# Reform of the private rental sector



## TheBigShort (22 Oct 2018)

The management of these houses should be sub-let to letting/ property management agents who are prepared to rent and manage the properties. The letting/property agent who is prepared to offer the _lowest _rent gets to let it out making a profit while paying LA a sum equivalent to LA authority rents. 

- LA gets its rental
- House is occupied and looked after
- Tenants pay affordable rents
- Letting agent makes profit based on most competitive rental prices.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The letting/property agent who is prepared to offer the _lowest _rent gets to let it out



But houses are allocated based on need and not based on a letting agent's choice? 

Brendan


----------



## Delboy (22 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The management of these houses should be sub-let to letting/ property management agents who are prepared to rent and manage the properties.


But but but....that's the private sector


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But houses are allocated based on need and not based on a letting agent's choice?
> 
> Brendan



Yes of course. I would need to elaborate somewhat. Houses are allocated on need - LA's are primarily focused on the need of homeless and those on waiting lists. Whether on the streets, in hostels, hotels, or simply in overcrowded housing. 

The needs of people extend far beyond the remit of LA's. The housing crisis is most pronounced in the extreme cases of poverty, and, as the Indo reports this morning, in tragic circumstances of a mother of two taking her own life.

However the needs of ordinary working people who cannot afford a place of their own, or who are drowning in high rents (affecting family planning, quality of life etc) are also a need. 
This group of people have basically been thrown to the free-market, for maximum profit market. This is unsustainable long-term, affecting inward investment and employment opportunities. 
So, firstly, the State needs to build more houses. These houses can be affordable/social housing and apartments. But a considerable portion can also be set for private rental for those who do not want to buy, or it is not suitable to buy. 
But rather than the LA's managing housing estates and setting and collecting rents the houses/apts are let out by letting agents who can profit from rents. The caveat being, only the letting agent who offers the most competitive rent prices will win contract to let the property. 
There are plenty of letting agents who do this for their clients but to obtain maximum rents and charge a fee.
In this instance the landlord is the LA, it charges a fee from the letting agent equal to what it would charge a LA tenant. The letting agent rents out the property (but at a rental price that is the most competitive) and profits.

- LA gets its rental to re-invest in more housing for homeless, unemployed etc
- House is occupied by working people and looked after by letting agent
- Tenants pay a competitive rental price based on who is willing to manage the property for lowest price
- Tenants have a real alternative to home ownership / private rental extortion market

Im sure there are plenty of if's and buts and whatabouts to this concept. But I dont think it would be impossible to engineer a legal and administrative structure around this. 

The concept is simple - drive down private rental charges through a competitive tendering process affording working people a real alternative to the owner occupier model and the current private rental model.


----------



## Bronte (22 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Im sure there are plenty of if's and buts and whatabouts to this concept. But I dont think it would be impossible to engineer a legal and administrative structure around this.
> 
> The concept is simple - drive down private rental charges through a competitive tendering process affording working people a real alternative to the owner occupier model and the current private rental model.



You want to create a new civil service quango?

How would the rental agency make money if they charge the tenant LA rents and pass on this rent to the LA?


----------



## TheBigShort (22 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> You want to create a new civil service quango?



No. LA's already exist. They can be funded as appropriate to build housing. There are basically four types of housing in my view

1) LA housing for people and families who have no reasonable means to source accommodation for themselves

2) Social and Affordable housing for people and families who do have incomes but whose incomes are deemed insufficient to ever afford a home in private market.

*3)* Private rental market. For people and families who earn incomes over and above thresholds for social supports and/or who cannot afford to buy a house or who choose not to own a house.

4) Private home ownership. For people and families whose incomes qualify for mortgages to buy homes. 

Its *3) *Im focused on.



Bronte said:


> How would the rental agency make money if they charge the tenant LA rents and pass on this rent to the LA?



Ok I have explained all of this before, so I will try keep it simple. 

- LA (say Dublin City Council) assesses housing needs for the population in its area. It deems there is a severe shortage manifesting itself in increasing numbers of homelessness, waiting lists _and _notably that private rental rates are at record highs. 
- It builds 2/3 bed townhouses and apartments as required. 
- It begins to allocate these houses on basis of need.
- It recognises that alot of working people who by virtue of their incomes are disqualified from social supports but are also paying chronically high proportions of their incomes on rents. It recognises that these people are also in need. 

Proposal  

The LA designates  a portion of the new housing it builds to be occupied by income earning tenants who by virtue of their incomes are disqualified, until now, from any social supports with regard housing. 
The scheme will operate in designated RPZ's initially. 

The LA will request letting agents or any other property management agents/companies to take charge of properties in the day to day management, furnishing, letting of properties to tenants and any other conditions it deems reasonable and appropriate.

The LA will award the letting of the property to the letting agent/property manager that, amongst other things, guarantees the _lowest_ rent to the tenants. 
The letting agent will pay the LA a sum equivalent to the average LA authority rent (around €400pm). 
The letting agent will also pay for furnishings, fixtures and fittings, management fees (if applicable) etc. 

