How many landlords have quit because of rent controls?

[AlbacoreA]

Interesting to look back at old reports

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/de...s/HousingStatistics/FileDownLoad,14648,en.pdf

Tenant Purchase Scheme 1,855 dwellings were purchased under the Tenant Purchase Scheme in 2006; 4,081 applications to purchase were made and 3,030 sales were approved

 

[The Horseman]

Im not saying they shouldn't, as long the net result is that a LL can offer an alternative market to the tenant offering competitive prices. They dont.
Instead it is quite often more expensive to rent than it is to own a property.

A €250,000 mortgage over 30yrs costs circa €1,000 to repay.
A property valued at €250,000 in D6 will cost nearly twice that to rent.
All over the country, in general, the rental prices exceed the cost of a mortgage on the property. This is because of the way the sector is structured - basically LL's take out 25-30yr mortgage and charge rental that covers that mortgage plus profit plus realising ALL capital appreciation.
The tenant(s) basically pay for the house for the LL to capitalize on.
There is nothing free-market, entrepreneurial about exploiting the need of people to have a roof over their heads in order to capitalize 100% on the sale of the property.
It is an unsustainable ponzi type scheme.
I have already outlined one proposal to help resolve the issue. Another proposal would be to award the tenant an incremental % ownership of the property for each payment.
If the property has 360 monthly repayments and the tenant pays all, and the rent is equal to the mortgage repayments, then when mortgage is paid in full, tenant is 50% co-owner of property.
So any re-sale, the tenant gets something back.
If LL wants to keep majority stakehold, then reduce the rents.

Every part of a free market exploits the customer, the customer needs/wants a car the supplier exploits that need/want. That is the whole basis of any business. What you are suggesting is what the State should be providing ie social housing. But until we as a society change our mindset regarding the whole entitlement culture we will continue to have these differences of opinion.

If people don't pay there dues they should be evicted be they private owners, private renters or council tenants. The fundamentals remain that everybody should pay their way. But what we have is the State passing the buck to the private landlords because again I will say we have the bizarre notion that people should not be evicted.

This mindset is not just for housing it is also for society in general. How many times do we hear of defendants up in court only to be told that they have multiple convictions and they don't get a custodial sentence. At what point do we say sorry enough it enough.

What you are proposing regarding social housing is all very well in theory but landlords are left with all the risk to carry the can, the govt bring in laws to suit themselves and you have people like yourself who may be well intentioned but you don't see the risks facing landlords on a daily basis.

Yes if you want to solve the housing crisis get supply on board, lobby your local political representatives, protest outside govt buildings but please don't lecture landlords on the morality of their investments. We have invested to try provide for ourselves so we don't have to rely on the State in our old age. My properties are my pension pot.

 

[TheBigShort]

Just to clear something's up.

I am not anti- LL. They do serve a purpose in providing accommodation to those who cannot afford their own home and to those who is does not suit to buy.

I also bear no animosity to the thousands of LL's who simply go about their business in the system that they find themselves in.

I hope that much is clear.

I do however detest landlords who prey on the poor and vulnerable and exploit their need for shelter by extracting extortionate rents in return for squalid accommodation.
The example of the 3 storey house sub-divided into 11apts is a case in point.
I do resent LL's whose attitude seems to be to raise rents for the sake of it, in the knowledge that the State will simply pay up.

This resentment or detestment of some LL's is no different to my resentment etc of employers who wont afford basic entitlements to employees like holiday pay, or mechanics who re-clock a car for resale, or any other trade or profession that exploits others for profit through fraudulent and/or sub-standard means.
Albeit it is more profound when dealing with social necessities such as housing, food, healthcare etc

As for LL's profiting from their investments I have no issue. Clearly anyone who has being paying attention will have noticed that I have proposed a scheme (whether it would actually work or not is another thing) where LL's, or effectively property managers as I called them, could make a profit from providing accommodation.

So I dont take issue with LL's simply going about their business in this system. It is the system itself as it is engineered or developed that I take issue with. A system which does not offer any real competitive alternative, in accommodation between rent and ownership. For far too many people, particularly working people, it is a system that offers unattainable mortgages or unsustainable rent.
Something radical has to happen. Hopefully it will be peaceful and through policy.

