2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Kevhog1988

Seem to be finding at the moment that Auctioneers are an absolute nightmare to deal with. They werent long reverting to celtic tiger attitudes once supply was reduced.

Wanderer78

Kevhog1988 wrote: »

Seem to be finding at the moment that Auctioneers are an absolute nightmare to deal with. They werent long reverting to celtic tiger attitudes once supply was reduced.

unfortunately another drawback of the fire sector, theyre necessary, but.....

Villa05

AlmightyCushion wrote:

It also says evictions here are easy which is a load of bull. Problem tenants can stay years in their houses without paying a cent and wreck the place and landlords can do nothing to stop it. When that happens it leads to small time landlords looking to get out of the market.

2% of tenancies end in dispute, let's assume 1% are landlord/lady instigated.

What % of this 1% end in situations as you describe. It must be really small.

Other posters get lambasted here for transposing their opinion as fact by moderators, however other arguments are accepted as gospel when stats show it is very rare.

It is a disaster for the owner when it happens and yes the law should be on their side with swift eviction

The rental market here is dominated by rolling 1 year leases so by definition eviction is easy as most tennants that are told to move on usually do without it being news.
There are also many outlets in law to terminate a lease.

JimmyVik

EddieN75 wrote: »

I admit that I fell hook line and sinker for varadkars talk about rewarding those who get up early on the morning.

Then the past year I worked throughout the pandemic going into shops all over the country to maintain and repair food production and storage machines . Ovens, freezers etc , risking my health, trying to save money to buy some sort of house and now I hear of funds buying everything

I got up early every morning Leo, worked in high risk areas throughout the pandemic and paid my taxes.

I hate them all

Dont forget what he said about people not having to the high rate of tax when they are earning below 50k too.
The man is an out and out liar.

L1011

General politics chat -> Politics forum
General economics chat -> Economics forum
Some other stuff here is probably suited to the Humanities forum

Amadan Dubh

The Irish Times, this morning, posted that story on their linkedin about the government looking to ban funds from buying estates but have subsequently removed it.

/ tinfoil hat

Wanderer78

^^^^again, i appreciate the modding on such matters, but we continually try separate these issues, when the reality is, they are all complexly intertwined, all of these failures are cumulating in our most serious failures, the most obvious being in property and land markets, but i will respect the modding decision, thank you

AlmightyCushion

Villa05 wrote: »

2% of tenancies end in dispute, let's assume 1% are landlord/lady instigated.

What % of this 1% end in situations as you describe. It must be really small.

Other posters get lambasted here for transposing their opinion as fact by moderators, however other arguments are accepted as gospel when stats show it is very rare.

It is a disaster for the owner when it happens and yes the law should be on their side with swift eviction

The rental market here is dominated by rolling 1 year leases so by definition eviction is easy as most tennants that are told to move on usually do without it being news.
There are also many outlets in law to terminate a lease.

I accept that it is a small percentage of the market and I've even argued it on here in the past. Regardless, evictions are not easy here like he claims and I doubt any investment company thinks they are.

Also, a lease does not invalidate part 4 tenancies. Sure there are ways to end a tenancy but the way things are now, evictions are basically optional on the tenants part.

yagan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

^^^^again, i appreciate the modding on such matters, but we continually try separate these issues, when the reality is, they are all complexly intertwined, all of these failures are cumulating in our most serious failures, the most obvious being in property and land markets, but i will respect the modding decision, thank you

Absolutely. Today there's outrage today about foreign vulture funds buying up family homes, but when the pension crash comes, and it will, we'll be listening to Irish pensioners screaming blue murder on Joe Duffy about how their rent derived income fund has imploded and they'll want the working to be taxed more to cover their shortfall.

The generation that told their offspring that house prices could only ever go up are about to discover that their private pensions can't defy gravity either.

amacca

Villa05 wrote: »

2% of tenancies end in dispute, let's assume 1% are landlord/lady instigated.

What % of this 1% end in situations as you describe. It must be really small.

