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

Dravokivich

beauf wrote: »

The reality is there is a shortage of rental properties. Shortage of LL's. Making it uneconomical to be a LL isn't gong to fix anything. it will just make the shortage worse. LL should have stronger protection, to match the protection tenants have.

I've never been keen on the idea we should accept the perception that the relationship between a landlord and tenant should be viewed as "landlord versus tenant". I acknoedge there needs to be better support for both parties. But this doesn't come in the guise of a ransom.

Do you know roughly what would be the actual cost to the deposits eleswhere you were referencing?

beauf

gizmo81 wrote: »

A... d if anything this thread shows we need a test case with the IHRC as a matter of urgency.

It certainly shows why we keep introducing policies to reduce supply.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

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

Including terms and conditions in a lease that will exclude people based on their employment status is discrimination.

Three months deposit €4500
Three months rent advance €4500

€9000 before you set foot in a property?

That's if you can find a property in Dublin City for €1500 a month

FAILSAFE 00

awec wrote: »

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

They just need to commute like everyone else.

Jasper79

awec wrote: »

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

Then either commute or get another job. You expect a stranger to subsidize you ?

irelandrover

gizmo81 wrote: »

Including terms and conditions in a lease that will exclude people based on their employment status is discrimination.

Three months deposit €4500
Three months rent advance €4500

€9000 before you set foot in a property?

That's if you can find a property in Dublin City for €1500 a month

Based on that then any property with rent above the rent allowance is discrimatory?

gizmo81

beauf wrote: »

It certainly shows why we keep introducing policies to reduce supply.

It's absolute scaremongering to suggest a mass exodus of landlords.

There is too much easy money to be made, if anything there is an influx of landlords going by Daft evidenced on Funny Houses Thread turning sheds, prefabs, etc into rental homes.

awec

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

They just need to commute like everyone else.

Commute from where?

awec

Jasper79 wrote: »

Then either commute or get another job. You expect a stranger to subsidize you ?

"Or get another job".

This just highlights the ridiculousness of this argument. Because the areas with low rent rates are absolutely overflowing with employment opportunities of course.

beauf

gizmo81 wrote: »

Including terms and conditions in a lease that will exclude people based on their employment status is discrimination.

.. h

On that basis charging any rent will exclude people who have no income and don't qualify for any aid, or where the aid is insufficient for the property.

That will also be discrimination.

gizmo81

irelandrover wrote: »

Based on that then any property with rent above the rent allowance is discrimatory?

This doesn't just affect people on Rent Allowance, many working people do not have €9000 to hand over to a landlord in one go.

irelandrover

gizmo81 wrote: »

This doesn't just affect people on Rent Allowance, many working people do not have €9000 to hand over to a landlord in one go.

So what?

If a property is above rent allowance prices you are discriminating against people on rent allowance.

Why would it be ok to disciminate on rent price but not on deposit cost?

FAILSAFE 00

awec wrote: »

Commute from where?

Here's a hint/tip. They are usually known commuter towns and some are said to be on commuter belts.

Jasper79

awec wrote: »

Commute from where?

awec wrote: »

"Or get another job".

This just highlights the ridiculousness of this argument. Because the areas with low rent rates are absolutely overflowing with employment opportunities of course.

Commute from somewhere you can afford to rent ?

gizmo81

Sounds like people are advocating the poor should be let rot and the rich should live in their walled utopia.

awec

Jasper79 wrote: »

Commute from somewhere you can afford to rent ?

A very vague and unspecific answer. "Ah sure just go commute from Offaly every day, it's grand really and not at all unrealistic".

Jasper79

gizmo81 wrote: »

Sounds like people are advocating the poor should be let rot and the rich should live in their walled utopia.

Not to me it doesn't...

Jasper79

awec wrote: »

A very vague and unspecific answer. "Ah sure just go commute from Offaly every day, it's grand really and not at all unrealistic".

There were no specifics given in the discussion.

Got any for an example ?

And I do actually work with somebody who commutes from Offaly to Dublin daily, wouldn't do it myself.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Isn't this all just hearsay?

