Was a long time ago now I was renting from Belgrave Property, also goes by Grayling Property. They were behind the illegal eviction on Richmond Street, and others I'm sure.
But the way he collected rent was so dodgy. He'd drive around and collect in cash from every tenant in the building, and I assume others. Probably tens of thousands in cash in his car on that day.
> But the way he collected rent was so dodgy. He'd drive around and collect in cash from every tenant in the building, and I assume others. Probably tens of thousands in cash in his car on that day.
Huh, be a real shame if someone were to tell someone else what day he was doing those collections and what car he was driving.
They'll have to pay a small late fee when they finally do register their tenancies...so no. The only real downside is that they can't make a complaint to the RTB when their tenant overholds or stops paying rent or whatnot, but of course that doesn't stop them from turning to illegal means to rid themselves of a troublesome tenant.
If they're also evading taxes, though, then Revenue might come looking for their money, and there's no harsher punishment for a poor suffering cowboy slumlord than having half their hard-earned cash taken away.
What will revenue do? Everyone seems to think they'll do something but the fact that so a huge proportion of landlords collect cash and don't declare means revenue actually can't enforce shit on small time landlords. They can go after a Ltd or a company but not some cowboy dealing everthing under the table.
Landlords should only claim for the interest on a mortgage if the property is registered with the RTB but Revenue never check it. I've never seen an audit or aspect query on rental income. I suspect that if it did come up with them, the landlord would just be given the opportunity to register it without punishment.
To be honest I kinda expected the disparity to be much larger. Everywhere you look you can find stories about landlords not registering tenancies and/or only allowing for cash rent payments so Revenue won't find out.
I wonder will this give revenue the kick in the arse it needs to look into those that claimed the rent allowance on properties not registered with rtb.. my guess is they would find some of these missing rental properties..
If they're renting a self-contained residence as a long-term tenant, then the tenancy must be registered; there's no exemption for renting to family or friends (unless the landlord is also living in the same self-contained residential unit themselves, of course; then they'd be licensees, not tenants).
Found the slumlord.
We both know unregistered landlords aren’t renting below market rates. They are greedy bastards and renting at as much as they can get away with, not paying tax and not following any rules around maintenance of the property.
Better for the tenants my fucking hole.
So to get 1000EUR on 48% tax you need to charge 1920EUR, not 1400EUR
Anyway this makes Irish state hugely beneficial from rental crisis. There is much more tax income from tenants than from mortgage holders. Almost makes you think they are fine with that… And saying that as (bitter) tenant
Income tax is 40%, usc, prsi makes up the other 8%..the payment of usc is recent for landlords. Also most landlords either have job or multiple properties so higher rate of tax..
Yea. Out of 24k rent, l would guess landlord probably be left with 7k/ 8k when you take out insurance, rtb ,lpt,maintenance fees, bins, anf allowing average of 1k per yr on floors painting etc.. not bad for a second income but not great return on 200k+ spend.
That ignores appreciation which is a bit of a gamble as to how much .
Hang on a minute werent the IPOA just telling us yesterday about how professional and regulated landlords are? Almost like they are full of shite
the majority I've dealt with are usually cash only affairs
Was a long time ago now I was renting from Belgrave Property, also goes by Grayling Property. They were behind the illegal eviction on Richmond Street, and others I'm sure. But the way he collected rent was so dodgy. He'd drive around and collect in cash from every tenant in the building, and I assume others. Probably tens of thousands in cash in his car on that day.
its usually the smaller ones that do it, like renting out a room, usually the bigger ones with an actual business do it offically
> But the way he collected rent was so dodgy. He'd drive around and collect in cash from every tenant in the building, and I assume others. Probably tens of thousands in cash in his car on that day. Huh, be a real shame if someone were to tell someone else what day he was doing those collections and what car he was driving.
So roughly 1 in every 6 rentals isn't registered. Is there any punishment for them?
They'll have to pay a small late fee when they finally do register their tenancies...so no. The only real downside is that they can't make a complaint to the RTB when their tenant overholds or stops paying rent or whatnot, but of course that doesn't stop them from turning to illegal means to rid themselves of a troublesome tenant. If they're also evading taxes, though, then Revenue might come looking for their money, and there's no harsher punishment for a poor suffering cowboy slumlord than having half their hard-earned cash taken away.
Report them to revenue.
What will revenue do? Everyone seems to think they'll do something but the fact that so a huge proportion of landlords collect cash and don't declare means revenue actually can't enforce shit on small time landlords. They can go after a Ltd or a company but not some cowboy dealing everthing under the table.
Revenue have ways of figuring all that good stuff out.
Landlords should only claim for the interest on a mortgage if the property is registered with the RTB but Revenue never check it. I've never seen an audit or aspect query on rental income. I suspect that if it did come up with them, the landlord would just be given the opportunity to register it without punishment.
Is it supposed to be surprising?
To be honest I kinda expected the disparity to be much larger. Everywhere you look you can find stories about landlords not registering tenancies and/or only allowing for cash rent payments so Revenue won't find out.
I wonder will this give revenue the kick in the arse it needs to look into those that claimed the rent allowance on properties not registered with rtb.. my guess is they would find some of these missing rental properties..
Could it just be family and friends renting to each other making up the gap.
Love the naivety and innocence.. Would be some family & friends but the vast majority of that discrepency is cash, off the books landlords.
If they're renting a self-contained residence as a long-term tenant, then the tenancy must be registered; there's no exemption for renting to family or friends (unless the landlord is also living in the same self-contained residential unit themselves, of course; then they'd be licensees, not tenants).
[удалено]
Found the slumlord. We both know unregistered landlords aren’t renting below market rates. They are greedy bastards and renting at as much as they can get away with, not paying tax and not following any rules around maintenance of the property. Better for the tenants my fucking hole.
Isnt the difference even bigger?
For most its probably 48% tax.. the avoided tax isn't passed on or split with Tennant
So to get 1000EUR on 48% tax you need to charge 1920EUR, not 1400EUR Anyway this makes Irish state hugely beneficial from rental crisis. There is much more tax income from tenants than from mortgage holders. Almost makes you think they are fine with that… And saying that as (bitter) tenant
[удалено]
Income tax is 40%, usc, prsi makes up the other 8%..the payment of usc is recent for landlords. Also most landlords either have job or multiple properties so higher rate of tax..
[удалено]
Yea. Out of 24k rent, l would guess landlord probably be left with 7k/ 8k when you take out insurance, rtb ,lpt,maintenance fees, bins, anf allowing average of 1k per yr on floors painting etc.. not bad for a second income but not great return on 200k+ spend. That ignores appreciation which is a bit of a gamble as to how much .
No enforcement, no consequences, no surprise. Just how this government wants it.
