New rules to help protect tenants to be introduced

murphaph

I guarantee there'll be loads of "I have no deposit for my next place" threads on here if this scheme gets off the ground. It's gonna make tenants stay in places they otherwise wouldn't...mar my words.

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

I guarantee there'll be loads of "I have no deposit for my next place" threads on here if this scheme gets off the ground. It's gonna make tenants stay in places they otherwise wouldn't...mar my words.

Probably. However- if councils actually carry out the inspections they are tasked with- any of the significantly substandard rental stock will either be upgraded- or more probably, sold.

You can't have your cake and eat it- this scheme will serve to protect landlords, as well as tenants- and it may also lengthen tenancies- akin to those in other countries- which in itself wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

A revision of the Part 4 rules- should also be included here.

The_Conductor

djimi wrote: »

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?

Insist on break clauses in the lease- and accept that you pay higher rent, if there is a likelihood the landlord is going to incur additional expense as a result of you vacating the property early.

Its what happens in commercial leases every day of the week. Don't see any reason something similar wouldn't be applied to residential leases.

The_Conductor

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 ,

UK standard- is 6 to 8 weeks.

Gatling

Zulu wrote: »

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

I could agree with that as long as it's properly protected,
How many ll might chance there arms with 8weeks after moving out a fridge or cooker breaks and ll decides its the previous tenants fault and asks for the full 3 months detained or paid to him or her for damage ,

If the figure of 20 million retained by landlord is true imagine the headlines if 60+ million euro was detained by landlords while rents creep up

sunnysoutheast

The_Conductor wrote: »

UK standard- is 6 to 8 weeks.

The law states that, where there is no dispute, the deposit has to be returned within 10 days of the tenancy ending. Deposits have to be registered with a scheme within 30 days of the tenancy starting.

There is a free dispute service run by each of the four (soon to be three) UK scheme providers.

I wonder how much of this (guesstimated) €20m retained by landlords is because of tenants using their deposit as the last month's rent.

There is an accelerated possession scheme in the UK and generally a landlord can gain possession via bailiffs in 6-8 weeks.

The_Conductor

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.

Lets flip this to the other side of the coin.......

Landlords need far greater protection than they have at present. Under EU legislation- any person who denies another person the right to conduct their profession- is in breach of Council and Commission regulation, and under national legislation can be fined or banned. By failing to pay rent, or failing to vacate a tenancy in a prescribed manner- delinquent tenants are depriving landlords of their profession- and the full might of EU law should come down on them like a tonne of bricks?

What is missing in the above example- and indeed in your statement- is proportionality. Is the action or indeed the sentiment, proportionate to the situation. Nope- it isn't.

A landlord has no right to unfairly evict a tenant from their home. However, similarly- a tenant has no right to deprive a landlord of his or her livelihood.

If a tenant is not paying rent- they have no right whatsoever to remain in the property- and should be removed from the property in a prescribed and expedited manner. The current situation where it can take over a year to reclaim a property- is absurd. However- if a landlord decides, for whatever reason, that he unfairly wants shot of a tenant- tough- he or she isn't entitled to do this either.

You're making the point- 'oh, its a business- you have to allow for these type things'.............. Nope, you don't. There is established EU law protecting the landlord- which is far stronger than the current national legislation. EU law is regularly quoted- as Irish legislation is deficient. Parroting the 2004 Act- is well and good- however, it does confer rights on tenants over and above those of landlords, and is potentially in breach of EU legislation (safeguarding the right of any individual to exercise their chosen profession).

It may be a tenants home- it is however, a landlord's living- and by giving one party rights over those of the other individual- you disadvantage the other individual unfairly- a concept you seem to have trouble coming to terms with.

The_Conductor

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

The law states that, where there is no dispute, the deposit has to be returned within 10 days of the tenancy ending. Deposits have to be registered with a scheme within 30 days of the tenancy starting.

There is a free dispute service run by each of the four (soon to be three) UK scheme providers.

