Landlord tenant registry

SimpleSam06

Here's an idea that just occurred to me. What if the PRTB were to keep a list of all the tenants of registered landlords down through the years, and prospective tenants could pay a small fee, say €10 to access the list and call up or email these tenants with a request for comments (opt in only of course) about the premises, the neighbourhood, and the landlord? Or maybe tenants could rate their landlord on a variety of criteria (like hotels), and other tenants could request the rating? If they are supplying a service and taking money from people, they should expect to be reviewed as one. You could also include the details of any PRTB cases or judgement against them in the record.

While in and of itself it wouldn't be used as the last word, you'd need to go in and have a look, but it might vastly reduce the number of dodgy landlords, as they wouldn't be getting any business. This would also stop unregistered landlords entirely, since they would not be able to advertise without someone blowing the whistle to the PRTB when they couldn't be found in the register.

And to forestall any suggestions of a similar list of tenants, once again, landlords are providing a service and earning money from it, not the tenants.

seamus

Libel and Slander are probably the main issue.

All it needs is one landlord to sue the arse of a former tenant for badmouthing him and suddenly nobody wants to know.

SimpleSam06

seamus wrote: »

Libel and Slander are probably the main issue.

All it needs is one landlord to sue the arse of a former tenant for badmouthing him and suddenly nobody wants to know.

Well scratch the phone calls and emails so, there's nothing slanderous about giving someone a bad rating. If there was the hotels would have closed down most hotel websites long since. Add in any previous PRTB cases clearly listed, unregistered landlords being caught out, and you have a net benefit for society, I would say, with many bad eggs being removed from the system by natural selection so to speak!

antoinolachtnai

The other small issue with doing this is that it would be illegal.

Do you think there should be a similar database of tenants?

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The other small issue with doing this is that it would be illegal.

Eh no, it wouldn't be.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Do you think there should be a similar database of tenants?

Depends, how much money do tenants make from renting?

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Depends, how much money do tenants make from renting?

Over and above purchasing- in the current market possibly as much as 10% of their Net income....... Depends on how you measure it of course.......

antoinolachtnai

Well, it would be illegal, because the law which establishes the PRTB register doesn't specifically provide for that kind of use of the register.

The amount of money lost as a result of bad tenants is very large. This cost is ultimately transferred to good tenants. The benefits of removing 'bad eggs' would be similar.

If you were to turn the question around and ask how much money the average landlord is making from letting property in the current environment, the answer would probably be 'not a lot'.

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, it would be illegal, because the law which establishes the PRTB register doesn't specifically provide for that kind of use of the register.

Very weak. Thats not illegality of any sort, since it is not specifically prohibited.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The amount of money lost as a result of bad tenants is very large.

Have you got a source for this, as opposed to say the amount of money lost by tenants to cowboys who withold their deposits for spurious reasons?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This cost is ultimately transferred to good tenants. The benefits of removing 'bad eggs' would be similar.

No, the cost is not ultimately transferred. Rents are defined in BTL by supply and demand, not how much your mortgage on the place is, or whatever.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you were to turn the question around and ask how much money the average landlord is making from letting property in the current environment, the answer would probably be 'not a lot'.

BTL is a completely crappy business at the best of times, the idiot child of enterprise, its not my fault they couldn't find anything better to do with their lives.

antoinolachtnai

Well, if you want a law that specifically prevents it, try the European Convention on Data Protection which places limits on the sharing of information. In general, state bodies cannot do anything without some form of statutory or administrative mandate, and PRTB has no mandate for this. In addition, there are very specific functions for the register in law, and the one you describe is just not one of them. The PRTB cannot decide to just offer this service because they think it is a good idea. Maybe it should be used for this, but it would require a change in the law.

It is hard to estimate the damage done to property and rent left unpaid by problem tenants, but it is quite a lot. I would say that it is more than the unreturned deposits because the damage and rent lost can run to any amount, whilst the loss of deposit will never amount to more than a month's rent.

Do you have any estimate of damage done to tenants by problem landlords?

Both supply and demand determine the price of rental property. If supply reduces (as a result of problems with tenants) that will have an effect on prices. If the business is uneconomic, people will get out of it, particularly if the running/maintenance costs get too high. Supply will reduce as a result.

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, if you want a law that specifically prevents it, try the European Convention on Data Protection which places limits on the sharing of information.

