Rights of Landlord

BostonB

Rant away. I hear yah!

pontia

when i was a landlord i wouldent let welfare tenants into the garden dont mind the house,not worth the risk,

miller50841

BostonB wrote: »

Isn't that the title of the thread. Thats why people are complaining about it.



The vast majority of tenants are honest.

smart you is

miller50841

OP best of luck hope you do something but as you said don't say you will do anything maybe you said to much already:D
Rant away its nice to get it out of your system:)

Yawns

pontia wrote: »

when i was a landlord i wouldent let welfare tenants into the garden dont mind the house,not worth the risk,

Fantastic.

So instead of being a good landlord that vets tenants properly, you just openly tar people with a brush and then boast about it. Good for you!


You should have a chat with my landlord. I'm the first tenant he's had in receipt of RA. Out of the last 4 tenants including me he's had to evict 3.

Of course private renters can't cause trouble or do anything wrong...

BostonB

miller50841 wrote: »

smart you is

I wasn't being factious. Its hard to believe that legally the LL is at a huge disadvantage. But it really is that simple. When they created the rules to protect the tenant, (which was badly needed) they didn't do the same with the LL.

The only legal route is the PRTB which could never cope with the demand placed on it, and its only getting worse as its funding has been cut.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0514/ireland/board-woes-leave-tenants-out-of-pocket-193849.html

Its a broken system.

BostonB

Yawns wrote: »

Fantastic.

So instead of being a good landlord that vets tenants properly, you just openly tar people with a brush and then boast about it. Good for you!


You should have a chat with my landlord. I'm the first tenant he's had in receipt of RA. Out of the last 4 tenants including me he's had to evict 3.

Of course private renters can't cause trouble or do anything wrong...

Its actually quite hard to vet people properly. People who are used to defrauding are quite good at faking references, getting gullible people to vouch for them etc.

RA is a massive % of the tenants. If they were all bad, LL wouldn't take them in such large numbers.

pontia

not all bad by any means but not worth the risk,to many horror stories.

miller50841

Lot won't take welfare payments anymore and also if you have a child it can be difficult to rent as its harder to throw out a family(child)

Hope the Irish way and system will change

StillWaters

Of course there are some excellent RA tenants out there, however it is just much riskier for a LL to accept them. When non RA tenants fork out a couple of grand of their own money up front, they are less likely to turn out to be the class of tenant the OP has to deal with.

The very best of luck OP, it's a sh1tty and stressful situation for you and your family.

sunnysoutheast

chickensoup wrote: »

actually the point of my original post was more of a rant that even when landlords play by the rules they have no protection in law.

This is a public website and any thoughts of illegal activity I have will not be posted here, but believe me I will not be waiting 12 months to get my house back.

I'll sincerely wish you all the best of luck. Truly a horrible situation for you to be in.

If you do resolve the situation, and if it is appropriate to do so, perhaps you could post again.

SSE

Yawns

BostonB wrote: »

Its actually quite hard to vet people properly. People who are used to defrauding are quite good at faking references, getting gullible people to vouch for them etc.

RA is a massive % of the tenants. If they were all bad, LL wouldn't take them in such large numbers.

Simplest way to vet for really bad tenants. Get the deposit and rent up front. Also have the agreement that rent will be paid with no delay. You don't want to hear that RA is delayed by months etc. Let them pay you first and then wait for the RA themselves.

That alone will stop a lot of the chancers as they won't want to pay at all. I know some of these people that do this type of ****. Move in and not pay rent. Those that are in receipt of RA move in and tell the LL there is a big delay getting RA and the LL lets them in. The private ones are harder as they will have the deposit and rent but soon stop paying.

The ones that are on RA but are scum that do this are generally pur off with paying a deposit, rent and continue to pay rent while waiting for RA to be paid. The reason they are put off is because it may mean that if they pay the deposit and rent, they won't have cash for the pub this weekend etc.

The genuine people will save and have the money as they generally won't be out in a pub every weekend. They will be able to save for the rent and not spend as much on shopping each week. Instead the money at the end will be used for a big food shop and the food put in a chest freezer.

That's just one way.

While people may be able to fake references, a good LL will check the references. Don't accept a reference with a mobile number. Any good estate agent will have a landline number. Insist on references with landlines only so you can more easily verify it's an estate agent or some such.

If it's a former LL, get in touch directly if you can. Simply meet up at the old tenants house if it's close enough by. If I were a LL I would even travel far if I had to meet an old LL of a tenant to verify. It's your house and a large sum of money over the duration of the tenancy. Of course you wouldn't / couldn't do it for everyone. But it could certainly be done if you interviewed the tenant and then decided you liked them enough to check the background.

While estate agents are used a lot, I find them useless in checking peoples back grounds. They generally just want to have the first person into the house so they get paid. Usually these are the ones who get the first month's rent as their fee.

