Landlord taking part of deposit for Irish Water

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Then people dig there heels in and refuse to budge and keep paying there rents would make for interesting court cases .

Only a matter of time before it will be taken from peoples salary/dole. Its already been suggested and it will happen there is no doubt about it.

fluffo wrote: »

Ok so it's all in a bit of a limbo right now. It's currently such a messed up system..

Its quite a simple system if you just registered and paid the water charge.

fluffo

Abby Angry Watch wrote: »

Its quite a simple system if you just registered and paid your water charge.

So simple that no matter how little water you use, you still pay a fixed rate? So simple that it is nothing about water conservation as you still pay a fixed rate? Funny.
It should be a simple system.. but Ireland does not currently have the means or finance to set a simple metered system in place.

athtrasna

Off topic posts have been deleted

Wheelsonthebus

athtrasna wrote: »

Off topic posts have been deleted

It was entirely relevant actually.

As relevant as idle speculation in regards to what will or wont happen in the future, but I see that post was allowed to remain.

Also my post was intended to be humorous as you could clearly see.

fluffo

fluffo wrote: »

So simple that no matter how little water you use, you still pay a fixed rate? So simple that it is nothing about water conservation as you still pay a fixed rate? Funny.

A temporary measure until water meters are installed (something that would happen a lot faster if installers weren't being prevent from doing their job by a gang of idiots). The 100 euro grant is designed to compensate for this.

Also income tax was reduced in the last budget to balance off against the water charges a major fact which is totally over looked by those who refuse to pay the charges.

Hollister11

Abby Angry Watch wrote: »

A temporary measure until water meters are installed (something that would happen a lot faster if installers weren't being prevent from doing their job by a gang of idiots). The 100 euro grant is designed to compensate for this.

Also income tax was reduced in the last budget to balance off against the water charges.

That's an understatement. Its been an ridiculous epidemic.

Satriale

Hollister11 wrote: »

That's an understatement. Its been an ridiculous epidemic.

Any proof for your statement re landlords rights Hollister?

Hollister11

Satriale wrote: »

Any proof for your statement re landlords rights Hollister?

The water charge is a utility bill. If you didn't pay your esb, gas bills ect, they would be taken out of your deposit as they are outstanding bills. If you do no pay your water bill, this bill is in fact outstanding and can be taken from your deposit.

http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-to-get-your-deposit-back/

Satriale

Hollister11 wrote: »

The water charge is a utility bill. If you didn't pay your esb, gas bills ect, they would be taken out of your deposit as they are outstanding bills. If you do no pay your water bill, this bill is in fact outstanding and can be taken from your deposit.

http://www.threshold.ie/advice/ending-a-tenancy/how-to-get-your-deposit-back/

Thanks, no mention of IW there but seems to be correct for gas and electricity provided they are in the landlords name.
The Minister in charge of IW seems to disagree with your assessment though.


From The Examiner
Environment Minister Alan Kelly has warned that property owners cannot withhold tenants’ deposits or deduct parts of them because of disputes or concerns about water bills being left unpaid.

TheDoc

fluffo wrote: »

So simple that no matter how little water you use, you still pay a fixed rate? So simple that it is nothing about water conservation as you still pay a fixed rate? Funny.
It should be a simple system.. but Ireland does not currently have the means or finance to set a simple metered system in place.

If you are in a metered property, you pay the lowest cost, be it the metered rate or the flat rate. So if you are using less water and your meter reflects that, you are charged the lower rate. If you go over it, you are charged the flat rate, which is the same for everyone.

OP you mentioned that you weren't registering for IW, so maybe its possible that the Landlord did (to avail of the grant) and because it is in the LL name, that is why the payment is being withheld?

Personally I think its a bit cheeky for tenants to take a stand against IW, regardless of their disagreements with it. Your in rented accommodation, where a landlord is responsible to ensure the utilities are coming into the property correctly and as expected.

Satriale

TheDoc wrote: »

If you are in a metered property, you pay the lowest cost, be it the metered rate or the flat rate. So if you are using less water and your meter reflects that, you are charged the lower rate. If you go over it, you are charged the flat rate, which is the same for everyone.

OP you mentioned that you weren't registering for IW, so maybe its possible that the Landlord did (to avail of the grant) and because it is in the LL name, that is why the payment is being withheld?

Personally I think its a bit cheeky for tenants to take a stand against IW, regardless of their disagreements with it. Your in rented accommodation, where a landlord is responsible to ensure the utilities are coming into the property correctly and as expected.