 

[AlbacoreA]

You have to look at what's changed to make it such a problem on recent years.

The clear difference is the change in govt policy. They outsourced social and affordable housing. They stopped building it.

 

[TheBigShort]

Couldn't agree more, it been a shambles.

I dont watch Late Late Show often but it was recommended to me today to catch Philly McMahon, Stefanie Pressiner and John Connors.

They talk about housing, some of the points made in the program reflecting views in this topic.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

It was the usual guff...a freelance “comedy” writer giving out about how difficult it is to find accommodation...maybe get a real job and see how that goes?

 

[cremeegg]

It was the usual guff...a freelance “comedy” writer giving out about how difficult it is to find accommodation...maybe get a real job and see how that goes?

Do I detect a lingering regret that you prioritised gainful employment over other uses of your talents.

I recognise the signs, I could have been great myself.

 

[TheBigShort]

Because people with 'real' jobs don't have issues with finding accommodation?

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Because people with 'real' jobs don't have issues with finding accommodation?

They do, which is why it is infuriating to see millenial whingers wheeled out to discuss issues that are more relevant to serious people.

 

[TheBigShort]

With respect Gekko, housing in not 'more relevant' to one over another.
Everyone needs housing, regardless of what they do.

Even if it is effectively an artificial trade - like pensions industry.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

With respect Gekko, housing in not 'more relevant' to one over another.
Everyone needs housing, regardless of what they do.

Even if it is effectively an artificial trade - like pensions industry.

With respect, BigShort, I’d prefer not to hear the grievances of whinging millenials who think that a career as a fish psychologist entitles them to a mews in Ranelagh and Tribeca chicken wings every second day. The serious issues are at risk of being drowned out by the faux angst of millenial layabouts.

 

[The Horseman]

Just to clear something's up.

I am not anti- LL. They do serve a purpose in providing accommodation to those who cannot afford their own home and to those who is does not suit to buy.

I also bear no animosity to the thousands of LL's who simply go about their business in the system that they find themselves in.

I hope that much is clear.

I do however detest landlords who prey on the poor and vulnerable and exploit their need for shelter by extracting extortionate rents in return for squalid accommodation.
The example of the 3 storey house sub-divided into 11apts is a case in point.
I do resent LL's whose attitude seems to be to raise rents for the sake of it, in the knowledge that the State will simply pay up.

This resentment or detestment of some LL's is no different to my resentment etc of employers who wont afford basic entitlements to employees like holiday pay, or mechanics who re-clock a car for resale, or any other trade or profession that exploits others for profit through fraudulent and/or sub-standard means.
Albeit it is more profound when dealing with social necessities such as housing, food, healthcare etc

As for LL's profiting from their investments I have no issue. Clearly anyone who has being paying attention will have noticed that I have proposed a scheme (whether it would actually work or not is another thing) where LL's, or effectively property managers as I called them, could make a profit from providing accommodation.

So I dont take issue with LL's simply going about their business in this system. It is the system itself as it is engineered or developed that I take issue with. A system which does not offer any real competitive alternative, in accommodation between rent and ownership. For far too many people, particularly working people, it is a system that offers unattainable mortgages or unsustainable rent.
Something radical has to happen. Hopefully it will be peaceful and through policy.

With respect you are anti landlord. You want landlords/property managers to generate a profit you deem acceptable. That is not how business works. The market determines what an acceptable profit is, what you are proposing is that which the State should provide ie non profit making just covering costs.

You seem to forget being a landlord is a business pure and simple. You only have to look at the Irish Independent over the weekend to see how dysfunctional our property sector is. It took a landlord 18 months to get a non paying tenant out of their property while losing rental income and incurring costs of €25k in total (which I understand excludes legal costs although I can be corrected on the legal costs).

The title of this thread is why are landlords leaving the market because of rent controls then these are part of the reason. Landlords need to be able to "buffer themselves" from this type of situation and we are not allowed increase rent to provide this buffer. For the majority of landlords who hold a single property an experience like this would spell financial ruin.

The State is never going to do this no matter how much you want it. Unless a political party in power actually agrees to evict people for non payment of rent/mortgage (be they private or council tenants).

 

[The Horseman]

Couldn't agree more, it been a shambles.

