Letting Agents requesting very private data prior to viewing

Paz-CCFC

Landlords, as data controllers, have an obligation under the Data Protection Act to ensure that the data they collect is not excessive for the purpose that it's collected.

There was a similar discussion on here a few months ago. See p20-21, Case Study 5 of this document. It seems that only after the tenant has been accepted, should the landlord be requesting things like PPSN, utilities, bank account details etc. At the application stage, it looks like the DPC's view is that it is excessive and the landlord has no business collecting this kind of data.

If you feel strongly enough about it, report the landlord to the DPC. Whilst there are valid points about landlords being in a tough position regarding tenants overholding without paying rent, breaching another piece of legislation isn't the way to go about tackling that issue.

Samuel T. Cogley

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Landlords, as data controllers, have an obligation under the Data Protection Act to ensure that the data they collect is not excessive for the purpose that it's collected.

There was a similar discussion on here a few months ago. See p20-21, Case Study 5 of this document. It seems that only after the tenant has been accepted, should the landlord be requesting things like PPSN, utilities, bank account details etc. At the application stage, it looks like the DPC's view is that it is excessive and the landlord has no business collecting this kind of data.

If you feel strongly enough about it, report the landlord to the DPC. Whilst there are valid points about landlords being in a tough position regarding tenants overholding without paying rent, breaching another piece of legislation isn't the way to go about tackling that issue.

+1. As vital as this data is, it should not be collected at the application stage. Agents doing so should be reported.

the_syco

gizmo81 wrote: »

They should ban landlords from seeking work references and seeing bank transactions if the legislation is to work as intended.

Sounds like proof of being able to pay.

gizmo81 wrote: »

At the end of the day theres a contract and we uniquely in Ireland have a process for enforcing that contract in the RTB, everything else should be irrelevant.

RTB are generally seen as useless for the landlords.

Stoner

Zillah wrote:

This is exactly the sort of impunity they can get away with when the (sellers) market is in such a sorry state. Really should be the other way around: making an effort to convince someone the home is worth renting.

At the end of the day they want to make sure they will get paid, I'm sure that is their motivation

gizmo81

I've been through the RTB it's not pro-tenant. Though I won my case.

Rents are double market rate currently. If you consider 1700 market rate and not the false economy it is then you're part of the problem.

Rightly so, you cannot discriminate against someone because they are disabled or out of work. no business can so LL can't get an exemption.

I don't think vetting counts for anything, there's a contract, and you can enforce it through RTB.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Why?

Ireland has historically been very pro-tenant and very anti-violation of the dwelling. The historic reasons for this are clear. You have to issue the relevant notices, get a date with the RTB, get a decision, go through the appeals process (probably) and then, and only then will you get to enforce that decision.

When enforcing that decision a judge has to weight the right to private property of the LL vs the inviolability of the the dwelling of the tenant and that they are potentially being made homeless. Unsurprisingly Judges give the tenant time to vacate and possibly extensions depending on the circumstances. 12 months is conservative.

While this is going on the tenant is at best not paying rent and at worst, ****ting in black plastic bags and ripping all the wiring out. If the tenant has no money recovery of any damages is impossible. If the have money it's merely improbable.

If you don't want to rent, it's simple buy your own place. If you can't then expect a LL to try and protect their investment. 70% of LLs have less than three (or is it four) properties. Massive numbers of those would get out if they could. Who do you think you'll be able to rent off of if the situation is made any worse. We already have to:

- Rent below market rate
- Pay over 50% in income tax
- Consider someone on rent allowance/HAP the same as someone who we can take on with out the rigmarole of SW paperwork and the knowledge that if an SW officer is in a bad mood the rent will be stopped.
- Have to deal with an incredibly pro-tenant arbitration panel
- Have very little means to vet tenants.

Enough is enough.