I'm open to correction but all the landlord has to do is inform IW of the tenants name and he is absolved of liabilty. Why would you give yourself any grief or hassle with a tenant if you could do that?
It's looking for problems in a business that has enough of them to start with.

listermint

Satriale wrote: »

I'm open to correction but all the landlord has to do is inform IW of the tenants name and he is absolved of liabilty. Why would you give yourself any grief or hassle with a tenant if you could do that?
It's looking for problems in a business that has enough of them to start with.

This entirely.

Surely even these pro charges warriors would be chomping at the bit to hand over tenant information.

It's none of your business to be collecting money for IW the debt attaches to the tenant in this situation. Even the guidelines state that. User pays.

TheDoc

Satriale wrote: »

I'm open to correction but all the landlord has to do is inform IW of the tenants name and he is absolved of liabilty. Why would you give yourself any grief or hassle with a tenant if you could do that?
It's looking for problems in a business that has enough of them to start with.

Yeah all going perfectly the landlord is perfectly absolved. But that's not always the case.

I know first hand of an apartment I had for a year where the previous tenants seemed to be running every scam known to man, along with dodging just about every bill under the sun. We received mountains of mail frequently, legal letters frequently, and debt collectors at the door, one which ended in an altercation, all down to the previous tenants skipping bills.

It was a headache for me and my GF, and inevitably the landlord. I never bothered him about it or what happened, but every now and again we would have a catchup call and he would mention how he was still dealing with fallout from the previous pair. He also had issues with utilities and having them re-enabled to the apartment. And when I moved in, it wasn't straight forward getting electricity sorted, and took a few calls to sort the situation out(so large was the bill left by the previous tennants).

I could flip it back saying why would a tenant give a landlord any grief?

Satriale

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah all going perfectly the landlord is perfectly absolved. But that's not always the case.

I know first hand of an apartment I had for a year where the previous tenants seemed to be running every scam known to man, along with dodging just about every bill under the sun. We received mountains of mail frequently, legal letters frequently, and debt collectors at the door, one which ended in an altercation, all down to the previous tenants skipping bills.

It was a headache for me and my GF, and inevitably the landlord. I never bothered him about it or what happened, but every now and again we would have a catchup call and he would mention how he was still dealing with fallout from the previous pair. He also had issues with utilities and having them re-enabled to the apartment. And when I moved in, it wasn't straight forward getting electricity sorted, and took a few calls to sort the situation out(so large was the bill left by the previous tennants).

I could flip it back saying why would a tenant give a landlord any grief?

I'm not saying the landlord is creating grief for the tenant, I'm saying he is drawing it on himself, when the government have effectively given him more protection than he would have from any other utility bill.
I wouldnt want anyone on the phone to me night and day hassling me about E60 when all i had to do was give his name to IW, no tenant could have reason to argue with that.

ted1

Satriale wrote: »

Thanks, no mention of IW there but seems to be correct for gas and electricity provided they are in the landlords name.
The Minister in charge of IW seems to disagree with your assessment though.


From The Examiner
Environment Minister Alan Kelly has warned that property owners cannot withhold tenants’ deposits or deduct parts of them because of disputes or concerns about water bills being left unpaid.

Most leases stipulate that all utilities must be paid and will be taking out if deposit if not. The minister needs to educate himself

Satriale

ted1 wrote: »

Most leases stipulate that all utilities must be paid and will be taking out if deposit if not. The minister needs to educate himself

Leases aren't laws. Again, open to contradiction, from my reading, unless the bill is in the landlords name he has no entitlement to withhold money. I'd ask any landlord reading some of the "advice" on this thread to get some independently before withholding a tenants deposit for this reason.

There seems to be a smattering of "I'll sort the protestors" from a certain class of landlord in this country, it would be more in their line keeping their "feelings" in check and focus on running their business professionally.
The government have said that once they pass the name of their tenant on to IW they are not liable, what more could you ask for? Unless you are looking to make extra unpaid work for the sake of spite.

The_Conductor

Moderator note

Guys- it is not acceptable behaviour to refer to either tenants or landlords in derogatory terms. Please remember this forum is for the benefit of all- it is not acceptable to tar any group of people or to refer to them in a derogatory manner. Please keep this friendly little warning in mind.

Yawns

Satriale wrote: »

Leases aren't laws..

Correct, but they are private contracts between two parties. As long as it doesn't supersede the rights of either party. Now most standard leases actually do specify water charges in them and have done for many years as they are copied over from UK & EU standard leases.

So the two parties have agreed to pay any and all outstanding utilities and bills with water most likely being specifically mentioned. Failure to do so will result in deposit or part thereof being retained to cover any outstanding fees. So the LL would be entitled to hold part of it.

That would be a standard lease. We have no way of knowing if the OP has a lease that omits that kind of clause but the vast majority of leases have it in.

