Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Media: Landlords forced to withold deposits until tenants prove water bills paid

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    aido79 wrote: »
    Maybe they should set up protests...oh wait isn't that why Irish Water feel the need to introduce such drastic measures?
    This whole Irish Water thing has been blown completely out of proportion and this is just one of the knock on effects of people refusing to pay bills for what they use.

    Big time.
    The only reason its an issue for landlords at all (aside from the ridiculous over-reaching legislation which enables any utility company (not just Irish Water) attach a charge to the property where the utility was consumed)- is because people are deliberately not paying their utility bills.


  • Options
    #63
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    So, IW are given the golden child status of utilities. They're putting war armour on a toddler here and giving it an arsenal of any weapon it chooses. What a total cock up of a company/utility. They've done more bouncing around on this thing than the ball in a pinball machine. And ultimately (if this legislation is shoved through) all this will mean higher rents, because LL's will not be taking hits on this. It will mean higher deposits, because that will be the status quo. All that marching and protesting seems to have beaten the ugly in a different direction, so in the end, it hasn't really achieved anything, other than to show that the government will listen if we shout loud enough, but will only decide to screw us all over a different way with the same tool.


  • Options
    #64
    Field east
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭Field east


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The staff of Irish Water were not/are not/never will be civil servants.
    It is a new company- with a small residual of staff members who moved over from Bord Gais (itself a private company- now a subsidiary of British Gas).

    The vast preponderance of Irish Water staff were recruited- as staff in any company are recruited- through recruitment campaigns on the internet and through private companies.

    The vast preponderance of their contact with the public- is via an outsourced contract with a call centre in Cork- and not via their own employees at all.

    If you want to bash civil servants- as you obviously do- first off- it would be helpful if you actually got your facts straight- secondly- it would be best if you found an appropriate venue to launch your attack- the Accommodation and Property forum *is not an appropriate venue*.

    Please educate yourself rather than going on an uninformed rant- and take it elsewhere.

    Regards,

    The_Conductor
    IMO I suggest your the above post is somewhat misleading because:-
    (1) I note that the first line did not include ---'were never'
    . I assume that this was unintentional

    (2) if IW is a private company then all it's staff of course are not civil servants. BUT what % of them , from John Tierney down, come from a civil service culture/background. As the old saying goes 'Once a
    , always a
    .


  • Options
    #65
    aido79
    Registered Users Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭aido79


    goz83 wrote: »
    So, IW are given the golden child status of utilities. They're putting war armour on a toddler here and giving it an arsenal of any weapon it chooses. What a total cock up of a company/utility. They've done more bouncing around on this thing than the ball in a pinball machine. And ultimately (if this legislation is shoved through) all this will mean higher rents, because LL's will not be taking hits on this. It will mean higher deposits, because that will be the status quo. All that marching and protesting seems to have beaten the ugly in a different direction, so in the end, it hasn't really achieved anything, other than to show that the government will listen if we shout loud enough, but will only decide to screw us all over a different way with the same tool.

    That's one way of putting it. The protests have done more harm than good for the average person in the long run.
    Irish Water may be a disaster in the way its been setup but a lot of the protesters can't even decide what they are protesting about and have just turned it into a bigger circus.


  • Options
    #66
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Big time.
    The only reason its an issue for landlords at all (aside from the ridiculous over-reaching legislation which enables any utility company (not just Irish Water) attach a charge to the property where the utility was consumed)- is because people are deliberately not paying their utility bills.

    People don't pay other bills but the LL isn't responsible for those.

    There's two basic issues here. The LL shouldn't be liable for someone else's bill.

    The LL has no viable means to recover it from tenants as the prtb and legal mechanisms aren't fit for purpose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    aido79
    Registered Users Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭aido79


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The staff of Irish Water were not/are not/never will be civil servants.
    It is a new company- with a small residual of staff members who moved over from Bord Gais (itself a private company- now a subsidiary of British Gas).

    The vast preponderance of Irish Water staff were recruited- as staff in any company are recruited- through recruitment campaigns on the internet and through private companies.

    The vast preponderance of their contact with the public- is via an outsourced contract with a call centre in Cork- and not via their own employees at all.

    If you want to bash civil servants- as you obviously do- first off- it would be helpful if you actually got your facts straight- secondly- it would be best if you found an appropriate venue to launch your attack- the Accommodation and Property forum *is not an appropriate venue*.

    Please educate yourself rather than going on an uninformed rant- and take it elsewhere.

    Regards,

    The_Conductor


    Irish water are a semi state company:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Water

    Why do so many people think they are a private company?


  • Options
    #68
    Field east
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭Field east


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Big time.
    The only reason its an issue for landlords at all (aside from the ridiculous over-reaching legislation which enables any utility company (not just Irish Water) attach a charge to the property where the utility was consumed)- is because people are deliberately not paying their utility bills.