I dont watch Late Late Show often but it was recommended to me today to catch Philly McMahon, Stefanie Pressiner and John Connors.

They talk about housing, some of the points made in the program reflecting views in this topic.

I happened to see that particular segment of the show. I was particularly disappointed by the above regarding their views on housing and the housing situation. They like a lot (not all) of their counterparts want not realizing you don't get everything you want in life. It actually reminded me of a spoiled child.

We all wanted things growing up that we could not have, it was disappointing but that is part and parcel of life. We have to learn to be content with what we have. If you want something you work for it plain and simple, you may not get it even if you do work for it, that's life.

I did have a particular issue with the "scum" reference to the Gardaí. This is completely unacceptable on national TV. Yes if people have an issue with the property sector and the States failure to provide accommodation they protest at Govt buildings, local authority offices actually anywhere that is owned by the State.

 

[TheBigShort]

With respect you are anti landlord

I have spelled out that LL's do provide a necessary function. I have distinguished between good and bad landlords.

You want landlords/property managers to generate a profit you deem acceptable.

No I do not, either you are incapable of understanding what I posted or you are deliberately trolling.
I want LL's/PM to generate profits that they themselves deem acceptable. In a competitive market.

That is not how business works.

That is how business works.

The market determines what an acceptable profit is, what you are proposing is that which the State should provide ie non profit making just covering costs.

No I am not. I clearly proposed that the State outsource the management of public housing in RPZ's to the private sector.
If there is a profit to be made, the market will determine the most competitive price.

You seem to forget being a landlord is a business pure and simple.

It is a business yes. The business of providing housing. A essential element of any functioning society.

You only have to look at the Irish Independent over the weekend to see how dysfunctional our property sector is. It took a landlord 18 months to get a non paying tenant out of their property while losing rental income and incurring costs of €25k in total (which I understand excludes legal costs although I can be corrected on the legal costs).

Im not disputing that housing sector is dysfunctional. It has been for 15yrs+. The State has abdicated its role in providing housing for the population and effectively allowed a free reign to the private sector.
The consequences of such are now apparent - rents at all time highs and still increasing (despite the caps)
- house prices increasing
-homelessness increasing
- waiting lists for housing increasing

and I dont doubt that even greater portions of society are looking over their shoulders feeling the pressure of increasing debt.

The title of this thread is why are landlords leaving the market because of rent controls then these are part of the reason.

And to date, the only concrete figures produced suggest that landlords are entering the sector, not leaving.

Landlords need to be able to "buffer themselves" from this type of situation and we are not allowed increase rent to provide this buffer.

A tenant also needs to be able to "buffer themselves" from the prospect of increasing rents, notices of eviction.

For the majority of landlords who hold a single property an experience like this would spell financial ruin.

For a lot of tenants, who are one or two pay cheques away from more debt and borrowings, increasing rents to meet "market value" is financial ruin, if not, homelessness.

The State is never going to do this no matter how much you want it. Unless a political party in power actually agrees to evict people for non payment of rent/mortgage (be they private or council tenants).

Your 'solutions' to the issues surrounding non-payment of rent are old hat 19th century.
Eviction, and you pine for the days where custodial sentences would be more frequent.
Evict and lock them up - recipe for violent revolt.

 

[AlbacoreA]

LL leave and enter all the time. The stats suggest loads left and since then you have a net trickle increase entering the market each year.
You would assume most leaving would smaller LL. While there will be more REIT entering than previously.
It seems from lots stories we've seen in the media REITs will drive the rent far more aggressively and upmarket than smaller LL.
The "competitive price" for REIT means a whole different thing.

 

[TheBigShort]

They like a lot (not all) of their counterparts want not realizing you don't get everything you want in life. It actually reminded me of a spoiled child.

Desiring security of tenure is acting like a spoiled child? You cannot be serious. Wanting a place to call home and not having to worry unduly about being able to pay rent or mortgage is a perfectly legitimate aspiration for everyone.
Equating that with a spoiled child is delusional.

We all wanted things growing up that we could not have, it was disappointing but that is part and parcel of life.

We have to learn to be content with what we have.

So homeless people should just be content with their lot?
Working families should just accept that they will never have a place of their own?
Educated and skilled workers should just accept that their education and skills was never really to benefit them, but to enable them to pay high rents?
This is bizarre thinking, devoid of any realism.

