Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Agencies are a nightmare - STAY AWAY

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Darlughda wrote: »
    ...
    There is a huge difference between somebody who is taking you for a fool and somebody who is genuinely struggling. It seems to be the amateruish landlord type who cannot figure out the difference.

    Its irrelevant. Either the rent comes in or the tenant goes out. Its a business.


  • Options
    #33
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    BostonB wrote: »
    Its irrelevant. Either the rent comes in or the tenant goes out. Its a business.

    As the bailiffs said to my great-grandparents when they were evicted from their tenant holding in the late 19th century.

    Having mentioned the black and white rent or not argument with recourse to history, I must mention that I would never ever not pay rent to my landlord.

    But if he or she tried to illegaly evict me, withhold my deposit, refuse to make essential repairs etc.......


  • Options
    #34
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Darlughda wrote: »
    As the bailiffs said to my great-grandparents when they were evicted from their tenant holding in the late 19th century.

    Having mentioned the black and white rent or not argument with recourse to history, I must mention that I would never ever not pay rent to my landlord.

    But if he or she tried to illegaly evict me, withhold my deposit, refuse to make essential repairs etc.......

    Come on Darlughda- you're using the rhetoric of the landlord system from centuries ago to justify the position you're taking?

    Tenancy rights in Ireland took a massive swing of the pendulum in favour of tenants- with the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act.

    The era of illegal evictions- even in cases where rent isn't being paid- are long over.

    Its so sodding difficult for a legitimate landlord to deal with a tenant who is intent on taking the piss- that its really not funny. I've a whole list of cases of tenants living rent-free who know they will eventually have to move- but are very happy with their situation until that day dawns (there are over 20 cases outstanding in Galway alone that fit this category at present).

    In the past tenants had absolutely no recourse if they were illegally evicted- now they are the injured party and free to take legal action without any consequence to themselves. Think of the guy in Wexford last year who needed his only property back after loosing his job elsewhere, and tried to move home- only to find his tenants wouldn't move out. He changed the locks and delivered them their belongings- only to end up in court and to fined 14k for an illegal eviction.........

    Landlords these days are far more likely to own a single property- than to be the archetypal landlords of yesteryear- and when they get screwed around by a tenant- it crucifies them.


  • Options
    #35
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Darlughda wrote: »
    As the bailiffs said to my great-grandparents when they were evicted from their tenant holding in the late 19th century...

    Considering the state will pay peoples rent how is that relevant. The landlord could be someone unable to work, maybe an elderly personal, or a single parent and the rent is their only income.


  • Options
    #36
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    To expect to move into a property for a month, without paying up front is so entitled it's incredible; to presume a person is greedy for expecting someone to pay to use a property they own, work on & and costs them, is so naive it's incredible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    Zulu wrote: »
    To expect to move into a property for a month, without paying up front is so entitled it's incredible; to presume a person is greedy for expecting someone to pay to use a property they own, work on & and costs them, is so naive it's incredible.

    Then why don't landlords return their tenants deposits immediately to ensure they can secure new accomodation?


  • Options
    #38
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Come on Darlughda- you're using the rhetoric of the landlord system from centuries ago to justify the position you're taking? .
    No. I used that example to show who wrong the position of the bottomline is all that matters position is morally wrong
    smccarrick wrote: »
    Its so sodding difficult for a legitimate landlord to deal with a tenant who is intent on taking the piss- that its really not funny. I've a whole list of cases of tenants living rent-free who know they will eventually have to move- but are very happy with their situation until that day dawns (there are over 20 cases outstanding in Galway alone that fit this category at present).

    In the past tenants had absolutely no recourse if they were illegally evicted- now they are the injured party and free to take legal action without any consequence to themselves. Think of the guy in Wexford last year who needed his only property back after loosing his job elsewhere, and tried to move home- only to find his tenants wouldn't move out. He changed the locks and delivered them their belongings- only to end up in court and to fined 14k for an illegal eviction.........