Nope, that only applies to private individuals. Businesses are fair game. And landlords are running, you guessed it, a business. For an example of such just take a look at any hotel or comparison website on the internet.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In general, state bodies cannot do anything without some form of statutory or administrative mandate, and PRTB has no mandate for this. In addition, there are very specific functions for the register in law, and the one you describe is just not one of them. The PRTB cannot decide to just offer this service because they think it is a good idea. Maybe it should be used for this, but it would require a change in the law.

Weaker and weaker. No change in the law would be required, and of course an administrative mandate would be needed, that was the point of the thread. If it wasn't needed, the system would already be in place.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is hard to estimate the damage done to property and rent left unpaid by problem tenants, but it is quite a lot. I would say that it is more than the unreturned deposits because the damage and rent lost can run to any amount, whilst the loss of deposit will never amount to more than a month's rent.

So no supporting facts at all, then.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Do you have any estimate of damage done to tenants by problem landlords?

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Both supply and demand determine the price of rental property. If supply reduces (as a result of problems with tenants) that will have an effect on prices.

There would want to be some marauding gang of Viking tenants going around pillaging the place wholesale to make a dent on the supply that's in this country.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If the business is uneconomic, people will get out of it, particularly if the running/maintenance costs get too high. Supply will reduce as a result.

Unless that's about their level, and all they can manage. I mean where else would they go, the streets are already wedged with taxi drivers. Its not like there's a whole surplus of other completely unskilled self employment opportunities out there.

antoinolachtnai

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Weaker and weaker. No change in the law would be required, and of course an administrative mandate would be needed, that was the point of the thread. If it wasn't needed, the system would already be in place.

I think a change in the law is needed. You think otherwise.

You should check section 128(4)(a) of the RTA 2004.

So no supporting facts at all, then.


The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Well, I thought we were just shooting the breeze. But since you bring it up, you came up with the claim that such a mechanism was necessary or would be beneficial relating to sharing information about landlords. Where is your 'proof' that there would be any benefit from this?

There would want to be some marauding gang of Viking tenants going around pillaging the place wholesale to make a dent on the supply that's in this country.

There are a small number of problem tenants, and they are a major cost when you come across one. They can easily cause tens of thousands of euros in losses. They also cause disruption for neighbours. There is no effective means for dealing with problem tenants at the moment.

I am telling you that this is the case. You don't believe it and there is no point in arguing about it.

Unless that's about their level, and all they can manage. I mean where else would they go, the streets are already wedged with taxi drivers. Its not like there's a whole surplus of other completely unskilled self employment opportunities out there.

I don't really know what you mean by this.

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think a change in the law is needed. You think otherwise.

You should check section 128(4)(a) of the RTA 2004.

There is no overtly legal reason why this information should not be shared, and in fairness if a landlord is good they will have a good record. You could build filters into the system such as raising a flag if a person consistently votes down landlords who otherwise have scored well, to disregard their votes. There are a lot of options with something like this. If a minor adjustment in the structure of the PRTB is required, I don't see how that would be much of a problem. Its not like building a website costs a lot of money.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, I thought we were just shooting the breeze.

Yes but we're shooting it with real bullets. :P

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

But since you bring it up, you came up with the claim that such a mechanism was necessary or would be beneficial relating to sharing information about landlords. Where is your 'proof' that there would be any benefit from this?

There are four distinct threads on the front page right now about problems with landlords. I would say threads like this form close to the majority of threads about a topic in prop/accom, second only to property prices. The word "notorious" springs to mind. If that isn't indicative of problems, I don't know what is.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is no effective means for dealing with problem tenants at the moment.

Except telling them the house is going up for sale and evicting them on that basis. Or telling the guards that you felt personally threatened and having them out on their ear tomorrow. Not that you should need that recourse, if they are problem tenants you won't be long finding out about it.

antoinolachtnai

The section I mentioned above is a crystal clear reason the information should not be shared without legislative change.

You read on boards.ie about a few people who don't get on with their landlord. I was listening to Joe Duffy the other day and he had a bunch of landlords on who'd lost tens of thousands as a result of problem tenants. There you go.

Neither of those methods will work to deal with problem tenants, or if they do they will end up with a big compensation bill for the landlord or worse. If a tenant will not leave, you cannot sell the house. No one will buy it. You cannot evict anyone without a PRTB order. It will typically take months to get an order. The Garda will not just evict someone for you, no matter what you tell them. It is not their job, and if they did it, they would be sued for damages.

If you don't like your landlord, you can just leave and move somewhere else. It's not that big a deal.

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The section I mentioned above is a crystal clear reason the information should not be shared without legislative change.

Actually you're bang on the money correct in that, it does specifically preclude publishing the names of landlords.

