Reform of the private rental sector

[Firefly]

- who pays if the tenant thrashes the place

Hi Bronte,

Any issues with the house are obviously just normal wear & tear. In fact, it's probably the fault of private sector kitchen fitters.

Afterall.....

Tenants are good
Landlords are bad

Firefly.

 

[Bronte]

But if two or more letting agents are interested, then they enter a competitive tendering process offering to service the property to the private rental sector at a price they deem worth their while.
The letting agent that offers to manage the property for the most competitive rent will be awarded the contract to manage the property to the rental market.

Can you still not see how some people who are experienced in letting properties could make some money here? While simultaneously driving down rents in the private rental sector?

So then you'd have letting agents who wouldn't bother repairing anything ever. Why would they. They just let it fall to rack and ruin and pull out of the business by the time DCC got around to dealing with getting rid of them.

Good luck with getting repairs done if it eats into the letting agents profits in your race to the bottom.

Do you think Johnnie Rumble in the Jungle should be allowed build his towerblock on the Quays?

 

[Bronte]

Hi Bronte,

Any issues with the house are obviously just normal wear & tear. In fact, it's probably the fault of private sector kitchen fitters.

Afterall.....

Tenants are good
Landlords are bad

Firefly.

Natch, and of course there are many landlords who use Letting agents. And every single cost is billed back to the landlord and in my past life I worked in an office with such an auctioneer office linked to us. So I saw that sometimes repairs would be slip shod, not carried out in time because not communicated to tenant, to office staff, to repair man who was sent to do something else urgent elsewhere and then there were the landlords who didn't want to pay for any repair costs and disputed costs. Add in the LA and te he he.

And I've experience too of one of the carpenters working for the LA, spend most of his time doing side jobs when not repairing LA houses. Some wanted their light bulbs changed. That kind of thing. Council was paying for everything.

 

[Firefly]

And I've experience too of one of the carpenters working for the LA, spend most of his time doing side jobs when not repairing LA houses. Some wanted their light bulbs changed. That kind of thing. Council was paying for everything.

But think of all the extra jobs!!!

 

[Firefly]

Good luck with getting repairs done if it eats into the letting agents profits in your race to the bottom.

Brilliant! Races to the bottom are only okay for certain groups of people, (evil) landlords obviously being one of them!

 

[Bronte]

Brilliant! Races to the bottom are only okay for certain groups of people, (evil) landlords obviously being one of them!

And the Letting Agent couldn't care less how and with what the repairs are done in such a scenario, they just want to ensure the tenant keeps paying the rent with a minimum of hassle and the cheapest plumber in town. I can just imagine the state of the properties after a few years of that. They'd be so bad you'd be lucky to get your €400 for your 500K property which should be getting 3K a month.

The best market to be in then would be the cowboy tradesmen one, with them doing building work using washing up liquid (celtic tiger truth - and look at the 40 fab new schools that aren't built right to see how that works out, bet anything the private contractor there goes company bust before the state catches up with him).

Can't wait for Bigshorts method of preventing this cheap repairs. Shure put it in the DCC/Agent contract and see how that works out

 

[Firefly]

And the Letting Agent couldn't care less how and with what the repairs are done in such a scenario, they just want to ensure the tenant keeps paying the rent with a minimum of hassle and the cheapest plumber in town. I can just imagine the state of the properties after a few years of that. They'd be so bad you'd be lucky to get your €400 for your 500K property which should be getting 3K a month.

The best market to be in then would be the cowboy tradesmen one, with them doing building work using washing up liquid (celtic tiger truth - and look at the 40 fab new schools that aren't built right to see how that works out, bet anything the private contractor there goes company bust before the state catches up with him).

All easily fixed by a new state agency!!

 

[Bronte]

All easily fixed by a new state agency!!

We could call it NAMA, National Association of Management Agents.

 

[The Horseman]

We could call it NAMA, National Association of Management Agents.

Brilliant you just brought a smile to my face. Did you both ever consider stand up comedy!

As a landlord I completely agree with all of your observations above.

 

[The Horseman]

The LA doesn't dictate the rent that is charged. The letting agent dictates that.