    IMO the above may not be the case for some LL. I do not think LL are that concerned about the deliberate non payers , in principal - apart from the fact that somebody else will have to meet the 'national loss incurred' ( maybe met by the compilers via an increased charge)-. The key point for LL is that legislation is aiming to force the property owner to cough up the charge where it is not paid by a tenant


  • Options
    #69
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,385 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    The landlord is a third part here on a contract between the utility company and the tenant. Holding a third part liable for a debt is dangerous territory to be going down as a country imo. It is going to throw hundreds of years of contract law precedence on its head.


  • Options
    #70
    emeldc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,597 ✭✭✭emeldc


    A few have suggested increasing the rent as the easiest solution to the LL for covering the water charges. If so, the increase couldn't be called 'rent' or it would be liable to USC and PRSI charges.


  • Options
    #71
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Field east wrote: »
    IMO I suggest your the above post is somewhat misleading because:-
    (1) I note that the first line did not include ---'were never'
    . I assume that this was unintentional

    (2) if IW is a private company then all it's staff of course are not civil servants. BUT what % of them , from John Tierney down, come from a civil service culture/background. As the old saying goes 'Once a
    , always a
    .

    John Tierney was Dublin City Manager for a number of years. I expressly said 'civil service' as this cohort came up for criticism by the poster. John Tierney was not, and never has been, a civil servant. His position- along with the other senior posts of head of finance, head of asset management, head of HR and head of customer operations- were all advertised and open to anyone to apply for- in January 2013. Since last September (2014)- when the manner in which Irish Water was to be funded was clarified- appointments to the Board along with other appointments- have featured on publicjobs.ie and stateboards.ie - prior to this, external recruitment consultants were used to
    find suitable staff.

    Moderator instruction:

    I am issuing you with a moderator instruction- if you want to continue discussing Irish Water- in any capacity other than as a utility company and people's day-to-day interactions with it- take it elsewhere- this forum is not an appropriate venue.

    I have already said this on thread- I am now emphasising it- if you want to discuss the politics or any other factors relating to Irish Water- other than issues which are specifically the remit of this forum- take it elsewhere. This is the second instruction to this effect- please heed it.

    Now please drop it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    beauf wrote: »
    People don't pay other bills but the LL isn't responsible for those.

    There's two basic issues here. The LL shouldn't be liable for someone else's bill.

    The LL has no viable means to recover it from tenants as the prtb and legal mechanisms aren't fit for purpose.

    Thats part of the problem with the draft legislation.
    Irish Water are receiving special treatment (as in- preferred status when it comes to making deductions from deposits)- however, the proposal to remove the sanction of jailing people for non-payment of utility bills, and instead attach a lien on the property where the utility was consumed- is across the board- it is not unique to Irish Water.......

    Landlords should not be liable for other people's bills.

    The PRTB and the Legal routes- patently are not fit for purpose.

    The proposal is to amend tenancy legislation in conjunction with all of this- but to temporarily put the onus on landlords (which is also unsatisfactory- even if it is only a temporary measure).


  • Options
    #73
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    emeldc wrote: »
    A few have suggested increasing the rent as the easiest solution to the LL for covering the water charges. If so, the increase couldn't be called 'rent' or it would be liable to USC and PRSI charges.

    And so it will be priced to cover for these additional charges. The LL wont care if its not his bank account being hit.


  • Options
    #74
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    emeldc wrote: »
    A few have suggested increasing the rent as the easiest solution to the LL for covering the water charges. If so, the increase couldn't be called 'rent' or it would be liable to USC and PRSI charges.

    It also wouldn't qualify for the DSP 'rebate'.......
    Can't see it working.


  • Options
    #75
    Field east
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭Field east


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    John Tierney was Dublin City Manager for a number of years. I expressly said 'civil service' as this cohort came up for criticism by the poster. John Tierney was not, and never has been, a civil servant. His position- along with the other senior posts of head of finance, head of asset management, head of HR and head of customer operations- were all advertised and open to anyone to apply for- in January 2013. Since last September (2014)- when the manner in which Irish Water was to be funded was clarified- appointments to the Board along with other appointments- have featured on publicjobs.ie and stateboards.ie - prior to this, external recruitment consultants were used to
    find suitable staff.

    Moderator instruction:

    I am issuing you with a moderator instruction- if you want to continue discussing Irish Water- in any capacity other than as a utility company and people's day-to-day interactions with it- take it elsewhere- this forum is not an appropriate venue.

    I have already said this on thread- I am now emphasising it- if you want to discuss the politics or any other factors relating to Irish Water- other than issues which are specifically the remit of this forum- take it elsewhere. This is the second instruction to this effect- please heed it.