No reason why it couldn't be done privately though. Send in a copy of your PRTB registration form and you get sent a username and password. Once again where the government fails, the private sector steps up.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You read on boards.ie about a few people who don't get on with their landlord. I was listening to Joe Duffy the other day and he had a bunch of landlords on who'd lost tens of thousands as a result of problem tenants. There you go.

Sorry now, but anyone saying that there are no widespread problems with landlords in this country has their head in the sand tbh. Thats why we need a charity to deal with tenants rights here.

As at 31 March 2006, 91,123 tenancies were registered on the PRTB’s computer system. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government estimates that there are over 150,000 rented dwellings in the State, so there is clearly a high level of non-compliance with the registration requirement.

It is interesting to note, in passing, that before Part 7 RTA came into force on 1 September 2004, only 22,574 tenancies were registered with local housing authorities.

Even the PRTB itself notes the wide streak of lawlessness among Irish landlords. The worst case I've seen was one clown who wired up the adjacent house to his own ESB, took the ESB bills in cash and didn't pay them, demanded the accumulated ESB from the tenants next door, then kept their deposit when they moved out because he still had "outstanding utility bills". Needless to say when I found out about this I reported the gent in question to every agency I could think of, heh.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Neither of those methods will work to deal with problem tenants, or if they do they will end up with a big compensation bill for the landlord or worse. If a tenant will not leave, you cannot sell the house. No one will buy it.

You don't need to sell the house. Just claim that you are trying. Its not like houses are moving these days anyway. Also you can terminate a tenancy without any notice during the first six months - surely that should be enough time to spot trouble? Here are a few more reasons:

Your landlord must always give you notice when asking you to leave. (Read more under 'Notice periods' and 'Notice of termination', below.) Landlords can ask tenants to leave without giving a reason during the first six months of a tenancy. Landlords can terminate a tenancy that has lasted between six months and four years (a Part 4 tenancy) only in the following circumstances:

• After 3 and ½ years.
• If the tenant does not comply with the obligations of the tenancy.
• If the property is no longer suited to the tenants’ needs (e.g. overcrowded).
• If the landlord needs the property for him/herself or for an immediate family member.
• If the landlord intends to sell the property.
• If the landlord intends to refurbish the property.
• If the landlord plans to change the business use of the property (e.g. turn it into offices).

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You cannot evict anyone without a PRTB order. It will typically take months to get an order. The Garda will not just evict someone for you, no matter what you tell them. It is not their job, and if they did it, they would be sued for damages.

Aww, what a shame they can't toss people out on their ear within an hour or two. My heart bleeds for them. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't tenants held liable for rent not paid during that period?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you don't like your landlord, you can just leave and move somewhere else. It's not that big a deal.

Unless you have a family with children. Actually even if you don't, moving house is a major pain in the arse, and fairly expensive too. Thats why most people don't do it unless they have to.

antoinolachtnai

You could establish such a thing privately, for sure. But it would be tricky enough to make sure you tracked the identity of landlords. It wouldn't be much use if you didn't do this. It isn't enough to track properties. Properties change hands regularly.

Threshold isn't a tenant's rights organization primarily. It's a housing organization.

Terminating a tenancy is all very well. It is not the same as evicting someone.

You are the person who proposed the idea of getting the Garda to throw someone out on the basis of an accusation. It wasn't my idea but you are throwing it back at me as though it was.

Saying you are going to sell your property when you aren't is wrong and clearly illegal. I don't know why you would propose that.

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You could establish such a thing privately, for sure. But it would be tricky enough to make sure you tracked the identity of landlords. It wouldn't be much use if you didn't do this. It isn't enough to track properties. Properties change hands regularly.

Surely the copies of the PRTB forms submitted should be enough to establish the identity of the landlord as well?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Threshold isn't a tenant's rights organization primarily. It's a housing organization.

Funny how its referenced in most discussions about abusive landlords around here, so.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Terminating a tenancy is all very well. It is not the same as evicting someone.

The average length from start to finish of eviction proceedings is around 3 months. Although costs are rarely awarded, are tenants not liable for rent and damages caused during this period?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are the person who proposed the idea of getting the Garda to throw someone out on the basis of an accusation. It wasn't my idea but you are throwing it back at me as though it was.

Actually that tactic works quite well as along as the tenants are intimidated enough to believe it. Most people either wouldn't know their rights or wouldn't have the stomach/time/money for the court case.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Saying you are going to sell your property when you aren't is wrong and clearly illegal. I don't know why you would propose that.

