Landlords NOT selling up

From my own perspective, I am now at four rental properties.

My view on the property I own were relatively straightforward that I would use as pension supplement and pass onto my children.

The Govt are making that extremely difficult.

One of the tenants is leaving at end of Oct, I had just about convinced myself to continue in a rigged game hoping that things would improve....cue Govt sensing this and their introduction of eviction ban and I'm back to seriously thinking of selling.

All they are short of doing is using landords as doormats. They seem to have an agenda of chasing small landlords out of the rental market. As a FG voter and member I will remember this at next election and won't be voting for Varadkar (in my constituency) or FF. FG are no longer a party of middle class.

The dilemma remains but coming to the conclusion that after 20+ odd years I no longer have the energy to deal with RTB (incompetent) and Govt(utterly useless) and may bow out and look at alternative property investment in UK.

Who knows I will probably change my mind but for someone like me to even consider selling up says it all really.
 
I have been flip/flopping sell/don't sell since the eviction ban has made me look into things a lot more, which is a hidden benefit of it at least.
I have around 18 months until the end of a part 4 cycle, I will probably give notice at the end of that.

I would either sell at that point or maybe look at short term corporate lettings (seems like it might be a lot of hassle), depending on the market conditions.

I definitely want to avoid moving to an indefinite duration lease, for reasons I gave on another thread, mainly that the property value becomes tied to rent (if selling with tenants in situe becomes law) and the risk that the RPZ controlled rent would fall way behind market rents due to periods of sustained inflation.
 
Have decided not to sell, bought when very few were buying property in 2012 (PPR) and an apartment in Dublin a year later..I can recall hearing people say on radio that they would be knocking apartments down such was the overbuild.

Will stick to my guns and trust my contrarian intuition.
 
I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu? A 300k house suddenly worth 200k. That isn't a concern for ye? Or do ye see things playing out differently.
 
PebbleBeach2020 said:
I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu? A 300k house suddenly worth 200k. That isn't a concern for ye? Or do ye see things playing out differently.
Click to expand...
Who is going to buy a house with a tenant in situ, only another landlord, but wait, the landlords are selling up and getting out as fast as their legs can carry them so what's the answer here?
 
PebbleBeach2020 said:
I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu?
Click to expand...
Probably couldn't be any worse than FG/FF, both parties and especially FG no longer represent me or people like me, landord, hard working middle class who get up early in the morning (laughable).

Such a move would be unconstitutional and no guarantee that SF will get into power as a single party and would likely self destruct within a short period in power....purely speculative, who knows anyway betting the house (s) on black ..... (def not red)
 
PebbleBeach2020 said:
I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu? A 300k house suddenly worth 200k. That isn't a concern for ye? Or do ye see things playing out differently.
Click to expand...
Yes it's a major concern however I don't see an election before 2025 so I have time. A lot can happen in a couple of years. There is also a chance they are bluffing..
 
venice said:
Yes it's a major concern however I don't see an election before 2025 so I have time. A lot can happen in a couple of years. There is also a chance they are bluffing..
Click to expand...
Two years away. Now that the eviction ban is in, I see it being extended. Just like the RPZ. Do people expect the RPZ to disappear anytime???
 
Knuttell said:
Probably couldn't be any worse than FG/FF, both parties and especially FG no longer represent me or people like me, landord, hard working middle class who get up early in the morning (laughable).

Such a move would be unconstitutional and no guarantee that SF will get into power as a single party and would likely self destruct within a short period in power....purely speculative, who knows anyway betting the house (s) on black ..... (def not red)
Click to expand...
Fine Gael’s problem is that there are no votes in a rational position. They’re fighting a rearguard action against Sinn Fein/IRA and Kwasi Doherty.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Fine Gael’s problem is that there are no votes in a rational position. They’re fighting a rearguard action against Sinn Fein/IRA and Kwasi Doherty.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they have forgotten their base. People voting for SF are not going to vote FG, they just aren't. FG trying to appeal to SF voters is pointless.

It would be interesting to hear landlords not selling, how they see the RPZ in the future, the issue of vacant possession in the future, taxation in the future, regulation in the future and the market as a whole. For me, the nett returns are too low following appreciation of an asset, rising interest rates and increased threats and regulation (ever changing!)
 
