New rules to help protect tenants to be introduced

runawaybishop

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're using unbalanced extremes though to argue your point.

I fully agree with you that the rights and responsibilities of a rental are something BOTH sides need to take responsibility for, however I'd counter that the percentage of tenants who "do a runner" or trash the place is far lower than the percentage of landlords who withhold some or all of the deposit for unjustified reasons.

I agree the system badly needs reform but the reality IS that a tenant will suffer in real terms far more as a result of a bad landlord than the reverse.

What's unbalanced about it? The tenant can up and leave if the landlord is bad with 0 loss to themselves as most deposits are 1 months rent.

Daith wrote: »

Even the way you phrase it is biased. The tenant will "struggle" versus a full year of rent loss.

The landlord is more exposed to the tenant in that specific case. The tenant is more expose than the landlord if they do everything right and still don't get their deposit on time.

But it's the landlords risk and that needs to be factored into renting his property.

Bollocks to everything in this statement.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

What's unbalanced about it? The tenant can up and leave if the landlord is bad with 0 loss to themselves as most deposits are 1 months rent.

And the landlord can hold their deposit despite the tenant doing everything correctly. That's your unbalanced viewpoint.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Bollocks to everything in this statement.

Yeah ok. Every Landlord is brilliant and always give their deposit back on time and doesn't try to deduct anything that they shouldn't.

Landlords have the greater gain in getting someone to pay their mortgage (and more) and the greatest risk too,.

_Kaiser_

Daith wrote: »

And the landlord can hold their deposit despite the tenant doing everything correctly. That's your unbalanced viewpoint.

AND possibly sue them for the balance of the rent due for the rest of the tenancy

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

And the landlord can hold their deposit despite the tenant doing everything correctly. That's your unbalanced viewpoint.

Like I said, withholding 1 months deposit is not as bad as withholdings 1 years rent.

Daith wrote: »

Yeah ok. Every Landlord is brilliant and always give their deposit back on time and doesn't try to deduct anything that they shouldn't.

Never said that.

Daith wrote: »

Landlords have the greater gain in getting someone to pay their mortgage (and more) and the greatest risk too,.

So?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

AND possibly sue them for the balance of the rent due for the rest of the tenancy

That works well for the LL when they try to recoup their rent from delinquent tenants, right? The system is sh1te as it is right now.

_Kaiser_

runawaybishop wrote: »

What's unbalanced about it? The tenant can up and leave if the landlord is bad with 0 loss to themselves as most deposits are 1 months rent.

As above, the tenant could be sued for the balance of the rent due over the rest of the tenancy.. and 1 month's rent could be €1000-1500. Not exactly chicken-feed to most people who are renting.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

Like I said, withholding 1 months deposit is not as bad as withholdings 1 years rent.

It is if the tenant does become homeless in that period. You arguing the extreme of losing a years rent so I'll argue the extreme of a tenant not getting their deposit.

_Kaiser_

runawaybishop wrote: »

So?

So.. as with any investment you should weigh up the risks against the rewards before you decide to go ahead with it.

If you decide to take the plunge and then end up with a bad tenant that costs you money, while regrettable and yes there should be clear means to deal with that, that's something you have to live with

The more likely outcome is that you'll get more tenants who won't cause you any problems at all in which case you'll do quite nicely out of the deal.. if not, you should ask why you bothered to go ahead with it in the first place.

runawaybishop

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As above, the tenant could be sued for the balance of the rent due over the rest of the tenancy.. and 1 month's rent could be €1000-1500. Not exactly chicken-feed to most people who are renting.

The process could take a year or more though - that's a major issue from both the tenants and the landlords perspective.

Daith wrote: »

It is if the tenant does become homeless in that period. You arguing the extreme of losing a years rent.

You arguing the extreme of the tenant not having cash for a new deposit and becoming homeless is grand though?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So.. as with any investment you should weigh up the risks against the rewards before you decide to go ahead with it.

If you decide to take the plunge and then end up with a bad tenant that costs you money, while regrettable and yes there should be clear means to deal with that, that's something you have to live with

The more likely outcome is that you'll get more tenants who won't cause you any problems at all in which case you'll do quite nicely out of the deal.. if not, you should ask why you bothered to go ahead with it in the first place.

So what has that to do with comparing the exposure between a tenant and a landlord? I'm not arguing that the landlord entered into it by choice.

_Kaiser_

runawaybishop wrote: »

The process could take a year or more though - that's a major issue from both the tenants and the landlords perspective.

