€30,000,000 of State's Rent Deposits Not Returned

athtrasna

RA is something that is frequently discussed on here, as are the number of landlords who don't return deposits at the end of a tenancy but this report in the Irish Times is shocking!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0810/1224321894021.html

So if a RA tenant moves out of one rented property, they are given a deposit for the new property? And there is no onus on them to return the deposit if/when returned by the previous landlord? And no sanction if deposit isn't returned due to damage of property?

Zamboni

athtrasna wrote: »

RA is something that is frequently discussed on here, as are the number of landlords who don't return deposits at the end of a tenancy but this report in the Irish Times is shocking!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0810/1224321894021.html

So if a RA tenant moves out of one rented property, they are given a deposit for the new property? And there is no onus on them to return the deposit if/when returned by the previous landlord? And no sanction if deposit isn't returned due to damage of property?

Unbelievable.
That is absolutely shocking.

convert

So if a RA tenant moves out of one rented property, they are given a deposit for the new property? And there is no onus on them to return the deposit if/when returned by the previous landlord? And no sanction if deposit isn't returned due to damage of property?

Read this online this morning and actually got a bit of a shock and wondered if I was missing something completely. Your comments actually summed up my thoughts exactly. I don't understand the RA system at all, so I thought I may have missed something or interpreted the article incorrectly (i.e. that the deposit which wasn't returned was actually used by the tenants for their next deposit).

Staggering if it's the case where people are able to keep the deposit (if it is returned by landlords) and then receive a subsequent deposit towards a new house/flat.

snubbleste

I think the slant on the article is wrong. Needs clarification. I presume the article means the money was given out and never returned?

Rent supplement tenants can apply for an ENP for a rental deposit. It tends to be allocated once per household. Tenant keeps it for the next property when they move on.

Ray Palmer

I think you can add a lot of 'possible' or 'can' to the article. Getting a deposit from social welfare is not easy and is a special payment.
The cost of chasing it may not be worth it. I agree with a deposit holding system which would address the issue more easily.

Snakeblood

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think you can add a lot of 'possible' or 'can' to the article. Getting a deposit from social welfare is not easy and is a special payment.
The cost of chasing it may not be worth it. I agree with a deposit holding system which would address the issue more easily.

The deposit was always fairly easy. Giving the deposit for the first place moved into was a matter of course, and if it wasn't returned on move, it was standard enough to give the next deposit. It was known that landlord like hanging onto deposits on the slimmest pretext.

fasttalkerchat

I assumed that LL's aren't returning it and tenants aren't chasing it up because its not their problem.

athtrasna

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I assumed that LL's aren't returning it and tenants aren't chasing it up because its not their problem.

I'd love to see stats (which we never will) of that v tenants pocketing it. I would imagine a not insignificant proportion of the deposit stays with the tenant.

BostonB

That is a national scandal.

No matter who didn't return it, be it LL or tenant the authority that gave it out should have the details of who it was given to and who should have given it back. Why can they not make some attempt to recover it now?

Another side of this is tenants who pocket RA before skipping out. In my experience this isn't chased up either.

ArtSmart

sihn. all ill-informed nonsense.

your concern should be with the newBOI policy which is trying to force tenants to set up standing orders.

ArtSmart

convert wrote: »

Read this online this morning and actually got a bit of a shock and wondered if I was missing something completely. Your comments actually summed up my thoughts exactly. I don't understand the RA system at all, so I thought I may have missed something or interpreted the article incorrectly (i.e. that the deposit which wasn't returned was actually used by the tenants for their next deposit).

Staggering if it's the case where people are able to keep the deposit (if it is returned by landlords) and then receive a subsequent deposit towards a new house/flat.

it's not. so contain your shock

BostonB

ArtSmart wrote: »

it's not. so contain your shock

Well you're a lot more sure than the dept about about it.

...The department said there was no automatic entitlement on the part of a social welfare recipient to payment of a deposit and that “every effort” was made to ensure tenants were not given multiple payments if they move repeatedly....

What BOI policy and how is it relevant to this thread?

ArtSmart

yes, yes I am.

2/ perhaps not this thread. but the BOI policy will affect LL pretty badly.

the policy is to demand tenants pay by standing order. as a substantial number wont be able to do this, being unemployed etc, it will reduce the tenant mkt. and indeed fuel the black mkt. opps, back anon

athtrasna

ArtSmart wrote: »

yes, yes I am.

2/ perhaps not this thread. but the BOI policy will affect LL pretty badly.

the policy is to demand tenants pay by standing order. as a substantial number wont be able to do this, being unemployed etc, it will reduce the tenant mkt. and indeed fuel the black mkt. opps, back anon

This doesn't make any sense to me. If someone is unemployed and claiming RA, the RA is given to the tenant so why would the tenant be unable to pay the rent by SO?

I would imagine it is in the best interest of tenant and landlord that the rent is paid by standing order. I can't see any reason not to

ArtSmart

athtrasna wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense to me. If someone is unemployed and claiming RA, the RA is given to the tenant so why would the tenant be unable to pay the rent by SO?

