Ireland moves to control rent rises

chucknorris

westernpromise wrote: »

Net of the recent rate cut it's going to cost me less than one-third of one per cent of my income. BFD, as the young people say.

It doesn't make much difference to us either, the biggest difference is loss of the wear and tear allowance (in his rantings above he didn't even mention that), that will cost us about £2k per annum (allowing for reducing our future holdings). The eventual reduction in tax relief on mortgage interest will cost us less than £1k per annum (our mortgage are minimal, some properties are mortgage free and we are selling anyway) and the stamp duty will not affect us as we are not investing further (apart from up-sizing our own home).

westernpromise

chucknorris wrote: »

It doesn't make much difference to us either, the biggest difference is loss of the wear and tear allowance (in his rantings above he didn't even mention that), that will cost us about £2k per annum (allowing for reducing our future holdings). The eventual reduction in tax relief on mortgage interest will cost us less than £1k per annum (our mortgage are minimal, some properties are mortgage free and we are selling anyway) and the stamp duty will not affect us as we are not investing further (apart from up-sizing our own home).

I have only ever let unfurnished, so I've never claimed the wear and tear allowance. I just claim whatever I've had to replace. I don't really see what all the fuss is about and as I've suggested previously I think the reason highly-leveraged landlords aren't getting any traction with their anti-s24 campaign is because almost nobody is significantly enough affected by it to care.

If 10% of the landlords in an area have an expensive cost structure and the other 90% don't, there is no reason for the 10% to think they can push through rent rises. Rental property is probably empty 10% of the time anyway, so if they attempt this, they're just volunteering in effect to own that empty 10%. Rentals are set by bids, not what the landlord needs, so unleveraged landlords will simply poach all their tenants and their overpriced properties will sit empty.

All that will result is a reshuffle of properties between landlords. There may be a concentration into fewer hands, and that could enable rent rises through sheer market power. But if this happens at all it will happen because and after over-borrowed landlords have been forced to exit, i.e. it will not save them.

padington

westernpromise wrote: »

I have only ever let unfurnished, so I've never claimed the wear and tear allowance. I just claim whatever I've had to replace. I don't really see what all the fuss is about and as I've suggested previously I think the reason highly-leveraged landlords aren't getting any traction with their anti-s24 campaign is because almost nobody is significantly enough affected by it to care.

If 10% of the landlords in an area have an expensive cost structure and the other 90% don't, there is no reason for the 10% to think they can push through rent rises. Rental property is probably empty 10% of the time anyway, so if they attempt this, they're just volunteering in effect to own that empty 10%. Rentals are set by bids, not what the landlord needs, so unleveraged landlords will simply poach all their tenants and their overpriced properties will sit empty.

All that will result is a reshuffle of properties between landlords. There may be a concentration into fewer hands, and that could enable rent rises through sheer market power. But if this happens at all it will happen because and after over-borrowed landlords have been forced to exit, i.e. it will not save them.

You are not factoring in that not all landlords ask the market going rate, many have asked under this rate to get better tenants. As more landlords see costs increase they will want to increase rents. Landlords that previously charged under market rents by a good bit (10%) will be able to increase the rent easily to just under the market rate (5%). Thats enough to raise average rents.

If other factors are at play such as less first time buyers buying properties or not enough council houses being built etc rents will go up considerably.

I expect the prefab home iniative might do something to dampen rent rises. How much will yet to be seen. I guess it will depend how much room there is in each area to build and that will depend if they chose to build on places like the South Downs and this will be the biggest price determinant.

A prefab home might not challenge the price of a well made home so much , so house prices might not get as effected but I imagine rents will.

A renter doesnt worry about the place standing in 25 years, owner occupiers will.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

I expect the prefab home iniative might do something to dampen rent rises. How much will yet to be seen. I guess it will depend how much room there is in each area to build and that will depend if they chose to build on places like the South Downs and this will be the biggest price determinant.

A prefab home might not challenge the price of a well made home so much , so house prices might not get as effected but I imagine rents will.

A renter doesnt worry about the place standing in 25 years, owner occupiers will.

the pre-fad iniatative will have zero impact in London and the SE
the issue there is not basic building costs but the cost and availability of the land.

another rehashed non-initiative