New rules to help protect tenants to be introduced

Red_Dwarf

Money paid as a deposit on rented accommodation will be held by a third party under new rules to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords.
Minister of State for Housing Jan O’Sullivan revealed the plan as housing charity Threshold said the issue was its biggest source of complaints last year.
Some 20,000 people contacted the organisation claiming the illegal retention of money by landlords.

Illegal deposit retention by landlords the biggest cause of concern among tenants
The Government initiative to improve tenants’ rights would see Ireland adopt an international standard, common in the UK, where deposits are held by an independent third party and not the landlord.
“It makes sense that we would follow suit, and introduce a similar solution in Ireland. This is something we have sought for many years,” Threshold chief executive Bob Jordan said.
The charity’s annual report also revealed more than 1,600 people reported poor standards in private rented homes with the most common problems including broken or ineffective heating systems, poor ventilation and dampness.
Threshold said in some cases landlords refused to carry out repairs and many properties had been neglected completely since the onset of the recession.
Mr Jordan said the average deposit being paid by renters was about €800 and some landlords routinely withheld the payment at the end of a lease.
“A typical deposit of €800 represents the life savings of a low-income family and its loss can put them at risk of homelessness. Some landlords routinely withhold deposits, or allege that the tenant has damaged the property when this is clearly not the case,” he said.
“The problem of deposit retention has become more acute in recent years because many landlords themselves are facing financial difficulties and simply don’t have the money to hand back. The current system whereby the landlord pockets the deposit at the beginning of the tenancy simply does not work.”
Ms O’Sullivan said the issue would be a priority for her next year.
“The issue of deposit protection is a persistent source of complaint for some tenants. The deposit protection scheme will provide a fair, transparent solution to this issue, a solution that will be of benefit to both landlords and tenants,” she said.
Threshold also used its report launch to warn that families are facing the triple dilemma of being forced to live in substandard accommodation due to rising demand and prices and failures by local authorities to enforce standards.
A survey by the charity found almost 40 per cent of local authorities were unaware of their responsibilities to inspect private rented accommodation.
All 34 county and city councils were surveyed and some of the headline findings included:
* Thirteen councils thought they had no role in inspections of private rented accommodation.
* These councils were either unsure who was responsible or wrongly suggested it was a matter for the Health Service Executive (HSE) or the Private Residential Tenancies Board.
* Four local authorities had information online that referred to outdated standards dating back to before 2008.
* Two used out of date regulations when carrying out inspections.
* A number of local authorities indicated they did not have the resources for inspections.
Senator Aideen Hayden, chair of Threshold added: “The current system in unacceptable.
“Local authorities have neither the capacity nor the interest to effectively enforce minimum standards. As a result, tenants have no real way of knowing whether a property complies with the law before they move in. Some problems are invisible, and a lick of paint can hide a multitude.”
Threshold has called for a certification system to replace the existing inspection and enforcement system.

Source - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-rules-to-help-protect-tenants-to-be-introduced-1.1601277

djimi

Great news. So long as its properly implemented and not handled by the PRTB then it should improve things dramatically for tenants.

Fol20

Everything is geared towards protecting tenants.If only the government protected landlords as well. Bad tenants are equally as bad. Non paying tenants or anti social behaviour can costs a landlord thousands in lost income.

gaius c

Fol20 wrote: »

Everything is geared towards protecting tenants.If only the government protected landlords as well. Bad tenants are equally as bad. Non paying tenants or anti social behaviour can costs a landlord thousands in lost income.

Specific proposals? We're listening at least.

djimi

Fol20 wrote: »

Everything is geared towards protecting tenants.If only the government protected landlords as well. Bad tenants are equally as bad. Non paying tenants or anti social behaviour can costs a landlord thousands in lost income.

Agree completely, and one aspect that could do with a huge overhaul is the length of time it takes the PRTB to adjudicate on anything. It is outrageous that non-paying tenant can sit in a property flicking two fingers to a landlord and know that they are safe there for a year or more; they should be out in no more than 30 days.

In this case however, this is one situation where tenants are being badly affected with little or no realistic comeback, and it really needed to be sorted in a hurry. How effective it will be is anyones guess; knowing Ireland we will hand it over to the PRTB to deal with and everyone will wait a year to get their deposit back...

