Landlords asking for 3 months rent in advance

Sad Professor

Grolschevik wrote: »

Bad tenants will still destroy property and overhold. Tenants that would have used the deposit for their last month's rent, will now stop paying rent two/three months earlier.

Will make no difference to the bad tenants, make life much more difficult for the good tenants, and enable 'bad' landlords to hold onto more of a tenant's money.

Don't see the point. A neutral arbiter/deposit holding agency is what's needed.

Here's an article in the IT from 2014 about such a scheme. Not sure what the current status of it is. I assume it would be accompanied by faster eviction processes.

gordongekko

FortySeven wrote: »

And a lot of landlords think the deposit is free money.

A lot of tenants thinks the deposit covers vandalism

Hopeful2016

dori_dormer wrote: »

How would the cost of replacing a table and chairs be a different price in a different county? The cost to replace a fully furnished houses contents vs unfurnished should be reflected in the deposit amount not on the rental market cost per month

The value of those furnishings depreciate over time. You can't expect to take the cost of new to replace items that are not brand new and that the LL has claimed capital allowances on. Do you propose to hand back part of the deposit each month/year to reflect the ageing of the furniture/contents?

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

Here's an article in the IT from 2014 about such a scheme. Not sure what the current status of it is. I assume it would be accompanied by faster eviction processes.

Much more sensible approach, centrally held/protected deposits and a legal eviction process that isn't counted in years.

FortySeven

gordongekko wrote: »

A lot of tenants thinks the deposit covers vandalism

Not a lot, a minority.

athtrasna

In my LL days our last tenants did about 5k worth of damage and still got a portion of their deposit back - we wanted them out. My friend had over 15k worth of damage done to her house, and couldn't rent it for 3 months while the repairs were ongoing.

Three months rent will never protect a landlord, it will reduce the tenant pool to those who can afford that money and who in theory will respect the property.

_Kaiser_

athtrasna wrote: »

In my LL days our last tenants did about 5k worth of damage and still got a portion of their deposit back - we wanted them out. My friend had over 15k worth of damage done to her house, and couldn't rent it for 3 months while the repairs were ongoing.

Three months rent will never protect a landlord, it will reduce the tenant pool to those who can afford that money and who in theory will respect the property.

Well maybe being a LL isn't for you then?

You cannot judge a whole group of tenants (or indeed LL's) by the actions of what IS still a minority. Yes there should be a faster eviction process and yes deposits should be held by a third party, but a lot of LL's are in the game by accident or because they saw it as an easy way to make cash and now resent that it hasn't worked out that way.

Those should just sell up and move on to be honest. Neither other LL's or tenants benefit by having reluctant LL's in the market.

faceman

A friend of mine has relocated to the US and has no credit history there. Landlord asked for 2 months rent as deposit. Quite understandable.

However I can't see how 2-3 months can be justified here where references can be obtained easily.

FortySeven

athtrasna wrote: »

In my LL days our last tenants did about 5k worth of damage and still got a portion of their deposit back - we wanted them out. My friend had over 15k worth of damage done to her house, and couldn't rent it for 3 months while the repairs were ongoing.

Three months rent will never protect a landlord, it will reduce the tenant pool to those who can afford that money and who in theory will respect the property.

The way things are going LLs will be reduced to renting to drug dealers. Anyone else with the deposit and rent in advance requirements in this current market would be better staying put until they are in mortgage deposit territory.

athtrasna

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Well maybe being a LL isn't for you then?

I think you missed the start of my post "in my landlord days". Glad to be out, wish we could have gotten out sooner, would never ever advise even my worst enemy to be a landlord in this country with the current taxation/legislation burdens.

Sad Professor

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Those should just sell up and move on to be honest. Neither other LL's or tenants benefit by having reluctant LL's in the market.

I get the impression some landlords don’t want a tenant. They want an asset manager who pays them for the privilege of managing their asset. Their ideal "tenant" is a professional (i.e. works all day), has no children, doesn’t smoke, doesn’t have pets, doesn’t dry their clothes indoors and who only comes to the house to sleep. You know, because if they were there more than that they might damage something.

_Kaiser_

athtrasna wrote: »

I think you missed the start of my post "in my landlord days". Glad to be out, wish we could have gotten out sooner, would never ever advise even my worst enemy to be a landlord in this country with the current taxation/legislation burdens.

And I'd love to not be a tenant with no security and taking the chance on what kind of response I'll get when something needs doing, but alas I chose not to take the "free" money in the good times but have paid for it anyway while those who either overextended themselves or aren't paying the bills were let stay in the property anyway, and thanks to that, Government policy encouraging another housing bubble, and age I've probably now been priced out entirely - for NOT "going mad" in the Good Times!

