Threshold: Landlords charging 2 month's rent deposit 'where they can't increase rent'

Jasper79

gizmo81 wrote: »

It's great to see Threshold are on to this. Hopefully we'll see this as a matter of urgency.

Yes and more landlords pull out of market, cause not worth the risk. Will be a great result alright.

1.5 to 2 months should be norm, held by a third party .

awec

Jasper79 wrote: »

Yes and more landlords pull out of market, cause not worth the risk. Will be a great result alright.

1.5 to 2 months should be norm, held by a third party .

Is there a sudden epidemic of houses being destroyed or rent not being paid or something? Landlords have asked for 1 month for years, indeed this 1.5 to 2 month thing has only really arrived because landlords now hold all the power in the market so I am not sure this "not worth the risk" stuff really holds any water at all.

It's all a bit cyclical really. Tenants are using the deposit as the last months rent because there have been many cases of dodgy landlords not doing the right thing when it comes to returning deposits. Landlords are then asking for larger deposits, at which point tenants will just withhold more rent. And so it goes on, and on, and on. Landlords blame tenants, tenants blame landlords.

That said, I'd be ok with 2 months if it was held by a third party and returned with interest, with the 3rd party having the power to arbitrate disputes around deposits being returned (and I don't mean the current system of having to spend time going through a PRTB dispute). Can't see that happening though.

beauf

They should expand threshold to provide low cost housing.

beauf

awec wrote: »

Is there a sudden epidemic of houses being destroyed or something? Landlords have asked for 1 month for years, indeed this 1.5 to 2 month thing has only really arrived because landlords now hold all the power in the market so I am not sure this "not worth the risk" stuff really holds any water at all. ....

I would guess over-holding is a bigger problem now, since its so much more expensive to recover control of a property.

Michael D Not Higgins

beauf wrote: »

They should expand threshold to provide low cost housing.

Nah they're too busy telling tenants to abuse the legal termination proceedings, overhold past termination notice dates, dispute cases at the RTB regardless of merit, etc. to bother actually helping with the housing crisis in Ireland.

Can you imagine the uproar if there was a landlord advocacy group, funded partly by the government, giving advice to landlords on how to game the system and abuse the RTB to the detriment of tenants?

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I would guess over-holding is a bigger problem now, since its so much more expensive to recover control of a property.

And certain charities actually advise their clients to over-hold, contributing to the need to increase deposits.

Jasper79

awec wrote: »

Is there a sudden epidemic of houses being destroyed or something? Landlords have asked for 1 month for years, indeed this 1.5 to 2 month thing has only really arrived because landlords now hold all the power in the market so I am not sure this "not worth the risk" stuff really holds any water at all.

That said, I'd be ok with 2 months if it was held by a third party and returned with interest, with the 3rd party having the power to arbitrate disputes around deposits being returned. Can't see that happening though.

It just adds to risk to the landlords.

Government deciding to implement RPZ and other changes they decide to introduce impact landlords investment. Landlords who rented to good tennants below market rate hit the hardest by this, as won't be able to catch up to market rates as long as the RPZ is in effect.

Risk of overholdings and landlords left with 12-18 months of mortgage payments while waiting to evict tennants.

Risk of tennants using their deposits as last months' rent, and not enough to cover any damage.

The 2 months deposit is a little help to offset some of the risks.

Landlords hold minimal power with a government that can change the rules at a whim.

Again 100% agree a with an impartial third party holding the 2 months deposit.

beauf

Fine if its the charities property.

gizmo81

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Nah they're too busy telling tenants to abuse the legal termination proceedings, overhold past termination notice dates, dispute cases at the RTB regardless of merit, etc. to bother actually helping with the housing crisis in Ireland.

Can you imagine the uproar if there was a landlord advocacy group, funded partly by the government, giving advice to landlords on how to game the system and abuse the RTB to the detriment of tenants?

Graham wrote: »

And certain charities actually advise their clients to over-hold, contributing to the need to increase deposits.

Isn't this all just hearsay?

awec

Jasper79 wrote: »

It just adds to risk to the landlords.

Government deciding to implement RPZ and other changes they decide to introduce impact landlords investment. Landlords who rented to good tennants below market rate hit the hardest by this, as won't be able to catch up to market rates as long as the RPZ is in effect.

