# Effect of rent controls?  Higher rents and reduced supply



## Sarenco

As widely predicted on here, Minister Coveney's rent control measures have failed to halt galloping rental inflation and have co-incided with a further reduction in the  supply of rental properties to the market.

The only tangible result of the Minister's measures is to benefit one cohort of tenants (incumbents) over another (new tenants).  

Will Minister Coveney acknowledge that his policies are making things worse, not better, in the rental market?

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0508/873528-daft-rental-report/


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> Commenting on the introduction of Rent Pressure Zones, which were designed to reduce rent rises in areas where particularly high increases have been seen, Mr Lyons said: "Regulatory measures designed to limit rent increases could only ever have a very limited effectiveness in a market with such a scarcity of supply.
> 
> "Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that rent increases for sitting tenants have been only half the size of increases faced by new tenants. The more appropriate solution remains to increase supply.



Of course, an existing tenant may have to leave their property and would then become a new tenant and face the higher rents in new lettings. 

A terrible piece of legislation.

Brendan


----------



## Superstitious

As an accidental landlord/house hunter the way government is dealing with the housing crisis is really frustrating and frankly upsetting. I'm not even sure who Simon really thinks he was helping.
I rent my two bed apartment to a lovely couple at about 20% below market rate at 1000 a month. I value people over profit.
I rent a two bed house myself and my landlord just got in before the act and upped  our rent by 10% to 1575.
As we were looking for a house ourselves to buy and that we would probably not find anything in area. (Kids settled in creche)we stayed put.
Buying a house we thought would be a simple thing on the north side for a budget of just under 400k. But we have spent the last 4 month looking for something. Queuing at times with 50 people to have a look at a house that has a asking price of 325 and after the bidding process exceed asking price by 20 to 30 % so priced out of our reach as we would have to do work and we have to keep saving for deposit as we are second time buyers. 
I have to go to my accountant today it looks like my tax bill for rental will be 3500.  As soon as my apartment comes out negative equity probably next year I'm selling up. So another couple at the mercy of rental market. And it goes on and on.


----------



## Mrs Vimes

Brendan Burgess said:


> Of course, an existing tenant may have to leave their property and would then become a new tenant and face the higher rents in new lettings.
> 
> A terrible piece of legislation.
> 
> Brendan



But a landlord isn't allowed to increase the rent for a new tenant by more than an existing one? I know there is a formula for how many months it has been since the last rent review but still pretty much the 4% per annum.

I think the most unfair aspect of the law ias that a landlord who has refrained from putting up the rent for a reliable, longstanding tenant is now stuck with the same rent for a new, unknown quantity.


----------



## odyssey06

Mrs Vimes said:


> But a landlord isn't allowed to increase the rent for a new tenant by more than an existing one? I know there is a formula for how many months it has been since the last rent review but still pretty much the 4% per annum.



That's what the law says, but in practice it seems that the changeover of tenants affords a landlord an opportunity to go above the 4% without it being spotted?


----------



## Sarenco

This story in today's Irish Times perfectly demonstrates the distortions caused by the rent control measures -

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ires-reit-may-set-record-for-rent-for-two-bed-in-sandyford-1.3075622

_"Apartments at Ires Reit’s latest development in Sandyford, south Dublin, are set to rent from €2,570 for a two-bed apartment when the scheme launches on July 4th, setting a possible new record for the area._

_The Maple, at Beacon South Quarter, is a newly-built development of 68 apartments – four one-bed, 55 two-bed and nine three-bed apartments. It was constructed by the property fund, Ireland’s biggest private landlord, specifically for the rental market, and Ires Reit promises “well-appointed, spacious apartments” with private garden areas, at the location._

_Tenants will pay a premium to live there, however, with one-beds due to hit the market at €1,925, two-beds from €2,570 and three-beds from €2,750. 

*The rates are far in excess of what might be expected in other schemes in the area, and may be an effort by the property investment trust to overcome challenges posed by rental restrictions, by setting rents high to begin with."*_


----------



## Páid

odyssey06 said:


> That's what the law says, but in practice it seems that the changeover of tenants affords a landlord an opportunity to go above the 4% without it being spotted?


It is up to the new tenant to "police" this. A new tenant is entitled to;


> *Additional Requirement for New Tenancies in Rent Pressure Zone*
> In the case of a new tenancy in a rent pressure zone, a landlord is required to  furnish the tenant, in writing, with the following information at the commencement of the tenancy:
> 
> (i)   The amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
> (ii)  The date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
> (iii) A statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula.


If they have suspicions that the landlord has increased the rent above 4% I presume they may contact the RTB with the document / copy of their lease and the RTB can verify the previous rent if the tenancy was registered.


----------



## Firefly

Sarenco said:


> This story in today's Irish Times perfectly demonstrates the distortions caused by the rent control measures -
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ires-reit-may-set-record-for-rent-for-two-bed-in-sandyford-1.3075622
> 
> _"Apartments at Ires Reit’s latest development in Sandyford, south Dublin, are set to rent from €2,570 for a two-bed apartment when the scheme launches on July 4th, setting a possible new record for the area._
> 
> _The Maple, at Beacon South Quarter, is a newly-built development of 68 apartments – four one-bed, 55 two-bed and nine three-bed apartments. It was constructed by the property fund, Ireland’s biggest private landlord, specifically for the rental market, and Ires Reit promises “well-appointed, spacious apartments” with private garden areas, at the location._
> 
> _Tenants will pay a premium to live there, however, with one-beds due to hit the market at €1,925, two-beds from €2,570 and three-beds from €2,750.
> 
> *The rates are far in excess of what might be expected in other schemes in the area, and may be an effort by the property investment trust to overcome challenges posed by rental restrictions, by setting rents high to begin with."*_



I scanned that and saw 1,925 for a one-bed and thought it must have been somewhere like Adelaide Rd or Fitzwilliam Sq, but Sandyford???? I genuinely feel sorry for anyone renting and/or trying to buy in Dublin and can't for the life of me understand why more skilled people aren't emigrating!


----------



## Thirsty

> I presume they may contact the RTB with the document / copy of their lease and the RTB can verify the previous rent if the tenancy was registered


if the property has been renovated or off the market for a stated time (can't recall exact figure now) then the rental clock starts again at market rates.


----------



## odyssey06

Páid said:


> It is up to the new tenant to "police" this...
> If they have suspicions that the landlord has increased the rent above 4% I presume they may contact the RTB with the document / copy of their lease and the RTB can verify the previous rent if the tenancy was registered.



That's the theory... it's not exactly robust aggressive enforcement. The onus is the new tenant, who doesn't know for sure if the rent is right or not, or if there have been recent renovations, who may not want to rock the boat with new landlord... I can't see there being too many reports by new tenants unless they had some previous knowledge of where they are renting now.


----------



## Sarenco

Firefly said:


> I scanned that and saw 1,925 for a one-bed and thought it must have been somewhere like Adelaide Rd or Fitzwilliam Sq, but Sandyford???? I genuinely feel sorry for anyone renting and/or trying to buy in Dublin and can't for the life of me understand why more skilled people aren't emigrating!



Absolutely.

We now have the perverse situation where somebody renting an apartment in an industrial estate in an outer Dublin suburb will be required to pay a material premium over the rent paid by a tenant in similar accommodation in one of Dublin's most desirable neighbourhoods simply because of the start date of their tenancy.  Randomly discriminating between tenants (and landlords) in this manner is clearly unfair but more importantly it's bad for our economy and we all suffer as a result.

The IDA must be pulling their hair out when they read these stories. 

Professor Ronan Lyons nailed the problem in the latest Daft Rental Report:-

_"Indeed, the survey undertaken for this Daft.ie Rental Report suggests that for many - although by no means all - sitting tenants, there has been no dramatic increase in rents. This may mean that *the Rent Pressure Zone system makes things worse, rather than better*, by amplifying the insider-outside nature of the rented sector. 

Sitting tenants now enjoy not only a discount relative to the market rent, but also protection of that lower rent into the future. Meanwhile, movers in the private rented sector face not only far higher rents but almost no availability in the market. In such a market, it would be a brave prospective tenant who would ask the landlord to see proof that the rent they would pay is only 4% higher than a year previously! 

*The message from the rental market to policymakers is the same as it has been for over five years now: more supply is needed*. Until policymakers understand why it costs so much to build a two-bedroom apartment here, compared to anywhere else in Europe, that's unlikely to happen."_

https://www.daft.ie/report

The shocking thing from my perspective is that I have yet to hear a single politician call out the RPZ system for what it is – a really, really bad policy.


----------



## Firefly

Re: RPZ, I think the intentions were good, but the effects of the policy were not looked into enough. It was political pure and simple, just like the bedsits.


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> Re: RPZ, I think the intentions were good, but the effects of the policy were not looked into enough. It was political pure and simple, just like the bedsits.



If this was the 19th century and we had amateur gentlemen as unpaid politicians, without copious real world examples of the effect of price controls on supply and demand, I would be more forgiving of good intentions.

They are simply not good enough as the motivator for policies in a 21st century state with professional, fulltime politicians.
At certain times playing politics is forgivable, but not here.
This is people's day to day lives they're messing about with.


----------



## Sarenco

Well, the Minister can't say he wasn't warned…

http://www.independent.ie/business/...was-told-to-avoid-new-rent-caps-35387508.html

_"In letters to Housing Minister Simon Coveney, two of the country's biggest residential landlords warned him off introducing rent caps, saying more consideration needed to be given to increasing availability in the private rental sector.

IRES Reit and Kennedy Wilson said rent controls, introduced by the minister last month, which are due to be expanded, will not work.

They urged Mr Coveney to focus on lowering construction costs and encouraging the development of new apartment rental schemes.

Both companies were critical of proposals to introduce rent controls, citing international examples of why they did not work." _


----------



## Delboy

RBB in the Dail today



> He says that at least 15 of the 52 Balally apartments in the property have been vacant since it was put into the bad-bank.
> “In May of last year, Dun Laoighaire/Rathdown County Council asked could they purchase 15 of the vacant units. They were told they could only buy the whole block,” he continued.
> Nama has since sold the block as part of Project Gem to vulture fund Cerebrus, Boyd-Barrett claimed.
> “Since that deal went through, Cerberus has started to move to evict the tenants… Five of the 21 that I have met are to be evicted in June.
> “*Others have been told that they will have to pay another €250 a month in heating and hot water charges, previously included in rent. A back-door rent increase of 20%.*”



Less small time landlords and more of the bigger institutional investors like they have around the world is what we need in Ireland...thats been the mantra of the past few years.
Well the big boys are here and they have gone native


----------



## Sarenco

Good article from Fiona Reddan in the Irish Times-

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...and-why-free-beer-may-be-the-answer-1.3076718

_“Curiouser and curiouser” cried Alice when she slipped into Wonderland. But there’s nothing curious about the crisis facing the capital’s rental market. A dearth of supply, the proliferation of Airbnb, professional landlords setting new market rates, rental restrictions which conspire to create an unequal playing field between sitting tenants and those new to the market, and the first one again, lack of supply, means that rents are roaring ahead.

Indeed such is the scale of the crisis that a drop in rents across the Irish Sea on the back of Brexit last month, means that the average rent in south county Dublin is now higher than the average rent in London, while it’s still cheaper to rent in most parts of Dublin than it is to buy._


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

I just read on the journal about an apartment complex in dundrum where the residents were just give an extra charge on top of their existing rent for services.

Does this mean now that the rent quarter in the daft rent report are wrong.
Because obviously the rent is now the rent added to the extra sevrvice charges.

So now landlords buy device via service charge from management company and sell it on to the tenant.

An easy way out of rent control tells and just a distortion to the market again.


----------



## odyssey06

SqueezedMiddle said:


> Because obviously the rent is now the rent added to the extra sevrvice charges.



If the rent previously included these charges, then hiving them off and charging for them separately seems like a blatant way to get around the rent cap.
The RTB would likely side with the tenant who challenged that as it implies that the landlord mis-reported the level of previous rent.
If it's a new charge for something that wasn't previously considered part of the rent then I think there'd be no comeback?


