New rules to help protect tenants to be introduced

djimi

inforfun wrote: »

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

And pay it twice, as some people are suggesting that a third party deposit system would mean that deposits are not available at the end of a tenancy for the start of the next one.

I agree; whatever way you look at it, expecting someone to hand over €3k of a deposit is not realistic.

Zulu

Daith wrote: »

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.

Nope, to prevent renters deciding unilaterally that they've done no damage, and using it as their last months payment. (or indeed to prevent renters who know they've damaged the property taking their deposit back regardless by not paying the final months rent).

djimi

Zulu wrote: »

Nope, to prevent renters deciding unilaterally that they've done no damage, and using it as their last months payment. (or indeed to prevent renters who know they've damaged the property taking their deposit back regardless by not paying the final months rent).

And again I ask; do you think that taking 2-3 months of a deposit is going to change this? Whats 3 months to a tenant who knows that they cant be evicted for non-payment of rent?

Daith

Zulu wrote: »

Nope, to prevent renters deciding unilaterally that they've done no damage, and using it as their last months payment. (or indeed to prevent renters who know they've damaged the property taking their deposit back regardless by not paying the final months rent).

Ok, I see you didn't bother to quote the rest of my post and answer just the "tenants are all bad" piece.

What happens if the landlord decides not to return it promptly? Why should the tenant be out of pocket for that deposit because of bad landlord? You expect them to pay more to the next landlord.

It needs to work both ways and landlords can be as much in the wrong as tenants can be.

Zulu

djimi wrote: »

And again I ask; do you think that taking 2-3 months of a deposit is going to change this? Whats 3 months to a tenant who knows that they cant be evicted for non-payment of rent?

Sorry I missed you asking the first time. Yes, in short.
If they start that 3 months before moving out, it affords the LL a 3 month window to protest before they f-off. If it's only one month, all the landlord has time to do is issue a "rent arrears" notice. Which is bloody useless.

Zulu

Daith wrote: »

What happens if the landlord decides not to return it promptly?

Ok I see you didn't quote the part where I agreed with you.

djimi

Zulu wrote: »

Sorry I missed you asking the first time. Yes, in short.
If they start that 3 months before moving out, it affords the LL a 3 month window to protest before they f-off. If it's only one month, all the landlord has time to do is issue a "rent arrears" notice. Which is bloody useless.

The landlord can protest all they want; nothing will happen to the tenant in that three month window that will mean they are forced the leave the property. That is the reality of the system that we have. Once tenants figure this out (and it wont take long) then withholding the last 2-3 months rent would start to become an issue.

Dont get me wrong, Im not advocating that tenants do this or anything like that, Im simply pointing out that there are bigger problems with the system right now, problems that wont go away by asking for a larger deposit (and indeed may actually get worse as tenants see they have more to lose).

Grandpa Hassan

inforfun wrote: »

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.

It is a chicken and egg thing. If renting was the social norm, and not seen as a temporary thing, then there would not be the pressure to buy a house, house prices wouldn't be bid up into bubbles on a regular basis, and the amount of outstanding mortgages would be lower. Therefore rents would be lower. But how do you get to that point? It would involve a complete change in the mindset of Irish society

A long lease would have lower rent. That just stands to reason. I have signed a long lease here in London and thus got a discount from the advertised price.

6 weeks to 2 months is normal in the UK (and is protected if you rent through an agent). I had to lodge £3500 in London as a deposit, and when I moved into my current place, I did not get that back for about 3 weeks, so was around £7k out of pocket for about a month.

I would only want a higher deposit than 6 weeks if I were giving the tenant the right to make changes to the property as they see fit (except for structural changes). But the rental market in Ireland would never support that approach anyway, so isn't really relevant to the discussion

Daith

Zulu wrote: »

Ok I see you didn't quote the part where I agreed with you.

Yet didn't answer what happens if a landlord holds on to a deposit for no valid reason. Hence the reluctance for tenants to pay more than a month's deposit.

