# Why there is so little house building in Ireland



## Brendan Burgess

I have been trying to figure out why there is a shortage of supply of housing in Ireland. It's simply not profitable to build houses in most parts of the country. 

As of May 2012, the cost of building a 3 bed semi before site cost and profit was  €194k. (Source : Report by Walsh Associates for the Irish Home Builders Association) The costs will have risen since due to the additional requirements of site inspection, but I have not adjusted them. I understand that the IHBA is updating the report.


 Here are the summary costs 

*Cost of building a 1189 Sq ft 3 bed house 

*

 House building |€97,000|includes €5k contingency 
Drains, walls and gardens|€11,000
Overall site development|€22,000 
Part V costs|€5,000| Social housing 
Development levies|€15,000 
Marketing|€8,000| Probably lower now 
Professional fees|€6,000|no allowance for site inspection
Financing costs|€7,000 
Total cost before site cost|€171,000
Vat at 13,5%|23,000 
Break even selling price before site cost and profit| €194,000 In other words, if the developer was given the site for free, the minimum selling price would be €194k 



  Of course, a developer has to buy the site and won’t build unless there is a profit. 


*Daft.ie  selling price of 3 bed semi Q1 2014*



South County Dublin| €405k 
  North County Dublin| €225k 
  West Dublin |€191k 
  Cork City| €154k
  Galway City|€140k 
  Limerick City |€116k 
  Waterford City  |€98k  So it's just not profitable for a developer to buy a site, build houses and sell them, except in parts of Dublin. But the site costs in these parts of Dublin probably rule it out.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

So, what can the government do to increase the supply of housing?  Assuming we do not want to start bringing back in tax incentives, the only way is to reduce the cost of building. 

 So how could the government reduce the cost of building? 
·         Scrap the Part V levies 
·         Scrap the Development levies 
·         Scrap VAT 
  This would bring the price down by €43,000.




 House building |€97,000|includes €5k contingency 
Drains, walls and gardens|€11,000
Overall site development|€22,000 
Part V costs| 0| Social housing 
Development levies|0
Marketing|€8,000| Probably lower now 
Professional fees|€6,000|no allowance for site inspection
Financing costs|€7,000 
Total cost before site cost|€151,000
Vat at 13.5%|
Break even selling price before site cost and profit| €151,000House building could resume in Dublin if this was done.


----------



## dereko1969

Bring in a use it or lose it policy whereby land holders who have land zoned for housing must develop within 12 months or lose the planning permission.

Re-zone all the industrial land beside Broombridge for housing.

Bring in a constitutional amendment so that property rights are reduced for the public good.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

dereko1969 said:


> Bring in a use it or lose it policy whereby land holders who have land zoned for housing must develop within 12 months or lose the planning permission.



Eh, that is why I did the above exercise. 

It is not profitable to develop houses in Ireland at present, even if the site is free. So people are not hoarding in order to make super profits. 

They are just waiting until it becomes profitable. 

If house prices rise and costs fall, so that house development becomes massively profitable, then by all means, bring in a "use it or lose it" rule.

Brendan


----------



## ang1170

Two questions:

1. What do the daft.ie figures refer to? Average selling prices? Don't forget that new builds typically sell for a premium over second hand.

2. What to the build costs refer to? Is it the cost of building a single house? If so, some of the costs (e.g. professional fees) will be lower if multiple (identical) units are built, as they will (or rather, should!) average out at a lower per-unit cost.


----------



## RainyDay

Brendan Burgess said:


> As of May 2012, the cost of building a 3 bed semi before site cost and profit was  €194k. (Source : Report by Walsh Associates for the Irish Home Builders Association) The costs will have risen since due to the additional requirements of site inspection, but I have not adjusted them. I understand that the IHBA is updating the report.


Is the report in the public domain? I'm wondering if the IHBA might possibily have a vested interest in bigging up these costs? IHBA seems to be part of CIF, but I can't find anything on the CIF website.

By contrast, the Society of Chartered Surveyors gives me a rebuild cost of about €168k for a 1000 sq ft 3-bed semi.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Brendan Burgess

It's the cost of building a house of 1,189 sq ft .

Yes, the IHBA would have a vested interest, but the costs do seem reasonable.  I have not been able to find any completely independent analysis of it. I presume that the DoE has done something on it? 

It refers to the average cost per house, for an estate of 100 houses.  According to the SCSI calculator, that would cost €203k to rebuild, almost double the pure building costs of the IHBA report. I suspect it's probably more expensive to rebuild a house which has been damaged by fire, than it is to build a house on a site from scratch with 99 other houses. 

There are two key points, even if the IHBA figures are overstated. 

1) It's probably not profitable to build new houses at present prices 
2) The government can improve the equation by 20% by cutting their take.


----------



## RainyDay

Brendan Burgess said:


> 2) The government can improve the equation by 20% by cutting their take.



Wouldn't this be just tax incentives of a slightly different kind? 

VAT is VAT - development levies are to cover the costs of infrastructure to the house - Part V is to provide integrated social housing


----------



## dub_nerd

I built a 3-bed house a few years back (but not too many years) for less than that cost, even minus the levies. It was 1,650 sq.ft. and was finished to a very decent spec. The average 100 house development is not finished to such a high spec, in fact some of them in recent years are downright shoddy. With the economies of scale that should be achievable on a large development, I simply don't believe those IHBA numbers... at least, not without a detailed description of the house type.


----------



## mercman

In the main your figures are fairly realistic. However the financing costs are way off. This  needs a multiplier of at least 5. There is no banking system in this country and unless and until the banks are insisted to lend money, we're going nowhere very fast.


----------



## RainyDay

Maybe Govt should just eliminate the need for profit by building social housing? I know we've no money, so I think the current plan is for off balance sheet borrowing through housing associations (Cluid, Sophia and many others). And maybe they can find a way to eliminate the large amounts of waste and rework that seem to go with house building, and reduce costs that way.


----------



## RichInSpirit

I was looking at some house prices locally on [broken link removed] and I saw a number of houses sold in a local housing estate for 70k each.
I know it's not Dublin but the houses are less than ten years old and very nice.


----------



## Jim2007

The most amazing thing about this tread is the assumption that the promotion of house building and home ownership is the right approach without question!  Given the recent experience in this country and the USA plus the UK and Finland in the past, it is about time people started question the approach and examine the approaches to social housing adapted in other countries where property bubbles have been avoided?


----------



## SoylentGreen

I am on the look out for a site in South County Dublin to build a 3 bed roomed house. The plan would be to look at alternative types of construction when the time comes rather than the bog standard Irish type of house. Timber framed, flat pack style of house springs to mind.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Jim2007 said:


> The most amazing thing about this tread is the assumption that the promotion of house building and home ownership is the right approach without question!  Given the recent experience in this country and the USA plus the UK and Finland in the past, it is about time people started question the approach and examine the approaches to social housing adapted in other countries where property bubbles have been avoided?




Hi Jim 

I think you are making an assumption about our assumptions. There is no such assumption being made by me, and I don't see it being made by anyone else in the thread either. 

There is a shortage of housing, so houses must be built. 

They can be built by the state as Rainyday suggests. 

They can be built by the private sector, which most of them will be. 

Those built by the private sector can be retained by the developer as an investment, sold to people as their principal private residences, or sold to investors to be let. 

The bottom line is that we have too few houses and they must be built.


----------



## Purple

The bottom line is that the construction sector was not open to any real competition for  decades and so never had to reduce their costs and/or become efficient. Now they have no clue how to take out costs while maintaining quality (and let's face it Irish builders are rubbish quality wise so the bar is set very low). Their solution is to moan and bellyache to the government for tax cuts or pay-outs instead of finding a way to getting their act together.
The problem is that the construction sector is inefficient and can't provide houses at the price the market will stand. The solution is for them to figure out how to do the same job for less money. The export sector has been doing that for 25 years. Welcome to the real world lads.


----------



## jpd

As well as scrapping the costs imposed by the Government  (part V, Dev Tax and VAT), can we not have a go at reducing the balance?

A recent report in the Irish Times cited a Eurostat report which said that consumers prices in Ireland are still 18% higher than the EU norm - if we could approach the norm, then prices overall would fall and perhaps the build cost would fall from € 151,000 to € 128,000. I agree this is an overly simplistic argument, but it does highlight the fact we are a high cost society, for whatever reason.


----------



## Purple

jpd said:


> As well as scrapping the costs imposed by the Government  (part V, Dev Tax and VAT), can we not have a go at reducing the balance?
> 
> A recent report in the Irish Times cited a Eurostat report which said that consumers prices in Ireland are still 18% higher than the EU norm - if we could approach the norm, then prices overall would fall and perhaps the build cost would fall from € 151,000 to € 128,000. I agree this is an overly simplistic argument, but it does highlight the fact we are a high cost society, for whatever reason.



I would suggest that the construction sector difference is higher than 18%.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Builders started work on 3,500 houses in first four months of 2014

compared to 2,007for the same period last year. 


Only 700 were started in Dublin. 

Apparently, there was a rush to get started before the new regulations about inspections came into effect.


----------



## Jim2007

Brendan Burgess said:


> There is a shortage of housing, so houses must be built.



Why the automatic assumption that houses must be built???  There is a need to provide social accommodation, but that does not automatically mean that we should built more houses financed by borrowing.  The reality is that the banks are fully loaded up on property and need to dramatically reduce their holdings if they are ever going to get to the point where they can start to seriously finance SMEs etc.. which should lead to sustainable job creating.  We need to start challenging the assumptions of the past and seek new solutions because if we are not very careful we could well end up like Finland in the early 1990s!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Jim2007 said:


> Why the automatic assumption that houses must be built???  There is a need to provide social accommodation, but that does not automatically mean that we should built more houses...



Hi Jim 

Not sure I follow you.  How can we provide accommodation without building it? 

Maybe shift those on social welfare down to the ghost estates in Leitrim? 


Brendan


----------



## Bronte

As far as I'm aware despite the recession the costs of the raw materials has gone up. 

It is also my understanding that in certain sectors, particularly in Dublin, there are agreements as to how much certain trades can be paid, as in electrical, plumbing, etc. What impact does this have on the cost of housebuilding in Dublin. 

If you are doing a self build one has no such constraints. 

This idea of mine won't be popular as people love to hate landlords, but I'm convinced that the costs of being a landlord have priced investors out of the market. And who provides better social housing, landlords or local government.

It is essential that proper planning comes into play before the building industry has created another panic situation whereby any type of shoebox will be allowed to be built.  Apartments that are of a suitable size to house families with dedicated green areas would be a very good idea.  I have never understood the Irish obsession of building loads of houses around a large green area, with the road around it, and cars parking withing a hairs breath.  The green area should be at the back, with say gated access from each of the houses.  It's a nonsense creating green areas where you cannot bring your kids safely.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> This idea of mine won't be popular as people love to hate landlords, but I'm convinced that the costs of being a landlord have priced investors out of the market. And who provides better social housing, landlords or local government.



I agree. The single biggest reason rents are going up is that landlords have to pay income tax on their turnover instead of their income. There is no other business where this happens.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> I agree. The single biggest reason rents are going up is that landlords have to pay income tax on their turnover instead of their income. There is no other business where this happens.


 
To be honest Purple I don't know how other landlords are able to keep going, particularly anyone who bought in the 10 years of boom. There is no way it makes sense. It is probably this market that are able to now increase their rents massively and are doing so at the behest of their bank. It's a very viscious circle.

Which reminds me, Bacon report, the government implemented that for about 3 years, meaning new landlords could not write off mortgage interest at all, it caused untold chaos.  Which is why they reversed it very quickly.


----------



## RainyDay

Bronte said:


> This idea of mine won't be popular as people love to hate landlords, but I'm convinced that the costs of being a landlord have priced investors out of the market. And who provides better social housing, landlords or local government.


The more important question should be 'who provides more secure and sustainable social housing, landlords or government? It's not about 'hating landlords'. It is just recognising that landlords will (not surprisingly) take the best paying tenant they can find. In a rising market, that leaves many people dependant on rent allowance priced out of the market, and literally homeless. This is not sustainable.



Bronte said:


> It is essential that proper planning comes into play before the building industry has created another panic situation whereby any type of shoebox will be allowed to be built.  Apartments that are of a suitable size to house families with dedicated green areas would be a very good idea.  I have never understood the Irish obsession of building loads of houses around a large green area, with the road around it, and cars parking withing a hairs breath.  The green area should be at the back, with say gated access from each of the houses.  It's a nonsense creating green areas where you cannot bring your kids safely.



I agree with your points about planning and diversity of housing types, but I disagree with your point about 'gated access to green areas'.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> The more important question should be 'who provides more secure and sustainable social housing, landlords or government? It's not about 'hating landlords'. It is just recognising that landlords will (not surprisingly) take the best paying tenant they can find. In a rising market, that leaves many people dependant on rent allowance priced out of the market, and literally homeless. This is not sustainable.


The question is what is causing the market to rise? The government has raised the cost of being a landlord considerably by forcing them to pay tax on their turnover rather than their income. This cost has to be passed on to tenants otherwise their financial position is untenable. As this impacts on such a large proportion of landlords that it has to change the market price.


----------



## Bronte

RainyDay said:


> It is just recognising that landlords will (not surprisingly) take the best paying tenant they can find. In a rising market, that leaves many people dependant on rent allowance priced out of the market, and literally homeless. This is not sustainable.
> 
> .


 
Not sure what you mean about the best tenants, I have both types and see really no difference.  

Whose fault is it that rent allowance does not match the market rate?  Whose fault is it that there is no indexation of rental increases, who brought in the rule that market rent is the rent.

Another reason for the homeless is the abolition of the Bedsit market.  That served a certain market, the standards could have been improved without the abolition of the bedsits.  

What I mean about the green area at the back, that the houses back onto it and have a gate from each of their houses.  But there are no cars so it is safe for kids.


----------



## Purple

I would say that without a doubt private landlords make the best landlords. Speaking as a tenant I would much rather have a private landlord than the local authority. If I lived in an area where most of the properties were rented that would be especially the case. I would hate to have to try to have a disruptive or antisocial neighbour removed or sanctioned if the property was controlled by the local authority.