PebbleBeach2020 said:
Two years away. Now that the eviction ban is in, I see it being extended. Just like the RPZ. Do people expect the RPZ to disappear anytime??
Click to expand...
The difference is that the eviction ban needs to be temporary to get around the protection on property rights in the constitution. It would surely be challenged if they extended it. I'm no expert on constitutional law but would see it more likely that it would end and then they would bring another one in the following winter rather than extending it.

There is a risk to selling at the moment also, if you issue notice to tenants at the moment you can't start to sell until June, it's possible the property market could drop significantly over the next 8 months. The interest rate rises will surely get passed on by the banks in the new year. Other countries have seen 15% property drops recently due to raising interest rates, and it's early days into the rate rise impact. Amazon sales are way down, people have started cutting back already, companies have started scaling back on jobs, a recession is highly likely. The various central banks are already factoring it in and are using language to indicate that they might loosen policy in the near future. If the Irish banks continue to absorb increases and make relatively small gradual increases, it's possible that the property market here could ride out a short recession without a massive crash.
 
The ‘problem’ is that the Sinn Fein/IRA base are gullible fools who are swallowing their ‘free houses for all’ nonsense.

Sinn Fein/IRA are our Trump or Brexit. It’s just soundbite-based nonsense.

These guys are the political wing of a terrorist organisation. It’s basically “Vote for ISIS and we’ll give you a free house” and gullible fools are falling for it.
 
Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements.
But that's not supposed to be the government's policy. It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.
Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people. Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish stable lifestyle. Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.
Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change. Its grossly unfair.
 
Allpartied said:
Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements.
But that's not supposed to be the government's policy. It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.
Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people. Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish stable lifestyle. Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.
Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change. Its grossly unfair.
Click to expand...
Mary Lou i told you not to go near the real computer!!!!
Last warning or no treat in your lunchbox tomorrow.
 
Lockup said:
Mary Lou i told you not to go near the real computer!!!!
Last warning or no treat in your lunchbox tomorrow.
Click to expand...
They hid the computer in the 11th bedroom in her massive house, she must have finally wandered in there!

A true socialist wouldn't be caught dead buying a rental property, any spare savings are reserved for massive home extensions.
 
Lockup said:
Mary Lou i told you not to go near the real computer!!!!
Last warning or no treat in your lunchbox tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Or I could be any moderate Social Democrat from, virtually, any civilised European country.
Ireland still following the UK, in its Thatcherite disregard for the citizen against the rentier.
 
Allpartied said:
Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements.
But that's not supposed to be the government's policy. It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.
Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people. Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish stable lifestyle. Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.
Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change. Its grossly unfair.
Click to expand...
I fully agree, that for many people security of tenure is hugely important.

Introducing new legislation giving security of tenure on existing leases at the expense of landlords is unreasonable.

Not all tenants want long term security of tenure. Many people, often young people, want to stay in an area short term.

The law should provide for both types of tenure. Landlords can offer whichever they wish, tenants can choose whichever they wish.

If landlords had a way to ensure they were paid and no damage was being done to their property, long term tenants would be preferable from their POV.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
It also increases return:)


It's a question of degree. A 100% LTV on your property portfolio is very risky, a 0% LTV is not. Something like 40%-50% for me strikes the balance between increased return due to leverage while still being able to deal with a dud tenant or liquidate portfolio for other reasons if needed.
Click to expand...
The risk doesn't depend on the % leverage. It depends on the ability to make the repayments. (obviously the repayments are higher for a bigger loan, but if you can cover the repayments there is no risk, conversely if you cannot cover the repayments !)
 
Allpartied said:
Or I could be any moderate Social Democrat from, virtually, any civilised European country.
Ireland still following the UK, in its Thatcherite disregard for the citizen against the rentier.
Click to expand...
So someone who is sent abroad to work and rents out their place can never come back to it because the 'security of tenure' of the renter, trumps their property rights. What about the 'security of tenure' of the owner?

Is the answer really to put an end to all short term lettings?
Does that not seem a bit short-sighted and extreme?

Are you not at all worried that when private landlords all leave that security of tenure might end up being in some governemtn built sh***y prefab communist ghettos that no-one wants to live in and everyone with any aspiration whatsoever emigrates to Australia/Canada/US/UK ?
 
Allpartied said:
Or I could be any moderate Social Democrat from, virtually, any civilised European country.
Ireland still following the UK, in its Thatcherite disregard for the citizen against the rentier.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the State could either house people or stop expecting the private sector to do so on their terms.

You can't pick and choose the parts of a private market that suits your agenda and disregard the others and not expect the market to react.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top