Messages

[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.]

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!

[landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage]

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

I find it hard to believe theres any landlord that cant find a tenant. Are you trying to say if the tenants dont bother paying rent then it's just tough shit for the land lord?

No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

[Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.]

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

People borrow all the time on good faith. Business people borrow on the strength of their company and projected revenues. If it goes tits up there's no alternative affordability rules. People with jobs borrow on the strength of their future earning potential. If they lose job or get sick and can't pay the mortgage there's no alternative affordability rules. The house goes.
Renting property is no different. People borrow to get into the game or expand their business. Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

[It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them.]

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Marian Finnegan of Sherry FitzGerald estate agents says there's no evidence of landlords leaving the market because of the eviction ban; rather, small owners have been selling up for a decade due to burdensome taxes and regulations. Moreover, she suggests that the Government squandered the opportunity presented by the moratorium to halt the "exodus" of such landlords: "Literally nothing was done until the last minute of the last month."

It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

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.

https://www.blkboxfitness.com/blogs/education/the-gameday-primer-principles-and-practices

[fellas working in the black economy will charge less]

I suppose the simplest explanation is that they will work for less than people from here. Not sure if that is factually accurate but would say there is at least some degree of truth to it.

Makes sense but I suppose if they are coming in for the low paid and supposedly low skilled jobs, these wages would already be at the minimum wage floor so couldn't be paid any less?

The minimum wage is notional in certain sectors.
Even with stuff like carpentry and plumbing, fellas working in the black economy will charge less than pros who are regulated.
Cleaning would be the same.

So more of an illegal working/tax evasion issue then as opposed to the migrants that is driving down wages? Interesting.

Throw up some numbers to back your thesis.
Migrants generally, and this applied to Irish migrants in the past, often work hard and save money to either support people at home or build a house at home.
Unscrupulous employers can easily take advantage of them.

You're the one who first made the claim it drives down wages? Then subsequently that it's actually due to the "black economy", both with no numbers to back your statements I'm simply applying some logic to what you're saying. Using your theory and Kidder81's statement, everyone in the UK should have received/be due a fair increase in our wages since Brexit given the shortage in Eastern European migrants/workers?

I'll throw you some reading from University of Oxford study: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

"Reviewing 12 studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, MAC (2018) concluded that immigration had had little impact on average wages. Some studies (e.g. Nickell and Saleheen, 2015) had found a small negative impact on average wages while others (e.g. Dustmann et al, 2013) found positive average effects."

"Finally, research suggests that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers."

As with any cause & effect analysis, it's near impossible to simply state one factor is responsible and study it independently. Real life isn't an economics text book were "assuming all else remains equal" applies.

I'm happy to see your research backing the statement, "Migration from anywhere poorer eg Eastern Europe and Portugal does drive down wages". Eagerly awaiting your reply

[fellas working in the black economy will charge less]

I suppose the simplest explanation is that they will work for less than people from here. Not sure if that is factually accurate but would say there is at least some degree of truth to it.

Makes sense but I suppose if they are coming in for the low paid and supposedly low skilled jobs, these wages would already be at the minimum wage floor so couldn't be paid any less?

The minimum wage is notional in certain sectors.
Even with stuff like carpentry and plumbing, fellas working in the black economy will charge less than pros who are regulated.
Cleaning would be the same.

So more of an illegal working/tax evasion issue then as opposed to the migrants that is driving down wages? Interesting.

I suppose the simplest explanation is that they will work for less than people from here. Not sure if that is factually accurate but would say there is at least some degree of truth to it.

Makes sense but I suppose if they are coming in for the low paid and supposedly low skilled jobs, these wages would already be at the minimum wage floor so couldn't be paid any less?

[I know there are many union members on here from the North, some of whom are in NIPSA, the public service union. So a question for NIPSA leaders; do they still support Brexit?]

Boris is an opportunist, with zero morals and no regard for anyone living on this island.
Fair play to all the civil servants on the EU and UK side for making efforts to minimise the impact of the disaster that is Brexit. The recent report from the Bank of England highlighting that Brexit is costing every UK household £1,000 per year is interesting.  So all of us in the North are £1,000 worse off every year because of that disastrous decision.
I know there are many union members on here from the North, some of whom are in NIPSA, the public service union. So a question for NIPSA leaders; do they still support Brexit?

That question was asked of Mick Lynch on the James O'Brien LBC radio show and his answer was interesting if somewhat ill thought out.