I do see your point about tenants and the leaving the place in a mess. I do understand. I don't think more of a deposit will change those tenants though and I only see it as greedy by the landlords. Perhaps landlords should expect the place a month before a tenant moves out anyway.

djimi

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

6 weeks to 2 months is normal in the UK (and is protected if you rent through an agent). I had to lodge £3500 in London as a deposit, and when I moved into my current place, I did not get that back for about 3 weeks, so was around £7k out of pocket for about a month.

To be honest, thats not a whole lot healthier a situation than we have over here. You can take security to a ridiculous level, which is exactly how I would describe expecting a tenant to have £7k available for deposits. Think of the demographic of the rental market in Ireland and ask yourself how many people, especially those in their early 20s, are going to be in a position to hand over that sort of money.

Grandpa Hassan

djimi wrote: »

To be honest, thats not a whole lot healthier a situation than we have over here. You can take security to a ridiculous level, which is exactly how I would describe expecting a tenant to have £7k available for deposits. Think of the demographic of the rental market in Ireland and ask yourself how many people, especially those in their early 20s, are going to be in a position to hand over that sort of money.

Tenants still have the option to rent direct from the LL if they wish, and bypass the deposit scheme. I guess higher quality properties would be overwhelmingly let by agents, and tenants would generally have the resources available to have 2 deposits out the door when moving. Cheaper properties would be a mix of agency lets and direct-from-landlord. If the tenants chooses to bypass the protections afforded by the deposit protection scheme, it is their choice.

In a deposit protection scheme, it is just a fact that the tenant will not get their despoit back prior to putting one down on a new property. The place is deep cleaned the day after departure, then the independent inventory clerk will do an inspection, and provide a recommendation for the LL. The LL will review and either agree or challenge. Even if he agrees, it might take a week for him to turn that around. So you are likely talking 2 weeks at best to get back your money.

gaius c

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- 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!

It's a long tenancy because the quality of Irish rentals is for the most part wretched and you want to spend the minimum amount of time doing it. Maybe things will improve in time but it's not so long ago that the rental market was a paradise for the likes of Garda Kevin Galvin.

djimi

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Tenants still have the option to rent direct from the LL if they wish, and bypass the deposit scheme. I guess higher quality properties would be overwhelmingly let by agents, and tenants would generally have the resources available to have 2 deposits out the door when moving. Cheaper properties would be a mix of agency lets and direct-from-landlord. If the tenants chooses to bypass the protections afforded by the deposit protection scheme, it is their choice.

In a deposit protection scheme, it is just a fact that the tenant will not get their despoit back prior to putting one down on a new property. The place is deep cleaned the day after departure, then the independent inventory clerk will do an inspection, and provide a recommendation for the LL. The LL will review and either agree or challenge. Even if he agrees, it might take a week for him to turn that around. So you are likely talking 2 weeks at best to get back your money.

Even without the desposit protection scheme, its not exactly a healthy state of affairs to expect tenants to have €3k+ available to use for a deposit. In the rental market that we have at the moment that would make renting a completely unviable option for a lot of people (Id seriously struggle to put together that sort of money as a deposit).

gaius c

inforfun wrote: »

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.

Hey fella
You need to get with the new paradigm. House prices are going up again. Rents are going up again. The troika are leaving and our banks are just flush with cash. If you haven't got 3-4k in your back pocket when you leave college and start working in google (like everybody else), then maybe you're just not rich enough to be living in Ireland.

clumsyklutz

My last landlord (run by some very dodgy 'letting agent') was an absolute scam artist. I left the place two weeks early, but agreed that I would pay the month in full as it was my choice to leave early, and the 'letting agent' agreed that this wouldn't be an issue.

I gave him my leave date and asked when I could expect the inspection to take place to have my deposit returned. (the place was an absolute dump, well below health and safety standards - black mould on the bedroom wall, constant damp (that I got sick), broken drain pipe outside which caused the toilet to block and for certain horrible creatures to get in, a washing machine that broke (and wasn't fixed for around a month - even though the maintenance guy said he'd known about it for at least two weeks - was told not to come) and then when the fridge stopped working it took him almost two weeks to replace it and then I came home one day and the fridge was sitting in a box in my apartment, with no missed call on my phone, I was told to take the fridge outside myself and replace it!)

