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

Irish Times looking for Landlords to have their say

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Housing99
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭Housing99


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483017#Comment_119483017

    If I didn't feel ashamed of renting, or fearful of retiring as a renter, it would remove the greatest cause of mental stress and low self esteem in my life



  • Options
    #123
    Pussyhands
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481847#Comment_119481847

    I'd say more people get evicted indirectly through rent increases the tenants can't afford anymore.



  • Options
    #124
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 12,098 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Unfortunately you'll just transfer it to the next thing...

    https://psychcentral.com/blog/why-you-shouldnt-try-to-keep-up-with-the-joneses



  • Options
    #125
    Pussyhands
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    A tax measure that could be be brought in to keep landlords in the market is to up the tax rate on selling 2nd and more properties up to 70% for the next 5 years.



  • Options
    #126
    mcsean2163
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480726#Comment_119480726

    Well, maybe if you had a chat with them you might find that every month they are putting x amount into the mortgage because the rent does not cover the mortgage. For us when we rented our family home, we got about €550 from the tenant after tax plus expenses and paid about €1150 to cover mortgage plus insurance.

    It was tough for us financially as we were paying a high rent too but in fairness it helped us keep our house but the last bunch were awful.

    They were only there for about 4 months but there were about 50 empty whiskey bottles when we moved back in and they soiled our couch (pissed all over it). The couch was expensive but we said we'd take €150 towards replacement (we disposed of it.). They threatened my wife at her workplace until the deposit was returned. The entitled **** was unreal, he had his father's employee help him move out, I was lucky I didn't meet him around the time he was hassling my wife.

    So in summary, not exactly lucrative and some awful bastard tenants out there.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    enricoh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭enricoh


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483070#Comment_119483070

    Sure why not take the house off them altogether! We are going to have an extra 200k+ people immigrated to Ireland this year. That's serious pressure on housing, at what stage do we say we're full? Iirc we'll build 25k houses this year, the housing minister was meeting the builders reps a few months ago to see if they'll work longer hours - maybe that'll sort it!



  • Options
    #128
    mcsean2163
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482117#Comment_119482117

    Emigration. Birth rates. Unemployment. Immigration.

    Those all changed. Our population has increased from 3.5 million to 5.1 million.



  • Options
    #129
    mcsean2163
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481751#Comment_119481751

    This is the most delusional post I have ever seen on landlord income.

    If the person is on the higher band they pay 52% on their income. Assume they are an accountant (do their own taxes) and do no maintenance ( boiler doesn't break, no painting, etc ).

    They will pay house insurance and mortgage insurance ~€200 per month or more.


    Of the 1400 the max they get is €672, then subtract insurance. Of course in the real world it's worse.

    A bad tenant can pay nothing for two years and that can cause huge financial stress. That's why so many people that bought in the noughties are scrambling to get out.

    Post edited by mcsean2163 on


  • Options
    #130
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,538 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483112#Comment_119483112

    To the best of my knowledge one of them was putting money towards the mortgage. At least back a few years ago. But that is to be expected. If the rent nets out at 600 and you put 200 on it towards the mortgage, you're effectively putting your 200 towards a long term asset for yourself and your tenant is putting, say 400 (+ 200 interest) towards that asset which you will own. So it's not a bad deal!

    I don't understand how people could demand a return which is at least twice what it costs to purchase the place (so that they have enough to pay off the mortgage after their tax). Fair enough when a person actually needs a short term let, but when you have a long term tenant, I find that mentality staggering. If you provide a place for a month and then need to turn it around and find another tenant for another month and you have plenty of vacant time etc. then you'd need a premium. But it is a wholly perverse situation that a person who cannot afford a house would be expected to pay double of what it costs to pay for that house to rent it long term instead! Imagine going to buy a car and the finance company saying "actually, you can't afford the repayments on this of 300 Euro a month to own this car, so instead what we will do is sign you up to a long term rental deal where you will just pay us 600 a month instead, and when we use your money to pay off our loan, we take back the car".



  • Options
    #131
    timetogo1
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    Never heard of car rentals Donald?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    mcsean2163
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482947#Comment_119482947

    Not saying that. Just don't see hundreds of billions coming our way, more like a credit default 😂



  • Options
    #133
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,897 ✭✭✭amacca


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480699#Comment_119480699

    And that the rules and regulations won't be completely one sided in favour of delinquent tenants if when they do get them!



  • Options
    #134
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,538 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483227#Comment_119483227

    Yes. Could you not figure that out by yourself from the fact that I gave an example where someone was offered a car for rent?


