Leasing instead of renting

T

Thirsty

Registered User
Messages
3,754
This is by way of tossing an idea around, I won't pretend it's a fully hatched strategy.

Landlords have the option to lease out their property to local Co.Co for 10 years.

Co.co get a discounted rent (15% I believe) and rent it to whoever is on their list.

Landlord is guaranteed their rent, no voids & property returned at the end of 10 years.

I know the scheme isn't perfect; but the above is the bare bones.

What if that model was extended to 'private' tenants? By which I mean tenants who are not in receipt of SW supports.

Tenant has security of tenure, landlord has guaranteed rent.

Evictions for non-payment or anti-social behaviour would have to be much faster.

Would probably have to have choice of five and ten year leases.
 
Supposing the rent starts to come in dribs and drabs, or even worse? I've been told it happens
 
If rent isn't paid Co.Co evicts.

That's why we need a better and faster eviction process.
 
Thirsty said:
If rent isn't paid Co.Co evicts.

That's why we need a better and faster eviction process.
Click to expand...
This will never happen in the near future. All recent legislation is designed to keep tenants in situ no matter what.

I was looking at rte the week in politics today and the housing situation was part of the discussion. When the topic of small landlords leaving the market because of the rent increase linked to inflation, life time leases etc none of the politicians answered the question of how to stop landlords leaving the market.

Evictions are not vote catchers.
 
Thirsty said:
One would imagine neither is homelessness.

And if we (as a population) want things changed, we have the power to do so.
Click to expand...
The level of homelessness would be much higher and as such the onus on the State to home people if faster evictions were allowed.

What do you suggest? Please don't say build more state houses? Unless you can also explain how they will be paid for. We as a State have one of the biggest if not the biggest national debt per person in the EU.
 
Thirsty said:
I believe I made my suggestion in the OP!
Click to expand...
Social welfare receiptents are reliant on state support so will stay for 5 yrs as they have no choice. Private tenants do have choice and as such will move when it suits them.

Remember the period from 2010 to 2017 or so when tenants moved whenever leases either came to an end or mid lease. When rents were falling tenants moved frequently.

How do you tie a private tenant into a long term lease in return for a discounted rent?
 
Thirsty said:
Tenant has security of tenure, landlord has guaranteed rent.
Click to expand...
Private tenants already have security of tenure save in the case of major renovations, the property being sold, or personal use by the landlord or landlord's family. A tenancy of as little as three years needs six months to be terminated.

What more security for tenants would you prefer?
 
Thirsty said:
Tenant has to pay the void period; it's done elsewhere.
Click to expand...
How many landlords who are owed money and have gone through the rtb process are still waiting to be paid?

Garnishing wages is a very expensive option? What if the tenant does not have the ability to pay the debt?

Delays in evictions increases the landlords costs and reduces their income. Giving 15% reduction in market rent for security of tenure results in less income to the landlord to offset someone the lost income.

I would rather get 100% of the rent for two years rather than get 85% for the same two years. If the tenant stops paying at least I had 15% more for the two years they paid.
 
lt kinds of exists already,
I would put myself in that category
I rent out two houses under market value at present, I am happy to leave it that way,
I have put rents up a small amount,
I did not allow myself to be drawn into raising rents in response to Government actions,

rather have certainty of holding on to two good paying tenants than manage the higher turnover of tenants
If I put the rent up to the maximun possible,
 
It doesn't exist currently.

You happen to be in a good position right now; but one bad / overholding / rent refusing tenant could destroy that very fast.
 
Thirsty said:
With our current system, the tenants security is balanced by the property owners insecurity.

Non-payment, overholding, anti-social behaviour - property owner pays the price.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Your OP seemed to imply some greater level of tenure security than is currently the case for tenants. What would it be?
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Indeed. Your OP seemed to imply some greater level of tenure security than is currently the case for tenants. What would it be?
Click to expand...
Similar to the existing co.co. scheme - as property owner you agree to the 5 / 10 year lease. No get out clause until the lease is up. (Edit the existing scheme is 10 yrs only)

@galway_blow_in has more experience of the existing scheme & could maybe confirm.
 
Last edited:
I asked the question before how do you ensure your tenant stays for 5 yrs if you are giving them a reduced rent?
 
The existing scheme doesn't force the tenant to stay in the property.

If they wish to leave before the lease is up; a replacement tenant is put in.

To come back to the analogy of a home owner; you are free to move home any time you like but you pay your mortgage until the house is sold.
 
What's in this for the landlord so? How is this different from one tenant leaving and the landlord re advertising the property and getting market rent?
 
The Horseman said:
What's in this for the landlord so? How is this different from one tenant leaving and the landlord re advertising the property and getting market rent?
Click to expand...
Property owner leases to Co. Co. for the 5 or 10 years. Co.Co. puts in tenant, that's the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register