For sake of argument, lets say the cost of managing the property for the letting agent is circa €700 a month including LA fee. No mortgage, or interest payments.

Currently a two-bed townhouse or apt in Dublin city centre can fetch €2,500-€3,000 a month. 
Thats a minimum of €1,800 a month clear profit. 

_However,_ the LA being in the business of serving the public will only award the management of the property to the letting agent/property manager who guarantees the _lowest_ rent to the tenant. Therein lies a competitive tendering process where letting agents and landlords are competing against each other to avail of the profits to be made from providing the exact same service that they would otherwise provide for their clients or in their capacity as private landlords. 

The question emerges, how low would the rent go before a letting agent/property manager deems it not worthwhile to provide the service of managing a property for profit.

I hope that explains the concept?
If so, I will try to answer other questions you may have. 
if not, then no need to continue any further.


----------



## The Horseman (23 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> No. LA's already exist. They can be funded as appropriate to build housing. There are basically four types of housing in my view
> 
> 1) LA housing for people and families who have no reasonable means to source accommodation for themselves
> 
> ...




You seem to expect the property manager to guarantee the lowest rent, this is not how business works. No matter how many times you suggest the above as your answer to the issue it wont happen.

Business people are in business to make money pure and simple. I am concerned that you refuse to accept this concept and believe they will provide a service at a guaranteed lowest rent. If you want to a business to compete solely on price look at any business that competes on price only and see the service they supply.

Look at Ryanair as a prime example, if you are required to fly on a very regular basis (say weekly for work) would you want to fly with Ryanair each week with all of the associated administration that you as the customer must undertake.

What it appears you are proposing under the above is forcing the property manager to provide the service on the lowest possible rent. Where is the incentive for them to do so. If there were more property managers then the market/sector required then your suggestion may work but there is not hence the housing crisis!


----------



## TheBigShort (23 Oct 2018)

The Horseman said:


> Where is the incentive for them to do so.



Profit.

There is a 2 bed townhouse or apt built by LA in Dublin city centre. The LA, is outsourcing it to private market for purposes of rental to public. 
Ordinarily this property could fetch €2,500-€3,000pm  on the market. The LA only wants €400pm in return - there is no mortgage, no mortgage interest and for good measure the State will throw in a property tax exemption for this property. 
Can you see at this point how some people, who know how to service rental properties, might be interested in taking this particular property from LA?


----------



## Zenith63 (23 Oct 2018)

Are we sure the rental market needs reform?  It seemed to function fairly well 10-15 years ago and I'm not sure our model is that different to other countries, where it also functions fine.  To me the root of the housing crisis is the lack of housing supply, tinkering with the rental market (RPZs etc.) is a classic case of treating the symptoms not the cause, and with the usual outcome of unintended side effects and little improvement to the underlying issue.

Rents are a complete joke in many areas and I feel huge sympathy for people having to pay them, but seeing so much focus from the media and the Take Back the City movement on landlords and rental rates is dismaying to watch.  The likely outcome of this pressure being applied to the wrong area will be another ill-conceived government move like RPZs.  The pressure needs to be directed firmly at those with the ability to get more houses built, to increase supply and let the supply/demand market do what it did until 10 years ago and does most other places in the world.


----------



## The Horseman (23 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Profit.
> 
> There is a 2 bed townhouse or apt built by LA in Dublin city centre. The LA, is outsourcing it to private market for purposes of rental to public.
> Ordinarily this property could fetch €2,500-€3,000pm  on the market. The LA only wants €400pm in return - there is no mortgage, no mortgage interest and for good measure the State will throw in a property tax exemption for this property.
> Can you see at this point how some people, who know how to service rental properties, might be interested in taking this particular property from LA?



Why would any rational business person enter into a contract where the LA dictates the rent you can charge and encourages the lowest income to you as the property manager as possible while you take all the risks of managing the property maintaining it, replacing furniture etc and then don't even own the property at the end of the process.

Based on the above all of the risk rests with the property manager and all of the reward is with the LA/Tenant. This is what the HAP is and we are all well aware of the aversion by landlords to this scheme.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 Oct 2018)

The Horseman said:


> Why would any rational business person enter into a contract where the LA dictates the rent you can charge



The LA doesn't dictate the rent that is charged. The letting agent dictates that. 

All the LA does is choose which interested letting agent to outsource the management of the property too. It does this on set criteria that awards the outsourcing of the property to the letting agent/property manager that offers the most competitive rent price to the tenant.
It really isn't that hard to understand. There is a property available for outsourcing from Dublin city LA ready to rent out into private rental market. The property ordinarily could fetch €2,500-€3,000 pm. The LA doesn't want to manage it and is willing to outsource the management of the property to the private sector. All it wants in return is the equivalent of an average LA rent - €400 a month. 
The letting agent can decide whatever rent it wants to apply. If only one letting agent applies to manage the property, they are on pigs back charging €3,000pm, making a killing and this proposal falls flat on its face. 
But if two or more letting agents are interested, then they enter a competitive tendering process offering to service the property to the private rental sector at a price they deem worth their while.
The letting agent that offers to manage the property for the most competitive rent will be awarded the contract to manage the property to the rental market.