Red_Dwarf

Fol20 wrote: »

Everything is geared towards protecting tenants.If only the government protected landlords as well. Bad tenants are equally as bad. Non paying tenants or anti social behaviour can costs a landlord thousands in lost income.

Well this wont be an issue in this case as a Third party will listen to both sides and release the deposit accordingly

SpaceTime

I think the issue with deposits makes perfect sense and is long overdue.

Most landlords are perfectly reasonable but the sector is full of people who are perhaps 'accidental landlords' and I think the risk is more that they might not keep the deposit as a deposit and it ends up having to come out of their current account.

This makes life easier for tenants and simpler for landlords.

I think an online course in being a landlord would be useful though as many people with an extra property are ending up in that situation without any knowledge of what they're getting into and it can backfire on them or backfire on their tenants if it goes wrong.

Grolschevik

OT on the main issue, but on topic in the context of the full article, but I found this to be amazing:

"almost 40 per cent of local authorities were unaware of their responsibilities to inspect private rented accommodation.
* Thirteen councils thought they had no role in inspections of private rented accommodation."

And back on topic, it's about time.

D3PO

this is great news for the rental sector. Lets hope as mentioned already that they look at implementing changes to protect landlords now aswell.

Muahahaha

20,000 deposits retained last year according to complaints filed to Threshold.

Let's say an average of €1,000 per deposit. That equates to €20 million worth of deposits retained. Stunning figures when you think that a majority of people don't complain to Threshold, the real figure is likely to be multiples of that.

D3PO

gaius c wrote: »

Specific proposals? We're listening at least.

Changes I'd like to see

More prompt and easily enforceable eviction process. A notice of eviction should be immediately enforceable once the proper process is adhered to. No LL should have to endure a year plus of possible non payment of rent whilst trying to evict somebody who knows how to play the system.

I know people will argue that this will weaken a tenants rights but with illegal eviction enforcement penalties being used as a deterrent this should not be the case if properly done.

If a LL was able to issue 14 days notice of arrears followed by 28 days eviction notice and could legally go in on that 28th day and turf the tenant and their belonging out if they refused to leave I really cannot argue against it.

Tenants having to pay a PRTB fee aswell as the landlord. Firstly it should in theory double the revenue of the PRTB or more perhaps (if a tenant registers their tenancy and the LL hasn't then this can be seen and chased up on)

Why ? Well tenants utilize the services of the PRTB just as much if not more than LL's it seems only right that they should pay towards the running costs of the org. The additional revenue should also hopefully mean more staff so cases hear and resolved quicker which is win win.

Give the PRTB legal powers to enforce their decisions. If they decided to find in favour of a tenant and award them X as a result then for them to have the power to back that up by enforcing the judgement. Equally giving them power to do the same against a tenant, the days of somebody not paying rent for a period of time then skipping off should be something of the past. Right now LL's are just generally glad to get rid of problem tenants even if it meants taking a hit.

The system needs to stop either the tenant or LL from being financially worse off by a bad tenancy situation

theres a few things Id like to see looked at in the very least.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

Changes I'd like to see

More prompt and easily enforceable eviction process. A notice of eviction should be immediately enforceable once the proper process is adhered to. No LL should have to endure a year plus of possible non payment of rent whilst trying to evict somebody who knows how to play the system.

I know people will argue that this will weaken a tenants rights but with illegal eviction enforcement penalties being used as a deterrent this should not be the case if properly done.

If a LL was able to issue 14 days notice of arrears followed by 28 days eviction notice and could legally go in on that 28th day and turf the tenant and their belonging out if they refused to leave I really cannot argue against it.

I agree with this in theory, but not necessarily with the process you describe. I still think the PRTB need to be involved; in the case of an eviction I think that the tenant is entitled to have their case heard by a third party and they are entitled to a fair hearing. This process should take a matter of weeks though, not months as it is now.

