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

beauf

foggy_lad wrote: »

But most Landlords don't seem to realise that there are two standards for wear and tear....

I don't really agree. While some LL are unreasonable and without going into a litany of personal anecdotes. You see damage that simply unexplainable by "normal" use, even if you were to fill the house with UFC cage fighters with their pet tigers.

http://jalopnik.com/5932640/why-a-rental-car-is-the-fastest-car-youll-ever-have

spaceHopper

So if I'm a tenant, I register get my 100 euros grant and my quarterly bill, I pay the bill and them move, lets say I leave the country then the next new tenant is responsible for 3/4's of the bill but missed out on the grant. Also as a tenant I'm not allowed to make changes that will save water which is what the grant of for!.

None of this is in any way thought out!

The_Conductor

Get over the notion that the 'grant' is to make improvements to your home to save water. Its not. Its a bribe to get people to subscribe to Irish Water- pure and simple. If you don't register- you don't get the bribe- and they'll chase you (eventually) anyhow. Or rather- they'll chase your landlord- who will be pissed, and deeply unhappy with you. Sigh......

We need a rethink- the current proposals stink.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

THE GOVERNMENT HAS approved a proposal to draft legislation that would include deducting water charges from the wages and social welfare payments of people who do not pay.

Is this not a key point people are not really mentioning?

Just like many people said all along those who refuse to pay for their water will just have it taken from their wages sooner or later so even in the case where they leave a house without paying for a bill surely if the above comes into play will just have it taken from their wages.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Just got the bill for the rental, and lo and behold, the tenants have not registered despite assuring me they have. Initially I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a screw up by IW. Otherwise this will impact my relationship with them. I am a good landlord and I do bend over backward to ensure issues are dealt with as soon as possible, etc, etc. So I just feel they're taking advantage.

If they have not registered, I'm half thinking of looking for the cost directly from them and I will pay myself and refund them a portion if they leave during the year.

foggy_lad

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Just got the bill for the rental, and lo and behold, the tenants have not registered despite assuring me they have. Initially I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a screw up by IW. Otherwise this will impact my relationship with them. I am a good landlord and I do bend over backward to ensure issues are dealt with as soon as possible, etc, etc. So I just feel they're taking advantage.

If they have not registered, I'm half thinking of looking for the cost directly from them and I will pay myself and refund them a portion if they leave during the year.

It is very possible that they have registered and even paid but Irish Water are still billing you for the same property!

Arbiter of Good Taste

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is very possible that they have registered and even paid but Irish Water are still billing you for the same property!

That, too, is a possibility.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

That, too, is a possibility.

Ring IW and say you don't live there. Give them dates, etc. Cover your own ass.

VEN

its a farce. they say that the named person on the bill is liable? the one provided by landlord or only until they register? how many are living in say a 4 bed flat, shared, strangers and they've placed it on one. what did the landlord do? put the names in a hat?

you now have bills gone out with one name and IW are telling them that 'under data protection' they would need the remaining tenants by their side to give over their names to have them all registered if they want! COURSE THEY'LL WANT, THEY'RE NOT MINDERS! could they not have done that in the first place 'under data protection'? or was the gates just opened a little but for 5 mins to grab just one name out of the hat.

this is asking named tenant to not comply at all. nobody wants to be responsible for 4 other tenants moving in and out. course you've also got to realise now "nope, I'm not registering, my name is not on it" so they'll leave it all on the one person. that person with half a brain will just move out. so it continues... whose name comes next, will this go on for the next year until nobody is left in the flat? or hat?

IW are saying that the named person is NOT liable until they register? Which is correct here. Landlord provides one name, they're liable, or its asking them to become liable by registering.

some f***ing joke.

foggy_lad

the landlord provides a name and then Irish waster chase that person to make them register, then chase them again to make them pay!

The Landlord has provided a name so is no longer liable for the charges until the named tenant leaves.

omnithanos

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I can't see a deposit of anything less than €200 per utility being worthwhile. Probably more if the tenant is rent allowance as a follow up case with the PRTB will most likely yield nothing.
Will also investigate putting all utilities in my own name and charging an 'admin fee' for looking after them. Who would want to be a landlord

What if a landlord refuses to take a deposit? Would this exonerate them from all liabilities incurred by the tenant?

VEN

foggy_lad wrote: »

the landlord provides a name and then Irish waster chase that person to make them register, then chase them again to make them pay!