I do think that there should be stronger protections for tenants and landlords; longer term fixed lease agreements etc. The current system doesn’t give security of tenure to the tenant and makes them less inclined to think of the property as their home.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> I would hate to have to try to have a disruptive or antisocial neighbour removed or sanctioned if the property was controlled by the local authority.


 
Well you've never succeed there, you'd be long since gone mad. But under the PRTB rules, and a recent court case landlords are now responsible to sort out problem tenants, even if they don't seem to have the law behind them on getting the tenants out. 

Would love to have a security of tenure system, wouldn't care what they did to the house, paint it any colour they wanted, put up any shelf or thingy, as long as one got a hassle free property, long tenancy, and put back they way it was when the tenant rented it. 

Where I am, they measure the height of the hedge when the tenant goes in, and it has to be the same height when the tenant leaves. (I've been both a tenant and owner here, not a landlord)

From my reading of this subject matter of housing, I'm wondering are there many people holding onto empty houses in the Dublin market as they are afraid of renting.  Would that be a decent percentage of the housing stock.  Does anyone compile those figures?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Bronte said:


> From my reading of this subject matter of housing, I'm wondering are there many people holding onto empty houses in the Dublin market as they are afraid of renting.  Would that be a decent percentage of the housing stock.  Does anyone compile those figures?



That is a very interesting question. 

I presume that most landlords do rent out their houses and don't rely on capital appreciation alone. Especially in Dublin, where the rents are high. 

It might not be worth doing if you are getting only a few hundred a month in some overhoused place.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> I presume that most landlords do rent out their houses and don't rely on capital appreciation alone. Especially in Dublin, where the rents are high.
> 
> It might not be worth doing if you are getting only a few hundred a month in some overhoused place.


 

You don't need to rent if it's an inheritance that you're holding onto for capital appreciation.  Some good houses, one might not want to rent for obvious reasons.  For regular houses, if one sees the hassle of renting and the costs, then it might not be worthwhile.  I know of one in Dublin, subarbs, they rented it out, had previously lived there, and after 6 months of tenant wanting this that and the other, plus they had by now figured out the taxes etc they decided it wasn't worth the hassle.  (no mortgage).  

We had one poster here on AAM do the figures and they had come to the conclusion for the return of I think less than 200 Euro a month it was not worth the stress and bother.


----------



## RainyDay

Bronte said:


> Not sure what you mean about the best tenants, I have both types and see really no difference.
> 
> Whose fault is it that rent allowance does not match the market rate?  Whose fault is it that there is no indexation of rental increases, who brought in the rule that market rent is the rent.


By 'best tenant' - I mean simply the tenant paying the best rental rate, all other things being equal. In a rising market, people on rent allowance are being priced out. If we start raising rent allowance to 'chase' the market, we create another inflationary bubble.


Bronte said:


> Another reason for the homeless is the abolition of the Bedsit market.  That served a certain market, the standards could have been improved without the abolition of the bedsits.


Nah, everybody deserves to have a bedroom separate to their living area. It's just basic at this stage.


----------



## Bronte

RainyDay said:


> Nah, everybody deserves to have a bedroom separate to their living area. It's just basic at this stage.


 
Might be basic to you, but the tenants in that type of housing who are now homeless and haven't a hope of renting in their old location might see it differently. 

It solved a housing need.  Not everybody wants to cater to the bedsit community.  

I have two siblings who rented bedsits in Dublin.  The prime consideration was the low price combined with the location.


----------



## 44brendan

Bedsit was my accomodation for many years in Dublin. obviously basic and shared toilet/shower, but met my meagre student budget and at a relatively young age met all bsic needs adequately. 
I accept rainy day's comment for the standard "adult" longer term tenant!


----------



## Purple

44brendan said:


> Bedsit was my accomodation for many years in Dublin. obviously basic and shared toilet/shower, but met my meagre student budget and at a relatively young age met all bsic needs adequately.
> I accept rainy day's comment for the standard "adult" longer term tenant!



A friends uncle lived in a bedsit on the North Circular Road in Dublin when I was younger (actually he was probably his great uncle). The couple that ran the bedsit used to look after him, make sure he ate etc. He wouldn’t move in with relatives and he wouldn’t move in to a nursing home as he wanted his freedom. In reality it was sheltered accommodation. I was there a few times and the place was fine. He lived in ne large room. I’m not saying that sort of thing was common but I’m sure he was not unique. My point is that a one size fits all rule doesn’t fit all.


----------



## RainyDay

Bronte said:


> Might be basic to you, but the tenants in that type of housing who are now homeless and haven't a hope of renting in their old location might see it differently.
> 
> It solved a housing need.  Not everybody wants to cater to the bedsit community.
> 
> I have two siblings who rented bedsits in Dublin.  The prime consideration was the low price combined with the location.


Are there many people now homeless as a result of the bedsit ban? The stuff that I'm hearing about is more about families being priced out of their house or apartment, not bedsits.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

RainyDay said:


> Are there many people now homeless as a result of the bedsit ban? The stuff that I'm hearing about is more about families being priced out of their house or apartment, not bedsits.



Hi Rainyday

It's all connected. 

If the besits are closed down, they will have to spend more to live in apartments, possibly in less convenient locations.  So it pushes up the prices all the way up. 

Focus Ireland were worried enough to issue a press release on it, after the legislation came in.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-laws-could-create-more-homelessness-charity-warns-583467.html


----------



## Nige

Purple said:


> The government has raised the cost of being a landlord considerably by forcing them to pay tax on their turnover rather than their income.



What do you mean by this?

Tax is payable on rent (turnover) less allowable deductions.  While those deductions don't include all of the interest on borrowings, it does include 75% of it.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> A I have never understood the Irish obsession of building loads of houses around a large green area, with the road around it, and cars parking withing a hairs breath.  The green area should be at the back, with say gated access from each of the houses.  It's a nonsense creating green areas where you cannot bring your kids safely.



At last someone said this!


----------



## RainyDay

Yes indeed, the whole market is inter-connected, though that's a bit different to saying that people are homeless as a result.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Rainyday 

If there are not enough units to go around, some people will be homeless. 

If new regulations take 3,000 (?) units out, then there will be homelessness.

I don't think that Focus Ireland were scaremongering. 

Brendan


----------



## RainyDay

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Rainyday
> 
> If there are not enough units to go around, some people will be homeless.
> 
> If new regulations take 3,000 (?) units out, then there will be homelessness.
> 
> I don't think that Focus Ireland were scaremongering.
> 
> Brendan



I suppose the question would be whether 3,000 have been taken out, or whether the new regulation, like many others is being generally ignored, or phased in. I'm just surprised that in all the recent publicity about homelessness, I haven't seen one case in the press that related to the bedsit policy.

And indeed, because of the interconnection, the 3,000 bedsits might turn into  600 family homes, which adds capacity to that side of the market, which reduces demand over there.


----------



## dub_nerd

RainyDay said:


> I'm just surprised that in all the recent publicity about homelessness, I haven't seen one case in the press that related to the bedsit policy.


The press like to run headlines about children forced to sleep in cars. A single middle aged man losing his bedsit doesn't sell papers. 



RainyDay said:


> And indeed, because of the interconnection, the 3,000 bedsits might turn into 600 family homes, which adds capacity to that side of the market, which reduces demand over there.


But those two markets are probably completely separate so there is no replacement effect.


----------



## Bronte

RainyDay said:


> I'm just surprised that in all the recent publicity about homelessness, I haven't seen one case in the press that related to the bedsit policy.
> 
> And indeed, because of the interconnection, the 3,000 bedsits might turn into 600 family homes, which adds capacity to that side of the market, which reduces demand over there.


 
Well I'm not even there and I heard a lady in the last two weeks who was actually living in her house and had most of it in bedsits.  She was concerned about her tenants who she looked after it seemed to me, but they now had to leave because of the new regulations.  She was very concerned about them.  

The costs of converting as far as I can make out make no sense and these type of properties are not suitable to turn into family homes.


----------



## Purple

Nige said:


> What do you mean by this?
> 
> Tax is payable on rent (turnover) less allowable deductions.  While those deductions don't include all of the interest on borrowings, it does include 75% of it.



That's what I mean. Interest on borrowings is a cost. No other business in the country pays tax on a cost, they pay tax on the profit. Borrowings could be 90% of the cost of the property. Having to pay tax on 25% of the cost of those borrowings could easily wipe out any profit. Therefore the cost must be passes on to the tenant.


----------



## Bronte

RainyDay said:


> I suppose the question would be whether 3,000 have been taken out,


 
The demography of the loss of the bedsits would in my opinion be mostly single men (I cannot back this up) but from what I've seen and read of bedsits. They are not all grotty, but severly grotty ones that I did see were for the type of men that would hardly be socially fit for a hostal. So to me they serve a housing need. And the men were safer and happier in that type of environment.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...omelessness-and-housing-sector-grim-1.1844116


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> The demography of the loss of the bedsits would in my opinion be mostly single men (I cannot back this up) but from what I've seen and read of bedsits. They are not all grotty, but severly grotty ones that I did see were for the type of men that would hardly be socially fit for a hostal. So to me they serve a housing need. And the men were safer and happier in that type of environment.



I think that's a very important point. Legislating based on how things should be is dangerous when so many can fall into the gulf between what should be and what is.
Proper regulation and proper enforcement was the solution to grotty bedsits.
Between the disaster that is care in the community and the closure of bedsits many elderly men with minor to severe mental health issues who  find it hard to cope on their own have been left with little or no support and shelter.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> Proper regulation and proper enforcement was the solution to grotty bedsits.
> .


 
Totally agree with this, they could have increased the standards, made it tax deductable, and now instead they have created an even bigger problem, that will cost a lot more but also has a totally socially negative outcome. 

Speaking of regulation, I don't believe there is any real regulation, the authorities don't want to know. It just causes them headaches. 

As stated on here before on Priory Hall before the thread was closed down. There are a lot more Priory Halls, but now the authorities are investigating all properties they know to be compliant or near compliant and staying away from everything else, and they know which ones they are, but you won't find that on an paper trail. 

It's the same issue with VAT and being late, if you're complaint but are late a week they come down on you like a ton of bricks for their statistics, but if you're way behind, they don't bother you as you are too troublesome.


----------



## RainyDay

Bronte said:


> As stated on here before on Priory Hall before the thread was closed down.  There are a lot more Priory Halls, but now the authorities are investigating all properties they know to be compliant or near compliant and staying away from everything else, and they know which ones they are, but you won't find that on an paper trail.
> 
> It's the same issue with VAT and being late, if you're complaint but are late a week they come down on you like a ton of bricks for their statistics, but if you're way behind, they don't bother you are you are too troublesome.


These are scurrilous allegations, and you really should stand them up, or withdraw them. The Revenue lists are full of people who were 'way behind'. Did Revenue not 'bother with them'?

In relation to building control, where are these non-compliant properties that are not being inspected? A few examples would be great.



Bronte said:


> The demography of the loss of the bedsits would in my opinion be mostly single men (I cannot back this up) but from what I've seen and read of bedsits. They are not all grotty, but severly grotty ones that I did see were for the type of men that would hardly be socially fit for a hostal. So to me they serve a housing need. And the men were safer and happier in that type of environment.
> [/URL]


Safer and happier than what? Safer and happier than in a half-decent 1-bed apartment with its own bathroom and separate bedroom?


Bronte said:


> The costs of converting as far as I can make out make no sense and these type of properties are not suitable to turn into family homes.


I've heard of a number of cases of these properties being restored into family homes, and the level of work involved isn't hugely different with the standard 'restoration' work that seems to happen each time one of these houses changes hands.



dub_nerd said:


> The press like to run headlines about children forced to sleep in cars. A single middle aged man losing his bedsit doesn't sell papers.


Yes, I'm sure there is a bit of that going on, but can't you see the press getting all over the story of the elderly widow/widower being dumped out on the street, if that was happening?


dub_nerd said:


> But those two markets are probably completely separate so there is no replacement effect.


No two markets in housing are completely separate. There is definitely an interconnection.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> These are scurrilous allegations, and you really should stand them up, or withdraw them. The Revenue lists are full of people who were 'way behind'. Did Revenue not 'bother with them'?



Not scurrilous but 100% true, as anyone working in the tax compliance industry will readily confirm to you if you ask them.

The Revenue lists are lists of defaulters, ie those who file incorrect returns, or under-declare or mis-declare income. They do not refer to those who pay late.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> Yes, I'm sure there is a bit of that going on, but can't you see the press getting all over the story of the elderly widow/widower being dumped out on the street, if that was happening?




Maybe so for a middle-class widow/widower who suddenly falls on poor times, but not for the elderly bachelor who loses their home, or who lives in squalor. That sort of hard luck story doesn't shift too many papers.


----------



## RainyDay

T McGibney said:


> The Revenue lists are lists of defaulters, ie those who file incorrect returns, or under-declare or mis-declare income. They do not refer to those who pay late.



The Revenue lists do refer to those who are so far way behind that they fail to file returns, right?


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> The Revenue lists do refer to those who are so far way behind that they fail to file returns, right?



No they don't. There are two sets of lists published each quarter - the big one is the tax defaulters list, ie the list of settlements. 

The second one is the list of individuals and companies who have been prosecuted successfully in the courts for failure to file returns. These are only a tiny subset of late filers and generally involve cases several years behind - for example cases this year would typically refer to income tax returns for 2009, 2010 or maybe even earlier years. Even in hardcore late cases it is normally possible for a taxpayer to avoid court by filing at the last minute.


----------



## Bronte

RainyDay said:


> These are scurrilous allegations, and you really should stand them up, or withdraw them.
> 
> In relation to building control, where are these non-compliant properties that are not being inspected? A few examples would be great.
> 
> Safer and happier than what? Safer and happier than in a half-decent 1-bed apartment with its own bathroom and separate bedroom?
> 
> I've heard of a number of cases of these properties being restored into family homes, and the level of work involved isn't hugely different with the standard 'restoration' work that seems to happen each time one of these houses changes hands.
> .


 
Goodness me, scurrilious indeed. Do you think that Dublin corporation keep a list of the non compliant properties, or do you think they by logical deduction know which ones there are and avoid them but not write them on an list. Anyone working in the building industry would have a fair idea of the good and bad builders, that would be the engineers, the brickies, the plasters and also the council workers. 