I wonder how much of this (guesstimated) €20m retained by landlords is because of tenants using their deposit as the last month's rent.

There is an accelerated possession scheme in the UK and generally a landlord can gain possession via bailiffs in 6-8 weeks.

I imagine the 20 million figure is pulled out of thin air to be honest- there is absolutely nothing to back it up.

We really need an accelerated repossession scheme in Ireland- its a massive issue at present- I don't have figures on damage caused to property by tenants- or rent lost due to tenants refusing to vacate- but I'd be shocked if it were not a multiple of the 20 million in deposits withheld.

7-10 days turn-around where no dispute for the deposit- sounds great. Are the proportion of tenancies where the deposit is disputed a minority- or a majority though? And then we have the mayhem happening in the Scottish rental market where their equivalent of the Irish RA scheme decided to pay the tenants instead of landlords- and non-payment of rent went up over 20 fold over night..........

There isn't a magic bullet, a panacea, its reform that needs to take place across the board. We also have the significant problem that the agency tasked with all of this- is seen by both landlords and tenants as not fit for purpose- you could argue they must be doing something right if everyone hates them- nope- I don't think so......... Taking over a year to evict a non-paying tenant- is taking the piss.

Gatling

The_Conductor wrote: »

I imagine the 20 million figure is pulled out of thin air to be honest- there is absolutely nothing to back it up.

We really need an accelerated repossession scheme in Ireland- its a massive issue at present- I don't have figures on damage caused to property by tenants- or rent lost due to tenants refusing to vacate- but I'd be shocked if it were not a multiple of the 20 million in deposits withheld.

7-10 days turn-around where no dispute for the deposit- sounds great. Are the proportion of tenancies where the deposit is disputed a minority- or a majority though? And then we have the mayhem happening in the Scottish rental market where their equivalent of the Irish RA scheme decided to pay the tenants instead of landlords- and non-payment of rent went up over 20 fold over night..........

There isn't a magic bullet, a panacea, its reform that needs to take place across the board. We also have the significant problem that the agency tasked with all of this- is seen by both landlords and tenants as not fit for purpose- you could argue they must be doing something right if everyone hates them- nope- I don't think so......... Taking over a year to evict a non-paying tenant- is taking the piss.

Completely agree

Tenants shouldn't be getting Ra paid to them under any circumstances

the world wonders

The_Conductor wrote: »

Lets flip this to the other side of the coin.......

Landlords need far greater protection than they have at present. Under EU legislation- any person who denies another person the right to conduct their profession- is in breach of Council and Commission regulation, and under national legislation can be fined or banned. By failing to pay rent, or failing to vacate a tenancy in a prescribed manner- delinquent tenants are depriving landlords of their profession- and the full might of EU law should come down on them like a tonne of bricks?

And flipping back to the original side of the coin, how is the tenant supposed to conduct their chosen profession when they've been illegally evicted and are living on the streets? Or when they can't move to get a new job because their landlord is illegally witholding their deposit?

If you're going to appeal to your own dubious interpretations of EU law remember that works both ways....

sunnysoutheast

The_Conductor wrote: »

7-10 days turn-around where no dispute for the deposit- sounds great. Are the proportion of tenancies where the deposit is disputed a minority- or a majority though?

One other, major, difference between Ireland and the UK is that an independent inventory clerk usually takes an extremely detailed audit of the entire property on the check-in (for which the tenant pays) and the same on the check-out (for which the landlord pays). Costs about £50-100. The scope for he-said-she-said is therefore much reduced. Very surprised it hasn't caught on here.

sunnysoutheast

the world wonders wrote: »

And flipping back to the original side of the coin, how is the tenant supposed to conduct their chosen profession when they've been illegally evicted and are living on the streets? Or when they can't move to get a new job because their landlord is illegally witholding their deposit?

If you're going to appeal to your own dubious interpretations of EU law remember that works both ways....

The point is that it shouldn't be "illegal" to forcibly evict a tenant who hasn't been paying for the service they have been receiving, making their neighbours' lives a misery or has decided that they won't comply with a binding legal agreement they made for months on end, which is the situation at present.