Can you still not see how some people who are experienced in letting properties could make some money here? While simultaneously driving down rents in the private rental sector?


----------



## The Horseman (23 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The LA doesn't dictate the rent that is charged. The letting agent dictates that.
> 
> All the LA does is choose which interested letting agent to outsource the management of the property too. It does this on set criteria that awards the outsourcing of the property to the letting agent/property manager that offers the most competitive rent price to the tenant.
> It really isn't that hard to understand. There is a property available for outsourcing from Dublin city LA ready to rent out into private rental market. The property ordinarily could fetch €2,500-€3,000 pm. The LA doesn't want to manage it and is willing to outsource the management of the property to the private sector. All it wants in return is the equivalent of an average LA rent - €400 a month.
> ...




How is this then different to the rental market that already exists whereby the market dictates the rent the tenant pay's? Would it not be more cost efficient for the LA to provide this function and save on the Property Manager costs?

Effectively what you are proposing is that State owned properties are managed by the property manager to the highest bidder? Is this not one of the main reasons we have a housing problem that the State sold off its stock or no longer has control of its stock and therefore can't house people?


----------



## cremeegg (23 Oct 2018)

The model of the state defining the service and putting it to the market to provide the service is well established in many areas.

The idea of auctioning the contract to the bidder that will require the least subsidy (in this case lowest rent) happens widely in transport and other areas.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Oct 2018)

The Horseman said:


> Would it not be more cost efficient for the LA to provide this function and save on the Property Manager costs?



Perhaps not. Arrears of local authority rent are over 30% in many council areas.


----------



## Páid (23 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Can you still not see how some people who are experienced in letting properties could make some money here?


I imagine they will try to win the tender by saying they will give charge the most competitive rent. Once they win the tender what is to stop them from renting to the highest bidder? If they are paying LA €400pm and ask for rent of €800pm they will have lots of interest in a market that commands €3000pm. Won't they be tempted to charge more either above or below board?


----------



## Leo (23 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Perhaps not. Arrears of local authority rent are over 30% in many council areas.



Across the Dublin authorities, >55% of tenancies are in arrears.


----------



## The Horseman (23 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Perhaps not. Arrears of local authority rent are over 30% in many council areas.




Does the above not then show we should be looking at how we manage the existing stock and then introduce it to any new stock rather than expecting the private sector to manage the stock under State set requirements?


----------



## TheBigShort (23 Oct 2018)

Páid said:


> Once they win the tender what is to stop them from renting to the highest bidder?



A simple register of properties lodged at the LA and the agreed rent price as fixed under contract should suffice. 
Any attempt to increase rent outside of the parameters of the contract would bring penalties for letting agent. 
That said, such parameters could include genuine inflation increases where a letting agent would be able to increase rents in a structured manner.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Oct 2018)

The Horseman said:


> How is this then different to the rental market that already exists whereby the market dictates the rent the tenant pay's?



Because it forms part of public housing policy that recognises that adequate suitable housing is a critical social need of the population in order to develop and sustain a prosperous and civil society.

It removes, in part, housing as a commodity to be bought, sold and rented for maximum gain.

It inverts the competitive process by seeking out those who are prepared to provide a service at the most competitive rental prices for tenants, bidding them down, in order to profit from the highest bidder.
Rather than a system that seeks to extract maximum income from tenants for maximum gain in order to profit.
It does this by removing the biggest cost of all, the mortgage and interest repayments, and now the provision of private rental accommodation becomes a going concern for those who are prepared to provide the service for service.

People who are working, skilled, educated, earning a good income are paying 50%+ tax rates. They have a reasonable expectation that those taxes could be used to supply reasonable and adequate accommodation for a rent that is sustainable and not extortionate.
They have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to live in areas within reasonable distance to their work
They have a reasonable expectation that their hard graft, skills and expertise should afford them a quality of life that is not disproportionately dominated by the monthly rent.


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Proposal
> 
> The LA designates  a portion of the new housing it builds to be occupied by income earning tenants who by virtue of their incomes are disqualified, until now, from any social supports with regard housing.
> The scheme will operate in designated RPZ's initially.
> ...



So the Government builds loads of houses for let's say 400K a pop, or maybe 500K if it's Dublin 4.  I with my family will be entitled to rent this for 700€ a month via a letting agent, who pays DCC 400 and takes 300 to manage the property?  And because I work in Penneys on O'Connell street I should get the 500K house in D4, which of course is worth much more, because of it's location near city center.  Me working there gives me the right to live there. 