Other posters get lambasted here for transposing their opinion as fact by moderators, however other arguments are accepted as gospel when stats show it is very rare.

It is a disaster for the owner when it happens and yes the law should be on their side with swift eviction

The rental market here is dominated by rolling 1 year leases so by definition eviction is easy as most tennants that are told to move on usually do without it being news.
There are also many outlets in law to terminate a lease.

My parents rented bedsits in Dublin back in late 80s early 90s ......even then the percentage of tenants that caused problems, didn't pay, damaged property was way way above 1%

A lot of it went unreported because even then thete was nothing that could be done or you would spend more than you would recover or it would take way too long to remedy

The prtb were a nightmare to deal with and completely one-sided

Can't help thinking govt meddling and driving private landlords out of the market has contributed big time to this problem.......now it's either incompetence inaction or unwillingness to take action

derekgine3

yagan wrote: »

There's definitely a political shift imminent.

Half of the sitting Fianna Fail TDs in the last Dail actually voted against us having a repeal referendum, but the 2/1 result placed them very much on the wrong side of the public debate.

I'd be curious to know how many of the current crop are landlords and simply can't see the problem from anyother side but their own.

Absolutely, they are several people i grew up with (all within their 40s/50s now) who used to be quite smug about the rising house prices but now that all their children can't afford a place of their own they have changed their tune. Most are leaning towards right wing parties (if there is any) Irish freedom, NP etc.

I wouldn't count on them sorting this mess either though.

derekgine3

Honest question, who can we vote for to sort this mess out?

timmyntc

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I accept that it is a small percentage of the market and I've even argued it on here in the past. Regardless, evictions are not easy here like he claims and I doubt any investment company thinks they are.

Also, a lease does not invalidate part 4 tenancies. Sure there are ways to end a tenancy but the way things are now, evictions are basically optional on the tenants part.

In a lot of cases, particularly with AHBs - a disruptive tenant will be voluntarily moved elsewhere rather than get evicted. So the PRTB case is never heard as it would take too long.

The AHB worker in question basically admitted that her hands were tied, they give the tenant 3 warnings and then start a case with RTB which could take years to ultimately get an eviction - so the quickest approach is to move the problem instead.

Wanderer78

timmyntc wrote: »

In a lot of cases, particularly with AHBs - a disruptive tenant will be voluntarily moved elsewhere rather than get evicted. So the PRTB case is never heard as it would take too long.

The AHB worker in question basically admitted that her hands were tied, they give the tenant 3 warnings and then start a case with RTB which could take years to ultimately get an eviction - so the quickest approach is to move the problem instead.

wide scale evictions currently arent viable, as discussed, but does need to be resolved

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

2% of tenancies end in dispute, let's assume 1% are landlord/lady instigated.

What % of this 1% end in situations as you describe. It must be really small.

Other posters get lambasted here for transposing their opinion as fact by moderators, however other arguments are accepted as gospel when stats show it is very rare.

It is a disaster for the owner when it happens and yes the law should be on their side with swift eviction

The rental market here is dominated by rolling 1 year leases so by definition eviction is easy as most tennants that are told to move on usually do without it being news.
There are also many outlets in law to terminate a lease.

Couple of things here

1. Should people not be pulled up for misrepresenting opinion as fact?
2. I totally agree with you on lease duration but it looks difficult considering regulations seem to be altered or changed every couple of years. It would make commercial sense for landlords and provide stability for renters.
3. Grounds for terminating a lease are very limited in my opinion. While it’s not ideal evicting because you want to sell if that option is not there it makes the property unsellable. My understanding is banks only give mortgages with vacant possession. Can government compel them to waive this? Other grounds for eviction seem fair and reasonable.

timmyntc

Wanderer78 wrote: »

wide scale evictions currently arent viable, as discussed, but does need to be resolved

Swift evictions for anti social behaviour would actually allow better utilisation of existing rental stock than we have right now.