I agree but that's down to poor regulation than anything else.

It's also worth noting that this whole proposal serves another purpose - keep the two sides divided so attention doesn't shift to the real issues such as the poor regulation, drawn out processes, high costs for all concerned

It's the same approach used to pit the public vs private sectors, employed vs unemployed etc etc

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

You arguing the extreme of the tenant not having cash for a new deposit and becoming homeless is grand though?

Which is matching your extreme.

Things need to be sorted out but from both sides and both need to be protected. Landlord will always have the higher risk but also the higher gain tbh.

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

Which is matching your extreme.

Not having a house for 1 month is the same as having a house repossessed or facing the significant costs incurred for missing mortgage repayments on a property? The tenant can easily avoid an deposit retention anyway, they just skip off without paying the last months rent. The landlord cannot magic up the missed rental income though. The process and law favours the tenant quite strongly.

Kaiser2000: agreed.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not having a house for 1 month is the same as having a house repossessed or facing the significant costs incurred for missing mortgage repayments on a property? The tenant can easily avoid an deposit retention anyway, they just skip off without paying the last months rent. The landlord cannot magic up the missed rental income though. The process and law favours the tenant quite strongly.

Enough of your extremes. I'm surprised the landlords crying children aren't part of your scenario either.

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

Enough of your extremes. I'm surprised the landlords crying children aren't part of your scenario either.

Don't be facetious.

djimi

runawaybishop wrote: »

The process and law favours the tenant quite strongly.

It should probably be pointed out that its not the law or the system that favours the tenant; its the lack of timely enforcement that gives the tenant the edge. If the PRTB were even remotely competent and capable of dealing with issues quickly then tenants wouldnt have have the advantage that they currently have.

pwurple

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So.. as with any investment you should weigh up the risks against the rewards before you decide to go ahead with it.

If you decide to take the plunge and then end up with a bad tenant that costs you money, while regrettable and yes there should be clear means to deal with that, that's something you have to live with

The more likely outcome is that you'll get more tenants who won't cause you any problems at all in which case you'll do quite nicely out of the deal.. if not, you should ask why you bothered to go ahead with it in the first place.

You're completely oblivious to the state of the accidental landlords in this country. Of which there are LOADS. People who bought an apartment because it suited them at the time, ended up in neg equity... and cannot sell (because the bank won't let them). They moved to a larger (rented) place to accommodate a young family, and rented out the first place. They can't sell it, and they can't afford to let it be idle... so they get a tenant to cover a part of the mortgage.


They didn't make any investment decision, they never even wanted to be landlords in the first place. They bought because they could afford it, and planned to trade up when needed. I really feel sorry for those people, they are doing the best they can in a bad situation.


If you look at the number of single property landlords in this country over the last few years, it has ballooned. They aren't making a scrap of income off being a landlord.... they are paying a mortgage which can be far more than the rent received, plus income tax, PRSI and USC on any rent, plus PRTB, plus property tax, plus legal fees and expected by some to still just suck it up if someone wants to live in their place for free. They are subsidising the 'recovering' economy, and are seen as a Greedy Landlord.

runawaybishop

djimi wrote: »

It should probably be pointed out that its not the law or the system that favours the tenant; its the lack of timely enforcement that gives the tenant the edge. If the PRTB were even remotely competent and capable of dealing with issues quickly then tenants wouldnt have have the advantage that they currently have.

Indeed, a good point.

The_Morrigan

Daith wrote: »

Enough of your extremes. I'm surprised the landlords crying children aren't part of your scenario either.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Don't be facetious.

Cut it out please.

Morri

_Kaiser_

pwurple wrote: »

You're completely oblivious to the state of the accidental landlords in this country. Of which there are LOADS. People who bought an apartment because it suited them at the time, ended up in neg equity... and cannot sell (because the bank won't let them). They moved to a larger (rented) place to accommodate a young family, and rented out the first place. They can't sell it, and they can't afford to let it be idle... so they get a tenant to cover a part of the mortgage.


They didn't make any investment decision, they never even wanted to be landlords in the first place. They bought because they could afford it, and planned to trade up when needed. I really feel sorry for those people, they are doing the best they can in a bad situation.


If you look at the number of single property landlords in this country over the last few years, it has ballooned. They aren't making a scrap of income off being a landlord.... they are paying a mortgage which can be far more than the rent received, plus income tax, PRSI and USC on any rent, plus PRTB, plus property tax, plus legal fees and expected by some to still just suck it up if someone wants to live in their place for free. They are subsidising the 'recovering' economy, and are seen as a Greedy Landlord.