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

Well it's one of the reits who are doing it in the article I read, to existing tenants.  I suspect they have run it by some very expensive lawyers first.


----------



## Ceist Beag

As odyssey said, unless these service charges are new charges on the complex which were not present before (and paid for by the landlord up until now) then I don't see how any landlord could justify passing these charges onto tenants now, on top of their rent. I very much doubt the RTB would entertain this so if I were a tenant I would certainly challenge this unless the services being charged for are new services not previously available.


----------



## Sarenco

odyssey06 said:


> If it's a new charge for something that wasn't previously considered part of the rent then I think there'd be no comeback?



That would appear to be the factual position - look at the letter reproduced in this article:-
http://www.thejournal.ie/robin-hill-3380861-May2017/

I don't see any breach of the new rent control rules in this case.

Incidentally, the fact that the landlord has to terminate the remaining tenancies on a phased basis (as a result of the "Tyrrelstown amendment" introduced last year), in order to secure vacant possession of the block, is actually keeping much needed properties off the rental market.

Another good example of the unintended consequences of Government interference in the market.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

Obviously the REIT who are doing it so publicly think they have it in the bag.
I'm with the REIT on this one if it comes to the fight they are clearly ready to have. Those guys make sure they have their ducks in a row before they do anything.


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> If the rent previously included these charges, then hiving them off and charging for them separately seems like a blatant way to get around the rent cap.



I agree but it reminds me when my bins were collected. Don't remember getting a reduction in my taxes for that!


----------



## Sarenco

Firefly said:


> Don't remember getting a reduction in my taxes for that!



Well, you could have!
[broken link removed]

The better management agents were happy to attribute a portion of the annual OMC fee for refuse collection to facilitate relief claims.  Too late now though - the relief was abolished in 2011.


----------



## cremeegg

We often see calls for more professional landlords in this country, less of the small time landlords, who are considered less than professional.

Well I don't think any small landlord would have thought of this and even if they did, they wouldn't have had the face to go through with it.


----------



## Firefly

Sarenco said:


> Well, you could have!
> [broken link removed]
> 
> The better management agents were happy to attribute a portion of the annual OMC fee for refuse collection to facilitate relief claims.  Too late now though - the relief was abolished in 2011.



I stand corrected! Yes I remember my accountant chasing me for receipts alright.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

cremeegg said:


> We often see calls for more professional landlords in this country, less of the small time landlords, who are considered less than professional.
> 
> Well I don't think any small landlord would have thought of this and even if they did, they wouldn't have had the face to go through with it.



I certainly wouldn't want to go first anyway.
Now that first is out of the way though......


----------



## Sarenco

To be fair, not too many small time landlords supply heating and hot water to their tenants.


----------



## odyssey06

I just realised... €140 per month... for heating and hot water (not entire electricity bill). 
Unless every apartment has its own hot tub I don't see how that represents the legitimate costs of supplying said service.
Maybe it doesn't breach the new rent controls but maybe there's another angle it could be challenged under!


----------



## Sarenco

Well, this case is quite unusual in that, as I understand it, the hot water is supplied from a central tank and less than half the units in the block are actually occupied.  

In other words, €140 per month may not even cover the cost of supplying hot water to the remaining tenants.

I still think it's a crying shame that perfectly good apartments that are close to good transport links and employment opportunities are being held off the rental market to avoid daft Government regulations.

But I suppose that doesn't make for good headlines.


----------



## Leo

€140 a month wouldn't be too far off the mark. They're D1 rated, and the SEAI estimate an annual cost of €1300 for space and water heating for 2 bed apts in that category based on 2014 fuel prices. Servicing & maintenance would be additional. While community systems like these should be more efficient, there is little incentive to conserve, so the power showers last a lot longer and the thermostat stays a little higher.


----------



## Sarenco

I see a FF Senator is now calling on the Government to slash CGT on vacant homes.  Apparently this cunning plan will "immediately solve the housing crisis."

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0511/874201-housing/

No explanation is given as to how any new purchaser would be any less inclined to leave the property vacant than the existing owner.

I notice the good Senator is also an estate agent - vested interest perhaps?


----------



## Sarenco

Good article in the Irish Times on the response of landlords to the new rent controls:-

_“There’s never been a bigger demand in history, and yet everyone is running for the exit doors. The Government was telling us what we were allowed to earn. That was the writing on the wall. It’s time to go when that starts happening.”_

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...rental-sector-driving-landlords-out-1.3079916


----------



## MichaelCOH

Spoke to an estate agent the other day, he said at least half the properties on his books were landlords selling up. He also told me he put a two-bed Dublin apartment up for rent on Daft - he had 150 replies within an hour. The whole situation is incredible.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

Price of one bed apartment s are going up a lot all of a sudden according to the estate agent I was talking to. I presume two beds too.
And they are being.sold as soon as they are put on the market for above asking.
I wonder is it reits or owner occupiers buying them up, because surely no sane person wants to get into renting nowadays.


----------



## odyssey06

In the long run it might be for the best if the one property landlords are squeezed out in favour of owner occupiers and companies with a portfolio of properties...

There are bad tenants out there.
If you have one property and end up with a bad tenant, you're screwed.  It's not a good business model.
If you have a dozen, you can carry it.

In the short run, I really wouldn't want to be looking for a place to rent in Dublin right now.


----------



## Sarenco

Well, here's one way around the new rent caps that I hadn't anticipated:-

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...ireland-massages-modelling-no-money-1.3079720

_"As Ireland's rent crisis continues to worsen, "sex-for-rent" ads have begun to appear for properties in Dublin".
_
What next?


----------



## smarts

Sarenco said:


> Well, here's one way around the new rent caps that I hadn't anticipated:-
> 
> _"As Ireland's rent crisis continues to worsen, "sex-for-rent" ads have begun to appear for properties in Dublin".
> _
> What next?


I think we will see more and more desperate behaviour as tenants deal with impossible rental costs.  People will refuse to get out, refuse to pay rent, sublet on AirBnB, overcrowd properties etc.  I am planning to rent out my apartment but only if I can find a tenant that I am comfortable can afford it.  I and I think most landlords would prefer to charge less but the current taxes and regulations mean we need to keep up with market rates.  I just hope the government sees sense and changes the policy.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

Sarenco said:


> Well, here's one way around the new rent caps that I hadn't anticipated:-
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...ireland-massages-modelling-no-money-1.3079720
> 
> _"As Ireland's rent crisis continues to worsen, "sex-for-rent" ads have begun to appear for properties in Dublin".
> _
> What next?



How much can you get for a one bed apartment in Dublin 
Sex, I mean.


----------



## Bronte

I cannot read the letter. If water and heating was included in the rent up to now then you cannot just decide that it now has to be paid.  Tenants need to complain to the PRTB. 

For example I pay the bin charges for my properties. And the communal lighting. 

Looked to me also that the letter heading is a 'creative' entity. As distinct from a 'legal' entity. 

Anyone able to read the letter please.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Speaking as a landlord, and to present a slightly different view, I don't find it difficult at all.

- The property was once my PPR and it's worth around what I paid for it, so any future growth in its value is partially sheltered.

- Yes interest is only 80% deductible, but like many landlords I have a tracker, so 20% of virtually nothing is virtually nothing. The restriction is almost meaningless.

- Rents are high in a world where it's difficult to generate income on surplus cash. A 7% gross yield is attractive.

- The last time it became vacant, there were more than 30 people who wanted it. It's easy enough to derisk in terms of getting a bad tenant when you have 30 people to profile.

- I now get a high rent which I'd be happy to grow at 4% per annum (assuming that's the market rate). There is no more "keep the rent low" stuff. It will go up by 4% a year which has a nice predictability to it.

- If landlords are exiting, then what I have becomes more valuable in my view.

- I use an agent who I trust and the cost is tax deductible. I have no hassle at all as a result.

- The property forms part of my own retirement strategy.


----------



## Sarenco

Gordon Gekko said:


> I now get a high rent which I'd be happy to grow at 4% per annum (assuming that's the market rate). There is no more "keep the rent low" stuff. It will go up by 4% a year which has a nice predictability to it.



The problem is that many existing landlords are stuck with renting at 20-40% below the market rate, primarily because of the two-year moratorium on rent reviews. 

The fact that the new rules may not have adversely impacted you personally (I think you previously told us that you were able to bring your rent up to the market rate before the rules kicked in), underlines my point that the RPZ regime unfairly discriminates between landlords and tenants and is resulting in increased rents, in aggregate, due to a shrinking supply of rental properties as landlords exit the business.

That is bad news for our economy and that impacts us all.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

Gordon, I think you got lucky with the timing of your rent increase.  I got very unlucky with mine.
And any day now could come the next bit if market interference and God knows what that will do.
So safer to just sell and be done with the while property investment slave to the revenue commissioner lark.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

I did get lucky in terms of the timing.

However the "it's tough being a landlord" narrative is overdone in my view.


----------



## Sarenco

I wonder would you still be of that view if you hadn't been lucky enough to be able to raise your rent to the market rate before the RPZ regime kicked in?  Most landlords weren't so lucky.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Sarenco said:


> I wonder would you still be of that view if you hadn't been lucky enough to be able to raise your rent to the market rate before the RPZ regime kicked in?  Most landlords weren't so lucky.



You're conveniently ignoring the other positive dynamics, e.g. low interest rates, a massive excess of demand over supply, the reversal of the interest deductibility restriction, and the fact that those underrented properties are still yielding strong rents.


----------



## Sarenco

I don't think I'm conveniently ignoring anything but I would note that the subject of this thread is the effect of rent controls. 

In any event, the gross yield on many under-rented properties is actually not that impressive.  On an after-tax basis, many landlords have realised that they would be far better off realising any positive equity and applying it against the mortgage on their PPR.  In many cases, that gives you a higher or comparable return with zero risk.


----------



## cremeegg

Any landlord who had a viable business a few years ago has a much better business today.

However the anti-landlord sentiment in the media and the anti-landlord attitude in recent legislation is deeply worrying.


----------



## Sarenco

A lot of landlords (particularly "accidental landlords") that bought during the boom didn't really have a viable business a few years ago.  

Once they emerge from NE over the coming months, many will now exit the market.


----------



## cremeegg

Thats probably no bad thing for those of us who take the whole business seriously.


----------



## Sarenco

Perhaps but the reduction in supply will ultimately drive up rents, in aggregate, which was obviously not the objective of the RPZ regime.

That's really my core point - the RPZ legislation is discriminatory and counter-productive.


----------



## cremeegg

Sarenco said:


> the RPZ legislation is discriminatory and counter-productive.



Of course it is.

As I said elsewhere.



cremeegg said:


> Like all government interventions in the market it will have unintended consequences.


----------



## trasneoir

Sarenco said:


> Well, the Minister can't say he wasn't warned…
> 
> _"In letters to Housing Minister Simon Coveney, two of the country's biggest residential landlords warned him off introducing rent caps, saying more consideration needed to be given to increasing availability in the private rental sector." _


Two of the country's biggest turkeys warned the minster against introducing Christmas. While their argument was (at least with the benefit of hindsight) correct, these are not the most credible people to be delivering such a warning.


----------



## Sarenco

It's certainly true that institutional providers of residential accommodation have an obvious vested interest in this issue.  No doubt about it.

However, I can't think of a serious economic commentator that thinks that rent controls ever work in practice.

Here's what Paul Krugman, hardly a free-market zealot by any reasonable measure, has to say about rent controls:-

_"The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable."
_
Like he says - the results of rent control legislation are entirely predictable.


----------



## Sarenco

Apparently Toronto is jumping on the rent control bandwagon.

Rents are predicted to rise as a result...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...trol-risks-stoking-the-red-hot-housing-market


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Interesting to see the country that's effectively iRes' home patch following suit...


----------



## Sarenco

Gordon Gekko said:


> Interesting to see the country that's effectively iRes' home patch following suit...



