rents to fall- 30-40% and a flatrate deduction of perhaps 20-25% be made directly, on a monthly basis, to the Revenue Commissioners. Outside of that- both tenants and landlords could do whatever the hell they want.

The sector- as it stands- is wholly unsustainable. Rents are too high. People's accommodation costs- as a percentage of their pay- are unsustainable. Rent increases- are vastly in excess the rates of general inflation (and people's pay). Different types of landlords- are treated in very different manners. The people's right to accommodation- as enshrined in UN conventions- has been outsourced to the private sector- who simultaneously- are having their feet kicked from under them.

It simply doesn't add up- and it is very obvious that different government ministers, quite simply, don't talk to one another.

Pandering to the media- is all well and good-however, and as the government are discovering- there is the law of cause and effect- and at the end of the day, if a significant cohort of landlords leg it to the door- the government are going to be the ones with egg on their face- its all well and good having a bogeyman in the corner to pour scorn on- but if the bogeyman eventually just gives up and fecks off- well, then you've no bogeyman, and whether you like it or not- you're left holding the baby.

We need massive construction of social and affordable housing- in high density settings- as close to our urban centres as possible. Anything less than this- is an abomination- that is going to come back and bite us all in future years. It may not be immediately apparent- but it will be. Unfortunately the Irish politicians and the Irish electorate- have a remarkable capacity to not learn lessons from our past mistakes.

Spanish Eyes

Do REITS and other apartment block owning companies accept HAP? They may not discriminate but who checks it out?

If they are only in it for the so called professional person or couple, who then houses the families and others? That is where the "amateur" landlord stepped in. But they are going, going, nearly gone now.

The_Conductor

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Do REITS and other apartment block owning companies accept HAP? They may not discriminate but who checks it out?

If they are only in it for the so called professional person or couple, who then houses the families and others? That is where the "amateur" landlord stepped in. But they are going, going, nearly gone now.

Legally they have to accept HAP (and other payments). However- if they are letting a new unit that doesn't have a previous rent associated with it- they can charge whatever the market will bear- which can be significantly above any HAP levels. So- while technically they aren't refusing to accept HAP- they are setting the rent at a level whereby HAP recipients simply aren't in a position to compete with private sector renters (who themselves- are paying too much, as a percentage of their net income on rent- but they simply don't feel they have any alternate but to do so).

Something has to give- rent levels are too high- and the manner in which REITs can buy up entire blocks off the plans and charge whatever the hell they like- because people don't have any other option- is abhorent.

We need fair rents- and we need a fair and equitable taxation system. Separately- we need a fair and neutral body to arbitrate in disputes between landlords and tenants- without any completely mad time scales in cases (the landlord in the article at the start of this thread- has been waiting two years for a hearing- and still doesn't have a date. Its very two-faced for the RTB to point at 6 weeks for arbitration- if arbitration is only the first of many steps- the sum of which stretches into literally years in duration.

tigger123

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

The_Conductor

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

They are- perception is that property has peaked- and given the regulatory regime and how difficult it is becoming to operate in the sector, landlords are selling up- and investing elsewhere (often property in other EU countries).

Mad_maxx

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

For another thread but the Irish tax system is very unfavourable for equity fund investors, people really are steered towards property

CollyFlower

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

If you run a business you should expect payment for that service.... Being a landlord is a high risk investment. It all comes down to the quality of tenants you have., then again you're still taking a risk.

YipeeDee

kceire wrote: »

About time someone printed something to show the negative spin towards landlords.
It got quite a positive feedback from posters on FB, as little as that means !

@KCeire, Thanks for sharing. Have just read the article and the comments on FB.
The tone appears to have changed from when you originally posted.
The venom being spewed is just horrendous.
Makes me all the more eager to get out of the rental market as soon as possible.

pwurple

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

Good idea!

They are, in their droves. Note the massive shortage of rental accommodation.

overkill602

Try finding a place to rent in dublin on any search engine you want clearly current policy driven by ridiculous private members bills has encouraged a mass exit before a door maybe closed to even stop that...

garhjw

Which of the loser parties on the left wants a “right to housing” inserted into the constitution? The fact is that some people, the tenant in this case, deserve to be homeless.

Gumbo

tigger123 wrote: »

If being a landlord is such a difficult place to be, people should invest their money elsewhere.

That’s what’s happening on the ground.
Evident by the back of rental properties available, i thought that was obvious?

Wanderer78

garhjw wrote:

Which of the loser parties on the left wants a “right to housing†inserted into the constitution? The fact is that some people, the tenant in this case, deserve to be homeless.

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

garhjw

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

They should be on the street.

The_Conductor

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

We move away from the model of outsourcing accommodation to those who are incapable of housing themselves, to the private sector- and build both social housing developments- and affordable housing developments.

The mess has been brewing since the local authorities really went to town divesting their local authority housing stocks without replacement them on a quid-pro-quo basis with new stock.

We are still, even now, selling local authority dwellings (at discounts of up to 40% off open market selling prices- to sitting tenants). In the middle of a housing crisis........ This is nuts.

The government don't have the gonads to admit they screwed up- and that their chosen manner of doing away with council/local authority estates- has not worked.

We have a plethora of other issues and collateral damage- such as the REITs buying up entire blocks of apartments and housing estates- esp. in the Dublin area- driving up the asking rents for everyone else- that though is as a result of other (populist) policies.

The Minister and his predecessors- and the government in general- are playing a populist game- playing to the lowest common denominator- however, its based on the premise that they have someone else to blame. Unfortunately for them- the chosen baddie (the landlords)- have a finite amount of abuse they can put up with- and then some- and that has been surpassed- and they are voting with their feet- and exiting.

Given that property is no longer increasing at unusual rates- and is actually falling in some Dublin areas- the logical and sane thing to do- in light of an increasingly onerous regulatory environment- is to sell and get out of the sector. What those sellers do with their money- is another thing altogether- however, you can be certain its not going back into the rental sector- these people are not thick.........

I don't know who the Minister has advising him- or whether he is heeding their advice- however, he has certainly dropped the ball and appears to have no cognisance whatsoever of what is happening on the ground. Add a large dollop of condescension into the mix- a-la his comments on how younger people should enjoy the new shared accommodation hostels- and you really have to laugh at just how divorced he is from reality.

Wanderer78

garhjw wrote:

They should be on the street.

Unfortunately I think that says more about you than them. Of course some humans behave dreadfully at times, does this mean we should simply discard them on the streets or in a cell?

amcalester

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think that says more about you than them. Of course some humans behave dreadfully at times, does this mean we should simply discard them on the streets or in a cell?

Eh yeah, and if/when they learn to play nice they can be welcomed back into the fold.