The farcical state of renting in Dublin

Michael D Not Higgins

RTA 2004 requires the deposit to be repaid promptly. 5 days is not promptly in my opinion.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

RTA 2004 requires the deposit to be repaid promptly. 5 days is not promptly in my opinion.

Is "promptly" defined in the Act or it it subjective?

Jaybor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

RTA 2004 requires the deposit to be repaid promptly. 5 days is not promptly in my opinion.

It is paid promptly. Exactly on the day that it says in the lease that both parties sign.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

In other countries its a 3 or 6 month deposit and held in a 3rd party bond. Places are unfurnished, and left repainted by the tenant when they leave. No hassle about breakages, damage or that messing. A deposit is big amount that LL and Tenants treat seriously.

To be honest- I really think we have to explore this option- a much bigger deposit, lodged with an independent third party, property let unfurnished, repainted properly at the end of a lease- tenant uses their own furniture, appliances etc, no hassle about breakages or damage- and the tenant gets their deposit back as soon as its cleared by both parties.

The Irish system of only a months rent- and letting the property furnished- along with tenants who seem to view this as their last months rent, safe in the knowledge its far too much trouble for the landlord to chase them- doesn't work.

Neither party are best served by the current system.

Jaybor

The_Conductor wrote: »

To be honest- I really think we have to explore this option- a much bigger deposit, lodged with an independent third party, property let unfurnished, repainted properly at the end of a lease- tenant uses their own furniture, appliances etc, no hassle about breakages or damage- and the tenant gets their deposit back as soon as its cleared by both parties.

The Irish system of only a months rent- and letting the property furnished- along with tenants who seem to view this as their last months rent, safe in the knowledge its far too much trouble for the landlord to chase them- doesn't work.

Neither party are best served by the current system.

I dont think you will get any argument on that from any landlord.

riclad

Government policy new rules ,have outlawed bedsits,
putting extra costs on landlords.
SO high demand ,has pushed up rents in citys.
THE government brought in the rent a room scheme,
ie rent a room tax free up to 10 k.
But theres not many people using that scheme.
Maybe there needs to be new tax incentives for landlords,
who rent to single people, as opposed to just renting out the house to a tenant.

Jaybor

riclad wrote: »

Government policy new rules ,have outlawed bedsits,
putting extra costs on landlords.
SO high demand ,has pushed up rents in citys.
THE government brought in the rent a room scheme,
ie rent a room tax free up to 10 k.
But theres not many people using that scheme.
Maybe there needs to be new tax incentives for landlords,
who rent to single people, as opposed to just renting out the house to a tenant.

Or maybe the government should just stop interfering in the property market forever. Every time they do it ends in tears.

jescart

riclad wrote: »

Government policy new rules ,have outlawed bedsits,
putting extra costs on landlords.
SO high demand ,has pushed up rents in citys.
THE government brought in the rent a room scheme,
ie rent a room tax free up to 10 k.
But theres not many people using that scheme.
Maybe there needs to be new tax incentives for landlords,
who rent to single people, as opposed to just renting out the house to a tenant.

I think there's a lot more complex issues affecting rental prices in Dublin than bedsits being outlawed. It' a combo of people locked into negative equity, banks not foreclosing on distressed mortgages, NAMA under no pressure to sell all the property in their possession, mortgage holders not moving because they have favorable tracker mortgages, etc etc..

Ann Landers

I arranged a viewing this evening for a really nice, very reasonably priced one-bed in Dublin. I replied to the ad three minutes after it was placed. Went back an hour later to look at the pictures again and the ad was taken down! :eek:

Now, I have my viewing arranged so I'm grand, and probably have a good shot at getting the place if I was the first responder and the dude likes me, but it just shows how competitive the market is out there at the moment. He must have got enough interest in that hour to take the ad down. Crazy stuff. It was just pure luck that I spotted it!

MouseTail

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

RTA 2004 requires the deposit to be repaid promptly. 5 days is not promptly in my opinion.

The new deposit scheme will not return on day of departure, in fact I can't think of anywhere else that is the norm.

