(Potential) Landlords - What Would Get You Into / Keep You In The Market

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Why? If you are a committed landlord you don't need to get rid of tenants arbitrarily. If you are not committed you can always regain the property for personal use or to sell.
Click to expand...

Having the option not to extent a tenancy or set tenancies to 4-6years would be better. Landlord and tenant could part ways amicably.
At the moment you only have a right to sell or move in yourself or family member. Then there is an issue that a tenant can get up and walk out the door tomorrow and you as the landlord may have to give long notice periods.

What if you had a tenant that in the first 6months you did not hear from them. They paid on time, kept the house in order and not issue with neighbours and then after the 6months things changed. Any issues with maintenance you dealt with straight away as a good landlord does..
After 6months the tenant can do what they wish. Suddenly your tenant that rangs you up the change a light bulb, put a battery in the door bell, new flooring requests due to them damaging the flooring. Requesting new beds, new table chairs etc. You would bide your time knowing the 4year cycle was up and you had an option to part ways.
 
My tenants left and I have decided to sell. It was never my intention and I always thought it would be a long term-game. I am not an accidental landlord and bought the property solely for investment purposes. My decision to sell is based on combined factors which all together create what I think is a very negative environment for landlords.
- when we invested, our goal was to provide a high-quality rental, trying to maximize our price as well as our service. With 8 years of rent controls, our rent is €400 lower than the cheapest option I found on Daft in our county and we could realistically get €600 more a month. We have no idea when the rent could potentially be back in line with the market price and based on the current political discourse, I don't think it is going to happen any time soon.
Basically, for the past few years, we have been subsidising our tenants, some of whom had actually higher incomes than us. This didn't necessarily encourage them to take good care of our property or to leave it in a decent state.
- we are lucky that our property could be of interest to first-time buyers or downsizers. However, rent controls have destroyed the possibility for us to sell to potential investors. Time will tell if we managed to sell at a reasonable price or if the controls have devaluated our property.
- with the rent controls and the increased value of our apartment, our gross return (before tax but after expenses) is actually less than 4.6 to 4.8%. I consider this return quite poor based on the risk involved (high costs in case of troublesome tenants)
- the indefinite tenancy and eviction bans (which I see could be prolonged) increase the uncertainty and risks. The first thing that was mentioned in the media last week when the homeless figures were released was a discussion about the possibility of extending the eviction ban. The policies floated around by some parties are also very worrying from a landlord's point of view. While one of the reasons I thought I would keep my property long-term is that I could see my teenagers eventually moving into it in a few years. Now, I don't know if that will be possible when needed. Furthermore, as mentioned before, if not satisfied with your tenants, you might decide not to renew a 4 or 6 years lease.
- I think that the bad press about landlords increases the risk. The way our apartment was left last month shows a lot of disrespect for our property and they were what we could call good-paying tenants.
- the high level of tax (though I was aware of it when I invested)
- the ever-changing laws and processes. The new RTB website is a nightmare.
- the clear lack of understanding from our ministers of the rental market. I was astonished by the remarks on white goods last week.
I think it is going to be very difficult to attract new private landlords with the current price of housing and the restrictive lending practices. But I think the government should try to keep the one they have. It is however not populist enough.
 
Sconeandjam said:
Having the option not to extent a tenancy or set tenancies to 4-6years would be better. Landlord and tenant could part ways amicably.
Click to expand...
If a tenant is fulfilling their obligations then it's reasonable to provide them with legal protection from a capricious landlord.

Simply not liking a tenant is not a good reason for the landlord to be allowed to terminate the lease.
 
For me it's about regulatory risk, I have the notion, which might well prove unfounded, that if you have a 4/6 year tenancy legally you could get out at the end of it even under SinnFein rule.
If you are on indeterminate duration and the Sinners get in and introduce selling with tenants in situe only you are scuppered, the hope is that with a fixed term lease they couldn't enforce it on you. But again it might not make any difference.

I have a couple of years left on an old part 4 before rolling to a lease of indefinite duration and it's definitely a deadline for me to get out.
If you roll over, there's some ban and Sinn Fein change regulations you could be trapped forever.