The Landlord has provided a name so is no longer liable for the charges until the named tenant leaves.

that tenant would be smarter then to leave, provided they have somewhere to go. they can go and chase for another name now and we go on the merry go round until they hit on a name thats got... nowhere else to go. i'm sure also wherever that tenant goes, to share with others, they will be asked to register.

if there were all the names on it, then grand. nobody and i mean nobody is going to take the burden or responsibility over several unnamed tenants who can just walk it. who chases them then, the un-named for non-payment of their share? landlords can't deduct it from deposits, no more can they from electric bills cos its not in their names and they expect tenants to get along with that? the funny thing about it is, they're saying now, IW, that they CAN register more tenants to go on the bill but, get this.. "under data protection etc bolloxology... they can't accept names only from the person over the phone" so... it was perfectly ok then to grab one, without a tenants consent, from the landlord, but nah.. we don't need anymore, just one. That right there is a complete joke.

easy way out of this would be all names of tenants required if its a case they're not related. fair and square. the difference with this one is the the release of names outside of data protection. not just that, should one tenant register AND benefit from the €100, who gets to share that? All the tenants? Do they f***. They haven't put their head on the line, so i can see any named tenant in that situation telling them all to go do one and benefit from putting 'their' name forward.

won't put their name forward but yet would like a piece of the benefit for doing nothing, nothing that would bring anything of the sort called 'responsibility'.

The_Conductor

foggy_lad wrote: »

the landlord provides a name and then Irish waster chase that person to make them register, then chase them again to make them pay!

The Landlord has provided a name so is no longer liable for the charges until the named tenant leaves.

I wish it were true......
What actually happens is- the landlord provides a name.
Irish Water attempt to chase the named individual.
If/when they fail to get payment from the named individual- the charge goes back to the landlord again. If the landlord fails to pay- they have the option of putting a charge against the property........

foggy_lad

The_Conductor wrote: »

I wish it were true......
What actually happens is- the landlord provides a name.
Irish Water attempt to chase the named individual.
If/when they fail to get payment from the named individual- the charge goes back to the landlord again. If the landlord fails to pay- they have the option of putting a charge against the property........

The landlord has no obligation to pay charges levied in respect of a different persons use of a utility, if landlords had more backbone they would get off their seats and challenge this and win!


At the end of the day this will have to be proven in a court and taken to the european courts to fight the government of denis o'brien.

aido79

Why can't the water charges be seen as and treated as another utility bill like electricity and gas? The 100 euro rebate thing is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of as it is completely unworkable in alot of situations so the sooner they scrap it the better. Paying for water is a reality in most of the rest of the world so why should Ireland be any different?
This notion that it has always been included in general taxation needs to be forgotten about as it has done nothing but let the network fall into a state of disrepair that is so bad in some areas that the water isn't fit for human consumption.
Protesters are harping on about water charges being another austerity measure but if you consider that the objective is to get it off the government books then it is actually an anti-austerity measure.

cerastes

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

LLs risk getting pretty exposed here. The safest thing IMO is to keep the water in the LLs name and increase the rent by that amount

agree but then as rent thats liable to tax, USC, prsi, it will have to be increased to a ridiculous point, to account for this.
Or I see another way this will go, the legislation is out of touch with reality and the reaction will be that, aside from any official deposit in a retention scheme, landlords will also insist on a seperate unofficial deposit, potentially as part of the overall deposit and multiple month deposit, how any of whats proposed is in the interests of landlord or tenants I cannot see. Its a sop to tenants but really its a kick in the teeth to those in the contract and an effort to ensure IW get what they want.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Being discussed on Morning Ireland now. It's being highlighted that while Irish Water have preferred status for any call on the deposit, that for the first time other utilities will also have the right to purloin residential deposits too. The Landlords Association are predicting chaos.

They will be pushing legitimate landlords off the books

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So essentially a landlord is now a subordinate creditor on the deposit on their own house :pac:. A simpler solution would be for utility companies to have their own deposit system No? Airtricity already do it.

exactly, let them sort out their own contracts and accounts, Ive no right of access to that information anyway, how can I be liable?
Prepay meters looks the way to go for other utilities, Id hardly describe a tv account or service a utility, more a luxury, dont even have one myself.

emeldc wrote: »

Of course, this scheme like everything else will be free for landlords, wont it?

Free? how so? edit, ohhhh I see , i didnt detect the sarcasm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its specifically referred to in the draft legislation. Its gaining more substance. Its not just smoke and mirrors any longer. In addition- they are in the process of drafting a new SI repealing and amending the 2004 Act. Things are moving onwards.........

