Oh? 14% property value appreciation isn’t good enough for you? Reminds me of that bluffer Fintan from the Landlords Associaon. He reckoned that any increase in property values shouldn’t be considered in determining if landlords were minting it. If you don’t count the capital gain then perhaps you’d be ok with giving up your 100% CGT exemption and paying over the entire capital gain in tax!
Plenty of Germans, French, Italians, Spanish etc go on secondment for a year, somehow they manage to get back in… when everyone is working off the same rules, somehow renters have a way of predicting what their landlord may or may not do, & act accordingly
If is almost as if you don’t understand the difference between a long term lease and annual or short term rental. You can BUY the right to rent a property with clearly defined price increases over the life of the lease. Or one can just rent a home with various terms. But the key here is typically retail residential renters are completely uninterested in buying a lease the protects them even when the property changes ownership.
Frankly Cole2 , you want your cake and eat it. Tennents need to PAY extra if they want to ensure they can stay for many years or when a property changes hand etc…
The owner of an asset needs to be reimbursed. If homelessness is your concern, that is a government issue NOT a private sector issue. otherwise, just give me your gaff cause i need it.
Firstly, can you explain your logic in thinking why a long term lease agreement should have a higher rent than a short term lease? It has always been the case that a landlord would accept a lower rent in order to have a fixed secure income without the possibility of void periods and the associated costs of repairs, maintenance, advertising and agency fees when having to continuously find new tenants. Most landlords are happier to have tenants they trust rather than throwing the dice each time and running the risk of ending up with tenants from hell. You say I don’t understand the difference between long and short term agreements when perhaps you should give the topic a bit of thought yourself.
In the current dysfunctional market with spiralling rents there are no long term tenancy agreements. Why would there be when rents are rising by 10-15% every year and have increased by 80% in six years?
Your way of thinking on this issue just reflects the current malaise where some people have become accoustomed to thinking that property rights shouldn’t be infringed by society regardless of the harm being done. It’s a type of orthodoxy that borders on insanity and ignores the fact that as a society we can make these decisions if we wish. The question really becomes ‘how much harm will we allow before addressing it’.
You want tenants to buy security of tenure? We have the highest rents ever in the history of the State. How much more do you feel tenants should pay?
Longer notice periods are a function of longer occupancy terms and are established in regulation. The issue is whether longer leases should command a lower rent than short term leases (the opposite of what has been claimed by evilcart).
In the context of that discussion, your money yield curve comparison is nonsense… We are not discussing fixed long term rents, there is no default risk, and a whole host of other risks are removed with longer leases.
In the current market landlords demand whatever they wish. That is the problem. In a functioning market with more balanced supply/demand and stable rents then short term leases pay a premium, not long term.
It’s a bit mad that this point even has to be argued on a forum created to discuss a property bubble and the harm caused to society, but here we are.
Also don’t underestimate the role of the Letting Agent. It’s in their interest to recycle the unit every 12 months where possible and choose not to bring a longer term offer to the property owner’s attention- another reason the HAP scheme will flounder as a ‘Social housing Support’ in periods of heavy demand - notwithstanding the rent caps.
In other news the Social Democrats have published their proposals for improving security of tenure. Longer notice periods, and measures to tackle the ‘rent pressure zone’ law breaches. The difficulty is that in a housing crisis such as this tenants are desperate for accommodation and are not in a position to demand that the law is applied. I’m a big fan of the SocDems but this is a bit disappointing to be honest.
Nothing from the Soc Dems on helping Landlords who are the victims of tenants wrecking homes (even those on HAP) or who don’t pay rent for months on end?
Pity they aren’t approaching this from both sides as less landlords leaving the business is good news for tenants.
Maybe landlords should accept a lower rent for tenants who they trust rather than trying to sweat the asset for every cent? And perhaps landlords wouldn’t leave the market if they didn’t have huge capital appreciation to tempt them? Dublin values up 90% in 5 years.
So you bought at the peak of the last bubble? I’m very sorry for you, but the pain you suffer doesn’t apply to every other property owner.
Are you saying that a 90% capital appreciation isn’t a guiding influence on a significant number of other landlords choosing to sell their properties? I think any rational look at it would disagree with that view. It just doesn’t make sense.
I’m always amused by the notion that landlords can’t make money when their costs have stayed the same over the last four years but their income is up 70-80%. How does that work? And the increase in property values is worth a lot more than the rent increase but it should be ignored in assessing the property industry?!
I didn’t say that. I asked if you didn’t agree that a very significant capital appreciation of the last five years wasn’t a guiding influence on a significant number of other landlords choosing to sell their properties. Not a very controversial question I would have thought.