Do you think Johnnie aged 50, separated from his wife and with a slight drink problem living in central Dublin, in a warm, old fashioned bedsit, where the only person he see regularly is his landlord, but maybe other similar chaps, would prefer that or living out in the sticks in a lovely one bed apartment (where are they by the way) that he cannot manage and is even more lonely and cut off. And how do you propose that Johnnie pays for the one bed?

Convering bedsits into a house makes sense if you are going to live in that house as a family home and the expenditure is justified.  But converting it from 9 bedsits into 4 flats is expensive as you cannot deduct the renovation costs as far as I know.   They used to have a scheme that encouraged renovation, the countrywide something or other.  I availed of it myself and I know others who used it too.


----------



## Purple

Bronte, you are not conforming to the standard line that all landlords are evil predators who are exploiting the working poor and that all-encompassing group, constituting 90%  of the population; "The Most Vulnerable in Society" (TMVS for short).
Stop letting the truth get in the way of left-wing social engineering.


----------



## RainyDay

T McGibney said:


> No they don't. There are two sets of lists published each quarter - the big one is the tax defaulters list, ie the list of settlements.
> 
> The second one is the list of individuals and companies who have been prosecuted successfully in the courts for failure to file returns.


Sorry, I'm a bit confused by what appear to be contradictory statements above. So just to be clear, the second list does include people who have failed to file tax returns, right?



Bronte said:


> Goodness me, scurrilious indeed. Do you think that Dublin corporation keep a list of the non compliant properties, or do you think they by logical deduction know which ones there are and avoid them but not write them on an list. Anyone working in the building industry would have a fair idea of the good and bad builders, that would be the engineers, the brickies, the plasters and also the council workers.


Again, I'm a bit confused. Is this alleged avoidance of dangerous properties something that you have actually seen happening, or is it your 'logical deduction' that it must be happening?



Bronte said:


> Do you think Johnnie aged 50, separated from his wife and with a slight drink problem living in central Dublin, in a warm, old fashioned bedsit, where the only person he see regularly is his landlord, but maybe other similar chaps, would prefer that or living out in the sticks in a lovely one bed apartment (where are they by the way) that he cannot manage and is even more lonely and cut off. And how do you propose that Johnnie pays for the one bed?


They are all over Dublin, if you have a look on Daft - some modern apartments, some 1-bed flats in houses, city centre, Rathmines, Finglas, take your pick. I'm not sure if this search URL will work for you, but give it a shot.
http://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/houses-to-rent/?s[mxp]=900&s[mnb]=1&s[mxb]=1

And he'll pay the rent the same way as many other people pay their rent, through rent supplement or the new HAP. It's a far from perfect system, but it is the system.


Bronte said:


> Convering bedsits into a house makes sense if you are going to live in that house as a family home and the expenditure is justified.  But converting it from 9 bedsits into 4 flats is expensive as you cannot deduct the renovation costs as far as I know.   They used to have a scheme that encouraged renovation, the countrywide something or other.  I availed of it myself and I know others who used it too.


Yes, the conversions that I've come across were converting it back to a family home.


----------



## 110quests

Provincial /rural towns also have accommodation problems. Estates with 3/4 bedrooms were built with families in mind. A very limited number of 1/2 bed units were included. There are apartments over retail and a few purpose built apartment blocks. 

For the single first time employee on low starting wage the above are mostly unaffordable . This group is finding that renting a room in a private house is the only way . They don't consider themselves "the vulnerable" , but know that many suns will set before they stretch to the luxury of their own one bed apartment. Question is : is their wage too meagre or the rents too high .

600 650 700e are the prices in this town for 1/2 bed acc.  There are separated fathers, single employed guys and gals confronted with these options. A room costs @250e in private house often sharing bathroom, kitchen with owner. Not ideal but there is no choice. 

If the cost of building is as expensive as stated in this thread , there is no hope that affordable blocks of apartments will be built soon to cater for above categories.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> Sorry, I'm a bit confused by what appear to be contradictory statements above. So just to be clear, the second list does include people who have failed to file tax returns, right?




You'd perhaps be less confused if you read my entire comment rather than selectively concentrating on isolated parts to suit your own debating position.


----------



## Firefly

RainyDay said:


> They are all over Dublin, if you have a look on Daft - some modern apartments, some 1-bed flats in houses, city centre, Rathmines, Finglas, take your pick. I'm not sure if this search URL will work for you, but give it a shot.
> http://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/houses-to-rent/?s[mxp]=900&s[mnb]=1&s[mxb]=1



Hi RainyDay,

Asuming that "a half-decent 1-bed apartment with its own bathroom and separate bedroom"  would be the next rung of the ladder up from a bedsit, I'm just curious to know what you think would happen to rent prices of these apartments once the bedsits were removed - would prices rise, fall or stay the same, all other things being equal?

Firefly.


----------



## RainyDay

T McGibney said:


> You'd perhaps be less confused if you read my entire comment rather than selectively concentrating on isolated parts to suit your own debating position.


Nope, still confused, having re-read the full thing again, several times.

I said that people who don't file returns are in the Revenue lists. You said 'No, they're not' and went on to say that people who don't file returns are in the second Revenue list. It's this contradiction that is confusing me.



Firefly said:


> Hi RainyDay,
> 
> Asuming that "a half-decent 1-bed apartment with its own bathroom and separate bedroom"  would be the next rung of the ladder up from a bedsit, I'm just curious to know what you think would happen to rent prices of these apartments once the bedsits were removed - would prices rise, fall or stay the same, all other things being equal?
> 
> Firefly.



Would you like me to polish and varnish the stick for you to beat me with as well? Come on, it's a vague hypothetical, as 'all other things' are never equal. Is the number of bedsits significant across the whole market? I don't know really - but I know that sometimes, to improve standards, you have to take a stand and do it.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Would you like me to polish and varnish the stick for you to beat me with as well? Come on, it's a vague hypothetical, as 'all other things' are never equal. Is the number of bedsits significant across the whole market? I don't know really - but I know that sometimes, to improve standards, you have to take a stand and do it.



You don’t improve standards in a market by killing the market.
There was a problem with the standards of bedsits. Now there are no bedsits. There is no market. They fulfilled a need within the broader housing market, a small but important social need. They haven’t been replaced by anything. Many of the people who needed them are now more marginalised, more isolated, but that’s ok because upper middleclass urbanites get to feel better about themselves for doing some right-on social engineering.


----------



## Firefly

RainyDay said:


> Would you like me to polish and varnish the stick for you to beat me with as well?



Given it's the first time we've conversed and my question was a simple Demand/Supply question I find this quite rude.



RainyDay said:


> Come on, it's a vague hypothetical, as 'all other things' are never equal. Is the number of bedsits significant across the whole market?


From the link Brendan supplied about 3,000 bedsits are in play, so it's hardly hypothetical. I didn't ask you to quantify the changes in rents for the lower end of the market for 1 bed apartments, but rather which way rents would go. I think it's clear that you are just avoiding the question.


----------



## RainyDay

Firefly said:


> Given it's the first time we've conversed and my question was a simple Demand/Supply question I find this quite rude.
> 
> 
> From the link Brendan supplied about 3,000 bedsits are in play, so it's hardly hypothetical. I didn't ask you to quantify the changes in rents for the lower end of the market for 1 bed apartments, but rather which way rents would go. I think it's clear that you are just avoiding the question.



I'm sorry if it came across as rude. It wasn't intended to be rude. It was intended to be a bit funny or a bit smart, but these things don't always travel well in text form.

I did feel that it was an attempt to back me into a corner. If you have an opinion about the impact of the change on the market, why don't you give your own opinion, instead of trying to force out my opinion.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Interesting article in the Indo today from Dr John McCartney of Savills 

Investors are not the enemy in the housing crisis and only building more units will fix it



> Perhaps  inevitably, this upsurge in buy-to-let activity has caused  consternation among pundits who argue that commercially-motivated  investors are crowding traditional homebuyers out of the market and  driving up housing costs. Their outrage is compounded by the fact that,  since 2012, more than 2,000 residential units in Dublin have been bought  by institutional investors, some of which are foreign.
> 
> At one level, these concerns may be understandable. It is undeniable  that every property bought by an investor leads to one less unit being  available to an owner-occupier. Furthermore, by competing alongside  traditional home-buyers, investors add to the demand for housing. In a  context of tight supply, this undoubtedly drives up prices.
> 
> *However,  this logic only takes us so far. Because, while investors account for  one element of demand in the sales market, they also represent the  supply side of the rented market. One-third of Ireland's households rely  on rental accommodation. And, just as tight supply is forcing up house  prices, a scarcity of rental properties is driving up rents*


and 



> The  real problem is that we do not have enough houses to accommodate our  population. As such, we are trapped in a zero-sum game; on one hand we  need more rental properties, but we also need more homes for  owner-occupiers. These objectives simply cannot be reconciled without  building additional units. Ultimately, when it comes to solving our  housing problems, all roads lead back to supply.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...ill-fix-it-30393837.html#sthash.M0mx01Kk.dpuf


----------



## dub_nerd

> The real problem is that we do not have enough houses to accommodate our population. As such, we are trapped in a zero-sum game; on one hand we need more rental properties, but we also need more homes for owner-occupiers. These objectives simply cannot be reconciled without building additional units. Ultimately, when it comes to solving our housing problems, all roads lead back to supply.


 
Hang on, can we not follow that road a little further? In a functioning market, demand ought to stimulate new supply. Why hasn't that happened? The optimistic view is that there is a time lag between the one and the other, so all we need do is wait. The more cynical view is that it is government policy to keep prices high, and part of this is a choking off of supply. This is being done by a) drip feeding of NAMA properties into the market to take advantage of the rising prices, b) withholding credit from builders who might otherwise be in a position to supply the market, c) actively stymying repossessions which are the natural and necessary consequence of mortgage default.

That a) is happening, there can be no doubt. It is NAMA policy in order to meet its mandate. We (collectively, through our government) bought into that when the then Finance Minister had the brainwave that we "only" needed a 10% increase in prices over 10 years from 2009 to break even. Of course, prices fell precipitously from then, until the current spike.

Part b) is more complicated. The government does not directly control the supply of credit to builders, but its recapitalisation of the banks has not had the desired effect since the banks were far more damaged than was known at the time. Basically, the effort to prop up the banks and get credit moving in the economy has been a failure so far.

c) is an emotive issue that I'm not going to touch. However, it is presumably uncontroversial to say that an ability to repossess in a timely fashion will be factored into bank costs and willingness to supply credit. 

I consider the whole thing a complete mess. Government policy is basically operating _against_ our interests of lowering costs in the economy, increasing competitiveness, and promoting growth. The current government has done little more than continue the policies of the previous one, who completely misread the magnitude and implications of the crash, and set us on a path that will make recovery far more lengthy and difficult.

The only ray of light in this whole thing -- although it is cynical to say so -- is that when the current unsustainable "bubble" (or whatever one wants to call it, since there is much disagreement on it) bursts, as it inevitably must, a significant fraction of the people who get wiped out will be cash investors. I don't say this with any malice, I'm just noting that wealthier investor types spend proportionally less of their income into the economy, so rather them than the less well off. One hopes that repossessions will be more prompt than has been the case with our amateur BTL landlords so far.

(P.S. I hope this post doesn't violate the rules on discussing house prices, since I'm talking in generalities and not speculating about movements in any particular time frame).


----------



## Firefly

RainyDay said:


> I'm sorry if it came across as rude. It wasn't intended to be rude. It was intended to be a bit funny or a bit smart, but these things don't always travel well in text form.
> 
> I did feel that it was an attempt to back me into a corner. If you have an opinion about the impact of the change on the market, why don't you give your own opinion, instead of trying to force out my opinion.




Hi RainyDay,

Apology accepted, however I wasn't trying to force out your opinion, rather I was just asking you what your opinion was.

I'm not a property expert and would have little visibility on the Dublin market at this stage apart from what I would pick up generally. However, to me, 3,000 bedsits taken out of the market would seem significant. How much the needle moves for the rental prices for 1 beds is difficult to say however it would, IMO, have a tendendany to increase rents given the added demand. 

By simply removing the market for bedsits without replacing it with something else, you are forcing those who were living in bedsits to pay extra for 1 bed apartments. (There probably are 1 bed apartments as cheap as bedsits on the market, but as 1 bed apartments are generally considered higher up the ladder and more aspirational, these apartments are probably in a worse location. Otherwise the bedsits would have been empty already ).

Just to be clear, I don't think many people like bedsits and the fact that they're gone is probably a good thing from a living standards persepctive, just like getting rid of the tenements in Dublin's inner-city was. However, regarding the tenements, families were housed elsewhere, whereas those living in bedsits are on their own. IMO a lot of people living in bedsits ARE the most vulnerable in society and by removing the bedsits, I wonder have we thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Feel free to offer your own opinion about which way you would expect rents to move for 1 beds, I'm not going to force you to 

Firefly.


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> Interesting article in the Indo today from Dr John McCartney of Savills
> 
> Investors are not the enemy in the housing crisis and only building more units will fix it
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...ill-fix-it-30393837.html#sthash.M0mx01Kk.dpuf



Hi Brendan,

He makes a point and he may well be right, however, with respect, estate agents would flog their grandmothers so anything they produce, often guised as "research" by people with elevated titles, should at best be used as kindling.

Firefly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Firefly said:


> He makes a point and he may well be right, however, with respect, estate agents would flog their grandmothers so anything they produce, often guised as "research" by people with elevated titles, should at best be used as kindling.



Hi Firefly 

Is that "with respect" to me or to estate agents?  

If an auctioneer expresses his opinion that house prices will rise by 50% over the next 5 years, I discount it entirely. 

However, they can give us an insight into some areas e.g. the demand for the different types of houses and apartments; whether the buyers are cash buyers or mortgage buyers.  I would not accept what they say uncritically, but I would listen to it. 

For a few reasons, I think this article is a valuable contribution. 

Dr McCarthy has a very good background in this area, including a long stint with the CSO compiling house price statistics. Check out his research on the It seems to be analytic and evidence based. 