Michael D Not Higgins

MouseTail wrote: »

The new deposit scheme will not return on day of departure, in fact I can't think of anywhere else that is the norm.

For a protected deposit with an independent administration I can understand a bit of delay. For the system as it stands there's no reason to withhold the deposit for 5 days, it should be returned promptly as per current law.

I agree that promptly isn't defined in the act and is therefore dependent on the case but one could argue that a clause indicating a mandatory 5 day waiting period for returning the deposit is not prompt.

Jaybor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

For a protected deposit with an independent administration I can understand a bit of delay. For the system as it stands there's no reason to withhold the deposit for 5 days, it should be returned promptly as per current law.

I agree that promptly isn't defined in the act and is therefore dependent on the case but one could argue that a clause indicating a mandatory 5 day waiting period for returning the deposit is not prompt.

5 day return period is quite fair I think.
If you dont like it you dont have to take the lease.

I had a tenant move out and everything seemed grand, even though I got a bad vibe like they were pissed off at me for something.
New tenant moved in the following day. After about 3 days there was an awful stink in the house and I had to call out. The mattress was full of piss and **** and all sorts and the mattress protector had been put on over it and that grunge was leaking through it after a couple of days.

I can only thing that the person took off the protector, as tenants seem to always do, when they moved in and replaced it after destroying the mattress when they moved out.

Another time I discovered tenants had given me back forged parking permits, i didnt notice the difference and the new tenant had gotten a ticket. It took me ages to get that sorted out for them and i never saw the real parking permits again.

These things and many other only come to light after a few days / weeks.

And if there is an escrow system in place it will be more like 30 days or more and im betting 2 months rent as the deposit and a months rent in advance will be standard.

And there will be an administration fee for both parties to be paid before it is given back. So the tenant will have to pay their administration charge to get their deposit back and the landlord will have to pay his charge too. But the landlord will then pass on this charge in the rent, but have to double it to cover it, because he will have to pay tax on the rent.

Look up how escrow works in other countries. 5 Days will seem lightening fast after that.

Michael D Not Higgins

The system here (Scotland) has the landlord notify the protection scheme of the amount to repay. They notify the tenant who either accepts or rejects. The waiting period occurs after this. The application for the return of deposit occurs at the end of the lease, and can be done so by the tenant also. Coming back with issues that were not identified to the tenant at the time of leaving is unlikely to be viewed in a good light. How is the tenant, or the independent scheme, to know if the landlord didn't switch the mattress after the tenant left? (Not accusing you of this, but these things can happen) Also, if the mattress is destroyed and you don't notice it on inspection, whose fault is that?

I'm not talking about the possible time limits imposed by a deposit protection scheme, I'm talking about the law as it stands now. Comparing the current system in another country to a self imposed 5 day retention of deposit is not in the spirit or scope of the law and could be deemed an unfair term if it went to the PRTB (not that it would get that far, but you know what I mean).

I did agree that prompt is not defined in the act and is likely as such to allow for wriggle room. It's hard to impose strict legal time limits on these tenancies - just look at the number of illegal eviction threads, and tenants and landlords alike who don't know the correct notice periods. However, since it is not legally defined I would take it as the regular meaning which is without delay. This would occur at the end of the inspection. Should additional issues arise, perhaps the inspection is not thorough enough.

Gasherbraun

Jaybor wrote: »

And if there is an escrow system in place it will be more like 30 days or more and im betting 2 months rent as the deposit and a months rent in advance will be standard.

And there will be an administration fee for both parties to be paid before it is given back. So the tenant will have to pay their administration charge to get their deposit back and the landlord will have to pay his charge too. But the landlord will then pass on this charge in the rent, but have to double it to cover it, because he will have to pay tax on the rent.

Look up how escrow works in other countries. 5 Days will seem lightening fast after that.

I was involved with the deposit schemes when introduced in the UK in 2006 /2007 and returns of deposit were initially taking about 4 weeks. This was tightened up fairly quickly and typical time was down to approx 2 weeks from the point that landlord and tenant agreed the final figure. Agreement had to be reached within a timeframe (14 days iirc) or be sent for dispute resolution.