    Now please drop it.
    Point taken. Thanks for guidance. I am learning as I go along


  • Options
    #76
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    It also wouldn't qualify for the DSP 'rebate'.......
    Can't see it working.

    True. Higher deposits more than likely. But i wasn't suggesting the rent be openly advertised as "higher to cover unpaid utilities". It would be just raised and kept as rent. If tenants pay IW, then the LL has a few extra euros under the mattress.


  • Options
    #77
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    3 months rent as deposit
    That's the only way to go


  • Options
    #78
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    bjork wrote: »
    3 months rent as deposit
    That's the only way to go

    Why do think that will work?

    Many RA tenants won't have it. Regardless even if they did, what's to stop all tenants using 3 months deposit as rent? Still leaves the LL with no money to cover damages and unpaid bills (water charges).


    Anyone who thinks this is anything other than a farce has no understanding of the rental business. Successive Govts have left the rental, social, and housing provision in its entirely in the dark ages. There's a real lack of awareness of this. The whole sector is an unregulated disaster. Even building regulation exist in name only. The vast majority of it is unregulated. Its like the dark ages. Look at priory hall and the pyrite scandals. You have more protection on a toaster than property.


  • Options
    #79
    CollyFlower
    Registered Users Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭CollyFlower


    bjork wrote: »
    3 months rent as deposit
    That's the only way to go

    Where would LL's stand if the tenents use the deposit to cover the last 3 months rent? Still stuck with the water bill!


  • Options
    #80
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    beauf wrote: »
    Why do think that will work?

    Many RA tenants won't have it. Regardless even if they did, what's to stop all tenants using 3 months deposit as rent? Still leaves the LL with no money to cover damages and unpaid bills (water charges).

    Anyone who thinks this is anything other than a farce has no understanding of the rental business.

    If they stop paying 3 months out you can start eviction proceedings earlier.


    I'm not really worried about RA tenants, the government can sort them out. It's great at introducing new measures


    It is a total farce.


  • Options
    #81
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    bjork wrote: »
    If they stop paying 3 months out you can start eviction proceedings earlier.


    I'm not really worried about RA tenants, the government can sort them out. It's great at introducing new measures


    It is a total farce.

    You can start eviction proceedings as early as you like- however, if, as at the moment, it takes over a year to evict them- you're in a worse off position than ever (as presumably they'll continue to run up utilities in the intervening period of time- and they'll still be as likely to overstay as they are at the moment.........

    There are no protections for landlords here- only yet more risk.........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    bjork wrote: »
    If they stop paying 3 months out you can start eviction proceedings earlier.


    I'm not really worried about RA tenants, the government can sort them out. It's great at introducing new measures


    It is a total farce.

    So the tenants over hold while paying no rent for six months until the landlord gives them a reference to leave and maybe even money to cover the three months deposit in their new place!

    The real issue is that these proposed measures will not affect those on social welfare as their core payments are seen as minimum subsistence payments and as such to take from them would be leaving people without enough to live on. And in a court the majority of people on social welfare will be able to show that they have nothing extra to give as every cent they get and more is accounted for!

    These proposals are a complete mess and will lead to more landlords swindling their tenants by charging massive "water charges" to cover themselves and also will lead to tenants over holding because they will be left with no other option.


  • Options
    #83
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    beauf wrote: »
    Why do think that will work?

    Many RA tenants won't have it. Regardless even if they did, what's to stop all tenants using 3 months deposit as rent? Still leaves the LL with no money to cover damages and unpaid bills (water charges).

    Three months is fine. A type of bank account can be created in the name of the tenant, gaining them interest, but which the landlord is required to release.

    If RA tenants don't have it, and are the type willing to stop paying rent, then needing three months deposit will prevent them ever being let in the door of a property in the first place and the government, their surrogate parent, is paying for them anyway. Landlords won't have to deal with scammers, deposits will be held in escrow type neutral bank accounts and the government does what it does with RA.


  • Options
    #84
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,969 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Given the number of Dail members who are landlords, I am surprised this is being proposed..... me being a cynic and all that!

    Have any comparisons been made with other jurisdictions regarding how they extract unpaid bills from utility account holders?

    I doubt it. The contract for services is between the utility provider and the recipient. Surely any change to that structure overwhelmingly changes the functionality of contract law?

    Now I am no lawyer, but placing a landlord as a third party to any utility contract, is surely open to legal challenge?

    Someone might know!


  • Options
    #85
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    dissed doc wrote: »
    ...A type of bank account can be created...

    I dunno if this exists now or is this some future system you think will be implemented.
    dissed doc wrote: »
    If RA tenants don't have it, and are the type willing to stop paying rent, then needing three months deposit will prevent them ever being let in the door of a property in the first place and the government, their surrogate parent, is paying for them anyway. Landlords won't have to deal with scammers, deposits will be held in escrow type neutral bank accounts and the government does what it does with RA.