Have I understood this right?

Next scenario.

Why should the agent not offer the property to me at 400, pay the LA 100 and take his 300? 

- who will pay for repairs to the property?
- who pays if the tenant thrashes the place


----------



## Firefly (24 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> - who pays if the tenant thrashes the place



Hi Bronte,

Any issues with the house are obviously just normal wear & tear. In fact, it's probably the fault of private sector kitchen fitters. 

Afterall.....

Tenants are good
Landlords are bad

Firefly.


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> But if two or more letting agents are interested, then they enter a competitive tendering process offering to service the property to the private rental sector at a price they deem worth their while.
> The letting agent that offers to manage the property for the most competitive rent will be awarded the contract to manage the property to the rental market.
> 
> Can you still not see how some people who are experienced in letting properties could make some money here? While simultaneously driving down rents in the private rental sector?



So then you'd have letting agents who wouldn't bother repairing anything ever. Why would they.  They just let it fall to rack and ruin and pull out of the business by the time DCC got around to dealing with getting rid of them. 

Good luck with getting repairs done if it eats into the letting agents profits in your race to the bottom.

Do you think Johnnie Rumble in the Jungle should be allowed build his towerblock on the Quays?


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> Hi Bronte,
> 
> Any issues with the house are obviously just normal wear & tear. In fact, it's probably the fault of private sector kitchen fitters.
> 
> ...




Natch, and of course there are many landlords who use Letting agents.  And every single cost is billed back to the landlord and in my past life I worked in an office with such an auctioneer office linked to us.  So I saw that sometimes repairs would be slip shod, not carried out in time because not communicated to tenant, to office staff, to repair man who was sent to do something else urgent elsewhere and then there were the landlords who didn't want to pay for any repair costs and disputed costs. Add in the LA and te he he. 

And I've experience too of one of the carpenters working for the LA, spend most of his time doing side jobs when not repairing LA houses. Some wanted their light bulbs changed.  That kind of thing.  Council was paying for everything.


----------



## Firefly (24 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> And I've experience too of one of the carpenters working for the LA, spend most of his time doing side jobs when not repairing LA houses. Some wanted their light bulbs changed.  That kind of thing.  Council was paying for everything.



But think of all the extra jobs!!!


----------



## Firefly (24 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> Good luck with getting repairs done if it eats into the letting agents profits in your race to the bottom.



Brilliant! Races to the bottom are only okay for certain groups of people, (evil) landlords obviously being one of them!


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> Brilliant! Races to the bottom are only okay for certain groups of people, (evil) landlords obviously being one of them!



And the Letting Agent couldn't care less how and with what the repairs are done in such a scenario, they just want to ensure the tenant keeps paying the rent with a minimum of hassle and the cheapest plumber in town. I can just imagine the state of the properties after a few years of that.  They'd be so bad you'd be lucky to get your €400 for your 500K property which should be getting 3K a month.

The best market to be in then would be the cowboy tradesmen one, with them doing building work using washing up liquid (celtic tiger truth - and look at the 40 fab new schools that aren't built right to see how that works out, bet anything the private contractor there goes company bust before the state catches up with him).

Can't wait for Bigshorts method of preventing this cheap repairs.  Shure put it in the DCC/Agent contract and see how that works out


----------



## Firefly (24 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> And the Letting Agent couldn't care less how and with what the repairs are done in such a scenario, they just want to ensure the tenant keeps paying the rent with a minimum of hassle and the cheapest plumber in town. I can just imagine the state of the properties after a few years of that.  They'd be so bad you'd be lucky to get your €400 for your 500K property which should be getting 3K a month.
> 
> The best market to be in then would be the cowboy tradesmen one, with them doing building work using washing up liquid (celtic tiger truth - and look at the 40 fab new schools that aren't built right to see how that works out, bet anything the private contractor there goes company bust before the state catches up with him).



All easily fixed by a new state agency!!


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> All easily fixed by a new state agency!!


We could call it NAMA, National Association of Management Agents.


----------



## The Horseman (24 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> We could call it NAMA, National Association of Management Agents.



Brilliant you just brought a smile to my face. Did you both ever consider stand up comedy!

As a landlord I completely agree with all of your observations above.


----------



## The Horseman (24 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> *The LA doesn't dictate the rent that is charged. The letting agent dictates that*.
> 
> All the LA does is choose which interested letting agent to outsource the management of the property too. It does this on set criteria that awards the outsourcing of the property to the letting agent/property manager that offers the most competitive rent price to the tenant.
> It really isn't that hard to understand. There is a property available for outsourcing from Dublin city LA ready to rent out into private rental market. The property ordinarily could fetch €2,500-€3,000 pm. The LA doesn't want to manage it and is willing to outsource the management of the property to the private sector. All it wants in return is the equivalent of an average LA rent - €400 a month.
> ...




