How many landlords have quit because of rent controls?

[The Horseman]

Thanks, I know. Increasing the supply these 'ex rental' properties will help with the affordability for FTB's.

And what happens to the tenants of those ex rental properties?

 

[TheBigShort]

You seem to have difficulty with the concept that it doesn't have to actually happen to them for it to cause people to think twice about being a landlord?

If you couldn't insure a car, wouldn't it make you think twice about buying one?

Of course, but you seem to be implying that non-paying tenants is a relatively new phenomenon?
Anyone entering into the rental market needs to this possibility consideration from outset.
If they haven't, then they are incompetent and should not enter the sector as a landlord.
Landlord/tenant disputes are prominent in Irish history. Anyone entering into the rental sector as a landlord and not taking into account the risks of non-payment shouldn't be there in first place.
As was said, non-payment only accounts for a small portion of tenancies. It is a factor in people leaving the sector, but that was always the case.
Why is there an apparent upturn in people leaving the sector today?

And how are those large institutional landlords working out?
You know the ones that evict whole blocks for 'enhancements' and then put the accomm back on the market at much higher rates. The same ones that pay practically no tax and funnel their profits out of the country.

Yep, need to go after them for sure also. Unfortunately, the mindset of the general populous appear to fixated with 'free-market' ideology and non-interference in the market.
Perhaps, with a housing market/policy that operates on boom/bust cycles, people will begin to see through the nonsense of "the market"

Competition results in a market!

Say no more!

Yes, competition results in a market. But not every product or service benefits from free markets.
Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
Housing is an obvious example.

And what happens to the tenants of those ex rental properties?

??? If they are ex-rental, they have no tenants???

 

[odyssey06]

Of course, but you seem to be implying that non-paying tenants is a relatively new phenomenon?
Anyone entering into the rental market needs to this possibility consideration from outset.
If they haven't, then they are incompetent and should not enter the sector as a landlord.
Landlord/tenant disputes are prominent in Irish history. Anyone entering into the rental sector as a landlord and not taking into account the risks of non-payment shouldn't be there in first place.
As was said, non-payment only accounts for a small portion of tenancies. It is a factor in people leaving the sector, but that was always the case.
Why is there an apparent upturn in people leaving the sector today?

You make it sound as if nothing has changed in tenant legislation since the foundation of the state, or even before.

I don't think people being put off the land in 1850 had recourse to something like this. This legislation "hasn't always been the case".
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/42/enacted/en/html
[broken link removed]

Isn't that exactly what we're talking about? Why landlords are leaving the market and not being replaced?

Sure, hasn't it "always been the case" Irish people couldn't find anywhere to live. Let's resort to the old remedy of emigration then? Instead of aiming for a proper functioning rental and housing market?.

 

[T McGibney]

Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
Housing is an obvious example.

The irony is that 9 years ago we had a housing surplus. Then the State intervened and turned this into a shortage, now of crisis proprortions.

 

[odyssey06]

Yes, competition results in a market. But not every product or service benefits from free markets.
Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
Housing is an obvious example.

NAMA's doing a great job isn't it?
And all the land banks the Dublin councils are sitting on?

 

[Bronte]

Put the property up for sale, I will buy it and let it out. I will slash the rent by 50% offering decent accommodation at affordable prices that provide tenants a real alternative to home ownership (whether they can afford it or not, they now have a choice).
I bet you I can find tenants that will appreciate the property and look after it.

- With what money will you buy it?
- Why don't you just go to existing tenants and offer to pay part of their rent?
- How did you arrive at a figure of 50% of my current rent?
- My tenants appreciate the properties and look after it, some better than others
- Would you be happy to have to paint a property more often than one does one's own home
- Would you be happy for tenants to phone you at 2 am drunk because they have lost their key, or who damaged a washing machine by putting shoes into it, or who didn't bother to get a chimney sweep, and resulted in damage to your chimney flue as the chimney went on fire, or who don't pick up air born rubbish from the garden because they can't be bothered.
- What would you do in those scenarios?
- What would you do if a tenant phoned you up because the light bulb needed changing?

 

[TheBigShort]

You make it sound as if nothing has changed in tenant legislation since the foundation of the state, or even before.

The issue of non-paying tenants hasnt changed. There are still non-paying tenants today as there were, every year, for the last 150yrs and more.
Im asking why the apparent upturn in landlords leaving the sector today?

The irony is that 9 years ago we had a housing surplus. Then the State intervened and turned this into a shortage, now of crisis proprortions.

Yep, State intervention is no panacea. Its the type of intervention that needs scrutiny.
If the private sector could build enough houses then perhaps no need.
But it cant, it built too many houses in wrong places, went bust and cannot meet demand today.
The State is the only plausible agent to deliver the housing stock required.

 

[odyssey06]

The issue of non-paying tenants hasnt changed. There are still non-paying tenants today as there were, every year, for the last 150yrs and more.
Im asking why the apparent upturn in landlords leaving the sector today?

Because tenant protections keep ramping up with no corresponding increase in powers for landlords to deal with difficult tenants who hide behind the protections; or just ignore the law. Our state in general is now pathetic at dealing with these kind of people. They are one of the reasons the councils walked away from direct provision of social housing in rental sector and switched to HAP. The councils found them to be more trouble than they are worth so pity the private landlord who is "landed" with one. Look at the rent arrears of the county and city councils, tens of millions with no prospect of getting it back.