All the LA does is choose which interested letting agent to outsource the management of the property too. It does this on set criteria that awards the outsourcing of the property to the letting agent/property manager that offers the most competitive rent price to the tenant.
It really isn't that hard to understand. There is a property available for outsourcing from Dublin city LA ready to rent out into private rental market. The property ordinarily could fetch €2,500-€3,000 pm. The LA doesn't want to manage it and is willing to outsource the management of the property to the private sector. All it wants in return is the equivalent of an average LA rent - €400 a month.
The letting agent can decide whatever rent it wants to apply. If only one letting agent applies to manage the property, they are on pigs back charging €3,000pm, making a killing and this proposal falls flat on its face.
But if two or more letting agents are interested, then they enter a competitive tendering process offering to service the property to the private rental sector at a price they deem worth their while.
The letting agent that offers to manage the property for the most competitive rent will be awarded the contract to manage the property to the rental market.

Can you still not see how some people who are experienced in letting properties could make some money here? While simultaneously driving down rents in the private rental sector?

If the LA doesn't dictate the rent and the letting agent does what is to stop the letting agent charging market rent? Unless there is profit in this for the letting agent why would they do it?

if there were an oversupply of properties then your suggestion may work but in the current climate it will never work.

 

[TheBigShort]

While I thought there might be some fundamental reason as to why a proposal like this might not work, I never thought that the concept would be difficult for anyone to understand. Let alone people who regard themselves as business people and are in the business of providing accommodation to tenants.

So just to elaborate a little further. LA builds property on public land in DCC. It outsources some of these properties to private sector through competitive tendering process, awarding contract to letting agent/ property managers who are prepared, amongst other things, to the letting agent that offers the lowest rent to tenants.

"Amongst other things"

The contract between LA and letting agent will be legally binding with minimum requirements for the letting agent.
- The property is fully furnished with all mod cons, fixtures and fittings etc.
- Along with the €400pm fee to LA another €300pm to be setaside for necessary and reasonable repairs and refurbishments.
- Letting agent will supply tenants with all necessary up to date contact information for local services deemed reasonable e.g. list of registered plumbers, electricians, locksmiths etc
(The days of the amateur babysitting landlord moaning about his tenants calling at 2am because they lost their key will be over. This will be a professional service, for adults....if you lost your key and are locked out, do what any other adult would do...call a locksmith).

- The €300pm is setaside in an account that is accessible to the tenant with agreement by letting agent.
- The tenant will have access to the fund on expiry of tenancy (or a % thereof no less than 50%) for amounts that were never drawn down.
- The letting agent, as well as accounting for the €300pm as a running business cost, will be able to write off any amounts against tax liability drawn down by tenant for purposes of necessary and reasonable repairs and refurbishments.
(This is a financial incentive for the letting agent to have the money spent on necessary upkeep of property. Conversely, there is a financial incentive for tenant to maintain and look after property without spending funds knowing there is a refund of rents building up in fund).

Aside from actually detailing the minutiae of an entire prospectus to be submitted for tender, I think such a scheme can show how quality private rental accommodation can be provided to the working population in RPZ's who would otherwise be drowning under extortionate rents from amateur 30yr-mortgage-ponzi-scheme HAP payment chasing "landlords".

The purpose is not to drive out landlords, but to drive out bad amateur landlords who cannot even understand basic concepts like this one.
If on the otherhand there are fundamental reasons as to why such a scheme couldn't not work (as distinct from it not being in the interests of some why it shouldn't work) I would be happy to hear those reasons.

 

[Bronte]

Aside from actually detailing the minutiae of an entire prospectus to be submitted for tender, I think such a scheme can show how quality private rental accommodation can be provided to the working population in RPZ's who would otherwise be drowning in extortionate rents as amateur 30yr-mortgage-ponzi-scheme HAP payment chasing "landlords".

The purpose is not to drive out landlords, but to drive out bad amateur landlords who cannot even understand basic concepts like this one.
.

Well there we have it. An anti private landlord post. In what way are you labelling us landlords as ponzi schemes? Not only that we landlords are so stupid we can't understand your entirely feasable idea. I particularly love that now the tenant can call out the repair men and pay for the repars themselves. That will work out fantastic. How about this for a crazy idea, which is how it works in other countries, the tenant pays the repair man themselves when they break the lock or lose their keys or damage the toilet or destroy the cooker. Here you even have to pay for the central heating boiler to be serviced annually. The only thing landlords pay for is structural issues. You'd be laughted at if you asked them to come out for anything else. And if you scratch the wooden floor it can cost you a pretty penny. Even putting up a picture on the wall can get you into trouble.

