Landlords asking for 3 months rent in advance

Gatling

Graham wrote: »

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

Anything from a forthnight to several months depending on the landlord which leaves a lot of people bent over a barrel can't see many people having €6000 (3000 upfront 3000 extra for another deposit) when they decide to move . at the moment should a landlord decide there in no rush to return a deposit paid in good faith by good tenants

Graham

Gatling wrote: »

Anything from a forthnight to several months depending on the landlord which leaves a lot of people bent over a barrel can't see many people having €6000 (3000 upfront 3000 extra for another deposit) when they decide to move . at the moment should a landlord decide there in no rush to return a deposit paid in good faith by good tenants

Longest I've ever waited is a week.

That's not to say I don't think there should be statutory timescales or an independent deposit-holding entity.

quadrifoglio verde

_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.

Someone who bought in 2006 and is struggling to repay but is repaying did nothing wrong in my books. Well ok, they weren't financially prudent and they could have bought cheaper but them being in negative equity has no real bearing on you and I can't understand why you'd resent them.

Someone who bought in 2006 and is in long term arrears should have their property repossessed. Not because it means that your rent is high. But because they are in default and they're part of the reason why variable interest rates in this country are high.
In my books if you default on a loan, then whatever security was put up against that loan should be called in, irrespective if you have cancer, are unemployed or your child has a disability. Harsh yes, but thats not the banks problem.

As for landlords in default, quite frankly you'll find most landlords who haven't defaulted are in favour of those landlords getting repossessed. Ive yet to see a thread on here where a landlord is fighting the banks to retain ownership of properties that he's failed to pay for and get support from fellow posters. Except for those who march to Jerry Beades tune but thankfully those are few and far between.

Personally I think you should direct your annoyance at members of the oireachtas for being so anti-repossession. However this country has a soft spot for people not paying what they owe because they're sticking it to the man/bank

Sad Professor

Gatling wrote: »

Anything from a forthnight to several months depending on the landlord which leaves a lot of people bent over a barrel can't see many people having €6000 (3000 upfront 3000 extra for another deposit) when they decide to move . at the moment should a landlord decide there in no rush to return a deposit paid in good faith by good tenants

I'd imagine in most cases they won't be waiting for the landlord to give it back. They'll just take it out of the last two months rent, defeating the biggest justification for double deposits.

quadrifoglio verde

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'd imagine in most cases they won't be waiting for the landlord to give it back. They'll just take it out of the last two months rent, defeating the biggest justification for double deposits.

Well the thinking would be that asking for more money would equal a higher calibre tenant.
Lets face it, it does.

High calibre tenant generally goes for a high calibre apartment which in general is owned by a high calibre landlord who'll be more likely to give you back your deposit provided everything is reasonable. Yes you could end up with a dodgy tenant on the landlords end but chances are reduced.
Avoiding the dodgy landlord who holds onto the deposit is going to be harder, but they generally don't have the good stuff to let

_Kaiser_

Boater123 wrote: »

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.

Oh so the mortgage holder's right to their "home" trumps the tenant's right eh? Even though the former may not be paying for it, but the latter is?

And sure why shouldn't they go home to Mammy if they can't afford another place? Is that not what tenants are expected to do in similar circumstances?

If you are paying your mortgage then no issue, but if you're not or in arrears then you deserve no special treatment and should be evicted - just as a non-paying tenant would similarly be expected to get out.


And as for the "not related to the topic" argument.. it's exactly because of things like this that the supply is reduced, rents are going up, demand is up, and (some) LL's think they can get away with asking for more money upfront - despite offering no guarantees or security beyond the 1st year (which still has a few "get outs"). In short all of these factors are related, as is the political angle as property is a political animal in this country as we've seen in the boom, bust and "recovery" times. You can't just look t one element in isolation to find a solution or cause.

And as above, the amount of professional LL's who meet their obligations in a timely manner are vastly outnumbered by the "reluctant" or "easy money" LL's who (as SP noted above) expect to just collect the cash every month for no effort on their part.

jma

Graham wrote: »

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

Yeah, the LL can give tenants 28 days notice at any time within the first 6 months and does not need to specify a reason for the eviction. The tenant or tenants then have 28 days to move out and have no grounds to appeal or fight the request.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but that is what I took from it.

