Primetime: Rentals on only up 40%

I was just watching tonights primetime on the RTE website here:

At 13:22 in the show, she says:

I don’t see this on daftwatch, The rental graph shows we’re at 20,000:

This time last year we were at between 8,000 and 9,500 rentals. Last Jan, we were at 10,000.
So I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were working on 10,000. 40% on that is 14,000. According to daftwatch, this was the level in June/July.

Wakey Wakey Primetime.

Year on year the numbers are up well over 100%!

It’s up 20% alone since the start of October (Blue line is houses, Green is apartments).

I’ve emailed them at to ask them. I hope you don’t mind provost but I used your post for the text of my email. I’ll let you all know what they say if/when they respond.

Could it be that the volume of properties has increased 40% but due to the fact places are not renting, the number on the site is much higher than 40%?

Last year - 1000 houses come up for rent every month, but over the course of the month they are all rented and the supply stands at 1000.
This year - 1400 houses come up for rent every month, but only 400 are rented so the supply increases by 1000 a month.

Now this might be picked up as an increase of 40% in the supply volume, while the total volume is increasing at a much larger rate.

Just a theory.

Good work Bigby.
Give the shills no respite. I shall email them too.

no problem here, I’d be interested to see what they reply to you

I’m fairly curious myself. :angry:

Where are those graphs from nemonoid?

Yeah, but that would be stupid wouldn’t it?

If I list a house for rent this month, and it doesn’t rent, then in effect I’m listing it again next month. It’s not different to a house being listed for the first time, it’s just another house available to rent.

I reckon this was just sloppy research. I sincerely doubt anyone actually gave it enough thought to come up with a 40% figure by the means you describe.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot anyway!


Don’t get me wrong… it wouldn’t indeed be stupid. If I’m looking to rent somewhere it doesn’t matter a jot how quickly those places come on the market… all that matters is that they are vacant and available when I’m looking. Highlighting available property would be far more instructive, but this is RTE :slight_smile:

It’s much more likely that they just went… ‘80% increase… nah that can’t be write… let’s say 40%, that sounds like a lot’.

Tis like the 20% reduction in yesterdays times… the price dropped from 575 to 525 and they reckoned it was a 20% reduction. Maybe there is a ‘what it’s worth factor’ at play here. If the house you are sellign is reduced by 10% and you reckon it’s worth more then you can multiply the drop by 2.

I’ve always been a fan of stats… ever since that survey showed 100% of women thought I was the hottest guy on the planet.

90% of pinsters who stated a preference disagree 8)

Yes but that was blind women, after you set fire to yourself, wasn’t it :stuck_out_tongue:

Women? What’s this women stuff… singular man… singular… woman!
It turned out the other one had limited vision so she had to be excluded from the survey.

Questions that have been on my mind for ages, I know its only used as an indicator, and that there’s a dearth of other relevant info but:

Is 100% market penetration assumed for Daft?
Has this been the case since daftwatch started?

In other words, can any of the increase be attributed to daft’s rental classifieds market share increasing?

(For avoidance of doubt this is a general query, I’m not suggesting Primetime are in anyway correct)

Old post of mine. The current ~20k listings on Daft would account for about 14% of the total private rented accommodation counted in the 2006 census.

I’ve wondered about this myself, and while I’m sure it is a factor I think it is a minor one. The way that rental prices are reacting and other anecdotal evidence does agree with a large increase in rental supply. Also, the private rental sector only consisted of about 145k units in 2006.

Its very Irish that the national broadcaster when looking for statistics on rental supply; goes to a commercial company which only has a section of the ‘advertising’ for rentals.

Rather than say, going to the Government board chartered to regulate the rental industry, the PRTB ?

I’m guessing they didn’t go to the PRTB because they know that its hopelessly understaffed & still is only handling a fraction of the properties actually being let in the state. Pitiful.