Primetime investigates- have them ontape issuing just this advice.
Its not hearsay- its been all over the media for the last 2 years- though Threshold tried to argue it shouldn't have been broadcast as their representative did not know they were talking to a journalist or that they were being taped.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

gizmo81 wrote: »

Isn't this all just hearsay?

Primetime investigates- have them ontape issuing just this advice.
Its not hearsay- its been all over the media for the last 2 years- though Threshold tried to argue it shouldn't have been broadcast as their representative did not know they were talking to a journalist or that they were being taped.

That was my point RTE would have a recording. John Doe on boards has no evidence.

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

Primetime investigates- have them ontape issuing just this advice.
Its not hearsay- its been all over the media for the last 2 years- though Threshold tried to argue it shouldn't have been broadcast as their representative did not know they were talking to a journalist or that they were being taped.

I wouldn't have given illegal advice if I knew it was a journo. :pac:

Yourself isit

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sweet Jesus no we don't.

Taxes from corporations will be tiny compared to private LLs. Rents from Private LLs will be tiny compared to corporations who will stick in a rowing machine and exercise bike, a guard and charged €2000 a month for a one bed.

You are confusing personal and corporate tax again. There's no reason to assume that corporate appartments are badly run or that they will increase beyond market rates. In fact large landlords are happy with rent control. Especially if it is upward only rent.

Any corporate appartment I lived in in the US was well run. The owners were the management company. Things were fixed outside and inside or the service agreement was broken. There were good sweeteners on market downturns. I got free wi-fi for instance. Deposits were returned. Aunty mary never came to stay. I didn't have to deal with the landlords post. I was certain the lease wouldn't be broken because of refurbishment or a member of the family moving back in

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Sounds like people are advocating the poor should be let rot and the rich should live in their walled utopia.

Honestly- I think the local authority schemes allowing them to selloff residential property at below market rates to tenants- should be rescinded as quickly as possible- and a massive ramp up of the scheme to build new housing units- rolled out.

I.e. Local authority housing units- should be local authority housing units, in perpetuity, and should be properly maintained by local authorities.

If tenants destroy local authority property- their right to replacement local authority should be rescinded.

Social housing units- as part of new developments- *have* to be integrated in developments. This crap where row 1 is the social housing units- and allowed look like a mini ghetto- has to be hit on the head before it becomes even more widespread.

Most of all- more so than anything else- we *need* more housing built- where people want to live. We do not need any of the- tell them to feck off to Carrick-on-Shannon, sure they have thousands of vacant apartments down there- lark. We need high density units- for everyone- not just just social housing units- in our cities- esp. Dublin, Cork and Galway. Aligned with this- we need to do away with our height limits in Dublin.

One of the bigger issues at the moment- is local authorities want private landlords to sign up to HAP and other schemes- but they want to push all of the risk associated with these tenancies onto the landlords. If local authorities want HAP or other long term accommodation in their areas- they need to go and buy the units- as they come on the market- and manage them properly themselves.

The government and the local authorities are splitting their sides laughing at tenants and landlords tearing lumps out of each other- as it means no-one is examining what they are, or more appropriately, are not, doing.

We *need* more housing. Local authorities need to rebuild their housing stocks. The schemes to sell off local authority housing need to be shut down asap.

There are shedloads of landlords out there- who need to be encouraged to get the hell out of the sector- as they have no idea how to run their businesses. Similarly- there are plenty of perfectly decent landlords- who are getting their arses handed to them by tenants who are being advised by the likes of Threshold on how to game the system.

The RTB- are not considered fit for purpose by either tenants or landlords- which is remarkable given how the legislation is stacked in tenant's favour. It is also a very poor reflection on the organisation- that they're almost universally hated by everyone- that takes some doing.

We have lots of issues with the sector- but at the heart of it- the simple fact of the matter is- we need more houses- and we need them now, not in 10 years time.

Blaming landlords for local authorities selling off their housing stocks- is akin to pointing at a cat and saying out loud- I bet the next car going up the street is going to be yellow. There is no correlation- cause and effect seems to have gone out the window somewhere along the line.

There are plenty of things that could help the sector run more smoothly- however, landlords and tenants tearing lumps out of one another- simply gets local authorities and the government off the hook.

Classic divide and conquer strategy- and so damn effective.

