Landlordism 2.0

[Look-Up!]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

No one mentioned no risk and no landlord expects no risk. Perfectly acceptable business practice to borrow money on the strength of ROI for partial repayment. You could say the same thing about not taking on a mortgage if you can't repay if you lose your job. But that makes no practical sense. If you were so inherently wealthy not to require a job, or not to need rent, there'd be no need for the mortgage in the first place.

It's about controllable risk and stress test. Whereas before landlords accepted the risk and could afford to carry the can from loss of a couple of months rent or repair job after bad tenants, now there is no control whatsoever and they could be left for an indeterminate length of time (years if you listen to some hardliners) with no rent or recourse. And once the buffer money runs out i.e stress test, their family home could them come under risk. That's the unacceptable risk, a risk they didn't agree to when taking the mortgage, that has landlords wanting out. 

Hence why I made the point they should be able to afford repayments without the need for rental income. That is the risk from investing in a rental property - there may be no rental income. Regarding repossession of the family home, surely repossession of the rental property would be the first port of call? Has there been many incidences of "the small guy" having their family home repossessed for not paying rental property liabilities?

I wouldn't advise someone who couldn't afford to lose money in shares to invest in shares because they expect prices increase and they may potentially make some return on their investment. You can expect a return on a highly valuable asset all you want, doesn't mean it is going to materialise and become risk free. Don't see how the principal of investing in a rental property is any different.

As I originally stated, if they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place. I have no sympathies at all for people in this instance. They took a gamble to make more money, it hasn't paid off. That's life.

This hardliner BS when it comes to landlords of f**k em, tough shit, scabby c***ts is nonsense and needs to stop.

something tells me you have a vested interest in this subject!

Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

[trueblue1234]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

[Mike Tyson]

Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Think you're picking me up wrong. I'm not at all saying anyone should rent a property and not collect rent - I'm saying in the event that no rental income is there (whatever the reason - vacant property, non payment etc), the landlord should be able to afford their mortgage repayments. Very different things.

It's the principle of there being a risk of losing money in shares & property I was hinting at - not the actual investment vehicle itself. On that though, how can you "sell the place tomorrow" and also say property is "slower to dispose"?

No prejudice against landlords at all - just no sympathy!

[Mike Tyson]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

[Look-Up!]

Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Think you're picking me up wrong. I'm not at all saying anyone should rent a property and not collect rent - I'm saying in the event that no rental income is there (whatever the reason - vacant property, non payment etc), the landlord should be able to afford their mortgage repayments. Very different things.

It's the principle of there being a risk of losing money in shares & property I was hinting at - not the actual investment vehicle itself. On that though, how can you "sell the place tomorrow" and also say property is "slower to dispose"?

No prejudice against landlords at all - just no sympathy!

Sell the place tomorrow as in walking into an auctioneers in the morning and putting it on the market. With vacant possession, if you bought the place properly and deeds, structural reports and everything in order, you could conceivably be sale agreed in, I don't know, a month or less?
In the case of a tenant not paying rent and impossible to move, it's a very different scenario. How long are you talking? 6 months best case? A year? Two? If it dragged on too long, mortgage arrears could leave you so deep in it your ability to pay for you family home could be out of reach. I don't know how repossession works but imagine it wouldn't be so simple for banks to repossess when tenant occupied.

The risks are there for both shares and property but you would have to be a complete and utter idiot beyond reprieve to borrow money to buy shares. That's from a Sean Quinn sympathiser BTW  . And the bank that gave it to you would be worse.

You don't need to have sympathy for a landlord. Lots of things can f**k em. They could be idiots, greedy c***ts, going through a divorce, fallen on hard times, sick family member, the list goes on. But they are needed in a healthy rental market and no matter how that goes against the Irish psyche we're all European now and need to move on. And if we need landlords, then equally the rental landscape must have acceptable risk to attract people.