Yes, the 60,000 odd landlords who aren't paying taxes are also acting illegally. So was that yahoo who tried to make the tenants pay his ESB bill for him (as I recall the house was split into two, and he tried to make the downstairs tenants sign for the ESB bill for the entire house). Illegal activity is nothing new to many Irish landlords.

In fairness I can't understand where opposition to this idea comes from. Decent landlords who play it by the book would be well catered for; the only ones that would lose out would be the cowboys, of which there are many.

antoinolachtnai

I never said I opposed setting up a voluntary, private system. I have no problems with that whatsoever, although I doubt whether it would be effective.

I made a factual statement that can be easily verified about Threshold and you dispute it. There is no point in arguing about it with you if you want to dispute the fact solely on the basis of things you've read on boards.ie

As I say, I'm not opposing the approach, but what is in this for landlords? You want them to send in copies of forms they send to the PRTB. (There won't be any way to check whether these are actually the same as the forms sent in to the prtb.)

Where did you get that figure for length of time to an eviction? I wouldn't say many evictions are processed in less than three months, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. Certainly, many take longer.

It is ridiculous to say that a problem tenant remains liable. There is no way to collect from a problem tenant in practice.

I am nothing to do with the non law-abiding landlords (just as you are nothing to do with problem tenants who damage property and disrupt neighbourhoods). I feel that you are throwing all these allegations around as if you want them to somehow stick to me.

Why do you think that non law-abiding landlords (who presumably would be the target) would be prepared to participate in your voluntary scheme?

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I made a factual statement that can be easily verified about Threshold and you dispute it. There is no point in arguing about it with you if you want to dispute the fact solely on the basis of things you've read on boards.ie

So hold on, are you saying that tenants rights don't come under the mandate of Threshold at all?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Where did you get that figure for length of time to an eviction? I wouldn't say many evictions are processed in less than three months, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. Certainly, many take longer.

Eh it was actually 4 months, I got it from here.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is ridiculous to say that a problem tenant remains liable. There is no way to collect from a problem tenant in practice.

The courts order people to pay fines all the time. And they pay them alright.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I feel that you are throwing all these allegations around as if you want them to somehow stick to me.

:rolleyes: I don't.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As I say, I'm not opposing the approach, but what is in this for landlords? You want them to send in copies of forms they send to the PRTB. (There won't be any way to check whether these are actually the same as the forms sent in to the prtb.)

Why do you think that non law-abiding landlords (who presumably would be the target) would be prepared to participate in your voluntary scheme?

The landlord doesn't need to participate at all, thats the beauty of it. Tenants receive a copy of the PRTB documents for their own records.

nadin278

things will never change the way you are proposing.

Its a landlord who owns the property,and tenant who wants to live in his property, and its the landlord, who will screen the tenants, not the other way around.

And in anyway tenant always have choice to go ahead or not to go ahead. So what is the point.

There is a law to protect tenant, PRTB, threshold, solicitors, so tenants are protected.

Even more than the landlord these days, so what is the point of the database, dont get it...

SimpleSam06

nadin278 wrote: »

Its a landlord who owns the property,and tenant who wants to live in his property, and its the landlord, who will screen the tenants, not the other way around.

Sorry now, but landlords need to stop seeing it as "their house". Once a lease is signed, it stops being "their house" until the lease expires. They aren't doing people a big favour, they are providing a service in exchange for money.

nadin278 wrote: »

And in anyway tenant always have choice to go ahead or not to go ahead. So what is the point.

To drive bad landlords out of business by letting people know about them.

antoinolachtnai

Re Threshold: you are able to read what I said.

Re collecting a debt: an individual or company collecting a debt from a person who has no means and the State collecting a fine from someone who left their rubbish in the wrong place or hogged the bus lane might seem similar in theory, but they are very different in practice.

The thing with sending in the PRTB printout wouldn't work very well. All non-legit landlords would simply put a mutual confidentiality clause in the lease and that would prevent the tenant from submitting the form. And surely the whole point would be to pinpoint non-compliant landlords, not compliant ones?

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Re collecting a debt: an individual or company collecting a debt from a person who has no means and the State collecting a fine from someone who left their rubbish in the wrong place or hogged the bus lane might seem similar in theory, but they are very different in practice.

Are you saying that all problem tenants are penniless?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The thing with sending in the PRTB printout wouldn't work very well. All non-legit landlords would simply put a mutual confidentiality clause in the lease and that would prevent the tenant from submitting the form.

Which is about as enforceable as a "jump off the rooftop" clause.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

And surely the whole point would be to pinpoint non-compliant landlords, not compliant ones?

Exactly, if he doesn't provide the documentation, up he goes as unregistered.