D3PO wrote: »

Tenants having to pay a PRTB fee aswell as the landlord. Firstly it should in theory double the revenue of the PRTB or more perhaps (if a tenant registers their tenancy and the LL hasn't then this can be seen and chased up on)

Why ? Well tenants utilize the services of the PRTB just as much if not more than LL's it seems only right that they should pay towards the running costs of the org. The additional revenue should also hopefully mean more staff so cases hear and resolved quicker which is win win.

In theory the price of the PRTB registration is (or at least should be) built into the price of the rent, as is any other cost associated with the tenancy. The landlord is paying to register the tenancy; the actual cost of using the PRTB is €25 for either party.

noodler

Well overdue.

Someday

How long well it take to become a Legal requirement, it may take years to come in IMO!

Also, as people said, LL needs protection as well.

Thomas D

Let's get something clear. Tenants need far greater protection as we are talking about someones home here. Landlords might lose money but that is the risk in that business and at the end of the day it is just money. Much harder to put a price on feeling secure in your home.

D3PO

Thomas D wrote: »

Let's get something clear. Tenants need far greater protection as we are talking about someones home here. Landlords might lose money but that is the risk in that business and at the end of the day it is just money. Much harder to put a price on feeling secure in your home.

why exactly should a tenant get far greater protection. Since when does a landlord become a second class citizen ?

what exactly do you want a situation whereby its so untenable to be a landlord that the number of rentals available drop significantly to the point that rental prices go through the roof, and accommodation standards drop due to the lack of demand.

Perhaps if you took your tenant hat off for a moment and though about things logically you might actually come to a reasonable conclusion about the rental sector.

and before you ask no im not a LL not am I a tenant, maybe that's why I can see things from a neutral unbiased perspective.

runawaybishop

Thomas D wrote: »

Let's get something clear. Tenants need far greater protection as we are talking about someones home here. Landlords might lose money but that is the risk in that business and at the end of the day it is just money. Much harder to put a price on feeling secure in your home.

Huh? The law is overwhelmingly on the tenants side.

Grandpa Hassan

Its great news. I welcome the deposit protection 100%, and the independent inventory checks that will go with it.



Tenants should be aware though that will not get it back immediately after leaving a property. Certainly not in time to put down a deposit on a new place. In the UK, where the scheme is efficient and works very well, it can be two weeks to a month before you get it back. And in the meantime you have to come up with another deposit for the new place....deposits are not transferrable from one property to another

Now the legislation just needs to be fixed so that a tenant cant just stop paying their rent, but still stay in the property for as long as it takes the PTRB to kick in. Good chance that if that happens to an 'accidental' landlord (like myself), they will default on their mortgage and lose their property through no fault of their own. It has to be possible to evict people for non payment

Gatling

Having lost several thousand euro paying deposits to landlords who then for at times ridiculous reasons decide ohh that's mine and im not giving it back ,

I can see the other side too I've seen houses and apartments left in horrendous conditions by tenant's don't agree with fast track eviction's though ,

the world wonders

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Now the legislation just needs to be fixed so that a tenant cant just stop paying their rent, but still stay in the property for as long as it takes the PTRB to kick in.

Law to allow quicker eviction of non-paying tenants

Not sure what the status on this bill is; it seems to have been passed by the Dail but not by the Seanad...

Zulu

Hummm, the more I hear the more I'd like to see the standard deposit rise to 3 months.

gaius c

D3PO wrote: »

Changes I'd like to see

More prompt and easily enforceable eviction process. A notice of eviction should be immediately enforceable once the proper process is adhered to. No LL should have to endure a year plus of possible non payment of rent whilst trying to evict somebody who knows how to play the system.

I know people will argue that this will weaken a tenants rights but with illegal eviction enforcement penalties being used as a deterrent this should not be the case if properly done.

If a LL was able to issue 14 days notice of arrears followed by 28 days eviction notice and could legally go in on that 28th day and turf the tenant and their belonging out if they refused to leave I really cannot argue against it.

Tenants having to pay a PRTB fee aswell as the landlord. Firstly it should in theory double the revenue of the PRTB or more perhaps (if a tenant registers their tenancy and the LL hasn't then this can be seen and chased up on)

Why ? Well tenants utilize the services of the PRTB just as much if not more than LL's it seems only right that they should pay towards the running costs of the org. The additional revenue should also hopefully mean more staff so cases hear and resolved quicker which is win win.

