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

Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

Options
11718202223

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Sub 10% per house. Last year 30% of rental income went on a repair on one house. Three years ago a previous tenant left me without two months rent and a busted internal door ( she locked herself in the bathroom and her boyfriend busted the door in when they were have a dispute), a trailer of abandoned rubbish and a complete repaint.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Bass, when you are quoting percentages on "return", are you only including rental income and not capital appreciation?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    What egg is renting out a 500k house for 15k p/a?

    That would only cover just over half of the mortgage on a 20 year buy-to-let loan with 30% deposit.

    Come on Bass, if you're going to put up scenarios, make them realistic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    We haven’t raised the rent in 5 years in a RPZ in Dublin, young family in there don’t want to make life difficult but we’ll probably have to soon but we’ll do the minimum and try to make sure costs are covered etc, we have absolutely no intention of evicting or selling, however I fundamentally disagree with the concept of an eviction ban and taking away the rights of property owners to do what they wish with their property, or giving it to a family member if needed, I wouldn’t do it now, but who knows what circumstances will throw up?



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I am not after a shake down, previous to RPZ, I would never been inclined to increase rents only when a tenant moved. However you can no longer take that approach. If you do and RPZ is applied in your area you lose remember

    ''No good deed in the Irish residential rental market goes unpunished''

    If there was no RPZ risk I would not have increased the two rents this year. By the way they are probably 100/ month below what I could charge.

    As I said when the farmhouse tenant moved it going aerBnB

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    And this pretty much would have been the vast majority of landlords attitudes, now they have to otherwise they’ll fall behind and if they decide to wait until the tenant moves out they can’t raise it to market value, crazy



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    My daughter was in a house in Limerick last year ( moved in to fill an empty space). Rent was 825/ month Landlady in this case caught in 2016-2021 trap house value was 300k.

    After she moved out another girl left as well other tenant was peppering in case she could not get a replacement fast enough but they managed to sort her out with two new one who LL approved. LL dose not want to sell as she would have a serious CGT bill. But I say if it came to a full new set of tenants she might.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Credit to you for not raising the rent on the family (genuinely), but after 5 years, I doubt they would baulk if you raised it by the permitted CPI amount (about 7 percent if I'm correct).

    However, the moritorium as stated is time-limited. In general terms, I think landlords need to reconcile themselves that the political system is trending towards firmer rights for tenants. And part of that will be insulating good paying tenants from fairly arbitrary eviction circumstances.

    The family member moving-in is a case in point. I don't think anyone can ethically object if the landlord asserts his/her property rights to house an elderly parent for-instance. And that should be legislated for. But for example, I directly (a good number of years ago) along with housemates were given notices to quit for "relatives coming up to college in Dublin" after we baulked at - from memory - a 15% rent increase. I think you know where this is going; there was no relatives, the house was back up on the rental market in the evening papers a couple of months later at 20% higher than we were paying.

    I don't think the moritorium as it is proposed is outragous or a significant diminuation of property rights at all. In the current circumstances it is entirely appropriate and in reality will have minimal affect on property owners asserting their current rights once it expires.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    There is no such thing as a 2016-2021 trap Bass. She can increase the rent by the CPI calculation for that period, and increase the rent at the 2% limit thereafter.

    If the original amount of rent wasn't covering the BTL mortgage (I'm guessing it was) with a margin for her yield, you'd have to ask what was she doing not raising the rent at the time? If she owned it outright with no debt, what are we being asked to care about here?

    CGT is a fact of life - I've had to pay it on a capital gain. The world keeps turning.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Most small LL's were similar to @The Spider. Rents were not rised while tenant were insitu often even in cases of ten years or longer although sometimes they might after 5-6. You now have the situation where TS will seriously have to consider the sake of the house when present tenant's leave.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Most small landlords were absolutely not like Spider. I'd submit that's very much the exception from any friends I had renting in Dublin at the time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    She has raised it that was why it went to 825 it was some odd figure like that. But you cannot see the anomaly.

    Yes CGT is a fact if life. However if she leaves the house to someone there is no CGT just inheritance tax.

    However she is not ready to do that yet. If she dose not sell it who ever inherits it will sell it.

    Yurt you and DT cannot get your head around the fact that a lot LL are exiting because they have properties that are seriously below market rents and the risk is too great to continue.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    The issue I have with an eviction ban, is that it’s a get out of jail free card for the government, and it’s also unfair. You have to remember this is the same government that told people back in the early 2000’s to buy property or ‘starter homes’ if you will they pushed up prices to astronomical levels, people say prices are now back at their Celtic tiger peak, they’re not, salaries were lower in 2007/8 than they are now so relatively property was way more expensive. Then the crash happened and a generation of people were trapped in negative equity a lot of them with young families or just starting out in life, they had a choice sell the property and crystallise the debt and never get a loan again, or rent it out and hope that someday property prices rose to allow them to exit without debt or minimum debt.

    The government took this as an opportunity to take its foot off the gas in relation to housing, sure wasn’t there loads of places to rent (yes there were but the people forced to be landlords would have done anything to not be landlords). So eventually in the past year the time has arrived where all these accidental landlords can finally put the whole sorry mess behind them, sell up and get out, carry on with their lives after 16 years of basically providing housing and gaining nothing, after tax the rent didn’t cover the mortgage, and at the end of it they won’t have an asset or even profit just freedom.

