How many landlords have quit because of rent controls?

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwerty5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

One. But whats the point? This is nothing new. Everyone landlord and prospective landlord should be aware that their tenant may stop paying at some point, or for a period.
Nothing new.

qwerty5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Id reform the whole rental sector. With the State building houses and infrastructure.
Property management would tender for leasehold of property. Offering quality accommodation but at competitive prices.
A real alternative rental market, with competitive affordable rents, for people who cannot afford their own home or choose not to own their own home.
Property management to be given powers to evict where a tenant is capable of paying but refuses.
Where a tenant runs into genuine difficulty, the State will operate an insurance scheme to subsidise in part rent arrears. Alternatively, unpaid rent can be written off any other tax liability the landlord may have.
 
TheBigShort said:
One. But whats the point? This is nothing new. Everyone landlord and prospective landlord should be aware that their tenant may stop paying at some point, or for a period.
Nothing new....
Click to expand...

Rents go and down, people move between places. Nothing new there either.

So this is all fake news is what you are saying.
 
Delboy said:
I don't know - you tell me! You mentioned the areas the State should intervene in, health being 1 of them. How's that working out?
Click to expand...

World Health Organization ranks us 19 out of 191 countries for overall health system performance.
Ahead of Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Australia, United States.

Healthcare is of a very high standard in this country.
Would be better if we didn't have this stupid two tier system where the public administration of the system is convuluted, resource inefficient in order to push the population into private for profit health insurance.
 
TheBigShort said:
Where did you get 100,000 from? And why do you think they all have to be built in one year?
Click to expand...
From the top of my head. How many do you think we need? We probably need a lot more than 100,000 given the population rise and building deficit we've had in the past decade. And the cost doesn't decrease if we build them over a number of years.
 
T McGibney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are one of the best funded councils in the country, they deliberately set building standards so high to keep property prices high in the area. It was so laughable the government had to pass legislation to allow them to overrule DLR. Their record on social housing building is practically non existent.

But even they can't bury their heads in sand forever:
http://www.thejournal.ie/cherrywood-town-centre-development-4046200-May2018/
 
odyssey06 said:
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are one of the best funded councils in the country, they deliberately set building standards so high to keep property prices high in the area. It was so laughable the government had to pass legislation to allow them to overrule DLR. Their record on social housing building is practically non existent.

But even they can't bury their heads in sand forever:
http://www.thejournal.ie/cherrywood-town-centre-development-4046200-May2018/
Click to expand...

Don't Panic it's only Cherrywood
 
The state doesn't have to build all the houses. But it either needs to start using its land banks, and brown field sites; or else it needs to get out of the way. The private sector can't solve the problem if the state is sitting on the land and setting unrealistic building standards. Nobody wants pokey firetraps but there has to be a middle ground.

The same applies to being a landlord if the state (and councils) aren't going to do it, they need to enable legislation to let private landlords do it. Rent controls is not that legislation.
 
So, does anyone have any expectation that the government will address the issue of single property landlords in receipt of below market rents?
Even where the increased rent would still be below the market rent, but more than the 4% allowable under RPZ rules.
I am aware of 4 such landlords, myself included, who are willing to see this year out, if the issue of below market rents is not addressed, all are giving notice and selling up in the new year.
All are fully tax compliant and HAP standards have been met and inspections completed.
4 families will be affected, all HAP cases, good long term tenants, no problems over the years.
Can anything be expected in the upcoming budget or pending legislation?
 
Tried the US market lately have we?.Or priced free market health insurance lately. Pray we're at edge of our seats to hear your insight into how successful it is.
 
pcocp said:
So, does anyone have any expectation that the government will address the issue of single property landlords in receipt of below market rents?
Click to expand...

I don't.

pcocp said:
I am aware of 4 such landlords, myself included, who are willing to see this year out, if the issue of below market rents is not addressed, all are giving notice and selling up in the new year.
Click to expand...

Good, that is at least 4 properties available to either another prospective landlord who is happy to take on the property with current arrangements or 4 properties competing for prospective owner occupiers who have been squeezed out of the housing market, in part due to private landlords competing for same house.

pcocp said:
All are fully tax compliant and HAP standards have been met and inspections completed.
Click to expand...

