Looking for an apartment at the moment, but have a small problem with references

Dredd_J

I have been looking for an apartment for the last month in Dublin and am finding it a pain staying in the parents house at this stage.
In any of the nice ones I have got to the deposit and reference stage but keep getting turned down. They are saying someone else was chosen ahead of me and nothing else.

So in the last week i have been told twice (I suspect this is the problem in the other cases too but they are just not saying) that I have been rejected after a call to my last landlord.

I used my last months rent as my deposit is all. That is what is getting me now.
When they ring my old landlord he they seem to all ask him did i pay the last months rent or use the deposit. And when told i used the deposit I am rejected. I know because i rang my old landlord to ask him and he said - well thats the truth isnt it - I have no argument to that.

So now on this apartment hunt im being asked to produce references from my last two or three landlords as well. I always use my deposit as last months rent.

What should I do? I might have to just fake references and have friends on the end of the phone. Landlords never really phoned previous landlords before, but they seem to do it always now. And not just the last landlord either.

Chattastrophe!

Could you ask your old landlord to emphasise that this was done with his permission and full agreement? (I assume this was the case.)

I'm not surprised this is causing problems for you. What if you left and there was damage done to the house - the landlord is then left with absolutely nothing to cover it.

quadrifoglio verde

Not to be harsh but tough ****. It's a sign of a bad tenant, that used the deposit as the last months rent. It isn't meant to be used a for that purpose. It's to cover damage above wear and tear and you've basically left your old landlord liable for any (even if there wasn't, it'll ring warning bells with potential new landlords).
you'll be hard pressed to find a good landlord willing to have you in this market. Why would a good landlord take a risk with you when they have people looking to rent of them with excellent references?

Dredd_J

It wasnt done with his full permission though. He was a bit annoyed about it actually, but nothing he could do to stop me. It was me just covering my arse just in case he tried to pull a fast one. Everything was left in great condition. I always did it and didnt see the harm tbh.

Well i can see the problem now. I have to hope either they dont ring my landlord, or i have to get a fake landlord for them to ring. Such a pain - for no reason. I didnt even have to do it. I was just being careful with protecting my deposit. LLs are getting a lot more fussy these days. And asking for two or three last landlords for references too. In my case they will all say the very same thing with the deposit question.

Tea drinker

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Not to be harsh but tough ****. It's a sign of a bad tenant, that used the deposit as the last months rent. It isn't meant to be used a for that purpose. It's to cover damage above wear and tear and you've basically left your old landlord liable for any (even if there wasn't, it'll ring warning bells with potential new landlords).
you'll be hard pressed to find a good landlord willing to have you in this market. Why would a good landlord take a risk with you when they have people looking to rent of them with excellent references?

Mutual agreement? It's a sign of a good tenant, many landlords wouldn't agree to this with bad tenants.

cmssjone

Dredd_J wrote: »

It wasnt done with his full permission though. He was a bit annoyed about it actually, but nothing he could do to stop me. It was me just covering my arse just in case he tried to pull a fast one. Everything was left in great condition. I always did it and didnt see the harm tbh.

Well i can see the problem now. I have to hope either they dont ring my landlord, or i have to get a fake landlord for them to ring. Such a pain - for no reason. I didnt even have to do it. I was just being careful with protecting my deposit. LLs are getting a lot more fussy these days. And asking for two or three last landlords for references too. In my case they will all say the very same thing with the deposit question.

So you broke the terms of the lease that you signed with your last landlord and wonder why prospective landlords are not interested. No sympathy from me to be honest...

Dredd_J

cmssjone wrote: »

So you broke the terms of the lease that you signed with your last landlord and wonder why prospective landlords are not interested. No sympathy from me to be honest...

Yep. Thats about the size of it. Didnt see any harm, but suffering now. I should have known how important references were as i work in HR. but I simply didnt think LLs checked refs as much as HR do. But it looks like its all changed in the last three years since i went looking before. Now they all seem to call and ask particularly that question. And they are calling multiple previous LLs

Kicking myself.

Chattastrophe!

Dredd_J wrote: »

It wasnt done with his full permission though. He was a bit annoyed about it actually, but nothing he could do to stop me. It was me just covering my arse just in case he tried to pull a fast one. Everything was left in great condition. I always did it and didnt see the harm tbh.