Risk of overholdings and landlords left with 12-18 months of mortgage payments while waiting to evict tennants.

Risk of tennants using their deposits as last months' rent, and not enough to cover any damage.

The 2 months deposit is a little help to offset some of the risks.

Landlords hold minimal power with a government that can change the rules at a whim.

Again 100% agree a with an impartial third party holding the 2 months deposit.

Yea but lets face it, this was not widespread (you'd think reading this forum that before the RPZ came into effect that no landlord ever charged the market rate and they were all lovely people doing their tenants a favour).

At the end of the day yes, RPZs are pretty crap, but people need somewhere to live and it was the only way to prevent landlords ripping the arse out of it. Hopefully a temporary measure until more houses are built and the market becomes more fluid than it is today. I do feel sorry for some landlords but not so much for others.

Askthe EA

gizmo81 wrote: »

Isn't this all just hearsay?

Ive certainly experienced tenants being advised to overstay.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

Isn't this all just hearsay?

No, it was reported by RTE in a special they did on rentals. Also numerous occurrences of it shown in the forum here.

Jasper79

awec wrote: »

Yea but lets face it, this was not widespread (you'd think reading this forum that before the RPZ came into effect that no landlord ever charged the market rate and they were all lovely people doing their tenants a favour).

At the end of the day yes, RPZs are pretty crap, but people need somewhere to live and it was the only way to prevent landlords ripping the arse out of it. Hopefully a temporary measure until more houses are built and the market becomes more fluid than it is today. I do feel sorry for some landlords but not so much for others.

So let the landlords pay the price for people that either can't afford or don't want the pay the market value to live where they would like to . Again more landlords leave and less property available to rent . Very short sighted view. Especially when the volumes aren't being built to supply the market.

gizmo81

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No, it was reported by RTE in a special they did on rentals. Also numerous occurrences of it shown in the forum here.

I'll try find the RTE special anything said on boards is hearsay.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

Isn't this all just hearsay?

As I haven't had cause to ask Thresholds advice in such a scenario then yes it could probably be described as hearsay.

However:

1) it's been said often enough by enough unconnected people that it's credible.

2) this is a discussion forum not a Court.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'll try find the RTE special anything said on boards is hearsay.

Trusting RTE to fully research something is a tad naive IMO they're simply looking for ratings. I'd be taking posts from people here before RTE any day of the week. However if you'd like to throw in legal terms like hearsay (let's not get the dictionary out again) then all you really need to do is look at the RTB disputes.

You've been railing against this with and I'd be interested in your reasoning. Do you genuinely believe this isn't a problem? Genuine question. If you do think tenants have show that they can be problematic what is your solution, do you realise that at the moment, as it stands additional deposits are about the only thing a LL can do or do you have another suggestion?

FAILSAFE 00

Threshold, the shower of bastards that tell tenants to dig their feet in if for some reason they can't pay the rent.

Landlords won't get rich requesting an additional months rent has a deposit. They simply want to protect their property.

wordofwarning

gizmo81 wrote: »

It's great to see Threshold are on to this. Hopefully we'll see this as a matter of urgency.

I think most landlords would be delighted with only accepting a one months deposit. Under the condition, if a tenant has not paid their rent. They are on the kerb within 30 days, no if's, but's or maybe's.

The tenants benefits as he no longer needs large deposits to protect from non-paying tenants. Tenants who are extremely bad with their money (who probably should not be renting from the private market in the first place...) don't have to come with the norm of two/three months rent like other countries.

Threshold has zero place in 21st century Ireland. Legal advice should be from your local Council or Citizens Info. It is bizarre that a charity is telling people want to do when having issues with a landlord. I can't think of any other charity that does anything close to it ie people sitting in an office giving advice.

IMO I think you should question why landlords want two months deposit in the first place. If eviction was easier, deposits would be smaller.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'll try find the RTE special anything said on boards is hearsay.

There comes a point when you can't ignore multiple cases of hearsay.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057343907

So roll on to last week and I was watching a program about increasing rents called "through the roof" on RTE.
There was a woman in the same situation. She cant afford market rate and rent allowance wont cover market rate so she was being evicted. On the last day it showed her calling threshold who advised her to overhold and that she didnt have to move out.

https://www.rte.ie/player/gb/show/through-the-roof-rental-crisis-30003139/
(not available on RTE player currently)

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

As I haven't had cause to ask Thresholds advice in such a scenario then yes it could probably be described as hearsay.