    So what happens? The government after realising they dropped the ball and did nothing about housing, and now their golden goose can actually finally get out, they’ve decided to block them, to stop them getting out after spending the best part of two decades trapped, that’s why the eviction ban is unfair its trapping people who finally could get out and that is the vast majority of landlords in any of those purpose built blocks that have gone up around Dublin since the 2000’s Iknow so many people in this situation it’s not funny, I know people who went to the states or Australia to start a new life and they still have the apartment millstone around their neck in Dublin.

    the eviction ban will try to be extended that’s the other issue the government has no other option, well they do reduce the taxes on rents drastically and attract investors, they won’t do that it’s political dynamite, I really can’t see this ending well for landlords, tenants, investors or the government.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    What is "below market rents" meant to mean to anyone and why does it matter when the mortgage is being cleared and you have your yield (as I presume you had when you were setting your rent in the first instance)? You have your entitlement to raise the rent by 2% if you're so minded, and a suite of tax reliefs on maintainence, fixtures etc to look after inflation concerns.

    It's akin to looking at my neighbours 221 motor and going to my boss cribbing that PJ has a sweet new ride, gimmie a pay rise because.

    This is passive income we're talking about here, not going down to the mines. Your tenants have to go out every day and work for their coin, and they're among the people that keep the country running - remember that. There's a huge air of entitlement on the go in this thread.

    Landlording as a full-time endevour is not something anyone should hang their hat on - it's a nice bonus that may feather the nest somewhat, and fair play if that's what it is to you. But nobody, no government, or society at large is going to make a passive income hustle an absolute zero-risk endevour that garuntees whatever yield you dream up.

    Nobody loses their shirt doing it such is the level of reliefs in place. Or if they do, they were never exactly a captain of industry in the first place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    I have absolutely zero time for the accidental landlord wheeze. With the exception of people that went through a family breakdown or lost their job.

    If people don't want the property, they may sell up. Negative equity means nothing once you are in your home and servicing your mortgage. You may not be able to sell-up without taking a haircut for a number of years, but those were the terms of the mortgage and they should have been clear-eyed that house prices go down as well as up no matter what Fianna Fail yahoos told them. Provided people held onto their job, they were and are always in a better position than people caught in a rental trap. And if they did rent out the property, they need to be clear-eyed also about who was paying the mortgage: renters.

    In the worst case, we have bankrupcy laws in this country, takes too long if you ask me, but once you're discharged you can start again (a relative of mine after a failed business did just that and has another mortgage now).

    We need to grow up a bit on house prices and the role they play in our society.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Easy say it, I didn’t fall for the Fianna Fail bluster at the time in fact I remember being in pubs talking about the inevitable property crash circa 2006, but many did, it was incessant ads on tv “I don’t know what a tracker mortgage is” taxi drivers buying multiple apartments, buying properties in Bulgaria, the Fianna Fáil tent, Tom Parlon telling people to buy, banks giving 100% mortgages people being told by the government to buy something, anything. People buying houses in ghost estates in Cavan and commuting to Dublin. The starter home spiel, buy this and you can sell it on etc.

    the point is the accidental landlords then moved on met significant others etc, who also had a property, so no choice but to rent it out, easy take the moral high ground, but no one in their right mind is going to file for bankruptcy if they can avoid it. People were toldleft right and centre that house prices weren’t going down and anyone who rented was an idiot, remember the soft landing being spouted everywhere, there were a few outliers like David McWilliams and Morgan Kelly who were dismissed as cranks, they were laughed at on tv and radio.

    But people did suck it up they rented out their negative equity apartments but they always intended to sell when the market was right, that time is now and the government are preventing them doing just that, so yes house prices can go down as well as up, and if they want to give notice and sell well that’s what they should be allowed do.

    Oh and plenty of people did lose their jobs and have family breakdowns, the construction sector was devastated, roofers, plumbers, brickiesetc all out of work, the tech sector in Ireland was nowhere near where it is today, jobs everywhere collapsed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    A basic point that needs to be made. They are not being prevented from selling. The moritorium will expire likely in late February.

    They should be more worried about interest rates than the moritorium when it comes to the value of the property when selling. That's what's moving the needle now, not a marginal time-limited eviction moritorium in the winter period.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    There will be people who don’t pay rent, but I think it could be overblown, interest rates I agree on. The bigger concern here is if there’s an extension of the ban, because the government will have no option, and as Leo said and knows a ban will exacerbate landlords selling up, now if interest rates pull down prices which they could do, but there’s a supply issue so remains to be seen how that’ll play out, but inflation will more than likely push up wages so there’s that. ( it’s what happened in the 70’s high inflation rates ate debt, house were bought for between 2000 and 3000 pounds by the end of the decade that was a tiny amount in comparison to people’s salaries, similar effect happened in the 90’s).