This argument is expressed very well and stands independently of the source:



> *Because, while investors account for  one element of demand in the  sales market, they also represent the  supply side of the rented market.  One-third of Ireland's households rely  on rental accommodation. And,  just as tight supply is forcing up house  prices, a scarcity of rental  properties is driving up rents*


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Firefly
> 
> Is that "with respect" to me or to estate agents?
> 
> If an auctioneer expresses his opinion that house prices will rise by 50% over the next 5 years, I discount it entirely.
> 
> However, they can give us an insight into some areas e.g. the demand for the different types of houses and apartments; whether the buyers are cash buyers or mortgage buyers.  I would not accept what they say uncritically, but I would listen to it.
> 
> For a few reasons, I think this article is a valuable contribution.
> 
> Dr McCarthy has a very good background in this area, including a long stint with the CSO compiling house price statistics. Check out his research on the It seems to be analytic and evidence based.
> 
> This argument is expressed very well and stands independently of the source:



Hi Brendan,

The "with respect" was aimed at you for providing a link to an estate agent 

The individual in question is probably very good and well versed in his subject matter, however "he who pays the piper calls the tune" comes to mind. A bad analogy I know but would you put any faith in research refuting global warming by experts from Koch industries for example?

Savills are clearly a vested interest and given the track record of estate agents in the last decade I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt. 

Firefly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Firefly said:


> Savills are clearly a vested interest and given the track record of estate agents in the last decade I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt.
> 
> Firefly.



OK, let me put it another way, do you agree or disagree with the following statement 

"because, while investors account for  one element of demand in the   sales market, they also represent the  supply side of the rented market.   One-third of Ireland's households rely  on rental accommodation. And,   just as tight supply is forcing up house  prices, a scarcity of rental   properties is driving up rents"

Would your opinion change 

1) If an estate agent said it?
2) If some independent economist, whom you trust, said it?
3) If some anonymous contributor on askaboutmoney said it?


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> OK, let me put it another way, do you agree or disagree with the following statement
> 
> "because, while investors account for  one element of demand in the   sales market, they also represent the  supply side of the rented market.   One-third of Ireland's households rely  on rental accommodation. And,   just as tight supply is forcing up house  prices, a scarcity of rental   properties is driving up rents"




Hi Brendan,

I don't have a problem with the statement and having just read the article it is quite a decent article in my opinion. The only thing I would say is that "facts" are presented and there is "Drilling deeper into the data" however I can't see any reference to the data source

The problem I have is that the media and estate agents are tied to the hip regarding the property market. Regarding estate agents; their income is directly related to the amount of houses they sell. People don't buy houses if they believe that prices will fall further, but do when prices are rising. Prices are rising and now all of a sudden we are getting drip-fed article after article from the estate agents. Where were all these reports and research when prices were falling dramatically? 

Look at the heading under the main photograph (not written I presume by the author) which emotively reads:

_"Given what we have been through"_ - setting the scene, poor us.

"_it is not surprising that the current recovery in house prices has captured the nation's attention_." - recovery? Sounds like a good thing and property had a disease or something? Do we really want house prices to rise, pulling in more money that could go to business investment and bringing the next generation into debt?

"_Amidst the furore about rising prices_" - furore? really? This is just a further attempt to panic people.




Brendan Burgess said:


> Would your opinion change



Most definitely!



Brendan Burgess said:


> 1) If an estate agent said it?


I'd put my fingers in my ears for the reasons I've already outlined.



Brendan Burgess said:


> 2) If some independent economist, whom you trust, said it?


Not many out there but I would certainly listen and then make up my own mind.



Brendan Burgess said:


> 3) If some anonymous contributor on askaboutmoney said it?



Not one anonymous contributor but in the aggregate absolutely. Before the "Sentiment" thread was closed on askaboutmoney there were a growing number of contributers who were right on the money about what was going to happen. They were far more accurate than anything than came from either the media or the estate agents who were advising us about a "soft-landing" among other things.

Firefly.


----------



## RainyDay

Call for submissions on new Social Housing Strategy

http://www.housing.ie/News/Current-News/Invitation-for-Submissions-Preparation-of-a-Social.aspx


----------



## Purple

The problem here is one of ideology. The state is seeking to make housing available to those with a social need but not the financial means to acquire it. This is a good thing. The problem is that they are looking to do it by manipulating the demand side of the market. The state should seek to making housing as cheap as possible for everyone. Lower the tax on houses, cap the income multiples and mortgage terms that banks can offer, ensure development land is made available and help the construction industry adopt modern work practices and building techniques. If houses were 25% cheaper to build and 20% cheaper to buy then a large part of the social housing need would disappear. 

The solution to a supply side issue is not to increase the money available on the demand side.


----------



## Bronte

dub_nerd said:


> . This is being done by a) drip feeding of NAMA properties into the market to take advantage of the rising prices, b) withholding credit from builders who might otherwise be in a position to supply the market, c) actively stymying repossessions which are the natural and necessary consequence of mortgage default.
> 
> Part b) is more complicated.
> 
> c) However, it is presumably uncontroversial to say that an ability to repossess in a timely fashion will be factored into bank costs and willingness to supply credit.
> 
> 
> The only ray of light in this whole thing -- -- is that when the current unsustainable "bubble" bursts, as it inevitably must, a significant fraction of the people who get wiped out will be cash investors..


 
b) the withholding of credit

Would it be in the banks interest not to loan, that seems to be the current situation on two fronts, they are under stress tests and seem to limit their ability to loan and they don't want houses built as they are waiting for property rises to sort out the buy to let mess.

c) the failure of the involvency system can be laid directly at the banks lobbying government.  They don't want to reposses until property rises to a level that will give them a profit.  

If the current property rises bust as you seem certain of, then you're probably wrong on cash investors losing out. If they haven't borrowed then there is no issue, they can wait until the next bubble, if they have borrowed, they will probably have borrowed prudently, though watching the celtic tiger mess, or forced to by banks and will have properties that are mortgaged to a level that is easily covered by the rent.

We're not allowed speculate on house prices, but houses don't get built overnight.


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> Savills are clearly a vested interest and given the track record of estate agents in the last decade I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt.


 
While I agree with that, the man in question is correct, in my opinion, about investors supplying rental properties.  Both investers and home owners are needed for a properly functioning market.  The last time they stopped investors, after Bacon, it was a catastrophy.


----------



## 44brendan

> c) the failure of the involvency system can be laid directly at the banks lobbying government. They don't want to reposses until property rises to a level that will give them a profit.


Why would this be seen as a problem? General bank strategy is to maximise loan recoveries. In the context of BTL exposures where repayment capacity is not evident, the only alternative recovery source is a sale of the security. Taking a view that property price rises will continue at a higher rate than interest costs (assuming that interest is not being covered) it is perfectly reasonable to delay putting properties on the market. Given that in most cases the rental income is sufficient to cover he interest and possibly a small portion of the capital this strategy is advisable. i.e. you leverage your way out of a loss making portfolio.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> Would your opinion change
> 
> 
> 2) If some independent economist, whom you trust, said it?


 
No economist, no matter how talented or independent can be trusted.  

They have a 50/50 chance of being right some of the time.  They also have a 50/50 change of bring wrong a lot of the time.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> While I agree with that, the man in question is correct, in my opinion, about investors supplying rental properties.  Both investers and home owners are needed for a properly functioning market.  The last time they stopped investors, after Bacon, it was a catastrophy.



Hi Bronte,

I agree about the need for investors supplying rental properties. Why after Bacon was it a disaster - I can't seem the remember the details but I do remember thinking at the time that the property bubble might have been deflated at the time rather than reversing the actions under Bacon and allowing the whole thing to inflate further?

Firefly.


----------



## Bronte

When they implemented Bacon's proposal that investors should no longer be allowed write off mortgage interest relief it caused property sales to fall and rents to rocket. It was so catastrophic that it was reversed within about 3 years (might have the time line wrong). 

Governments should stop interfering was my conclusion after that.

We discussed it in 2009 here:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=110905

and this thread, where accountanat poster Tommy McGibney makes a good point at post 14

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=176467


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> and this thread, where accountanat poster Tommy McGibney makes a good point at post 14
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=176467


That's actually an excellent thread and well worth a read.
It explains why stimulating or manipulating the demand side won't solve supply side issues.


----------



## dub_nerd

44brendan said:


> Why would this be seen as a problem? General bank strategy is to maximise loan recoveries. In the context of BTL exposures where repayment capacity is not evident, the only alternative recovery source is a sale of the security. Taking a view that property price rises will continue at a higher rate than interest costs (assuming that interest is not being covered) it is perfectly reasonable to delay putting properties on the market. Given that in most cases the rental income is sufficient to cover he interest and possibly a small portion of the capital this strategy is advisable. i.e. you leverage your way out of a loss making portfolio.


Yes, of course it makes sense for the banks, which is why it's happening. The banks then control both the existing housing supply and the availability of credit to developers. That creates a perverse incentive to perpetuate a housing supply crisis, which is damaging to the economy in other ways. The answer to the question in your first sentence, then, depends on who you're asking.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> When they implemented Bacon's proposal that investors should no longer be allowed write off mortgage interest relief it caused property sales to fall and rents to rocket. It was so catastrophic that it was reversed within about 3 years (might have the time line wrong).
> 
> Governments should stop interfering was my conclusion after that.
> 
> We discussed it in 2009 here:
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=110905
> 
> and this thread, where accountanat poster Tommy McGibney makes a good point at post 14
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=176467



Thanks Bronte,

I'd forgotten the details and the effects. 

I agree that the government should not interfere, but with the advent of NAMA (and its continuance from an initial objective of selling off the dodgy loans to now actively investing in property) it seems that the state has become involved in the property market in a very big way. 

Firefly.


----------



## Eschat

Just to return to the original point of this thread...

If land is free/cheap to developers, and the cost of construction is high, then the way forward is to build on larger sites.

People (in Dublin at least) will pay more for a given house on a larger site. The land may be valueless when it's an empty field, but it certainly isn't when it's an acre of garden around a 4 bed detached house.

Of course we can't solve the volume problem by building one house per acre so it won't be allowed to happen.

Others ways of looking at the problem...

Is the existing housing stock is overpriced, relatively? New houses SHOULD be expensive, cos they're supposed to be better built. That's progress, right?

Is this a failure of architecture? Or services? What if the govt worked with developers to ensure that these vast new estates were serviced by Educate Together schools?


----------



## Purple

Eschat said:


> Is the existing housing stock is overpriced, relatively? New houses SHOULD be expensive, cos they're supposed to be better built. That's progress, right?



Why should new houses be more expensive? 
Every other manufactured good is cheaper in real terms now than it was at any time in the last 200 years. 
Houses can and should be manufactured and assembled to a higher standard at a lower cost now than they were 20 years ago. The reason they aren't is that the construction sector is more interested in moaning than innovating, more interested in looking for handouts than sorting out their own problems. The very fact they are looking for the government to do anything "for them" typifies the problem.


----------



## Eschat

Purple said:


> Why should new houses be more expensive?
> Every other manufactured good is cheaper in real terms now than it was at any time in the last 200 years.


More expensive than existing stock. I'm not making an argument about costs of construction over time, but if you can't build low end new houses then better build higher-end ones.

But since you raised the costs-over-time issue...



Purple said:


> Houses can and should be manufactured and assembled to a higher standard at a lower cost now than they were 20 years ago. The reason they aren't is that the construction sector is more interested in moaning than innovating, more interested in looking for handouts than sorting out their own problems. The very fact they are looking for the government to do anything "for them" typifies the problem.



If you can work out how to scale yourself to live on a silicon wafer then I'm sure you'll find your "house" is much cheaper. In the real world houses have a large wage cost component so are more like a service product (e.g. posh restaurant food) than a manufactured good.

Has the price of eating a 2-star Michelin dinner dropped in the last 20 years?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Building land is expensive in Dublin. 

In May 2012, it was €194k to build a house before site costs.  Even if it has risen in the meantime, presumably it's a max of €250,000.  Most 3 beds sell for far more than this in Dublin.  So it would not make sense to build one house on an acre, when you can build 12.


----------



## Purple

Eschat said:


> But since you raised the costs-over-time issue...
> 
> If you can work out how to scale yourself to live on a silicon wafer then I'm sure you'll find your "house" is much cheaper. In the real world houses have a large wage cost component so are more like a service product (e.g. posh restaurant food) than a manufactured good.



That's nonsense. Most of the house can be built off-site in a factory with automated lines. First fix electrical and plumbing can be done at that stage. The assembly of the units on site can be speeded up by using the correct power tools instead of 18th century hammers. 
Then proper QA and QC can be carried out at the time of manufacture so the purchaser isn't relying on our third rate tradespeople to fit windows, plaster walls and hang doors. Who knows, the plumbing mightn't leak and the doors and windows might open and close properly!
The only major element that needs to be manufactured on-site is the foundation and that is done using heavy equipment. 
Houses in Ireland are built in the same way as they were 50 years ago. At least half of the on-site labour cost can be removed, maybe 75%. The off site labour can be done more efficiently and to a higher standard. 

We need to build houses the way most of Europe and North America does. The site is what's valuable so the house itself should be able to be changed every 50 or 100 years without a massive financial and environmental cost.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> That's nonsense. Most of the house can be built off-site in a factory with automated lines. First fix electrical and plumbing can be done at that stage. The assembly of the units on site can be speeded up by using the correct power tools instead of 18th century hammers.
> Then proper QA and QC can be carried out at the time of manufacture so the purchaser isn't relying on our third rate tradespeople to fit windows, plaster walls and hang doors. Who knows, the plumbing mightn't leak and the doors and windows might open and close properly!
> The only major element that needs to be manufactured on-site is the foundation and that is done using heavy equipment.
> Houses in Ireland are built in the same way as they were 50 years ago. At least half of the on-site labour cost can be removed, maybe 75%. The off site labour can be done more efficiently and to a higher standard.
> 
> We need to build houses the way most of Europe and North America does. The site is what's valuable so the house itself should be able to be changed every 50 or 100 years without a massive financial and environmental cost.



I think your point about off site building is correct.

At the end of the boom a number of developers were fitting bought in bathrooms. That is the entire room, walls floors ceiling and all the contents. Mostly imported from Italy. And of course because they were factory made they were perfect. They had connection points for water, power and waste, they were unloaded and plugged in!