Well i can see the problem now. I have to hope either they dont ring my landlord, or i have to get a fake landlord for them to ring. Such a pain - for no reason. I didnt even have to do it. I was just being careful with protecting my deposit. LLs are getting a lot more fussy these days. And asking for two or three last landlords for references too. In my case they will all say the very same thing with the deposit question.

You wanted to protect your deposit; potential new landlords are more interested in protecting their property.

Coles

No sympathy for you. Might be best to keep living with the parents until you understand the significance of a lease agreement.

miss no stars

Eh, get a character reference from work and state that you've always lived with your parents?

Dredd_J

Folks. I have already pleaded guilty. And understand what I did wrong.
Im looking for solutions, not internet finger wagging.

Dredd_J

miss no stars wrote: »

Eh, get a character reference from work and state that you've always lived with your parents?

I think thats a good suggestion. But I am 45 years old.
Saying Ive always lived with my parents might look worse than those references

You've given me an idea though.
My company owns a a couple of dozen apartments and houses that they rent out to contractors when they come over. I'll talk to the boss and get references from him as a landlord. He owes me for a few things anyway.

Good call.

miss no stars

Dredd_J wrote: »

I think thats a good suggestion. But I am 45 years old.
Saying Ive always lived with my parents might look worse than those references

You've given me an idea though.
My company owns a a couple of dozen apartments and houses that they rent out to contractors when they come over. I'll talk to the boss and get references from him as a landlord. He owes me for a few things anyway.

Good call.

Sounds like your best bet if your boss would be on board for it, you're not going to get anywhere with a bad reference from your last LL. You could also say that you used to have your own house but split from partner so you both sold up or something like that. Just make sure you're not dealing with the same estate agents as before??

December2012

Dredd_J wrote: »

I think thats a good suggestion. But I am 45 years old.
Saying Ive always lived with my parents might look worse than those references

You've given me an idea though.
My company owns a a couple of dozen apartments and houses that they rent out to contractors when they come over. I'll talk to the boss and get references from him as a landlord. He owes me for a few things anyway.

Good call.

Why not rent one of them?

smcgiff

You've effectively not given a deposit to your last few LLs.

The most surprising thing in this thread is that you've been sneaky enough to deceive your LLs, but not devious enough to come up with the solution you've arrived at without help.

evolving_doors

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Not to be harsh but tough ****. It's a sign of a bad tenant, that used the deposit as the last months rent. It isn't meant to be used a for that purpose. It's to cover damage above wear and tear and you've basically left your old landlord liable for any (even if there wasn't, it'll ring warning bells with potential new landlords).
you'll be hard pressed to find a good landlord willing to have you in this market. Why would a good landlord take a risk with you when they have people looking to rent of them with excellent references?

Leaving aside the OP's actions .. using the last months deposit as rent with the agreement of the landlord is the sign of a great tenant in which a landlord has full trust! (Unlike the OP's case of course!!)

Dredd_J

December2012 wrote: »

Why not rent one of them?

You should see the price of them

Dredd_J

smcgiff wrote: »

You've effectively not given a deposit to your last few LLs.

The most surprising thing in this thread is that you've been sneaky enough to deceive your LLs, but not devious enough to come up with the solution you've arrived at without help.

Its always good to look for options. Obviously you have nothing to add but another wag of the internet finger.

A Greedy Algorithm

Just don't use your last land lord as a reference. Say you were living with your parents, a friend or relative etc and give a friends phone number for them to call.

athtrasna

A Greedy Algorithm wrote: »

Just don't use your last land lord as a reference. Say you were living with your parents, a friend or relative etc and give a friends phone number for them to call.

The OP has already said they did the same to their previous landlordS. So it's not just one bad reference. As they have also already said, who is going to believe a 45 year old was living at home.

A work reference and bank statements are probably all you can rely on OP. Fake references are never a good idea.

_Kaiser_

Seeing as we're into "out of the box" solutions here, here's what I'd do OP:

Say you were living with the gf in a house she owned (that way there's no fear they'll worry about you being able to pay the rent - also gf so no support payments) but due to a break-up you were forced to move home for a while but are now looking for a place of your own.

You're 45 and in HR so presumably secure and on decent money. That plus a reference from your boss should be enough.