He said migrant labour was keeping wages artificially low and Rail companies were feeding off that.
When questioned further about workers rights and the current bonfire of them being burned because the UK is out of the EU, his answer was less than insightful that they didn't expect this government to go so far so fast.
Where has he been? This is the most corrupt, right wing Gov ever in my lifetime, putting Thatcher in the ha'penny place in that regards.

Migrant labour does keep wages down. So did austerity.  UK wages are about 15% lower than in 2008.

Read the script,
EU migrant labour did not/does not keep UK manual wages down.
The reasons why UK wages were/are lower have nothing to do with EU migrant labour.
Mick Lynch is talking through his hole when raging agin the EU.

throw up some numbers about UK migration.
Migration from anywhere poorer eg Eastern Europe and Portugal does drive down wages and the UK still has EU migration but a lot more from third party countries.
Free movement now without limits is insane because it's anti local  working class and migration  does not drive growth because there is no growth. Don't bother talking about Irish growth which is driven by MNC accounting.

Can you explain the rational behind this please?

[so actual injuries can not be replaced?]

So no subs during injury time? so actual injuries can not be replaced? You'll have the player welfare nuts coming on then saying that the players will be forced to play when injured and so on..

You have to have subs and its a break in play, same as a player going down and holding his head, they are all using it to slow play, the ref aint a doctor and that's a medic's call tbf

Is that not the case when a team uses up all their subs anyway? You just have to deal with it and go a man down?

On Colm Parkinson's podcast the idea was floated of following Premier League sub rules in that you can only make subs at 3 distinct points in a match. Would there be many drawbacks to that?

I don't think it is 3 distinct points it is you can only make them on 3 occasions during a game.

Yea sorry that's what I meant. Not constricted to a point in the game but only on 3 occassions.

good in theory but what if someone gets injured and you've already used your 3 sub occasions?

Well that's my point above - you carry on with 14. The same that would happen if all subs were used by the 50th minute today. I think the PL operates that way too - down to 10 men and it's a case of hard luck.

[so actual injuries can not be replaced?]

So no subs during injury time? so actual injuries can not be replaced? You'll have the player welfare nuts coming on then saying that the players will be forced to play when injured and so on..

You have to have subs and its a break in play, same as a player going down and holding his head, they are all using it to slow play, the ref aint a doctor and that's a medic's call tbf

Is that not the case when a team uses up all their subs anyway? You just have to deal with it and go a man down?

On Colm Parkinson's podcast the idea was floated of following Premier League sub rules in that you can only make subs at 3 distinct points in a match. Would there be many drawbacks to that?

That's if they have no subs left, if they do they can replace them whenever and if a player goes off with a head injury he also can be replaced with a temp sub

That's my point, the risk of not replacing an injured player is already there and does happen under the current rules. Don't think there's too much noise around player welfare in that regard at the minute. Not that I'm in agreement with no subs in injury time but its on average 2-3mins of time added (be interesting to know how much of that is actual playing time) so can't see the issue around player welfare. If you're injured you go off and go a man down - same as when all your subs are used currently.

[so actual injuries can not be replaced?]

So no subs during injury time? so actual injuries can not be replaced? You'll have the player welfare nuts coming on then saying that the players will be forced to play when injured and so on..

You have to have subs and its a break in play, same as a player going down and holding his head, they are all using it to slow play, the ref aint a doctor and that's a medic's call tbf

Is that not the case when a team uses up all their subs anyway? You just have to deal with it and go a man down?

On Colm Parkinson's podcast the idea was floated of following Premier League sub rules in that you can only make subs at 3 distinct points in a match. Would there be many drawbacks to that?

I don't think it is 3 distinct points it is you can only make them on 3 occasions during a game.

Yea sorry that's what I meant. Not constricted to a point in the game but only on 3 occassions.

[so actual injuries can not be replaced?]

So no subs during injury time? so actual injuries can not be replaced? You'll have the player welfare nuts coming on then saying that the players will be forced to play when injured and so on..

You have to have subs and its a break in play, same as a player going down and holding his head, they are all using it to slow play, the ref aint a doctor and that's a medic's call tbf

Is that not the case when a team uses up all their subs anyway? You just have to deal with it and go a man down?

On Colm Parkinson's podcast the idea was floated of following Premier League sub rules in that you can only make subs at 3 distinct points in a match. Would there be many drawbacks to that?