You probably may as well legally adopt your tenants at that point.
 
Politically, SinnFein are probably the one party that could gain by introducing carrot rather than stick policies to stem the flood of landlords leaving.
Very easy to motivate as helping stop the massive reduction in rentals and to capitalise on the government policy failure in same, might win them a few votes from the 300k or so landlords in the country.
 
RonnieShinbal88 said:
For me it's about regulatory risk, I have the notion, which might well prove unfounded, that if you have a 4/6 year tenancy legally you could get out at the end of it even under SinnFein rule.
Click to expand...
I find this risk pretty overblown. A government won't change overnight, legislation will take time to be debated and signed, and it won't have retrospective force.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but there are question marks around many of the measures introduced since 2016 (particularly permanent capping of rents below market levels).

Rent restrictions were struck down before in the Supreme Court and I have a feeling we'll be back there again.
 

We have this constitutional referendum on the cards also, who knows what will happen there, they might have legal carte blanche.

I know it might all be overblown and things might not be as bad as feared, it might be meet the new boss same as the old boss on many fronts whoever gets in, but the risk from my perspective is pretty high. If I think about selling, the main feeling will be a sense of relief to get out.
Plus the appeal of doing something with my money that has less stigma attached to it.
 
That is scary stuff because we know from recent trends that the answer to many of these questions is not going to consider landlords, no-one will factor in their feelings on any of them:
  • At what level does rent become unaffordable?
  • If a tenant can no longer pay is their landlord still entitled to ask them to leave?
  • What is the position in respect of squatters?
  • Does the right extend to purely the accommodation, or to be effective must it be located where the recipient wishes to be?
  • Will this require the introduction of purchase price caps, to prevent the purchase of properties in areas being outside of the reach of those on the standard industrial wage?

It could go from RPZ limits to a percentage limit of your tenants salary.
Trying to sell your property, prospective buyers will asking for the tenant's CV.

Moderator's note: the above questions come from this article.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RonnieShinbal88 said:
Moderator's note: the above questions come from this article.
Click to expand...
I thought this article was a bit misdirected.

A right to housing would tend to impose obligations on the government rather than private landlords.

A homeless person could sue the state after a certain period in emergency accommodation and demand to have the state pay for own-door shelter via a social tenancy, HAP or RAS.
 
I think you just don't know. It depends on what the new article in the Constitution says or what what the Courts ultimately say it says. Personally, I would be very wary of it, especially as the idea is enthusiastically supported by all the hard left parties. They definitely see something in it beyond the ability to sue the State because you're homeless.
 
I think a decision has been made in the collective in Ireland that it's better not to have small landlords, anti-landlord citizens are very vocal and small landlords don't have a voice. A big part of that at the moment is that they are not the most vulnerable group on average (although some may be in financial difficulty) and it's all framed as a zero sum game landlord versus tenants, speaking up in favor of one 'side' when the other is having a tough time of it is hard to do. This view needs to change through communication and education on the system - it isn't a zero sum game, the government has a big role in housing and in the rental market and a big portion of all rent from private landlords goes to them (with another chunk going to banks on BTL mortgage interest).

One argument against small landlords is that many may be shorter term landlords, they may sell up and tenants then have to move and tenants deserve lifetime tenure/a forever home (I don't think this is realistic but it seems to be a very popular belief).

The argument for longer term small landlords is obvious, for ones that are not lifetime invested, I still see huge benefits in having their supply and in particular to meet demand for short term supply. Someone goes away for a year or two and they feel safe renting their place out knowing they wil get it back, someone making the opposite career stint or a student etc. can use the unit and that leaves longer term units free for longer term tenants. Someone young starting out their career may be happy with short term supply giving them more choice or less of a wait in finding a place (versus a market with more limited long term options all tied up long term), they have no expectation of a forever home yet. You probably have locations where big landlords just won't invest, but you still need to provide some rentals for some small local demand and you need local 'mom and pop' supply. The rent a room scheme helps with some of that but many adults will want their own place.