[trueblue1234]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

That's fair enough. But landlords deserve some protection on their asset same as any other person. If a property laying empty for a month or two between rents, then a landlord should be able to absorb those as realistic costs. Anyone who can't, shouldn't be a landlord. However an asset being held to ransom in the longer term by none paying tenants isn't a solution either.

[Look-Up!]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

That's fair enough. But landlords deserve some protection on their asset same as any other person. If a property laying empty for a month or two between rents, then a landlord should be able to absorb those as realistic costs. Anyone who can't, shouldn't be a landlord. However an asset being held to ransom in the longer term by none paying tenants isn't a solution either.

Absolutely Trueblue. It's a cut throat business with some landlords being absolute c***ts and if a landlord over extends himself then that's his tough shit. But same as any business there has to be a point where you can cut your losses. There is literally no limit to the losses a landlord could potentially have to endure without the ability to cut the losses and walk away. So it's now incomparable with any legitimate investment vehicle. 
And there's more costs involved than just losing rent. There's property tax, building management fees, sinking funds, fire levy upgrades. These are fairly common and are not insignificant. They can run into thousands per year on their own. And the property owner cannot take the attitude of the tenant and just say f**k it to these bills. The property cannot be sold until all these arrears are cleared.

[HiMucker]

Against my better judgement, I'll stick my head above the parapet lol. I'm a landlord and and I'd like to think I'm a very fair and ethical one and not, in the words of wobbler a "greedy, callous skilless c**t"  . Happy to answer any questions as honestly as I can, though anyone that thinks it is a straight forward, sit back and let the money roll in is badly mistaken. Its no doubt a great way to invest and  make an income, as it allows a great deal of flexibility time wise, and property investment is extremely resilient to inflation. However it would certainly not be for everyone. Can be a lot of hassle with maintenance, tenants etc, and I can see how people would find it extremely stressful. I would agree with Mike to a certain extent, that you should be able to pay your mortgage if the rent payments stopped, though only up to a point. You would be doing extremely well to make a 10% return on your investment, more likely 7 or 8. So the way interest rates are at present, I don't think thats exorbitant returns for the outlay and risk undertaken.
The carry on in Dublin is a totally different ball game.

Look-up is talking alot of sense

[Milltown Row2]

Have looked at and have pulled out because it's not as rosy as people think, I've a mate that has a 2 bedroom apartment and he Airbnb's it with no hassle

[Armagh18]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

[Mike Tyson]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

Ok

[Look-Up!]

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

[seafoid]

The 60,000 people on housing lists are the modern equivalent of spailpins.

[Look-Up!]

Against my better judgement, I'll stick my head above the parapet lol. I'm a landlord and and I'd like to think I'm a very fair and ethical one and not, in the words of wobbler a "greedy, callous skilless c**t"  . Happy to answer any questions as honestly as I can, though anyone that thinks it is a straight forward, sit back and let the money roll in is badly mistaken. Its no doubt a great way to invest and  make an income, as it allows a great deal of flexibility time wise, and property investment is extremely resilient to inflation. However it would certainly not be for everyone. Can be a lot of hassle with maintenance, tenants etc, and I can see how people would find it extremely stressful. I would agree with Mike to a certain extent, that you should be able to pay your mortgage if the rent payments stopped, though only up to a point. You would be doing extremely well to make a 10% return on your investment, more likely 7 or 8. So the way interest rates are at present, I don't think thats exorbitant returns for the outlay and risk undertaken.
The carry on in Dublin is a totally different ball game.

Look-up is talking alot of sense

Hi HiMucker, just curious do you operate fully in south or north or are evenly spread between both and would you intend to increase what you have or offload some. And how worried would you be (or any mates in the game) about the eviction ban or the tightening of things further. If you don't want to give too much away no worries.

[seafoid]

I wonder
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/03/14/tanaiste-says-state-has-turned-a-corner-on-activity-in-the-housing-sector/