Give the PRTB legal powers to enforce their decisions. If they decided to find in favour of a tenant and award them X as a result then for them to have the power to back that up by enforcing the judgement. Equally giving them power to do the same against a tenant, the days of somebody not paying rent for a period of time then skipping off should be something of the past. Right now LL's are just generally glad to get rid of problem tenants even if it meants taking a hit.

The system needs to stop either the tenant or LL from being financially worse off by a bad tenancy situation

theres a few things Id like to see looked at in the very least.

Wouldn't agree with all of those but they are worth talking about. Anything which helps weed the chancers out of both the supply & demand side of the rental market are good in my book.

gaius c

Zulu wrote: »

Hummm, the more I hear the more I'd like to see the standard deposit rise to 3 months.

My brother is still waiting on his deposit to be returned in full.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057013952
We need deposit protection more than we need whinging landlords getting their hands on more cash that doesn't belong to them.

Gatling

Zulu wrote: »

Hummm, the more I hear the more I'd like to see the standard deposit rise to 3 months.

Why 3 months ??

If the answer its what the Germans do

D3PO

Gatling wrote: »

Why 3 months ??

If the answer its what the Germans do

stops people using the last months rent as a deposit for one, may make tenants look after things like they were there own for another.

if the money is held by a third party 3 months rent as a norm wouldn't be unreasonable with no fear of it being scammed off you.

the amount of threads I read on here of people wanting to break leases really early it might actually focus peoples minds not to sign a lease if they wont stick by the terms of it. its not an unmerited idea tbh

Gatling

D3PO wrote: »

stops people using the last months rent as a deposit for one, may make tenants look after things like they were there own for another.

if the money is held by a third party 3 months rent as a norm wouldn't be unreasonable with no fear of it being scammed off you.

the amount of threads I read on here of people wanting to break leases really early it might actually focus peoples minds not to sign a lease if they wont stick by the terms of it. its not an unmerited idea tbh

But it where tenant hasn't damaged anything or never late with rent or tried to break a lease early why should my deposit be retained for a quarter of the year ,
After moving out ,

Zulu

Gatling wrote: »

But it where tenant hasn't damaged anything or never late with rent or tried to break a lease early why should my deposit be retained for a quarter of the year ,
After moving out ,

I'm not saying retain the deposit for 3months, I'm saying to triple the standard amount paid as a deposit.

The_Conductor

In Northern Ireland and the UK- it would appear that it takes 6-8 weeks after the termination of a tenancy to return the deposit to a tenant (providing there is no dispute).

If there is a new body (and 100% definitely not the discredited PRTB), tasked with taking charge of deposits- it would mean no more skipping the last month's rent by tenants- however, it won't necessarily stop landlord's from disputing damage done to property- which will obviously add to any delays in returning deposits.

Note- if additional legislation is to be brought in- cognisance has to be given of the unfair manner in which some tenants are abusing the system to stay rent free in dwellings that they refuse to vacate. A revision of the rules governing eviction for anti-social behaviour- is also overdue. Perhaps a few birds could be killed with the one stone?

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

the amount of threads I read on here of people wanting to break leases really early it might actually focus peoples minds not to sign a lease if they wont stick by the terms of it. its not an unmerited idea tbh

Nobody would ever sign leases then. Most of the threads on here about breaking leases is due to unforeseen circumstances; who is going to take the risk of signing a lease that they 100% cannot get out of where unforeseen circumstances arise?

drumswan

Great news, long overdue. Fully agree that extra protections from rogue tenants for landlords need to be implemented also.

The_Conductor

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not saying retain the deposit for 3months, I'm saying to triple the standard amount paid as a deposit.

Sounds fair- its what happens in most other jurisdictions- say up the deposit to 8 weeks or 12 weeks rent- and lodge it with the independent body- who only release it once any dispute between between a landlord and a tenant on the termination of a tenancy, is resolved.

Its all well and good having a month's rent as the deposit- however, half of all tenants view it as their last months rent- and another significant cadre cause a lot of damage to property (several cases of structural damage are noted in PRTB determinations every month).