Graham

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

If you are paying your mortgage then no issue, but if you're not or in arrears then you deserve no special treatment and should be evicted - just as a non-paying tenant would similarly be expected to get out.

Is there a post somewhere that suggests this shouldn't be the case?

To be clear, I'd absolutely agree with that statement.

athtrasna

jma wrote: »

Yeah, the LL can give tenants 28 days notice at any time within the first 6 months and does not need to specify a reason for the eviction. The tenant or tenants then have 28 days to move out and have no grounds to appeal or fight the request.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but that is what I took from it.

That is not the same as actually evicting the tenant. If the tenant decides to stay and ignore eviction notice, it can take up to a year or longer to actually get them out of the property legally.

_Kaiser_

athtrasna wrote: »

That is not the same as actually evicting the tenant. If the tenant decides to stay and ignore eviction notice, it can take up to a year or longer to actually get them out of the property legally.

How often does that happen though? Not very to be fair and let's be honest, most LL's and tenants will ignore the "rules" anyway if it suits their needs.

But ultimately - as I've said before - this comes down to the fact that the renting is seen as a temporary step on the road to ownership, or for those with no alternative... and it's thus treated as such by all concerned, including Government and regulators.

And again, tenants are in the vast majority of cases the ones who lose out when something goes wrong.

Grolschevik

athtrasna wrote:

That is not the same as actually evicting the tenant. If the tenant decides to stay and ignore eviction notice, it can take up to a year or longer to actually get them out of the property legally.

And three months deposit/rent is absolutely useless in such a scenario.

Graham

Grolschevik wrote: »

And three months deposit/rent is absolutely useless in such a scenario.

Number of landlords that I recall posting about evicting a tenant who has paid 3 months deposit:

0

Grolschevik

Graham wrote:

Number of landlords that I recall posting about evicting a tenant who has paid 3 months deposit:

I guess that recalled anecdote based on a so-far minority practice settles that, then.

Graham

Grolschevik wrote: »

I guess that recalled anecdote based on a so-far minority practice settles that, then.

Feel free to point out anything to backup the assertion that increased deposit does not reduce the likelihood of problem tenants.

Grolschevik

Graham wrote:

Feel free to point out anything to backup the assertion that increased deposit does not reduce the likelihood of problem tenants.

Just logic. And Love/Hate.

Feel free to point out the converse.

Graham

Grolschevik wrote: »

Just logic. And Love/Hate.

Feel free to point out the converse.

If I recall you opened the suggestion it made no difference, I kinda expected you'd be able to back it up somehow.

Grolschevik

Graham wrote:

If I recall you opened the suggestion it made no difference, I kinda expected you'd be able to back it up somehow.

I don't believe it would make any difference, and I don't believe the practice is sufficiently common for there to be any reliable empirical evidence either way.

However, logic tells me that if a tenant is going to be an arse, the amount of deposit will be irrelevant.

The flippant Love/Hate comment goes to the idea that there is at least one class of 'professionals' in Ireland with constant access to ready large sums of cash, and who probably won't be the best of tenants.

Extra deposit up front is no guarantee of anything, and there's no evidence, apart from speculation, on its efficacy in ensuring a 'better sort' of tenant.

Graham

Grolschevik wrote: »

However, logic tells me that if a tenant is going to be an arse, the amount of deposit will be irrelevant.

Logic tells me the more you spend on something, the more likely you are to look after it.

Logic tells me the more you stand to lose from a specific course of action, the less likely you are to follow that course of action.

Grolschevik

Graham wrote:

Logic tells me the more you spend on something, the more likely you are to look after it.

For a new possession, that holds true, but not in a rental/service situation. Your points do not in any way support an implication that there's any likelihood that the tenant will be good, not overhold, or won't just refuse to pay the last few months rent.