----------



## Bronte

Bronte said:


> The demography of the loss of the bedsits would in my opinion be mostly single men (I cannot back this up) but from what I've seen and read of bedsits. They are not all grotty, but severly grotty ones that I did see were for the type of men that would hardly be socially fit for a hostal. So to me they serve a housing need. And the men were safer and happier in that type of environment.
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...omelessness-and-housing-sector-grim-1.1844116



Seeing as the radio/TV is full of false concern/concern/shock/platitudes and nonsense on homelessness about the death of a homeless man, one is reminded of this thread back then and our debate on solutions, here's the predictable knee jerk reaction of this constant back peddling government:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ifted-to-tackle-homeless-crisis-30795027.html

All so utterly preventable, but sure what would a landlord driven to insanity with Irish water know about causes of Dublin's property mess, and the new vote buying row back on property tax.  

What next, a new Bacon against landlords, we the enemies of the people, and the root of many people's ire.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> That's nonsense. Most of the house can be built off-site in a factory with automated lines. First fix electrical and plumbing can be done at that stage. The assembly of the units on site can be speeded up by using the correct power tools instead of 18th century hammers.
> *Then proper QA and QC can be carried out at the time of manufacture so the purchaser isn't relying on our third rate tradespeople to fit windows, plaster walls and hang doors.* *Who knows, the plumbing mightn't leak and the doors and windows might open and close properly!*
> The only major element that needs to be manufactured on-site is the foundation and that is done using heavy equipment.
> *Houses in Ireland are built in the same way as they were 50 years ago.* *At least half of the on-site labour cost can be removed, maybe 75%. The off site labour can be done more efficiently and to a higher standard.*
> 
> We need to build houses the way most of Europe and North America does. The site is what's valuable so the house itself should be able to be changed every 50 or 100 years without a massive financial and environmental cost.


 
Agree completely!


----------



## Firefly

RainyDay said:


> Are there many people now homeless as a result of the bedsit ban? The stuff that I'm hearing about is more about families being priced out of their house or apartment, not bedsits.





RainyDay said:


> I'm just surprised that in all the recent publicity about homelessness, I haven't seen one case in the press that related to the bedsit policy.



Hi RainyDay,

Looks like even the Labour Party (Joan Burton) is seeing the light regarding bedsits..

“The reduction in the number of bedsits available has undoubtedly put an awful lot of pressure in terms of the number of places available for single people on their own might find a home,” she added.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ifted-to-tackle-homeless-crisis-30795027.html

Firefly.


----------



## 44brendan

The issue was debated extensively on this forum. At a certain time all of us country people who went to work in Dublin started out in bedsits. They are not ideal for long term living but neither are hostels or hotels. At least with a bedsit you have your own privacy and while not being perfect they did provide an affordable level of accomodation to those in most need. We need to work towards a standard of accomodation that is both affordable and acceptable, but until sufficient accomodation of this type becomes available there is no benefit in banning bedsits.


----------



## RainyDay

The figures reported in this tweet might be relevant to this debate;

https://twitter.com/BRegsBlog/status/550250457604816897?s=03


----------



## jjm

Purple said:


> I think that's a very important point. Legislating based on how things should be is dangerous when so many can fall into the gulf between what should be and what is.
> Proper regulation and proper enforcement was the solution to grotty bedsits.
> Between the disaster that is care in the community and the closure of bedsits many elderly men with minor to severe mental health issues who  find it hard to cope on their own have been left with little or no support and shelter.



very interesting looking back now,


----------



## Brendan Burgess

It would also be interesting to see what the government ministers were saying back then. 

And what will we and they be saying in 3 years. 

Brendan


----------



## bleary

I remember Mr noonan chuckling on the news and telling people to wait for a year or two when there would be rakes of new houses built for them. That must have been 2013 or so.


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> Hi RainyDay,
> 
> Asuming that "a half-decent 1-bed apartment with its own bathroom and separate bedroom"  would be the next rung of the ladder up from a bedsit, I'm just curious to know what you think would happen to rent prices of these apartments once the bedsits were removed - would prices rise, fall or stay the same, all other things being equal?
> 
> Firefly.


Well Firefly how right you were. As was Purple. All of us still here. Tommy who dealt with landlords was on the ball too. All of us back in 2014 and before. It amazes me the mess the government has created. Today they will march for housing to be a metal right. Knee jerking the government into some fanciful  solution that won’t solve anything. But they won’t discuss options with ordinary landlord like me. I see properties I could buy and convert into love apartments, but there is no reason to do so as the costs and risks are too high because of government policies.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> It would also be interesting to see what the government ministers were saying back then.
> 
> And what will we and they be saying in 3 years.
> 
> Brendan


You have your answer now. And things are going to get a lot worse. Eventually the lack of affordable rental is going to drive investors out of Ireland and the jobs with them.  It’s a catastrophe.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> Interesting article in the Indo today from Dr John McCartney of Savills
> 
> Investors are not the enemy in the housing crisis and only building more units will fix it
> 
> and


Proof that even back in 2014 it was clear REITs would drive up rents.


----------



## MugsGame

Bronte said:


> I see properties I could buy and convert into love apartments



Steady on now, we're not Japan!


----------



## Folsom

Some interesting obs from that independent article.

_"In broad terms, the pattern of home ownership is shifting from households to investors. Moreover, the profile of these investors is changing. Gradually, but unmistakably, the amateur is being displaced by the professional."
_
I would take this as a good development overall. Tenants need to have security of tenure long-term for a stable and sustainable rental market to develop. 
Worrying about the reaction of amateur landlords to every policy change is a cause for instability, particularly if the amateur landlord does not understand fully the implications of changes or cannot factor in such changes over the long term and adjust their business model accordingly.
_
"Drilling deeper into the data gives us an insight into the profile of these investors. First and foremost, 95pc of them are cash buyers." 
_
This is unsurprising. With central bank restrictions on mortgage lending for owner-occupiers and amateur landlords borrowing is tight. 
The door is open for institutional investors with deep pockets to beat any competition particularly in the apartment blocks. The FTB can no longer compete.

_"At one level, these concerns may be understandable. It is undeniable that every property bought by an investor leads to one less unit being available to an owner-occupier. Furthermore, by competing alongside traditional home-buyers, investors add to the demand for housing. In a context of tight supply, this undoubtedly drives up prices."
_
This would suggest that landlords dont add to supply they just compete for existing supply. 
_
"If anything we need more rather than fewer landlords to come forward and supply rental properties. And if these are professionally-managed units, so much the better."
_
Somewhat a contradiction to previous comment, but in the overall context of the article it makes sense.
_
"The real problem is that we do not have enough houses to accommodate our population_."

As the article finishes, all roads lead to supply. The State needs to step in where the commercial sector is failing and build houses.


----------



## cremeegg

Folsom said:


> _Gradually, but unmistakably, the amateur is being displaced by the professional."
> _
> I would take this as a good development overall.



Why?

Large investment companies will operate properties to maximise profits, just like smaller investors. However I suspect that they will be much more efficient at it.

Many small landlord don't raise rents during a tenancy, especially if they are happy with the tenant. Company directors are under a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximise return. This suggests that they must raise rents to the maximum permissible.

Small investors dread the prospect of being brought to the RTB, large investment companies with many properties and well fed lawyers will have no such fear.

Small investors sometimes take pride in their properties and value their neighbours good opinion, investment companies will expect a return on every penny they invest in their properties. Unless maintenance or improvements can show a return, they will go undone.

Most small investors pay tax at rates in excess of 50% on their investment income. While I do not understand the tax arrangements of institutional investors I am told that they pay much lower tax rates.


----------



## Folsom

cremeegg said:


> Why?



All succinct points @cremeegg with more than a dollop of validity. 

When I consider professional v amateur landlord im not actually thinking small v institutional. 
Im thinking of those 'landlords'  who bought into the game in the with sloppy, nonchalant, pigsback, type of thinking. The ones who had no long-term strategy, no regard for standards of accommodation, must maximize profits through overcrowding etc...etc...
These are the amateur 'landlords' - big or small. 

Im thinking professional landlords, big or small, with written tenancy agreements, long-term strategy, business models to implement modest rent increases (or decreases) in line with inflation, interest rates, incomes to maintain stable and sustainable market. 
Im thinking competition, competitive rents with quality accommodation.

This will take engineering, involving government, banks, landlords and tenant rights groups. 
Where the impetus is on the landlord to provide competitive rents with quality accommodation. The impetus for tenants must be to maintain and respect properties. The rental market needs to be redesigned to offer a real competitive alternative to the owner occupier model. A real choice of renting for life.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> Building land is expensive in Dublin.
> 
> In May 2012, it was €194k to build a house before site costs.  Even if it has risen in the meantime, presumably it's a max of €250,000.  Most 3 beds sell for far more than this in Dublin.  So it would not make sense to build one house on an acre, when you can build 12.


Accordingly to the Newspaper SI, Dublin CC can build a house for less than the cost of purchasing. Figure of 199k apparently. I understood this included all costs including the site cost. Is the article incorrect.

Nice round figure. 199k. They quote the Housing agency as the source for this figure. Now I think it’s tosh. Because they say that is cheaper than buying at 124k.

Why do newspapers get away with half truths. This is the second article peddling half truths on housing this week.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> All succinct points @cremeegg with more than a dollop of validity.
> 
> When I consider professional v amateur landlord im not actually thinking small v institutional.
> Im thinking of those 'landlords'  who bought into the game in the with sloppy, nonchalant, pigsback, type of thinking. The ones who had no long-term strategy, no regard for standards of accommodation, must maximize profits through overcrowding etc...etc...
> These are the amateur 'landlords' - big or small.
> 
> Im thinking professional landlords, big or small, with written tenancy agreements, long-term strategy, business models to implement modest rent increases (or decreases) in line with inflation, interest rates, incomes to maintain stable and sustainable market.
> Im thinking competition, competitive rents with quality accommodation.
> 
> This will take engineering, involving government, banks, landlords and tenant rights groups.
> Where the impetus is on the landlord to provide competitive rents with quality accommodation. The impetus for tenants must be to maintain and respect properties. The rental market needs to be redesigned to offer a real competitive alternative to the owner occupier model. A real choice of renting for life.


No written leases.
Don’t increase rents.(but I’m gong to have to because of the rent cap)
No business model.
Started in stratospheric interest rates.
Nearly 30 years a landlord.
Stability you say.
Never evicted a tenant yet.
Seen rents go the unbelievable highs, and collapse.
Inflarion in the last three decades...


And by your reckoning I’m an amateur.

Good luck to the institutional REITs when the market collapses. They’ll be selling like hot potatoes. Professionals like them is what you want. I will live to see the day they will pull out and move to better markets having made their money on capital appreciation in Ireland. This will happen once the housing stock catches up. Which it will.


----------



## Folsom

Bronte said:


> No written leases



So in the event of a dispute, how would matters be settled. 
For instance, if it is verbally agreed that 
- 
the tenant will mow and maintain the lawn 
the tenant is responsible for keyholding and replacing locks if required
the landlord will provide window cleaning services at least four times a year
the landlord will provide for chimney sweep once a year
the landlord will service smoke/fire/detectors, gas or oil boilers once a year 
the tenant is responsible for refuse collection 
Etc....etc...etc...
- and one party fails to honour their end of the agreement, how are disputes resolved? 



Bronte said:


> Don’t increase rents.(but I’m gong to have to because of the rent cap)



Why? If you don't increase rents, why is a rent cap making you increase them now?



Bronte said:


> No business model.



Its part of the problem why there are so many disputes and why some landlords are chasing 'average market rents'.




Bronte said:


> Professionals like them is what you want



You quoted my post in its entirety. Did you read it?


----------



## jpd

Bronte said:


> Proof that even back in 2014 it was clear REITs would drive up rents.


That is not what the report said - the conclusion was


> The real problem is that we do not have enough houses to accommodate our population. As such, we are trapped in a zero-sum game; on one hand we need more rental properties, but we also need more homes for owner-occupiers. These objectives simply cannot be reconciled without building additional units. Ultimately, when it comes to solving our housing problems, all roads lead back to supply.



It was clear then, and even more so now, that without building more homes, no matter what the split of the housing stock between rented properties and ppr, there is a crisis in play.


----------



## The Horseman

Folsom said:


> So in the event of a dispute, how would matters be settled.
> For instance, if it is verbally agreed that
> -
> the tenant will mow and maintain the lawn
> the tenant is responsible for keyholding and replacing locks if required
> the landlord will provide window cleaning services at least four times a year
> the landlord will provide for chimney sweep once a year
> the landlord will service smoke/fire/detectors, gas or oil boilers once a year
> the tenant is responsible for refuse collection
> Etc....etc...etc...
> - and one party fails to honour their end of the agreement, how are disputes resolved?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If you don't increase rents, why is a rent cap making you increase them now?
> 
> 
> 
> Its part of the problem why there are so many disputes and why some landlords are chasing 'average market rents'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted my post in its entirety. Did you read it?



Can you make up your mind, either you think a lease is needed or not!



Folsom said:


> https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/do-i-have-to-sign-a-lease/
> 
> You have to get past the concept of the business that you are in is just the same as any other business. It is not. Tenants are not your customers, they are your tenants. Housing is not a commodity, it is a social necessity.


----------



## Folsom

The Horseman said:


> Can you make up your mind, either you think a lease is needed or not!




That is part of the problem why the rental sector is so inefficient. That there is no legal requirement to issue written tenancy agreements.

When did I say otherwise??

There needs to be detailed written agreements in place to resolve disputes upon which the rights of landlords to protect their property and the tenants right to security of tenure can be invoked.
A tenancy agreement may, or may not, include such clauses as length of occupancy. Such clauses, depending on the length of time, may offer protections to tenants to renew agreements, rent reviews based on a set formula which may allow for modest rent reductions as well modest rent increases etc...etc...


----------



## Sarenco

Folsom said:


> A tenancy agreement may, or may not, include such clauses as length of occupancy. Such clauses, depending on the length of time, may offer protections to tenants to renew agreements, rent reviews based on a set formula which may allow for modest rent reductions as well modest rent increases etc...etc...


All those matters are regulated by Statute.  Repeating them in an agreement would be pointless.


----------



## Folsom

Sarenco said:


> All those matters are regulated by Statute.  Repeating them in an agreement would be pointless.