[slightly O/T but still relevant rant/ramble ahead]

As I've said before, I have every sympathy for anyone who is struggling to pay their bills - be it a mortgage, utilities, credit cards, whatever - as a result of the current mess.

HOWEVER let's not forget that everyone who bought a house/apartment did so of their own free will. While they may have been offered hundreds of thousands of "pre-approved credit" or 110% mortgages or cheap loans (I know, I got the same phone calls myself), no-one forced people to sign the agreements. Part of the problem was and is the state of the rental market in this country and the Irish obsession with owning property and "flipping" it for a profit a few years later rather than buying it as a home.

So, ultimately these accidental landlords you refer to are such because of the choices they made and while I do (as above) have sympathy for them, I don't see why I should pay for it through higher rents, deposits and ultimately taxes.. because that IS the kicker here - I (like many others) refused the "free money" but am still paying for it anyway! I may as well have partied with everyone else as it's turned out.

What's needed is a seismic shift in Irish attitude away from the aforementioned need to "get on the property ladder" no matter the cost, location, or suitablity to one where long-term renting is in fact the norm and if you can (sustainably) afford a house or apartment then by all means go for it.

Until this happens, neither landlord or tenant will ever see any real benefit or change to the current system.

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So.. as with any investment you should weigh up the risks against the rewards before you decide to go ahead with it.

If you decide to take the plunge and then end up with a bad tenant that costs you money, while regrettable and yes there should be clear means to deal with that, that's something you have to live with

The more likely outcome is that you'll get more tenants who won't cause you any problems at all in which case you'll do quite nicely out of the deal.. if not, you should ask why you bothered to go ahead with it in the first place.

Should shopkeepers just put up with shoplifters or is it right that the state steps in to protect private property?

pwurple

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So, ultimately these accidental landlords you refer to are such because of the choices they made and while I do (as above) have sympathy for them, I don't see why I should pay for it through higher rents, deposits and ultimately taxes.. because that IS the kicker here - I (like many others) refused the "free money" but am still paying for it anyway! I may as well have partied with everyone else as it's turned out.

I'm not entirely sure how you have worked out that you are paying higher rents because of accidental landlords. Rents are high because there is a LACK of rental residential units. Not an excess of landlords.


If you realistically want rents to fall and standards to improve, (and not just a stick to beat people with) you need more landlords and more units to compete with eachother.


If it is continuously made more and more expensive for anyone to be a landlord, all that will happen is that people will bail out where they can:
The number of places available reduces further -> Rents increase.
And the units left will be to landlords who have less income -> they turn into unmaintained hovels.

beauf

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

.......What's needed is a seismic shift in Irish attitude away from the aforementioned need to "get on the property ladder" no matter the cost, location, or suitablity to one where long-term renting is in fact the norm and if you can (sustainably) afford a house or apartment then by all means go for it.....

If people didn't take risks there would be no private property to rent.

Its not like the Govt has stepped in to provide it.

Less rental properties means rents increase if theres the demand.

quietsailor

djimi wrote: »

It should probably be pointed out that its not the law or the system that favours the tenant; its the lack of timely enforcement that gives the tenant the edge. If the PRTB were even remotely competent and capable of dealing with issues quickly then tenants wouldnt have have the advantage that they currently have.

This should be given the title of forum quote of the year and stickied on its own on the front page in flashing lights.

A lot of problems wouldn't even exist of Bad LL vs tenant or bad tenant vs LL if there was proper enforcement.

murphaph

quietsailor wrote: »

This should be given the title of forum quote of the year and stickied on its own on the front page in flashing lights.

A lot of problems wouldn't even exist of Bad LL vs tenant or bad tenant vs LL if there was proper enforcement.

The law still sits on the side of the tenant. PRTB determinations are not legally binding so the landlord wishing to evict a system playing non payer must first go through the PRTB charade before he can actually apply to court to get a decision that allows him call the sheriff. Before the PRTB it took less time.

odds_on

quietsailor wrote: »

This should be given the title of forum quote of the year and stickied on its own on the front page in flashing lights.

A lot of problems wouldn't even exist of Bad LL vs tenant or bad tenant vs LL if there was proper enforcement.