I'm in this house about 2 months. There was a mix up with the IW at first as they had it in my partner's name but should have been in mine as she won't be here for the next year or so. In order to do it properly we had to close the account in her name and open in mine. She received a bill for exactly €4.98 so they do calculate how much you can owe on a pro rata basis

Graham

Satriale wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Most leases stipulate that all utilities must be paid and will be taking out if deposit if not. The minister needs to educate himself

Leases aren't laws

Leases may not be laws in themselves, they are however legally binding contracts to which two parties have agreed to abide by.

Grolschevik

Graham wrote:

Leases may not be laws in themselves, they are however legally binding contracts to which two parties have agreed to abide by.

That said, illegal clauses in leases, or clauses that seek you to abrogate your rights, are not enforceable. Just for general information rather than a comment on the specific issue...

davo10

Grolschevik wrote: »

That said, illegal clauses in leases, or clauses that seek you to abrogate your rights, are not enforceable. Just for general information rather than a comment on the specific issue...

Requiring a tenant to pay all utilities associated with the property during their tenure is legal, and there is nothing to stop a landlord deducting unpaid utility bills from the deposit. In fact if you check the citizens advice website you will see that a deposit is precisely for this use, rental arrears, damage to property and unpaid utility bills. Please provide a link to the legislation which you believe states otherwise.

Grolschevik

davo10 wrote:

Requiring a tenant to pay all utilities associated with the property during their tenure is legal, and there is nothing to stop a landlord deducting unpaid utility bills from the deposit. In fact if you check the citizens advice website you will see that a deposit is precisely for this use, rental arrears, damage to property and unpaid utility bills. Please provide a link to the legislation which you believe states otherwise.

Note the second sentence of my post, and the context of the previous posts, one of which I quoted.

Grolschevik

It's just that I've seen many people try to argue that, just because it's in the contract, it must by definition be enforceable, regardless...

Edit: "just because SOMETHING is in the contract, it must by definition be enforceable..."

davo10

Grolschevik wrote: »

It's just that I've seen many people try to argue that, just because it's in the contract, it must by definition be enforceable, regardless...

But if the LL has already deducted the water utility bill, he/she has already enforced it, it would then be up to the tenant to prove that LL was wrong to do so, the LL will just refer to the agreed contract and as stated earlier, the deposit being used to pay outstanding utility bill is a standard clause validated on the citizens advice website.

foggy_lad

Hollister11 wrote: »

There is also no point in not paying the charge even if you buy a house. They will take it out of your wages, social welfare, or pension. You can't avoid it.
Simples!

Minister(think it was Alan Kelly) on the radio last week stated that no deductions would be made to people on basic social welfare payments which include most on jobseekers and those on invalidity or disability pensions and those pensioners who do not have separate private or work pensions.

Abby Angry Watch wrote: »

Only a matter of time before it will be taken from peoples salary/dole. Its already been suggested and it will happen there is no doubt about it.



Its quite a simple system if you just registered and paid the water charge.

A government minister has stated that base social welfare payments will not have deductions using the new law

Satriale wrote: »

Leases aren't laws. Again, open to contradiction, from my reading, unless the bill is in the landlords name he has no entitlement to withhold money. I'd ask any landlord reading some of the "advice" on this thread to get some independently before withholding a tenants deposit for this reason.

There seems to be a smattering of "I'll sort the protestors" from a certain class of landlord in this country, it would be more in their line keeping their "feelings" in check and focus on running their business professionally.
The government have said that once they pass the name of their tenant on to IW they are not liable, what more could you ask for? Unless you are looking to make extra unpaid work for the sake of spite.

+1 ^^^^^
If the bill is in the Landlords name then the landlord is liable!

If the landlord gives the tenants name to IW then the tenant is fully liable for the bill for the duration of their tenancy.

Don't be surprised to find IW/landlords trying to make new tenants pay water fees for old long since moved on tenants! and what is stopping landlords taking money from one tenants deposit and not paying IW but just adding the fees to their next tenants bills?

TheDoc

Think you may have mis heard the Minister, as all the hoopla in the Dail is about the new legislation that was rushed through

New legislation has been developed to strengthen the regulatory system around the payment of water charges. Amendments to the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 include:

Requiring property owners to provide information to Irish Water on the occupiers of the property within 20 days of the start of a tenancy
A deemed obligation, in all new tenancy agreements, for the occupier or tenant to pay water charges, except in short-term lets
Obliging the owner of a dwelling to pay any water charges owing to Irish Water when the property is being sold
Establishing a water services database to facilitate the payment of the Water Conservation Grant from 2016 onwards
Providing for housing associations (approved housing bodies) to pay water bills for tenants in supported accommodation and receive the Water Conservation Grant on their behalf

In addition, the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 provides for 2 new ways of enforcing civil debt – including unpaid water charges. The new methods are attachment of earnings and deduction from social welfare payments, as appropriate. These provisions will apply to debts of over €500 and under €4,000

So in summary, payments can and will be deducted from social welfare payments.

