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

Yourself isit

the_syco wrote: »

Hopefully one of the REIT's, when a few people take the piss at once, and all overhold.

The REITs would probably see over holding as a cost of business. I agree that the landlord should be able to get money back in these cases though.

Winner why there isn't some insurance for this.

utmbuilder

The_Conductor wrote: »

Who is going to sue them though?
They're state funded- the Minister invites them in for consultation on any regulatory changes, and the IPOA who were supposedly the representative body for landlords- have effectively been prescribed, they're still in existence- but have been accused as facilitating the operation of a monopolistic practice- by the Minister.

I.e. the only body who could validly have refuted their shenanigans- have themselves been hammered into the ground by the Minister, landlords are running scared, there is absolutely no point in pursuing any tenants who overhold or don't make rent payments- as its wholly pointless (unless the landlord is sufficiently annoyed- and willing to spend time and effort chasing the tenant).

There is no point in suing them- they are on record (and have been broadcast by RTE Primetime Investigates) peddling this 'advice'- and hell, if the tenants know there is no reprecussion for them- why not do as they please?

The regulatory regime is set up to protect the tenant at any cost. A landlord is lucky to get his/her property back undamaged, eventually, regardless of whether, or not, rent has been paid. It really is this lopsided.

Who is going to sue? Eventually- perhaps one of the REITs- after they've been burnt a few times? No-one else is going to.........

I overheard a discussion last week, claiming the next move of the government was a massive marketing campaign about to launch, to reinforce the law and telling tenants of their rights.

The_Conductor

utmbuilder wrote: »

to reinforce the law and telling tenants of their rights.

and obligations?

Both tenants and landlords have rights and obligations towards one another.

I don't believe an advertising campaign could be one sided- for the simple reason- even a landlord with a single property could legitimately take the government to court, and win.

Its all well and good informing people of their rights- however, there has to impartiality- however, that said, they haven't been impartial thus far, so why start now?

the_syco

Yourself isit wrote: »

The REITs would probably see over holding as a cost of business. I agree that the landlord should be able to get money back in these cases though.

When the tenant overholds by a few months enough times, I'm sure it'll be seen as more cost effective to bring it to court.

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't believe an advertising campaign could be one sided- for the simple reason- even a landlord with a single property could legitimately take the government to court, and win.

If it's done by Threshold, I'd say it shall be one-sided.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't believe an advertising campaign could be one sided- for the simple reason- even a landlord with a single property could legitimately take the government to court, and win.

What landlord with one property is going to take a chance of the costs of a High Court case against the government? No landlord has challenged the current morass createed by the recent legislation which would have an excellent chance of success.

jamesthepeach

4ensic15 wrote: »

What landlord with one property is going to take a chance of the costs of a High Court case against the government? No landlord has challenged the current morass createed by the recent legislation which would have an excellent chance of success.

I made some inquiries and was seriously thinking of doing it.
I chickened out in the end though.

4ensic15

[QUOTE=jamesthepeach;104207388
I chickened out in the end though.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. SO did everyone else. That was a much stronger case and you had more than one rental property at the time.
What landlord with one property will do anything different over any other issue?

TheDoc

Graham wrote: »

Deposits are overwhelmingly returned to tenants as they should be. Therefore, nobody is 'making a mint from it'.

The comment is relating to risks, nowhere did I mention there was an issue with deposit returns.

TheDoc

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reason they have issues getting houses/apartments is because there isn't enough of them in the right locations full stop. Forcing a 1 month deposit system won't change the big issue of supply at least in a positive way. Landlords will just find another way to identify the people why feel are least likey to not default on rent or damage a property. Unless you plan on taking the ability of landlords to choose that's never going to change.

Landlords are always going to pick the people they deem least risky when letting out accommodation. Certain groups are considered more risky than others no matter the exact make up of those groups are.

Just filters into my point, landlords have been doing this since day dot. So why all of a sudden is an increased deposit forming part of that thinking?

Simple fact is its not, with RPZ's and the mindset of landlords, they now want to invest or front as little $$$ as possible over the lifetime of the asset, to them reap their return from it's sale decades down the line.

Sorry but it just reads and sounds like landlords playing poor mouth and again getting no sympathy.

TheDoc

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- I genuinely think unfurnished rentals are the way to go.
I fail to comprehend how/why furnished rentals are still in vogue in Ireland and the UK in the 21st Century- it simply makes no sense for a significant cohort of tenants and landlords.

I genuinely think there would be a lot of tenants and landlords- only too happy- to let/rent unfurnished units.

There would need to be a massive overhaul, in the entire market, together.

When I was in the market I came across unfurnished properties. I was receiving no discount or below market rate in the offer for it being unfurnished. Even questioned why would I even consider paying the equal first month as a deposit, when there was nothing here for the landlord to be worried about in terms of damage.

It makes zero sense for anyone to buy unfurnished, because most people need to be smart and forward thinking, appreciating they may not be in the same place long and anything can change. You go out and drop few grand, or even scrounge and box clever to get all your furnishings for a less then a grand, come move time, your stuck into looking at unfurnished properties, that are providing no real incentive.