    Ever heard of Hire Purchase?



  • Options
    #135
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,897 ✭✭✭amacca


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481069#Comment_119481069

    You are having a laugh, my parents rented a house in Dublin when they moved....there was nothing immoral about it, it provided a cost effective place for people to live and helped support myself and siblings

    Ffs some people's delusions are a sight to behold

    They scrimped and saved initially to buy a place to live and then rented it out and dealt with lots of problems and non-paying tenants and malicious damage with no real recourse even at that stage

    It's beyond a joke to call people like that immoral imo.....its an ideological position not grounded in reality imo


    What I think is immoral is one sided populist rules and regulations that reduce rental supply and drive prices up ....



  • Options
    #136
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,538 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483300#Comment_119483300


    There is need to be so dramatic amacca. That isn't true at all. If said "rules and regulations" were indeed "completely one sided" then you would never get your property back. But I have yet to hear of a case where the person did not get their property back eventually.

    Most rules and regulations are there to protect the customer against a provider. If you buy a product and there is something wrong with it, then there are specific laws, and also consumer organisations, that will help you. Whereas if you are a provider and you have an issue with a customer, you have to go through the regular courts which will be a slower process.

    If you give a tenant permission to use your property and they later owe you money for whatever reason, then you just have to go through the appropriate channels.



  • Options
    #137
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,897 ✭✭✭amacca


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482117#Comment_119482117

    What used the cool kids use for a nanosecond years ago to respond to absurd nonsense

    ROFL...roflcopter?



  • Options
    #138
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,897 ✭✭✭amacca


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482302#Comment_119482302

    It's not fine but demonising small landlords won't solve it.



  • Options
    #139
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,897 ✭✭✭amacca


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483348#Comment_119483348

    Ah ffs....your measure of rules/regs not being one sided is you get your property back....at some stage....that's cracked it goes against any idea of natural justice.


    + At some stage, possibly with damage you in all likelihood can't recoup and possibly years afterwards all the while rent isn't being paid.....it incentivises a bad actor to be a worse one, that's not justice or fair...its populist nonsense at best.


    I believe landlords could accept smaller rents if that type of bullshit wasn't a possibility.....its not dramatic to say its one sided when such a situations can occur lawfully...its just stating the reality.


    One simple change that would help is non-paying delinquent tenants can get turfed out on their ear in a timely fashion.....perhaps now because its such a clusterfuck that wouldn't help but longterm with a decent supply that one change would level the playing pitch and probably bring enough small landlords back into the market that rents would decrease as competition increases.....


    I think any argument otherwise is coming from a position of chip on the shoulder, lack of insight or being welded to an ideology (can't see the woos for the trees) etc


    Besides it seems to me all that's happening now is large businesses are taking over and they really will know how to bleed the renter dry ... I pity people trying to rent off them in the future when they have a monopoly ..... the shareholders and the board will dictate the pace.....my prediction there will be more charges for things you don't want but will be forced to take and things you didn't know you needed until you are told its part of the deal and f off somewhere else if you dont like it (except there wont be anywhere else) on top of no reduction in rents with the added benefits of less of the country bring owned by its individual citizens but perhaps we will all enjoy the "efficiency"....


    The poster mentioning yhe subscription model was correct imo...........this is a problem contributed to by the rules/regs regarding not being able to get delinquent tenants out....its definitely not solving it.



  • Options
    #140
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,538 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483433#Comment_119483433


    You said completely one sided.

    There are actually no regulations that keep a tenant in possession. They just have possession ..... because the landlord gave it to them!!!!!!! That they owe the landlord money does not negate that. The landlord can use the legal system to regain possession.


    Your issue is that you don't understand how things work.

    I will give you a scenario.

    1) First person advertises car for sale

    2) Second person turns up and presents their ID. Agrees to buy the car and hands over a cheque. Drives the car away.

    3) Third person ends up with car. Says they bought it from the second person.

    4) Cheque bounces. ID turns out to have been faked. Car is eventually located. Second person is never identified or found.

    5) First person sues for return of car which, as far as they are concerned, was never paid for.


    What do you think happens in that case? The answer is that a court would find that the title of the car had passed from the first person to the second unknown person even though they had not paid for it. And then subsequently to the third person. So the third person owns the car. They get to keep it. Now, had the second person still been in possession of the car, it could have been recovered through the court. But it could not be unilaterally taken back just because they did not pay for it. Now if the car had been stolen, then the third person could be potentially be at risk for being done for handling or receiving stolen property. But it wasn't actually stolen. The contract between the first and second person was voidable, but it was not void. Contract between the second and third person was perfectly valid.