I would imagine it is in the best interest of tenant and landlord that the rent is paid by standing order. I can't see any reason not to

yeah. i know you dont.

that's the beauty of being unemployed, you can organise all your funds efficiently, unlike employed people.

and even better, as an unemployed person whose rent subsidy is decreasing, you get the opportunity to tell your landlord your going to pay less rent from now on

yup. it's win win

BostonB

Why not start your own thread on the BOI issue its got nothing to do with this topic. Especially as you give no details of it.

The only reason not to pay by SO is to miss the rent due date to pay for something else. athtrasna's point is RA can't be used for anything else. If its not RA, then it suggests the rent is unaffordable, so you have to move. Or the LL has to lower the rent, if they want to keep you as a tenant. Personally I don't like SO's as in my experience, they often go wrong, and always to the disadvantage to the person paying it.

Why are you more sure than the Dept that deposits are given out to people who've not returned it previously.

riclad

i think the welfare officer may try to make sure , you only get 1 deposit, but person x may live in a flat for 3 years, then move to another flat in another area
with a different welfare officer.
if you ask for a second deposit,it maybe refused,
i dont know if its enforced in most cases.
i know woman ,who lived in ra house ,for 7 years,
did she give her deposit back, to welfare when she got a council flat.
i dont know.
I would be more concerned about the total cost of ra,
when it would be cheaper to buy houses for people on the list,
The days of the councils paying 250k, for 1 house is gone .

Snakeblood

ArtSmart wrote: »

yeah. i know you dont.

that's the beauty of being unemployed, you can organise all your funds efficiently, unlike employed people.

and even better, as an unemployed person whose rent subsidy is decreasing, you get the opportunity to tell your landlord your going to pay less rent from now on

yup. it's win win

Rent allowance isn't 'general spending* money'. If you're using it to pay for other stuff, you're using it wrong. Even if its needed for something else, it's not what the money is paid to you for, so complaining that it's no longer discretionary income is a bit crap, frankly.

*And by spending, I'm not implying that you are using it on luxury items.

riclad

MOST Landlords will give u notice, if you cant afford to pay the rent
agreed to when you moved in.

ArtSmart

BostonB wrote: »

Why not start your own thread on the BOI issue its got nothing to do with this topic. Especially as you give no details of it.

The only reason not to pay by SO is to miss the rent due date to pay for something else. athtrasna's point is RA can't be used for anything else. If its not RA, then it suggests the rent is unaffordable, so you have to move. Or the LL has to lower the rent, if they want to keep you as a tenant. Personally I don't like SO's as in my experience, they often go wrong, and always to the disadvantage to the person paying it.

Why are you more sure than the Dept that deposits are given out to people who've not returned it previously.

Boston, you live in a different world, one with a different language, one which is impossible to speak to.

Still, a world so clear cut, so obviously logical, where complexities are reduced to formula, with the flick of a wrist, must be a very reassuring place to live.

Art out.

BostonB

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it.

In the real world the LL has to feed their own kids, pay the bills too. The tenant isn't going to help the LL when the LL ESB gets cut off.

MariMel

I got RA ages ago for a while.....and have had RA again now for my last 3 houses and I have NEVER gotten even a tenner towards my deposit.

So its not an automatic payment even for the first property.
Ive moved areas and dealt with numerous different cwo's too.

edellc

I really feel if you want to comment on this issue then you need to understand how it works, rather than just sounding off incorrectly.

Just because you are on RA does not entitled you to a deposit from the CWO it is only given in exceptional circumstances, and it is a one off payment if you do get it.

Anyone who avails of it uses it as their deposit, once the tenancy is up and they are moving to another property then the returned deposit from the Landlord is used to secure the new property so it is in most cases returned to the tenant and then used again. To suggest that when this deposit is returned to the tenant and for the tenant to return it to the CWO and then ask for it back again for the next property is just ridicules as the amount of paper work that would be required its just not worth it.

To also suggest that landlords are not returning full deposits is also wrong, yes there are plenty of rogue landlords and rouge tenants but if you keep the property in good condition then there is no need for deposits to be retained, however as I have said in numerous threads we do need proper rental laws that are enforceable quickly and having a holding company for deposits is a huge part of that.

I do believe that if a tenant get a CWO deposit and then secures a council house then the tenant should have to return the deposit, likewise if the tenant moves home then the deposit should be returned, but if they are going to use it to secure another property then returning and reissuing it just doesnt make sense in my eyes.

I would like to see how they came to this figure or is it just a blanket figure of how much money has been issued as a deposit from the CWO.

It doesnt however surprise me the lack of accounting for this as with all government departments they all lost the run of themselves with spending, this is just another example.

However instead of bashing everyone who are the poorest in society and need financial assistance from the state, lets look at those who are suppose to responsible for the coppers of this country and how easily they spend taxpayers money without accounting for it.

athtrasna

edellc wrote: »

However instead of bashing everyone who are the poorest in society and need financial assistance from the state, lets look at those who are suppose to responsible for the coppers of this country and how easily they spend taxpayers money without accounting for it.