The_Conductor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I wouldn't have given illegal advice if I knew it was a journo. :pac:

Honestly- I don't believe for a moment they'd have said anything differently.
They've been caught at it too many times- its amazing they haven't put RTE's range of phone numbers on a blacklist (they don't hide them for outbound calls).

I love Sean nos

gizmo81 wrote: »

There is too much easy money to be made

:pac:

I take it you're a landlord then.

Samuel T. Cogley

Yourself isit wrote: »

You are confusing personal and corporate tax again. There's no reason to assume that corporate appartments are badly run or that they will increase beyond market rates. In fact large landlords are happy with rent control. Especially if it is upward only rent.

Any corporate appartment I lived in in the US was well run. The owners were the management company. Things were fixed outside and inside or the service agreement was broken. There were good sweeteners on market downturns. I got free wi-fi for instance. Deposits were returned. Aunty mary never came to stay. I didn't have to deal with the landlords post. I was certain the lease wouldn't be broken because of refurbishment or a member of the family moving back in

There is absolutely no confusion on my part. I think you've confused which country you're in though. Ireland has a long history of very favourable corporate tax rates.

You also completely conflating market rate with a reasonable rate. I've no doubt at all that the market rate will be stuck to by large companies - they'll be setting it and won't be sitting idle when unconstitutional or even unfavorable legislation comes along.

As it stands at the moment the majority of lets are paying personal tax rates, are you seriously suggesting a corporation will pay anywhere near 40% per unit?

The_Conductor

Easy money?
Its hard earned money for any landlord who runs their business in an appropriate manner. Its also not on a level pegging with any other business- its treated as 'unearned income' by Revenue- akin to share income- which totally discounts a landlord putting any effort whatsoever into their business (which is probably why there are a cohort of amateurs in the sector who really should be encouraged to leave at the first opportunity).

Even the estate agents and property managers are getting out- as a 10-15% cut of the gross rental income is not a fair reflection of the amount of work involved.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Including terms and conditions in a lease that will exclude people based on their employment status is discrimination.

Three months deposit €4500
Three months rent advance €4500

€9000 before you set foot in a property?

That's if you can find a property in Dublin City for €1500 a month

Again completely conflating things - as many do. Security is not rent, it's a security deposit. That deposit should be protected and should be set by the LL for a given apartment, each LL will have their own attitude to risk. Rent should not be charged in advance save for the final months rent should be taken at the start.

So around €3000 in rent and €2500 in security seems about right to me. If you don't have that saved for a rainy day it's probably best not to move from home/shared accommodation in the first place. If that figure is impossible to achieve then social housing should be an option.

During the last month inspections etc should happen with a final quick check at the end. If the deposit is in Escrow then all that needs to happen is the LL name on the escrow needs to be changed for the new place when the tenant is moving.

There are a myriad of ways this issue can be easily resolved. Keep limiting LLs rights to decide how they conduct business is not the correct approach. As much as it's hearsay even the government realise this, not that they'll admit it publicly. They wouldn't be using the (very small) carrot along with the stick otherwise.

Anyway back off to my walled utopia of Kilbarrack - if anyone knows which of the 5 dogs barking is howling could you tell it to shut up? Cheers.

titan18

The_Conductor wrote:

Social housing units- as part of new developments- *have* to be integrated in developments. This crap where row 1 is the social housing units- and allowed look like a mini ghetto- has to be hit on the head before it becomes even more widespread.

I always see this, but if you're buying privately, you dont really want to end up living next to someone who got that house for free. It's good for social housing as it reduces chance of ghettos, but does have a negative effect for private owners there imo

Samuel T. Cogley

titan18 wrote: »

I always see this, but if you're buying privately, you dont really want to end up living next to someone who got that house for free. It's good for social housing as it reduces chance of ghettos, but does have a negative effect for private owners there imo

It shouldn't. Just because someone doesn't have a lot of money does not make them undesirable. I do wish we could get rid of this negative stereotype with social housing. It's also not a free house.

It's advantageous to have all walks of life in a community and if there is any scumbaggery, by anyone, the community should sort that through the proper channels, but also through being a community - something sadly lacking in Ireland in many places.