What is "proper enforcement"?
Look at the number of people who drive without a insurance.
How many people have a TV but no licence?
Look at the building trade with all its rules and regulations - and then there's Priory Hall, and probably others we don't know of.
If it comes to that, look at the banks .....
You will always get the rogue element who will try to avoid the law.

djimi

murphaph wrote: »

The law still sits on the side of the tenant. PRTB determinations are not legally binding so the landlord wishing to evict a system playing non payer must first go through the PRTB charade before he can actually apply to court to get a decision that allows him call the sheriff. Before the PRTB it took less time.

And if the PRTB acted in a timely fashion that would not be an issue.

Unless to believe that tenants (even bad ones) are not entitled to a fair hearing through a third party board such as the PRTB when it comes to things like evictions?

gaius c

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

Not really. All the landlord has to worry about is his bottom line. Tenant has to worry about that AND the insecurity of not owning the roof over their own heads plus all the little indignities that Irish landlords like to inflict on their tenants.

Landlords will never have to worry about somebody else's JCB knocking down their back garden wall at 7am on a Saturday morning and proceeding to dig up the garden (all with zero notice) as happened to friends of mine. Landlords will never have to worry if somebody has let themselves into their home while they were out to "pick up some paint pots" as happened to us recently.

runawaybishop

gaius c wrote: »

Not really. All the landlord has to worry about is his bottom line. Tenant has to worry about that AND the insecurity of not owning the roof over their own heads plus all the little indignities that Irish landlords like to inflict on their tenants.

Landlords will never have to worry about somebody else's JCB knocking down their back garden wall at 7am on a Saturday morning and proceeding to dig up the garden (all with zero notice) as happened to friends of mine. Landlords will never have to worry if somebody has let themselves into their home while they were out to "pick up some paint pots" as happened to us recently.

Yes, really. The tenants can just move out with 0 financial repercussions.

gaius c

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, really. The tenants can just move out with 0 financial repercussions.

So you put no value on the right to quiet & peaceful enjoyment of their home?
I've had a previous landlord tell me "you're well able to afford the increase because I've seen X, Y, Z in the house". Now how would you feel if your employer announced that you don't need a payrise because they've snooped around your house without your knowledge and think you're well off enough already? Or a supplier to your business peering through your till to decide what you'll pay him for his produce?

The current guy won't own up to it but we've found the alarm switched on/off at odd times and a big dirty smudge turn up on a light switch that we know didn't get put there by us. We know he (or somebody else with the key & alarm code) is letting themselves in while we're out and complaints to the agent are being met with "oh Jim isn't even in the country right now".

There really is no way to describe the uncomfortable feeling of dread as you try to work out what rooms this intruder to your home is after accessing.

roboshatner

it is a pity it is only coming in now considering some people lost tons of money from landlords.

runawaybishop

gaius c wrote: »

So you put no value on the right to quiet & peaceful enjoyment of their home?
I've had a previous landlord tell me "you're well able to afford the increase because I've seen X, Y, Z in the house". Now how would you feel if your employer announced that you don't need a payrise because they've snooped around your house without your knowledge and think you're well off enough already? Or a supplier to your business peering through your till to decide what you'll pay him for his produce?

The current guy won't own up to it but we've found the alarm switched on/off at odd times and a big dirty smudge turn up on a light switch that we know didn't get put there by us. We know he (or somebody else with the key & alarm code) is letting themselves in while we're out and complaints to the agent are being met with "oh Jim isn't even in the country right now".

There really is no way to describe the uncomfortable feeling of dread as you try to work out what rooms this intruder to your home is after accessing.

Just leave?

gaius c

Yeah, we'll just move home for the third time in 12 months and lose our deposit for leaving before the lease is up. Like you say, it's a total walk in the park for tenants. They only have to move house like itinerants and lose their desposit because the landlord thinks a real-life reenactment of The Blair Witch Project is a suitable way to deal with his customers. No big deal at all.

drumswan

gaius c wrote: »

There really is no way to describe the uncomfortable feeling of dread as you try to work out what rooms this intruder to your home is after accessing.

Get a small camera for your place, these are very cheap these days.

runawaybishop

gaius c wrote: »

Yeah, we'll just move home for the third time in 12 months and lose our deposit for leaving before the lease is up. Like you say, it's a total walk in the park for tenants. They only have to move house like itinerants and lose their desposit because the landlord thinks a real-life reenactment of The Blair Witch Project is a suitable way to deal with his customers. No big deal at all.

A tenant can always just move out and only lose their deposit, or nothing at all if they don't pay the last months rent. There is absolutly no reason you have to put up with a ****ty landlord.