Graham

Grolschevik wrote: »

For a new possession, that holds true, but not in a rental/service situation. Your points do not in any way support an implication that there's any likelihood that the tenant will be good, not overhold, or won't just refuse to pay the last few months rent.

Surely in the 2 years you've been pushing the 'larger deposit makes no difference/love-hate' argument you've gathered at least something to be able to back the position up?

Labarbapostiza

Deleted User wrote: »

3 months seems OK to me. A lot of tenants like to think of their deposit as the last month rent.

A lot of landlords seem to think the deposit is theirs for keeps.

<mod snip>

Graham

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

A lot of landlords seem to think the deposit is theirs for keeps.

A lot more don't.

Boater123

It is very hard to argue with you, mainly because your posts don't make much sense and when rarely they do, I feel its purely accidental. They are coming across as pure rhetoric, of no substance and often contradictory. In short a rant.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Oh so the mortgage holder's right to their "home" trumps the tenant's right eh? Even though the former may not be paying for it, but the latter is?

And as for the "not related to the topic" argument.. it's exactly because of things like this that the supply is reduced, rents are going up, demand is up, and (some) LL's think they can get away with asking for more money upfront - despite offering no guarantees or security beyond the 1st year (which still has a few "get outs"). In short all of these factors are related, as is the political angle as property is a political animal in this country as we've seen in the boom, bust and "recovery" times. You can't just look t one element in isolation to find a solution or cause..

Are you maintaining that in some unfathomable way tenants paying 1st/last months and 1 month security are in some way subsidising householders in mortgage arrears??? If this is not what you meant then what do you mean?

You're telling everyone not to focus on one element as a solution (which accidentally makes sense). Yet continue to spew that lack of supply can be cured by evicting all those in mortgage arrears. That you resent them??? Its their fault that you cant get on the property ladder. Using this defunct argument as a way of justifying posting on a thread about 2 month rent/1 month deposit.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

How often does that happen though? Not very to be fair and let's be honest, most LL's and tenants will ignore the "rules" anyway if it suits their needs.

But ultimately - as I've said before - this comes down to the fact that the renting is seen as a temporary step on the road to ownership, or for those with no alternative... and it's thus treated as such by all concerned, including Government and regulators.

And again, tenants are in the vast majority of cases the ones who lose out when something goes wrong.

Which is it, most party's ignore tenancy law, but overholding rarely happens.

You second para just doesn't seem to make any point. "Blah - blah - renting is renting and is treated as renting by all interested party as renting" What does that mean?

To say that by the vast majority of those that loose out when something goes wrong are tenants, is just ill informed nonsense. A comment indicative of one hijacking a thread for their own personal rant about "them and us"....... LL Vs Tenant.

Nonsense that just can't be argued with.

Grolschevik

Ah, the "linky?" resort! I wasn't aware I was pushing any argument in any systematic way, so why would I be gathering evidence to back it up? It just seems obvious to me that the size of the deposit bears no necessary relation to tenant conduct.

Second, as I said before, in the absence of any relevant Irish-based evidence either way, deductive reasoning is all we have to go on.

Third, one of the standard reasons mentioned here time and again is the fact that a landlord is entrusting the care of an asset worth many tens of thousands to a tenant. Why would an extra few grand of a deposit be sufficient to mitigate that risk?

As I said earlier, this will not necessarily weed out bad tenants, but it will inconvenience average or good tenants, and will be a cash cow for dodgy landlords.

Fourth, I'm flattered that you apparently have seen fit to go through my past posts in order to suggest I have some sort of an agenda. I don't. It's merely what I see as common, logical sense.

I also have no interest in a one-on-one back-and-forth argument with you. You don't agree with me. I think you're wrong not to. Grand. I have made my points, and they are there for others to read and mull over and agree or not as they see fit.

Grolschevik

Graham wrote:

Surely in the 2 years you've been pushing the 'larger deposit makes no difference/love-hate' argument you've gathered at least something to be able to back the position up?

Edit: an edit of my post above deleted the comment I was replying to, post 81. So here it is. On phone; apologies.