I left the place as clean as I could possibly leave it and the guy who inspected it seemed happy enough with it, but when I asked for my deposit he said he 'didn't have it' and that he was only told that he was here to make an inspection.

Annoyed I rang them the next morning and asked calmly and politely for my deposit back, they told me they hadn't received it when I moved in, but luckily I had kept all documentation pertaining to my lease. Long story short after a week and a half of being messed around, I was sent a cheque for less than half of my deposit for 'damages' I had apparently caused!

Ignorant gits. I'm glad the law is changing!

odds_on

clumsyklutz wrote: »

My last landlord (run by some very dodgy 'letting agent') was an absolute scam artist. I left the place two weeks early, but agreed that I would pay the month in full as it was my choice to leave early, and the 'letting agent' agreed that this wouldn't be an issue.

I gave him my leave date and asked when I could expect the inspection to take place to have my deposit returned. (the place was an absolute dump, well below health and safety standards - black mould on the bedroom wall, constant damp (that I got sick), broken drain pipe outside which caused the toilet to block and for certain horrible creatures to get in, a washing machine that broke (and wasn't fixed for around a month - even though the maintenance guy said he'd known about it for at least two weeks - was told not to come) and then when the fridge stopped working it took him almost two weeks to replace it and then I came home one day and the fridge was sitting in a box in my apartment, with no missed call on my phone, I was told to take the fridge outside myself and replace it!)

I left the place as clean as I could possibly leave it and the guy who inspected it seemed happy enough with it, but when I asked for my deposit he said he 'didn't have it' and that he was only told that he was here to make an inspection.

Annoyed I rang them the next morning and asked calmly and politely for my deposit back, they told me they hadn't received it when I moved in, but luckily I had kept all documentation pertaining to my lease. Long story short after a week and a half of being messed around, I was sent a cheque for less than half of my deposit for 'damages' I had apparently caused!

Ignorant gits. I'm glad the law is changing!

Even if there is a new deposit holding quango - who's to say that it won't be more tenant sided than impartial?

As regards what Threshold have said about the 20, complaints about deposit retention, how many of them were justified?

In PRTB resolutions that I have studied, the greatest number of claims involve Rent Arrears 31.73% - therefore, the landlords make the greater number of claims. Of these claims, just 0.28% were rejected. So something needs to be done to protect landlords in the case of rent arrears.

If a tenant gets into rent arrears, first he gets 14 days to pay, then another 28 days to move out. Thus, there is an absolute minimum of 1½ month's rent in arrears. Taking an average rent of 1,000 per month, that adds up to a lot of money lost by landlords.

Zulu

Yeah but tenants dont want to hear that; remember it's the landlords that are the bad guys here.

Umekichi

odds_on wrote: »

If a tenant gets into rent arrears, first he gets 14 days to pay, then another 28 days to move out. Thus, there is an absolute minimum of 1½ month's rent in arrears. Taking an average rent of 1,000 per month, that adds up to a lot of money lost by landlords.

I can't understand that, why 2 weeks to pay?
If you fall behind in rent and can't pay after a week you should be given another 7 days to leave. You are less likely to catch up after 7 days. I also think that it should run on a 3 strike system, as in fail to pay your rent on time 3 seperate times in the one lease and you're gone.

I am happy that deposits will be protected, I just wish more can be done for both sides to help protect against both bad tenants and bad landlords

Daith

odds_on wrote: »

Even if there is a new deposit holding quango - who's to say that it won't be more tenant sided than impartial?

Leaving aside that there are crap tenants and crap landlords is it possible in Ireland to get an impartial dept?

Friend Computer

Like it or lump it, tenants are the weaker party in these transactions; if a landlord faces a loss it's purely financial but for a tenant it can mean their home. Tenants have more to lose from unscrupulous landlords then the reverse.

Yes, there must be understanding that landlords are not the bad guys but you also can't forget that one party is always going to be in a greater position of vulnerability.

runawaybishop

Friend Computer wrote: »

Like it or lump it, tenants are the weaker party in these transactions; if a landlord faces a loss it's purely financial but for a tenant it can mean their home. Tenants have more to lose from unscrupulous landlords then the reverse.