    Sorry but its doesn't work like that in the real world.

    My point about RA tenants, was not about them stop paying rent. But like the RA not accepted ads. 3 months deposit will dramatically reduce the amount of housing available to them. There's already noise about making it impossible for a LL to refuse a RA tenant or filter them out in some way.


  • Options
    #86
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    beauf wrote: »
    I dunno if this exists now or is this some future system you think will be implemented.



    Sorry but its doesn't work like that in the real world.

    My point about RA tenants, was not about them stop paying rent. But like the RA not accepted ads. 3 months deposit will dramatically reduce the amount of housing available to them. There's already noise about making it impossible for a LL to refuse a RA tenant or filter them out in some way.

    UNless there is magical legislation passed to prevent discrimination based on not having enough money, any landlord can require 3 months deposit. That removes 99% of scammers and chancers in one go. If an RA tenant or any tenant can come up with 3 months deposit, they are probably quite reliable. The reliability of payment from people who are not working but renting privately is the concern of landlords, not the personal background of the tenant.

    That way, you are free to refuse whoever, by virtue of them not being able to meet the financial obligations of the tenancy. A typical scenario would be one month rent up front, 3 months deposit in a secure "rental deposit scheme" bank account, and rent can be no more than 1/3 of net income (verified by an employer declaration). This means that no landlord would reasonably refuse anyone, RA wouldn't even be an issue. But, they might require that you are employed and if not, you can't reasonable meet the financial obligations of the particular tenancy. That is simply real life.

    SImply put, that makes it above board and honest, and the tenant has nothing to lose. Everything registered with PTRB, and no more whining. It also would prevent people renting property they cannot afford and thus more likely to also skip out on bills.

    I would be against the PTRB being the holder of deposits, because they are not impartial with regard to disputes and so there is too much risk of conflict of interest. I would prefer that banks offered a type of bank account specifically for the purposes of rental deposits.


  • Options
    #87
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    It also wouldn't qualify for the DSP 'rebate'.......
    Can't see it working.

    Still a better option for a LL than being stuck with a bill. If a tenant who could avail of the DSP is lost as a result as having to pay the full charge through higher rent, there will be others.


  • Options
    #88
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    The issues with landlords holding deposits of three months are the same as the issues now of unscrupulous cowboy landlords keeping all or most of a deposit to cover wear and tear or to pay for items which were end of life during the tenancy and broke but the tenant gets the blame and the bill for replacement.

    Many professionals including politicians and Judges at all levels and even the odd ex garda sargent have the title of landlord but their professional title does not mean they will not or do not screw over their tenants.

    These proposals(and they are just proposals at the moment) are so badly thought out and presented that they can't go anywhere and will be shot down by any intelligent legal minded objector. The government proposed people paying unpaid fines from their social welfare before but were unable to bring this about due to the protection afforded to those who have nothing by the constitution, it seems that Enda and his crones are quite happy to trample all over the constitution in the year of the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising.

    These proposals will go the way of all the other nonsense poorly thought out rubbish that has been trotted out already to try to shame and threaten people so they will pay!

    People like michael noonan telling us that the unemployed are just lazy and that they will be forced to work is disgusting but ties in perfectly with these proposals. the government are turning the haves in society against the poorest have nots and they are well out of it in their ivory towers so don't care at all whet the outcome is.


  • Options
    #89
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    dissed doc wrote: »
    UNless there is magical legislation passed to prevent discrimination based on not having enough money,......... I would prefer that banks offered a type of bank account specifically for the purposes of rental deposits.

    I was crystal ball gazing that someone will try put some thing like that legislation in place.

    We've been talking about deposits schemes for decades. The problem is you're assuming logic and common sense will be applied. But none seem to exist as seen with the water charges proposals.


  • Options
    #90
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The issues with landlords holding deposits of three months are the same as

    the issues now of unscrupulous cowboy landlords keeping all or most of a deposit to cover normal wear and tear or to pay for items which were end of life during the tenancy and broke but the tenant gets the blame and the bill for replacement....

    Corrected that for you.

    The issue is simply that it takes a broken system and makes it 10 times worse. For all parties.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    beauf wrote: »
    Corrected that for you.

    The issue is simply that it takes a broken system and makes it 10 times worse. For all parties.
    But most Landlords don't seem to realise that there are two standards for wear and tear, one is for a persons own home where items might be expected to last longer than even the statute of limitations and one is for rented accommodation where in the majority of cases the standard of furnishings and fittings is far lower than in a persons own home so those items can not be expected to last as long.

    At the moment it doesn't look good for the blueshirts after Noonans comments the other night about the lazy and idle unemployed and there might be more dissent in the ranks than we are aware of. These proposals might just be the catalyst needed by the socialist labour party members to distance themselves from the fianna gael government.


Advertisement