On the flip side a landlord cannot quickly evict a ****ty tenant, even if they stop paying rent it can take over a year to get them out. A landlord is far more exposed.

murphaph

djimi wrote: »

And if the PRTB acted in a timely fashion that would not be an issue.

Unless to believe that tenants (even bad ones) are not entitled to a fair hearing through a third party board such as the PRTB when it comes to things like evictions?

What's a court if not a fair hearing?

Tenants play the PRTB fiddle because it doesn't cost them anything to play it. There's no PRTB in Germany. If your landlord wants to evict you for whatever reason he goes to court and you go too and the decision is binding (as the process used to be in Ireland) indeed the new laws introduced in June this year mean a LL can get a court date very fast where non-payment of rent is at issue. Why the extra delay in the process in Ireland? The PRTB decision is not binding, so it's a pointless delay that only advantages the tenant.

gaius c

runawaybishop wrote: »

A tenant can always just move out and only lose their deposit, or nothing at all if they don't pay the last months rent. There is absolutly no reason you have to put up with a ****ty landlord.

On the flip side a landlord cannot quickly evict a ****ty tenant, even if they stop paying rent it can take over a year to get them out. A landlord is far more exposed.

Sure we're only transient, shiftless renters who put no value at all on being able to enjoy peace & quiet in our home because we're only in it to steal money off poor vulnerable landlords.

You keep playing up the trials that poor landlords go through and downplaying the genuine stress caused by having your home repeatedly violated by persons unknown. I think we're done here.

The_Morrigan

Ok, it's obvious that both tenants and landlords have advantages and pitfalls to contend with, but this thread is about new rules to protect tenants - Can we please get back on topic and stop trying to outdo each other with who is worse off?

Morri

drumswan

runawaybishop wrote: »

A tenant can always just move out and only lose their deposit

'Just move out' to where? Perhaps we could check into the Four Seasons? Live in a tent in Stephens Green? We are renters, not squatters, do you think we keep all our stuff in a bag under the stairs ready to move to the next landlord who will grant us the 'favour' of allowing us to live in their property?

The whole sharecropping thing has been over a while mate.

Thomas D

gaius c wrote: »

Not really. All the landlord has to worry about is his bottom line. Tenant has to worry about that AND the insecurity of not owning the roof over their own heads plus all the little indignities that Irish landlords like to inflict on their tenants.

Landlords will never have to worry about somebody else's JCB knocking down their back garden wall at 7am on a Saturday morning and proceeding to dig up the garden (all with zero notice) as happened to friends of mine. Landlords will never have to worry if somebody has let themselves into their home while they were out to "pick up some paint pots" as happened to us recently.

This is the imbalance that needs to be recognised by legislation. At the end of the day a landlord can go back to his house and cry over his investment losses. A tenant with a bad landlord risks being homeless. Poorer tenants are often completley reliant on getting a deposit back to secure another tenancy.

wonski

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

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.

Rented 3 properties and never heard of this. The inventory was made by an agent with me. Properties are (mostly) unfurnished, so the inventory list is rather short. The problem we have here is people who rent have to use landlords sofas, chairs, beds etc. This things break, wear and lead to disputes. If we had unfurnished market here, there would be no inventory apart from kitchen equipment and some curtains. And no need for an independent guy who charges 50-100 for writing down "a fridge, cooker and a washing mashine".

sunnysoutheast

wonski wrote: »

Rented 3 properties and never heard of this. The inventory was made by an agent with me. Properties are (mostly) unfurnished, so the inventory list is rather short. The problem we have here is people who rent have to use landlords sofas, chairs, beds etc. This things break, wear and lead to disputes. If we had unfurnished market here, there would be no inventory apart from kitchen equipment and some curtains. And no need for an independent guy who charges 50-100 for writing down "a fridge, cooker and a washing mashine".

It's not universal, but seems very common in London and the Thames Valley at least based on personal experience.

The schedule of condition also covers the state of the walls/ceiling, outside/garden etc., in particular for lack of mould in bathrooms, state of cleanliness of appliances/kitchen cabinets, blutack marks, etc. For an unfurnished house we rented last year the report with photos ran to 12 pages and went down to the level of identifying filled screw holes on the walls.

When we were offering our PPR for rental last year one of the prospective tenants wouldn't agree to a room-by-room inventory on the move-in "..because there is always some damage when you have young children" which gives you some idea of the cultural differences.

sunnysoutheast

Thomas D wrote: »

Poorer tenants are often completley reliant on getting a deposit back to secure another tenancy.