Yup and here's CAPREIT's reaction to the proposals -

[broken link removed]

In a nutshell, they don't expect the proposed changes to have any effect on their revenue because they don't believe that the proposed changes will reduce rents.

In other words, rent controls don't work and tenants are ultimately the real losers.


----------



## Sarenco

I see SF are now calling for an urgent review of the RPZ legislation.

Somewhat ironic given the fact that SF's contribution to the framing of the legislation made it far worse than Minister Coveney's original proposal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rent-controls-raising-pressure-on-tenants-3cvgczsq2?t=ie

_"Opposition TDs have called on the government to conduct an urgent review of the rent pressure zone system after a report suggested that it may be doing more harm than good._

_Simon Coveney, the housing minister, introduced the measures, which limit landlords to annual rent increases of 4 per cent, in December. The latest rent index from Daft.ie, the property website, has shown that rents have continued to increase despite the new controls, however._

_Ronan Lyons, an economist at Trinity College Dublin and author of the report, said that the zones had been counterproductive, with renters now more afraid than ever to leave an existing tenancy. The total number of properties available to rent across the country slipped to 3,084, the second lowest on record, while rents surged by 13.4 per cent in the first three months of the year._

_Under the legislation it is up to tenants to report rent increases greater than 4 per cent to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). Market analysts have said that tenants are unlikely to report landlords who are in breach of the law due to the precarious nature of the rental market and the lack of housing supply._

_Landlords only have to register new tenancies or existing ones every four years with the RTB, meaning any increases in rent in the intervening years are not officially recorded. This makes it nearly impossible for the board to detect illegitimate increases._

_ Eoin Ó Broin, the Sinn Féin housing spokesman, said that the government should conduct an urgent review of the legislation, which now covers more than half of the country’s rented properties._

_“The introduction of rent pressure zones was supposed to restrain rents and limit annual increases,” he said. “At the moment the tenant themselves is responsible for ensuring that landlords are complying with the new legislation. With the supply of rental properties so limited many tenants are reluctant to go down this route for fear of being evicted.”_

_Renters who have stayed in their accommodation since 2013 have experienced rent increases of 27 per cent, compared with 50 per cent for those who have moved. The report showed that the average monthly rent rose to €1,131 in the opening three months of the year, the fourth quarter in a row that a new all-time high has been set. The rate of growth slowed slightly from 13.5 per cent at the end of last year to 13.4 per cent."_


----------



## SqueezedMiddle

They should just remove all rent control.
But what will happen of course is tighter controls with worse unintended consequences.

If they removed the current controls and allows me to evict rogue tenants within a month then I would stay in the rent business, but as it stands I am in the process of leaving it.

Rent should be a nogitioation between two parties and that is all it should be.  Pay x for y level of service.

Increase the level of service to increase your profit.  Let the level slip and your profit decreases.  Landlord and tenant will meet at a level that suits both.

That's impossible at the moment.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Seems to me the Govt is doing everything in its power to 

1) not build social housing. 
2) not incentivize the building of social housing. 
3) encourage foreign investment.
4) Discourage small Landlords

We have a shortage of housing especially affordable housing.  I don't see the Govt trying to address this in any meaningful way. They seem to be intent to exacerbate the shortage. Which would seem to a policy designed to attract investment into the country, without regard to the hardship its causing.


----------



## Sarenco

SqueezedMiddle said:


> They should just remove all rent control.
> But what will happen of course is tighter controls with worse unintended consequences.


I agree that rent controls, in any form, are counter-productive to the point of being textbook "bad policy". 

Perversely rent-controls also tend to benefit higher-income tenants to the disadvantage of lower-income groups and we can already that effect playing out here. 

However, once introduced rent controls are extremely difficult to repeal as they generate a constituency of vocal tenant "insiders".  There is also the distinct possibility that further regulations will be introduced to close-off increasingly creative avoidance strategies – a case of bad regulations chasing bad policy.


----------



## odyssey06

Close off the creative avoidance loopholes, with a once off catchup to up to 90% market rate for those landlords whose rent increases registered with the RTB over the last 4 years have been less than the general rate of rent increase for that RPZ.
Or abolish RPZs entirely.
At the moment we have the worst of a bad situation.


----------



## Sarenco

Interesting article on the dislocating impact of rent controls -

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017...ts-come-evictions-and-rent-rises-for-tenants/


----------



## AlbacoreA

That's not solely about rent controls. Using refurbishment to break tenancies was common before rent controls. 

The only reason LL want/need this is because there is no other way to increase to market rate if you are below it, or to move your property up market which is what the large fund LLs are doing to increase profitability and their ROT.

On the flip side there is tenants security of tenure to consider and this becomes the critical issue in the current situation of a housing crisis, and associated rent inflation. 

The only solution is to increase supply. That not only helps tenants, but also LL's as tenants are more willing t move and will move more often as convenient for them.

All rent controls really do is discourage LL's, and discourage tenants from moving. Thus decrease supply further. They do help tenants with security of tenure and affordability, in the short term if they don't move. In the long term the rent will still increase and housing supply will decrease. In Germany its been reported a rise in behind the scenes payments to get around the cap.


----------



## Sarenco

Further evidence from this morning's Daft Report that the Government's policies are having a negative impact on the rental market -

_"There were just 2,930 properties available to rent across Ireland on 1 August, the lowest number ever recorded. It is the first time, in fact, since such records began in 2006, that fewer than 3,000 homes were available to rent across the country._

_In Dublin there were just 1,100 homes available to rent, compared with 2,000 on the same date in 2014._

_Meanwhile, rents in Dublin jumped by 12.3% in the first six months of the year. They now stand 18% higher than the previous peak seen in 2008 – equivalent to an additional €260 being paid on average per month per property."_

http://www.daft.ie/report


----------



## newirishman

Sarenco said:


> Further evidence from this morning's Daft Report that the Government's policies are having a negative impact on the rental market -
> 
> _"There were just 2,930 properties available to rent across Ireland on 1 August, the lowest number ever recorded. It is the first time, in fact, since such records began in 2006, that fewer than 3,000 homes were available to rent across the country._
> 
> _In Dublin there were just 1,100 homes available to rent, compared with 2,000 on the same date in 2014._
> 
> _Meanwhile, rents in Dublin jumped by 12.3% in the first six months of the year. They now stand 18% higher than the previous peak seen in 2008 – equivalent to an additional €260 being paid on average per month per property."_
> 
> http://www.daft.ie/report



So I thought that rents can only be increased by 4%? Given rents increased by 12%, this particular rule doesn't seem to be a hindrance to anyone.

Quoting from: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html



> *For a new tenancy* (starting on or after 24 December 2016) in a Rent Pressure Zone, the landlord may review the rent once every 12 months. The maximum rent increase will be 4% per year. The landlord must give the tenant the following information, in writing, at the start of the tenancy {...}


----------



## Thirsty

You need to allow for new rentals; they can be let out at market rent.


----------



## Sarenco

Yep, properties in a RPZ that have not been let at any time in the previous 2 years, or that have been substantially refurbished, are exempt from the rent cap and can be let at whatever rate the market will bear.

Sitting tenants that are enjoying below market rents because of the rent control legislation are strongly incentivised not to move.  That increases competition for the very limited number of new rentals that coming to the market and therefore we are seeing rent increases.


----------



## Sarenco

Well, I see Minister Coveney thinks that his rent control legislation is working out just fine –

_Asked if his rent cap plan had worked, Mr Coveney, now foreign affairs minister, said: “Yes... If you look at the areas where the rent cap applies, it certainly has helped put downward pressure on rent inflation. That was the whole point of that strategy and that has worked to a certain extent. But that isn’t going to solve the problem for people. The main issue here is supply. We need to put temporary measures in place to limit rental inflation which is what we have done and we will continue to do that while it is needed.”_
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/coveney-claims-rent-caps-are-working-457549.html

"Delusional" is the word that springs to mind…


----------



## landlord

It infuriates me when government ministers constantly talk about this rental crisis ONLY in terms of a lack of supply.
Surely for each additional property that becomes available for purchase,  there must be a willing perspective landlord who wants to buy it  to positively influence the rental market.   Surely for reasons discussed again and again on this website an increase in supply of properties will have an extremely limited impact on RENTAL supply.
I personally feel that the disincentives to becoming a landlord (including rent controls) have never been so strong. If these issues are not reflected in the next budget then the crisis will deepen.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

The data's also a joke because rent increases don't tend to be reported.

e.g. a property is let in 2013 at €1,100 a month. The PRTB have visibility of that. The tenant stays for four years. The property is now let to a new tenant at €1,560 a month. The stats look ridiculous and it appears as if the RPZ rules have been flouted.

The reality is that the rent was being increased along the way and stood at €1,500 when the tenant departed. €1,560 is that plus 4%. But the PRTB had no visibility of the periodic increases.


----------



## Sarenco

Interesting report on a case that highlights the adverse impact that the RPZ regime is having on tenants:-

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...ncome-tax-on-properties-below-1-000-1.3203939


----------



## Sarenco

I included a quote from Paul Krugman on the predictable effects of rent controls earlier in this thread:-


Sarenco said:


> _"Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable."_


Well, it looks like we are about to see our first predictable move to block one strategy that is currently being employed by some landlords to circumvent our crazy rent control legislation.

Apparently, our new Housing Minister is instructing his civil servants and the RTB to formulate a definition as to what constitutes "substantial refurbishment" for the purposes of the Residential Tenancy legislation.

It is not clear to me what authority these civil servants or the RTB have to interpret any legislation - in my innocence, I understood that was a matter for the Courts under our constitution.

Another case of bad law chasing a bad policy...

http://www.thejournal.ie/rent-national-prices-3605062-Sep2017/


----------



## Sarenco

One year on, the predictable impact of the RPZ regime continues to play out:-

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...ons-reported-in-rent-pressure-zones-1.3354974


----------



## Sarenco

More evidence of the perverse impact of the RPZ regime - IRES are looking for €1,500 rent per month for one bed apartment in Finglas -
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...1-500-rent-for-one-bed-finglas-flat-1.3504131

Critically, it is new to the rental market and therefore exempt from the RPZ rent cap.


----------



## Sarenco

As the rental market crisis rumbles on, the RPZ regime and high taxes continue to work their magic….









						Small private landlords are quitting ‘in their droves’, says seller of Glenageary house
					

The owner of this three-bed rental house says fixed rents and taxes forced him to sell




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## AlbacoreA

Be nice to see some figures on it from official sources though..


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Be nice to see some figures on it from official sources though..


_New figures from the RTB show the number of tenancies registered by private landlords fell by almost 2% or just under 6,000 to 307,348 in 2018.

“This is a significant reduction given the extreme demand pressures in the market,” said the RTB.

There was an associated decrease in the number of registered landlords, which fell by 0.5% to 173,197 and in the number of occupants of rental properties which was down 2.7% to 695,142._









						Supply of private rented tenancies must be protected given very strong demand, warns RTB
					

The Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) has expressed concern over a large reduction in the number of registered private rented tenancies last year against a background of a shortage of housing.




					www.irishexaminer.com


----------



## landlord

Overall I completely agree with the detrimental impact rent controls have had on rental supply due landlords selling. However for those who don’t sell like myself, their is one huge bonus of rent controls for landlords which is never mentioned.
Due rent controls, for most tenants moving out of a rental property, means paying much more for a new rental, if indeed they can even find one. I have many rental properties and have not had a tenant move out for several years. This is worth its weight in gold as the cost of refurbishing a property can be very costly. But more significant is the cost of the landlords “TIME“ considering inspecting properties, dealing with deposits, utility bills, clearing rubbish, refurbishing, advertising, RTB, HAP forms, Vetting new tenants, preparing new contracts and new inventories, utility bills again, organising/checking standing orders are in place and then logging and filing everything. For me personally this is the worst part of being a landlord.


----------



## AlbacoreA

landlord said:


> .... I have many rental properties ...