If the LA doesn't dictate the rent and the letting agent does what is to stop the letting agent charging market rent? Unless there is profit in this for the letting agent why would they do it?

if there were an oversupply of properties then your suggestion may work but in the current climate it will never work.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Oct 2018)

While I thought there might be some fundamental reason as to why a proposal like this might not work, I never thought that the concept would be difficult for anyone to understand. Let alone people who regard themselves as business people and are in the business of providing accommodation to tenants.

So just to elaborate a little further. LA builds property on public land in DCC. It outsources some of these properties to private sector through competitive tendering process, awarding contract to letting agent/ property managers who are prepared, amongst other things, to the letting agent that offers the lowest rent to tenants.

"Amongst other things"

The contract between LA and letting agent will be legally binding with minimum requirements for the letting agent.
- The property is fully furnished with all mod cons, fixtures and fittings etc.
- Along with the €400pm fee to LA another €300pm to be setaside for necessary and reasonable repairs and refurbishments.
- Letting agent will supply tenants with all necessary up to date contact information for local services deemed reasonable e.g. list of registered plumbers, electricians, locksmiths etc
(The days of the amateur babysitting landlord moaning about his tenants calling at 2am because they lost their key will be over. This will be a professional service, for adults....if you lost your key and are locked out, do what any other adult would do...call a locksmith).

- The €300pm is setaside in an account that is accessible to the tenant with agreement by letting agent.
- The tenant will have access to the fund on expiry of tenancy (or a % thereof no less than 50%) for amounts that were never drawn down.
- The letting agent, as well as accounting for the €300pm as a running business cost, will be able to write off any amounts against tax liability drawn down by tenant for purposes of necessary and reasonable repairs and refurbishments.
(This is a financial incentive for the letting agent to have the money spent on necessary upkeep of property. Conversely, there is a financial incentive for tenant to maintain and look after property without spending funds knowing there is a refund of rents building up in fund).

Aside from actually detailing the minutiae of an entire prospectus to be submitted for tender, I think such a scheme can show how quality private rental accommodation can be provided to the working population in RPZ's who would otherwise be drowning under extortionate rents from amateur 30yr-mortgage-ponzi-scheme HAP payment chasing "landlords".

The purpose is not to drive out landlords, but to drive out bad amateur landlords who cannot even understand basic concepts like this one.
If on the otherhand there are fundamental reasons as to why such a scheme couldn't not work (as distinct from it not being in the interests of some why it shouldn't work) I would be happy to hear those reasons.


----------



## Bronte (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Aside from actually detailing the minutiae of an entire prospectus to be submitted for tender, I think such a scheme can show how quality private rental accommodation can be provided to the working population in RPZ's who would otherwise be drowning in extortionate rents as amateur 30yr-mortgage-ponzi-scheme HAP payment chasing "landlords".
> 
> The purpose is not to drive out landlords, but to drive out bad amateur landlords who cannot even understand basic concepts like this one.
> .



Well there we have it. An anti private landlord post.  In what way are you labelling us landlords as ponzi schemes?  Not only that we landlords are so stupid we can't understand your entirely *feasable* idea.  I particularly love that now the tenant can call out the repair men and pay for the repars themselves. That will work out fantastic.  How about this for a crazy idea, which is how it works in other countries, the tenant pays the repair man themselves when they break the lock or lose their keys or damage the toilet or destroy the cooker.   Here you even have to pay for the central heating boiler to be serviced annually.  The only thing landlords pay for is structural issues.  You'd be laughted at if you asked them to come out for anything else.  And if you scratch the wooden floor it can cost you a pretty penny.  Even putting up a picture on the wall can get you into trouble.

And you haven't a clue is you think RPZ's are working.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> An anti private landlord post.



Anti-landlord, no. 

Anti-_amateur _HAP chasing, cant draw up reasonable tenancy agreements 'landlords', yes.



TheBigShort said:


> The purpose is not to drive out landlords, but to drive out bad amateur landlords





Bronte said:


> we landlords are so stupid we can't understand your entirely *feasable* idea.



Speak for yourself, im sure most people can follow the concept. Its pretty straightforward.

You appear to some offence to the notion of driving out 'landlords' who provide inadequate services for high rents? Why? 



Bronte said:


> I particularly love that now the tenant can call out the repair men _and pay for the repars themselves._



Yes, me too.



Bronte said:


> How about this for a crazy idea, which is how it works in other countries, _the tenant pays the repair man themselves _when they break the lock or lose their keys or damage the toilet or destroy the cooker.



That is the idea. 

If there is any *feasible* reason as to why such a scheme couldn't work I would be glad to hear it, and if no solution can be found then its puts this idea to bed. But this is the third time I have raised this concept and nobody has returned with any fundamental reason as to why it cant work.



Bronte said:


> You'd be laughted at if you asked them to come out for anything else.



Thats the whole point! The tenant pays for all repairs, services, refurbishments, etc out of fund set up under contract. The letting agent will have minimal involvement other than to agree that any such draw downs from the fund are necessary and/or reasonable. 