Being able to quickly evict a tenant before they destroy the property means less downtime trying to fix up the place before it can be re-let.
Council properties in particular can have 6 months+ of vacancy between tenants because so much work needs done.

Wanderer78

timmyntc wrote: »

Swift evictions for anti social behaviour would actually allow better utilisation of existing rental stock than we have right now.

Being able to quickly evict a tenant before they destroy the property means less downtime trying to fix up the place before it can be re-let.
Council properties in particular can have 6 months+ of vacancy between tenants because so much work needs done.

wont work, as discussed

RichardAnd

derekgine3 wrote: »

Absolutely, they are several people i grew up with (all within their 40s/50s now) who used to be quite smug about the rising house prices but now that all their children can't afford a place of their own they have changed their tune. Most are leaning towards right wing parties (if there is any) Irish freedom, NP etc.

I wouldn't count on them sorting this mess either though.

The "right-wing" parties in Ireland that I am aware of generally seem to focus on social matters. E.g., they will oppose abortion, gay marriage and other such matters. I'm not aware of any party, left or right, that genuinely has a grasp on neo-liberalism/globalism beyond vacuous talking points.

However, it is at least encouraging that many are now seeing that this is a problem.

jill_valentine

Hubertj wrote: »

3. Grounds for terminating a lease are very limited in my opinion.

Imaginary relative or major magnolia refurbishment. Anybody who's rented in Dublin will have experienced it or seen it.

timmyntc

Wanderer78 wrote: »

wont work, as discussed

Your vague handwaving about mental health supports for those evicted wont cut it.

What about mental health supports for those on housing lists still waiting for a home? It is a zero sum game doing evictions from social housing - the social house gets filled again with someone else from the housing list - hopefully some more deserving who wont act up and necessitate an eviction.

Wanderer78

timmyntc wrote: »

Your vague handwaving about mental health supports for those evicted wont cut it.

What about mental health supports for those on housing lists still waiting for a home? It is a zero sum game doing evictions from social housing - the social house gets filled again with someone else from the housing list - hopefully some more deserving who wont act up and necessitate an eviction.

we re not allowed to discuss this any further, but trust me, your ideas currently arent viable

Hubertj

jill_valentine wrote: »

Imaginary relative or major magnolia refurbishment. Anybody who's rented in Dublin will have experienced it or seen it.

That would be a breach of the regulations and there are penalties attached I presume. But there’s the problem - they are reasonable grounds to terminate a lease but those landlords that abuse them do not seem to be held accountable.

C14N

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, no matter what else they did, if they abolished local property tax, I'd say they'd be treated like a gold medal winner coming home from the olympics.


If they made that their lead promise to get voted in, you can be sure they'd be in like a light. My experience is that, although most will agree it's a good tax for the government (steady, reliable, always there, etc.) it's existence has angered, and still does anger, so, so many people.

I agree it's not very popular, and in practical terms it would be better served by replacing it with a site/land tax, but it's still a progressive tax that does help pay for essential services. Sinn Féin seem to think you can greatly expand public services while also repealing any means to actually pay for them. That's fine when you're in opposition and the sky is the limit on what you can propose, but not in practice. They appear to be completely opposed to any new buildings either, taking every measure to stymie them, whether through banning certain types of developments, imposing incredibly strict price controls on rentals, or opposing virtually every new housing development at the local level.

I get the impression that they think all of societal woes come about from certain "bad people" like greedy developers, investment funds, landlords, banks etc. and that if we just squeeze them hard enough, or drive them out entirely, then everything would just be fine. I don't know if they think they can just expropriate assets from these funds, or if they think they can just build massive numbers of single-family unit public houses in an infinite sprawl on borrowed money which they don't plan to pay back, but nothing I've seen them actually propose sounds like it would do anything but make the situation worse.

Hubertj wrote: »

Getting married and havin kids under 30 is too young. Have a bit of fun first.

It's one thing to choose to not settle down under 30 because you don't want to do it, it's another if you can't because it's not financially viable.