You mean tax payers pay most of your rent colletable because your tenants income is insufficient to pay high rents already in place, but you are threatening to exit market if you cant squeeze more out of the taxpayer.


pcocp said:
4 families will be affected, all HAP cases, good long term tenants, no problems over the years.
Click to expand...

And your solution is to allow market rents to increase. This will add to the demand of those seeking HAP.
You made a long-term business decision probably based on the Celtic Tiger dream of buying a property and getting others to pay for it all so that you can cash in on the value of property when you retire.
Fair enough.
But because it is going pear-shaped you expect others, who already pay your rent through HAP, to pay even more.

Best you get out of the sector as soon as. You are part of problem, not the solution.

Btw, its nothing personal, I do sympathize somewhat with people who have found themselves in your situation. I believe you were duped into believing you could be a landlord, like the many thousands that were duped into believing they could borrow excessively.

But the rental sector needs fundamental reform. If we carry on with this nonsense we will still be talking about housing crisis in 10,20yrs.
 
TheBigShort said:
I don't.
Good, that is at least 4 properties available to either another prospective landlord who is happy to take on the property with current arrangements or 4 properties competing for prospective owner occupiers who have been squeezed out of the housing market, in part due to private landlords competing for same house.
Click to expand...

True re prospective owner occupiers looking for a home.

TheBigShort said:
You mean tax payers pay most of your rent colletable because your tenants income is insufficient to pay high rents already in place, but you are threatening to exit market if you cant squeeze more out of the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Rents already in place not 'high' and will remain that way, and I have never 'squeezed' anyone.

TheBigShort said:
And your solution is to allow market rents to increase. This will add to the demand of those seeking HAP.
You made a long-term business decision probably based on the Celtic Tiger dream of buying a property and getting others to pay for it all so that you can cash in on the value of property when you retire.
Fair enough.
But because it is going pear-shaped you expect others, who already pay your rent through HAP, to pay even more.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a dream, and its not going pear shaped. And I can 'cash in' now if I want to. But I was always happy to take the long term view.

TheBigShort said:
Best you get out of the sector as soon as. You are part of problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...

Not how I see it. You really shouldn't place all private landlords in the same category.

TheBigShort said:
Btw, its nothing personal, I do sympathize somewhat with people who have found themselves in your situation. I believe you were duped into believing you could be a landlord, like the many thousands that were duped into believing they could borrow excessively.
Click to expand...

Not my situation, but at least I have the option of getting out, if I choose to.

TheBigShort said:
But the rental sector needs fundamental reform. If we carry on with this nonsense we will still be talking about housing crisis in 10,20yrs.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Last edited:
@pcocp you said earlier you were giving notice and selling up?
Now you are suggesting that you are happy to take long-term view? Which is it?

I dont categorize all private landlords the same.
If you are in it for the long-term then you should expect some bumps along the road. If you are prepared, have contingency funds for bad periods, other income etc...then I have no real issue.

I do take issue with what I call the Celtic Tiger dream landlords. The ones who jumped on the bandwagon, because they saw their colleagues doing the same. The ones who put very little thought into being a landlord other than to think someone else will pay their mortgage for 25-30yrs, provide a profit on top and then sell property for retirement realising all the capital gain.
Its these amateur landlords that need to be squeezed out of the sector.

The rental market for private accommodation is too wedded to the cost of mortgage repayments.
The rental should be an alternative market to house ownership market. Typically for those who cannot afford, or for those who choose not to own a property.

If a tenant cannot afford their own home, then by that definition they should not be able to afford to pay rents that are equal to or exceeding the cost of the mortgage.
 
BigShort, you’re at it again...

An investment property is an asset; it requires capital to fund it and that capital needs to make a return. By way of example, I have a rental property and it makes 6% gross which I’m happy enough with. Your “cost of the mortgage” stuff is a red herring. If the return was 3 or 4%, I’d sell because that’s not acceptable and there are other things that one can do with capital.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top