Impossible to get reply from Landlords ads.

Michael D Not Higgins

Mod: Technocentral, your tone and attacking of posters is not appreciated. People are giving you their experience and opinions. You don't have to accept it but you do have to be civil.

Sad Professor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

One thing bad tenants don't like is handing over money. LLs are tripping over themselves to get out of a bouyant letting market. In a time of shortage rents, deposits etc will go up. That is the reality. There is complete inertia on this at government level.Virtually nothing is being done to assist the supply situation.

There are bad tenants and bad landlords. Bad tenants don't like handing money over. And bad landlords don't like handing money (deposits) back. They also don't like providing the full services that said money pays for, or have a tendency to pass any such expenses onto the tenant in the next rent increase. Both need protection, but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable. They need a home and are renting because they are not in the financial position to buy. The "reality" of the market being in crisis and government failure to address it does not give landlords permission to exploit good tenants who are just looking for a place to live.

iainBB

Sad Professor wrote: »

There are bad tenants and bad landlords. Bad tenants don't like handing money over. And bad landlords don't like handing money (deposits) back. They also don't like providing the full services that said money pays for, or have a tendency to pass any such expenses onto the tenant in the next rent increase. Both need protection, but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable. They need a home and are renting because they are not in the financial position to buy. The "reality" of the market being in crisis and government failure to address it does not give landlords permission to exploit good tenants who are just looking for a place to live.

Who says landlord's are in a better position Your generalising there.

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

There are bad tenants and bad landlords. Bad tenants don't like handing money over. And bad landlords don't like handing money (deposits) back. They also don't like providing the full services that said money pays for, or have a tendency to pass any such expenses onto the tenant in the next rent increase. Both need protection, but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable. They need a home and are renting because they are not in the financial position to buy. The "reality" of the market being in crisis and government failure to address it does not give landlords permission to exploit good tenants who are just looking for a place to live.

The market being the market landlords can push for higher deposits. About 5 years ago on this forum tenants were gloating about how much they had negotiated down their rent. It is a matter for the government to properly manage supply. The landlord is often more vulnerable than the tenant which is why they are selling out.When people are exiting from what should be an ideal time in the cycle with rents at their highest ever there must be something wrong.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable.

Just to redress the balance its worth pointing out that one bad tenant can financially ruin an entire family the effects of which can easily run far beyond the loss of the property being rented.

Technocentral

Michael D Not Higgins wrote:

Mod: Technocentral, your tone and attacking of posters is not appreciated. People are giving you their experience and opinions. You don't have to accept it but you do have to be civil.

Fair enough. Some good positive advice <snip>, I'll remove myself from this thread, I still believe there are some decent people out there though.

Sad Professor

The landlord is never more vulnerable than the tenant. The landlord owns the property and has the power to increase rents, refuse to carry out repairs, and evict the tenant from their home — with potential repercussions should the tenant choose to challenge them but most won't. Tenants may be able to use the law beyond what is justifiable to overhold and avoid paying rent, but that does not change the fact that landlords hold most of the power.

Tenants are not in a better position than landlords. If they were they wouldn't be tenants. Some landlords are financially vulnerable and in bad position generally, but for reasons that have nothing to do with tenant rights. Good tenants should not be expected to suffer for landlords who made bad investments. If being a landlord is a business as landlords claim then they should not be gambling their family's future on its smooth-sailing success. I assume private landlords are getting out of the market because it's no longer looking like the risk-free investment that it once was.

Some landlords talk as if they are the only ones taking a risk. Tenants are taking a risk as well. On a landlord who owns a property that will be their home for the next however many years. A bad landlord can cause no end of stress and upheaval for good tenants.

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

The landlord is never more vulnerable than the tenant. The landlord owns the property and has the power to increase rents, refuse to carry out repairs, and evict the tenant from their home — with potential repercussions should the tenant choose to challenge them but most won't. Tenants may be able to use the law beyond what is justifiable to overhold and avoid paying rent, but that does not change the fact that landlords hold most of the power.

Tenants are not in a better position than landlords. If they were they wouldn't be tenants. Some landlords are financially vulnerable and in bad position generally, but for reasons that have nothing to do with tenant rights. Good tenants should not be expected to suffer for landlords who made bad investments. If being a landlord is a business as landlords claim then they should not be gambling their family's future on its smooth-sailing success. I assume private landlords are getting out of the market because it's no longer looking like the risk-free investment that it once was.

Some landlords talk as if they are the only ones taking a risk. Tenants are taking a risk as well. On a landlord who owns a property that will be their home for the next however many years. A bad landlord can cause no end of stress and upheaval for good tenants.

The landlord can be forced to carry out repairs by law. He has responsibility for various charges. He may well be in negative equity and losing money on the property. He can only increase rent up to market level and even then under restriction. He can be exposed to massive legal costs if a tenant acts up. A tenant can do what they like and walk away. The most they stand to lose is a deposit and put up with some repairs not being attended to for a time.

In fact this attitude that the landlord is the owner and so must be the mre powerful has become so pervasive that it is making things worse. It is seeing landlords sell up every day of the week thus aggravating the situation.

Sad Professor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord can be forced to carry out repairs by law. He has responsibility for various charges. He may well be in negative equity and losing money on the property. He can only increase rent up to market level and even then under restriction. He can be exposed to massive legal costs if a tenant acts up. A tenant can do what they like and walk away. The most they stand to lose is a deposit and put up with some repairs not being attended to for a time.

Given that landlords currently complain about the length of time it takes a non-paying tenant to be evicted, how long does it take a tenant to take a landlord to court? Most have better things to be doing than dealing with cowboy landlords and will have moved out in the interim.