    When you hand over possession of your property to a tenant, that they later don't pay you does not negate that you have handed over that possession - albeit intended to be a temporary possession for say 6 years. Now, because they have broken the terms of the agreement by not paying you, you can go through a process to have your property returned. But you have given them possession and their failure to pay does not mean you can act unilaterally.


    A scenario which happened commonly enough around the time of the construction crash was subcontractors not getting paid for work they did. A subcontractor would come in and say supply and fit a kitchen for a builder. The builder then refuses to pay. They later sell the house. The subcontractor cannot legally, at any stage, go back to that house and try to take back the property which they supplied and were never paid for. They could have bought and installed a fancy fridge that cost 1000 Euro. That they are not paid for it does not give them a legal right to go in and take it. They would have to pursue the matter through the courts.


    As I said, the issue is that many people don't have a basic understanding of how things work. So if things go wrong, they start crying and moaning because they naively believe things work how they themselves think they should work. Fairness/one-sided/blah blah blah etc.


    You, my friend, are the one with the chip on your shoulder. I am merely explaining something to you. Whether you like the reality or not is irrelevant to fact.



  • Options
    #141
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,897 ✭✭✭amacca


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483499#Comment_119483499

    You only think you are explaining something, in reality if someone reads what you wrote you are doing quite a creditable job of making my point for me tbh🤣

    Fwiw I do understand how it works and I believe it is entirely incorrect that it works that way and it is contributing to the problem.


    If a delinquent tenant could be removed in a timely fashion then that would solve a lot of problems imo


    From my point of view I don't see expressing that opinion as chip (I think its as plain as the nose on a persons face that the rules/regulations not only acting in a delinquent tenants favour but incentivising it goes against any idea of natural justice and is in addition counterproductive - its the completely one sided nature of that area that is a huge problem, so I 100% stand by that completely one sided comment to boot ....


    I was thinking perhaps you had a chip on your shoulder re: landlords but now I think perhaps you might be the type of person that knows the price of everything but the true value of nothing (or perhaps implications of blindly following an ideology without much in the way of critical thought behind it - maybe you are good at the theory but it all falls apart when it comes to applying it in the real world where more factors are in play)........I don't think you can see the wood for the trees tbh.


    But time will tell I suppose....if you are around and still posting in 10 years it might be interesting to see how the situation has developed..


    My two cents if they don't do something where delinquent tenants can be removed in a timely fashion then rental market will be owned in large part by institutional landlords and they will force that to happen anyway or situation will be worse in terms of availability/prices or some delightful combo of the two..


    There's a reason delinquent tenants can be shifted quickly in other jurisdictions......solve that anomaly here and long term leases, security of tenure, lower rents probably all fall into place......don't and then the only investors that will be able to absorb the costs will be large institutions and they will really milk the renters dry and force timely removal of delinquent tenants anyway ......


    Btw I think it's analagous to one of the reasons why mortgage rates are higher here on a persons home than other countries....banks have to take a higher risk here of not being able to reposess that home from someone for way way too long while they sit in paying nothing....the rules/regs incentivise a person playing the system there too and decent people end up paying for it.


    Anyway goodnight Don, its been a blast, I look forward to your next example doing the work for me!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    StupidLikeAFox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,708 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Let's face it, landlords are in the business to make money, property prices are at an all time high. Anecdotally everyone is saying there is a recession coming down the tracks, why wouldn't you sell up now and cash in? They aren't charities and being a landlord is not some sort of vocation



  • Options
    #143
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 12,098 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    There's consequences to this allowing people to manipulate and game the system and then the crash itself.

    One is builders and tradesman won't get extended credit and loans from the bank. The builders and tradesman won't take such risks with loans. The result is the rate of building work and completions falls through the floor and you have supply problems of housing.

    Same with pushing rental issues into the legal system that's not able to deal with them in a timely manner. All those delays add to the shortages of housing.

    All this crying and moaning about landlords, and high rents, rental and housing shortages. You have got the system you wanted. You just didn't understand the consequences of what you asked for. Well now you know.



  • Options
    #144
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 12,098 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I'm not sure a Ponzi scheme for robbing cars and manipulating the legal system to keep it for a few years is a viable housing alternative. But it certainly does bypass any involvement with a landlord.



  • Options
    #145
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 12,098 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483555#Comment_119483555

    People should try getting tradesman or builders to work on housing at cost price, because it's housing. They'd have a good laugh at that one.