The current system and the rpz have less impact on a landlord with many properties. It's still viable for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Sarenco

landlord said:


> This is worth its weight in gold as the cost of refurbishing a property can be very costly.


Yep, rent controls reduce a landlord's incentive to maintain their property.  Why bother spending money on a property if you can't reflect it in the rent?  In the long term this is bad for tenants.

Only bombs destroy a city more quickly than rent controls.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

landlord said:


> Due rent controls, for most tenants moving out of a rental property, means paying much more for a new rental, if indeed they can even find one. I have many rental properties and have not had a tenant move out for several years.



Interesting point.

But you don't need rent controls to achieve that. 

When you get a good tenant, you just keep the rent well below the market rate.

The problem will arise for you when you do lose a tenant. You will be tied in to the "discounted" rent you charged that tenant and you may well get a bad tenant who will get a low rate, wreck the place, and refuse to leave because the rent is so low.

Brendan


----------



## AlbacoreA

Lack of supply (no options) is whats stopping tenants from leaving. 

I remember back in the 90s it was like a revolving door tenants would just walk about and into a cheaper place without any notice. Lots of Supply. 
I think thats when the issue retaining deposits for this reason, came in. 

Cheaper rent sometimes (not always of course) meant getting slight less reliable tenants. Upping the rent could often bring more stability.


----------



## Sarenco

Yes but rent controls are contributing to the lack of supply of rental properties.

That's the key point.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Agreed. But its very nuanced.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Agreed. But its very nuanced.


In what sense?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Rent controls only really hurt a specific section of landlords. 

Those with low rents, and who want less churn in tenants. Long term landlords. Those with low margins. 
The shortage from PRZ is actually to the advantage to new landlords, and bigger yield (high rents), and mobile. (can buy and sell)
Also those with finance to do extensive refurbishments. 

So it mainly discourages, low rents, and encourages renting to the high end of the market. 
The majority of new rentals are at the top end of the market. The minority is at the low end. 
No shortage at the top end of the market if you have the funds. 

So not only does it effect supply. It further reduces supply where the country needs it most, and creates supply where its needed least. 
Its probably reflects the growing disparity in wealth, thats also happening. Which is a reversal of social trends in the last century.  

That said this is particular to how RPZ have been implemented here. They aren't always done the same way. 
Though they do tend to have same end result overall.


----------



## Sarenco

Ok, you seem to agree that rent controls are contributing to the lack of supply of rental properties.

There's really nothing nuanced about it.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I do agree. But I don't think most people don't understand how its also shaping that shortage and the supply. 









						Increase in State-funded social tenancies at I-RES REIT
					

Ìreland's largest private landlord, I-RES REIT, has almost trebled the number of State-funded social tenancies on its books.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## Sarenco

A lack of supply of rental properties will certainly have a disproportionate impact on lower-income tenants (I think that's your point).


----------



## Desimomo07

AlbacoreA said:


> Rent controls only really hurt a specific section of landlords.
> 
> Those with low rents, and who want less churn in tenants. Long term landlords. Those with low margins.
> The shortage from PRZ is actually to the advantage to new landlords, and bigger yield (high rents), and mobile. (can buy and sell)
> Also those with finance to do extensive refurbishments.
> 
> So it mainly discourages, low rents, and encourages renting to the high end of the market.
> The majority of new rentals are at the top end of the market. The minority is at the low end.
> No shortage at the top end of the market if you have the funds.
> 
> So not only does it effect supply. It further reduces supply where the country needs it most, and creates supply where its needed least.
> Its probably reflects the growing disparity in wealth, thats also happening. Which is a reversal of social trends in the last century.
> 
> That said this is particular to how RPZ have been implemented here. They aren't always done the same way.
> Though they do tend to have same end result overall.




Id agree here. I've just brought two new rentals onto the market at the higher end and have seen this first hand. Rent controls mean that I've front loaded normal rent inflation - so the rent is +25% what i would have asked. This will balance out over the years Im sure, but its effects are to make an acute problem worse. 

But from my experience, so many prospective tenants are applying with full HAP support sometimes paying up to €1900 pm. Is this not a contributory factor to rent inflation?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Certainly. 

Though they tried to control rent originally by restricting Ra and hap limits it meant they simply couldn't find any places at those prices. Landlords simply priced themselves above it. One of the many reasons they had to make it illegal to refuse it. 

They have a runaway train now.  Supply can't meet demand. They keep increasing demand without increasing supply to match.


----------



## 24601

Sinn Féin are proposing a full rent freeze: https://twitter.com/eobroin/status/1203015154134331392

They castigate FG for the housing crisis in one breath and propose these measures in the next. I’m very torn on who to vote for next year. FG deserve to be punished for their incompetence but FF are even more tax and spend with the added risk of SF in power.


----------



## Sarenco

It’s sad watching the inevitable consequences of rent controls play out in real time.









						Rents continue to rise as availability plummets
					

Average rents for residential properties were 6.8% higher in the third quarter of the year compared to the same period in 2020, according to the latest rental report from the website Daft.ie.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think rent controls are one of many problems.

Rent controls can work, in limited circumstances, but not how they were implemented here.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Rent controls can work, in limited circumstances, but not how they were implemented here.


Can you point me to a single example where rent controls achieved their intended purpose?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Can you point me to a single example where rent controls achieved their intended purpose?



They don't work in isolation if thats what you are asking,. 









						What could Vienna’s low-cost housing policy teach the UK?
					

Rent controls mean public sector workers and those on lower pay can afford to live and work in the Austrian capital




					www.theguardian.com
				




But if there is a trade of in terms of less risk for the landlord, and in conjunction with  essentially a reduced but guaranteed income for landlords and developers they can take the heat out of market. But not in isolation. 

The main problem with the Irish ones they did not apply to new rentals. So it encourages low rent properties to leave the market and expensive ones into the market. Net effect, is a rise in rent, and reduction is low rent properties. It also encourages a shift to larger landlords who will chase the parts of the market that generate more profit (the high end) then at the low end. Social and affordable housing. 

The Irish controls, didn't address any of the other outstanding issues with the rental market. Lack of protection for LLs etc.


----------



## Purple

Rent Controls reduce supply in the rental sector.
High rents attract more landlords and restrict supply in the owner occupier sector.
The problem is lack of supply. That's all.

Rent Controls put a ceiling on rents. HAPS puts a floor on rents, which is very close to the ceiling.
The State is simultaneously inflating and seeking to deflate rental prices. The biggest losers are not those on very low incomes as they qualify for HAPS. The biggest losers are those on moderately high incomes who had the misfortune to be born too late to buy property before the current boom.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I would say lack of supply is the end result of a lot of factors at play. 

If anyone was involved with Rentals back in the 90s, there was a surplus of rentals, LLs had to improve their offerings, to hold on to tenants. Tenants could simply move to a cheaper place on a whim. But the standard of places was brutal back then.


----------



## Mocame

24601 said:


> Sinn Féin are proposing a full rent freeze: https://twitter.com/eobroin/status/1203015154134331392
> 
> They castigate FG for the housing crisis in one breath and propose these measures in the next. I’m very torn on who to vote for next year. FG deserve to be punished for their incompetence but FF are even more tax and spend with the added risk of SF in power.


Rents are rising due to undersupply of houses for rent so the main opposition party proposes the introduction of additional regulations to reduce the number of houses available to rent.  The worst thing is no one in our economically illiterate media will call them out.


----------



## Purple

Mocame said:


> Rents are rising due to undersupply of houses for rent so the main opposition party proposes the introduction of additional regulations to reduce the number of houses available to rent.  The worst thing is no one in our economically illiterate media will call them out.


Do you expect the Lefties in the Public Service Sector Broadcaster to attack the Populist Leftie Party?


----------



## AlbacoreA

They are pandering to the click bait generation.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Rent Controls reduce supply in the rental sector.


Looked at in isolation I agree, but there are other issues.

If landlords had greater certainty that they could collect rent and evict non paying and or disruptive tenants that would tend to increase supply. 


Purple said:


> The biggest losers are those on moderately high incomes who had the misfortune to be born too late to buy property before the current boom.



Those on moderate incomes renting privately are certainly the losers here. However property prices were very cheap until 5/6 years ago. They are only now reaching replacement cost in most parts of the country.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Looked at in isolation I agree, but there are other issues.
> 
> If landlords had greater certainty that they could collect rent and evict non paying and or disruptive tenants that would tend to increase supply.


Tenants need certainty too. If you know your landlord can evict you whenever they want on the pretext of selling the property it's hard to think of it as home of care that much about the upkeep.


cremeegg said:


> Those on moderate incomes renting privately are certainly the losers here.


Yes, same cohort are the losers when trying to buy.


cremeegg said:


> However property prices were very cheap until 5/6 years ago.


Cheap is a relative term. Appropriately prices works just as well for me.


cremeegg said:


> They are only now reaching replacement cost in most parts of the country.


Only because of the inbuilt inefficiencies in the entire sector. Planning takes too long, land is too expensive, financing is too expensive, Government charges are too high and builders are grossly inefficient. The replacement cost reflects all of that.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Tenants need certainty too. If you know your landlord can evict you whenever they want on the pretext of selling the property it's hard to think of it as home of care that much about the upkeep.
> 
> Yes, same cohort are the losers when trying to buy.
> 
> Cheap is a relative term. Appropriately prices works just as well for me.
> 
> Only because of the inbuilt inefficiencies in the entire sector. Planning takes too long, land is too expensive, financing is too expensive, Government charges are too high and builders are grossly inefficient. The replacement cost reflects all of that.


Yes tenants need certainty but so do landlords. All of the changes to recent legislation has favoured the tenant. it is now getting to a point that Landlords have no control over their property. Landlords signed up to provide a service under agreed conditions at the time. With the changing legislation landlords are not been treated fairly at all. It is almost impossible for a landlord to get his property back to sell it. 

if you want certainty on both sides then be fair to both sides and agree terms for the medium to longterm that benefits both. The constant changes in legislation is one of the reasons the small landlords are selling up. its not the only reason but it is one of them. 

Property prices were below costs in the past. However due to a lack of building demand has outstripped supply. Ironically we actually have an under utilised supply of properties that could have been brought into service when costs were lower. 

Inbuilt inefficiencies are a fact of life in Ireland no matter what you look at. Our culture does not do efficient/responsibility. No politician wants to take the difficult decisions, everybody suggests we need more property but don't want them near where they live (NIMBY). Everybody wants to live close to where they grew up but don't want to pay the price of living there. Everybody wants highly insulated houses that are energy efficient. The one question nobody seems to want to answer is exactly who is going to pay for all of this. The govt is planning on introducing min BER ratings for rentals going forward. Expect a flood of private landlords leaving the market when this comes to pass. Why would a landlord spend on improving the property (in some situations to a better condition then their own principle private residence) if they can't increase the rent?

The market will never be fully efficient in Ireland for a number of reasons (a) we are too small to really get any economies of scale, (b) our work ethic is not to be efficient we are not German, (c) with the ongoing tinkering by the State in the market stakeholders will leave the market.

Every business has its challenges but being in the business as a small landlord is becoming less and less practical. The State wants the landlord to solve a problem the State is creating and expects no reaction from the market. Ironically enough its the tenants in the main who are suffering most and will continue to do so if the State continues on its current trajectory. Eventually the majority supplier of rental stock will be the institutional landlord. Economics shows that a small number of large suppliers can control the market and thats exactly where the market is going. 

As has been highlighted on this forum on numerous occasions before of "be careful of what you wish for".


----------



## Sarenco

The view from NZ on our Government induced rental crisis -








						Here’s what we can learn from Ireland’s rental market collapse
					

Ireland’s rental market is in crisis, with available properties estimated to be as low as 716, as landlords leave the rent controlled market in droves.




					i.stuff.co.nz
				



Will any Irish politician admit that rent controls have created this crisis?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> The view from NZ on our Government induced rental crisis -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s what we can learn from Ireland’s rental market collapse
> 
> 
> Ireland’s rental market is in crisis, with available properties estimated to be as low as 716, as landlords leave the rent controlled market in droves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i.stuff.co.nz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will any Irish politician admit that rent controls have created this crisis?