Whatever your thoughts on it, and they all have a right to be given equal weight, small landlords are being treated in a completely unfair manner in this country at the moment and that is not OK.

If we want a functioning rental market long term this treatment will surely have a significant negative impact on all the benefits listed above.
That's aside from the risk of living in a country where the government makes up for policy failure by suspending property rights.

Policy should be stated clearly and if that's to get small landlords out, treat them fairly and let them get out.
 
And if policy is to keep them in then treat them fairly and have conditions such that a landlord will choose to stay in, instead of essentially kidnapping them via eviction bans!
 
RonnieShinbal88 said:
And if policy is to keep them in then treat them fairly and have conditions such that a landlord will choose to stay in, instead of essentially kidnapping them via eviction bans!
Click to expand...
The other issue is that basically all freedom to contract between adult parties (landlords and tenants) has been removed and the default is the RTA no matter what the parties may want to agree. The state has infantilised tenants and landlords.

Suppose a tenant wants a bulletproof commitment from a landlord in a contract that they won't sell or seek to regain it for five years. They will probably pay a higher rent as a result but why shouldn't they be allowed to agree this with a landlord?
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Suppose a tenant wants a bulletproof commitment from a landlord in a contract that they won't sell or seek to regain it for five years. They will probably pay a higher rent as a result but why shouldn't they be allowed to agree this with a landlord?
Click to expand...
At the moment it's because people have no options, they need somewhere to live and there is no supply, you would have people paying huge amounts of their salary even for a short term contract.

Supply would sort that out but we don't have enough, the question is how to deal with the situation fairly.

Do we drive small landlords out, worsening supply and wait for long term supply to catch up (this maximises builder profit and probably justifies giving them even bigger tax breaks/subsidies).

Or do we keep small landlords in, get supply up and relax the crazy restrictions later when the market functions more normally.

Short term they need to stop evictions of any kind, essentially they seem to want the higher value contracts you are suggesting, actually much higher value because you'd have an agreement in there that the tenant might not have to pay rent for years if they decide they value the saving over the associated reputational risk. And that cost is due to the drawn out eviction process they allow (intentionally?).

But they don't want to pay landlords for the much more onerous and expensive to provide contract. It seems they just want to change the rules so all that extra value is taken from landlords.

But landlords can and are leaving the market so it doesn't add up, either they don't see that full picture, which is hard to believe, or they see a benefit to the short term hit to supply, or a large cost to doing something that stops it while incentivising landlords.
 
Always Learning said:
Potential Landlords - what would convince you to invest in the property rental market over your other investment options
Click to expand...
  • Lower income tax on rental income.
  • Fair treament of Landlords & enforcement of Laws & compliant Contract.
  • Fair & Stable regulations. Leaning toward free market w/o RPZ / rent control from Government.
  • Mature tenant pool that are willing & capable to maintain someone else's property as if it were their own & pay their rent due on time in full over a long term lease.
 
I only have a single residential property which is leased long term to the local authority ( I was a private landlord in the past) but we’re I a private landlord, my top three demands would be

1. Make it easier to evict rogue tenants

2. Make it easier to evict rogue tenants

3. Make it easier to evict rogue tenants
 
Yes - I think its something that gets missed, but there is no reason why, for example, a nurse earning 55k a year should pay more tax than someone whose sole earnings come from renting property earning the same.
 
lff12 said:
Yes - I think its something that gets missed, but there is no reason why, for example, a nurse earning 55k a year should pay more tax than someone whose sole earnings come from renting property earning the same.
Click to expand...
We've kinda understood this for a long time already but the question is rather is there any reason why the nurse should pay less tax than this other person?

(edited for clarity)
 
Last edited:
I am not a landlord because I cannot afford to be one. Its as simple as that. All my savings went on buying my PPR, so I dont have the deposit or income to spare to even consider it.
If I did, I would consider it, but only on the basis that I would actually make a profit, just like any other business venture. I would not buy a property to let unless the current market rent minus tax actually covered my outlays and left me with some profit.
Ultimately its the same consideration as I have towards any other potential business venture - will it cost me more than I can afford to spend and have I reasonable expectation of making a profit? If not then no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register