However:

1) it's been said often enough by enough unconnected people that it's credible.

2) this is a discussion forum not a Court.

Hearsay isn't confined to the courtroom. Hearsay is information which cannot be substantiated, that is a rumour.

hearsay
ˈhɪəseɪ/Submit
noun
information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
"according to hearsay, Bez had managed to break his arm"

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Trusting RTE to fully research something is a tad naive IMO they're simply looking for ratings. I'd be taking posts from people here before RTE any day of the week. However if you'd like to throw in legal terms like hearsay (let's not get the dictionary out again) then all you really need to do is look at the RTB disputes.

You've been railing against this with and I'd be interested in your reasoning. Do you genuinely believe this isn't a problem? Genuine question. If you do think tenants have show that they can be problematic what is your solution, do you realise that at the moment, as it stands additional deposits are about the only thing a LL can do or do you have another suggestion?

I didn't say i have faith or trust in RTE, Michael Higgins said RTE did a special report on this and didn't provide a link, (Edit: He subsequently did Thanks )so I said I'd search for it. That's all.

Railing against what? Do I believe Threshold is a problem?

beauf

awec wrote: »

....RPZs are pretty crap, but people need somewhere to live and it was the only way to prevent landlords ripping the arse out of it....

I wonder how many switched to AirBnB

According to independent website Inside Airbnb, more than 6,729 properties are available on Airbnb right now, with roughly half of those constituting entire lets (3,165).

Construction had started on Social housing 1,829 units

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

I didn't say i have faith or trust in RTE, Michael Higgins said RTE did a special report on this and didn't provide a link, so I said I'd search for it. That's all.

Railing against what? Do I believe Threshold is a problem?

The title of the thread although I concede we've gone about a light-year off topic.

I'm not going to get into another semantic debate but you might want to look at the implications of some of what you're saying before hitting post. Saying anything else is hearsay is suggestive that you believe the RTE report is not.

Anyway that issues been dealt with so, what is your reasoning here. It's been demonstrated to you (I would suggest) that it's either allowable discrimination or more likely not discrimination at all so was that your argument against it or?

Pkiernan

A rogue tenant cost me 4000 euro.
2 grand in back rent and 2 in damages.

Next tenant will be putting down at least 2 months rent.
Don't like it, buy a caravan.

awec

Jasper79 wrote: »

So let the landlords pay the price for people that either can't afford or don't want the pay the market value to live where they would like to . Again more landlords leave and less property available to rent . Very short sighted view. Especially when the volumes aren't being built to supply the market.

Preferable to people not having somewhere to live. Again, hopefully a temporary measure until they sort the lack of supply out which should hopefully drive down rents anyway.

Samuel T. Cogley

Pkiernan wrote: »

A rogue tenant cost me 4000 euro.
2 grand in back rent and 2 in damages.

Next tenant will be putting down at least 2 months rent.
Don't like it, buy a caravan.

In fairness you can carry the loss over, not that it makes is any easier if the next one does the same thing, and for some LLs one is enough to bust them.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The title of the thread although I concede we've gone about a light-year off topic.

I'm not going to get into another semantic debate but you might want to look at the implications of some of what you're saying before hitting post. Saying anything else is hearsay is suggestive that you believe the RTE report is not.

Anyway that issues been dealt with so, what is your reasoning here. It's been demonstrated to you (I would suggest) that it's either allowable discrimination or more likely not discrimination at all so was that your argument against it or?

A piece of investigative journalism over made up identities on the internets?!?!

No it's not allowable discrimination. And if anything this thread shows we need a test case with the IHRC as a matter of urgency.

Jasper79

awec wrote: »

Preferable to people not having somewhere to live. Again, hopefully a temporary measure until they sort the lack of supply out which should hopefully drive down rents anyway.

There are almost always places to live, Just people unwilling to go where they are .

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

A piece of investigative journalism over made up identities on the internets?!?!

No it's not allowable discrimination. And if anything this thread shows we need a test case with the IHRC as a matter of urgency.

Okay so to clarify you think it's simply discrimination? If so thanks for the clarification.

awec

Jasper79 wrote: »

There are almost always places to live, Just people unwilling to go where they are .

Yea, cause people tend to have jobs which also happen to be concentrated in these RPZs.