The crisis existed before rent controls. So it's impossible for them to have created it. 

They certainly are yet another straw on the camels back though. But that's because of the peculiar way they were implemented in Ireland. Which penalized existing LLs with low rents and had no effect on new rentals entering the market which are free to set high rents. It's like they were designed (in Ireland) to push rents as high as possible and push cheaper rentals out of the market.


----------



## AlbacoreA

People constantly overstate the tax aspect.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> The crisis existed before rent controls. So it's impossible for them to have created it.


It has got exponentially worse since they were introduced in 2016. Also there is the opportunity cost of substituting an always-doomed-to-fail rent controls policy for proper remedial action (eg incentivisation of residential building/restoration/investment) that should have been taken back then.


----------



## AlbacoreA

They also changed the tenancy length in 2016, and we've had a net population increase since 2015. 
They also made more changes in 2019 https://www.rtb.ie/legislation-change

It make no sense to cheery pick rental controls as the cause or even the main factor. They certainly made it worse.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> They also changed the tenancy length in 2016, and we've had a net population increase since 2015.
> They also made more changes in 2019 https://www.rtb.ie/legislation-change
> 
> It make no sense to cheery pick rental controls as the cause or even the main factor. They certainly made it worse.


I agree with you on that. It was the 2009 government actions (not only backed but demanded by the then opposition parties) to constructively ban new residential property development, building and investment that created it. The problem since then is that the political cartel have doubled down on their error instead of admitting it.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

T McGibney said:


> It was the 2009 government actions (not only backed but demanded by the then opposition parties) to constructively ban new residential property development


Residential construction activity was pointless in 2009-2013(ish) as it was cheaper to buy an existing home then build a new one. House prices needed to rise in order to stimulate any activity at all at all.

After the last crash I know why a lot of people think high house prices are a bad thing. But you can have low house prices or lots of new dwellings built, but not both.


----------



## T McGibney

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Residential construction activity was pointless in 2009-2013(ish) as it was cheaper to buy an existing home then build a new one. House prices needed to rise in order to stimulate any activity at all at all.


Yes, and they rose alright only for the 2009 measures to block any recovery in activity.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> After the last crash I know why a lot of people think high house prices are a bad thing.* But you can have low house prices or lots of new dwellings built, but not both.*


Nail on head.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> and we've had a net population increase since 2015.


The population has increased by 361,671 since 2016. Our average household size is 2.75 persons. That means we needed 131,517 new units to homes, just under 22,000 a year, just to stand still.

The reduction in the average household size in another key driver. That alone has swallowed up 40% of all the housing units we've built in the last 30 years.

Those demographic changes are the main driver in our housing shortage.


----------



## Sarenco

On 1 August 2016, before the introduction of rent controls, there were 3,600 properties nationwide advertised to rent on daft.ie.

On 1 August 2022 there were only 716 properties nationwide advertised to rent on daft.ie. 

So, I think it’s fair to say that we have moved from a challenging, supply-constrained, rental market in 2016 to a full blown crisis in 2022.

I think it’s obvious that there has been a net reduction in available rental properties over the intervening period at a time of increased demand.  In my opinion, the primary reason for this net reduction was the introduction of rent controls.

So, I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that the current crisis in the rental market is Government-induced.


----------



## Purple

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> After the last crash I know why a lot of people think high house prices are a bad thing.


Because it draws capital away from the wealth creating sectors of the economy and devalues labour relative to capital.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> But you can have low house prices or lots of new dwellings built, but not both


You can if you can built dwellings cheaply. The problem is that almost every sector that has an input into producing residential property is grossly inefficient. When prices are high there is no incentive to improve productivity and reduce waste.  Given that construction accounts for  17% of global GDP that makes the everything less efficient and so makes everyone poorer in the medium to long term.


----------



## Purple

Having said all of the above I'm not a fan of rent controls. I'm not a fan of HAPS either and I'm certainly not a fan of the State buying existing private houses and turning them into social housing, thus further reducing the available housing stock for first time buyers and renters. 

State interference in the market, any market, rarely works out as planned.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> On 1 August 2016, before the introduction of rent controls, there were 3,600 properties nationwide advertised to rent on daft.ie.
> 
> On 1 August 2022 there were only 716 properties nationwide advertised to rent on daft.ie.
> 
> So, I think it’s fair to say that we have moved from a challenging, supply-constrained, rental market in 2016 to a full blown crisis in 2022.
> 
> I think it’s obvious that there has been a net reduction in available rental properties over the intervening period at a time of increased demand.  In my opinion, the primary reason for this net reduction was the introduction of rent controls.
> 
> So, I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that the current crisis in the rental market is Government-induced.


See my previous post. It's not unreasonable to say that those demographic changes are the main driver rather than rent controls.


----------



## Sarenco

Purple said:


> See my previous post. It's not unreasonable to say that those demographic changes are the main driver rather than rent controls.


I disagree.

Obviously a growing population increases demand for rental properties but rent controls disrupt the supply side response.

We also had a growing population during the tiger years but we didn’t have an associated rental market crisis.


----------



## T McGibney

Sarenco said:


> We also had a growing population during the tiger years but *we didn’t have an associated rental market crisis.*


We did for a few years from 1999 until 2001. Rents went through the roof and there was an exodus of Dublin renters to buy places in Gorey, Portlaoise and the like. This was after the government screwed new landlords by blocking them from claiming a tax deduction for mortgage interest, but Charlie McCreevy defused that particular timebomb at the end of 2001. I remember him being loudly denounced on these pages for doing so.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Obviously a growing population increases demand for rental properties but rent controls disrupt the supply side response.


I'm not suggesting that rent controls don't disrupt the supply side response. I'm suggesting that they are not the main reason there are shortages of supply.


Sarenco said:


> We also had a growing population during the tiger years but we didn’t have an associated rental market crisis.


Yes, we'd a credit fuelled property boom with a massive immigrant workforce from the EU accession states.


----------



## Sarenco

Purple said:


> I'm not suggesting that rent controls don't disrupt the supply side response. I'm suggesting that they are not the main reason there are shortages of supply.


We’ll probably have to agree to disagree but what do you think is the primary reason that there has been a negative supply side response to the increased demand for rental properties?

Or to put it another way, why are we seeing a net decrease in rental properties at a time of increasing rents?


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> We’ll probably have to agree to disagree but what do you think is the primary reason that there has been a negative supply side response to the increased demand for rental properties?
> Or to put it another way, why are we seeing a net decrease in rental properties at a time of increasing rents?


I don't have the stats but I suspect that the State buying properties in the private sector to use as social housing is a major part of the problem. That coupled with the appallingly dysfunctional planning process, Covid closing the sector for the bones of two years, labour shortages, supply chain issues and the general dysfunctionality of the entire construction sector all contribute to the problem.
I agree that rent controls are a problem but they aren't the reason there's a housing shortage. A massive increase in the population and fewer people living in each home are, in my opinion, the main drivers.
20 years ago a couple living with one of their parents were not counted as homeless. Now they are. As long as the State is providing almost free accommodation there'll always be a demand for it.


----------



## Sarenco

Purple said:


> I don't have the stats but I suspect that the State buying properties in the private sector to use as social housing is a major part of the problem.


Surely that would add to the supply of rental properties?

I’m not arguing that rent controls are responsible for problems in the supply of housing more generally.

I’m simply arguing that rent controls are the primary reason for the dramatic reduction in the supply of rental properties that we have seen since 2016.


----------



## cremeegg

Sarenco said:


> Surely that would add to the supply of rental properties?
> 
> I’m not arguing that rent controls are responsible for problems in the supply of housing more generally.
> 
> I’m simply arguing that rent controls are the primary reason for the dramatic reduction in the supply of rental properties that we have seen since 2016.


Do you think they are more significant as a cause than Airbnb, or the increase in regulation ?


----------



## Sarenco

cremeegg said:


> Do you think they are more significant as a cause than Airbnb, or the increase in regulation ?


I do, yes.

I think the impact of Airbnb can be overstated.  The pandemic had a significant adverse impact on the short term rental market but we didn’t see a significant increase in the supply of long-term rentals.

The additional regulations that have been introduced since 2016 have been relatively modest - rent controls are the biggie.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> We’ll probably have to agree to disagree but what do you think is the primary reason that there has been a negative supply side response to the increased demand for rental properties?
> 
> Or to put it another way, why are we seeing a net decrease in rental properties at a time of increasing rents?




There been the death of thousand paper cuts to the supply of private rentals. There is no one reason, or a primary one. 

But you have to say the catalyst for it all was the disposal of local authority housing and the cessation local authority building housing. That happened all over the developed world. On the back of privatization of many state assets and industries in the 80s. The commoditization of housing. The force adoption of that business on the private market, through legislation.  

In Ireland it was mostly about outsourcing and cost cutting. As they've pushed a lot of the costs, like arrears and repairs to the private LL. Look at the arrears the local authority tenants have built up. How much was passed to the LL. 

So you push social housing into the private market and you push that pressure up into the rest of it. LL's look for any way out of it, high rents, high deposits, rent a room. AirBnB etc. Every avenue is cut off with legislation. Ultimately the point of being a Private LL is rental income and capital appreciation for low risk. You've now made it high risk, rental income is constricted forever and the the capital appreciation has already been achieved. The population of LL is also aging, the cost of entry is too high for new landlords and institutional large LLs get preferential tax treatment. Those large LLs targe mostly the most profitable section the high end, the smaller landlord the low end. 

This all plays out against the background of the Celtic tiger, boom and bust, and the over fueling of the economy and population growth. 

Rent controls are just one part of that puzzle.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> I do, yes.
> 
> I think the impact of Airbnb can be overstated.  The pandemic had a significant adverse impact on the short term rental market but we didn’t see a significant increase in the supply of long-term rentals.
> 
> The additional regulations that have been introduced since 2016 have been relatively modest - rent controls are the biggie.



Additional regulations have a much bigger effect than you think. LL rights have been eroded to almost nothing.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Additional regulations have a much bigger effect than you think. LL rights have been eroded to almost nothing.


What material additional regulations have been introduced since 2016?

The extension of notice periods?  

Fairly trivial in the scheme of things.

Again, the introduction of rent controls was the major development and the primary (not the sole) reason for reduction of rental supply over that period IMO.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Ultimately the point of being a Private LL is rental income and capital appreciation for low risk. You've now made it high risk, rental income is constricted forever


Exactly.

And that constriction of rental income has been caused by …..?

Rent controls!


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And that constriction of rental income has been caused by …..?
> 
> Rent controls!



Not if you sell and buy a new rental. Then you can set a new higher rent. Or keep it empty for two years or just ignore it and pay the fine.  You can bypass the restriction then. But you have to deep pockets to do that. 

Rental controls are only one factor in why people sell up. 

The idea that just this one thing broke it or will fix it, is how this started. 









						Ted Fixes A Dent In His Car - Father Ted
					

Ever the perfectionist, Ted attempts to even out a dent in his car. Well you'll never get it absolutely right.#fatherted #cardentSubscribe for more: http://b...




					youtu.be


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> What material additional regulations have been introduced since 2016?
> 
> The extension of notice periods?
> 
> Fairly trivial in the scheme of things.
> 
> Again, the introduction of rent controls was the major development and the primary (not the sole) reason for reduction of rental supply over that period IMO.



One was they extended tenancies to 6 yrs. That was notice to quit for many right there.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> One was they extended tenancies to 6 yrs. That was notice to quit for many right there.


I very much doubt it.

The number of “no cause” termination notices issued by landlords after six years prior to this tweak was statistically insignificant.

I would be stunned if this very modest change caused a single landlord to exit the.business.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Not if you sell and buy a new rental. Then you can set a new higher rent.


Eh, no - that’s not true.

