The anti-landlord legislation chickens are coming home to roost

Status
Not open for further replies.
@AlbacoreA

Between Census 2011 and Census 2016 the population of rural areas (as defined by the CSO) increased by 30k to 1.763m.

The real skill of the rural lobby is convincing the world that rural Ireland is in decline. It's not.
 
I recall a report from a few months ago which put the employment rate for the adults amongst the 10k 'homeless' at 20%. So not very high.
 

Banning bedsits was a particularly bad policy decision because in effect most "bedsit" owners were owners of pre 1963 (often listed) properties that would have needed significant alteration to re-let as studios. In practice some landlords saw the writing on the wall 5-10 years in advance and either sold up or upgraded incrementally. For example, 1000 "units" disappeared from the Dublin 6 market from 1999 to about 2002, but many of these would have been in buildings with 6-8 (I have lived in as many as 12!) units, so the "net" building sales was much smaller. In many cases these were restored as family homes or knocked for further development.

The short let market definitely also "hurt" the market by diverting some properties to short lets (we talk about AirBNB but I had a landlord putting some properties up as short let on Daft circa 2009). The jury remains out on what happens to these properties now that the ban has kicked in.

I would challenge the statement that selling to an owner occupier doesn't cause homelessness: if there was a sitting tenant or tenants, and the new owner is a single owner occupier who does not plan to rent out, there is tenant(s) displacement, and if the tenancy was significantly rent capped previously, the tenant may have significant difficulty in finding a new tenancy. Of course, if the new owner is a former tenant, THEIR tenancy will now be available so in some cases, yes, it may not impact supply quite so much, but the barriers to borrowing are so significant for new borrowers it would be unlikely that anybody earning under 70k per annum in Dublin will be able to even consider buying without inheritance or a monetary gift from Mummy and Daddy.
 
Delboy said:
I recall a report from a few months ago which put the employment rate for the adults amongst the 10k 'homeless' at 20%. So not very high.
Click to expand...

Yes - that is reflective of the fact that subsidised tenants are at a particular disadvantage in the current market.
Landlords really, really seem to hate HAP in particular. Despite all the talk of the Dail being an effective landlords lobby there doesn't seem to be any sign of removing or changing HAP to suit landlords.
 

I think that's probably unfair. The reality is that a lot of landlords are now in a position to sell after up to a decade of negative equity and this is having a significant impact on supply side.
 
lff12 said:
The reality is that a lot of landlords are now in a position to sell after up to a decade of negative equity and this is having a significant impact on supply side.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence (not anecdote) that there is a decline in the stock of private rented properties?
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Where is the evidence (not anecdote) that there is a decline in the stock of private rented properties?
Click to expand...
From the latest Daft Rental Report (Q1 2019) –

"On May 1st, there were just 2,700 properties available to rent nationwide on daft.ie. This is the lowest ever figure for stock on the market, in a series that goes back to the start of 2006. The length of this series allows us to put the current rental shortage into perspective. During the Celtic Tiger period, rental stock bottomed out at just under 4,400 in early 2007. Only once in the 41 months and counting since the start of 2016 has the number of rental homes on the market been above this Celtic Tiger low - and that was in December of that year, an atypical month in the rental market."

Irish Rental Price Report Q1 2019 | Daft.ie

www.daft.ie
Conversely, the number of properties listed for sale on Daft has increased dramatically. From the latest Daft House Price Report (Q2 2019) -

"The figures in this latest Daft.ie Sales Report are telling. Over 8,200 properties were listed for sale in May 2019, the highest monthly total in over a decade. Indeed, the last time that many properties were put on the market at the same time was April 2008."

Irish House Price Report Q2 2019 | Daft.ie

www.daft.ie
Is there a correlation between these figures? I happen to think that Government policy regarding the private rental sector is driving stock from the rental listings to the sales listings.
 
@Sarenco

That's just the number of properties being advertised, not in existence.