The specific details between two parties are not set out in statute. The specific details between two parties would have to adhere to the parameters set out in statute.

For instance, is it possible that the State would never had had to introduce RPZ's if landlords had set out in tenancy agreements the provisions for annual rent reviews and the criteria upon which any rent increase was based? Is it possible that if I was renting a property of you that we could have agreed a maximum rent increase (or decrease) 6% pa subject to certain criteria being met, such as increases in incomes, inflation rate, interest rates etc being met? Is it possible that such a system, if developed thoroughly, could provide for the creation of a more stable and sustainable private rental market?

Instead we have a system that saw rents increase by any amounts on the simple basis that apparently market rates were not being met - devoid of the understanding that below market rents are as contributory to overall market rent as above market rents are.
Instead, the State had no option but to interfere and impose reasonable increase rates on landlords because too many were incapable of managing it themselves.


----------



## Sarenco

Sigh.

Once a Part 4 tenancy arises, the legislation is very specific about the term of the tenancy, when and by how much rents can be raised, how disputes can be resolved, etc.  There is no need to repeat all these provisions in an agreement - it would serve no purpose.

Outside a RPZ, rent can only be reviewed every two years.  Rent can only be raised to the local market level and there are very specific requirements around the documentation that must be produced to evidence that market rate.  Those provisions applied nationwide prior to the introduction of the RPZ regime.

I would strongly encourage you to try and understand the law as it stands before offering your "opinions".


----------



## Folsom

Oh dear! You are outlining the law as it is now, as *set out through government policy* - devoid of all the gripes and mopes from landlords, on this site, including yourself, threatening to pull out of the rental market etc, _because of the exact laws that you are referring to as implemented by government. 
_
It is because of this persistent and constant "moving of goalposts" and interference by government that is making it so hard, apparently, for landlords to make it worthwhile entering the market.

But the government has had no choice because the private rental sector has been unable to provide a stable and sustainable rental market.

So now landlords are stuck with government 'diktats' that tell landlords how to manage their properties instead of landlords and tenants agreeing between themselves all the criteria of any tenancy.  Too many landlords are devoid of the social responsibility and social understanding of what it means to be in the business of providing housing and accommodation. Instead the thinking is all short-term, all financial gain.
Now they have to be led by the hand by government.

It is a failed market.


----------



## Sarenco

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - your post makes no sense whatsoever.

But just to correct you once again, I am not a landlord.  I quit the residential letting business some time ago for the reasons explained elsewhere.

Good bye.


----------



## Folsom

There is at once, a train of thought that the rights of landlords and their properties are being unduly infringed upon by government policy persistently interfering in the private rental market with new laws and restrictions  such as rent controls. Here is a snippet of that sentiment



Sarenco said:


> only bombs destroy a city more quickly than rent controls.
> 
> Crazy, crazy policy. Ultimately it's renters that pay the price for this madness.



But in reality, it is the ineptitude of a significant amount of landlords themselves, blinded by short-term financial gain and devoid of any understanding the social responsibility and social understanding of the business that they entered into that has led to unstable and unsustainable private rental market sector that we have today. 

Its not entirely their fault, housing policy by successive governments outsourcing the provision of housing to the private market is the real culprit. 

So in the absence of a private rental market that is capable of providing a stable and sustainable rental accommodation,  then landlords should just get used to more and more government interference. 

Those that cannot cope with the State interfering should leave.


----------



## Folsom

Sarenco said:


> But just to correct you once again, I am not a landlord. I quit the residential letting business some time ago for the reasons explained elsewhere.



Thats right I forgot, no long-term strategy to deal with periods of financial restrictions. You have done yourself and the rental sector a favour.


----------



## Sarenco

I did actually have a long-term strategy to deal with unfair taxation and over-bearing regulation - I simply put my capital to work elsewhere.

I reluctantly exited the residential letting business after some 20 years because the after-tax returns no longer adequately compensated me for the risks I was bearing. 

Nothing to do with not being able to "cope" with State interference as you keep suggesting.  It was a purely rational business decision, it wasn't a forced exit.


----------



## cremeegg

Folsom said:


> There is at once, a train of thought that the rights of landlords and their properties are being unduly infringed upon by government policy persistently interfering in the private rental market with new laws and restrictions  such as rent controls.



No sensible landlord objects to tenants having protection from unreasonable behaviour, or for a long term tenancy to be established in law.

Landlords have reasonable concerns that they have no effective remedy against tenants who do not pay their rent. Or to put it bluntly, the possibility scares the life out of me, and ant sensible landlord.

They also have a reasonable concern that certain legal provisions are being introduced retroactively. When I created a particular tenancy I could terminate it with a months notice, without reason. Now I would have to give many months notice and declare my reasons.

The new situation is not the problem, it is the fact that it was introduced for existing tenancies that frightens me.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> It amazes me the mess the government has created.



It's amazing that we have proposals for "communal living" where 42 tenants are to share one kitchen, a few short years after banning the bedsit.....give me a bedsit any day!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...as-42-tenants-share-one-kitchen-38094372.html


----------



## Folsom

cremeegg said:


> No sensible landlord objects to tenants having protection from unreasonable behaviour, or for a long term tenancy to be established in law.



I know. Its the ones that will protest against reasonable protections or long-term tenancies that I take issue with. 
There is already a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters to a newspaper headline that suggested making lifetime rental easier for tenants.


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> There is already a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters to a newspaper headline that suggested making lifetime rental easier for tenants.



Is there any mention of what the tenants should have to pay as compensation to the landlord if they break a life-time lease, or is the risk all on the landlord's end?


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> Is there any mention of what the tenants should have to pay as compensation to the landlord if they break a life-time lease, or is the risk all on the landlord's end?



I don't think there was any mention of a lifetime lease. 
I would imagine that the suggestion would be based on allowing existing tenants the option of extending a tenancy if they wish. 
If a landlord is intending to continue using the property for rental then affording the existing tenant first option to continue with the tenancy would seem reasonable to me. 
This would help stabilise the market.

Im not sure where the risk for the landlord is, if you go into the business of renting property, the possibility of periods of vacancy should be factored in already.


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> I would imagine that the suggestion would be based on allowing existing tenants the option of extending a tenancy if they wish.



All else being equal, do you think this will bring more landlords into the market or less?


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> All else being equal, do you think this will bring more landlords into the market or less?



Couldn't tell you. Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it. 
I think, if my understanding of the proposal is correct, that it would go someway to sustaining and stabilising the private rental market.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> So in the event of a dispute, how would matters be settled.
> For instance, if it is verbally agreed that
> -
> the tenant will mow and maintain the lawn
> the tenant is responsible for keyholding and replacing locks if required
> the landlord will provide window cleaning services at least four times a year
> the landlord will provide for chimney sweep once a year
> the landlord will service smoke/fire/detectors, gas or oil boilers once a year
> the tenant is responsible for refuse collection
> Etc....etc...etc...
> - and one party fails to honour their end of the agreement, how are disputes resolved?
> 
> 
> ?



It's quite clear that you haven't one clue about what being a landlord in Ireland actually means.  A written lease is not worth anything.  You think a tenant will take a dispute to where if the chimney isn't swept !

By the way why should a landlord sweep the chimney or clean the windows. As it happens I don't even clean my own windows four times a year.  Twice is my limit.

I've tenants who take out the batteries on the smoke alarm.  What exactly do you think I'm going to do, take them to the RTB - and then what !  (I've a solution on the cards for this one)

As it happens I don't have 'matters' with my tenants.  I pay the bins so that they'll actually put out the rubbish instead of dumping it in someone else's bin.

Do you have a written lease that mentions your landlord will clean the windows four times a year?  And what is 'keyholding'?


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> Why? If you don't increase rents, why is a rent cap making you increase them now?


Because I'd devalue my properties otherwise.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> There needs to be detailed written agreements in place to resolve disputes upon which the rights of landlords to protect their property



Are you joking, landlords haven't a hope of protecting their property if they get a rogue tenant playing the RTB roulette.  Show me actual proof tenants:

a) had to pay back rent
b) make good on destroying a property


----------



## Bronte

jpd said:


> That is not what the report said - the conclusion was
> 
> 
> It was clear then, and even more so now, that without building more homes, no matter what the split of the housing stock between rented properties and ppr, there is a crisis in play.



Agreed on that, but it doesn't change what I said. The REIT's are capitalising on the lack of housing.  They will disappear when the market changes.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Folsom said:


> Couldn't tell you. Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it.
> I think, if my understanding of the proposal is correct, that it would go someway to sustaining and stabilising the private rental market.



The issue is supply and increasing demand. With shortage of supply, increasing demand rises prices. 

Landlords, rents, leases, length of tenure have nothing to do with that. Supply comes first everything else follows. 

You don't seem to remember when we had cheap rents and abundance of supply. 
Tenants would sign up to a lease and be gone as soon as they found something cheaper. 
Which is why rentals stared to be improved, to retain tenants and higher rents.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> Oh dear! You are outlining the law as it is now, as *set out through government policy* - devoid of all the gripes and mopes from landlords, on this site, including yourself, threatening to pull out of the rental market etc, _because of the exact laws that you are referring to as implemented by government.
> _
> It is because of this persistent and constant "moving of goalposts" and interference by government that is making it so hard, apparently, for landlords to make it worthwhile entering the market.
> 
> But the government has had no choice because the private rental sector has been unable to provide a stable and sustainable rental market.
> 
> So now landlords are stuck with government 'diktats' that tell landlords how to manage their properties instead of landlords and tenants agreeing between themselves all the criteria of any tenancy.  Too many landlords are devoid of the social responsibility and social understanding of what it means to be in the business of providing housing and accommodation. Instead the thinking is all short-term, all financial gain.
> Now they have to be led by the hand by government.
> 
> It is a failed market.



The government are doing their very best to drive landlords out of the market.  They are tinkering around with the issue with sticking plaster instead of building social housing.  They are trying to fool voters they are actually doing something, when in fact they are doing the exact opposite.


----------



## Bronte

AlbacoreA said:


> You don't seem to remember when we had cheap rents and abundance of supply.
> Tenants would sign up to a lease and be gone as soon as they found something cheaper.



I had a three month void back in those days. No lease of course. Not as if having one would have made any difference.  Like I was going to court to enforce it.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> But in reality, it is the ineptitude of a significant amount of landlords themselves, blinded by short-term financial gain and devoid of any understanding the social responsibility and social understanding of the business that they entered into that has led to unstable and unsustainable private rental market sector that we have today.
> 
> Its not entirely their fault, housing policy by successive governments outsourcing the provision of housing to the private market is the real culprit.
> 
> So in the absence of a private rental market that is capable of providing a stable and sustainable rental accommodation,  then landlords should just get used to more and more government interference.
> 
> Those that cannot cope with the State interfering should leave.



Totally inaccurate post.  The instability is as a result of the government

a) not building social housing
b) not planning for inceases in population
c) not allowing decent apartments in high rise buildings in Dublin/Cork
d) disincentivising landlords entering the market
e) forcing landlords out of the market

If the government rowed back on taxation and bureaucracy many private landlords, including me, would go back into the market.  Despite the high rents it's just not making sense.  Now Murphy wants to make it impossible to ever evict a tenant.


----------



## Leo

Bronte said:


> Accordingly to the Newspaper SI, Dublin CC can build a house for less than the cost of purchasing. Figure of 199k apparently. I understood this included all costs including the site cost. Is the article incorrect.



Yet one of the few local authority housing developments completed in Dublin in recent years delivered units that cost almost twice that excluding land costs. I'd love to know where they got that €199k figure from, I can only guess it has no basis in the reality of an actual development.


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it.



So landlords don't buy new builds?


----------



## Folsom

Bronte said:


> A written lease is not worth anything.



Thats the point! It is worth nothing, it is not even a requirement. Im suggesting that written tenancy agreements are a legal requirement and that such agreements contain provisions for landlords to protect their property - including, for instance, where a tenant destroys property but fails to reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.



Bronte said:


> Because I'd devalue my properties otherwise.



So you do put up rents, which is opposite to what you said earlier.



Bronte said:


> Are you joking, landlords haven't a hope of protecting their property if they get a rogue tenant playing the RTB roulette.



If there were legally enforceable tenancy agreements it would strengthen the landlords hand against rogue tenants. If a landlord can show that they have been put of pocket by a non-paying tenant, and the tenant has no means to pay then the State becomes a liable party (_this is a suggestion to protect property of landlords and their investments, why else are you paying all these taxes)_



Bronte said:


> They are tinkering around with the issue with sticking plaster instead of building social housing.



Yes, I argued that many times.



Bronte said:


> The instability is as a result of the government
> 
> a) not building social housing
> b) not planning for inceases in population
> c) not allowing decent apartments in high rise buildings in Dublin/Cork



I agree. I have argued that housing policy has failed in this country. It outsourced housing to the private sector to be bought and sold as a commodity for profit and abdicated its responsibility to provide  housing for social need. 



Bronte said:


> By the way why should a landlord sweep the chimney or clean the windows.



They shouldn't have to - it was an example of conditions of a tenancy agreement. If both parties _agree _to such conditions it should be written down. 
I would suggest that it is good practice to sweep a chimney once a year. I would also suggest window cleaning is a good idea. These are provisions that the landlord can, if interested in basic maintenance of his/her property may provide as part of a tenancy agreement - in your case window cleaning twice a year. If the tenant is fussy, they can pay for any additional cleaning thereafter themselves.
But the matters will arise around times for rent reviews. If a landlord doesn't honour the conditions in the tenancy agreement then it is something a tenant can use to keep rents increases to a minimum. Where there is a dispute over rents it would be for each party to show that they have complied with the conditions of the agreement. 



Bronte said:


> I've tenants who take out the batteries on the smoke alarm. What exactly do you think I'm going to do, take them to the RTB - and then what ! (I've a solution on the cards for this one)



No, but such matters, any others, can be reflected in a justified increase in rents (obviously, by itself, battery replacement would be negligible). 
But if you dont service alarms, boliers etc as per conditions then the tenant can plausible question any proposed rent increase or at least the amount of any increase. 



Bronte said:


> And what is 'keyholding'?



Oh, just in case some landlords ever complain about getting phonecalls from drunken tenants at 3am who have lost their keys - put the responsibility and charges of key and lock replacement on the keyholder, ie the tenant.