Yep, State intervention is no panacea. Its the type of intervention that needs scrutiny.
If the private sector could build enough houses then perhaps no need.
But it cant, it built too many houses in wrong places, went bust and cannot meet demand today.
The State is the only plausible agent to deliver the housing stock required.

Tell them to start building on their landbanks and stop buying up houses that FTBs are chasing; and driving landlords out of the market.

 

[odyssey06]

This is why the state as a landlord fled the market
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-tenants-owe-65m-in-unpaid-rent-437052.html

 

[Delboy]

Yes, competition results in a market. But not every product or service benefits from free markets.
Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
Housing is an obvious example.

How's the public health service been going the past 40 odd years? Biggest employer in the State isn't it, with the biggest budget?

 

[AlbacoreA]

We have have large institutional landlords now in the market, rent controls and huge improvements in tenants rights.

Job done really. They have got everything they asked for.

 

[TheBigShort]

Because tenant protections keep ramping up with no corresponding increase in powers for landlords to deal with difficult tenants who hide behind the protections; or just ignore the law.

But according to @cremeegg most tenants are great. So again, it appears we are dealing with a small cohort of tenants.
Example, if I pay my rent on time, all the time, then no amount of tenant 'protections' will have any bearing on my landlord.
I suspect it is the increase of non-payment that is stoking discontent. But if it is, it points to a wider malaise in society - insufficient incomes.

Tell them to start building on their landbanks and stop buying up houses that FTBs are chasing;

I agree.

How's the public health service been going the past 40 odd years? Biggest employer in the State isn't it, with the biggest budget?

??? What has this got to do with anything???

 

[odyssey06]

But according to @cremeegg most tenants are great. So again, it appears we are dealing with a small cohort of tenants.
Example, if I pay my rent on time, all the time, then no amount of tenant 'protections' will have any bearing on my landlord.
I suspect it is the increase of non-payment that is stoking discontent. But if it is, it points to a wider malaise in society - insufficient incomes.

Non-payment isn't the issue. It's that if you find yourself with a non paying tenant it's costly in time and money to get rid of them in favour of a paying tenant. If there weren't paying tenants out there rents wouldn't be increasing, and landlords would have 'fled' 5 years ago instead of now when rents are on the up.

There's €60 million in unpaid rent to councils who are already charging far below market rates. It's that there are no consequences to dodging the rent, and all the costs are displaced onto the landlord. Even the councils are getting out of being landlords.

 

[qwerty5]

But according to @cremeegg most tenants are great. So again, it appears we are dealing with a small cohort of tenants.

Most tenants are great. Agreed.
How many bad tenants would it take to wipe out the profits of a landlord. If you've got one property then it's one tenant.

Of course, but you seem to be implying that non-paying tenants is a relatively new phenomenon?
Anyone entering into the rental market needs to this possibility consideration from outset.
If they haven't, then they are incompetent and should not enter the sector as a landlord.
Landlord/tenant disputes are prominent in Irish history. Anyone entering into the rental sector as a landlord and not taking into account the risks of non-payment shouldn't be there in first place.

So what controls do you suggest to protect a small landlord? References are not worth anything. If you ask for large deposits you're demonised and not protection. You can't insure out of it. And you're saying they should cut the rent by 50% so you'd be happy with a few hundred quid profit a year on your couple of hundred grand asset.

 

[qwerty5]

Non-payment isn't the issue. It's that if you find yourself with a non paying tenant it's costly in time and money to get rid of them in favour of a paying tenant. If there weren't paying tenants out there rents wouldn't be increasing, and landlords would have 'fled' 5 years ago instead of now when rents are on the up.

Would it be that now that the assets are probably out of negative equity and the sales are up that maybe landlords are throwing in the towel? 5 years ago the properties were worth a lot less.

 

[odyssey06]

Would it be that now that the assets are probably out of negative equity and the sales are up that maybe landlords are throwing in the towel? 5 years ago the properties were worth a lot less.

That's probably a factor in the push and pull but we're hearing here from landlords who didn't want to sell but feel they are being pushed into it...

 

[The Horseman]

Non-payment isn't the issue. It's that if you find yourself with a non paying tenant it's costly in time and money to get rid of them in favour of a paying tenant. If there weren't paying tenants out there rents wouldn't be increasing, and landlords would have 'fled' 5 years ago instead of now when rents are on the up.

There's €60 million in unpaid rent to councils who are already charging far below market rates. It's that there are no consequences to dodging the rent, and all the costs are displaced onto the landlord. Even the councils are getting out of being landlords.

Exactly its not the non payment of rent that's the issue, its the issue of no recourse for non payment of rent hence the councils getting out of providing accommodation.

 

[cremeegg]

Because tenant protections keep ramping up with no corresponding increase in powers for landlords to deal with difficult tenants who hide behind the protections; They are one of the reasons the councils walked away from direct provision of social housing in rental sector and switched to HAP. Look at the rent arrears of the county and city councils, tens of millions with no prospect of getting it back.

I just thought this point was so important it needed to be repeated.

 

[T McGibney]

Yep, State intervention is no panacea. Its the type of intervention that needs scrutiny.
If the private sector could build enough houses then perhaps no need.
But it cant, it built too many houses in wrong places, went bust and cannot meet demand today.
The State is the only plausible agent to deliver the housing stock required.

Why? Because the State deliberately messed up its own previously functioning building regulations and planning criteria, inflating both the basic and median cost of new builds beyond the level of affordability that normal owner-occupiers and investors can bear.

 

[AlbacoreA]

A lot of people bought these as investment or as pension income. Another problem kicked down the road.