Guy I work with entered an unfurnished agreement. Dropped a few grand on sofas and beds and the likes. Get's a shout from the landlord about four months later they need the property back to self use as they are coming back from living abroad.

Obviously he is ****ing livid, and finding a place that is unfurnished not in the back arse of nowhere, is tough going. Every landlord he is speaking to won't engage with any sort of arrangement, so he's looking at having to pay storage on behalf of a landlord. Which is fair enough, but the issue with going unfurnished.

Unfurinished probably would be ideal. I know when I moved into our first apartment it had a bed and a sofa, but not much else. So we got some stuff in IKEA that has followed us around up until our last property where we sold it the landlord. It was cheap enough, sturdy and served its purpose for years. During one move, a landlord bought our stuff and we just bought it again in IKEA. It's that handy and cheap enough to do.

But when you start putting beds into the mix, sofas. It starts to just get messy.

The market would need a total overhaul to really make that viable, or in the current climate, some actual incentives because why go through the expense and hassle of unfurnished when there is no incentive and you get somewhere fully furnished.

jamesthepeach

The problem with unfurnished is that there needs to be a nice chunk of the market both looking and letting.
It's a chicken and egg situation. Not enough people want unfurnished so it's not there. But if there were a lot of unfurnished places on the market then people would find it easy to move from unfurnished to unfurnished.

Also there are rules that don't allow a landlord to actually let unfurnished anyway.

I have seen places let without a mattress more and more lately. A good thing in my view as tenants always would be happy with have their own mattress and tbh mattresses should only be used by the one person/couple and never recycled to another person.

Also a landlord will only buy the cheapest lowest quality mattress they can get anyway as it has to be thrown out after almost every tenant anyway.
For some reason tenants take of the protector and then put it back on before they leave.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

TheDoc wrote: »

It makes zero sense for anyone to buy unfurnished

Forgive me if this sounds patronizing, it's not the intention.

What you said is based on a limited view. You need to experience the other side for a couple of years before you can make a claim like that.

I'm originally from South Africa where 99% of property, Rentals or Buys, are unfurnished. The only houses for sale that may be furnished are the stupidly expensive houses. The houses with price tags sporting 7/8/9 digits.

For the hoi polloi, it's unfurnished all the way.

Having been in Eire now for 2 years, it frustrates me to no end that places are furnished. The pros of unfurnished far exceed the cons.

Are you afraid of buying furniture then 6 months later getting a great job in another country? Gratz on the new job! Sell your furniture, it's literally that simple. There will always be buyers for it.

Are you only staying in a place for 3 months? Fair enough, rough it out or buy something cheap.

Buying a furnished house is ridiculous in my opinion. Why the hell would you want someone else to style your house? It's your damn house! it must be styled to your tastes. The end.

TheDoc wrote: »

because most people need to be smart and forward thinking, appreciating they may not be in the same place long and anything can change.

If everyone thought like this then things would never get done. Why finish or do anything if something better could be just over the horizon. You could also find yourself waiting for that perfect horizon that is never coming...

It is always a risk we have to take. Some people get lucky and win. Some people lose everything.

Alternatively TheDoc, We could become a beach bum in Mexico :pac:

PeadarCo

TheDoc wrote:

Simple fact is its not, with RPZ's and the mindset of landlords, they now want to invest or front as little $$$ as possible over the lifetime of the asset, to them reap their return from it's sale decades down the line.

Welcome to business 101 to make money in any business you try to keep costs as low as possible and maximize your revenue. Private letting is a business. When I deal with my landlord I am perfectly aware I engaging with a business person and not a charity.

Why are landlords increasing deposits? primarily because they can and its a way for them to filter out prospective tenants. In the middle of the recession when landlords were struggling to fill houses they didn't have the luxury.

There should be some intermediary that holds deposits to deal with the issue of bad landlords who don't give deposits back. But at the same time given how long it can take to get someone out of a property two months is still quite low.

The_Conductor

Poll on whether, or not, people would like to see more unfurnished accommodation- and comments relating to it, here

utmbuilder

business is not all about making the most , the market is unstable now and stupid laws are coming in to hinder landlords due to such a shortage, guess what when the shortage is gone these stupid laws will be left with lower rents,

its in everyones interest to have a stable market

Samuel T. Cogley

There's a lot of reading into deposits they don't produce enough interest to be worth increasing and the RTB process is too robust to hold on to them without cause. Yes of course the reason it can be done is because of the market right now but the reason it's done hasn't changed, tenants have far too many rights in-regard to staying in a property despite the way they keep the property, anti-social behaviour or simply not paying the rent.

If the deposit rule came in with a 30 day turn around on evictions very few LL's would complain despite the damage that could be done to the apartment. If a 60 or 90 day turn around comes in (LOL) then it's perfectly reasonable to look for 60 or 90 days deposit or rent in advance. As I've said before though the fairest way IMHO is first and last months rent + security which is decoupled from the rent and is placed in a protection scheme.

While I understand some people's ire towards landlords, it does seem that many tenants and tenants groups want their cake and eat it too.