I'm all for helping people who can't afford a home. No one should be homeless. I do that by being tax compliant. It's not up to private landlords to solve the social housing crisis anymore than it's Tesco's job to feed the hungry.

gizmo81

Personally, I don't think we need more private landlords in fact we need less and better quality. As posters said it's not their problem to solve the homeless crisis

No landlord should be allowed to directly let, instead using a third party and all must pay a deposit to RTB like the tenants.

bmwguy

I enjoy reading this forum, don't post too often in it but one thing I take out of most threads is the fact I am glad I am neither a tenant nor a landlord anymore. I rented for a couple of years and I even let out my house for a year when I moved away for work. Both were relatively straightforward straightforward compared to what goes on out there.

The rent cap is a good thing in that it protects tenants now there needs to be a proper system to protect landlords. Market is so dysfunctional at the moment its a joke. Landlords are terrified tenants won't pay and there is nothing they can really do about it.

athtrasna

Mod note

Can we get back on topic please

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

I've been through the RTB it's not pro-tenant. Though I won my case.

Rents are double market rate currently. If you consider 1700 market rate and not the false economy it is then you're part of the problem.

Rightly so, you cannot discriminate against someone because they are disabled or out of work. no business can so LL can't get an exemption.

I don't think vetting counts for anything, there's a contract, and you can enforce it through RTB.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about re enforcement. That's exactly why LL's are having to request this info.

The rest of the points don't relate to the OP so given the mods instructions I'll not address those.

If anyone has a suggestion for how one actually proves payment of rent previously without resorting to bank statements I'd be delighted to hear it, I'm open to better ways of doing things.

athtrasna

big syke do not post on this thread again

Mod

aloooof

Thanks for replies all, just catching up on this thread now.

Boater123 wrote: »

A tenant needs to prove they can cover the rent, especially in today's rental market. Can you think of a better way of proving it than payslips or bank statements.

A tenant. But not every applicant before they've even viewed the place (which I accept you concede here later on).

Boater123 wrote: »

However personal financial data should not be necessary before a viewing. It feels a bit like when EA's try to find out how much property buyers are mortgage approved for in order to squeeze a few more bucks from them

davo10 wrote: »

If the LL has set that criteria for selecting a tenant in a bulging market, then that's his/her prerogative. There is no requirement to agree to it, but someone else probably will and they will get the property. In a particular area, that EA might have multiple properties so refusal may prevent you from renting the others as well.

I don't agree with this. If that criteria is to see the past 3 months of Bank Statements and Payslips for every applicant, then it's beyond reasonable, imo. And also in the opinion of the Data Protection Commisioner it would seem, as evidenced by this post:

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Landlords, as data controllers, have an obligation under the Data Protection Act to ensure that the data they collect is not excessive for the purpose that it's collected.

There was a similar discussion on here a few months ago. See p20-21, Case Study 5 of this document. It seems that only after the tenant has been accepted, should the landlord be requesting things like PPSN, utilities, bank account details etc. At the application stage, it looks like the DPC's view is that it is excessive and the landlord has no business collecting this kind of data.

If you feel strongly enough about it, report the landlord to the DPC. Whilst there are valid points about landlords being in a tough position regarding tenants overholding without paying rent, breaching another piece of legislation isn't the way to go about tackling that issue.

Appreciate the replies, I think this is the advice I'm going to go with, and only if there is an offer of tenancy. If that rules me out of viewing some properties, so be it.

gizmo81 wrote: »

We gave bank statements as requested but I redacted every piece of information bar my address and name on the statement, they didn't say anything except my details with the iban and bic.

davo10

Op you might consider it beyond reasonable, but a LL may argue that it is reasonable to ensure that the tenant is capable of paying the rent. To me, it's a complete waste of time asking for bank statements and I wouldn't do it, but then other LL would not ask for the equivalent of 3 month's rent up front. I've been told a good few times that it is unreasonable to ask for this, but at the same time my properties have never been empty. Every LL wants to try and minimise risk, there is no definitive way to do this as the more you try, the more unreasonable tenants think it is. What is difinitive though, is the fact that errant tenants are a huge problem for property owners.