    Landlords these days are far more likely to own a single property- than to be the archetypal landlords of yesteryear- and when they get screwed around by a tenant- it crucifies them.

    Really? Under what circumstances is a tenant able to stay in a property like that without paying rent? Surely PRTB will make them get out and pay the rent owed?


  • Options
    #39
    Ortiz
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭Ortiz


    Darlughda wrote: »
    No. I used that example to show who wrong the position of the bottomline is all that matters position is morally wrong



    Really? Under what circumstances is a tenant able to stay in a property like that without paying rent? Surely PRTB will make them get out and pay the rent owed?

    If a tenant doesn't pay rent it can take months for the PRTB to have a hearing. The PRTB is known to be pro tenant/anti landlord. Most of the time it just isn't worth going down the PRTB route when you're a landlord and just try to evict the tenant yourself and cut your losses


  • Options
    #40
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Darlughda wrote: »
    Then why don't landlords return their tenants deposits immediately to ensure they can secure new accomodation?

    Because the point of a deposit is to cover damage found when the client leaves, at the final inspection, and handing over the keys. Not when the client gives notice.


  • Options
    #41
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Darlughda wrote: »
    ....Really? Under what circumstances is a tenant able to stay in a property like that without paying rent? Surely PRTB will make them get out and pay the rent owed?

    No the PRTB has no power to evict a tenant. The PRTB just delays the process of going to court. The legal process can take years, and cost the landlord 10~20K+ in costs. Whereas it almost impossible to recover any money from a tenant who has none. With respect. You simply don't know the full facts to offer an informed opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    BostonB wrote: »
    Because the point of a deposit is to cover damage found when the client leaves, at the final inspection, and handing over the keys. Not when the client gives notice.......With respect. You simply don't know the full facts to offer an informed opinion.[/

    With respect, do not patronise me. I simply asked for more clarification regarding the PRTB/landlord situation

    The fact remains if a tenant is reliant on social welfare-well they just cannot magic another deposit out of thin air if they need to provide a deposit to secure another place.


  • Options
    #43
    Sydney25
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭Sydney25


    Darlughda wrote: »
    Errr, holes here, What are you not telling us? PRTB are up their eyeballs in cases and don't take on BS stuff. I don't believe your story. This is obviously a one sided take on something that PRTB have managed, with all their caseload to take seriously, therefore you are not telling us the full and true story here.

    The issue is very simple. Due to the law, there are people living in my apartment after been served correct notice, not paying rent and based on the current legislation they do not have to move.

    I'm sorry you don't believe what I am saying but maybe it is in your interests to not have exposed that decent landlords are can be ripped off by tenants abusing the laws that were set up to provide them protection.

    I do not believe the PRTB are biased in any direction but their workload has now become so great and with the delay in getting a hearing, that they are exposed to abuse by both landlords and tenants. In my particular case it is the tenant who is abusing the system.


  • Options
    #44
    thecommander
    Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    Darlughda wrote: »
    The fact remains if a tenant is reliant on social welfare-well they just cannot magic another deposit out of thin air if they need to provide a deposit to secure another place.

    That's not the landlords problem.


  • Options
    #45
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Please don't edit my comments, when you quote them, thats unfair. those two comments were not connected when I posted them.

    Your commenting on the PRTB process without any understanding of it. Pointing that out is not patronizing.
    Darlughda wrote: »
    With respect, do not patronise me. I simply asked for more clarification regarding the PRTB/landlord situation

    The fact remains if a tenant is reliant on social welfare-well they just cannot magic another deposit out of thin air if they need to provide a deposit to secure another place.

    Thats a flaw in the RA process.

    Handing a deposit back before a tenant leaves, completely defeats the purpose of getting a deposit in the first place.


  • Options
    #46
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Darlughda wrote: »
    Then why don't landlords return their tenants deposits immediately to ensure they can secure new accomodation?
    Well that's straight forward: because the landlord needs to verify that the deposit isn't required to cover any damage.


  • Options
    #47
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    There's another issue too.