It's not just the LL who has lost out and ultimately the tenants are the ones who are most impacted as the LL's "investment" is the tenant's home.

purplecow1977

Considering your average home can cost 1300 per month to rent, I'd find it difficult to stump up almost 4000 at one go

_Kaiser_

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Considering your average home can cost 1300 per month to rent, I'd find it difficult to stump up almost 4000 at one go

And this is why the market is unbalanced and heading for another crash.. because if you did have that sort of money to spare (and realistically its more as you need to allow for delays on getting the deposit back when you move) you'd be putting it down as a deposit.

I get that some LL's have been stung and want to "protect" themselves but they should be lobbying their TDs for a faster eviction process and escrow system, not trying to extort the tenant - because those like me who treat it as a professional service with obligations on both sides will take their money elsewhere than deal with that where no security is being offered in return.

firestarter51

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Considering your average home can cost 1300 per month to rent, I'd find it difficult to stump up almost 4000 at one go

But it's not common practice
At least not where I am
Months deposit and months rent in advance is all anyone I know renting has been asked for

3 months must be extremely rare

Graham

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And I'd love to not be a tenant with no security and taking the chance on what kind of response I'll get when something needs doing, but alas I chose not to take the "free" money in the good times but have paid for it anyway while those who either overextended themselves or aren't paying the bills were let stay in the property anyway, and thanks to that, Government policy encouraging another housing bubble, and age I've probably now been priced out entirely - for NOT "going mad" in the Good Times!

It's not just the LL who has lost out and ultimately the tenants are the ones who are most impacted as the LL's "investment" is the tenant's home.

I got the bit about free money, I must have missed it too. Should I be resentful towards landlords, tenants or home-owners, your post doesn't make it too clear?

_Kaiser_

Graham wrote: »

I got the bit about free money, I must have missed it too. Should I be resentful towards landlords, tenants or home-owners, your post doesn't make it too clear?

This forum is overwhelmingly biased in favour of LL's which is fair enough I suppose given the obsession with owning property and negative equity that has led to thousands of accidental/reluctant LL's in this country.

But it's ironic to hear the complaining about tenants holding the last month's rent, or slow eviction processes - when on the flip side you have thousands still living in property that they're not servicing the mortgage on.

Yes there are bad tenants.. yes there needs to be faster ways to deal with these - but make no mistake... amateur/reluctant LL's are more the norm than bad tenants and yet this is conveniently skipped over by those LL's who think it's perfectly justifiable to demand more money for no security in return.

athtrasna

Graham wrote: »

I got the bit about free money, I must have missed it too. Should I be resentful towards landlords, tenants or home-owners, your post doesn't make it too clear?

Who got free money? A huge swathe of the rental market is made up of "accidental" landlords who moved out of their homes when they got too small or when they had to relocate. As someone who was one of those, the tax bill and other expenses meant it was loss making, but worth subsidising in the hope that it would one day get out of negative equity and it did. And then we got out.

Sad Professor

firestarter51 wrote: »

But it's not common practice
At least not where I am
Months deposit and months rent in advance is all anyone I know renting has been asked for

3 months must be extremely rare

It's rare at the moment, but with the current housing crisis landlords adopting the practice are bound to find some desperate tenant willing to pay it. And if the views of landlords in this forum are anything to go by, most of them would have no hesitation doing it.

ShaShaBear

The house we are living in is by far the cheapest rent-wise in my entire town if you look at Daft. Minimally it is €100 per month cheaper than the next step up which is actually a 1-bedroom apartment.
If, for some reason, I was forced to move out of here in a hurry, I'd need to scrape together €1500 to move based on this new deposit notion assuming I wouldn't have my deposit from here before I would need to secure the new place. Keeping in mind that this would be a family of four moving into a 1-bed apartment as the next cheapest option on the rental market in my town.

We would legitimately have two choices - cancel our wedding, or become homeless.

jma

As I understand it, tenants can be easily evicted in the first 6 months under a Part 4 lease agreement. So, if the references given aren't sufficiently satisfactory, either wait for an offer from a different potential tenant or go with a Part 4 lease. Probem solved. Hate greed

Graham

jma wrote: »

As I understand it, tenants can be easily evicted in the first 6 months under a Part 4 lease agreement.

Tenants can easily be given notice, that's quite different to 'easily evicted'.

Graham

athtrasna wrote: »

Who got free money?

I'm still trying to work that out. The suggestion appears to be all landlords got free money which is why some posters can't afford a deposit (or something).

athtrasna wrote: »

A huge swathe of the rental market is made up of "accidental" landlords who moved out of their homes when they got too small or when they had to relocate.

I'm afraid that reality doesn't fit some (most) of the anti-landlord rhetoric being bandied about.

Bizarrely, there's more than the odd poster who think the solution to a supply-constrained rental market is driving more landlords out of the market.