If you buy a rental in an RPZ, then you are stuck with the rent charged by the previous landlord.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Eh, no - that’s not true.
> 
> If you buy a rental in an RPZ, then you are stuck with the rent charged by the previous landlord.



A new rental has never been rented before.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> I very much doubt it.
> 
> The number of “no cause” termination notices issued by landlords after six years prior to this tweak was statistically insignificant.
> 
> I would be stunned if this very modest change caused a single landlord to exit the.business.



Its a clear signal what way its going. Lifelong tenancies. Unless a tenant initiates it a LL cannot regain the property. 

Which is a problem if you want to sell out at the top of the market. 

As for RPZ. If you are stuck on low rent. Its because you were happy with that rent and didn't change it. So nothing changes for those LLs. Why would they leave. Also for a RPZ it to be effective it would have to incur punitive fines. Anecdotally it hasn't.

IN addition to all this prior to Covid, the market had peaked. Covid blew that out of the water. Huge effect on supply, and also people not paying rent for a year or more. Everything turned on its head.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> A new rental has never been rented before.


A property that has never been rented before is hardly a rental!


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> As for RPZ. If you are stuck on low rent. Its because you were happy with that rent and didn't change it.


Nonsense.

There was a two year rent freeze prior to the introduction of the RPZ regime. 

Arguing that landlords were “happy” to be stuck renting a property at a rent that was 30%+ below market rates shows a complete misunderstanding of the impact of our rent control legislation.


----------



## AlbacoreA

If anyone got caught by the rpz they were asleep at the wheel. Simple as.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I tell you want though. No one should be looking backwards. Look ahead to what's coming. 

Rent freeze
Rent cut across the board
Selling with tenant in situ.
LL can't terminate a tenancy 
LL cent sell a property.
Required Energy improvements.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Ten years ago in 2012 I moved into an apartment renting at €1,500 which was market price at the time. I didn't stay too long before buying a house but if I had the landlord would probably have let the rent alone even as market rents took off in 2014 and 2015. Then rent freezes and RPZs came into effect from 2016 (and subsequently Covid freeze and then the 2% absolute limit). The precise calculations are beyond me but I think the most the landlord could have legally increased the rent under the various regimes since 2016 was about 20%, so from €1,500 to €1,800.

I still get daft alerts for the area and the odd time an apartment in the complex comes up it lets for €2,800 now, a full €1,000 above what I would be paying if I'd stayed there for the last ten years. Rent controls have their place in the short term, but there is just no good reason why existing tenants should be privileged so much over new tenants simply by virtue of having the been there for many years. The bigger question is what is the landlord supposed to do? Legally, the landlord is down a gross €12k a year, a full 35% below market rate. This is a lot of money! Prices are rising all over the economy at the moment because producers need to do so to stay in business and customers can sustain it. If coffee was fixed at 2012 prices you would find most coffee shops would just close as it wouldn't be worth it. You either have a market economy or you don't.

So for a landlord stuck 35% below market rent what are you supposed to do? If a tenant leaves the most obvious thing to do is sell up. If you want to stay a landlord ironically enough the best thing is to leave it idle for 24 months and then let it again at market rates. If there is repainting/refurbishing after a long tenancy there is going to be void time anyway (say 2 months). So you lose 22 months rent at the old rate but can let again at market rate of €1000 higher. After five years you've broken even and are re-established at the higher rate. This is a big upfront cost though with a relatively long payback time. Another option (again if you are a really committed landlord) is to sell one property and buy an identical one that hasn't been subject to rent controls and take in market rent. These are the kind of financial gymnastics a committed landlord is expected to exercise just to stay in the market. It's no wonder so many just throw up their hands and walk away. 

I think @Sarenco is broadly correct that rent controls have made a bad situation worse. I think the tax question is still a bigger factor, there is just a lot more tax on income and capital gains than there was 15 years ago. Added to that there is a huge cohort of landlords leaving at the moment. This is the 2002-2008 accidental landlord cohort which is not out of negative equity and can get rid of the albatross around its neck. The other is is professional landlords who bought 2011-2014, held for seven years and can avail of a full CGT exemption. Why would these latter landlords stay in the game stuck well below market rents with a capital gains tax shelter being eroded year on year?

In any case landlords will always be selling and a bigger issue is why so few are buying. For me the tax treatment compared to pension assets is a huge difference, particularly the CGT exemption. Something like the German system where there is no CGT payable if a landlord buys and lets for at least ten years would be a very good idea in the Irish context and I think would tempt some landlords back in.



AlbacoreA said:


> One was they extended tenancies to 6 yrs. That was notice to quit for many right there.


There is no evidence that this is behind a material number of notifications to quit. Many landlords don't even know of the existence of this provision.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> Surely that would add to the supply of rental properties?


No, it means there are fewer rental properties available on Daft, which, for some strange reason, is the golden metric in all of this. 


Sarenco said:


> I’m not arguing that rent controls are responsible for problems in the supply of housing more generally.


Okay, and I argue that an additional 360,000 people in the country and a reduction in average household size over the last 32 years which on its own consumes an additional 12,000 housing units a year without housing a single extra person are bigger drivers in our housing shortage.

That's 12,000 units a years consumed due to a reduction n average household size and, since 2016, 22,000 units a year consumed by population growth. I think those are bigger factors than rent controls. 



Sarenco said:


> I’m simply arguing that rent controls are the primary reason for the dramatic reduction in the supply of rental properties that we have seen since 2016.


I'm arguing that, as outlined above, over the medium term we need 36,000 units a year to stand still and that demand is outstripping supply.


On the supply side our planning system and gross State inefficiency have made things far worse, as has a dysfunctional and structurally incompetent construction sector. Building regulations have made things worse. Minimum unit sizes have made things worse.

Banning bed-sit's have made things worse. Rent controls have made things worse. 

The main driver in all of this is the inability of the construction sector, constrained by the State but primarily by it's own massive shortcomings, to keep pace with demand.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I didn't dispute the Rental controls exacerbated the situation. Its just not the primary reason. 

But you've been down that 12k, or 7k after tax all the years before this.  It didn't make it unviable all the years before its unlikely to make it unviable afterwards. The income vastly exceeds any increase in costs in that time. Unless it wasn't viable before the RPZ anyway. In which case this is all moot.   

If a tenant stops paying rent and it take up to 2yrs to get them out  2800x24 you are down 67,200 plus legal cost, plus any damage they've done in the mean time. Which could be in the tens of thousands. 7k is small potatoes in context. 

There cannot be any significant number in negative equity now. https://www.independent.ie/business...ity-end-in-sight-for-homeowners-37944309.html 

If you are small LL with one property you aren't chasing a big property portfolio or you'd have done it by now. It supplemental income and a pension. The preferential tax treatment isn't going to make a huge difference to supplemental income. You were happy enough to get into it was the return you were getting. Makes no sense this would tip you over the edge. 

Rent controls create a two tier market for tenants. Long tenants won't move, as this stagnates the market. New tenants bear the brunt of it. It creates a stability for long term tenants. Which is what people are looking for. Being last in the door your entering a market you know has no capacity due to supply issues. You're literally trying to squeeze your gallon into a pint pot. There is no fix for this except supply, or go somewhere else. Even if you got rent at the same price, there is no where to rent. But without RPZ the rent would be even higher. As there is no supply. RPZ at least stops rises for existing tenants which is glass half full or empty depending on your perspective. 

The supply issue comes from a variety of reasons but RPZ isn't the sole reason for anything.


----------



## Sarenco

Purple said:


> Okay, and I argue that an additional 360,000 people in the country and a reduction in average household size over the last 32 years which on its own consumes an additional 12,000 housing units a year without housing a single extra person are bigger drivers in our housing shortage.


I don't think there is any doubt that there has been a very significant increase in demand for rental properties in recent years.  You just have to look at the increase in rents commanded by new rental properties as evidence of this increased demand.

Remember, increasing prices are just a signal that there is more demand than supply.  In a healthy market, that signal draws out new supply, driving prices back down.

However, we are not seeing additional supply of rental properties coming on stream.  On the contrary, we are actually seeing a net reduction in the rental market stock as landlords exit the market, which is perverse at a time of increased demand and rising prices.

This has resulted in us moving from a challenging,  supply-constrained, rental market in 2016 to a full blown crisis today.

So what changed in the intervening period?

Planning delays, challenges in the construction sector, etc, delay an adequate supply-side response but they don't result in an actual reduction of rental stock.

The bedsit ban was introduced back in 2013 so that's not the culprit.

Additional regulatory controls have been introduced since 2016 around notice periods, etc., but these are not particularly material.

The taxation of rental profits hasn't changed to any material extent since 2016.

So that leaves rent controls as the primary (not the sole) reason for us moving from a challenging situation in 2016 to a full blown crisis in the rental market that we are witnessing today.


----------



## AlbacoreA

2016 isn't a spike statistically. 

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2017/02/daft3-12.jpg


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> 2016 isn't a spike statistically.
> 
> http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2017/02/daft3-12.jpg


Again, on 1 August 2016 there were 3,600 properties advertised to rent nationally on daft.ie.

On 1 August 2022 there were only 716 properties advertised to rent nationally.

That’s an 80% reduction in advertised rental properties over that period.

I would suggest that is a statistically significant reduction.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Best 2016 change I found was a drop in transactions, (buying and selling I assume)

(Not a site I like to quote)









						Mick: Landlords Aren't Fleeing the Market in Droves
					

It’s a common refrain, but the figures just don’t bear it out, writes Mick Byrne of the Dublin Tenants Association.




					www.dublininquirer.com
				



https://d1trxack2ykyus.cloudfront.net/artwork/0e3bcc87e922fdb9/medium_image.png

Even the rent price doesn't quite follow the RPZ 2016 by location. 
https://i2-prod.buzz.ie/incoming/ar...osts-Facebook-and-Blog-Formats_Graphic-15.jpg








						Average monthly rent revealed as number of homes available hits 'all time low'
					

The alarming increase in the average monthly asking price for rent around the country reflects an ongoing and unprecedented scarcity of rental homes nationwide




					www.buzz.ie


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Again, on 1 August 2016 there were 3,600 properties advertised to rent nationally on daft.ie.
> 
> On 1 August 2022 there were only 716 properties advertised to rent nationally.
> 
> That’s an 80% reduction in advertised rental properties over that period.
> 
> I would suggest that is a statistically significant reduction.



Statistically its not unique to 2016~2022 period.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Statistically its not unique to 2016~2022 period.


Sorry, I’ve no idea what that means.

Could you re-phrase?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sarenco said:


> Again, on 1 August 2016 there were 3,600 properties advertised to rent nationally on daft.ie.
> 
> On 1 August 2022 there were only 716 properties advertised to rent nationally.


I don't doubt the underlying trend, but I think the magnitude might not be as large as you say.

For properties in an RPZ coming back to the market:

If you're a landlord, tenants who are quitting will probably have friends who will want to take over.
If you're an agent, why bother advertising?  You will get massive excess demand at the rent-controlled price. You have a list of potential tenants as long as your arm already who will take it at the rent-controlled price.
Remember the median tenancy in Ireland is 3 years, the mean is 5 years and RPZs have been in place since 2016. The typical tenancy ending is most likely rent controlled and if you are not selling as a landlord you probably don't need to advertise on daft to find a tenant.

The listings I follow on daft (not a representative market by any means) seem new to market judging by the asking prices. Properties are still changing hands I would think a much higher share is off market than 2016.

I am not for a moment doubting that rent controls are a) bad; b) leading to a fall in supply. But the magnitude is probably not as large as the figures above suggest.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> his has resulted in us moving from a challenging, supply-constrained, rental market in 2016 to a full blown crisis today.
> 
> So what changed in the intervening period?
> 
> Planning delays, challenges in the construction sector, etc, delay an adequate supply-side response but they don't result in an actual reduction of rental stock.
> 
> The bedsit ban was introduced back in 2013 so that's not the culprit.
> 
> Additional regulatory controls have been introduced since 2016 around notice periods, etc., but these are not particularly material.
> 
> The taxation of rental profits hasn't changed to any material extent since 2016.
> 
> So that leaves rent controls as the primary (not the sole) reason for us moving from a challenging situation in 2016 to a full blown crisis in the rental market that we are witnessing today.