If you want something you work for it plain and simple, you may not get it even if you do work for it, that's life.

So are rent price caps. Part of life. Maximum market values, you may not get them but keep working at it - thats life.

 

[TheBigShort]

LL leave and enter all the time. The stats suggest loads left and since then you have a net trickle increase entering the market each year.
You would assume most leaving would smaller LL. While there will be more REIT entering than previously.
It seems from lots stories we've seen in the media REITs will drive the rent far more aggressively and upmarket than smaller LL.
The "competitive price" for REIT means a whole different thing.

And what is your point? You seem to think LLs should be able to charge "market rates" without interference?
On the other hand you are forewarning us of REITs doing exactly that.

The question is about how many LLs have quit because of rent controls.
Nobody knows.
You are the only one to have produced some form of figures which suggest, that since rents controls have been introduced, more LLs have entered the sector.

I know it doesn't support the narrative, but thats life!

 

[T McGibney]

You seem to think LLs should be able to charge "market rates" without interference?

The horror.

Meanwhile, government interference is working out so well.

 

[The Horseman]

Desiring security of tenure is acting like a spoiled child? You cannot be serious. Wanting a place to call home and not having to worry unduly about being able to pay rent or mortgage is a perfectly legitimate aspiration for everyone.
Equating that with a spoiled child is delusional.




So homeless people should just be content with their lot?
Working families should just accept that they will never have a place of their own?
Educated and skilled workers should just accept that their education and skills was never really to benefit them, but to enable them to pay high rents?
This is bizarre thinking, devoid of any realism.



So are rent price caps. Part of life. Maximum market values, you may not get them but keep working at it - thats life.

We all worry about mortgages, rent, bills in general that's a fact of life. Some people will never have a home they purchase themselves that has always been and will always be in every normal society.

Education and skilled workers may not afford to own a property or may not afford to own a property where they want.

Rent caps don't work and they have been proven not to work as it removes the benefit of investing but sure hey you seem to have all the answers and are unwilling to accept any other viewpoint as yours is the only one that is right.

The reference to spoiled children is complaining about not getting what they want. None of us get what we want be it employment, property or personal life but we get on with life.

But sure hey all of these people are "entitled" to what they want not what they need!

 

[The Horseman]

I have spelled out that LL's do provide a necessary function. I have distinguished between good and bad landlords.



No I do not, either you are incapable of understanding what I posted or you are deliberately trolling.
I want LL's/PM to generate profits that they themselves deem acceptable. In a competitive market.



That is how business works.



No I am not. I clearly proposed that the State outsource the management of public housing in RPZ's to the private sector.
If there is a profit to be made, the market will determine the most competitive price.



It is a business yes. The business of providing housing. A essential element of any functioning society.



Im not disputing that housing sector is dysfunctional. It has been for 15yrs+. The State has abdicated its role in providing housing for the population and effectively allowed a free reign to the private sector.
The consequences of such are now apparent - rents at all time highs and still increasing (despite the caps)
- house prices increasing
-homelessness increasing
- waiting lists for housing increasing

and I dont doubt that even greater portions of society are looking over their shoulders feeling the pressure of increasing debt.



And to date, the only concrete figures produced suggest that landlords are entering the sector, not leaving.



A tenant also needs to be able to "buffer themselves" from the prospect of increasing rents, notices of eviction.



For a lot of tenants, who are one or two pay cheques away from more debt and borrowings, increasing rents to meet "market value" is financial ruin, if not, homelessness.



Your 'solutions' to the issues surrounding non-payment of rent are old hat 19th century.
Eviction, and you pine for the days where custodial sentences would be more frequent.
Evict and lock them up - recipe for violent revolt.

So to sum up outsource the management of the housing sector (but only charge a rent that we deem as acceptable which is the most the market will offer), the number of landlords are reducing despite what you think, the number of tenancies may be up but the actual number of landlords are down (due to institutional landlords registering individual tenancies)

A tenant does indeed need to buffer themselves but not at the expense of the landlord. Its a business trans plain and simple.

All mortgage holders are only one or two pay cheques away from homeless as well but sure don't worry about them so.

So your solution is homes for everybody, pay the rent/mortgage if you feel like it and if you don't you wont get evicted.