Why there is so little house building in Ireland

[Firefly]

There is already a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters to a newspaper headline that suggested making lifetime rental easier for tenants.

Is there any mention of what the tenants should have to pay as compensation to the landlord if they break a life-time lease, or is the risk all on the landlord's end?

 

[Folsom]

Is there any mention of what the tenants should have to pay as compensation to the landlord if they break a life-time lease, or is the risk all on the landlord's end?

I don't think there was any mention of a lifetime lease.
I would imagine that the suggestion would be based on allowing existing tenants the option of extending a tenancy if they wish.
If a landlord is intending to continue using the property for rental then affording the existing tenant first option to continue with the tenancy would seem reasonable to me.
This would help stabilise the market.

Im not sure where the risk for the landlord is, if you go into the business of renting property, the possibility of periods of vacancy should be factored in already.

 

[Firefly]

I would imagine that the suggestion would be based on allowing existing tenants the option of extending a tenancy if they wish.

All else being equal, do you think this will bring more landlords into the market or less?

 

[Folsom]

All else being equal, do you think this will bring more landlords into the market or less?

Couldn't tell you. Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it.
I think, if my understanding of the proposal is correct, that it would go someway to sustaining and stabilising the private rental market.

 

[Bronte]

So in the event of a dispute, how would matters be settled.
For instance, if it is verbally agreed that
-
the tenant will mow and maintain the lawn
the tenant is responsible for keyholding and replacing locks if required
the landlord will provide window cleaning services at least four times a year
the landlord will provide for chimney sweep once a year
the landlord will service smoke/fire/detectors, gas or oil boilers once a year
the tenant is responsible for refuse collection
Etc....etc...etc...
- and one party fails to honour their end of the agreement, how are disputes resolved?


?

It's quite clear that you haven't one clue about what being a landlord in Ireland actually means. A written lease is not worth anything. You think a tenant will take a dispute to where if the chimney isn't swept !

By the way why should a landlord sweep the chimney or clean the windows. As it happens I don't even clean my own windows four times a year. Twice is my limit.

I've tenants who take out the batteries on the smoke alarm. What exactly do you think I'm going to do, take them to the RTB - and then what ! (I've a solution on the cards for this one)

As it happens I don't have 'matters' with my tenants. I pay the bins so that they'll actually put out the rubbish instead of dumping it in someone else's bin.

Do you have a written lease that mentions your landlord will clean the windows four times a year? And what is 'keyholding'?

 

[Bronte]

Why? If you don't increase rents, why is a rent cap making you increase them now?

Because I'd devalue my properties otherwise.

 

[Bronte]

There needs to be detailed written agreements in place to resolve disputes upon which the rights of landlords to protect their property

Are you joking, landlords haven't a hope of protecting their property if they get a rogue tenant playing the RTB roulette. Show me actual proof tenants:

a) had to pay back rent
b) make good on destroying a property

 

[Bronte]

That is not what the report said - the conclusion was


It was clear then, and even more so now, that without building more homes, no matter what the split of the housing stock between rented properties and ppr, there is a crisis in play.

Agreed on that, but it doesn't change what I said. The REIT's are capitalising on the lack of housing. They will disappear when the market changes.

 

[AlbacoreA]

Couldn't tell you. Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it.
I think, if my understanding of the proposal is correct, that it would go someway to sustaining and stabilising the private rental market.

The issue is supply and increasing demand. With shortage of supply, increasing demand rises prices.

Landlords, rents, leases, length of tenure have nothing to do with that. Supply comes first everything else follows.

You don't seem to remember when we had cheap rents and abundance of supply.
Tenants would sign up to a lease and be gone as soon as they found something cheaper.
Which is why rentals stared to be improved, to retain tenants and higher rents.

 

[Bronte]

Oh dear! You are outlining the law as it is now, as set out through government policy - devoid of all the gripes and mopes from landlords, on this site, including yourself, threatening to pull out of the rental market etc, because of the exact laws that you are referring to as implemented by government.

It is because of this persistent and constant "moving of goalposts" and interference by government that is making it so hard, apparently, for landlords to make it worthwhile entering the market.

But the government has had no choice because the private rental sector has been unable to provide a stable and sustainable rental market.

So now landlords are stuck with government 'diktats' that tell landlords how to manage their properties instead of landlords and tenants agreeing between themselves all the criteria of any tenancy. Too many landlords are devoid of the social responsibility and social understanding of what it means to be in the business of providing housing and accommodation. Instead the thinking is all short-term, all financial gain.
Now they have to be led by the hand by government.

It is a failed market.

The government are doing their very best to drive landlords out of the market. They are tinkering around with the issue with sticking plaster instead of building social housing. They are trying to fool voters they are actually doing something, when in fact they are doing the exact opposite.

 

[Bronte]

You don't seem to remember when we had cheap rents and abundance of supply.
Tenants would sign up to a lease and be gone as soon as they found something cheaper.

I had a three month void back in those days. No lease of course. Not as if having one would have made any difference. Like I was going to court to enforce it.