Our population increase and the fact the immigrants are more likely to rent than buy will have a major impact on demand for rental units. 

The numbers of available units is a reflection of demand outstripping supply. Have the number of units rented as a proportion of the overall housing stock decreased? That would be a better indication of the impact of rent controls.


----------



## Purple

Does anyone have statistics on the age profile of the people who bought buy to let's during the boom? The one or two property landlords who also had a day job. It strikes me that a large proportion of the people who had the means to buy during the boom are getting to retirement age. Therefore positive equity, age profile and the fear of a Shinner government making it impossible to evict a tenant are all big factors in why landlords are selling.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Sorry, I’ve no idea what that means.
> 
> Could you re-phrase?


 



Sarenco said:


> Again, on 1 August 2016 there were 3,600 properties advertised to rent nationally on daft.ie.
> 
> On 1 August 2022 there were only 716 properties advertised to rent nationally.
> 
> That’s an 80% reduction in advertised rental properties over that period.
> 
> I would suggest that is a statistically significant reduction.



The general trend does not align with 2016. You've just cherry picked data out of context. 

2012. 


> it is increasingly evident that there is a shortage of rental properties on the market in urban areas, and in particular Dublin,”  Ronan Lyons, Economist with Daft.ie



2014


> According to Daft.ie (which is owned by the Distilled Media Group) the rent increases are related to very tight supply, with fewer than 1,500 properties available to rent in Dublin on February 1, compared to over 6,700 on the same date five years ago.


----------



## Sarenco

Purple said:


> Our population increase and the fact the immigrants are more likely to rent than buy will have a major impact on demand for rental units.


Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

RTB data (with all its imperfections) shows a  very significant reduction in registered tenancies over recent years.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> The general trend does not align with 2016. You've just cherry picked data out of context.


Sorry but I still have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Sorry but I still have no idea what you are talking about.



I can see that. Well maybe someone else can explain it better.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
> 
> RTB data (with all its imperfections) shows a  very significant reduction in registered tenancies over recent years.



It actually rose between 2018 and 2019.  Then we had covid and lock down for 2yrs. 
From Number of Private Tenancies Q4 2017 - Q4 2020 it has fallen approx 5%.


----------



## Sarenco

In the last year alone, the number of newly registered tenancies has declined on a year-on-year basis by 32%, per the latest RTB index.

Is anybody seriously suggesting that the recent landlord exodus is a myth?!


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

AlbacoreA said:


> From Number of Private Tenancies Q4 2017 - Q4 2020 it has fallen approx 5%.


That is "very significant" though! The over-15 population grew 5% over those three years. So population growing 5% and private tenancies falling 5% is approximately 10% less rental properties per adult. That's a fall of 3% per year - quite a lot and in my view not sustainable!

What's been happening in the two years since? The RTB seems to have stopped producing statistics as it moves to annual registration. Census results should be out later this year which will most likely show more than a 5% drop in private tenancies April 2016 to April 2022 - we already know the adult population grew 9.5% over the period.

A 3% fall per annum per capita in private tenancies is a) a big number; b) telling you that something is very wrong on the supply side.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> In the last year alone, the number of newly registered tenancies has declined on a year-on-year basis by 32%, per the latest RTB index.


Okay, that's a much more relevant statistic. 


Sarenco said:


> Is anybody seriously suggesting that the recent landlord exodus is a myth?!


It certainly isn't a myth. The question is why it's happening. Are rent controls a bigger factor in that exodus than positive equity i.e. taking their profit, age profile and fear of the next government?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Well its decease in registrations. Considering high profile recent cases of tenancies not being registered with RTB you can read between the lines.

Considering we shut down the economy for 2yrs and people moved home so they didn't have to pay rent while not working. I'm not sure 5% is that bad.



> here were 320,000 landlords in 2016 and recent figures show there are currently just over 298,000.



That's about 6.8% decline in LLs.

if you consider the number of tenancies. This means the the ratio of LLs with multiple properties is increasing as LLs with single properties leave.

This isn't a new trend.


> More landlords have multiple properties











						More landlords have multiple properties
					

The number of landlords in Ireland with multiple properties increased last year for the first time since 2015.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




It what popular opinion wanted, and the Govt delivered legislation to promote that aim.


----------



## AlbacoreA

As for the supply side

https://www.eolasmagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Ireland-2040-1-1024x761.png


----------



## Sarenco

Purple said:


> It certainly isn't a myth. The question is why it's happening. Are rent controls a bigger factor in that exodus than positive equity i.e. taking their profit, age profile and fear of the next government?


In my humble opinion, rent controls are the primary (not the sole) reason for the recent net reduction in rental stock.

Accidental landlords coming out of negative equity are certainly now in a position to exit the market but I don’t believe they would be doing so in large numbers if they were able to generate a reasonable risk-adjusted return on their rentals.

I don’t really see why the age profile of landlords is particularly relevant. As it happens, most landlords that I know are long since retired.

Fear of a future Sinn Fein led government?  That might be a motivating factor for some landlords but it’s hardly a new concern.

In the here and now, landlords can see that their costs are rising, without any ability to meaningfully increase their rental income. The consequent squeeze on rental profit is causing many landlords to conclude that staying in the business simply isn’t worth the risk and hassle.  So they’re heading for the exit doors.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Take your example of 2800 rent per month.

What costs have risen in running the rental that require squeezing that income. Considering these are historic high rents.


----------



## Sarenco

What landlord costs are rising?

Maintenance, insurance, service charges, mortgage rates, RTB fees - pretty much everything.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Let's not be vague.

Can we put a number in these costs. So for 2022 which of these increased and by how much?

Rtb
Mortgage 
Service charges (what are these?)
Insurance


----------



## Sarenco

How could I possibly put figures on these items - they would obviously differ from property to property.

Are you now suggesting that inflation is also a myth?!


----------



## AlbacoreA

I don't say anything was a myth. Reverting to strawman about myths ever 5 mins is not endearing.

You could approximate most of them. 

Why? I'm wondering if it's not viable with relatively small increases at a time of peak rents was the rental ever viable. The LL should have a reserve for emergencies and bad tenants and recessions.


----------



## Sarenco

How could I possibly approximate how much any landlord’s mortgage costs, to take one example, have increased?  It’s obviously totally dependant on a variety of individual factors.

The point I’m making is that rental profits have come under pressure due to rent controls to the point that many landlords are exiting the business.

I really don’t understand why you are arguing otherwise - it’s blindingly obvious.


----------



## AlbacoreA

If they can't survive with historic high rents its not a viable business and they are right to quit.

It's not hard to estimate costs knowing the rent and range of likely values.


----------



## The Horseman

AlbacoreA said:


> If they can't survive with historic high rents its not a viable business and they are right to quit.
> 
> It's not hard to estimate costs knowing the rent and range of likely values.


The level of rent is not the only issue. All businesses have contingency funds but if you have a delinquent tenant, an inability to raise rents, increasing costs and ever increasing one sided legislation then what exactly do you expect any rational business person will do?

The biggest issue whether you accept it or not is the rent controls and the whole uncertainty the ever changing legislation is creating.

An inability to trade in a market (which is what private rental is) where it is so one sided and getting worse is why landlords are leaving.


----------



## AlbacoreA

The Horseman said:


> The level of rent is not the only issue. All businesses have contingency funds but if you have a delinquent tenant, an inability to raise rents, increasing costs and ever increasing one sided legislation then what exactly do you expect any rational business person will do?
> 
> The biggest issue whether you accept it or not is the rent controls and the whole uncertainty the ever changing legislation is creating.
> 
> An inability to trade in a market (which is what private rental is) where it is so one sided and getting worse is why landlords are leaving.



I don't disagree with you. But you've mentioned a load of issues not solely RPZ. These issues are cumulative. 

I'm not sure what you mean by an inability to trade. Are you suggesting renting can't generate a profit. Which isn't credible. 






						The  Medium Landlords Profile - RTB Rental Sector Survey   | Residential Tenancies Board
					

RTB operates Ireland's National Tenancy Register and resolving disputes between Landlords, tenants and third parties. Governed by residential Tenancies Act 2004. View more information on landlords and tenancies.




					www.rtb.ie


----------



## Sarenco

What are you trying to demonstrate by posting that RTB presentation?  It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Again, nobody is saying that rent controls are the _only _reason that landlords are exiting the market.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Income seemed relevant to a viability discussion.


----------



## Sarenco

But that presentation has nothing to do with income and this not a discussion about “viability”.

At this stage I really have no idea what point you are trying to make.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sorry completely irrelevant. 

"....._Medium private landlords (3-20 tenancies) Likelihood of selling their current properties by incomes from lettings, in the next 12 months (n=250) 2021..._.."


----------



## AlbacoreA

_"....Rents surge by up to 17% as laws flouted..."_









						Rents surge by up to 17% as laws flouted
					

"Government is constantly afraid that if they put in too many measures in favour of tenants that landlords will leave the market," says housing expert Rory Hearne.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




If anything the rules will get more strict.


----------



## The Horseman

AlbacoreA said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by an inability to trade. Are you suggesting renting can't generate a profit. Which isn't credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  Medium Landlords Profile - RTB Rental Sector Survey   | Residential Tenancies Board
> 
> 
> RTB operates Ireland's National Tenancy Register and resolving disputes between Landlords, tenants and third parties. Governed by residential Tenancies Act 2004. View more information on landlords and tenancies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rtb.ie


The rpz result in a decrease ability to earn the contingency fund you reference in a previous post. Remember costs are continually increasing. Have you tried to get a tradesmen lately? 

Any fully functioning market allows buyers and sellers enter/exit that market freely. If a seller chooses to leave a market what they do with their asset is their business. However this is not the case with the rental sector. 

A fully functioning market allows the market set the price and by extension the price buyers are willingto pay (ie equilibrium price). The rpz has stopped this fundamental basic of a market. 

This is what I mean when I say "inability to trade".


----------



## Mocame

Eoin O'Brion has a detailed outline of his plans for regulation of private rented housing in today's Sunday Business Post. This is the most significant paragraph:

'We would give tenants real security of tenure by removing the sale of property as a grounds for issuing an eviction notice. We would also narrow the use of landlord or family member grounds for eviction to very specific categories, and we would introduce an NCT-style certification system for landlords to ensure that property meets minimum standards'.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Over the the 20yrs or more as economic conditions change there's been constant  change to the legislation and rules to improve and protect tenant's. Which is fine. The problem is theres been almost no changes to improve things for the Landlords. In fact it's got a lot worse. So that's why more landlords are leaving than joining.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Properties than don't meet any proposed new standards or are unwilling to meet them will also leave the market.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> we would introduce an NCT-style certification system for landlords to ensure that property meets minimum standards'.


I wonder who is going to pay for this NCT-style certification?

