Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

handlemaster

JimmyVik wrote: »

I heard through the grapevine that my company has rented 12 apartments in a building in the docklands. Rent free until October. Empty until October too, or maybe even later because thats when all the overseas contractors are expected back. They will pay subsidized rent to my company if they want to live in them.

whats the bigger picture ?

mrslancaster

JimmyVik wrote: »

I heard through the grapevine that my company has rented 12 apartments in a building in the docklands. Rent free until October. Empty until October too, or maybe even later because thats when all the overseas contractors are expected back. They will pay subsidized rent to my company if they want to live in them.

And BIK, revenue always want their share.

it's good if companies are willing to help employees with rents in New developments, they are crazy expensive. So much for the idea that all we needed to bring rents down was more supply.

JimmyVik

mrslancaster wrote: »

And BIK, revenue always want their share.

it's good if companies are willing to help employees with rents in New developments, they are crazy expensive. So much for the idea that all we needed to bring rents down was more supply.

Im sure there will be some sort of BIk to be paid. Probably not much though.
The vast majority of the people getting them will be contractors, so there is probably some creative accounting being done.
I kinow for a fact that out company would not do this if they thought it was going to cost them ion the long run.
I must see if I can find out some more about it. I know we always had a couple of apartments in the city that they used like that.
But now they seem to be renting them in bulk. They also a while ago sent an email to staff asking if anyone had an apartment or house in Dublin that they would rent to them. They got a few replies on that alright.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

Im sure there will be some sort of BIk to be paid. Probably not much though.
The vast majority of the people getting them will be contractors, so there is probably some creative accounting being done..............

Accommodation can be provided creatively alright once it's not for employees.
I worked with a lad on a project who was in a hotel suite/apartment for the duration (18 months), he was a contractor and the company paid the hotel directly.

For employees the BIK would be on the market value so unless the actual rent paid was very small the rent & BIK would combine to be almost market value anyway. For a fixed term contract though if the people were really needed the wages could be bumped up to effectively "cover" the BIK also.

JimmyVik

Augeo wrote: »

Accommodation can be provided creatively alright once it's not for employees.
I worked with a lad on a project who was in a hotel suite/apartment for the duration (18 months), he was a contractor and the company paid the hotel directly.

For employees the BIK would be on the market value so unless the actual rent paid was very small the rent & BIK would combine to be almost market value anyway. For a fixed term contract though if the people were really needed the wages could be bumped up to effectively "cover" the BIK also.

Back in the days before I stopped traveling abroad for work they used to give me some cracking apartments for the two weeks at a time I was traveling. I remember once I had to stay in Barcelona for a month and I got a 3 bed apartment overlooking the water with a balcony about 10M long. It was the most amazing place. The mrs took her holidays after i sent her pictures and came over to stay for two of the weeks. And I even got per diems for it too

Likewise before Covid I used to travel lots........ except I was in more industrial spots. I spent 6 months of 2017/2018 away in nice client supplied accommodation in Boston, Austria, Prague, Slovenia, Venice and Dresden.

I've a small trip pending that I need to do soon but Covid has changed my game to the extent that the joy is gone out of it. Zooming stuff that you used to travel for isn't half as enjoyable. Once you stop work travel also you see the merit in not doing it of course but when you aren't doing it you also see the merit in it ...... haha

cgcsb

Dav010 wrote: »

Heard minister talking about this on radio this morning. It is very difficult to legislate for a property vacancy tax due to the number of reasons why a property could be empty. Few owners would admit to waiting for higher rents.

He was being interviewed in response to this, some of the challenges with any legislation are mentioned in the article.

https://www.thejournal.ie/vacant-property-tax-3-5441551-May2021/

Translation = he doesn't want to do anything about it. Our government is the key driver of the housing crisis they obviously like it this way and are pretty confident they won't be out on their ear come next election. I'm hoping the people give them a nice surprise.

Dav010

cgcsb wrote: »

Translation = he doesn't want to do anything about it. Our government is the key driver of the housing crisis they obviously like it this way and are pretty confident they won't be out on their ear come next election. I'm hoping the people give them a nice surprise.

Did you read the article? Consider the multitude of reasons why a house could be vacant from living abroad, illness, probate, repairs etc. How many owners are going to say they left their properties vacant because they want to wait for higher rents? Zero I would think.

JimmyVik

Dav010 wrote: »

Did you read the article? Consider the multitude of reasons why a house could be vacant from living abroad, illness, probate, repairs etc. How many owners are going to say they left their properties vacant because they want to wait for higher rents? Zero I would think.

Your honor, I was leaving empty for while until I see what new legislation the minister pulls out of thin air. Only after I know what he is going to do next can i figure out if i need to sell or or can i afford to put it back as a rental. I would have it rented, only for current legislation that means i might not get it back for years.

JimmyVik

cgcsb wrote: »

Translation = he doesn't want to do anything about it. Our government is the key driver of the housing crisis they obviously like it this way and are pretty confident they won't be out on their ear come next election. I'm hoping the people give them a nice surprise.

Or they dont want to fix it and the SF come in and get the credit for it
They want to leave it a total mess for SF when they get in. No point leaving it in a state where SF might make some progress.
Jesus i cant believe I just typed that.

Phat Cat

Landlords can impose rent increases of up to 8% under newly-discovered loophole as Covid-19 rent freeze ends

Dav010

Phat Cat wrote: »

Landlords can impose rent increases of up to 8% under newly-discovered loophole as Covid-19 rent freeze ends

When reading this article earlier, I wondered how this is a “newly discovered loophole”. If landlords can raise rent 4% per year and rent hasn’t risen for two years, why would this be a “loophole”?

