The CSO index is not a measure of available rental rates, it’s a measure of the average of what all renters are currently paying.
Rates are set at the margin. If 1 house on a street sells for X+/-10K then all houses are deemed to have that value. However the other house owners don’t suddenly find their mortgage going up by that value.
Similarly with rents. Asking prices may have risen by 20% in some areas due to demand pressures are fallen by 8% in others due to RA cuts but the average rates paid may only see a 2% rise/0.8% fall as only a proportion of leases come up for renewal during the time period and the higher asking rates don’t effect existing tenants.
So 97,260/494,659 = 19.7% of the total tenant market is paid for by Rent Supplement
PRTB caveat: These figures however should be read with some caution as there is no requirement for a landlord to notify the PRTB where a registered tenancy has ceased.
So the 494,659 figure is no doubt overstated. Then again, there are the unregistered tenants also.
Once all the deadbeat welfare recipients move out of the nicer areas and free up properties there, those properties will then be snapped up by a better class of renter, thus forcing up rents.
Is that it?
I am immediately compelled to ask where these better healed renters were till now? Because you seem to be saying that were it not for all those RA recipients clogging up those properties, there would be an alternative pool of people prepared to pay more who have till now been blocked from doing so because of the RA folk.
That’s not what I took from Landlord’s post. He seemed to be making a perfectly cromulent point.
There are a disproportionate number of low quality units coming to the market in certain areas, thus bringing the average asking price down. Once a more normalized market returns the average asking price in that area should begin trending upwards.
Now I’m pretty sure the CSO stats do take unit sizes into account and only compare like with like. Averages in areas shouldn’t be affected by issues of weightings. And as I mentioned earlier asking prices and average rent are 2 different things.
Are you saying that RA is artificially keeping average rents in this very nice area down, so once those people are moved on, prices will settle at a higher level? If so, I am again compelled to ask: why were landlords suffering all these low-paying renters and why hadn’t they moved them on sooner and replace them with the higher payers?
Or, is your point that when these people move out, their former apartments will be taken off the market, thus reducing the absolute number of lower priced apartments and thus the average rent? If that is your point, then increasing average rent seems like scant consolation for landlords if they’re having to shut down other parts of their portfolios.
Yes. There are only 11,000 mortgages being released per annum. That is not enough to meet demand and thus people are renting. Since renting is so much cheaper than buying, a lot of these people have (or think they have, relatively speaking) enough income to live in the nicest parts of Dublin.
If, as the topic says, rents rose +2.4% over 12 mths, that is quite a lot.
AFAIK, RA did not rise during the period - or am I wrong? So that doesn’t account for it.
Also if I remember correctly, it was pointed out a few months back that CSO methodology in this area understates market rents because their data is collected from mouldy flatland-style dumps - so they may be missing the increases recently pointed out in the Coles2 Report for family 3+ beds in areas such as D4, which have seen relatively high growth rates.