The system was operated fairly efficiently but there was no way that a tenant would get a return of deposit on day of vacation or even within 5 days.

I have not seen who will administer the deposit scheme in Ireland but if it is handed to the PRTB or a similar body I would have real concerns about the speed of return being anywhere reasonable.

I would also be interested to see how any such scheme actions a disbursement of deposit since a return must rely on the agreement of two parties. If there is a dispute will the scheme operator provide a process to resolve? will deposit disputes all go to the supposedly already overworked PRTB or simply left to landlord and tenant to agree?

Maybe the operator will not be too concerned about potentially large amounts sitting on account indefinitely while disputes drag on.

murphaph

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

For a protected deposit with an independent administration I can understand a bit of delay. For the system as it stands there's no reason to withhold the deposit for 5 days, it should be returned promptly as per current law.

I agree that promptly isn't defined in the act and is therefore dependent on the case but one could argue that a clause indicating a mandatory 5 day waiting period for returning the deposit is not prompt.

The LL may not know (probably won't) if all utilities are up to date on moving out day. I'd hold it until that was established at least. LL may also be away for work/holidays. It's not realistic to expect your deposit back on the day you move out. If (as should happen) some deposit escrow system is introduced some day, it won't be returned for at least a few weeks even if no dispute is lodged.

Michael D Not Higgins

murphaph wrote: »

The LL may not know (probably won't) if all utilities are up to date on moving out day. I'd hold it until that was established at least. LL may also be away for work/holidays. It's not realistic to expect your deposit back on the day you move out. If (as should happen) some deposit escrow system is introduced some day, it won't be returned for at least a few weeks even if no dispute is lodged.

Is the landlord liable for debts the tenant ran up? I don't think the utility can chase the landlord for this.

borderlinemeath

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Is the landlord liable for debts the tenant ran up? I don't think the utility can chase the landlord for this.

And that's why utility companies always look for a substantial deposit from new customers in a leasehold situation. And that isn't paid back on the day you move out either.

murphaph

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Is the landlord liable for debts the tenant ran up? I don't think the utility can chase the landlord for this.

But most any lease I've ever read compels the tenant to pay his utility bills. It can have consequences for the LL if tenants fail to do this, so better safe than sorry. I would want to be sure all utility bills had been discharged before returning a deposit.

Michael D Not Higgins

murphaph wrote: »

But most any lease I've ever read compels the tenant to pay his utility bills. It can have consequences for the LL if tenants fail to do this, so better safe than sorry. I would want to be sure all utility bills had been discharged before returning a deposit.

The only clause I can think of would be that the bills will be in the tenants name and that they should be in charge of it. That just absolves the landlord from utility debts, so what consequences? The utility debts are then outside of the lease agreement as they're a debt between the utility and the tenant.

The_Conductor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The only clause I can think of would be that the bills will be in the tenants name and that they should be in charge of it. That just absolves the landlord from utility debts, so what consequences? The utility debts are then outside of the lease agreement as they're a debt between the utility and the tenant.

The issue that then arises is the utility company refusing to allow the transfer of the account to new tenants until the o/s arrears/balance is cleared. Some companies are notorious with landlords for doing this.

borderlinemeath

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The only clause I can think of would be that the bills will be in the tenants name and that they should be in charge of it. That just absolves the landlord from utility debts, so what consequences? The utility debts are then outside of the lease agreement as they're a debt between the utility and the tenant.

Anytime I've had to do refurbishment between lettings I've transferred the bill back into my name on the day the old tenant moves out and it changes to the new tenant on the day they move in. Usually only a couple of weeks with minimal usage but neither old or new tenant want, or would be obliged to pay it. It's necessary to take a reading and for a forwarding address for the final bill to go to outgoing tenant but sometimes things can go wrong such as a false address given or a huge estimated bill run up that the outgoing tenant refuses to pay. I always advise a tenant when they give notice, to contact their utility company to ensure that any estimated bills are no surprise.