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves? Thirty million euro not returned? That's a massive amount. Accountability required.

edellc

Of course accountability is required, however how many of the 30million was used as a follow on deposit for another property, how much of it was pocketed by landlords, how much of it pocketed by tenants??

It is up to those in government to be held responsible for their lack of accounting and lack of recovering this money...yes tenants have a moral obligation to this money as like any social welfare money it is not their's it is the states money, but government must lead by example and if ministers and county councils misuse state money then how can they expect the most hard up of our society to abide by rules and regulations that they themselves fail to do...It is not one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

A new set of regulations needs to be implemented regarding these kind of payments, but instead of the mickey mouse policies that are in place now that are available to the PRTB we need actual laws that can be followed and implemented immediately. All Landlords should be registered and all should have to take rent allowance with non-discrimination (most dont take RA as they are not registered for tax on a rental property therefore screwing the system out of even more money while holding on to deposit, how is this right either) while all deposits should not be held by landlords but by an independent body that draws up a proper inventory with photographic evidence before a tenancy commences, that way if damage is incurred to property then yes retention of deposits or part of them is allowed, but this is all needs to be accounted for with both the independent body and the state agency who issue such deposits.

athtrasna

edellc wrote: »

All Landlords should be registered and all should have to take rent allowance with non-discrimination (most dont take RA as they are not registered for tax on a rental property therefore screwing the system out of even more money while holding on to deposit, how is this right either).

A common misconception. We have a rented property as do many of our friends (usually in the case where both people had their own property before marriage, property in negative equity so renting is our only option) and I don't know anyone who takes RA. Fully registered with PRTB and Revenue, all taxes paid. We don't take RA largely because of the delays that are common in the system with RA taking months to be approved and RA being paid in arrears rather than in advance. Property has been rented long term.

edellc

Fair play to you and your friends for being registered and doing it correctly however from my experience there are a lot of landlords that dont register for rental tax and keep everything on the QT.

So if a landlord is not registered then there has to be laws in place to force them to be and if you are registered then you have nothing to worry about, the system also needs to change regarding RA, it needs to be a quicker process so that there should be no discrimination within the rental sector as now a days lots of people find themselves in need help through no fault of their own and are not making a career out of being on welfare, those who are need to be addressed but the majority are real honest applicants in desperate need of help and we have a system that does help but just very slowly.

The vast majority of properties out there dont accept rent allowance and I feel very strongly that this is very wrong, as a person should be judged on the "interview" process of viewing a property and not on if they are on RA or not.

BostonB

edellc wrote: »

...The vast majority of properties out there dont accept rent allowance and I feel very strongly that this is very wrong, as a person should be judged on the "interview" process of viewing a property and not on if they are on RA or not.

I think you'll find very many (40% see below) don't advertise that they accept it. But in fact end up accepting it.

....UPDATE: 9th February, 2012. The quarterly DAFT.ie rental report is now available where Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton provides a commentary and background information on the decision to cut the levels of rent allowance last month. Minister Burton says “Since 2005, rent supplement expenditure has increased from €369 million to some €503 million in 2011. The number of people claiming the allowance increased from almost 60,200 in 2005 to over 96,800 at end 2011, a 61% increase. In terms of overall share in the market, rent supplement accounts for approximately 40% of the private rental market.”...

Link

Another point about the state paying deposits. Any security in holding a tenants deposit is largely negated if its not their money at risk. Likewise if most of the rent is paid for by someone else. it certainly increases the potential risk for the LL.

I've not seen any official figures on what percentage of defaulters, or disputes, are with RA tenants or non RA tenants. Anecdotally you hear conflicting experiences. Who knows.

murphaph

edellc wrote: »

It is up to those in government to be held responsible for their lack of accounting and lack of recovering this money...yes tenants have a moral obligation to this money as like any social welfare money it is not their's it is the states money, but government must lead by example and if ministers and county councils misuse state money then how can they expect the most hard up of our society to abide by rules and regulations that they themselves fail to do...It is not one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

It's taxpayers' money. It is irrelevant (though sickening) if politicians etc. are taking the p!ss with their expenses. RA tenants who steal deposits (and it is stealing if they retain a returned deposit then seek another for the next property or move into local authority housing) are not stealing from some ethereal entity known as "the state", they are stealing from ordinary taxpayers back pockets.

Those in charge of this are the CWO's. They have the discretion to refuse these payments. They should be taking more of an interest. I as a landlord (with RA tenants!) would prefer if these deposits were not so easily come by as the easier they are to come by, the less likely a tenant is to care about whether they get their's back or not. A tenant who doesn't care about getting their deposit back is unlikely to look after the property as well as someone who does.

juan.kerr

More bloody scroungers

Avatarr

Another day and yet another scandal in involving tax payers money. We cannot afford this waste, it's incredible that there is not a mechanism to account and track this money.

Yet we as citizens are seeing services curtailed in hospitals due to lack of funds.

I must admitt, every time I hear stories like this, I wonder how many other such poorly managed systems exist out there that are leaking a torrent of money we don't have.