Generally speaking, is there anyway of knowing how much current demand dictates prices? Given the imbalance between a renter and a landlord, I dont see why they would need an excuse (like migration) to set prices. The restraints in that department are pretty clear from the housing plan. As well as that, a large insitutional landlord, for instance, gains alot out of simply listing property as an asset.
This is a very pertinent point! Technically, no, as the current rent capping system theoretically limits raises, and the tying of rent increases to the property not the tenant should in theory prevent opportunist rent hikes between tenancies but the rise in rents since the introduction of RPZs would indicate that they have only had limited success in capping runaway rent increases. (Or more correctly, that loopholes & weak enforcement in the RPZ system have allowed sufficient non compliance to allow rents to rise nevertheless).
Demand certainly would dictate prices in a market absolutely free to set whatever price the landlord likes - and there is usually sufficient "new rentals" (much of which is in fact "old rentals" that have been tactically withdrawn to "reset" rents without any improvements) to push up rents. If you do look there does seem to be hard limits on certain kinds of rentals - I did a quick search of daft.ie to try to find 1 beds in Dublin renting at above 3k per calendar month, and they were not there. Not even in Dalkey or Blackrock - I did find a single example of 2898pcm for a brand new 1 bed in a development in D4, but otherwise new build 1 bed apartment rents capped out at around 2650 (and that was in Blackrock). What was far more interesting was that very few of the new build 1 beds dipped under 2k and rents were more or less uniform plus or minus 2300pcm regardless of whether they were in Ballsbridge or Bluebell. Technically that indicates some level of price fixing on a grand scale but without evidence its hard to prove that.
I've felt for years such enormous starting rents would indicate landlords of all sizes are front loading in higher rents to compensate for rent capping.
Its interesting to see such a level of resistance to the new legislation from landlords as to a degree the only real change is resetting the rents between tenancies (which they've howled for for nearly 10 years), a removal of the ability to evict at the end of the 6 year part 4 tenancy (which landlords were not using), & the removal of the evict-to-sell policy previously set.
There isn't really a "market price" for rentals here, there is more or less a menu of set prices fixed more or less on the number of bedrooms and a loose location value here, which as my look at daft shows, doesn't really vary that much. If large developers do go ahead and challenge the constitutionality of the proposed legislation (which they may not win), then its surely important that the government counters with initiating an anti-competition case against same and IPOA as was done with the insurance sector nearly a decade ago.
The alternative, and one that could perhaps be initiated by either government of opposition, is a "price gouging" law, which would be infinitely far worse than anything government has proposed for the sector, which would allow grand scale retaliation against anybody charging high prices during a crisis.
Generally speaking, is there anyway of knowing how much current demand dictates prices? Given the imbalance between a renter and a landlord, I dont see why they would need an excuse (like migration) to set prices. The restraints in that department are pretty clear from the housing plan. As well as that, a large insitutional landlord, for instance, gains alot out of simply listing property as an asset.
This is a very pertinent point! Technically, no, as the current rent capping system theoretically limits raises, and the tying of rent increases to the property not the tenant should in theory prevent opportunist rent hikes between tenancies but the rise in rents since the introduction of RPZs would indicate that they have only had limited success in capping runaway rent increases. (Or more correctly, that loopholes & weak enforcement in the RPZ system have allowed sufficient non compliance to allow rents to rise nevertheless).
Demand certainly would dictate prices in a market absolutely free to set whatever price the landlord likes - and there is usually sufficient "new rentals" (much of which is in fact "old rentals" that have been tactically withdrawn to "reset" rents without any improvements) to push up rents. If you do look there does seem to be hard limits on certain kinds of rentals - I did a quick search of daft.ie to try to find 1 beds in Dublin renting at above 3k per calendar month, and they were not there. Not even in Dalkey or Blackrock - I did find a single example of 2898pcm for a brand new 1 bed in a development in D4, but otherwise new build 1 bed apartment rents capped out at around 2650 (and that was in Blackrock). What was far more interesting was that very few of the new build 1 beds dipped under 2k and rents were more or less uniform plus or minus 2300pcm regardless of whether they were in Ballsbridge or Bluebell. Technically that indicates some level of price fixing on a grand scale but without evidence its hard to prove that.
I've felt for years such enormous starting rents would indicate landlords of all sizes are front loading in higher rents to compensate for rent capping.
Its interesting to see such a level of resistance to the new legislation from landlords as to a degree the only real change is resetting the rents between tenancies (which they've howled for for nearly 10 years), a removal of the ability to evict at the end of the 6 year part 4 tenancy (which landlords were not using), & the removal of the evict-to-sell policy previously set.
There isn't really a "market price" for rentals here, there is more or less a menu of set prices fixed more or less on the number of bedrooms and a loose location value here, which as my look at daft shows, doesn't really vary that much. If large developers do go ahead and challenge the constitutionality of the proposed legislation (which they may not win), then its surely important that the government counters with initiating an anti-competition case against same and IPOA as was done with the insurance sector nearly a decade ago.
The alternative, and one that could perhaps be initiated by either government of opposition, is a "price gouging" law, which would be infinitely far worse than anything government has proposed for the sector, which would allow grand scale retaliation against anybody charging high prices during a crisis.