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

The issue that then arises is the utility company refusing to allow the transfer of the account to new tenants until the o/s arrears/balance is cleared. Some companies are notorious with landlords for doing this.

Fair enough. What happens if the arrears are larger than the deposit (not likely) or if the arrears are in excess of the deposit once accounting for other issues (rent arrears/damage)? Does the landlord have to pay the arrears? How is that legal?

Jaybor

Ive had utilities being transferred to another operator 2 - 4 weeks before a tenant moves out. Only for me to be stuck with the mess to clean up after and the bills. You couldnt be up to how smart some people are.

syklops

Jaybor wrote: »

Ive had utilities being transferred to another operator 2 - 4 weeks before a tenant moves out. Only for me to be stuck with the mess to clean up after and the bills. You couldnt be up to how smart some people are.

Or how incompetent some utilities companies are. In the past I have had:

Me, having read the "Moving home" section of a utilities website followed their advice and rung them 4 weeks before the move, saying I was moving, and then came home from work the next day to no utility because they "had a free slot so decided to do the move early".

UPC moved TV and Internet to a new location in 3 days, and at the moment I have been waiting for nearly a month for Digiweb(read Eircom) to hook up my internet.

I'm not defending every tenant trying to pull a fast one, by the way, just saying, a utility actually moving their services when the tenant asked them to seems less likely in my experience.

MouseTail

Gasherbraun wrote: »

I have not seen who will administer the deposit scheme in Ireland but if it is handed to the PRTB or a similar body I would have real concerns about the speed of return being anywhere reasonable
.

My guess is it will go to tender. The PRTB is of course free to tender for it, as will probably the private companies operating in the UK and elsewhere in this sector.

Info on legislation here

Claw Hammer

syklops wrote: »

Or how incompetent some utilities companies are. In the past I have had:

Me, having read the "Moving home" section of a utilities website followed their advice and rung them 4 weeks before the move, saying I was moving, and then came home from work the next day to no utility because they "had a free slot so decided to do the move early".

UPC moved TV and Internet to a new location in 3 days, and at the moment I have been waiting for nearly a month for Digiweb(read Eircom) to hook up my internet.

I'm not defending every tenant trying to pull a fast one, by the way, just saying, a utility actually moving their services when the tenant asked them to seems less likely in my experience.

My concern is that landlords will start being picky about things they previously wouldn't have bothered about. A lot of landlords give back the full deposit rather than fight over a small item when a tenant is leaving. When the tenant has gone and handed back the keys there will be a big temptation for landlords to claim for all kinds of small items.

Ann Landers

I viewed an apartment the other day where the landlord openly admitted he had raised the rent by 50 a month solely to cover property tax. Would you say this is what a lot of landlords are doing now?

jane82

Ann Landers wrote: »

I viewed an apartment the other day where the landlord openly admitted he had raised the rent by 50 a month solely to cover property tax. Would you say this is what a lot of landlords are doing now?

Everyone is getting moved on that I know who is renting. One fella is there 8 years after being told he could rent it forever. He had paid to do the place up decking and all out the back and was told he had to go.
Its like they all met up came up with a plan to throw everyone out and up all the rents and create a panic.

syklops

Claw Hammer wrote: »

My concern is that landlords will start being picky about things they previously wouldn't have bothered about. A lot of landlords give back the full deposit rather than fight over a small item when a tenant is leaving. When the tenant has gone and handed back the keys there will be a big temptation for landlords to claim for all kinds of small items.

well at least it might mean the tenant gets something back. Rather than the 1200 deposit arbitrarily being kept to fix 300 euros worth of wear and tear.

Cuddlesworth

Ann Landers wrote: »

I viewed an apartment the other day where the landlord openly admitted he had raised the rent by 50 a month solely to cover property tax. Would you say this is what a lot of landlords are doing now?

Doubtfull, the reality of a functioning market is that increasing his rent to cover a cost like property tax would simply leave his apartment empty for longer. He can increase the rent due to a lack of supply.