BostonB

Asking for the deposit and rent upfront and delays by the Local Authority in paying RA to be covered by tenant, is pretty standard stuff. It still doesn't vet them. And no matter how well you check them a lot of stuff can be faked, or in one case I heard, the person vetted wasn't the person who moved in!

I think there should be a 3rd party rental bond that LL and tenants pay into, that in the case of a dispute, pays out, the out of pocket party. Then if you want to rent or let, you can't unless you have a no claims rental bond.

Yawns

BostonB wrote: »

Asking for the deposit and rent upfront and delays by the Local Authority in paying RA to be covered by tenant, is pretty standard stuff. It still doesn't vet them.

The amount of people that don't do this is shocking tho! Then it's the same people who will come on here complaining. They won't do it themselves or think an estate agent will do it for them. Estate agents are useless. Never ever assume your estate agent is checking references. They usually are not.

And no matter how well you check them a lot of stuff can be faked, or in one case I heard, the person vetted wasn't the person who moved in!

Some thing can be faked. However you thoroughly check things, you can ween out chancers better. A small check is better than no check at all but a lot of LL's can't be arsed to check. As for the person being vetted then a different person moves in, surely that's a different story and if were to get rid of him illegally he can't pursue you via courts or PRTB as they are not supposed to be there to begin with. I'd have no hesitation about ****ing him out on his ear illegally.

I think there should be a 3rd party rental bond that LL and tenants pay into, that in the case of a dispute, pays out, the out of pocket party. Then if you want to rent or let, you can't unless you have a no claims rental bond.

I wouldn't mind there being a system that a government agency would hold onto the deposit and then when a tenant moves out they will receive the deposit back from the agency. If the LL wants to make a deduction for unreasonable wear & tear damage then he can fix the damage, send in receipt and receive a cheque.

It would stop the bad LL's withholding deposits for little or no reason. Stop them from claiming deposit for cleaning when they are not supposed to. Also be a deterrent to tenants thinking of wrecking the place. Unfortunately the really bad tenants tend to do sever damage which a deposit will in no way cover but it will stop a lot of the stupid carry on that goes on with deposits.

Still won't do a thing about the bad cases of non payment of rent.

BostonB

It would give them a 3rd party reference so that no LL would touch them again once they broke their bond.

Yawns

BostonB wrote: »

It would give them a 3rd party reference so that no LL would touch them again once they broke their bond.

True actually. That wouldn't bother me. Of course being Ireland it would be something stupid like in that other thread where a guys aunt would claim the house was wrecked cos the tenants used a frying pan with some cooking oil. Imagine being left finding it hard to rent because of that.

I would welcome an independent 3rd party bond holder tho. Also something like photo's must be taken and signed by both parties prior to moving in and when moving out. Failure to do so would mean no deposit back. Make it that you must have a deposit bond in place. That way any LL's not doing it would only have themselves to blame for a terrible tenant who wrecks the place and the bad tenant would find it hard to rent in future.

Of course something like that wouldn't happen in Ireland.

fasttalkerchat

Just a hypothetical question.

If a LL advertises a house as no Rent Allowance accepted. Find a tenant who is working and pays on time every month. Then he loses his job. Assuming that the tenant still has the means to pay through rent allowance can this be rejected?

chickensoup

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Just a hypothetical question.

If a LL advertises a house as no Rent Allowance accepted. Find a tenant who is working and pays on time every month. Then he loses his job. Assuming that the tenant still has the means to pay through rent allowance can this be rejected?

The tenancy is sacred in ireland .. the LL would have no rights whatsoever to insist on anything .. sure in this country the tenant can just refuse to pay and have a year free

sunnysoutheast

Yawns wrote: »

True actually. That wouldn't bother me. Of course being Ireland it would be something stupid like in that other thread where a guys aunt would claim the house was wrecked cos the tenants used a frying pan with some cooking oil. Imagine being left finding it hard to rent because of that.

I would welcome an independent 3rd party bond holder tho. Also something like photo's must be taken and signed by both parties prior to moving in and when moving out. Failure to do so would mean no deposit back. Make it that you must have a deposit bond in place. That way any LL's not doing it would only have themselves to blame for a terrible tenant who wrecks the place and the bad tenant would find it hard to rent in future.

Of course something like that wouldn't happen in Ireland.

We're not talking about the deposit here though. We are discussing a situation where the tenant can simply choose not to pay rent and it will take months and thousands of euro to get them out of the property.

The solution should be that the landlord can take possession of the property via the courts once rent is overdue by (for example) a month rather than having to go through the PRTB. Alternatively the relevant local authority should be responsible for paying the rent for all social welfare tenants.

SSE

murphaph

Yawns wrote: »

Simplest way to vet for really bad tenants. Get the deposit and rent up front. Also have the agreement that rent will be paid with no delay. You don't want to hear that RA is delayed by months etc. Let them pay you first and then wait for the RA themselves.

That alone will stop a lot of the chancers as they won't want to pay at all. I know some of these people that do this type of ****. Move in and not pay rent. Those that are in receipt of RA move in and tell the LL there is a big delay getting RA and the LL lets them in. The private ones are harder as they will have the deposit and rent but soon stop paying.

