Who would be a landlord?

patfert1 said:
To be fair, that is an assumption. He would be mad to still be taking in paying guests with litigation in progress against him on that very subject!
Click to expand...
Yes, he's likely been stopped in his tracks on that alright, for the moment anyway.

From one of his previous court appearances, he

has been directed by a judge to take down online listings, cancel bookings and desist from further short-term lettings until a further court order.

The solicitor himself said

“I have from time to time taken paying licensees or guests…who were occasional and incidental, and when I was, at all times, in occupation as my principal private dwelling,” Mr Curran stated. “I have not, at any time, operated a business from the property.”

Even though

There were also other reviews posted online from people from all over the world.

You couldn't make this stuff up
 
Again, the reality of being a landlord.

Elderly residents renting from an AHB in Sligo being asked to pay increased rents. Article and interview here. Why the rent increases? The properties need work and that has to be paid for somehow.

Obviously very hard on the elderly tenants many of whom would only have old age pensions, but it is the reality of being a landlord - because houses are costly to repair and maintain you can't run the business if you can't charge an economic rent.

Try explaining that as an ordinary PRS landlord though
 
- why would 48 one beds built in 2012 need 3€ million in roof repairs
- who owns them
- who paid for the construction

Far be it from me to imagine the state paid to build them, doesn’t own them and the builder has vaporised …

@Greenbook I fail to see this as a landlord issue.
 
It's astonishing that the roof repairs would cost €3m alright, but I think builders jack up the charges when the know the work has to be done and is not discretionary.

But my point was here is an AHB trying to push that cost on to the tenants who are OAPs. If a landlord did that, even if the tenants were well off professionals, he would be roundly condemned by all. I'm not endorsing pushing costs on the tenant, my point is that now we have AHBs doing what landlords were condemned for. Presumably the AHB is doing this because it has to make up the shortfall somehow, the same issue a private landlord would have.

Again, who would be a landlord. Any landlord could have an issue like this but would be unable to raise the rent due to the 2% cap and the reality that he won't be able to increase to market at year 6. If he is a large landlord, the property will be unsaleable.
 
Is this the future for Irish landlords once we are locked into leases

Financial Times article here on the minimum BER requirement for rented properties in the UK
 
Greenbook said:
Is this the future for Irish landlords once we are locked into leases
Click to expand...
It looks that way, and the picture is actually worse for property owners here.
In England and Wales, a landlord who brings the property up to the minimum EPC of C can move the rent to market rate at the annual review - the energy upgrade is rewarded.
In Ireland there's no equivalent. Under the pre 1 March rules a landlord never gets a reset back to market rent at all. Under post 1 March tenancies the only route is the six year reset - so you wait.

And the one remaining market rate reset tied to energy works was effectively withdrawn only a few weeks ago, when the BER scale moved from the 15 band to the 8 band scale. The improvement threshold that used to unlock the exemption is no longer realistically attainable (only viable option now is to take a G property to A0)

That the government would strip out the market based incentive to upgrade energy ratings will surprise no Irish accommodation provider. We're long used to being expected to deliver good quality accommodation to sitting tenants without being compensated for it.
 
stormy said:
That the government would strip out the market based incentive to upgrade energy ratings will surprise no Irish accommodation provider. We're long used to being expected to deliver good quality accommodation to sitting tenants without being compensated for it.
Click to expand...
That is it, you'll have to compensate the tenant for the disruption.

Plus the builder will charge through the nose because he knows you've no choice, it is not discretionary.

Give this two or three years. People before Profit are already introducing Bills about it.

It won't be minimum C rated either, it'll be minimum B.
 
Sorry, I have to be honest. I haven’t followed a lot of of this thread, but I do have some thoughts….
I have recently committed to being a large Landlord. I have let a few properties to Homeless HAP tenants since March which has pushed me into that category.
It strikes me that half of my Portfolio is on an upward trajectory while the other half is spiralling downwards.

Half, my Portfolio is achieving maximum rent. Tenants have been moving in and out “ voluntarily” recently and of course since March 1st I have been able to increase this back up to the latest market rent according to the rent register….(and from my experience, this can be tweaked!). Tenants who are already paying the higher rents do not seem to be restricted when it comes to finding somewhere else to live. I would consider this an upward trajectory, with a regular turnover of tenants and constantly increasing the rent.

The other half of my Portfolio, has tenants benefiting from way below market average rents. They simply cannot afford to move and pay 50% more rent somewhere else. For these properties, the rent pressure zone is screwing me. The chance of one of these tenants voluntarily leaving is minuscule.
 
landlord said:
The other half of my Portfolio, has tenants benefiting from way below market average rents. They simply cannot afford to move and pay 50% more rent somewhere else. For these properties, the rent pressure zone is screwing me. The chance of one of these tenants voluntarily leaving is minuscule.
Click to expand...
That is one of the many unforeseen consequences of the new rental rules and why the government are surprised that landlords will pre-March tenants are evicting to sell. You have put your finger on it. Those rents can never increase, those tenants will never leave voluntarily (why on earth would they), so you have no choice but to sell before worse restrictions come in. Eventually your costs will exceed your rents.