C14N

Hubertj wrote: »

That would be a breach of the regulations and there are penalties attached I presume. But there’s the problem - they are reasonable grounds to terminate a lease but those landlords that abuse them do not seem to be held accountable.

Usually its a grey area, and very hard to prosecute. The relative usually won't be entirely ficticious, but maybe isn't going to live there full time, or was heavily prodded to stay there for 6 months so they can evict the tenant. When you make it too much hassle to rent out (either because problem tenants can't be quickly gotten rid of, or because you can't set a market price), people are naturally going to try to find ways to wiggle out of it.

IAmTheReign

Villa05 wrote: »

2% of tenancies end in dispute, let's assume 1% are landlord/lady instigated.

What % of this 1% end in situations as you describe. It must be really small.

Other posters get lambasted here for transposing their opinion as fact by moderators, however other arguments are accepted as gospel when stats show it is very rare.

It is a disaster for the owner when it happens and yes the law should be on their side with swift eviction

The rental market here is dominated by rolling 1 year leases so by definition eviction is easy as most tennants that are told to move on usually do without it being news.
There are also many outlets in law to terminate a lease.

According to the PRTBs own stats Rent arrears/Rent arrears and overholding is by far the most common reason for disputes brought to the PRTB. It's reason for 33% of all cases, and over 80% of cases brought by landlords. Who knows how many cases are never brought to the PRTB though. Stats for Q1 2021 are here

And the market is not dominated by rolling 1 year leases. Part 4 tenancy rights kick in after 6 months so you can't just tell someone to move on at the end of their lease.

Idbatterim

derekgine3 wrote: »

Honest question, who can we vote for to sort this mess out?

Nobody , send a warning shot that you will be voted out of you dont fix it, protest vote for sf etc OR to register our total disgust with the appalling options here, simply dont vote... I think that might he the best way in which new parties could form and the old cartel, would be forced to change

Wanderer78

Idbatterim wrote: »

Nobody , send a warning shot that you will be voted out of you dont fix it, protest vote for sf etc OR to register our total disgust with the appalling options here, simply dont vote... I think that might he the best way in which new parties could form and the old cartel, would be forced to change

democracy needs our votes to survive, no votes equals......

timmyntc

C14N wrote: »

Usually its a grey area, and very hard to prosecute. The relative usually won't be entirely ficticious, but maybe isn't going to live there full time, or was heavily prodded to stay there for 6 months so they can evict the tenant. When you make it too much hassle to rent out (either because problem tenants can't be quickly gotten rid of, or because you can't set a market price), people are naturally going to try to find ways to wiggle out of it.

Agree - really someone wanting to move in should be no reason to evict. You agreed a contract with the tenant, and you have to honour it. Tough **** if you or your sister want to move in, they can rent somewhere else.

The sale issue is a genuine one though - once sale agreed there should be a quick and painless eviction process, or else force banks hand to lend for sale of property with tenants in situ. Would need some way to terminate the tenancy after a certain period though - new buyers may well want to buy and a house and live in it. Not much good if tenants can stay indefinitely.

C14N

Idbatterim wrote: »

Nobody , send a warning shot that you will be voted out of you dont fix it, protest vote for sf etc OR to register our total disgust with the appalling options here, simply dont vote... I think that might he the best way in which new parties could form and the old cartel, would be forced to change

You can always look for independant candidates who might be in some way helpful, or possibly some of the smaller parties. Social Democrats don't seem entirely terrible from what I have seen from them, and while people will often villify Greens for working with FFG, I don't really think they have the leverage to do much about these bigger issues in their coalition.

There's no point in just not voting, someone is going to get in anyway.

Idbatterim

Wanderer78 wrote: »

democracy needs our votes to survive, no votes equals......

No votes equals forcing the establishment to change and encourages new parties to form. Its by far the most effective tool. Or do suggest continuing to vote for the ffg farce ? And wonder why they no longer serve us, that put them there...