 

[Bronte]

But in reality, it is the ineptitude of a significant amount of landlords themselves, blinded by short-term financial gain and devoid of any understanding the social responsibility and social understanding of the business that they entered into that has led to unstable and unsustainable private rental market sector that we have today.

Its not entirely their fault, housing policy by successive governments outsourcing the provision of housing to the private market is the real culprit.

So in the absence of a private rental market that is capable of providing a stable and sustainable rental accommodation, then landlords should just get used to more and more government interference.

Those that cannot cope with the State interfering should leave.

Totally inaccurate post. The instability is as a result of the government

a) not building social housing
b) not planning for inceases in population
c) not allowing decent apartments in high rise buildings in Dublin/Cork
d) disincentivising landlords entering the market
e) forcing landlords out of the market

If the government rowed back on taxation and bureaucracy many private landlords, including me, would go back into the market. Despite the high rents it's just not making sense. Now Murphy wants to make it impossible to ever evict a tenant.

 

[Leo]

Accordingly to the Newspaper SI, Dublin CC can build a house for less than the cost of purchasing. Figure of 199k apparently. I understood this included all costs including the site cost. Is the article incorrect.

Yet one of the few local authority housing developments completed in Dublin in recent years delivered units that cost almost twice that excluding land costs. I'd love to know where they got that €199k figure from, I can only guess it has no basis in the reality of an actual development.

 

[Firefly]

Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it.

So landlords don't buy new builds?

 

[Folsom]

A written lease is not worth anything.

Thats the point! It is worth nothing, it is not even a requirement. Im suggesting that written tenancy agreements are a legal requirement and that such agreements contain provisions for landlords to protect their property - including, for instance, where a tenant destroys property but fails to reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.

Because I'd devalue my properties otherwise.

So you do put up rents, which is opposite to what you said earlier.

Are you joking, landlords haven't a hope of protecting their property if they get a rogue tenant playing the RTB roulette.

If there were legally enforceable tenancy agreements it would strengthen the landlords hand against rogue tenants. If a landlord can show that they have been put of pocket by a non-paying tenant, and the tenant has no means to pay then the State becomes a liable party (this is a suggestion to protect property of landlords and their investments, why else are you paying all these taxes)

They are tinkering around with the issue with sticking plaster instead of building social housing.

Yes, I argued that many times.

The instability is as a result of the government

a) not building social housing
b) not planning for inceases in population
c) not allowing decent apartments in high rise buildings in Dublin/Cork

I agree. I have argued that housing policy has failed in this country. It outsourced housing to the private sector to be bought and sold as a commodity for profit and abdicated its responsibility to provide housing for social need.

By the way why should a landlord sweep the chimney or clean the windows.

They shouldn't have to - it was an example of conditions of a tenancy agreement. If both parties agree to such conditions it should be written down.
I would suggest that it is good practice to sweep a chimney once a year. I would also suggest window cleaning is a good idea. These are provisions that the landlord can, if interested in basic maintenance of his/her property may provide as part of a tenancy agreement - in your case window cleaning twice a year. If the tenant is fussy, they can pay for any additional cleaning thereafter themselves.
But the matters will arise around times for rent reviews. If a landlord doesn't honour the conditions in the tenancy agreement then it is something a tenant can use to keep rents increases to a minimum. Where there is a dispute over rents it would be for each party to show that they have complied with the conditions of the agreement.

I've tenants who take out the batteries on the smoke alarm. What exactly do you think I'm going to do, take them to the RTB - and then what ! (I've a solution on the cards for this one)

No, but such matters, any others, can be reflected in a justified increase in rents (obviously, by itself, battery replacement would be negligible).
But if you dont service alarms, boliers etc as per conditions then the tenant can plausible question any proposed rent increase or at least the amount of any increase.

And what is 'keyholding'?

Oh, just in case some landlords ever complain about getting phonecalls from drunken tenants at 3am who have lost their keys - put the responsibility and charges of key and lock replacement on the keyholder, ie the tenant.

 

[Folsom]

So landlords don't buy new builds?

??? They do, of course. They dont, in general, build them.
Do FTB's build houses? Generally, no. They compete for existing stock.
Builders and developers build new properties.
In some instances, landlords and FTB's build their own houses, but overall its a negligible amount to whats required to meet the demand currently.

 

[Firefly]

??? They do, of course.

So if there were more landlords interested in buying, builders could build more houses, right?

 

[Firefly]

where a tenant destroys property but fails to reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.

Don't you mean the Taxpayer ? What ever happened to personal responsibility?

 

[Folsom]

So if there were more landlords interested in buying, builders could build more houses, right?

Yes, just as if there were more FTB's right?
Do we need more FTB's right now adding to demand?

 

[Firefly]

If there were legally enforceable tenancy agreements it would strengthen the landlords hand against rogue tenants. If a landlord can show that they have been put of pocket by a non-paying tenant, and the tenant has no means to pay then the State becomes a liable party

Would you support a criminal conviction in this case?