Renting a newly purchased house

pansophelia wrote: »

I've been a tenant for years and have just bought my first property.
Hundreds of thousands of people in this country rent, and the majority are decent and will not withhold rent or overhold. I work in an industry of young professionals, the vast majority of whom rent, without any difficulty on either side.

Absolutely true. We only tend to hear/see the worse case scenarios- both here- but also in the media. So you have nightmare tenants and nightmare landlords. Both exist- and both are very much in a minority. However- the manner in which the extreme cases are reported- and seized upon by advocacy groups etc- do ruin things for the vast majority of people letting property- or renting property. So- when a prominent case arises in the media- there are all manner of shrill calls that further onerous regulation is needed- and then when you get further outliers- this is then a self-enforcing prophecy.

pansophelia wrote: »

Looking briefly at the rtb website, yes there are about 50 cases this year of overholding that have been adjudicated on - but this represents a very small percentage of the number renting. I agree that a major problem is that any adjudication does not appear to be legally binding.

I'd emphasise- there are 50 cases (I haven't counted them)- which have been adjudicated on. However, both from this forum- and from various family members- I can single handedly point at another 50-60 cases of overholding- that landlords quite simply haven't bothered pursuing to the RTB. I.e. the number of cases of overholding (or damage) which are brought to the RTB by landlord- is the tip of the iceberg- rather than a fair or true reflection of the actual extent of the issue. There are numerous reasons for this- not leastly- if a landlord goes down this road- he/she will have massive legal fees- and a tenant can simply keep appealing the various findings- to the extent that even with the RTB guidelines of 12 weeks for cases involving overholding or non payment of rent- it can even now take 26-28 months for a tenant to exhaust all their objections and appeals- all the while they may not be paying rent.

The tenant has absolutely nothing to loose lodging an RTB case- the landlord does. The fact that a significant majority of adverse rulings are now made against tenants- which has happened for the first time over the last 2 years- is simply sympthomatic of a broken system- even where the landlord has nothing to gain- aside from a moral victory. A finding against a tenant- is unenforceable- the most a landlord can hope for is their property back- eventually- and if it hasn't been destroyed- all the better- but 10-20k of damage- is far from unusual.

Tenants bring cases- including spurious cases- at the suggestion of Threshold etc- landlords don't tend to- because they have nothing to gain.........

pansophelia wrote: »

Overall, this will likely work out just fine without any difficulties, as it does for most tenant-landlord relationships. You do need to go in with your eyes open, and consider how all aspects of managing the property will be dealt with even if you have an agent eg. any breakages, damage to property, frequency of inspection etc.

You can't say this. It might work out fine- it might not. And as for getting an agent- this is proving more problematic than ever- google the larger estate agents- and see how they increased their fees to 20% in 2016 and then decided to get out of the sector altogether in 2017. The regulatory environment is onerous- and the portrayal of landlords is toxic- unless a landlord is very hands on- or willing to pay a very high agents fee- they are likely to find themselves in trouble of one kind or another.

As for inspections etc- its a catch 22- a tenant is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their home- however, if a landlord inspects too frequently- and it has been suggested that 6 monthly inspections are too frequent- they are being unfair to the tenant. Meanwhile- a 'high risk tenant' who was inspected 2 monthly at the start of a tenancy- and who destroyed the property- was deemed to have been insufficiently inspected- and the damage was the fault of the landlord for not paying sufficient attention to their property (and a finding was made against the landlord at the RTB- which is perverse............)

It all sounds fair and reasonable- until you start to look at the actual facts on the ground.

pansophelia wrote: »

I would strongly recommend meeting any potential tenants and not relying on an agent to choose them. Obviously check up on references.

Yes- to a certain extent- however, you have to know what you're doing- and you're risking a non-successful applicant accusing you of bias under the equality act. Its a minefield. Its a lot more clearcut for certain types of tenant- but you can't differentiate- or you're in trouble.

pansophelia wrote: »

Give plenty of notice of when you are planning to move back - ideally giving a moving out date of a month or two prior to when you actually need to take possession to allow for any problems.

Actual notice- depends on how long the tenant has been resident- you can put whatever you want in a lease- but its meaningless- the terms defined in the Act are law. A month or two- could very well be illegal.

pansophelia wrote: »

I have several friends and family members renting out property - overall no difficulties, the commonest complaint I hear is that the place isn't looked after like it's their own, but that's because it's not their own.

I've several friends and family members- some of whom have had wonderful tenants down the years- others of whom have had disasters (including serious structural damage to an apartment complex). On the basis of some of my family and friends- buying and renting out a property is a no-brainer- but on the basis of others- it was the worst possible thing they ever did.

pansophelia wrote: »

Again, as mentioned, you need to not be completely relying on the rent money to pay the mortgage - just in case.
I've just come through a long and difficult purchasing process - if you've found a house that's right for you now, you're probably right to jump at the chance.

Once again- the OP is not buying a property to live in themselves, right here, right now. He/she is planning on going abroad- by their own suggestion for several years. They are in an entirely different situation to you. Prices are already falling in some areas (in Dublin- look at recent sales of secondhand properties in the Adamstown/Clonburris area)- whereas other areas which were once considered dodgy- have become gentrified- and are rapidly becoming highly desireable.

Prices can go up as well as down (and for new properties- are rising)- secondhand prices- are stagnating (for numerous reasons- including increased supply, higher deposit requirements, some people disposing of property into what they view as peak market etc etc)

All-in-all- this should be viewed in the context of an investment by a person who does not intend to have a hands-on approach to managing their property. As such- its on dodgy territory- before you even begin to look into residential property as an investment opportunity.

You could very well have your licensees report you to Revenue as the property would not be considered to be your normal place of residence. Whether or not they were licensees would be very disputable, you would be liable to be found at the RTB that they are in fact tenants and you are infringing on their right to peaceful enjoyment of their home. Staying there once or twice a month- does not make it your home.