    However I do expect there rove a challenge to any legislation especially from vulture funds etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    If there were so many landlords who would never have considered even raising the rents until the RPZs were brought it, it begs the question of who was raising the rents to the extent that the RPZs were considered necessary? Were the tenants unilaterally increasing what they were paying every year against the wishes of the landlords?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Who knows people can only talk of their own experiences as renters and landlords, for instance I rented a great place in Dublin 14 in the mid 2000s for five years and the landlord never put up the rent



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,118 ✭✭✭StrawbsM


    I’d say the REITS set the ball in motion as they bulk purchased what NAMA was selling. They’re the professionals after all so they set the market rents.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well isn't that another good reason to have the professionals in the market. They were now apparently had such a large portion of the market that they needed to be reigned in......and even though they've increased their proportion since by buying more, you never hear them whinging about RPZs. Even more evidence that pandering to a few amateur part-timers by delaying reforms is inhibiting what the State could really do in terms of solving the housing crisis.

    Let the professionals get to 100% and then just bring in appropriate rules and regulations so! No more whinging



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    But people did suck it up they rented out their negative equity apartments but they always intended to sell when the market was right, that time is now and the government are preventing them doing just that, so yes house prices can go down as well as up, and if they want to give notice and sell well that’s what they should be allowed do.


    How long ago did all these people get together and decide that the right time to evict their paying tenants and sell would be over 2-3 months starting in December 2022? Because if they all coming to that same forecast back years ago, they should have realised that all those properties coming to the market at the exact same time would have a depressing effect on prices.



  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As ever government is kicking the can down the road- evictions are a part of renting- it happens for a variety of reasons- so no evictions this winter just means a whole wave of evictions in the spring and summer of 2023 overwhelming the support services yet again - if we’re faced with housing Irish people with no homes in parish halls up and down the country we may as well start planning for that now as the problem won’t go away- hiding the problem by banning evictions is not the way to do this



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Now you know this is nonsense, even if you do some basic maths you’ll work out why, apartments that are being sold from my (amateur) research are all the builds from the early 2000’s, prime candidates for 100% mortgages interest only etc, they were all sold between 20004-2007 and for between 370 and 500 thousand at that time, vast majority still owe most of the principle, those years only paid the interest, prices have risen to a point where they can walk away debt free, also everyone and his dog knows there’s a housing shortage, so supply and demand, means from their point of view bows the time to sell.

    as to your when did they get together point, obviously they didn’t but they more than likely saw other apartments in their blocks for sale and thought now is the time to sell.

    As an aside Donald I’ve seen it come up a few times in this thread, are you a homeowner or a renter? I think everybody else has been pretty straight where they stand and why they take the position they do, just curious what your circumstances are



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    The nonsense was in implying that rents only started going up because REITs bought a few properties. I merely turned the nonsense back against the same poster.


    How does one square the mental gymnastics? .......... Landlords don't want to put up their prices. But they have to because they are forced to due to RPZs. They are afraid of not achieving market rents. Market rents being set by all other actors in the market. But it is only the REITs who caused the market rent to increase by increasing their prices so they are the bad guys. I'm a good guy landlord who doesn't want to raise my rent. But the REITS put theirs up to inflate the market so now I have to do it or I might be unable to do it. I don't want to charge more and I would never have done it only the other guys charged more so now I have to charge more because if I don't charge more then I might not be able to charge more. Even though I'd prefer it if I didn't charge more ....


    There is nothing wrong with trying to maximise what you get via the system rules. But you have to play by all the rules. Not just the ones that suit you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Again more nonsense, if you read through the posts you’ll see that landlords before RPZ’s or rent pressure zones tended to put up rents when tenants moved out to the market rate, so if you stayed for five years your rent pretty much stayed the same, look on it as a reward for being a good tennant who didn’t give grief and paid rent on time(I know some landlords did put up rent, but most didn’t, speaking from experience where I rented in Dublin for 15 years I can safely say I never had rent increase while I was a tennant) The situation now is that if you don’t raise rents by 2%or whatever it is every year, when your tenants move you can’t raise the rents to the market value you can only raise them by 2% so if you don’t raise them every year you’ll be stuck with below market rent. Seriously what’s so hard?

    Again though Donald are you a homeowner or a renter, just so we know where you’re coming from, you didn’t answer the last time



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Yields are going up across markets with increasing interest rates so selling up, putting the money in diversified relatively low risk fixed income ETFs and getting a good yield, and as you say maxing out your pension contributions (getting double bang for your money with tax relief) and drip feeding the money into that by selling the ETF shares as you go along, does seem like it would be more appealing to a lot of people. Too much risk and hassle being introduced in what should be a simple synergy to provide additional accommodation to an under supplied rental market, that's why we are seeing and will continue to see landlords getting out. A lot of people are landlords for long term pension reasons, combined with some future planning for family/dependents which is also being made impossible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Ha that’ll be me, hang onto it for the pension or when the kids go to college they have a place to live



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Unfortunately you might find *the ban* 'no-fault' evictions are permanent policy and you won't be able to issue notice to vacate to let your kids use it.

    Or worse, tenants move on without telling you and will be subletting it or it will be their kids that are using it for college!

    The new order is that you can't evict while they pay the controlled rent.



Advertisement