(I feel like there should be an evil laugh in here somewhere - Mwahahahaha! )

murphaph

Surely it's a sign of a professional landlord (what people are crying out for) that he/she checks references and asks specific questions like this. It warms my heart a bit to think Irish landlords are getting more selective. It's all we have to protect ourselves really. The second and third last landlords can be much more useful in providing important information to a prospective landlord. A free resource that just needs checking to eliminate 90% of the wasters out there. The previous landlord's reference is really not worth paying much heed to as people will say mass to get rid of problem tenants.

OP: You don't sound like a "bad guy" so once you get this sorted, please just pay your rent as agreed and leave the deposit for its intended purpose.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

Surely it's a sign of a professional landlord (what people are crying out for) that he/she checks references and asks specific questions like this. It warms my heart a bit to think Irish landlords are getting more selective. It's all we have to protect ourselves really. The second and third last landlords can be much more useful in providing important information to a prospective landlord. A free resource that just needs checking to eliminate 90% of the wasters out there. The previous landlord's reference is really not worth paying much heed to as people will say mass to get rid of problem tenants.

OP: You don't sound like a "bad guy" so once you get this sorted, please just pay your rent as agreed and leave the deposit for its intended purpose.

And yet you see no reason for tenants to be afforded the same protections from what I recall. It's not just (SOME) tenants who are "wasters". We see that on this forum every week.

A free resource to check both tenants AND landlords would be a good idea though.

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And yet you see no reason for tenants to be afforded the same protections from what I recall.

A free resource to check both tenants AND landlords would be a good idea though.

Tenants have more protection than landlords simply because the most a tenant stands to lose is a withheld deposit. Any failure of the LL to maintain things they should be maintaining can be legally maintained by the tenant and deducted from the rent.

The LL stands to lose over a year's rent and stands to see his property ruined and it remains a civil matter.

I favour better security for both sides, but anyone can see that the law currently does indeed give tenants more protection and LLs have more to lose when the other party plays dirty. The LL only has any "power" BEFORE the tenancy commences, so he should exercise it and do his checks on the 2nd and 3rd last landlords of any prospective tenant. Getting fake "landlords" to provide telephone references won't work unless they really are LLs because a LL will know what to ask to sniff a fake out.

The tenant in contrast has no "power" until AFTER the tenancy commences and then he/she has LOTS of power and if they decide to just stop paying rent and remain over holding, can ONLY be removed when a court, not the PRTB, deems the tenancy to be at an end and the Sherrif can be called in to evict them. That's a long process that can easily financially ruin a LL. A LL cannot ruin a tenant financially. Just doesn't happen because the LL only has a month's rent belonging to the tenant and nothing else.

Edit: I'm on record on this forum as stating that there should be a register of LLs and tenants where prospective candidates on both sides can find the dodgy ones. In the absence of such a system, LLs need to look out for themselves.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

Tenants have more protection than landlords simply because the most a tenant stands to lose is a withheld deposit. Any failure of the LL to maintain things they should be maintaining can be legally maintained by the tenant and deducted from the rent.

The LL stands to lose over a year's rent and stands to see his property ruined and it remains a civil matter.

I favour better security for both sides, but anyone can see that the law currently does indeed give tenants more protection and LLs have more to lose when the other party plays dirty. The LL only has any "power" BEFORE the tenancy commences, so he should exercise it and do his checks on the 2nd and 3rd last landlords of any prospective tenant. Getting fake "landlords" to provide telephone references won't work unless they really are LLs because a LL will know what to ask to sniff a fake out.

The tenant in contrast has no "power" until AFTER the tenancy commences and then he/she has LOTS of power and if they decide to just stop paying rent and remain over holding, can ONLY be removed when a court, not the PRTB, deems the tenancy to be at an end and the Sherrif can be called in to evict them. That's a long process that can easily financially ruin a LL. A LL cannot ruin a tenant financially. Just doesn't happen because the LL only has a month's rent belonging to the tenant and nothing else.

I disagree that a landlord has more to lose - ultimately the landlord sets the rent, can evict a tenant for no reason if they chose under the guise of needing the property back leaving the tenant homeless, can withhold some or all of a deposit for any reason, and can drag their heels or ignore any issues that arise completely, or can leave the tenant dealing with the consequences of their landlord's bankruptcy or non-payment of management fees.