Boater123

aloooof wrote: »

A tenant. But not every applicant before they've even viewed the place (which I accept you concede here later on)

I made two points in my post. One addressed the post to which I was replying, that one reference was not enough to hand over the keys.

The second point I made was that there was no need for such data until at least the stage where the prospective tenant has viewed and declared that they actually want the property.

I conceded nothing

aloooof

Boater123 wrote: »

I made two points in my post. One addressed the post to which I was replying, that one reference was not enough to hand over the keys.

The second point I made was that there was no need for such data until at least the stage where the prospective tenant has viewed and declared that they actually want the property.

I conceded nothing

Fair enough. I was simply comparing your points to my situation where the agency were asking every applicant to provide this data before they had seen the property. Fwiw, it seems like we actually agree (concessions or otherwise).

the_syco

gizmo81 wrote: »

Personally, I don't think we need more private landlords in fact we need less and better quality. As posters said it's not their problem to solve the homeless crisis

We need state controlled houses for people on SW.

aloooof wrote: »

A tenant. But not every applicant before they've even viewed the place

I'm guessing that this prevents the landlord wasting his time showing the house to people that are unable to show proof of funds.

Over here in Toronto, most landlords of decent properties (and even a few sh|tty ones) want you to send them your credit check that you've done yourself before they even consider you.

aloooof

davo10 wrote: »

Op you might consider it beyond reasonable, but a LL may argue that it is reasonable to ensure that the tenant is capable of paying the rent. To me, it's a complete waste of time asking for bank statements and I wouldn't do it, but then other LL would not ask for the equivalent of 3 month's rent up front. I've been told a good few times that it is unreasonable to ask for this, but at the same time my properties have never been empty. Every LL wants to try and minimise risk, there is no definitive way to do this as the more you try, the more unreasonable tenants think it is. What is difinitive though, is the fact that errant tenants are a huge problem for property owners.

From the previously mentioned report, it seems as though the Data Protection Commissioner also deems it beyond reasonable, so surely that trumps whatever LL's may argue.

Ultimately, I understand that LL's want to minimise risk, and needless to say, that's completely fair on their part. I would be relatively happy to provide redacted Bank Statements once offerered the tenancy in order to secure it, as another poster suggested. But to have to provide Bank Statements and (especially) Payslips to attain a viewing is beyond excessive.

davo10

"Seems as though" is not the same as "prohibits the practice of". Maybe they have a difinitive wording on this which prohibits the practice of requesting bank statements or, they may just be giving an opinion. Perhaps the EA may just have to show they are in compliance with data controller requirements. Either way, if the LL requires it and you won't provide it, you won't get the property.

Dravokivich

davo10 wrote: »

"Seems as though" is not the same as "prohibits the practice of". Maybe they have a difinitive wording on this which prohibits the practice of requesting bank statements or, they may just be giving an opinion. Perhaps the EA may just have to show they are in compliance with data controller requirements. Either way, if the LL requires it and you won't provide it, you won't get the property.

Sometimes it feels as if Landlords / Lettings agencies forget they are providing a service to a customer...

aloooof

davo10 wrote: »

"Seems as though" is not the same as "prohibits the practice of". Maybe they have a difinitive wording on this which prohibits the practice of requesting bank statements or, they may just be giving an opinion. Perhaps the EA may just have to show they are in compliance with data controller requirements. Either way, if the LL requires it and you won't provide it, you won't get the property.

Looks as though you're correct, judging by this sentence from the report:

We told the letting agency that we could not see any basis for collecting bank details, PPS numbers or copies of utility bills at application or property-viewing stage and we urged it to cease the practice immediately.