As a large landlord you are taking a major risk with post March tenancies - what if a tenant stays long term? Politically it is very unlikely that you will get a meaningful increase at year 6. Your rent will be declining in real terms post inflation while your costs are really increasing. You will eventually be back to your pre-March situation, a low rent in real terms, but this time with a permanent tenant who is on a good deal and isn't going anywhere. You can't evict to sell. You'll have to sell with the tenant in situ. This will be at a discount to market value or you may not be able to sell at all.

Keep in mind also that you are fully on the hook for all repairs, maintenance and improvements. As the properties age and housing standards rise, this will become increasingly expensive.

You are also 100% trapped if they decide to bring in a rent freeze or insist that all landlords increase to a B BER. We know at this stage that they are fit for anything.

I think you should take a look at the other threads on here.

Large landlords, unless they can 100% guarantee that their tenants will leave after a couple of years (impossible I think) are taking on a huge amount of risk.
 
Actually, one thing that confuses me… regarding the six year increase of rent. When does that six year period start? Is it March 1st 2026
 
landlord said:
Actually, one thing that confuses me… regarding the six year increase of rent. When does that six year period start? Is it March 1st 2026
Click to expand...
No, from when the lease starts.

Pre-March tenancies can never increase beyond the 2% max per annum.

Post March tenancies are 2% max per annum plus a market rate increase at year 6. The consensus here is that the political system won't allow a genuine market rent increase at year 6 as it would mean a sitting tenant getting a 20 to 25% increase in one go. The caps mean that the rent increases up to year 6 just won't keep up with market increases in the interim.

Plus they have currently made it very difficult to increase to market with a new lease in way which can't be challenged. Tricky forms and deadlines are imposed plus criminal liability if you get things wrong. You are tied to the rent index which is mostly made up of RPZ tenancies. The RTB can investigate you and they keep changing the rent increase rules. The tenant can sign up to the lease and then challenge the rent. They will have these rules in spades at year 6.
 
landlord said:
They simply cannot afford to move and pay 50% more rent somewhere else. For these properties, the rent pressure zone is screwing me.
Click to expand...
If these tenancies have HAP tenants I would approach the council to buy under tenant in situ scheme. (If they have the funds/scheme is still open). It's the only way I could see you getting out of these tenancies and securing close to full market value.

After that, if you want to purchase again (I would not if I was in your shoes), you can let the new properties at market rent and select tenants based on how short they will stay.. That would be the best way to maximise value and rent.

With costs plus inflation. the net yield on those low rent pre-march properties will sink like an anchor and may end up unprofitable.
 
Luternau said:
With costs plus inflation. the net yield on those low rent pre-march properties will sink like an anchor and may end up unprofitable.
Click to expand...
Those tenants aren't going anywhere and can you blame them. This is a sweet deal at this point, cheap rent and the landlord carrying all the costs.

The real risk though is that these tenancies end up being converted into permanent ones at some point via a 'temporary' eviction ban or a new rule that long occupancy entitles you to a permanent tenancy.
 
Greenbook said:
or a new rule that long occupancy entitles you to a permanent tenancy.
Click to expand...
That would be ok if the long occupation was not a consequence of a rule that forbid curtailing that occupancy.

I agree with you about why would a tenant on a low rent leave. Only situations like relocation or it no longer being suitable eg. growing family/ mobility issues.
 
Luternau said:
I agree with you about why would a tenant on a low rent leave. Only situations like relocation or it no longer being suitable eg. growing family/ mobility issues.
Click to expand...
Aside from that, they would not leave.

Even mobility becomes limited. A better job at higher pay in another city is less attractive if the rent there is going to be a lot higher that what the tenant is paying. New jobs especially in a new place are always a risk. It makes sense to stay where you are if the rent is low. It also makes sense not to buy.

I can really see that becoming a problem in the future especially for large landlords. If the rent declines in real terms over time, why would the tenant leave, even to buy a house. The rent is low, the tenancy is secure and the tenant incurs none of the usual costs of maintaining and repairing a house which are expensive and becoming more so. Buying a house loses some of its attractiveness in those circumstances. Your monthly payment is higher and you have to pay for the replacement washing machine yourself, if the house needs painting you have to organise pay for it yourself etc.
 
Its ironic that landlords are now going to be looking for tenants who will definitely leave. They will not rent to tenants who have any possibility of being long term tenants anymore if they can help it. In fact in reddit I saw post a few weeks ago asking which tenants are the most likely to leave themselves within a year or two because they wanted to make sure that they didnt rent to a long term tenant.
 
JamieB_ said:
Its ironic that landlords are now going to be looking for tenants who will definitely leave.
Click to expand...
Lump of landlords fallacy again. They'd impose 6 year and life long tenancies and we'd just go along with that.

It never struck them that because of the inevitable future meddling and the increase to market rate system they've cooked up, it makes absolutely zero sense to take on a long term tenant.

What is happening will become obvious to them in a couple of years and then there will be more restrictions and penalties to solve the latest set of problems.
 
Thats what happened me, and the tenant also said take arrears from the deposit. However, they had caused thousands of euro of damage as well that the deposit won't come close to covering.

It's really disappointing to read that Louth Co Co are also stating a deposit can be used for rent arrears without considering damage.

Something like unpaid rent and damages to while in HAP should follow the tenant into their nice tax payer funded home until paid in full.

It would be easy for councils to do an end of tenancy review with the landlord and make the tenant liable for it. Instead, they wash their hands and hide under GDPR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top