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> So landlords don't buy new builds?



??? They do, of course. They dont, in general, build them. 
Do FTB's build houses? Generally, no. They compete for existing stock. 
Builders and developers build new properties. 
In some instances, landlords and FTB's build their own houses, but overall its a negligible amount to whats required to meet the demand currently.


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> ??? They do, of course.



So if there were more landlords interested in buying, builders could build more houses, right?


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> where a tenant destroys property but fails to reimburse that the *State *can be held liable for the cost of repairs.



Don't you mean the Taxpayer ? What ever happened to personal responsibility?


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> So if there were more landlords interested in buying, builders could build more houses, right?



Yes, just as if there were more FTB's right? 
Do we need more FTB's right now adding to demand?


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> If there were legally enforceable tenancy agreements it would strengthen the landlords hand against rogue tenants. If a landlord can show that they have been put of pocket by a non-paying tenant, and *the tenant has no means to pay *then the State becomes a liable party



Would you support a criminal conviction in this case?


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> Thats the point! It is worth nothing, it is not even a requirement. Im suggesting that written tenancy agreements are a legal requirement and that such agreements contain provisions for landlords to protect their property - including, for instance, where a tenant destroys property but fails to reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.
> 
> 
> .



That's the craziest suggestion you've come up with. You want the taxpayer to pay landlrods if their tenant's destroy the place.

You really haven't a clue. What's in your lease as regards cleaning windows or chimneys and keys?


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> Yes



Increased demand will lead to an increase in supply. So this is why we need more landlords entering the market. There are going to be a lot of houses outside the reach of FTBs. Without landlords they won't be build and therefore rented.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> Oh, just in case some landlords ever complain about getting phonecalls from drunken tenants at 3am who have lost their keys - put the responsibility and charges of key and lock replacement on the keyholder, ie the tenant.



This happened to my mother.  But she was more than an hour away, she told the tenant to just break in.  Then she fixed the lock afterwards.  I told her not to answer her phone in the middle of the night.


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> Don't you mean the Taxpayer ? What ever happened to personal responsibility?



Yes, absolutely, the first point of call would be to pursue the tenant for arrears or damages. If the tenant has no means to repay, the taxpayer can step in to compensate the aggrieved party - the landlord. After all, they pay taxes too dont they? 
Would you be opposed to such a scheme? Considering the State has indicated its responsibility to provide social housing in the first place.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> No, but such matters, any others, can be reflected in a justified increase in rents (obviously, by itself, battery replacement would be negligible).
> .



I was more worried about the tenants than the cost of the battery.  You really don't get this.  I've had a tenant nearly burn the house down in the last two years.  For that one I've now got a mains alarm.  Which is what I'm moving to for the rest as I'm going to do substantial refurbishment this year - hopefully.


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> Would you support a criminal conviction in this case?



If a tenant has the means to pay but wont pay I would support an eviction.
If a tenant has no means to pay (say long-term unemployment) I would support state intervention to support the aggrieved party - ie the landlord, until such time as the tenant is in a position to pay again.


----------



## Folsom

Bronte said:


> I was more worried about the tenants than the cost of the battery.



There is only so much you can plausibly do. If tenants are taking batteries out of smoke alarms there is not much you can do. All you can do is show that you take reasonable care by servicing the alarms once a year.


----------



## Bronte

Leo said:


> Yet one of the few local authority housing developments completed in Dublin in recent years delivered units that cost almost twice that excluding land costs. I'd love to know where they got that €199k figure from, I can only guess it has no basis in the reality of an actual development.


How do newspapers get away with printing such stuff.  There is no way I believe DCC can build houses for that if you factor in all costs.  And it's a rather neat figure too. With your 199, not going over the 200, like it was Dunnes stores.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> There is only so much you can plausibly do. If tenants are taking batteries out of smoke alarms there is not much you can do. All you can do is show that you take reasonable care by servicing the alarms once a year.


But I thought you said this would be sorted in your magical written lease !  You know the one I told you was a waste of time in Ireland.


----------



## Leo

Bronte said:


> How do newspapers get away with printing such stuff.  There is no way I believe DCC can build houses for that if you factor in all costs.  And it's a rather neat figure too. With your 199, not going over the 200, like it was Dunnes stores.



Media, particularly the Indo seem more and more interested in attention grabbing headlines than the truth.


----------



## Folsom

Bronte said:


> This happened to my mother.  But she was more than an hour away, she told the tenant to just break in.  Then she fixed the lock afterwards.  I told her not to answer her phone in the middle of the night.



Is this an ideal scenario? I would think not. 
Best you have it written out in a tenancy agreement to call a locksmith. Even better, provide the contact details of local locksmiths.


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> If a tenant has no means to pay (say long-term unemployment) I would support state intervention to support the aggrieved party - ie the landlord, until such time as the tenant is in a position to pay again.



Would you hold the same view if the same person threw a brick through the front window of their local Tesco?


----------



## Folsom

Bronte said:


> But I thought you said this would be sorted in your magical written lease !



Im not really sure what you are talking about. If there are conditions in a tenancy agreement that either party are not complying with, resulting in the other party being out of pocket then this may be used by either party as a factor for increasing or decreasing rent in a rent review.
If you agreed to a chimney sweep once a year, which I think is reasonable if you are interested in protecting your property, but you fail to so and the tenant, being concerned about their own welfare and the welfare of their children, ends up paying for a chimney sweep, then this may act as a factor in reducing rent.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> Is this an ideal scenario? I would think not.
> Best you have it written out in a tenancy agreement to call a locksmith. Even better, provide the contact details of local locksmiths.


According to you if she had a written lease there would have been no problem. She could have provided the phone number of the locksmith in the lease too. Why not. You can be sure that particular tenant would have of course phoned a locksmith whose number was in the written lease inside the locked apartment.

I'd best not tell you the story of how she got rid of the Nigerian who was dealing drugs.  That only took 6 weeks if I remember rightly.

We locked ourselves out of our house about 5 years ago. Oddly we had to figure out who to call on a Sunday, we didn't have anybody to ring up and bother to do so.


----------



## Bronte

Folsom said:


> .
> If you agreed to a chimney sweep once a year, which I think is reasonable if you are interested in protecting your property, but you fail to so and the tenant, being concerned about their own welfare and the welfare of their children, ends up paying for a chimney sweep, then this may act as a factor in reducing rent.



I too think it's reasonable to sweep the chimney once a year. Why should the landlord pay for this?  Maybe tenant's don't care about their children's welfare.  And it's the landlords fault if the chimney goes on fire (happened to one of my tenants - I had to pay the fire brigade one K, now if I'd only had that magical written lease it would have been all hunky dory for me)   

Is that chimney cleaning in your lease along with the four times a year window cleaning?


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> Would you hold the same view if the same person threw a brick through the front window of their local Tesco?



???

That is criminal damage you are talking about. Which, if memory serves me correct, is prosecutable under law using services of the gardai, courts etc all paid by taxpayer. Should this not be the case?

If I lose my job, paying PAYE and PRSI the State will cushion the loss of my income through unemployment benefits. 
Im talking about landlords, who through no fault of their own, or no fault of their tenants, are at a loss of income because there tenant is unemployed. 
As taxpayers themselves, paying PRSI I would be supportive of cushioning the loss of income for landlords that find themselves in financial difficulties as a consequence. 

If a tenant burns down a house or damages a house im sure house insurance will cover that. Any criminal damage should be reported to the Gardai to investigate. If the Gardai are satisfied a crime has occurred they should pursue the culprits. 
In the meantime, a landlord who pays PRSI, and is at an income loss because of criminal damage, should be afforded some protection by the State in a similar fashion to someone who is at an income loss because of unemployment. 
Would you be opposed to such a social provision?


----------



## galway_blow_in

Folsom said:


> If a tenant has the means to pay but wont pay I would support an eviction.
> If a tenant has no means to pay (say long-term unemployment) I would support state intervention to support the aggrieved party - ie the landlord, until such time as the tenant is in a position to pay again.



Moral hazard alert


----------



## Folsom

galway_blow_in said:


> Moral hazard alert



I dont see how. 
Im only suggesting that where a tenant is unemployed that a landlord who finds themselves in financial difficulties as a consequence would be entitled, as a PRSI payer, to supports to cushion the loss in income. 
As with most people, the prospect of a moral hazard will be thwarted by the desire of the tenant to return to paid employment and the landlord wanting full rental prices to be restored.


----------



## Sarenco

Folsom said:


> Im suggesting that written tenancy agreements are a legal requirement and that such agreements contain provisions for landlords to protect their property - including, for instance, where a tenant destroys property but fails to reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.


Wow!

So the taxpayer will meet the cost of any damage caused to a property by a rogue tenant.  And the best part of this cunning plan is that it won't even require an Act of the Oireachtas - parties can agree to this privately!

Hang on, it gets better...


Folsom said:


> If a landlord can show that they have been put of pocket by a non-paying tenant, and the tenant has no means to pay then the State becomes a liable party


So the taxpayer will fully underwrite the landlord's investment!  

Oh what a wonderful world.

Now, where did I park my unicorn?  Oh, there it is - under the magic money tree...


----------



## Folsom

Sarenco said:


> So the taxpayer will meet the cost of any damage caused to a property by a rogue tenant. And the best part of this cunning plan is that it won't even require an Act of the Oireachtas - parties can agree to this privately!



Sorry my bad, housing insurance will cover that. I was thinking more about income streams from loss of income.


----------



## Folsom

Sarenco said:


> So the taxpayer will fully underwrite the landlord's investment!



Nope. The State, incapable as it is to provide adequate housing, has outsourced its responsibility to the wonders of the all efficient private sector. 
In turn it is now, apparently, charging too much tax on rental income. 
Landlords are, apparently, on a hiding to nothing. They pay so much tax, but take "all the risk". Isnt that why they are, apparently leaving in their droves? 
So to alleviate some of that risk, a tenant who through no fault of their own loses their job. As a prsi contributor, the state will cushion the blow somewhat of the loss of income through unemployment benefits.
As a landlord, who pays prsi, what protections are afforded if I end up in financial difficulties as a consequence of my tenant losing their job?
I would suggest that where a landlord is in genuine financial difficulties as a consequence of the above, and in consideration of the landlord paying so much tax on their income, including prsi, that the State is liable (in such circumstances) to cushion the blow through state supports.
This will provide some security for tenants and landlords, provide for a more stable rental market, and provide time and space until the finances of both party are restored.
Its called social insurance, its called giving a dig out to those who need it, when its needed, if ever. 
Its nowhere close to underwriting the full investment.


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> Sorry my bad, housing insurance will cover that.



The landlord's insurance yeah? What do you think will happen his/her premium the next year (if they could even get a quote)?

One way this might work would be that *tenants *require insurance and any damage be claimed by the landlord against the tenant. A landlord could then request a copy of the tenant's insurance before letting let them in. Maybe you are onto something with this insurance thingie


----------



## Folsom

Bronte said:


> Maybe tenant's don't care about their children's welfare.



You see, its this type of mindset that makes you wonder how, or why some people get into the business of providing accommodation.
Nobody can do anything if both the landlord and the tenants have no regard for the property and/or the welfare of the tenants.
I work on the assumption that landlords do have a regard for their property and that tenants do have a regard for their welfare and the environment that surrounds them.
So as an example of how the interaction between landlord and tenant is intractable I simply suggested that written tenancy agreements become legal requirements. To my mind such agreements will provide the basis of eliminating alot of unnecessary, time consuming disputes for either party.

Here is a link from lawdepot.uk that provide free sample agreements. I suggest you try the tenancy agreement as an example. Pick the standard version.


If you can be even bothered to do this you might note  that in this standard tenancy agreement, provisions are made for guess what??....chimney sweep and window cleaning.


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> One way this might work would be that *tenants *require insurance and any damage be claimed by the landlord against the tenant



Thats an option alright, but paying for the damage is one thing, how is a landlord compensated where the tenant loses a job for a period - throwing both parties into financial difficulty?


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> Thats an option alright, but paying for the damage is one thing, how is a landlord compensated where the tenant loses a job for a period - throwing both parties into financial difficulty?



Well not by my taxes please!

If the tenant had insurance then this policy could pay the landlord for unpaid rent / damages.


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> Well not by my taxes please!
> 
> If the tenant had insurance then this policy could pay the landlord for unpaid rent / damages.



Why do you think it would be 'your' taxes anymore than it would be the taxes of the landlord? 
You dont appear to understand the concept of taxes. 
And good luck with trying to get a private insurance company to take up on such a scheme. There are income protection schemes out there but to expect a tenant who has lost his job to pay for the income protection of their landlord?!?! 
You seem to be wedded to a notion that tenants are bad people  - you keep associating loss of income with criminal behavior.
As I have said, any criminal behavior should be reported to the Gardai and they can pursue matters using our taxes (maybe you can ask for your taxes not to be used in this way?)


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> You seem to be wedded to a notion that tenants are bad people  - you keep associating loss of income with criminal behavior.



Folsom, you've been posting here for long enough to know that's bang out of order.

I have absolutely nothing against tenants. 

I am trying (and it's difficult with you) to show how the actions of some tenants coupled with lack of protection for landlords are driving landlords away from the market. For what it's worth I don't have skin in the game. I came very close to pulling the trigger on a purchase myself earlier in the year but because of the reasons highlighted throughout this site I didn't bother. I may well buy in the future but will either let on AirBnB (if that's not shut down) or leave it idle.


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> with lack of protection for landlords



And with respect Firefly, if you were following my posts in this topic you would see that what I am suggesting _is _increased protections for landlords via legally enforceable tenancy agreements and social welfare protection where there is a genuine financial difficulties resulting from a tenants inability to pay. 
Apparently these suggestions are not simply not acceptable.


----------



## Purple

Folsom said:


> And with respect Firefly, if you were following my posts in this topic you would see that what I am suggesting _is _increased protections for landlords via legally enforceable tenancy agreements and social welfare protection where there is a genuine financial difficulties resulting from a tenants inability to pay.
> Apparently these suggestions are not simply not acceptable.


In your proposal the State will pay the rent of tenants who can't afford to pay their own and pay for damage the tenant does to the property if the tenant can't afford to pay for that either. Am I reading that right?
What responsibility should be on tenants to pay their way and be accountable for their actions?