And you haven't a clue is you think RPZ's are working. Quite the opposite.

 

[TheBigShort]

An anti private landlord post.

Anti-landlord, no.

Anti-amateur HAP chasing, cant draw up reasonable tenancy agreements 'landlords', yes.

The purpose is not to drive out landlords, but to drive out bad amateur landlords

we landlords are so stupid we can't understand your entirely feasable idea.

Speak for yourself, im sure most people can follow the concept. Its pretty straightforward.

You appear to some offence to the notion of driving out 'landlords' who provide inadequate services for high rents? Why?

I particularly love that now the tenant can call out the repair men and pay for the repars themselves.

Yes, me too.

How about this for a crazy idea, which is how it works in other countries, the tenant pays the repair man themselves when they break the lock or lose their keys or damage the toilet or destroy the cooker.

That is the idea.

If there is any feasible reason as to why such a scheme couldn't work I would be glad to hear it, and if no solution can be found then its puts this idea to bed. But this is the third time I have raised this concept and nobody has returned with any fundamental reason as to why it cant work.

You'd be laughted at if you asked them to come out for anything else.

Thats the whole point! The tenant pays for all repairs, services, refurbishments, etc out of fund set up under contract. The letting agent will have minimal involvement other than to agree that any such draw downs from the fund are necessary and/or reasonable.

If you cant figure out how it is the tenant that will be paying for all these services for the upkeep of the property then you are having difficulty following simple concepts.

 

[Bronte]

Anti-amateur HAP chasing, cant draw up reasonable tenancy agreements 'landlords', yes.
.

What's an amateur landlord in your book?

And what is an amateur HAP chasing landlord?

I've HAP tenant's and no tenancy agreements ever. Much leas a reasonable one. What's a reasonable one versus an unreasonable one?

And I do indeed fail to folow your simple concepts.

 

[Bronte]

Thats the whole point! The tenant pays for all repairs, services, refurbishments, etc out of fund set up under contract. The letting agent will have minimal involvement other than to agree that any such draw downs from the fund are necessary and/or reasonable.

If you cant figure out how it is the tenant that will be paying for all these services for the upkeep of the property then you are having difficulty following simple concepts.

I just explained to you an entirely logical easy way for the tenant to pay for the repairs out of their own pocket using a tradesman of their own choosing not requiring:

a) a fund
b) enough in the fund to pay the repair from the get go
c) the management of the fund
d) the micro managing of a tenant having to contact the LA go get permission to draw down the fund to pay the tradesman
e) the supervision of this drawdown
f) the monitoring of the bill being paid
g) the question of receipts
H) and of who can deduct the receipts from tax

Explain the simple concept that you have there as it's entirely unworkable.

 

[cremeegg]

But this is the third time I have raised this concept and nobody has returned with any fundamental reason as to why it cant work.

I accept that this observation is correct.

In fact the level of misunderstanding is amazing. I think people read what the expect to see rather than what is actually written.

However the reason it won't work is because there is nothing in it for anybody to get it started.

You might not see that as fundamental, I do. No politician is going to struggle through the level of misunderstanding you have encountered here, to get such a thing started.

There is no profit in it (to launch it) therefore no one will do it. The profit motive (wether the profit is financial or otherwise) is fundamental.

 

[TheBigShort]

a) a fund

Having a fund, paid out of the rent applicable into an account accessible to the tenant to use for necessary and reasonable repairs is simple.
This will all be arranged and set up at the commencement of the tenancy, as per the contract obligations of the letting agent. It couldn't be simpler.
Having funds specifically for the purpose of refurbishment, repairs etc promotes the upkeep of a property on an ongoing basis.
It simply replaces the current deposit system and the disputes over retention and return of deposits.

b) enough in the fund to pay the repair from the get go

From the 'get-go' the letting agent will present the property to the tenant in a fully habitable state. Anything that is damaged, in need of repair or replacement will need to be fixed by letting agent before occupancy - as a landlord, you should be familiar with this concept.

c) the management of the fund

There is no 'management' of the fund. It is a bank account. With funds in it. Increasing the funds when not used, decreasing the funds when not used.
Do you struggle with online banking?