_Kaiser_

Graham wrote: »

I'm still trying to work that out. The suggestion appears to be all landlords got free money which is why some posters can't afford a deposit (or something)

It's very simple...

A lot of people applied for (and were given) mortgages they could never really afford, but a combination of lax/non-existent regulation and the desire to "get on the property ladder" meant they willingly went along with this - even exaggerating their incomes to qualify in some cases.

When things went wrong they cried that they were practically forced into signing for it, and it wasn't their fault.. but rather than be evicted, sell up, and have to pay the difference, they were allowed stay put while paying a bare minimum (if anything)

Thanks in part to this we have a situation where there is not enough supply to meet demand and tenants are facing increasing pressures and demands to keep a roof over their heads. It's therefore ironic to hear complaints about tenants using the deposit as the last month or the eviction process from some LL's.

Hope that clarifies for you.

Graham

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's very simple...

A lot of people applied for (and were given) mortgages they could never really afford, but a combination of lax/non-existent regulation and the desire to "get on the property ladder" meant they willingly went along with this - even exaggerating their incomes to qualify in some cases.

When things went wrong they cried that they were practically forced into signing for it, and it wasn't their fault.. but rather than be evicted, sell up, and have to pay the difference, they were allowed stay put while paying a bare minimum (if anything)

Thanks in part to this we have a situation where there is not enough supply to meet demand and tenants are facing increasing pressures and demands to keep a roof over their heads. It's therefore ironic to hear complaints about tenants using the deposit as the last month or the eviction process from some LL's.

Hope that clarifies for you.

Ahhhh so you're ticked off at homeowners that are living in houses you think they shouldn't be allowed to live in because they could never really afford them.

I get the resentment now.

Personally, I'm glad I didn't go down that path. I wouldn't see it as 'free money', I'd feel I had it hanging over me. I'd imagine there are a few people in that situation who wish they hadn't too.

_Kaiser_

Graham wrote: »

Ahhhh so you're ticked off at homeowners that are living in houses you think they shouldn't be allowed to live in because they could never really afford them.

I get the resentment now.

I "resent" it because this situation means that people who should be able to buy can't and instead are forced to spend more money paying for the mistakes this group made

I "resent" it because you then have LL's complaining about a minority of tenants who take the piss and use it as an excuse to further increase rents and deposit requirements - while at the same time they may not be paying the mortgage themselves, or as is increasingly also happening, the tenant may get letter through the door informing them the LL's debt has been sold on and they have to get out

In short I "resent" and reject the notion that LL's are the ones hard done by in the vast majority of cases.. but as I said, this forum is overwhelmingly filled with (reluctant) LL's so it's not that surprising either.

Gatling

Will be very interesting to see what happens when teants have to €3000 deposits and see how long it then takes landlords to hand it back at the end of a tenancy.

Graham

Gatling wrote: »

Will be very interesting to see what happens when teants have to €3000 deposits and see how long it then takes landlords to hand it back at the end of a tenancy.

I'd expect it to generally take about the same amount of time it currently takes.

Boater123

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's very simple...

A lot of people applied for (and were given) mortgages they could never really afford, but a combination of lax/non-existent regulation and the desire to "get on the property ladder" meant they willingly went along with this - even exaggerating their incomes to qualify in some cases.

When things went wrong they cried that they were practically forced into signing for it, and it wasn't their fault.. but rather than be evicted, sell up, and have to pay the difference, they were allowed stay put while paying a bare minimum (if anything)

Thanks in part to this we have a situation where there is not enough supply to meet demand and tenants are facing increasing pressures and demands to keep a roof over their heads. It's therefore ironic to hear complaints about tenants using the deposit as the last month or the eviction process from some LL's.

Hope that clarifies for you.

What has this got to do with 1st/ last months rent and 1 months deposit.

And if these undeserved mortgage holders loose their home, yes it eventually frees up one property, but don't these people just join those looking for a rental or another property to buy?

Do you think they will all go home to live with Mammy?

Ridiculous argument that has nothing to do with the thread.

Graham

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I "resent" it because this situation means that people who should be able to buy can't and instead are forced to spend more money paying for the mistakes this group made

I "resent" it because you then have LL's complaining about a minority of tenants who take the piss and use it as an excuse to further increase rents and deposit requirements - while at the same time they may not be paying the mortgage themselves, or as is increasingly also happening, the tenant may get letter through the door informing them the LL's debt has been sold on and they have to get out

In short I "resent" and reject the notion that LL's are the ones hard done by in the vast majority of cases.. but as I said, this forum is overwhelmingly filled with (reluctant) LL's so it's not that surprising either.

You refer to the 'minority' of tenants who take the P but you're unable to accept that there's a similar minority of bad landlords.

To echo the sentiments of the last poster, I think we're just drifting away from deposit discussion so I'll stop here.