Anybody who believes that the current legal rental framework is not ridiculously biased in favour of tenants is kidding themselves.

the world wonders

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

The point is that it shouldn't be "illegal" to forcibly evict a tenant who hasn't been paying for the service they have been receiving

It isn't illegal to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, but proper procedures need to be followed and not the landlord acting as judge, jury and executioner. I agree that there are issues with timescales and efficiency but there is already legislation on its way through the Oireachtas to address these problems, see my post earlier in this thread.

Anybody who believes that the current legal rental framework is not ridiculously biased in favour of tenants is kidding themselves.

It's not biased in favour of tenants, it's biased in favour of bad tenants (and bad landlords). The tenant who pays their rent on time every month and is trying to get their cowboy landlord to fix the heating in the middle of winter gets next to no help from the law.

The_Conductor

the world wonders wrote: »

It isn't illegal to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, but proper procedures need to be followed and not the landlord acting as judge, jury and executioner. I agree that there are issues with timescales and efficiency but there is already legislation on its way through the Oireachtas to address these problems, see my post earlier in this thread.
It's not biased in favour of tenants, it's biased in favour of bad tenants (and bad landlords). The tenant who pays their rent on time every month and is trying to get their cowboy landlord to fix the heating in the middle of winter gets next to no help from the law.

Correct- its not illegal to evict a non-paying tenant, its just that if the tenant refuses to leave, despite not paying rent, it can take well over a year to finally force them to leave.

The legislation is skewed in favour of bad tenants, and bad landlords, yes, not the average people trying to do their best.

_Kaiser_

OK few points in random order:

- This is all pointless as long as renting is seen (by all sides) as a "poor man's choice". We have rules and regulations now that cover most of the threads posted here, but with no political/legal will to make them effective it's just more pointless legislation

- This nonsense of charging tenants a fortune for a deposit that will more than likely be inaccessible when they need it to move. Rents in this country in general are still ridiculous (especially in Dublin and it's increasing again), and you expect people to come up with maybe 3/4k for a deposit "just cause" it's what they do in Germany/UK/wherever? Cop on! Plus moving isn't exactly cheap as it is .. transporting stuff, buying more stuff, getting utilities sorted etc etc

- I'm sick to my teeth of listening to the crying of landlords on this forum because they can't just sit back and rake in the cash. This goes back to my first point. Certainly tenants who trash the place, don't pay up, or take the piss should be swiftly evicted with deposits retained/sued for the costs of repairs, but most of the stuff I read on here is about basic stuff not being done by a LL. If you don't like being a LL then DON'T RENT OUT A PLACE

- Renting is paying for a service and like any other service you pay for (Sky, phone etc) you are entitled to expect a certain standard in return. As above, it's not a nice easy way for some punter who overextended himself in the "good times" to get his mortgage paid.
Equally tenants need to educate themselves on what their responsibilities are.. it's not like living with Mammy who did everything for you nor will everything be automatically provided for you (eg: that thread the other day asking if provision of BB was mandatory)

- I would happily pay a little more for a guaranteed 5/10 year lease as is the norm "in other countries" (seeing as that comparison is used so much) but a "long tenancy" in this country is 2 years.. maybe 3 if you're lucky!

- This nonsense of LL's whinging because someone wants to hang a picture or change the colour of a room. It might be your property/"investment" but it's someone else's home and that's how we (all) need to start looking at the rental market rather than as a stop-gap to "getting on the property ladder" - a term I personally despise but looking back on it, because of the fact that I am paying for those who DID take the free money/cheap mortgages anyway, and because of the muppetry that goes on in the rental market I probably SHOULD have "partied" too and wait for my bailout

- Agencies: I've always dealt directly with any LL I've had and I would actually probably reject any property that insisted I deal with some numpty in an office having read enough of the stories about them... but then I know what I expect from a tenancy and I know what my side of the deal is and as a result I never have any problems that aren't solved by a simple call.
As a result of this, and my respecting the place and keeping it in better order than I found it in most cases, my LL's have always been sorry to lose me and have given me great references.

hfallada

Is any stats on deposits illegally withheld? Or is the government just going to set an another state agency we don't need. If its the PRTB managing it than LL and tenants are screwed.

