79% of new houses bought by landlords


AFAIK, there have been no, or very few, new apts sold to individuals in Ireland in years.

The vast majority of new apts built are built-to-let, due to the very high rents available.
 
I agree that there is a space for large corporate landlords. Especially in terms of repairs and maintenance, way too many landlords resent any expenditure on their properties. I rented in London years ago and by far the best experience was with an anonymous company, they owned most of the block so kept the place immaculate. Professional repairs as needed etc.

But that comes at a price and in the ideal world the LA would be this landlord. And rents would be affordable etc for people who needed them. Of course that would also mean recycling properties so tenants got the property they needed, and could downsize and stay in the area if appropriate.
 
Annieindublin said:
I rented in London years ago and by far the best experience was with an anonymous company, they owned most of the block so kept the place immaculate. Professional repairs as needed etc.
Click to expand...
My best ever landlord was an institution in Dublin.

They sorted out anti-social behaviour, replaced white goods immediately, returned deposit promptly.

The big secret is that tenants actually prefer this to taking a punt on an amateur landlord.
 
They stopped because so many tenants weren't paying their rent and it was impossible to evict them. Insurance was also an issue. Successive governments should have evicted non-paying tenants and legislated to reduce claims. All that said that's not what's causing high housing prices or our housing shortage.
 
Purple said:
They stopped because so many tenants weren't paying their rent and it was impossible to evict them.
Click to expand...
That and I think they just didn't increase the rent as time went on. My aunt and her family moved into a council house in the mid-70s. They were delighted to get it as they had been privately renting and that house hadn't been great. This was a brand new semi-d with all the mod cons of that time. But she said the rent was higher than for her previous house and was a bit of a stuggle at times. However, inflation wiped that out and the rent never really increased afterwards. By the 90's the rent was great value and she was later able to buy the house at a very good discount.

I think part of the problem was the uneconomic rent meant that the Council couldn't afford to carry out repairs. She and her husband repaired and maintained themselves before they bought as it was pointless asking the Council.
 
There was also coverage in the media 10-15 years back questioning why it cost them 20-30% more per unit in some to build on land they already owned than new properties were selling for on the open market. That drove them to switch to buying on the open market and driving the prices up for everyone.
 
Leo said:
There was also coverage in the media 10-15 years back questioning why it cost them 20-30% more per unit in some to build on land they already owned than new properties were selling for on the open market.
Click to expand...
I have some direct knowledge of this.

The short answer is that public bodies (with the honourable exception of TII) do everything possible to build to perfection. Perfection is unattainable so the actual delivered build quality doesn't vary significantly from the build quality actually delivered for the equivalent private sector project BUT the misguided efforts of public servants to achieve the clearly unachievable causes large delays and cost overruns so the project is delivered late and overbudget.

When the taxpayer buys off the shelf it actually usually gets a very good deal. When it tries to deliver its own projects (sadly unavoidable in many cases given the specialised products required) it generally gets royally screwed.
 
I had a cousin living in the Stillorgan area when I was a nipper. Anytime we would visit the Bowling Alley we were always warned about straying into the 'Villas. It was "full" of undesirables.

The snobbery of it all makes me laugh now.
 
gianni said:
I had a cousin living in the Stillorgan area when I was a nipper. Anytime we would visit the Bowling Alley we were always warned about straying into the 'Villas. It was "full" of undesirables.
Click to expand...
Is this the place you are talking about? Half a million and it needs serious work.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
-institutions can manage at scale and achieve lower vacancy rates than BTL landlords acting alone
Click to expand...
I doubt that. Institutions are run by managers who are paid a salary. As a small landlord if I have a vacancy I have no income, so my incentive to avoid vacancies is much greater.
 
Exactly, also the very high regulatory requirements means that it was only these big institutional developers that could deliver but even they have stopped now, much cheaper to build them in Belfast than dublin.

However going by the postings here you would think these "vulture funds" are generating super profits, they are not. IRES reit is down 50 to 60% in share price compared to where it was 5 years ago, hovering below 1 euro a share. Kennedy Wilson is at $8 a share down from over $20 a share 5 years ago. The increase in inflation and interest rates since covid means that the cost of capital , materials and labour has hit them like everything else and they have been punished by their shareholders.
The covid lockdowns and putin are more to blame for the high costs and lack of output internationally than any "vulture funds". Locally it is Irish government interference and bungling in the construction sector due to ignorance and lack of foresight
 
IRES REIT gets a €15 million HAP subsidy every year from the Irish taxpayer. They are also given exemption from corporation taxes. They pay zero tax on their rental income in Ireland. These taxpayer funded subsidies stack the deck and make it much more difficult for owner occupiers to compete with investors for available properties. Vulture funds also engage in practices such as buying up former council houses and entering into long term leasing deals with councils for these former corporation houses paying they vultures over a million per property. At the end of the deal the investors still own the houses. At the same time local authorities have over 3000 houses that are boarded up and left vacant. The system is deliberately designed to keep property prices and rents rising and this will continue as long as the government has the corporate billions to fund this policy.
 
Last edited:
BIG-notorious said:
When it tries to deliver its own projects (sadly unavoidable in many cases given the specialised products required) it generally gets royally screwed.
Click to expand...
Yep, and some of the added cost is down to additional controls on public procurement, controls intended to protect the taxpayer from reoccurrences of previous scandals but ones that add risk and administration to providers resulting in them pushing up the price.
 
Cervelo said:
I think that a fair enough price for the area, by the time somebody's finished doing it up you'd have a great semiD in a super area
Click to expand...
I agree. Location location… and a corner site! Mind you half a million followed by a lot in renovations. It’ll be an expensive house. But good area, decent schools within easy walk and a quick hop to UCD and trinity so great long term buy for a family.
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
I think that a fair enough price for the area, by the time somebody's finished doing it up you'd have a great semiD in a super area
Click to expand...
Not an area that I am familiar with, but it looks like a very nice estate.

Just shows how crazy house prices are - that must have gone for the asking price at least and you couldn't live in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register