Boater123

Grolschevik wrote: »

Ah, the "linky?" resort! I wasn't aware I was pushing any argument in any systematic way, so why would I be gathering evidence to back it up? It just seems obvious to me that the size of the deposit bears no necessary relation to tenant conduct.

Second, as I said before, in the absence of any relevant Irish-based evidence either way, deductive reasoning is all we have to go on.

Third, one of the standard reasons mentioned here time and again is the fact that a landlord is entrusting the care of an asset worth many tens of thousands to a tenant. Why would an extra few grand of a deposit be sufficient to mitigate that risk?

As I said earlier, this will not necessarily weed out bad tenants, but it will inconvenience average or good tenants, and will be a cash cow for dodgy landlords.

Fourth, I'm flattered that you apparently have seen fit to go through my past posts in order to suggest I have some sort of an agenda. I don't. It's merely what I see as common, logical sense.

I also have no interest in a one-on-one back-and-forth argument with you. You don't agree with me. I think you're wrong not to. Grand. I have made my points, and they are there for others to read and mull over and agree or not as they see fit.

A prospective tenant applying saying they have a weeks rent in advance and asking can they pay a bit off the security each week after they move in, is indicative of someone whom has problems managing their money.

A prospective tenant applying offering 1st/last months rent and a month deposit is indicative of someone whom doesn't have a problem managing money.

How is that for "deductive reasoning"?

Graham

Grolschevik wrote: »

Second, as I said before, in the absence of any relevant Irish-based evidence either way, deductive reasoning is all we have to go on.

From a fairly long-term poster on an Irish property forum:

In 2013 we increased the deposit asked of new applicant tenants to one and a half month's rent and we took some statistics.
Under 12% of people even questioned the increase.
None of these had a negative response and only one person so far in 2013 has said the deposit was too high for them to take an apartment
(we manage over 200 apartments in Dublin city).

I've worked in property management for over 10 years and I've never seen such tenant compliance since we introduced this.

The post goes on and includes subsequent updates but I think the above snippet gives you the gist.

Grolschevik

Boater123 wrote:

How is that for "deductive reasoning"?

Because if the latter actually becomes the norm for rentals in Ireland, then in functional terms there will be no difference to the present situation in terms of deterring bad tenants.

So while some might argue that higher deposit requirements will lead to better tenants, if most landlords do it, it will cancel out any possible benefit in the long run.

Labarbapostiza

Boater123 wrote: »

You're telling everyone not to focus on one element as a solution (which accidentally makes sense). Yet continue to spew that lack of supply can be cured by evicting all those in mortgage arrears.

That you resent them??? Its their fault that you cant get on the property ladder.

I'm disgusted too. People on the property ladder are decent and respectable people. And decent and respectable people can accumulate mortgage arrears through no fault of their own. Our society would gone to the dogs if we were to see these people kicked out onto the street.


Now...the tramps in rented accommodation....that's a different story; they should be booted out on their holes when they get into arrears. Out on their holes.

beauf

Sad Professor wrote: »

The subject of landlords demanding 3 months rent in advance....what about tenants struggling to put a roof their heads in the middle of a housing crisis. Should they cough up these exorbitant deposit increases? Do they have a choice? Or does the government need to step in and regulate the market to prevent this?....

You're largely missing the point. Making it even less attractive or more attractive for LL's won't fix anything. Because 3 months deposits are only a side issue. LL are largely irrelevent to the problem.

At the beginning of this month supply was at its lowest point on record, with fewer than 3,100 properties available to rent nationwide.

On the same day last year the figure was 4,300 and in 2009, there were 23,000 homes to rent. Availability in Dublin remains very low, with just 1,100 homes on the market at the start of May, compared to an average of 3,800 in the years 2006-15.

Supply is falling like a rocket.

Asking the Govt to tackle issue with LL is kinda ironic. Considering its Govt causing the issue of supply and deposits, not LLs.

FIGURES RECENTLY RELEASED by the Department of the Environment show that local authorities built just 75 social housing units during the whole of 2015 – the lowest on the official record, which dates back to 1970.

http://www.thejournal.ie/64-local-authority-social-housing-houses-built-in-2015-alan-kelly-2747473-May2016/