But most relevant to this topic, is how this new amendment will enforce Landlord to provide tenant information to the utility so they can be billed. Additionally how the tennant/occupier is liable for the charges. So as someone mentioned "just because its in a contract or lease", well not only is it contractual binding (and would be subject to contractual law) it is now also legislation.

But most importantly is how a propoerty cannot be sold with an outstanding debt. Unclear if that is relating to the payments owed from the property or from the tenant. But either or, considering landlords will most likely look to sell properties down the line, I'd imagine they want to ensure there is no chance they get hung up chasing people who skimpt on water charges.

It's not clear when the above will be written into law, but with the government majority it will be passed without issue.

listermint

TheDoc wrote: »

Think you may have mis heard the Minister, as all the hoopla in the Dail is about the new legislation that was rushed through



So in summary, payments can and will be deducted from social welfare payments.

But most relevant to this topic, is how this new amendment will enforce Landlord to provide tenant information to the utility so they can be billed. Additionally how the tennant/occupier is liable for the charges. So as someone mentioned "just because its in a contract or lease", well not only is it contractual binding (and would be subject to contractual law) it is now also legislation.

But most importantly is how a propoerty cannot be sold with an outstanding debt. Unclear if that is relating to the payments owed from the property or from the tenant. But either or, considering landlords will most likely look to sell properties down the line, I'd imagine they want to ensure there is no chance they get hung up chasing people who skimpt on water charges.

It's not clear when the above will be written into law, but with the government majority it will be passed without issue.

Just to be clear your summary is incorrect. This is a future act. It is not written into law yet.

Despite attempts by landlords here and Pro Irish Water supporters it presently under existing legislationis not allowed to deduct or withhold payments of deposit in lieu of an Irish Water Bill. The landlord would have to hand the information over to Irish Water and Irish Water can pursue the tenant themselves. (User Pays) The bill is not attached to the property where a tenant was resident.

So summarising things that are not reality should not be allowed. Its misinformation.

Any Landlord whom withholds a deposit to pay for Irish Water today is in the wrong. Until the act described on PRTB is sent through the houses in its entirety it does not apply.

Thats the current summary 1st September 2015

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Just to be clear your summary is incorrect. This is a future act. It is not written into law yet.

Despite attempts by landlords here and Pro Irish Water supporters it presently under existing legislationis not allowed to deduct or withhold payments of deposit in lieu of an Irish Water Bill. The landlord would have to hand the information over to Irish Water and Irish Water can pursue the tenant themselves. (User Pays) The bill is not attached to the property where a tenant was resident.

So summarising things that are not reality should not be allowed. Its misinformation.

Any Landlord whom withholds a deposit to pay for Irish Water today is in the wrong. Until the act described on PRTB is sent through the houses in its entirety it does not apply.

Thats the current summary 1st September 2015

If a lease states all bills must be paid and a tenant is not paying their water bill its no different to any other bill which they aren't paying and are in breach of the lease thus allowing a LL to deduct from the deposit.

If a LL deducts for Irish water there is no way on earth the PRTB or anyone else is going to give any time to a tenant who makes an appeal against it.

listermint

Abby Angry Watch wrote: »

If a lease states all bills must be paid and a tenant is not paying their water bill its no different to any other bill which they aren't paying and are in breach of the lease thus allowing a LL to deduct from the deposit.

If a LL deducts for Irish water there is no way on earth the PRTB or anyone else is going to give any time to a tenant who makes an appeal against it.

But its illegal under current legislation, why are you pretending its not ?

The Landlord would need to hand over the tenants information and let Irish Water deal with it. The landlord is not a collection agent for Irish Water, the PRTB website even states none of what you are saying is inacted yet.

Stop spreading misinformation. This act was before the senate but hasnt reached the Dail yet.

And you know this.. or do you ?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

But its illegal under current legislation, why are you pretending its not ?

The Landlord would need to hand over the tenants information and let Irish Water deal with it. The landlord is not a collection agent for Irish Water, the PRTB website even states none of what you are saying is inacted yet.

Stop spreading misinformation. This act was before the senate but hasnt reached the Dail yet.

And you know this.. or do you ?

LL's could always deduct a deposit for an outstanding bill (all leases will state this), just because it a water bill instead of some other bill doesn't change anything.