Yes, there must be understanding that landlords are not the bad guys but you also can't forget that one party is always going to be in a greater position of vulnerability.

You what now? Tenants have far more rights and power. If a landlord faces a loss it can mean he misses mortgage payments - could you do that for a year and expect the bank to let it slip? The tenant can just move to a new rental.

Tenants more vulnerable my arse.

Potatoeman

runawaybishop wrote: »

You what now? Tenants have far more rights and power. If a landlord faces a loss it can mean he misses mortgage payments - could you do that for a year and expect the bank to let it slip? The tenant can just move to a new rental.

Tenants more vulnerable my arse.

You could make this arguement about mortgage holders that dont pay too. I dont think anyone mortgage holder or tenant should be able to do this but this is Ireland.

Zulu

Potatoeman wrote: »

You could make this arguement about mortgage holders that dont pay too. I dont think anyone mortgage holder or tenant should be able to do this but this is Ireland.

You could but it would be a bullsh*t comparison. Your average LL doesn't have a legal department, but a bank would.

runawaybishop

Potatoeman wrote: »

You could make this arguement about mortgage holders that dont pay too.

Make that argument in the mortgage defaulters thread so. This is about tenants and landlords.

inforfun

gaius c wrote: »

Hey fella
You need to get with the new paradigm. House prices are going up again. Rents are going up again. The troika are leaving and our banks are just flush with cash. If you haven't got 3-4k in your back pocket when you leave college and start working in google (like everybody else), then maybe you're just not rich enough to be living in Ireland.

The only money banks have at the moment is probably what is in my accounts

Ray Palmer

Friend Computer wrote: »

Like it or lump it, tenants are the weaker party in these transactions; if a landlord faces a loss it's purely financial but for a tenant it can mean their home. Tenants have more to lose from unscrupulous landlords then the reverse.

Yes, there must be understanding that landlords are not the bad guys but you also can't forget that one party is always going to be in a greater position of vulnerability.

Purely financial!? That is some statement. You do understand a tenant can easily just stop paying rent and never pay it for a year or longer. The LL can't kick them out. That purely financial loss as you see it can mean a LL can lose their own home and rental property. That means the can be homeless with the debt of 2 mortgages.

Tenants have the law on their side and are not in a vunrible position. They can just rent another place and have no debts or need to pay them if the PRTB finds against them.

Who sounds vunrible really?

Daith

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Purely financial!? That is some statement. You do understand a tenant can easily just stop paying rent and never pay it for a year or longer. The LL can't kick them out. That purely financial loss as you see it can mean a LL can lose their own home and rental property. That means the can be homeless with the debt of 2 mortgages.

Or you know if a landlord decides to hold onto a tenants deposit at the end of a lease and the tenant can't provide enough money to move to a new place and has to chase the landlord or open a case.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Who sounds vunrible really?

It can happen to both landlords and tenants. Yet this thread is about the innocent landlords and devil spawn tenants.

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

Or you know if a landlord decides to hold onto a tenants deposit at the end of a lease and the tenant can't provide enough money to move to a new place and has to chase the landlord or open a case.

Because 1 month rent as deposit (the tenant can also just not pay last months rent anyway) is the same financial burden as receiving no rent for a year and having to repair a trashed house? Tenants get off light.

Daith wrote: »

It can happen to both landlords and tenants. Yet this thread is about the innocent landlords and devil spawn tenants.

It seems this thread is about explaining to people what actually happens.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

Because 1 month rent as deposit (the tenant can also just not pay last months rent anyway) is the same financial burden as receiving no rent for a year and having to repair a trashed house? Tenants get off light.

Again if the tenant does everything correct, pays the last month and is still waiting for their deposit?

runawaybishop wrote: »

It seems this thread is about explaining to people what actually happens.

So you've never a had a good tenant?

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

Again if the tenant does everything correct, pays the last month and is still waiting for their deposit?

You are missing the point. The landlord is potentially far more vulnerable.

Daith wrote: »

So you've never a had a good tenant?

I've never had any tenant.