  • Options
    #146
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483043#Comment_119483043

    Ever try and evict a tenant ? Its nearly impossible



  • Options
    #147
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,545 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483499#Comment_119483499

    You are waffling

    Part of what you post is BS. The tenant never owned the house. It's more similar to a leased car. And guess what if you do not make the payments the leasing company employees turn up with the keys or pick up truck and take back the car.

    Nobody says the LL should just turf the tenant out the process is too long and cumbersome

    You are waffling like you waffle on other threads about this

    waffle waffle

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #148
    DBK1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,197 ✭✭✭DBK1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483499#Comment_119483499

    There is some absolute rubbish wrote in this thread but that has to top it all.

    For starters who the hell accepts a cheque for a car? Any idiot that would accept a cheque for a car deserves to have it bounce on them to teach them a lesson for being so stupid. I don’t think I’ll be offending anyone by saying that as I don’t think there’s anyone in the country that would do such a thing. So that makes the rest of your story completely irrelevant.

    I’m not a landlord, never have been and don’t plan on ever being one. I was a renter for many years, (14 in total I think) before I built a house. I wouldn’t wish to be a landlord on my worst enemy to be honest after reading some of the nonsense being posted here and the attitude that people have towards them.

    But I have to say Donald you must have had a seriously bad experience with a landlord at some stage that you have a major chip about, or is it that you wanted the status symbol of being a landlord and couldn’t afford a second property so like the boy in the schoolyard, you call the girl you fancy names so as not to let everyone else know you actually fancy her? Some of what you’re posting here is utter nonsense and to be perfectly honest makes you look like an idiot.



  • Options
    #149
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,538 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483783#Comment_119483783


    Basics Bass. Your ignorance of things does not change reality. What you can do depends on a contract. What can be in the contract depends on other things. Basics Bass



  • Options
    #150
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,538 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483859#Comment_119483859

    For starters who the hell accepts a cheque for a car? Any idiot that would accept a cheque for a car deserves to have it bounce in them to teach them a lesson for being so stupid. I don’t think I’ll be offending anyone by saying that as I don’t think there’s anyone in the country that would do such a thing. So that makes the rest of your story completely irrelevant.


    It was a story to explain a concept to you. If you want to get sidetracked on the use of the cheque it is because you obviously don't understand the point. The details are basically those of a case in contract law from England actually

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_v_Averay

    The original owner tried to use the technicality that because he did not know the fraudster's real identity, that the first contract was void. The judge said "no". Even though they did not know their real identity, it still didn't void the contract. It remained voidable due to failure of payment but it was too late as the third person already owned it. You can call it "rubbish" if you want. Bass will call it waffle because he can't understand it. Regardless, your ignorance of the fact is irrelevant to it being fact.


    A lot of posters on here are very bitter for some reason. They have an idealistic and self centered way of how the world should revolve around them and feel it should adapt to suit only what they want. Then they cry when they find out it doesn't and try to attack posters pointing out facts and realities. Pointing out fact and reality is not anti-landlord. Competent landlords will manage.


    Trying to call someone an idiot for telling you something you don't know or can't understand is fairly ironic - no?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,545 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483863#Comment_119483863
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483984#Comment_119483984

    Guess what it is waffling because ownership changed in the cases you are waffling about. Ownership dose not change in the case of a rental agreement.

    Nobody is claiming that tenant's should not have rights. What is the issue is that the RTB is not fit for purpose. There is a load of vacant houses not being rented short term because the law is now any tenancy is of unlimited duration.

    In nearly every other jurisdiction an unpaying tenant can be evicted within a reasonable time in Ireland this is not the case. A 12-18 month time frame is unreasonable.

    The RTB and government could solve a lot of these issue quite easily. Tenant's refute to give PPS numbers the RTB should write to the tenant at the rental and indicate that the tenancy cannot be registered without there PPS.

    The RTB will not accept email has a valid delivery method. Guess what they will not deal with me over an issue except via email or snail mail. Same as above tenant has to register an email with the RTB except where the person is over 60 years of age. This would stop LL having to go searching for tenant's after they leave to lodge an RTB judgement so it would be against there PPS number

    In the case of non payment/withholding of rent pay it into an RTB escrow account to be allotted after the case. Otherwise no appeal.

    In the case of notice to vacate tenant should have to start appeal with in 1/3 of the time of the notice period not lodge it at the end of what could be anything from 3-9 months.

    Everything you have above is waffle

    Slava Ukrainii



Advertisement