If you cant figure out how it is the tenant that will be paying for all these services for the upkeep of the property then you are having difficulty following simple concepts.


----------



## Bronte (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Anti-_amateur _HAP chasing, cant draw up reasonable tenancy agreements 'landlords', yes.
> .



What's an amateur landlord in your book?

And what is an amateur HAP chasing landlord?

I've HAP tenant's and no tenancy agreements ever.  Much leas a reasonable one. What's a reasonable one versus an unreasonable one?

And I do indeed fail to folow your simple concepts.


----------



## Bronte (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thats the whole point! The tenant pays for all repairs, services, refurbishments, etc out of fund set up under contract. The letting agent will have minimal involvement other than to agree that any such draw downs from the fund are necessary and/or reasonable.
> 
> If you cant figure out how it is the tenant that will be paying for all these services for the upkeep of the property then you are having difficulty following simple concepts.



I just explained to you an entirely logical easy way for the tenant to pay for the repairs out of their own pocket using a tradesman of their own choosing not requiring:

a) a fund
b) enough in the fund to pay the repair from the get go
c) the management of the fund
d) the micro managing of a tenant having to contact the LA go get permission to draw down the fund to pay the tradesman
e) the supervision of this drawdown
f) the monitoring of the bill being paid
g) the question of receipts
H) and of who can deduct the receipts from tax

Explain the simple concept that you have there as it's entirely unworkable.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> But this is the third time I have raised this concept and nobody has returned with any fundamental reason as to why it cant work.



I accept that this observation is correct.

In fact the level of misunderstanding is amazing. I think people read what the expect to see rather than what is actually written.

However the reason it won't work is because there is nothing in it for anybody to get it started.

You might not see that as fundamental, I do. No politician is going to struggle through the level of misunderstanding you have encountered here, to get such a thing started.

There is no profit in it (to launch it) therefore no one will do it. The profit motive (wether the profit is financial or otherwise) is fundamental.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> a) a fund



Having a fund, paid out of the rent applicable into an account accessible to the tenant to use for necessary and reasonable repairs is simple.
This will all be arranged and set up at the commencement of the tenancy, as per the contract obligations of the letting agent. It couldn't be simpler. 
Having funds specifically for the purpose of refurbishment, repairs etc promotes the upkeep of a property on an ongoing basis. 
It simply replaces the current deposit system and the disputes over retention and return of deposits.



Bronte said:


> b) enough in the fund to pay the repair from the get go



From the 'get-go' the letting agent will present the property to the tenant in a fully habitable state. Anything that is damaged, in need of repair or replacement will need to be fixed by letting agent before occupancy - as a landlord, you should be familiar with this concept.



Bronte said:


> c) the management of the fund



There is no 'management' of the fund. It is a bank account. With funds in it. Increasing the funds when not used, decreasing the funds when not used.
Do you struggle with online banking?



Bronte said:


> d) the micro managing of a tenant having to contact the LA go get permission to draw down the fund to pay the tradesman



There is no contacting the LA. The LA have outsourced the management of the property. The LA will have no dealings in the day to day affairs of the property. The only thing LA will be involved in is entering into contract with the letting agent and insuring the costs for any structural damage or repairs to the property.



Bronte said:


> e) the supervision of this drawdown



No supervision required. Washing machine breaks down. Tenant can either repair it themselves, call someone to repair it, buy a new washing machine or leave it sit idle and wash clothes by hand. 
If tenant pays for new washing machine or pays someone to repair it they simply use money from the account of the property. If they choose not to use funds from account they will receive a bigger return on ending of the tenancy (like a deposit, but much more efficient and effective system). 
If they do spend money, and money leaves the account where the fund is, the letting agent will be entitled to use the value of that drawdown against any taxable profits made from letting the property.



Bronte said:


> f) the monitoring of the bill being paid



No monitoring of any bill being paid. Either money leaves the account or it doesn't. If it leaves the letting agent will be entitled to a copy of receipt. 



Bronte said:


> g) the question of receipts



Whats 'the question of receipts?' Have you heard of online banking? 
The tenant(s) live their lives, in their rented property in the same manner as anyone else lives their own lives in their own property. There is minimal contact between tenant and letting agent, minimal involvement of LA. 



Bronte said:


> H) and of who can deduct



Good God, have you ever heard of a contract? Have you ever heard of a competitive tendering process? Have you ever heard of rules and regulations? 
These issues, and anything else you care to think about will be agreed from outset in the contract between LA and letting agent and detailed tenancy agreement between letting agent and tenant. Surely, as a landlord, you are familiar with the functions of tenancy agreements?
There is nothing in what you say that would stop the proposed reform from working.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> In fact the level of misunderstanding is amazing. I think people read what the expect to see rather than what is actually written.



