2 out of 3 young adults living at home

It isn't hyperbole, it is a scenario that directly happened to me and no doubt something similar to many other tenants (which I'm assuming you haven't been anytime recently)

I'd prefer a state ran BTL but as they seem incompetent in running most areas of Government we would need professionals to do it. We need purpose built BTL properties that are regulated and run properly, it's very simple. Our current model isn't working by any stretch of the imagination and the LL's renting out one property are in no way a viable long term solution.

I know that they are and the rental market is an absolute sham of a system that isn't working which is why we need professionals to take it away from these crappy Landlords and provide the professional service that tenants require and more importantly deserve.

Will it be quick, of course it won't but it certainly needs to happen.

For the first time on this thread we agree, nothing but pure waffle.

The problem with the current dominance of non-professional landlords is that you can't have a stable secure long-term rental market with them. You will never know when they will kick out their tenants because they have a brother or someone else wanting to use the property. Or they themselves might want to move in. This might be genuine or might just be a pretext for eviction but either way there's very little security for tenants.

Another problem is that, because they are large in number, they form a voting block and can effectively stop legislation that might reform the sector.

First of all, though, you need to make the case that large numbers of accidental and amateur landlords are what is needed.

As I suggested in another post, a landlord by buying up a property is preventing that same property being being bought by a family. He is also preventing the property being bought by a professional fund-based investor where these issues of the landlord wanting to move in a relative or himself do not arise.

We need more rental properties, but these must provide a sufficiently high standard of service that they outweigh the benefit to the country of having those units available for sale to families.

To illustrate, let us imagine that there were no tenant rights in law in Ireland. In this scenario, you would have many landlords and also many tenants. But these tenants would have no security and no chance of starting a family or living a normal life. At a moment's notice, their rent could be jacked up by an arbitrary amount, or they could be evicted. In this scenario, every landlord selling up and getting out would benefit society, since potentially that property could then be purchased by a family who could live a normal life with secure accommodation.

The point of this is that there has to be some standards. Lowering them further to placate small landlords is not the way to go.

In summary: more rentals, yes, but only if tenant rights are assured.

Therefore a move towards fund-based investment, possibly with tax incentives for Irish people to invest in them is possibly the way to go.

If it is new builds as you suggest, that is a good thing IMO. They are funding brand new supply rather than cannibalising existing stock.

That is why I think Irish people should be encouraged to invest in these funds and be supported in doing so. Irish people would have to pay tax on returns from these funds but there could be tax breaks to encourage build-to-rent properties.

On your second point, I don't think my statement is at odds with my statement that it is good for owner-occupiers to be able to buy. Both are a good thing. An institutional landlord funding a new rental development frees up properties elsewhere for families to buy.

I am sorry if you don't like this back and forth. I am trying to make my point as simply as I can but I understand if you want to get out and let others have a go.

A lot less than has gone wrong with the current model.

Where in Ireland does an institutional landlord have a monopoly? The vast majority of rental properties in the country are owned by small landlords.

You didn't answer it, I'm afraid.

I don't want to labour the point but you said that the increased supply by instututional landlords was part of the cause of increased prices. I asked how could increased supply cause increased prices and you said that there was a monopoly or cartel of them. I'm simply asking for evidence of this.

Also, where did I imply you said there was an oversupply?

Finally, what is wrong with increasing rental supply if there's a chronic rental shortage? True it may not be what buyers want but if it adds to the overall number of units in the country then that is surely a good thing?