A majority of LL are not "raking in the cash". 20% of buy to let mortgages are in arrears and taxes on LL are increasing rapidly. USC, property tax

Looking at this forum there is far unprofessional tenants that unprofessional landlords. Most tenants feel if they rent the house they are entitled to do anything from paying rent late to not paying the final months rent

_Kaiser_

hfallada wrote: »

Looking at this forum there is far unprofessional tenants that unprofessional landlords. Most tenants feel if they rent the house they are entitled to do anything from paying rent late to not paying the final months rent

Assuming you're looking at the same threads I am, one of those was related to the place being unfit to live in and a LL doing nothing about it despite being asked numerous times.

The latter example was related to a thread where the LL wants to parade randomers through the OP's home despite having no legal basis to do so.

I fully agree that there are problem tenants - that other thread with the apparently not-all-there woman that made the OP's life a misery - but the 2 examples above are caused by LL's not knowing their responsibilities.

As for them being in negative equity, property tax etc - boo hoo! No-one forced them to take out a stupid mortgage for a BTL property, and you're not going to tell me that these taxes, charges and what not aren't built in to the end rental price are you? As I said above though, if they're not happy being a LL and do it properly then get out of the market!

Potatoeman

Its good to have a third party looking after this. I can see why people want to use the deposit as the last months rent. Ive had landlords say they will turn up to collect keys and return the deposit only to be uncontactable. That said I keep the keys until I get my money back.

On evictions, I dont see anything changing. We have people in houses not paying mortgages for years that are not being evicted as its their home. So if they changed it for tenants it would just highlight the double standards.

djimi

hfallada wrote: »

Looking at this forum there is far unprofessional tenants that unprofessional landlords. Most tenants feel if they rent the house they are entitled to do anything from paying rent late to not paying the final months rent

Never judge anything on what you read on an internet forum. For every 1 person (be it a bad landlord or bad tenant) that you read about on here there are probably thousands who are perfectly fine that you never hear about.

Potatoeman

hfallada wrote: »

Is any stats on deposits illegally withheld? Or is the government just going to set an another state agency we don't need. If its the PRTB managing it than LL and tenants are screwed.

A majority of LL are not "raking in the cash". 20% of buy to let mortgages are in arrears and taxes on LL are increasing rapidly. USC, property tax

Looking at this forum there is far unprofessional tenants that unprofessional landlords. Most tenants feel if they rent the house they are entitled to do anything from paying rent late to not paying the final months rent

Lots of threads about both but many LL on here seem not to know their responsibilities. Its worse for landlords not to know these as its their profession as they are making money from it where for the tenant its a service they pay for.
The landlords finances should not impact their tenant in any way.

Grandpa Hassan

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

OK few points in random order:

- This is all pointless as long as renting is seen (by all sides) as a "poor man's choice". We have rules and regulations now that cover most of the threads posted here, but with no political/legal will to make them effective it's just more pointless legislation

- This nonsense of charging tenants a fortune for a deposit that will more than likely be inaccessible when they need it to move. Rents in this country in general are still ridiculous (especially in Dublin and it's increasing again), and you expect people to come up with maybe 3/4k for a deposit "just cause" it's what they do in Germany/UK/wherever? Cop on! Plus moving isn't exactly cheap as it is .. transporting stuff, buying more stuff, getting utilities sorted etc etc

- I'm sick to my teeth of listening to the crying of landlords on this forum because they can't just sit back and rake in the cash. This goes back to my first point. Certainly tenants who trash the place, don't pay up, or take the piss should be swiftly evicted with deposits retained/sued for the costs of repairs, but most of the stuff I read on here is about basic stuff not being done by a LL. If you don't like being a LL then DON'T RENT OUT A PLACE