In a hot market three things happen:
1 Landlords don't need to advertise and find tenants by word of mouth
2 Stock stays on market for shorter periods
3 Tenants stay put if they have a good deal (rent controls relevant here)

Also, new student accomodation isn't advertised on Daftvto my knowledge.
 
@NoRegretsCoyote

They are all fair points. The Daft figures show a pretty dramatic reduction in the stock of properties that are available to rent but tell you nothing about stock of properties that are already being rented. Point taken.

The latest RTB annual report also shows a material reduction in the number of registered tenancies on a YoY basis. I don't have much confidence in the RTB figures but the trend is certainly consistent with the Daft figures.
 
The article gives no information on why properties are being withdrawn so I can't see how they or anyone can come to the conclusion that homelessness is being caused by owner occupiers buying rented accommodation. If someone had data showing this fair enough...
 
As long as the State is giving out free, or close to free, houses there will be a queue for those houses and people will game the system to jump that queue.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
As long as the State is giving out free, or close to free, houses there will be a queue for those houses and people will game the system to jump that queue.
Click to expand...

Young abled bodied people should never be given heavily subsidised housing for life. Its a ridiculous policy and leads to a dependent culture. Im sick of seeing young women in pyjamas standing.outside their subsidied housing.smoking and on their cell phones in the middle of the.day
 

Yes but who is to blame, if the state says that is what's available, why shouldn't they take. As a landlord why shouldn't I take the money that is being paid to accommodate them.

By the way in many cases its not subsidised accommodation its fully funded. HAP pays 80 to 90 % and the remainder comes from social welfare payments the client receives.

In a way who is to blame is the wrong question, the proper question is who loses out.

The general taxpayer, not really, sure they have to pay for it, but I dont see any alternative that would be any better from the taxpayers point of view. Would the taxpayer rather they became homeless. I dont think so.

The private renter, maybe, rents might be cheaper if HAP was abolished, but I am not convinced.
 
Maybe if those getting a free ride in society today had to pay a bit more of the money they get for nothing, they might have more respect for not only the property they've been given, but for everyone else as well. It's not that there's beginning to be a division in society today but money for nothing needs a thorough overhauling. Hard to believe we have almost full employment in this country today yet able bodied men and women getting everything handed to them. Is it any wonder people are getting totally pixxxed off and that's being very mild.
 

Very.well said. Its sickening.these.pyjamas.clad young.people.paying 20.euro a week.from their.dole.for their.house, receive.over 500 euro to heat.it and are.left.with.over.150 euro a week to spend on fags, dope, chip shop junk and slabs.of beer while the hard working tax payer have hardly.2 cents.left over after.paying.their own way.
 
Its hard to say the above, but thats exactly whats going on, they simple getting too much tax payers money to abuse their bodies and its time.a frank discussion was commenced about.it. i am not slating everyone.on welfare as im well.aware they.are many genuine and compassionate cases out there but as for.the tossers.out there, they make.me feel ill
 
Do remember that the State took on tens of billions to bail out the pensioners in the form of their deposits and their pension funds (the bondholders) and tens of billions to continue to pay State employees wages which are still unsustainable. While I agree that people who don't work but could should get nothing there are plenty of groups within Irish society who are living off other groups (look at the beef farmers today; 2/3 of their income is already welfare and they are blocking Dublin to get more) so I wouldn't get too sanctimonious about housing.

At t who loses out; working people on low wages. That's who loses out. They are the people social housing should be for.
 

Not up to your usual high standards Purple. The points you make about the bail out and the beef farmers are well made, however they do not address the issues raised above.
 
cremeegg said:
Not up to your usual high standards Purple. The points you make about the bail out and the beef farmers are well made, however they do not address the issues raised above.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that we should be giving out free houses to people who can't be bothered to work. I'm saying that they are far from the only group with a sense of entitlement and bailing out the pensioners cost us far more than the scroungers above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register