I agree. I get a sense that instead of taking the concept on its merits and logically examining it, there is a tendency to automatically detract from the idea. Not because of any fundamental reason but for reasons of begrudgery.



cremeegg said:


> However the reason it won't work is because there is nothing in it for anybody to get it started



You are touching on the healthy tradition of scepticism and begrudgery that is prevalent in our society. Admittedly this is task.



cremeegg said:


> No politician is going to struggle through the level of misunderstanding you have encountered here, to get such a thing started.



I dont think however that politicians would have as much difficulty in understanding the concept. It is relatively simple. 
The political divide and obtaining a consensus is another matter. Certainly the concept of LA funds be used to provide private for profit rents will not sit easy with many. 
I would counter any such argument that the LA will receive the same return from the property as if it had allocated itself.
The LA will not have any costs for repairs, refurbishment etc
That working people who pay high taxes, and high rents, are in social need of rental accommodation that is affordable. They are entitled to expect that their incomes can pay for reasonable rental quality accommodation.



cremeegg said:


> There is no profit in it (to launch it) therefore no one will do it. The profit motive (wether the profit is financial or otherwise) is fundamental.



This is a fundamental reason indeed. The power of persuasion is the key. Certainly my postings on the pages of AAM would be insufficient. But the only reason im putting this up here is to see if there is any real economical, technical, or financial reason why it couldn't or wouldn't work. 
So far ditto in that respect. Political considerations however would be a different beast altogether, fundamental to any reform.


----------



## Firefly (25 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> There is no profit in it (to launch it) therefore no one will do it. The profit motive (wether the profit is financial or otherwise) is fundamental.



Like it or loathe it, it's the way of the world and it would have happened by now if it was. The housing market has seen so much government interference at this stage it's no wonder landlords are leaving, rents are increasing and houses are let on AirBNB.

Rents have never been higher, interest rates never lower. We should be seeing new landlords flooding the market chasing the profits to be had. But we're not. That in itself speaks volumes. Rather than trying to add yet another layer of red tape, the government should start getting out of the way. 

I am in favour of tenants having protection but if they miss payments, like any other service that one rents they should lose the use of the asset. Any damages over and above obvious wear & tear and it should be very easy and quick for the landlords to bring said tenants to court and fines be imposed. Implement these 2 points alone and my bet is that an awful lot more properties for rent would hit the market bringing with them lower rents.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> The housing market has seen so much government interference at this stage it's no wonder landlords are leaving,



The number of landlords registered with RTB has been increasing since 2015.


----------



## BilliamD75 (25 Oct 2018)

The big short, I have had a look at your proposal using balance and logic and found the concept very good, it's very unfortunate that it would never work in Ireland as stated by others, I am a landlord myself and as a small property developer got into the business just to park capital, we had a great business model but have had enough of it, we rent 35% below market cost in Dublin City centre costing a small fortune, why there is a human element to it, the tenants who are Eastern European couples mostly, are the best and most hard working people I have met and are look after the apartments (three couples are with us over 12 years) , had one Irish person an estate agent and wrecked an apartment costing a fortune, the government have lost the plot making the suitation worse so its time to get out of the game, taxation and the socialists are to blame also , please use balance when suggesting landlords are increasing via the rtb, we all know that American capital is providing a high volume of apartments in Dublin through nama sales while the small Irish landlord some whom in my opinion should never have been allowed to be in the game like 100% interested only players, taxi drivers who owe 4 million and no money down and the gougers are getting out, my tuppence worth


----------



## Sarenco (26 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The number of landlords registered with RTB has been increasing since 2015.


According to their annual reports, there were 174k landlords registered with the RTB in 2017, versus 175k in 2016.

That doesn’t look like an increase to me.


----------



## TheBigShort (26 Oct 2018)

BilliamD75 said:


> please use balance when suggesting landlords are increasing via the rtb,



Absolutely, but it wasn't me that suggested it. It was a landlord on this site that commented once that they should increase their rents because the HAP will pay and tenants wont care.

And with respect, limiting the blame for the housing and homeless crisis to current government policies is simplifying things. The same crisis is manifesting itself in many, many developed countries across the world all at the same time.
This is a failure of an economic model that was built on a system of perpetual and ever increasing debt than transcends individual economies. We are enduring the consequences of that model. 
I don't think it is coincidence.
That is why I think it is futile for others to persistently focus on the extreme marginal cases of housing mismanagement in the State. The issue is much bigger, much broader, much deeper than a cluster of mismanaged social housing units.


----------



## TheBigShort (26 Oct 2018)

Sarenco said:


> According to their annual reports, there were 174k landlords registered with the RTB in 2017, versus 175k in 2016.
> 
> That doesn’t look like an increase to me.



The report im reading states 175k for 2016 and 176K for Sept end 2017. 

Source: @AlbacoreA "How many landlords have quit..." page 13


----------



## AlbacoreA (26 Oct 2018)

Its old data at this point. Also could you not find your own data sources?

