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

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

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    I’m sure you’re right, but for whom is it an issue other than the “amateur” landlords themselves? As a society, do we care if they sell up and leave the market? Either their property will be purchased as a residence, or else by a larger landlord. I don’t see any reason why government should incentivize small time landlords.

    Different strokes for different folks.

    I lived with "amateur" and "professional" landlords for years and never had a problem. It depends on your own situation.

    The smaller guys were handy when I was a student and starting out after college when I had no money and needed places short term, without lease and kind of open ended. Flexibility basically.

    The professional larger landlords had nicer apartments but I had to produce bank details, work references. sign contracts, deal with EAs etc. Its fine when Iv a full time paid professional job and I can deal with them but its difficult for others.


  • Options
    #63
    theguzman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    Fol20 wrote: »
    I presume your not a landlord then :)

    I will be within 6 weeks, I am currently renovating a house I bought which suffered abuse with the previous tenants and probably played a factor in the previous owner losing the house to the bank, off whom I purchased.


  • Options
    #64
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    I'd presume we do as it's not a great situation for a family to be in that to get a decent 3-bedroom house they need to spend double what the mortgage would be. Not everyone can or should buy property.

    As for a larger LL buying the property, the won't. They are buying new properties so that they can charge top rents.

    The vagaries of the private rental market are not really adequate to the needs of families anyhow. Really we need social and affordable housing for those cases, not an “accidental” landlord who’s just reluctant to sell an asset.


  • Options
    #65
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    The vagaries of the private rental market are not really adequate to the needs of families anyhow. Really we need social and affordable housing for those cases, not an “accidental” landlord who’s just reluctant to sell an asset.


    Of course we do but just as we got rid of bedsits with unintended consequences, getting rid (which is what we're doing) of 2/3 of all LL's is madness. We have to bring social housing on stream first. If the market wasn't so stacked against LL's there would be less of them selling up.


  • Options
    #66
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Of course we do but just as we got rid of bedsits with unintended consequences, getting rid (which is what we're doing) of 2/3 of all LL's is madness. We have to bring social housing on stream first. If the market wasn't so stacked against LL's there would be less of them selling up.

    There is no question that a small landlord selling is bad news for their current tenants, but it’s good news for the prospective buyer. It doesn’t affect the overall supply of housing, so I don’t see why as a society we should be concerned if this form of landlordism is on the way out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    There is no question that a small landlord selling is bad news for their current tenants, but it’s good news for the prospective buyer. It doesn’t affect the overall supply of housing, so I don’t see why as a society we should be concerned if this form of landlordism is on the way out.


    So it's feck people who are not in a position to buy then?


  • Options
    #68
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    Different strokes for different folks.

    I lived with "amateur" and "professional" landlords for years and never had a problem. It depends on your own situation.

    The smaller guys were handy when I was a student and starting out after college when I had no money and needed places short term, without lease and kind of open ended. Flexibility basically.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is such a thing as a “no lease” rental.


  • Options
    #69
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is such a thing as a “no lease” rental.


    I think he means without a fixed term lease.


  • Options
    #70
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is such a thing as a “no lease” rental.

    This was years ago. Things were far more flexible. Its not allowed anymore.


  • Options
    #71
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    So it's feck people who are not in a position to buy then?

    And so it’s feck the people who could buy houses if only the small time landlords would sell up? More people will be able to buy if that happens.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    This was years ago. Things were far more flexible. Its not allowed anymore.

    Probably because it was great for tax dodgers. Are you arguing that we need to go back to that situation?

    I do want to emphasize that I’m not suggesting it’s never been handy from a renter’s perspective to deal with a small landlord on a casual basis, cash in hand and all that. What I’m asking is why government should act to keep small time landlords in the market? I think most people will agree that going back to the days of yore would not be a desirable policy.


  • Options
    #73
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Probably because it was great for tax dodgers. Are you arguing that we need to go back to that situation?

    If it meant that I could get a place to rent quickly, easily and cheaply...... Yes.


  • Options
    #74
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    And so it’s feck the people who could buy houses if only the small time landlords would sell up? More people will be able to buy if that happens.


    More, but not everyone. Furthermore not everyone wants to buy. People may want to remain mobile for any number of reasons. There needs to be a diverse range of options for a properly functioning market for all.


  • Options
    #75
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    If it meant that I could get a place to rent quickly, easily and cheaply...... Yes.

    Once again, I’m asking from the perspective of society as a whole. Government will not be designing policy around the desire for cheap transient accommodation.


  • Options
    #76
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    What I’m asking is why government should act to keep small time landlords in the market? I think most people will agree that going back to the days of yore would not be a desirable policy.