So that would suggest they don't / can't enforce it. Having said that, I have heard that new EU regulations regarding data protection are coming down the line (GDPR I believe it's called) that could carry severe fines, so, personally, I hope that would encourage agencies to change this policy.

Samuel T. Cogley

Dravokivich wrote: »

Sometimes it feels as if Landlords / Lettings agencies forget they are providing a service to a customer...

Ultimately, like shop lifting and insurance fraud, who do you think is ultimately paying for delinquent tenants?

davo10

I'm actually in agreement with you op, it is poor form by the EA, but it is typical of the problems with the rental sector, the Government has abdicated responsibility for regulation.

As for the comment above about servicing customers, that's rubbish, these are business transaction where one side has considerably more rights than the other. It is very easy for a tenant to flee a property and extremely difficult for a Landlord to evict.

dr.fuzzenstein

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Mick, if he's like me and doesn't use an agent will simply want sight of them, ideally through mobile banking there and then. I would ask to be shown the rent payment to the previous LL. As for the slippery slope argent it's a red herring IMO. What LLs and agents are trying to do is 'credit check' tenants. That's it. It's a perfectly normal, standard practice done all around the world. It's just that Ireland is arseways about it.

I'd much prefer a reference from HR, a quick call to confirm, a reference from the previous LL, quick call to confirm and a credit score. Life would be much easier for everyone. That way it wouldn't matter if the person was on 20K a year or 200K it would come down to how well they manage their finances. How else am I know?

And before anyone starts, yes, I am more than happy for the tenant to see the mortgage account is up to date and that I gave an adequate balance in my P&L account to cover issues such as something breaking down. I also wish it was the done thing for tenants to be able to contact the previous tenants to get a ref of the Landlord, sadly it's not.

Mick and other "crack of the arse" LL are not financial institutions and have no data protection policies and procedures. I might as well show my bank statements to various random people on the high street. I can only hope that legislation comes in that will stamp out this practice double quick.
I would happy if there was an independent agency that is properly qualified to handle this stuff and Mick can get the info that I'm financially sound and he keeps his paws of my personal financial information. And any LL could get this info, saves everyone so much time and hassle.
Its not a red herring it is an invasion of my private sphere and a serious data protection issue. I'd rather someone properly qualified handled my personal info instead of a whole raft of random Joe Bloggs about which I know SFA. Remember, its not just you, but if someone views a whole heap of rentals, he has to hand over his financial over to a whole bunch of potentially dodgy people. I can only advise everyone to refuse to do so if you value your financial security.
Or would you stand in the shopping street and hand out your bank statements to random strangers? Because it amounts to the same thing.

As for reference from HR, that's also quite cheeky but should be doable. But a quick call? To my HR manager? Whatever you're smoking, I'll have me some of that. Sounds like a good trip. Call to previous LL, sounds reasonable.

As for your info, same as mine, wouldn't it be easier if an agency can keep score of landlords as well as tenants? It would make things so much simpler.

Dravokivich

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Ultimately, like shop lifting and insurance fraud, who do you think is ultimately paying for delinquent tenants?

Bad analogy. Shopkeepers don't ask to see your wallet.

utmbuilder

example 1

its also exceptionally risky, with id , pps and a bill scan you can open a kbc current account,

all done through email, apply for credit cards , loans.

example 2

with such information a ltd company could be registered, and a vat number could be obtained



--

this type of information in the UK would have your Identify screwed for 100 grand, if you had a clear background

Samuel T. Cogley

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Mick and other "crack of the arse" LL are not financial institutions and have no data protection policies and procedures. I might as well show my bank statements to various random people on the high street. I can only hope that legislation comes in that will stamp out this practice double quick.

Eh? As pointed out it's not stored. The information is 'processed' if you want to call it that. there and then. I've far more interesting topics to talk about with my friends than my tenants bank statements.