- Renting is paying for a service and like any other service you pay for (Sky, phone etc) you are entitled to expect a certain standard in return. As above, it's not a nice easy way for some punter who overextended himself in the "good times" to get his mortgage paid.
Equally tenants need to educate themselves on what their responsibilities are.. it's not like living with Mammy who did everything for you nor will everything be automatically provided for you (eg: that thread the other day asking if provision of BB was mandatory)

- I would happily pay a little more for a guaranteed 5/10 year lease as is the norm "in other countries" (seeing as that comparison is used so much) but a "long tenancy" in this country is 2 years.. maybe 3 if you're lucky!

- This nonsense of LL's whinging because someone wants to hang a picture or change the colour of a room. It might be your property/"investment" but it's someone else's home and that's how we (all) need to start looking at the rental market rather than as a stop-gap to "getting on the property ladder" - a term I personally despise but looking back on it, because of the fact that I am paying for those who DID take the free money/cheap mortgages anyway, and because of the muppetry that goes on in the rental market I probably SHOULD have "partied" too and wait for my bailout

- Agencies: I've always dealt directly with any LL I've had and I would actually probably reject any property that insisted I deal with some numpty in an office having read enough of the stories about them... but then I know what I expect from a tenancy and I know what my side of the deal is and as a result I never have any problems that aren't solved by a simple call.
As a result of this, and my respecting the place and keeping it in better order than I found it in most cases, my LL's have always been sorry to lose me and have given me great references.

I genuinely don't know where you are seeing this, and where you are getting this anger from. No LLs on this thread that I have seen disagree with deposits being held by a third party. We just all want the ability to evict genuine non-paying tenants quicker than is currently the case

And I am sure most would be happy to allow their property to be redecorated by the tenants if the culture was one of long leases. But the fact is that that is not the culture. And LLs dont want their properties being repainted and altered in whatever way every couple of years. I would be happy to sign a 5 or 10 year lease with someone, and hand over the unfurnished property and all responsibility for maintenance, decoration etc so that the tenant can genuinely treat is as a long term home. But as long as tenants break leases at will (see the number of threads on here that start "I intend to break my lease....can I just walk away") that is not going to happen. It is just a cultural thing.

As a LL I would far rather have a European model, but tenants just aren't up for that right now (see the resistance to handing over more than 1 months deposit for example)

Potatoeman

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I genuinely don't know where you are seeing this, and where you are getting this anger from. No LLs on this thread that I have seen disagree with deposits being held by a third party. We just all want the ability to evict genuine non-paying tenants quicker than is currently the case

And I am sure most would be happy to allow their property to be redecorated by the tenants if the culture was one of long leases. But the fact is that that is not the culture. And LLs dont want their properties being repainted and altered in whatever way every couple of years. I would be happy to sign a 5 or 10 year lease with someone, and hand over the unfurnished property and all responsibility for maintenance, decoration etc so that the tenant can genuinely treat is as a long term home. But as long as tenants break leases at will (see the number of threads on here that start "I intend to break my lease....can I just walk away") that is not going to happen. It is just a cultural thing.

As a LL I would far rather have a European model, but tenants just aren't up for that right now (see the resistance to handing over more than 1 months deposit for example)

Peoples lives change and its very difficult to commit to a term that long. You could lose your job or have health issues etc.

Your second point about giving a long term lease and expecting the tenant to fully look after the property would only be possible if rents were far cheaper than mortgages like on the continent. They are not and at the moment its cheaper in many places to buy a property than rent.

Daith

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

As a LL I would far rather have a European model, but tenants just aren't up for that right now (see the resistance to handing over more than 1 months deposit for example)

Why should tenants hand over more than a month? It's only in the Landlords interest. What benefit does it serve the tenant?

When deposits aren't seen by landlords as "their" money (and the 3rd party option seems best) I wouldn't mind.

Zulu

Daith wrote: »

Why should tenants hand over more than a month?