Bet it won’t be the tenants…


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Ten years ago in 2012 I moved into an apartment renting at €1,500 which was market price at the time. I didn't stay too long before buying a house but if I had the landlord would probably have let the rent alone even as market rents took off in 2014 and 2015. Then rent freezes and RPZs came into effect from 2016 (and subsequently Covid freeze and then the 2% absolute limit). The precise calculations are beyond me but I think the most the landlord could have legally increased the rent under the various regimes since 2016 was about 20%, so from €1,500 to €1,800.
> 
> I still get daft alerts for the area and the odd time an apartment in the complex comes up it lets for €2,800 now, a full €1,000 above what I would be paying if I'd stayed there for the last ten years. Rent controls have their place in the short term, but there is just no good reason why existing tenants should be privileged so much over new tenants simply by virtue of having the been there for many years. The bigger question is what is the landlord supposed to do? Legally, the landlord is down a gross €12k a year, a full 35% below market rate. This is a lot of money! Prices are rising all over the economy at the moment because producers need to do so to stay in business and customers can sustain it. If coffee was fixed at 2012 prices you would find most coffee shops would just close as it wouldn't be worth it. You either have a market economy or you don't.
> 
> So for a landlord stuck 35% below market rent what are you supposed to do? If a tenant leaves the most obvious thing to do is sell up. If you want to stay a landlord ironically enough the best thing is to leave it idle for 24 months and then let it again at market rates. If there is repainting/refurbishing after a long tenancy there is going to be void time anyway (say 2 months). So you lose 22 months rent at the old rate but can let again at market rate of €1000 higher. After five years you've broken even and are re-established at the higher rate. This is a big upfront cost though with a relatively long payback time. Another option (again if you are a really committed landlord) is to sell one property and buy an identical one that hasn't been subject to rent controls and take in market rent. These are the kind of financial gymnastics a committed landlord is expected to exercise just to stay in the market. It's no wonder so many just throw up their hands and walk away.
> 
> I think @Sarenco is broadly correct that rent controls have made a bad situation worse. I think the tax question is still a bigger factor, there is just a lot more tax on income and capital gains than there was 15 years ago. Added to that there is a huge cohort of landlords leaving at the moment. This is the 2002-2008 accidental landlord cohort which is not out of negative equity and can get rid of the albatross around its neck. The other is is professional landlords who bought 2011-2014, held for seven years and can avail of a full CGT exemption. Why would these latter landlords stay in the game stuck well below market rents with a capital gains tax shelter being eroded year on year?
> 
> In any case landlords will always be selling and a bigger issue is why so few are buying. For me the tax treatment compared to pension assets is a huge difference, particularly the CGT exemption. Something like the German system where there is no CGT payable if a landlord buys and lets for at least ten years would be a very good idea in the Irish context and I think would tempt some landlords back in.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that this is behind a material number of notifications to quit. Many landlords don't even know of the existence of this provision.


One of the best and most logical posts ive read about the issue in a long long time.


----------



## AlbacoreA

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> One of the best and most logical posts ive read about the issue in a long long time.


Germany has the same problem with a two tier rents due to rpz. They also shifted to large investment landlords and had problems with it.

This was all known before Ireland decided to reinvent the wheel by going down the same road.

No-one said that rpz weren't a big factor. They just aren't the only one. Targeting one issue in isolation is why they were introduced. It's ironic this thread suggests doing the same in reverse will fix it. Different sides of the same coin.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> No-one said that rpz weren't a big factor. They just aren't the only one.


Nobody said otherwise.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> ...Will any Irish politician admit that rent controls have created this crisis?...



Seems like that was the argument ...

I'm not arguing against you that is a bad idea. Just broadening the scope of the discussion.


----------



## AlbacoreA

One of my posts was deleted could the mod pm me why so I don't make the mistake again.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Seems like that was the argument ...


No, I repeatedly said that, in my opinion, rent controls are the primary (*not the sole*) reason for the recent net reduction in our rental stock.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Sarenco said:


> No, I repeatedly said that, in my opinion, rent controls are the primary (*not the sole*) reason for the recent net reduction in our rental stock.



I'll agree to disagree due to clear evidence this general trend started before rpz. 

Also viability argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

There are many reasons and everyone will have their own opinion.

For me:

Rent pressure zones
Taxation levels
Inability to deal quicky with bad tenants
Sinn Fein threats on anti landlord action

I see it as these four reasons. I think the RPZ is the primary cause though. Again, just my opinion. I find it incredible to penalise existing landlords and leave new landlords set rents at whatever figure they choose. Yes, they are meant to set to market rent, but there's no enforcement.

Landlords with mortgages, say a tracker, have seen interest rates go up by 1.25% in two months and talk is another 0.75% next month. The rent cannot be increased to the same amount (ignoring half the rental increase in tax). So landlords are actually in a worse position now than previously. And yet they are expected to remain in the sector.

To resolve this, how about reducing taxation to landlords renting at say, 20% under the market rate.

I've said it before on here, I think Sinn Fein are making the situation way worse and getting more popular because of it. They vilify landlords and threaten to restrict their ability to selling their property and only allowing them sell to another landlord with tenant in situ (and so the assets value will take a huge hit as a result).

All these threats are doing nothing but encouraging current landlords to serve notice and sell up. Makes the situation worse again. Government get more unpopluar as a result. Opposition/SF get more popular.

There's none so blind as them that what won't listen.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Only 40% of one property landlords have a mortgage. It's something like 80% of 150+ unit landlord properties. 

I wonder what % of those leaving have mortgages.


----------



## Sarenco

AlbacoreA said:


> Also viability argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.


What “viability argument”?

What “scrutiny”?

What are you talking about?!


----------



## AlbacoreA

Here's a letter covering a lot of the issues in this thread...









						Housing crisis and rental market
					

Smaller landlords are squeezed out




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Purple

Mocame said:


> Eoin O'Brion has a detailed outline of his plans for regulation of private rented housing in today's Sunday Business Post. This is the most significant paragraph:
> 
> 'We would give tenants real security of tenure by removing the sale of property as a grounds for issuing an eviction notice. We would also narrow the use of landlord or family member grounds for eviction to very specific categories, and we would introduce an NCT-style certification system for landlords to ensure that property meets minimum standards'.


If I was a landlord I'd sell up immediately after reading that. In my opinion it is probable that Eoin O'Brion will be the minister for housing after the next election. There's no way I'd risk being a landlord with him in charge.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

There's an interesting piece from Dominic Coyle in today's Irish Times "What are the tax implications if we allow daughter stay in our rental apartment for free for three years?".

*Question*


> We have a two-bedroom apartment rented out for €800 per month in a rent pressure zone. We were a bit soft and did not increase it in the past as tenants were very good and we now cannot raise the rent by more than 2 per cent annually.
> 
> Our daughter [...] is looking for a place to stay in the same general area and finding it impossible to find anywhere. [...]
> 
> In two to three years’ time when our daughter’s salary will have increased and she should be able to afford to pay her own rent, we will be near retirement. We would most likely be putting the apartment back on the open market and could charge market rent, which I expect would be far in excess of the rent we are charging now. What are the tax implications if we were to allow our daughter to stay in the apartment rent free for three years?




Advice


> Because of your previous decisions on rent, you are very circumscribed on what you can secure for it in the market — barely half the current market rent in the same area on the basis of the figures you provide. However, you are entitled to withdraw it from the market to accommodate a family member.
> [...] providing she is there for more than two years, it will reset the clock on renting the property subsequently in the open market
> [...] In other words, you will be able to rent the property out again at whatever the prevailing market rent is at that time. If you are saying it is currently €1,500 a month as against the €800 or so you can secure under rent pressure zone rules, rental inflation indicates it will be well over double the most recent rental income you secured. That will provide a better income to you as you near retirement, even with the tax on any income earned and the costs involved in renting out property.



So here you have it. Decent landlords finally waking up to the fact that they will be stuck with a below-market rate forever if they continue to do right thing. Tenants who have done well from below market rates for several years and about to get a big shock when they re-enter a market with very constrained supply due to the policies they have inadvertently benefitted from.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I dunno how anyone landlord or tenant can be shocked. Rents are in the media almost every other day for like a decade or more. 

You'd be checking that the rent comes in you'd be aware of it monthly or so. Or your agent would. More so if your margins on a razor edge. 

Likely get a call from the tax man wondering are you under declaring rent and thus the tax.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> In my humble opinion, rent controls are the primary (not the sole) reason for the recent net reduction in rental stock.


Is there a reduction in rental stock or a reduction in the stock available to rent? They are very different things.

In 2016 there were 326,493 residential dwellings in the private rental sector, up 19.2% from 2006. There were 143,178 rented from local authorities, up 8.4% from 10 years previously.  During that time the population of the country went up by 10%. The average household size in 2006 was 2.81 people. In 2016 it was 2.75 people. So, the number of private rentals went up nearly twice as fast as population and demographic change driven demand.
I fully agree that supply is not matching demand but are the actual numbers of rental properties in the market dropping?



Sarenco said:


> Accidental landlords coming out of negative equity are certainly now in a position to exit the market but I don’t believe they would be doing so in large numbers if they were able to generate a reasonable risk-adjusted return on their rentals.


The risk adjusted element is a big issue. 


Sarenco said:


> I don’t really see why the age profile of landlords is particularly relevant. As it happens, most landlords that I know are long since retired.


I've no data to back my view up either, it's just a hunch, and so I'm open to correction.  


Sarenco said:


> Fear of a future Sinn Fein led government?  That might be a motivating factor for some landlords but it’s hardly a new concern.


RPZ's are certainly reducing the "risk premium" available to landlords while the actual risks are increasing. 


Sarenco said:


> In the here and now, landlords can see that their costs are rising, without any ability to meaningfully increase their rental income. The consequent squeeze on rental profit is causing many landlords to conclude that staying in the business simply isn’t worth the risk and hassle.  So they’re heading for the exit doors.


I agree.
RPZ's are dampening the ability of the market to respond to demand but population increase is swallowing new housing faster that that housing can be produced. That, in my opinion, is the main reason why we have a housing shortage and everything else is just a symptom of that.


----------



## abirdinthehand

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> One of the best and most logical posts ive read about the issue in a long long time.


Agree with your comment on the excellent post you quoted.  I bought in 2012.  Held for ten years.  Had decided to sell for various reasons:  increased value of the property; tenant not keeping the place; tenant went on HAP and their onerous inspections requiring further heavy investment (no problem keeping the place up per say if I have the money (I don't) and if the tenant is responsible and looks after the place and notifies me of problems but that wasn't the case); just sick of the stress, worry and uncertainty of it all (not cut out for it!).  Tenant now gone (HAP pays for the increased rent at the new rental found) and my property vacant.  Because I gave selling as the reason for termination I could be penalised if I don't do that within 9 months (not sure how this is or even if it's enforced - someone would have to report you - which could be done by  a spiteful ex-tenant or neighbour if they figure it out - not that I'm paranoid!).  The sad thing is now that I've repainted the place it looks much better and there are people arriving at the flat (unadvertised) through word of mouth and asking (begging) me to rent it to them even if it's less than perfect.  I'd be renting at below market because it's RPZ and also I think the market rates are too high and would try to keep it reasonable and I'm ok with that.  But I'm afraid of being penalised if I do rent again despite the fact I'd like to help give people somewhere to live.   It's a dilemma for sure and it seems to me the government should not be discouraging landlords from moving out tenants after a certain period of time (say after two/three years of renting) and allowing them to choose tenants at their own discretion.  Effectively depriving them of the right to manage their own property. People need to realise that renting is temporary and there can be no guaranteed security of living in someone else's house/flat for life and plan accordingly.  There are plenty of options.  Landlords should not be saddled with bad tenants at a low rent for life.   It makes zero sense and that's why landlords are leaving. They are afraid of/bewildered by all the new regulations and the potential risk for them and it's not just about money.  People on rent supplement, HAP, on long term social welfare payments who can't for whatever reason afford to buy or rent long term from private landlords should be guaranteed housing by the government.  It's the govt's responsibility.  Simple as that.  And the fact they have avoided taking this responsibility means more than likely SF will be elected in the next election and no amount of  legislation or ridiculous photo-opping by DO'B trying to make himself look like a 'people's hero' such as this will save them now:









						All landlords 'acutely aware' of obligations to tenants, says Housing Minister
					

The Fianna Fail minister made the comments at the launch of a report by the housing charity Threshold, which found that found that a third of renters are spending 50% of their income on rent




					www.irishmirror.ie
				




Not sure who I'd vote for in the next election!  Not DO'B that's for sure nor SF.....is there any sane party out there that could effectively deal with all of this!

Here's a good article on the perils of too much rent-control with a big-picture take on the Irish rental situation from a NZ website:  

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pr...an-learn-from-irelands-rental-market-collapse


----------



## AlbacoreA

In some other countries there is the mindset that a rental isn't temporary. But they also enforce stronger landlords rights.


----------