DubCount

Phat Cat wrote: »

Landlords can impose rent increases of up to 8% under newly-discovered loophole as Covid-19 rent freeze ends

In a RPZ, annual rent increases can be 4% per year. So after 2 years, rent can increase by 8%. This is not a loophole.

If rent is higher than market value, then a tenant can simply move somewhere cheaper. where is the problem?

Topgear on Dave

Dav010 wrote: »

When reading this article earlier, I wondered how this is a “newly discovered loophole”. If landlords can raise rent 4% per year and rent hasn’t risen for two years, why would this be a “loophole”?

The journal looking for clicks. :rolleyes:

Phat Cat

Forget the whole loophole angle, the thing that stuck me was that we are coming out of a global pandemic yet rents were allowed to go up by 8% over the last two years. How can *anyone possibly defend that?

*Apart from landlords of course

Thestart

Phat Cat wrote: »

Forget the whole loophole angle, the thing that stuck me was that we are coming out of a global pandemic yet rents were allowed to go up by 8% over the last two years. How can *anyone possibly defend that?

*Apart from landlords of course

The rent set for the property is below market value by up to 8%. It can be way lower!
Otherwise you can’t increase the rent.

Emma2019

Thestart wrote: »

The rent set for the property is below market value by up to 8%. It can be way lower!
Otherwise you can’t increase the rent.

This assumes a functioning market and also that it's fine to have people who are working totally priced put of the rental market. Both of which I disagree with.

DubCount

Phat Cat wrote: »

Forget the whole loophole angle, the thing that stuck me was that we are coming out of a global pandemic yet rents were allowed to go up by 8% over the last two years. How can *anyone possibly defend that?

*Apart from landlords of course

According to lots of posts here, rents are falling, not increasing. If a LL can increase rent by 8%, the rent before the rent review must be well below market rates. It it wasn't, the tenant could just move somewhere cheaper.

This is the problem with RPZ. Someone renting house A was on a rent of 1,000 per month has an increase to 1,080 per month. Their friend next door in house B was paying 1,600 per month and has negotiated a rent decrease to 1,500 per month. Both houses are pretty much identical. Which tenant is worse off in this post-pandemic world ?

Claw Hammer

DubCount wrote: »

According to lots of posts here, rents are falling, not increasing. If a LL can increase rent by 8%, the rent before the rent review must be well below market rates. It it wasn't, the tenant could just move somewhere cheaper.

This is the problem with RPZ. Someone renting house A was on a rent of 1,000 per month has an increase to 1,080 per month. Their friend next door in house B was paying 1,600 per month and has negotiated a rent decrease to 1,500 per month. Both houses are pretty much identical. Which tenant is worse off in this post-pandemic world ?

The one who had the increase obviously.

DubCount

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The one who had the increase obviously.

Of course - the one still paying far less for the same thing - well said comrade

Phat Cat

DubCount wrote: »

According to lots of posts here, rents are falling, not increasing. If a LL can increase rent by 8%, the rent before the rent review must be well below market rates. It it wasn't, the tenant could just move somewhere cheaper.

According to actual statistics, rents in RPZ's aren't falling, only the rent on some very high-end apartments are falling, but they are still astronomically over priced ie: €1800 one bed apartment / €2200 two bed apartment.

Add to that lots of new build, high end properties, aren't even being rented out, as investors are sitting on their huge rents to prop up the prices of every other property around them, thus having a ripple effect throughout the RPZ.

Claw Hammer

DubCount wrote: »

Of course - the one still paying far less for the same thing - well said comrade

You asked which one was worse off, not which one has the better deal.

JimmyVik

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You asked which one was worse off, not which one has the better deal.

I thought the person who is worse off is the one paying the higher price for the same product.

Claw Hammer

JimmyVik wrote: »

I thought the person who is worse off is the one paying the higher price for the same product.

That was not the question asked. The person paying the lower price has the better deal but the person who is worse of is the person who is paying more than before for the same thing as opposed to the person who is paying less for the same thing.

JimmyVik

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That was not the question asked. The person paying the lower price has the better deal but the person who is worse of is the person who is paying more than before for the same thing as opposed to the person who is paying less for the same thing.

I think we all know the question he was asking.
You are over thinking it.
I wont say anything else on the matter though. I havent got a month to debate this one with you, so for your future posts on it ... whatever you think yourself mate.

Claw Hammer

JimmyVik wrote: »

I think we all know the question he was asking.

I(f you know the question he was asking why did you answer a different one?

Ozark707

Looks like FF weren't going to stand for 8% increases.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0602/1225588-housing-dail/

C14N

Ozark707 wrote: »

Looks like FF weren't going to stand for 8% increases.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0602/1225588-housing-dail/

Why does it keep being referred to as a "loophole"? It's just the law as it was written. Argue that it's unfair, but it's not a trick or anything.

Browney7

Ozark707 wrote: »

Looks like FF weren't going to stand for 8% increases.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0602/1225588-housing-dail/

An post will be busy delivering review letters now. It's likely every tenant in an RPZ could get a review now that Covid measures are gone?

Phat Cat

C14N wrote: »

Why does it keep being referred to as a "loophole"? It's just the law as it was written. Argue that it's unfair, but it's not a trick or anything.

Agreed, it's not much of a loophole in fairness. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, my work colleague had his rent increased by 4% in Feb 2020 and it's due to go up again by 4% in August, so that's an 8% increase over two calender years. It's perfectly legal, although totally immoral IMO