All of these are regular occurrences on this forum. Now, you can say the PRTB is there to address all that but in real-life a tenant probably won't have the year or so for it to get decided on - especially if the issue is one with immediate consequences for them.

I agree with you that a better, more efficient system is badly needed to address these issues and protect tenants AND landlords from bad examples of the other - however in the absence of that..

Edit: I'm on record on this forum as stating that there should be a register of LLs and tenants where prospective candidates on both sides can find the dodgy ones. In the absence of such a system, LLs need to look out for themselves.

.. this advice equally applies to tenants!

athtrasna

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I disagree that a landlord has more to lose - ultimately the landlord sets the rent, can evict a tenant for no reason if they chose under the guise of needing the property back leaving the tenant homeless, can withhold some or all of a deposit for any reason, and can drag their heels or ignore any issues that arise completely, or can leave the tenant dealing with the consequences of their landlord's bankruptcy or non-payment of management fees.

All of these are regular occurrences on this forum. Now, you can say the PRTB is there to address all that but in real-life a tenant probably won't have the year or so for it to get decided on - especially if the issue is one with immediate consequences for them.

None of this comes near equating to the tens of thousands of euros of damage some tenants have done to landlords houses not to mind tenants who refuse to move out. I know of two cases personally where the house owners (both reluctant landlords) were out of pocket over 20k :O

_Kaiser_

athtrasna wrote: »

None of this comes near equating to the tens of thousands of euros of damage some tenants have done to landlords houses not to mind tenants who refuse to move out. I know of two cases personally where the house owners (both reluctant landlords) were out of pocket over 20k :O

I would wager that such examples - while deplorable - are a lot rarer than the issues faced by tenants as a result of landlords ignoring their responsibilities or holding deposits for spurious reasons.

Anyway, way off-topic now. My point was to refute the idea that are mostly the problem here - most threads on this forum seem to be tenants having issue with a landlord's inaction or strokes regarding deposits. Landlords are free to post their issues too right?

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I would wager that such examples - while deplorable - are a lot rarer than the issues faced by tenants as a result of landlords ignoring their responsibilities or holding deposits for spurious reasons.

I've had an over holding commercial tenant. That cost a lot of money to resolve. A LOT.

It's more common than you think.

Tenants are free to ask LLs for references if they wish.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

I've had an over holding commercial tenant. That cost a lot of money to resolve. A LOT.

It's more common than you think.

Tenants are free to ask LLs for references if they wish.

As long as it's not you they're asking.

I wouldn't provide any information to a prospective tenant no. It's my property. If I only want to let to people who provide me with what I require to commence a tenancy then that's my choice and it's your choice not to entertain such requests and to move on to a landlord that doesn't. It's not about fairness. It's about minimising my risk as I see it. Yes, I will certainly alienate some potentially good tenants, but I calculate that I will alienate almost all potentially delinquent tenants by requesting such things, so the move is a sensible one from my perspective.

You're being a tad disingenuous really. You want all of the reward with none of the risk and are pushing the idea of bad tenants being the norm, and a different market/culture/regulatory structure in Germany, to validate your opinion in regards to the Irish market.

Why are you even involved in the market if it's such a risk?

Dredd_J

murphaph wrote: »

Surely it's a sign of a professional landlord (what people are crying out for) that he/she checks references and asks specific questions like this. It warms my heart a bit to think Irish landlords are getting more selective. It's all we have to protect ourselves really. The second and third last landlords can be much more useful in providing important information to a prospective landlord. A free resource that just needs checking to eliminate 90% of the wasters out there. The previous landlord's reference is really not worth paying much heed to as people will say mass to get rid of problem tenants.

OP: You don't sound like a "bad guy" so once you get this sorted, please just pay your rent as agreed and leave the deposit for its intended purpose.

You are dead right there. In my job we usually ignore the current employers reference in the rare case that we are given one, for that very reason. We always go back a couple of refs

Dredd_J

murphaph wrote: »

I've had an over holding commercial tenant. That cost a lot of money to resolve. A LOT.

It's more common than you think.

Tenants are free to ask LLs for references if they wish.

Internet stalking is rife
As you can see from the previous post.
Be careful out there.