Because they can create a damage bill far in excess of a month. Because they can be perfectly content to break a contract when it suits them. Because they can "choose" to not pay rent for the last month to ensure they get their deposit back.

It's only in the Landlords interest.

Of course it is. Thats the nature of a security deposit.

What benefit does it serve the tenant?

Wut?

Grandpa Hassan

Daith wrote: »

Why should tenants hand over more than a month? It's only in the Landlords interest. What benefit does it serve the tenant?

When deposits aren't seen by landlords as "their" money (and the 3rd party option seems best) I wouldn't mind.

If you are going to let the tenant make changes to the property...to treat it as it it were their own house....you will want more than one months rent as deposit. But completely agree, as do most LLs, that it should be held by a third party, with an independnet inventory clerk to manage the deposit return process

Daith

Zulu wrote: »

Because they can create a damage bill far in excess of a month. Because they can be perfectly content to break a contract when it suits them. Because they can "choose" to not pay rent for the last month to ensure they get their deposit back.

Of course it is. Thats the nature of a security deposit.
Wut?

Exactly. It's all in the landlords interest when renting should be a two way thing.

It's not the landlords money! Hence the 3rd part option being best.

djimi

Zulu wrote: »

Because they can create a damage bill far in excess of a month. Because they can be perfectly content to break a contract when it suits them. Because they can "choose" to not pay rent for the last month to ensure they get their deposit back.

And those who dont pay the last month now, wont pay the last 2-3 months if the deposits increase.

Im not against a higher deposit in principle, but from what has been said on here a lot of people seem to be of the impression that a higher deposit will improve things for landlords, when in reality the same problems will exist, they will just happen for a longer period of time or to a greater expense. If a tenant is afraid that they wont get one months deposit back now, what makes you think that they will play by the rules when there is 2x or 3x the amount of money at stake?

Obviously an independant third party deposit security scheme will help this, but it remains to be seen if it will actually happen first of all, and how effective it proves to be if it does come to light (Im still not betting against it being run by the PRTB).

The rental market in this country is not in a good way; too many tenants and landlords dont have a clue what they are doing and the whole thing simply stinks of amateur hour. Until those problems are resolved, and we have a rental system with landlords and tenants who respect the system and are prepared to play by the rules, and a system that is actually capable of enforcing those rules in an effective and timely manner, then nothing is going to change, and no amount of increased deposits or whatever is going to help the matter.

Zulu

Daith wrote: »

Exactly. It's all in the landlords interest when renting should be a two way thing.

You're confusing "renting" and "security deposit".

Renting is not all in the landlords interest. As a tenant I look for a property I want to live in, at a price I want to pay. Then, fingers crossed, myself and the LL come to an agreement, and I start renting from them. This is a two way thing.

The security deposit is a sum of money I give to the LL to help assure them that I wont: break the lease, wreck their property, or abuse their trust.

It's not the landlords money!

No one here has said it is.

Hence the 3rd part option being best.

No one here has disagreed - ASSUMING it's not another useless quango.

Daith

Zulu wrote: »

The security deposit is a sum of money I give to the LL to help assure them that I wont: break the lease, wreck their property, or abuse their trust.

The deposit is also an agreement with the tenant to ensure that if they don't damage their property and abide by the the rental agreement they will get it back on time. It's an agreement between two parties and the deposit works both ways.

So why the need to go over one months deposit? Because the damage might be more? What if there's none and the tenant is chasing up the landlord? It's not all one sided.

inforfun

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

As a LL I would far rather have a European model, but tenants just aren't up for that right now (see the resistance to handing over more than 1 months deposit for example)

I just pick your post but dont want to single you out.
Quite a few people here are in favour of a deposit equalling 3 months rent "like on the continent"

Fine with me, but give me the space and the rents i get on the continent as well then.

3 months deposit on the continent would amount to about the same money as 1,5 month deposit here would.

You are a bit out of touch with reality if you think tenants can easily pay a 3 or 4000 euro deposit.