New rules to help protect tenants to be introduced

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

As is the tenant if they have done everything right and still chasing up a deposit.

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

As is the tenant if they have done everything right and still chasing up a deposit.

Feel free to explain why not getting a deposit back equals the same level of vulnerability as someone that could potentially lose 1 years rental income.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

Feel free to explain why not getting a deposit back equals the same level of vulnerability as someone that could potentially lose 1 years rental income.

You mean the tenant could be homeless with no ability to pay another months deposit to his new place? Or is that a month and a half now?

Friend Computer

runawaybishop wrote: »

You what now? Tenants have far more rights and power.

As it should be; the law invariably favours those who are in a weaker position. However, that still doesn't negate that tenants still stand to lose more if something goes wrong.

Some tenants taking the piss doesn't mean that all tenants can or will and it shouldn't be used as an argument against tenants having good protections.

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?

By the same token it could just be some lost profits; not every landlord is an unwilling one, in that position to pay their mortgage.

I'm not saying every landlord is out looking to cheat tenants, there's no need to get so snarky.

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

You mean the tenant could be homeless with no ability to pay another months deposit to his new place? Or is that a month and a half now?

Don't be daft, 1 months rent exposure is far less than 12 months.

Friend Computer wrote: »

As it should be; the law invariably favours those who are in a weaker position. However, that still doesn't negate that tenants still stand to lose more if something goes wrong.

Some tenants taking the piss doesn't mean that all tenants can or will and it shouldn't be used as an argument against tenants having good protections.



By the same token it could just be some lost profits; not every landlord is an unwilling one, in that position to pay their mortgage.

I'm not saying every landlord is out looking to cheat tenants, there's no need to get so snarky.

I agree the law should favour the tenant, i disagree that it does not now. Landlords stand to lose a lot more if a tenant acts up than a tenant does if a landlord acts up.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

Don't be daft, 1 months rent exposure is far less than 12 months.

Sorry? I made my point that tenant could be become homeless which is kinda a big deal. You chose to ignore that point and just base it one 1 vs 12.

_Kaiser_

runawaybishop wrote: »

Don't be daft, 1 months rent exposure is far less than 12 months.

You're missing the point....

A few missed payments with the bank on your BTL (possibly) < Homeless (almost certainly - especially if this notion of 6-12 week deposits took off)

runawaybishop

Daith wrote: »

Sorry? I made my point that tenant could be become homeless which is kinda a big deal.

They could potentially struggle for the time it takes to get 1 months deposit together, i will agree to that.

The landlord could potentially struggle to get rent for around 1 full year while a tenant refuses to leave. You seem to not accept that the landlord is more exposed that the tenant though?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're missing the point....

A few missed payments with the bank on your BTL (possibly) < Homeless (almost certainly - especially if this notion of 6-12 week deposits took off)

Just as you seem to think its ok to assume the landlord can miss a few payments surely i can assume the tenant has another deposit in his pocket. None of us are really entitled to assume every landlord is flush with cash and can easily handle missed payments.

The worst a landlord can do is not return a deposit. The worst a tenant can do is refuse to pay rent for a year or skip off without paying last months rent and retrieve their deposit after wrecking the house.
How you guys can argue this point is mind bottling :pac:

We absolutely need deposits secured with a 3rd party but we also need the eviction process to be streamlined.

_Kaiser_

runawaybishop wrote: »

The could potentially struggle for the time it takes to get 1 months deposit together, i will agree to that.

The landlord could potentially struggle to get rent for around 1 full year while a tenant refuses to leave. You seem to not accept that the landlord is more exposed that the tenant though?



Just as you seem to think its ok to assume the landlord can miss a few payments surely i can assume the tenant has another deposit in his pocket. None of us are really entitled to assume every landlord is flush with cash and can easily handle missed payments.

The worst a landlord can do is not return a deposit. The worst a tenant can do is refuse to pay rent for a year or skip off without paying last months rent and retrieve their deposit after wrecking the house.
How you guys can argue this point is mind bottling :pac:

We absolutely need deposits secured with a 3rd party but we also need the eviction process to be streamlined.

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.

Daith

runawaybishop wrote: »

The could potentially struggle for the time it takes to get 1 months deposit together, i will agree to that.

The landlord could potentially struggle to get rent for around 1 full year while a tenant refuses to leave. You seem to not accept that the landlord is more exposed that the tenant though?

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.

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.