I can’t be bothered to increase the rent !!!

I've long come to the conclusion that being a landlord in Ireland is only worth it if you have no other source of income and will not be paying tax on the rental income at the higher rate. Otherwise the tax take on the small profit you can make is not worth the hassle and the risk (bad or non paying tenants, changes in government regulations, RPZ, not being able to get your property back, property losing capital value as let under market rates, etc. ). You should be able to get a better return on your investment investing in global equities.
 
Last edited:
As soon as our current tenant moves out we will only rent on the basis of non furnished apartment. Tenant is then responsible for their own washing machine, bed, sofa etc. Tired of tenants not looking after appliances etc and then looking for replacements.in places like Germany you don't even get kitchen presses and certainly no furniture. Way to go for small landlords.
 
As soon as our current tenant moves out we will only rent on the basis of non furnished apartment.
Leaving out the minimum requirements on white goods and of course, the non-ubquitous microwave, this is something I am considering. Under RPZ, I am not aware of any stipulation that a property must be relet at both same rent and same condition/terms (furnished) to a new tenant.
 
Under RPZ, I am not aware of any stipulation that a property must be relet at both same rent and same condition/terms (furnished) to a new tenant.
There is no stipulation that would allow an alteration of contents to allow you bypass the increase limit,
 
After one of my renter left, I didn't replace some of the furniture that had been destroyed as they were surplus to requirements and they were probably destroyed because they were badly stored by the tenants. Would that be seen as bypassing the increase limit, you might consider so. For me, it's managing my basic costs. On the other hand, when I upgraded some of the goods provided and decided to change to more efficient products (instead of basic options that would have me covered), I wasn't able to increase my rent further despite offering a better service to the renter. So, on balance, I am not going to loose sleep over it.
 
no stipulation that would allow an alteration of contents to allow you bypass the increase limit,
That's rather cryptic. I never said anything about increasing the rent. Quote:
must be relet at both same rent and
And increase rent beyond the RPZ limits?
@DannyBoyD did not suggest it either

As @Premos says, it's about managing my costs which is very important for any business.
If there is no stipulation and the basic requirements are covered, then its ok.

I do not get why I or another property owner should have to let furnished or be legally obliged to continue letting furnished. Unfurnished would also be attractive to some and they may even look after the property beter when they own the contents (excl mandatory items, including non-ubquitous microwave)
 
Last edited:
That's rather cryptic. I never said anything about increasing the rent.
Yeah, I misread it.
I do not get why I or another property owner should have to let furnished or be legally obliged to continue letting furnished.
There is no obligation outside of that in the minimum standards regs. In a landlord's market it makes financial not to invest in furniture or fittings beyond the legal minimum, you will be limiting the pool of potential tenants, but so long as you can find some who are happy to supply their own and who you are are happy with then you're on a winner.
 
@Leo
That's fair enough. An unfurnished let substantially below current market rents for a similar property is a significant opportunity for a tenant, especialy if they are saving for a home of their own. The savings on rent will buy a lot of furniture in ikea that they will own for their new home, and the low rent helps them achieve their goal.

The only downside for an owner is a change to RPZ that allows a reset of rent for new tenant and a substantial increase for existing.
 
An unfurnished let substantially below current market rents for a similar property is a significant opportunity for a tenant, especialy if they are saving for a home of their own. The savings on rent will buy a lot of furniture in ikea that they will own for their new home, and the low rent helps them achieve their goal.
In better supplied markets that's the trend alright, fully furnished attract considerable more rent, I'd imagine unfurnished properties here are attracting pretty similar rents to fully furnished right now though.
 
Like any business you should be keeping on top of your margins. I feel like the nature of the rental market will evolve to having more unfurnished outside of the legal requirements. In a market with plenty of demand for any type of rental, why would you provide things you don't need to?
When I was a more mature renter I would have happily bought some of my own furniture and paid to move it as I moved. For the most part our landlords had decent beds etc but not always.
 
@Leo From my 10 years of renting in Dublin, furnished and unfurnished had little difference in the monthly rent.

I would love to see changes though with more unfurnished being offered or potentially allow tenants to request the property to be unfurnished when they move in. Would cause issues for landlords who have furniture.

I always found landlord furniture to either be cheap or bought 2nd hand 10 to 20 years ago when they started renting the place out.
 
Back
Top