In fact this attitude that the landlord is the owner and so must be the mre powerful has become so pervasive that it is making things worse. It is seeing landlords sell up every day of the week thus aggravating the situation.

Landlords will not help this perception by using current market conditions to exploit good tenants.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

how long does it take a tenant to take a landlord to court?

You tell us, is it anything like the 1 - 2 years it can take to evict a non-paying tenant. Is the potential loss to a tenant anything like 2 years rent + untold repair costs?

ED E

Graham wrote: »

You tell us, is it anything like the 1 - 2 years it can take to evict a non-paying tenant. Is the potential loss to a tenant anything like 2 years rent + untold repair costs?

Seems like you're intentionally missing the point.

Court for the tenant isn't a practical way to solve issues as you'd have to live with said for an extended period.

Court for the landlord is a nightmare as you've stated, they're in the red for 2yrs or more.

These both being the case the system means diddly squat and the rules may as well be wiped from the statute as the have no value. End result, toxic market.


Continue to quote the regulations all you like, doesnt help either party.

Graham

ED E wrote: »

Seems like you're intentionally missing the point.

Court for the tenant isn't a practical way to solve issues as you'd have to live with said for an extended period.

Court for the landlord is a nightmare as you've stated, they're in the red for 2yrs or more.

These both being the case the system means diddly squat and the rules may as well be wiped from the statute as the have no value. End result, toxic market.


Continue to quote the regulations all you like, doesnt help either party.

For the record, I agree the current system is crap for both landlords and tenants. I don't remember any point where I suggested otherwise.

I do however strongly disagree with the assertion that the landlord holds all the power. Hence my post.

Sad Professor

Graham wrote: »

For the record, I agree the current system is crap for both landlords and tenants. I don't remember any point where I suggested otherwise.

I do however strongly disagree with the assertion that the landlord holds all the power. Hence my post.

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable. Which they are. What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand. But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year. I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home – or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable.

I disagree, both parties are vulnerable all be it in different areas.

Sad Professor wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Not at all what I said.

You're choosing to ignore:

1) accidental landlords
2) landlords whose investment decisions don't make provision for 2 years of no rent and a trashed property.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand.

Good to hear.

Sad Professor wrote: »

But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year.

Awesome, as am I. I don't want to be moving every year either.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home

I don't think I ever suggested good tenants should be expected to sacrifice anything. In fact I think there should be tax incentives for landlords that are prepared to offer tenants greater security of tenure, longer leases etc.

Sad Professor wrote: »

or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

Ahh, here's where I recognise a few things things.

1) The market is struggling to meet current demand.
2) The government has almost completely abdicated responsibility for housing to the private sector
3) The legislation 'protecting' landlords from unscrupulous tenants is not fit for purpose. The result is increasing deposits in an attempt to give the illusion of additional security to wary landlords. Point 1) is making this possible/commonplace.

Here's a final thought:

Increasing protection for landlords AND tenants is not a mutually exclusive proposition. It is quite possible to do both.

ted1

Technocentral wrote: »

Would never offer more than advertised price, I don't encourage greed, places aren't worth the amount asked never mind more, I do say in my replies that all reference's and deposit etc ready to go.

Supply and demand, one of my current tenants offered 100 more then I was asking for. She got the place and I haven't raised her rent in three years. Happy to have her and we agreed a price.
I could raise it by about 300 but if I get a bad tenant it'll cost me more.

MarkAnthony

First, last and security isn't 3 months rent in advance, it's the months rent which is always paid 'in hand', the deposit and simply the final month in advance. It's a much better system for all concerned and the norm in the States. It protects the tenant as there is no way to withhold it and it protects the LL from a tenant who simply says 'use my security for the last month'; potentially leaving bills unpaid and damage to the property.

Flippin' 'eck, suggest anything that hasn't be grandfathered in by custom, practice and what Paddy down the pub says is right and people kick up an awful fuss.

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

Given that landlords currently complain about the length of time it takes a non-paying tenant to be evicted, how long does it take a tenant to take a landlord to court? Most have better things to be doing than dealing with cowboy landlords and will have moved out in the interim.



Landlords will not help this perception by using current market conditions to exploit good tenants.

There is never any need for a tenant to take a landlord to court. the tenant can complain to the PRTB and environmental officers. They will take the landlord to court and pay for it. Most landlords have better things to be doing than chasing cowboy tenants and are exiting the market driving rents even higher. Intending landlords asre put off by the carry on which is going on. Existing landlords cannot be blamed for doing what they can to protect themselves. They have to get as big a deposit as they can and charge as much rent as they can. In a few years when rents have fallen back the landlord still has to pay his loan.

handlemaster

Sad Professor wrote: »

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable. Which they are. What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand. But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year. I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home – or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

when you buy a property and rent it out only then will you see the reality for landlords . It only takes a bad tenant to cause alot of stress and financial loss. There are good tenants and bad tenants the landlord has to try and reduce risk. Eg. you buy car insurance and pay a premium based on others bad driving habits.... do you complain to the insurance co ? not buy insurance ? or go to another insurance co ?

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable. Which they are. What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand. But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year. I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home – or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

If there were a sufficient number of small landlords you wouldn't have a problem. You would be able to negotiate. competition would keep rents keen and standards up. The cause of your complaints is that there is not enough accommodation on the market. The reason for that is small landlords giving up and being reluctant to expand.

athtrasna

Mod note

As the OP has left the thread, and it has gone seriously off topic, thread closed.