Oh great idea, more poorly thought out legislation that causes even more LL's to exit the market. Fantastic idea all around.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I would happy if there was an independent agency that is properly qualified to handle this stuff and Mick can get the info that I'm financially sound and he keeps his paws of my personal financial information. And any LL could get this info, saves everyone so much time and hassle.

Its not a red herring it is an invasion of my private sphere and a serious data protection issue. I'd rather someone properly qualified handled my personal info instead of a whole raft of random Joe Bloggs about which I know SFA. Remember, its not just you, but if someone views a whole heap of rentals, he has to hand over his financial over to a whole bunch of potentially dodgy people. I can only advise everyone to refuse to do so if you value your financial security.
Or would you stand in the shopping street and hand out your bank statements to random strangers? Because it amounts to the same thing.

Then rent off an agency, who incidentally are the same idiots requesting this stuff to even get a viewing. Their policy is so well written and researched they aren't even aware of the linked case study.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As for reference from HR, that's also quite cheeky but should be doable. But a quick call? To my HR manager? Whatever you're smoking, I'll have me some of that. Sounds like a good trip. Call to previous LL, sounds reasonable.

Nice and simple then, buy your own place. I can assure you the HR manager will get a call to follow up the salary certs.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As for your info, same as mine, wouldn't it be easier if an agency can keep score of landlords as well as tenants? It would make things so much simpler.

Precisely what's been forward by me and other landlords. But there isn't a proper credit scoring system in Ireland. So we have to make additional checks. Your issue with this seems to be some misplaced notion your data is safer with a letting agency than a small time LL. Firstly it simply isn't, secondly the industry in Ireland is one man operations, some of us choose not to use agencies. That's fine, don't rent with us, seems a bit stupid to me though as you're limiting your potential properties on faulty assumptions.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Bad analogy. Shopkeepers don't ask to see your wallet.

Poor criticism, buy on credit and they're looking at more than just your wallet. You also managed to completely miss the point. If a LL has been stung for 10-50K or more in lost rent, legal fees and damage, tenants are ultimately footing the bill.

murphaph

Just rented out an apartment in Berlin. As happens usually people who got the place came armed with plenty of supporting documentation to help prove to me that they are "decent". Flathunters here have a pack like a CV+. Even those with credit scores brought their bank statements (completely unredacted).

Right or wrong, that's the way it is here now. Demand is much higher than supply, so applicants compete. Many asked could they offer over the asked rent to secure the flat.

handlemaster

Dravokivich wrote: »

Last time I went through a letting agent, all I needed was the following:

Reference letter from current LandLord
Reference letter from current employer
Proof of current address
Proof of ID

They do not need to see your banking history or payslips for any period of time. I'd find that quite excessive and consider challenging or just walking away from anyone inquiring about it. It's none of their business really.

that info doesnt prove you can pay

handlemaster

Dravokivich wrote: »

Sometimes it feels as if Landlords / Lettings agencies forget they are providing a service to a customer...

like wise goes for tenants. its the bad ones of which there are many who make it necessary to collect higher deposits and more personal info.

davo10

utmbuilder wrote: »

example 1

its also exceptionally risky, with id , pps and a bill scan you can open a kbc current account,

all done through email, apply for credit cards , loans.

example 2

with such information a ltd company could be registered, and a vat number could be obtained



--

this type of information in the UK would have your Identify screwed for 100 grand, if you had a clear background

Over reacting a little? If you pay your deposit with a cheque, the EA has all that info without needing a bank statement. I know EAs are not popular, but they are hardly arch criminals scamming tenants of €100k.

Boater123

I'm reading a thread that is mainly debating the pro's and con's of reference/ credit checks when applying for a tenancy.

Getting back to the OP's situation, how commonplace is the practise of EA and LL demanding this information prior to a viewing, and assuming it's not provided precludes one from a viewing?

OP, in your opening post you said more and more letting agents are requesting this info, but you did not say whether or not you have been denied a viewing because you haven't provided the info?

Have you been refused a viewing in such circumstances?