Maybe we should link to the articles and reports.
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/03/07/mick-landlords-aren-t-fleeing-the-market-in-droves

I see in the latest reports its down 4k on last year Q2. 
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Registration/Reg_Q2_2018.pdf
Q2 2017 (177,884) Q2 2018 (173,725)


But put that in context of population growth...


> The total number of residents in the Republic rose by 53,900 last year t


https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-population-growth-five-times-eu-average-472747.html

Private rental reform isn't going to solve that problem.


----------



## The Horseman (26 Oct 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> Its old data at this point. Also could you not find your own data sources?
> 
> Maybe we should link to the articles and reports.
> https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/03/07/mick-landlords-aren-t-fleeing-the-market-in-droves
> ...



Exactly landlords are leaving the market to be replaced by Institutional ones which would account for the drop in landlord numbers but the increase in tenancies.


----------



## Bronte (26 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The number of landlords registered with RTB has been increasing since 2015.


Wrong. The number of registrations has increased. It does not mean the number of landlords has increased. The RTB has a team to increase compliance with registration. That's all.


----------



## Bronte (26 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> Rents have never been higher, interest rates never lower. We should be seeing new landlords flooding the market chasing the profits to be had. But we're not. That in itself speaks volumes. Rather than trying to add yet another layer of red tape, the government should start getting out of the way.
> .



Because the costs to get in, despite the low mortgage rates, and the red tape, plus the higher taxes have created a perfect storm to stop private investors.


----------



## Firefly (26 Oct 2018)

The Horseman said:


> Exactly landlords are leaving the market to be replaced by Institutional ones which would account for the drop in landlord numbers but the increase in tenancies.



I agree with this and thing this could be a disaster for tenants. Ever increasing regulations and restraints will result in small landlords leaving the market as you say. These will be replaced by larger players who have the resources to comply with the regulations but will become very adept at getting rid of unwanted tenants by playing within the rules. In fact they will be able to bombard tenants with notices and tie the RTB up in circles with legal documents and notices. I also fear that a smaller number of large players could more easily influence politicians.

From the tenants perspective they could very well end up dealing with the landlord company by ringing a 1890 type number and being answered offshore....


----------



## The Horseman (26 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> I agree with this and thing this could be a disaster for tenants. Ever increasing regulations and restraints will result in small landlords leaving the market as you say. These will be replaced by larger players who have the resources to comply with the regulations but will become very adept at getting rid of unwanted tenants by playing within the rules. In fact they will be able to bombard tenants with notices and tie the RTB up in circles with legal documents and notices. I also fear that a smaller number of large players could more easily influence politicians.
> 
> From the tenants perspective they could very well end up dealing with the landlord company by ringing a 1890 type number and being answered offshore....




It definitely will be for the majority of tenants. A work colleague of mine was a tenant of one and he was charged for everything and I mean everything.

I am a landlord and I would normally let tenants off with some things if they are genuine tenants.

I completely agree with you regarding how they will operate. Once they get a large enough foothold in the rental market the landscape is definitely going to change for the tenants and I don't think for the better.


----------



## Firefly (26 Oct 2018)

The Horseman said:


> I completely agree with you regarding how they will operate. Once they get a large enough foothold in the rental market the landscape is definitely going to change for the tenants and I don't think for the better.



A colleague of mine, who I would regard as being "well connected" told me that even more rights are on the way for tenants. He didn't go into details but said it related to residency rights. This will further push the small landlord out. He thought that the best way for a property play was thus to just invest in one or more of the large REITs. They will have to resources to play the game a make a ton of money.


----------



## AlbacoreA (26 Oct 2018)

That's what many landlord would be thinking. Sell up and invest in a Reit.

At some point the market will change and the REits will sell up pretty quick and move elsewhere.


----------



## AlbacoreA (26 Oct 2018)

Bronte said:


> Wrong. The number of registrations has increased. It does not mean the number of landlords has increased. The RTB has a team to increase compliance with registration. That's all.



The report lists the number of landlords separately..

I'm sure if someone dug into it t there would a number of tenants per landlord and you see the REits there.


----------



## AlbacoreA (26 Oct 2018)

This thread is turning into a duplicate of the last and it ends up being a monologue from one poster. 

The govt could use the examples from other countries to improve the market. Instead they make it worse. So it's a bit futile suggesting a plan that requires action from the govt.


----------



## The Horseman (26 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> A colleague of mine, who I would regard as being "well connected" told me that even more rights are on the way for tenants. He didn't go into details but said it related to residency rights. This will further push the small landlord out. He thought that the best way for a property play was thus to just invest in one or more of the large REITs. They will have to resources to play the game a make a ton of money.



I am not sure what additional rights the State could give tenants regarding tenancy for privately owned property. If you try to change ownership rights of private property be it rented or not I would expect a backlash from the public at large.


----------



## Firefly (26 Oct 2018)

I believe it's more to do with tenants being able to remain in a house if it being sold


----------