The ones that are on RA but are scum that do this are generally pur off with paying a deposit, rent and continue to pay rent while waiting for RA to be paid. The reason they are put off is because it may mean that if they pay the deposit and rent, they won't have cash for the pub this weekend etc.

The genuine people will save and have the money as they generally won't be out in a pub every weekend. They will be able to save for the rent and not spend as much on shopping each week. Instead the money at the end will be used for a big food shop and the food put in a chest freezer.

That's just one way.

While people may be able to fake references, a good LL will check the references. Don't accept a reference with a mobile number. Any good estate agent will have a landline number. Insist on references with landlines only so you can more easily verify it's an estate agent or some such.

If it's a former LL, get in touch directly if you can. Simply meet up at the old tenants house if it's close enough by. If I were a LL I would even travel far if I had to meet an old LL of a tenant to verify. It's your house and a large sum of money over the duration of the tenancy. Of course you wouldn't / couldn't do it for everyone. But it could certainly be done if you interviewed the tenant and then decided you liked them enough to check the background.

While estate agents are used a lot, I find them useless in checking peoples back grounds. They generally just want to have the first person into the house so they get paid. Usually these are the ones who get the first month's rent as their fee.

This is a good post that prospective RS landlords should read.

I have RS tenants in my old place for the last 4 years and they are quite literally super people. House is kept cleaner than I ever had it, rent has never been so much as one day late and I got a full deposit up front and rent in advance from them. The CWO or whoever administers it now almost never has the deposit ready for them so if they have it themselves it means they've saved it-a great sign. Never rent to someone who has no deposit in full before the lease is signed. Lots of LL's are still refusing RS so there's a market of good RS tenants out there that find it hard to get housing. These are the people to target. Leave the chancers to the chancer landlords.

murphaph

BostonB wrote: »

I think there should be a 3rd party rental bond that LL and tenants pay into, that in the case of a dispute, pays out, the out of pocket party. Then if you want to rent or let, you can't unless you have a no claims rental bond.

Australia has 3rd party bonds. Apparently the system works really well.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

This is a good post that prospective RS landlords should read.

I have RS tenants in my old place for the last 4 years and they are quite literally super people. House is kept cleaner than I ever had it, rent has never been so much as one day late and I got a full deposit up front and rent in advance from them. The CWO or whoever administers it now almost never has the deposit ready for them so if they have it themselves it means they've saved it-a great sign. Never rent to someone who has no deposit in full before the lease is signed. Lots of LL's are still refusing RS so there's a market of good RS tenants out there that find it hard to get housing. These are the people to target. Leave the chancers to the chancer landlords.

Students on beta and on rs are also a good bet!

Graces7

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Just a hypothetical question.

If a LL advertises a house as no Rent Allowance accepted. Find a tenant who is working and pays on time every month. Then he loses his job. Assuming that the tenant still has the means to pay through rent allowance can this be rejected?

How would the LL know of the change? We get RA paid to us so the LL gets one payment, RA plus our part. As long as the rent is coming in why tell what is none of the LLs business.

BostonB

Graces7 wrote: »

How would the LL know of the change? We get RA paid to us so the LL gets one payment, RA plus our part. As long as the rent is coming in why tell what is none of the LLs business.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#ld1a9a

Part of the form will need to be filled in by your landlord or their agent. Your landlord will need to provide their tax reference number (normally their PPS number) to the Department of Social Protection (DSP). If your landlord does not wish to fill in the form a separate form (SWA 3C) is available. If your landlord does not have a tax reference number, they should state this in writing to the DSP and explain why this is the case. Your Rent Supplement may not be paid if your landlord has not given their tax number to the DSP or has not explained why they do not have one.

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#ld1a9a

Ah sorry; I forgot that... hay fever is appalling and I am lamebrained,,, Thank you!

Interesting point though; can the LL use that as a reason to evict? Unless the stipulation of no RA was in the lease?

Yawns

Well he would have to agree to signing the form. I guess if he didn't want to have RA tenants he could refuse to sign the form and thus the tenancy could become void by mutual agreement if they can't pay. The tenants could try to fund the rent from their own pocket but you would only get RA if on low income so what would end up happening is tenants could move out or like in the OP situation, could stay for a year or longer and not pay rent.

Ray Palmer

The LL is under no obligation to accept RA. The lease stands regardless. RA has difficulties that LL don't like.
The majority don't accept it.

steddyeddy

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The LL is under no obligation to accept RA. The lease stands regardless. RA has difficulties that LL don't like.
The majority don't accept it.

I think people are asking how the law regards a tenant who has lost his job and then has to avail of rent allowance mid lease.

BostonB

I guess it would depend if the LL was happy with the tenant to that point.

steddyeddy

BostonB wrote: »

I guess it would depend if the LL was happy with the tenant to that point.

Well if not the tenant would have to be given apropriate eviction notice. Ie dependent on time staying in the house.