d) the micro managing of a tenant having to contact the LA go get permission to draw down the fund to pay the tradesman

There is no contacting the LA. The LA have outsourced the management of the property. The LA will have no dealings in the day to day affairs of the property. The only thing LA will be involved in is entering into contract with the letting agent and insuring the costs for any structural damage or repairs to the property.

e) the supervision of this drawdown

No supervision required. Washing machine breaks down. Tenant can either repair it themselves, call someone to repair it, buy a new washing machine or leave it sit idle and wash clothes by hand.
If tenant pays for new washing machine or pays someone to repair it they simply use money from the account of the property. If they choose not to use funds from account they will receive a bigger return on ending of the tenancy (like a deposit, but much more efficient and effective system).
If they do spend money, and money leaves the account where the fund is, the letting agent will be entitled to use the value of that drawdown against any taxable profits made from letting the property.

f) the monitoring of the bill being paid

No monitoring of any bill being paid. Either money leaves the account or it doesn't. If it leaves the letting agent will be entitled to a copy of receipt.

g) the question of receipts

Whats 'the question of receipts?' Have you heard of online banking?
The tenant(s) live their lives, in their rented property in the same manner as anyone else lives their own lives in their own property. There is minimal contact between tenant and letting agent, minimal involvement of LA.

H) and of who can deduct

Good God, have you ever heard of a contract? Have you ever heard of a competitive tendering process? Have you ever heard of rules and regulations?
These issues, and anything else you care to think about will be agreed from outset in the contract between LA and letting agent and detailed tenancy agreement between letting agent and tenant. Surely, as a landlord, you are familiar with the functions of tenancy agreements?
There is nothing in what you say that would stop the proposed reform from working.

 

[TheBigShort]

In fact the level of misunderstanding is amazing. I think people read what the expect to see rather than what is actually written.

I agree. I get a sense that instead of taking the concept on its merits and logically examining it, there is a tendency to automatically detract from the idea. Not because of any fundamental reason but for reasons of begrudgery.

However the reason it won't work is because there is nothing in it for anybody to get it started

You are touching on the healthy tradition of scepticism and begrudgery that is prevalent in our society. Admittedly this is task.

No politician is going to struggle through the level of misunderstanding you have encountered here, to get such a thing started.

I dont think however that politicians would have as much difficulty in understanding the concept. It is relatively simple.
The political divide and obtaining a consensus is another matter. Certainly the concept of LA funds be used to provide private for profit rents will not sit easy with many.
I would counter any such argument that the LA will receive the same return from the property as if it had allocated itself.
The LA will not have any costs for repairs, refurbishment etc
That working people who pay high taxes, and high rents, are in social need of rental accommodation that is affordable. They are entitled to expect that their incomes can pay for reasonable rental quality accommodation.

There is no profit in it (to launch it) therefore no one will do it. The profit motive (wether the profit is financial or otherwise) is fundamental.

This is a fundamental reason indeed. The power of persuasion is the key. Certainly my postings on the pages of AAM would be insufficient. But the only reason im putting this up here is to see if there is any real economical, technical, or financial reason why it couldn't or wouldn't work.
So far ditto in that respect. Political considerations however would be a different beast altogether, fundamental to any reform.

 

[Firefly]

There is no profit in it (to launch it) therefore no one will do it. The profit motive (wether the profit is financial or otherwise) is fundamental.

Like it or loathe it, it's the way of the world and it would have happened by now if it was. The housing market has seen so much government interference at this stage it's no wonder landlords are leaving, rents are increasing and houses are let on AirBNB.

Rents have never been higher, interest rates never lower. We should be seeing new landlords flooding the market chasing the profits to be had. But we're not. That in itself speaks volumes. Rather than trying to add yet another layer of red tape, the government should start getting out of the way.

I am in favour of tenants having protection but if they miss payments, like any other service that one rents they should lose the use of the asset. Any damages over and above obvious wear & tear and it should be very easy and quick for the landlords to bring said tenants to court and fines be imposed. Implement these 2 points alone and my bet is that an awful lot more properties for rent would hit the market bringing with them lower rents.

 

[TheBigShort]

The housing market has seen so much government interference at this stage it's no wonder landlords are leaving,

The number of landlords registered with RTB has been increasing since 2015.