    Have you seen what's happened to rents recently? It's locking people into renting who would have traditionally been able to buy after a couple of years renting.


  • Options
    #77
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    More, but not everyone. Furthermore not everyone wants to buy. People may want to remain mobile for any number of reasons. There needs to be a diverse range of options for a properly functioning market for all.

    People want to remain mobile, what does that mean? Are they like travellers moving from town to town? If there is one thing people hate, it’s having to move.


  • Options
    #78
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Have you seen what's happened to rents recently? It's locking people into renting who would have traditionally been able to buy after a couple of years renting.

    The lack of supply that is locking people into renting. How does a landlord renting one existing house instead of selling it change the supply?


  • Options
    #79
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    People want to remain mobile, what does that mean? Are they like travellers moving from town to town? If there is one thing people hate, it’s having to move.


    You've a very blinkered view. There are plenty of workers in Dublin who are here on short term contracts, students and people who may have rented in an area they're not going to stay in order to save for a deposit.

    As has already been pointed out not everyone should be buying either.


  • Options
    #80
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Once again, I’m asking from the perspective of society as a whole. Government will not be designing policy around the desire for cheap transient accommodation.

    There is enormous need for cheap transient accommodation.

    Iv had to move several times for work. Ordinary people can't afford to leave school and buy a house to live in the next day.


  • Options
    #81
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    There is enormous need for cheap transient accommodation.

    Iv had to move several times for work. Ordinary people can't afford to leave school and buy a house to live in the next day.

    Ok, so we should return to a situation that facilitated large scale tax evasion, because that will definitely lead to a functional housing market in the long run. Get real.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    The lack of supply that is locking people into renting. How does a landlord renting one existing house instead of selling it change the supply?


    It changes the supply of rental accommodation forcing prices up which eventually leads to large REITs buying entire blocks forcing prices up even more as they can set the rents at what they want.


  • Options
    #83
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Ok, so we should return to a situation that facilitated large scale tax evasion, because that will definitely lead to a functional housing market in the long run. Get real.


    Cheap transient accommodation doesn't need to be outside the tax system. There's no point in denying that some people need that sort of accommodation and that is generally going to be supplied by private LL's.


  • Options
    #84
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    It changes the supply of rental accommodation forcing prices up which eventually leads to large REITs buying entire blocks forcing prices up even more as they can set the rents at what they want.

    They can set the rents at what the market can bear. And the only way to address that is to increase the housing supply. And since small time landlords do nothing to increase the housing supply, I see no reason we should act to incentivize them to stay in business.


  • Options
    #85
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Cheap transient accommodation doesn't need to be outside the tax system. There's no point in denying that some people need that sort of accommodation and that is generally going to be supplied by private LL's.

    The poster specifically talked about it being convenient to deal with landlords in flexible no lease situations, and said we should go back to that.

    But anyhow, whatever the solution to providing student and short term accommodation is, I’m certain it’s not having some guy who inherited his parents’ 3 bed semi in the suburbs renting it out to a bunch of students.


  • Options
    #86
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    They can set the rents at what the market can bear. And the only way to address that is to increase the housing supply. And since small time landlords do nothing to increase the housing supply, I see no reason we should act to incentivize them to stay in business.


    So we go back to - feck anyone that can't/won't buy.


  • Options
    #87
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    So we go back to - feck anyone that can't/won't buy.

    No, we go back to advocating the government act in ways which will increase the supply, including of affordable and social housing, rather implementing measures that won’t.


  • Options
    #88
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    The poster specifically talked about it being convenient to deal with landlords in flexible no lease situations, and said we should go back to that.

    But anyhow, whatever the solution to providing student and short term accommodation is, I’m certain it’s not having some guy who inherited his parents’ 3 bed semi in the suburbs renting it out to a bunch of students.


    Why not? Simply because you want to buy there and can't?


    If he owns the house and pays tax and students want to live there then why should they be stopped from doing that?


  • Options
    #89
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Why not? Simply because you want to buy there and can't?


    If he owns the house and pays tax and students want to live there then why should they be stopped from doing that?

    Why should society incentivize that model? Why should the government forego tax revenue to enable him to continue doing that?


  • Options
    #90
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    No, we go back to advocating the government act in ways which will increase the supply, including of affordable and social housing, rather implementing measures that won’t.


    So we take 30% of those houses you'd like to buy and turn them over to social housing - I'm all for that but it's not going to solve your problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Why should society incentivize that model? Why should the government forego tax revenue to enable him to continue doing that?


    Why shouldn't they?


Advertisement