I rent. If it was up to me there would not be one more house provided by the State until the tenancy agreement between the State (and the bodies it funds who provide homes) and public/social housing tenants was changed to something much closer to what is now in place in the private sector. In other words no more lifetime tenancies, no more inherited tenancies and a needs assessment every 3 to 5 years so that one of two people aren't living in a 3 or 4 bedroom house. 
Then start building again.
The waiting lists would be shorter as well as the State would not be giving away free houses, instead they would be providing housing to those who actually need it (rather than the minority who are gaming the system) and utilising their multi-billion Euro housing stock to maximise their public good it provides.


----------



## RedOnion

Purple said:


> If it was up to me there would not be one more house provided by the State until the tenancy agreement between the State (and the bodies it funds who provide homes) and public/social housing tenants was changed to something much closer to what is now in place in the private sector. In other words no more lifetime tenancies, no more inherited tenancies and a needs assessment every 3 to 5 years so that one of two people aren't living in a 3 or 4 bedroom house.


I'm off to get popcorn!


----------



## Folsom

Purple said:


> Am I reading that right?



No. But my bad if I worded it badly or incorrectly. 

Tenants who dont pay

Either its because they cant pay (say unemployment) or can pay but wont. If the latter, tenancy agreements should have legal ly enforceable powers to evict. 
If the former, then eviction serves little purpose other than to cause disruption. If you evict someone on account of being unemployed, then where do they go? Will employment prospects be better or worse? Will children need to move schools? Etc..etc..
Better that, if the landlord (who pays taxes and prsi) can show that they are in financial difficulty as a consequence of his/her income stream being disrupted that the landlord receives social supports to cushion that drop income until such time as employment and earnings of the tenant are restored. 
If it is a long-term unemployment, then other arrangements need to be made. But in the main, most people want to work so as long as employment opportunities arise matters will restore. 

Damage to property 
it is either deliberate and criminal or it is accidental and par course of normal wear and tear of any occupancy. 
If it is deliberate, report to Gardai, if they are satisfied that criminal damage has occurred, the landlords house insurance policy will pay for repairs and restoration - in the meantime, the taxpaying landlord should receive some financial support to cushion the loss of income while damage is being repaired.

If damage is accidental then landlord goes about their business as normal.


----------



## Bronte

You are still demonstrating you haven't one clue. 

- If a tenant can not pay due to lack of income the state will pay the rent.  
- It's nearly full employment in Ireland, some tenant's do not want to work. I know because I have some of them.  The state is paying me for them. 
- Reporting tenant's to the Gardai is a pointless exercise, something you'd know if you actually knew anything about being a landlord.
- House insurance does not cover repairs and restoration.  Again you're lack of knowledge is alarming.  Good thing your not a landlord.  
- Normal wear and tear is a cost of tenancy, in Ireland it is particularly high as the landlord does not expect to get the property back in the condition it was let in.  
- I've no clue what you mean there by the state paying the landlord for loss of income. It's such a crazy suggestion it's not even worth trying to figure out what you mean.  I think you are trolling. The entire thread.


----------



## Leo

Folsom said:


> f they are satisfied that criminal damage has occurred, the landlords house insurance policy will pay for repairs and restoration



So landlords pay for it!


----------



## Purple

Folsom said:


> Better that, if the landlord (who pays taxes and prsi) can show that they are in financial difficulty as a consequence of his/her income stream being disrupted that the landlord receives social supports to cushion that drop income until such time as employment and earnings of the tenant are restored.


So a landlord should have to keep a tenant in their property who is not paying rent if that landlord is well off? The landlord would only get some sort of hardship payment from the State if they were in financial distress? You are effectively changing it from a business relationship to some sort of social support, funded by landlords until such time as the landlord runs out of money.

That's just crazy.


----------



## jpd

This thread has become pointless, imho, in more ways than one


----------



## Purple

jpd said:


> This thread has become pointless, imho, in more ways than one


Yea, you're right.

Why is there so little building in Ireland?

Dysfunctional banking sector during and after the crash which stopped the flow of credit to the construction sector.
Dysfunctional construction sector which was fat and grossly inefficient during the boom and wiped out during the crash and still thinks political lobbying is better than getting their house in order (pun intended). 
Time lag between site becoming available, acquisition of site, design, planning, planning approval and build.
Lack of skilled labour.
legacy of 40 years of incompetent and corrupt planning.


----------



## Bronte

Well well well, I had to laugh when I read this:



So let me get this straight. The government got rid of bedsits, which I and many landlords said was a very stupid idea, yes up standards, but don't get rid of them. And now the Minister in charge thinks bedsits with 40 people/units sharing one kitchen is a good idea.  How utterly daft is that.

_'Younger workers should be excited about paying less rent for less space' - Eoghan Murphy on co-living_

That's the funniest thing I've read in ages.  And get this, it's going to cost those 'lucky' renters an eye watering €1300 per month.


----------



## Bronte

This actually gets better, we have Mary Lou wading in with this:









						Proposed co-living scheme is just a 'glamourised form of tenement living' - McDonald
					

A proposed “co-living scheme,” comprising a room the size of a parking space and kitchen area shared by 42 people, has been condemned during a Dáil debate.




					www.independent.ie
				




_Proposed co-living schemes is just 'a glamourised form of tenement living. _'

That also gave me the giggles. And I do wonder what she said at the time they got rid of the bedsits.

- a room the size of a parking space
- kitchen area shared by 42 people,
- a proposed monthly rent of €1,300 was utterly unacceptable.


----------



## Bronte

As if all that wasn't bad enough, I see the Reit's/Mega investors are trying to make mega bucks out of social housing.  How. Selling property to Dublin City Council at extraordinary prices.  (as pointed out be me on here, Reit's aren't in it for the rents... it's about property prices, and they will be gone as quick as they arrived when they've made their bucks)

Here's the OECD warning about the overconentration of the Mega Investors:









						OECD calls for property tax hike as Murphy comes under fire over 'co-living' gaffe
					

Property taxes should be hiked and valuations need to happen regularly to keep up with the reality of rising house prices, the Government has been warned.




					www.independent.ie
				




_Amid the latest economic risks identified by the OECD is the potential fall-out if the surge in foreign funds gobbling up billions of euro of Irish properties comes undone.

Those investors do not borrow here and are not a risk to the Irish banks - which property investors were in the last crash - but they leave the property market here vulnerable to what the OECD calls "new channels for the transmission of external shocks".

It means that  if big funds come under stress in their home markets, they would become forced sellers of Irish assets - potentially flooding the market.

Foreign investors account for more than half of commercial property investment in Ireland, so the risk is concentrated in offices, industrial and retail properties - but the rise of the so-called "cuckoo funds" means billions are now pouring into housing._

That's very sobering reading.


----------



## losttheplot

Could we not just introduce 95% capital gains tax on residential properties. Would that not end property speculation. You can deduct for renovations and index for inflation.


----------



## ashambles

Bronte said:


> This actually gets better, we have Mary Lou wading in with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed co-living scheme is just a 'glamourised form of tenement living' - McDonald
> 
> 
> A proposed “co-living scheme,” comprising a room the size of a parking space and kitchen area shared by 42 people, has been condemned during a Dáil debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Proposed co-living schemes is just 'a glamourised form of tenement living. _'
> 
> That also gave me the giggles. And I do wonder what she said at the time they got rid of the bedsits.
> 
> - a room the size of a parking space
> - kitchen area shared by 42 people,
> - a proposed monthly rent of €1,300 was utterly unacceptable.


The room is 16 sq meters. That's fine for a bedroom.  

Typical bedrooms in an Irish 3-bed semi might be 12M 14M and 7M. It's usually better to compare like to like, rooms to rooms, not rooms to handicapped parking spaces.

People pretending to be outraged about the co-living should also be moaning about 3-bed semis. Since every bedroom in that 3-bed semi is usually smaller than a handicapped parking space,  and in fact smaller than many things that are not rooms. 

For elderly people co-living can be great, for young workers also great. People who want to co-live do so, and in doing so free up other types of housing for people who don't want to co-live. 

The people in this country who to rail against any type of new (to Ireland - not places like the Netherlands or Sweden) idea and then complain about why nothing changes would lead you to despair.


----------



## Ceist Beag

I see no issue with the provision of this type of accommodation. However rent of €1300 for something like this is outrageous and should not be allowed imho.


----------



## WolfeTone

This is an example from Berlin
Live Berlin
Ive no issue with it if people want to live it. But its probably most suited to temporary working immigrants who are not set on settling in Ireland or starting a family.
Basically an upmarket hostel.


----------



## Bronte

Part V

This is the social housing requirement. Here an Irish Reit to comply with this will be selling 10% of their development in Sandymount  to Dublin council. A three bed will cost you, the taxpayer nearly 800,000.

Could anyone on AAM tell me is this a ‘normal’ Price for a 3 bed in that area or nearby. Seems extraordinary to me.









						Ires Reit makes €21.13m social housing proposal to council
					

Landlord offers to sell 43 Sandyford units to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council




					www.irishtimes.com
				




Is this 21 million taxpayer cost justified.  Would purchasing on the normal market be cheaper. Are these prices the same price it costs the Reit to build, which doesn’t make sense to me.

Seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the money is to be made by selling to the council and that money gets ploughed into the build cost.


----------



## Bronte

WolfeTone said:


> This is an example from Berlin
> Live Berlin
> Ive no issue with it if people want to live it. But its probably most suited to temporary working immigrants who are not set on settling in Ireland or starting a family.
> Basically an upmarket hostel.


That’s doesn’t look like no upmarket hostel I’ve ever been in. It mentions students. Where does it mention shared kitchens by 42 units?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Ceist Beag said:


> I see no issue with the provision of this type of accommodation. However rent of €1300 for something like this *is outrageous* and should not be allowed imho.



Why is it outrageous if there is someone willing to supply and someone willing to pay?


----------



## Ceist Beag

I doubt anyone is willing to pay that amount!  Some people may feel they have no option if nothing else is available but let's be honest, that is an extortionate amount of money for something as humble as this and just smacks of pure greed.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Ceist Beag said:


> I doubt anyone is willing to pay that amount!  Some people may feel they have no option if nothing else is available but let's be honest, that is an extortionate amount of money for something as humble as this and just smacks of pure greed.



Well if they weren't willing to pay they wouldn't pay it. That's what willingness to pay means!

This is designed for someone who needs something more permanent than a hotel room but more flexible than a one-bed apartment.

It is appreciably cheaper than either.


----------



## Ceist Beag

I guess we will never agree on this one but I think you are wrong to not see the difference between willingness to pay and simply being forced to pay due to lack of alternatives. Maybe you missed the fact there is a housing crisis at the moment. Maybe you don't think charging 42 * €1300 per month is gouging but I most certainly do think it is.


----------



## Bronte

SANDYFORD - D 18

So I decided to figure out where this is.  It's south of the city and seems to have Foxrock (upmaket) and Shankill (not so nice) in it. I've no real clue though.  Anyway you can buy the following :

3 bed semi 530K
2 bed apartment 295K
4 bed semi 495K
2 bed apartment 375
1 bed 235K
4 bed semi 550K
2 bed apartment 310K
3 bed semi 470K

Now if I compare the above with the Reit's prices to the council, bearing in mind these are all only apartment:


Ires Reit’s proposal shows that value of one-bed apartments ranges from €279,627 to €292,633, two-beds from €487,722 to €637,290, and three-beds ranging from €598,272 to €780,355.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> SANDYFORD - D 18
> 
> So I decided to figure out where this is.  It's south of the city and seems to have Foxrock (upmaket) and Shankill (not so nice) in it. I've no real clue though.  Anyway you can buy the following :
> 
> 3 bed semi 530K
> 2 bed apartment 295K
> 4 bed semi 495K
> 2 bed apartment 375
> 1 bed 235K
> 4 bed semi 550K
> 2 bed apartment 310K
> 3 bed semi 470K
> 
> Now if I compare the above with the Reit's prices to the council, bearing in mind these are all only apartment:
> 
> 
> Ires Reit’s proposal shows that value of one-bed apartments ranges from €279,627 to €292,633, two-beds from €487,722 to €637,290, and three-beds ranging from €598,272 to €780,355.



You would actually expect someone buying a tranche of properties to get a reduction. 
Looks like another example of the government spending more of taxpayer's money than necessary.


----------



## Bronte

Firefly said:


> You would actually expect someone buying a tranche of properties to get a reduction.
> Looks like another example of the government spending more of taxpayer's money than necessary.


What I'd love to know is how much that developement is costing the Reit to build, all costs, including the site cost.


----------



## RedOnion

Bronte said:


> What I'd love to know is how much that developement is costing the Reit to build, all costs, including the site cost.


There's quite a lot detailed in their planning application.

Note, the newspaper just picked 1 of their 3 proposals (assuming it was because of the better headline).

Option 2 was to provide apartments in another development, already built. If social housing was critical, these are available earlier.

Option 3 was to build another apartment block, to agreed designs, a short distance away. This is similar to what's happening in Cherrywood.

A policy decision is needed - do councils want to spend money in high end developments, so that social housing is integrated with non-social housing or get more space for less money in different developments.


----------



## Purple

RedOnion said:


> There's quite a lot detailed in their planning application.
> 
> Note, the newspaper just picked 1 of their 3 proposals (assuming it was because of the better headline).
> 
> Option 2 was to provide apartments in another development, already built. If social housing was critical, these are available earlier.
> 
> Option 3 was to build another apartment block, to agreed designs, a short distance away. This is similar to what's happening in Cherrywood.
> 
> A policy decision is needed - do councils want to spend money in high end developments, so that social housing is integrated with non-social housing or get more space for less money in different developments.


There should be a complete ban on any State body or State funded body buying existing housing stock to provide social housing. All they are doing is increasing housing costs for private purchasers without increasing the housing stock.


----------



## Purple

I heard a Lecturer from the school of Architecture in Bolton St. talking about the National Children's Hospital on NewsTalk this morning. She said that productivity in the construction sector has not improved at all in the last 20 years.
To put that into context in anther manufacturing sector where I work (precision machining), productivity had more than tripled in the last 20 years. That's why we can pay everyone more than twice as much but make parts 20% cheaper than we did 20 years ago.


----------