True, but any deposit scheme is going to have a minimum SLA for its return, I would hazard a guess that this will settle on something like 14 days minimum if there is no dispute, if any dispute has to go via an independent body a la the PRTB then who knows how long that will take.

wonski

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

It's not universal, but seems very common in London and the Thames Valley at least based on personal experience.

The schedule of condition also covers the state of the walls/ceiling, outside/garden etc., in particular for lack of mould in bathrooms, state of cleanliness of appliances/kitchen cabinets, blutack marks, etc. For an unfurnished house we rented last year the report with photos ran to 12 pages and went down to the level of identifying filled screw holes on the walls.

When we were offering our PPR for rental last year one of the prospective tenants wouldn't agree to a room-by-room inventory on the move-in "..because there is always some damage when you have young children" which gives you some idea of the cultural differences.

Sounds like a perfect rental procedure.

Grandpa Hassan

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

True, but any deposit scheme is going to have a minimum SLA for its return, I would hazard a guess that this will settle on something like 14 days minimum if there is no dispute, if any dispute has to go via an independent body a la the PRTB then who knows how long that will take.

That's about right. The standard is that the day after you move out, the place is deep cleaned (at the expense of the vacating tenant). Then the inventory clerk does a check with the vacating tenant. Then writes up a report and recommendation and sends to the LL. The LL agrees and only then does the inventory clerk instruct the agent to release the money from the deposit protection account. Can be 2 week turnaround if not challenged, longer if there are challenges (though limited I think to a month....the clerk is the independent body....there is no slow quango like the PTRB ).

So no matter what, you don't get your deposit back to use for the new place.

As an aside, when I moved in to this current place in London, I agreed the inventory with the clerk, and was subsequently sent a colour 20 page booklet with photos, the comments that we had agreed etc. Very professional and peace of mind on both sides.

Rosier

Thomas D wrote: »

This is the imbalance that needs to be recognised by legislation. At the end of the day a landlord can go back to his house and cry over his investment losses. A tenant with a bad landlord risks being homeless. Poorer tenants are often completley reliant on getting a deposit back to secure another tenancy.

This sums up the basic issue for many. On a low income and RA.

I have twice used the deposit as the last months rent as else I could not have paid a depost on the new place and left the house clean and undamaged. In both cases I was sure that there would be delays because of the landlords in question There needs to be a safer system.

murphaph

Rosier wrote: »

This sums up the basic issue for many. On a low income and RA.

I have twice used the deposit as the last months rent as else I could not have paid a depost on the new place and left the house clean and undamaged. In both cases I was sure that there would be delays because of the landlords in question There needs to be a safer system.

No regulated system is going to see you getting your deposit back in time to use it for a new place. As I said, this system (whilst I am broadly in favour of it) will NOT be the great white hope of tenants who live deposit to deposit. It will be an advantage to tenants who have cash in the bank and will help landlords who are above board but it will probably hinder poorer tenants with the end result that they simply stay put in accommodation they might otherwise choose to leave.

Rosier

murphaph wrote: »

No regulated system is going to see you getting your deposit back in time to use it for a new place. As I said, this system (whilst I am broadly in favour of it) will NOT be the great white hope of tenants who live deposit to deposit. It will be an advantage to tenants who have cash in the bank and will help landlords who are above board but it will probably hinder poorer tenants with the end result that they simply stay put in accommodation they might otherwise choose to leave.

The conditions in the two places I vacated were such that they were a serious health risk and staying was not an option. Hence my draconian measures. In both cases I was very ill and in both cases I left a full room by room report of the issues. Hence I never heard from the landlord again. When a place is infested with mice, grey sl ugs in the kitchen, all manner of bugs. and with black mould erupting from where they had painted over it...Yukk!! One room so wet it could not be used... the list is endless...

foggy_lad

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

It's not universal, but seems very common in London and the Thames Valley at least based on personal experience.

The schedule of condition also covers the state of the walls/ceiling, outside/garden etc., in particular for lack of mould in bathrooms, state of cleanliness of appliances/kitchen cabinets, blutack marks, etc. For an unfurnished house we rented last year the report with photos ran to 12 pages and went down to the level of identifying filled screw holes on the walls.

When we were offering our PPR for rental last year one of the prospective tenants wouldn't agree to a room-by-room inventory on the move-in "..because there is always some damage when you have young children" which gives you some idea of the cultural differences.

So where does normal wear and tear fit into this?