    With other clients they pay their rent and then there's a deposit. So while the deposit shouldn't be used as rent. It will actually cover it if there's no damage or damage is minimal. Wear and tear being accepted as normal.

    Paying a month in arrears, means any non payment of rent is not covered by the deposit, as the tenant is into the 2nd month when that happens. So there really should be 2 months deposit for RA tenant. Which has its own issues.

    Its flawed system.


  • Options
    #48
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    Well the system is flawed. Majority of cases with Threshold are landlords not returning deposits on spurious grounds.

    It would be so much better is there was an independent agency for the holding of deposits. Is there not proposals to do just that?

    That way the transfer of deposit from one accomodation to another would not depend on some one who needs housing, is a good tenant, having to find money that just is not there as a holding deposit.


  • Options
    #49
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    All roads lead back to the govt/state. You're blaming the symptoms not the cause. Its done differently in other countries.


  • Options
    #50
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    This thread has gone so far off topic. The OP is clearly frustrated with how the system works, as evidenced here and in the other thread.

    The bottom line is the system, flawed and all as it is, is how it is and everyone has to work with it. Any landlord has the right to chose their tenants and apply any criteria they want to seek tenants..be it not taking smokers, pets, students, or RA. If they are in a position to be able to afford to be choosy then nobody has the right to tell them otherwise. Agencies only ever act on the instructions of a landlord, obeying the landlord's requirements in tenants is what they are being paid to do and as such the title of this thread in the context of the OP is not fair.

    OP I ask again, have you moved?


  • Options
    #51
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    athtrasna wrote: »
    This thread has gone so far off topic. The OP is clearly frustrated with how the system works, as evidenced here and in the other thread.

    Firstly Athtrasna, you are not a mod here, so quit your allegations about the thread being off topic.

    Secondly, it hasn't. In case you have not noticed it has been all about the deposit and 1st months rent issue for RA tenants.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    The thread is entitled "Agencies are a nightmare - STAY AWAY" - but it's become a RA thread, which has nothing to do with agencies. That was my point :confused:


  • Options
    #53
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    athtrasna wrote: »
    The thread is entitled "Agencies are a nightmare - STAY AWAY" - but it's become a RA thread, which has nothing to do with agencies. That was my point :confused:

    And the OP was a RA tenant dealing with an agency, do I really need to state the obvious here?


  • Options
    #54
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    But your posts then became about landlords...and not agencies :confused:


  • Options
    #55
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    athtrasna wrote: »
    But your posts then became about landlords...and not agencies :confused:

    Again I am forced to spell out the obvious to you. Landlords use agencies.


  • Options
    #56
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    athtrasna wrote: »
    The thread is entitled "Agencies are a nightmare - STAY AWAY" - but it's become a RA thread, which has nothing to do with agencies. That was my point :confused:

    The title doesn't really reflect the comments in the first post.


  • Options
    #57
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    The thread is not about a tenant on rent allowance- it is about a poster who qualifies for rent supplement (not RA) which is dealt with in a wholly different manner than RA.

    There is a standard practice for property rental in this country- while some people may like the human element, kindness etc- and feel that landlords have a moral obligation towards their tenants- these are all noble intents that have little baring with the process of letting a property.

    Property rental in this country is highly regulated, with clearly defined rights and obligations on the parts of both tenants and landlords.

    A tenant is entitled to a property of predefined specifications or better- at a specified rent, and to have this arrangement reviewed on an annual basis.

    A landlord is entitled to a deposit for a property, their rent paid in advance- and to choose their tenants as they see fit (presumably to safeguard their property and their source of income).

    Most recent landlords have found themselves as landlords purely through economic necessity- often they can't afford to live in their own homes. This- along with their unfamiliarity with the rules and regulations- is why many choose to let their property via agencies.

    A landlord is entitled (is in fact legally obliged) to have a lease signed by a tenant, to register the tenancy with the PRTB and to declare and pay tax on any taxable income (and in a significant number of lettings- there may in fact be no taxable income generated).

    Regards,

    SMcCarrick


Advertisement