If this all pans out, then I can see unofficial deposits happening added to any retention scheme, not just multiple months deposits, maybe even rent increases as even a small impact on a restricted offering of property in the right places if landlords waver and decide to hold off renting while deciding what to do could affect available property or what they do with it.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If this goes through..... the only protection a LL has is to add the average IW bill to the rent, and pay it back to the tenant when proof of payment of IW is shown at renewal of the lease. If it's not, LL pays it to IW.

Lease not renewed. Sorted.

Still messy, and it involves a LL saying to a tenant " I do not trust you to pay your utilities!"

What an awful mess altogether.

Tax, USC, PRSI? how much to charge then? the more you add to account for the TAX, USC, PRSI the more tax etc etc thats due and more problem for the tenant.

I can see other ways around this too.
Besides all this simply affects good landlords more significantly.

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.

exactly

dissed doc wrote: »

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.

If a retention scheme is put in place, the PRTB is not the place for it as they have another related task and that seems in favour of the tenant and can be influenced by any policy to not speed evictions or have tenants out for non payment.
Australia, NZ do this I beleive, other countries too Im sure, escrow accounts, dont know much about them.

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Just got the bill for the rental, and lo and behold, the tenants have not registered despite assuring me they have. Initially I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a screw up by IW. Otherwise this will impact my relationship with them. I am a good landlord and I do bend over backward to ensure issues are dealt with as soon as possible, etc, etc. So I just feel they're taking advantage.

If they have not registered, I'm half thinking of looking for the cost directly from them and I will pay myself and refund them a portion if they leave during the year.

I suppose you could supply their details, mine kept telling me they did it and then admitted they didnt, now its a case of they say they did but claim not to have received anything from IW, but can I belive them?, I know they supplied my name as I got a bill for a portion of their lease and that came out in a matter of a few days, it seems to be their loss as they cannot claim any benefit on it, but now I have to collect it to pay whats billed to me.

Prepay meters for electric and gas seem to be the way to go on that situation, pay as they go or no usage, much more difficult to not pay utilities when you cant get your comforts at the time of need, but a problem still if its not topped up, ie no heat in cold weather isnt just uncomfortable but can cause problems to the fabric of the building.

adding any amount of cost additionally to a deposit held by a landlord to return this to a previous meter setup.
I really can see this pushing things off the books, unofficial and increased deposits along with a deposit retention scheme, increased rents
maybe pushing good landlords off the books or even pushing property off the market.

Total joke,

The_Conductor

foggy_lad wrote: »

The landlord has no obligation to pay charges levied in respect of a different persons use of a utility, if landlords had more backbone they would get off their seats and challenge this and win!


At the end of the day this will have to be proven in a court and taken to the european courts to fight the government of denis o'brien.

Mod note:

No mention of Denis O'Brien please- this website is also under the mandated restrictions.

beauf

LLs should not be involved. It should be a utility bill. Its that simple.

Doing anything else just shows this govt is not fit for purpose.

The_Conductor

foggy_lad wrote: »

The landlord has no obligation to pay charges levied in respect of a different persons use of a utility, if landlords had more backbone they would get off their seats and challenge this and win!

Have a look at the heads of bill........ In the good old days- what you're saying holds true- the proposal is to remove the courts from the equation- and allow utility companies (not just Irish Water by the way- any utility company at all)- additional leeway in the collection of charges....... Its quite a nightmare'ish bill- and its all the more remarkable that its getting so little airplay.

Landlords are keeping quiet- they're in a can't win situation- regardless of what they say or do- they are going to be held up as the whipping boys.

It really is a divide and conquer strategy- and its a damn effective one.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

LLs should not be involved. It should be a utility bill. Its that simple.

Doing anything else just shows this govt is not fit for purpose.

Landlords should not be involved- I don't think anyone can disagree with you.
The proposed endgame- is that people will have utilities associated with them- and their accounts will follow them- rather than they being associated with properties (which is being used as a stopgap measure). The suggested timeline on this (from talking to a few people involved in the policy behind all of this)- is actually several years......

The government don't care- as long as they boot it down the road, past the election- it was something that a previous government came up with- that it was the same government parties- is viewed by politicians as irrelevant- any general election draws a line in the sand- behind which any decisions of previous administrations can be kicked. Its what they have always done- and always will do. I've been on both sides of the fence- I may be cynical- but its only because I can see the way their minds are thinking.

Wait until a new government get in- and claim that by voting for them- you've given them a mandate to do a weird and bizarre shopping list of ridiculous stupidity- when infact you only voted for them because they weren't someone else...........