Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Threshold: Landlords charging 2 month's rent deposit 'where they can't increase rent'
Options
Comments
-
Works both ways.
on RTB website, nearly twice as many orders for overholding in 2016 v deposit retention so that's even less of an issue!
284 - Deposit retention, 475 Overholding, 592 rent arrears
Get one of those 1067 tenants and a landlords can be pretty much ruined.
High risk game.0 -
Gatling wrote:Current landlord decides sorry im keeping the €3000 leaving the tenant who has do no wrong out of pocket for three grand and now homeless , landlord then repeats the same over and over meanwhile us tenants are stung and given and names .
There is a big difference in that rtb decisions are easily enforced against landlords but moveable tenants are very difficult to chase up.
Even more so for SW tenants where the outcome from a very expensive court action to reclaim losses would likely only lead to receiving 5 euro a week.0 -
The difficulty with this news is for existing tenants, where a large chunk of earnings is paid out in rent. It'd be extremely difficult for them to save 3+ months rent for their next deposit.
If it were to become the norm, it'd be much easier for someone still living at home to save for longer whilst expenses are low in the knowledge that this is whats required to enter into the private rental market.
Anyone that looks at it impartially surely realises that a 1-month deposit is completely inadequate given the risks involved.
It's not a landlords job to provide homes-for-all... it's their responsibility to keep their property(ies) occupied in as profitable a manner as possible and let the government pick up the slack.0 -
Tidy little earner?
Would you share your secret to depositing cash where it's secure AND earns more than tiddlywinks in interest.
What do you call tiddlywinks?
1% interest on 3Million is 30,000.
I'm sure the financial sharks over at REIT have all kinds of schemes to earn interest on a sum like that over a period of a year.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What do you call tiddlywinks?
1% interest on 3Million is 30,000.
I'm sure the financial sharks over at REIT have all kinds of schemes to earn interest on a sum like that over a period of a year.
I can't imagine a REIT with 2,000 apartments is going to sweat over an extra €15 per apartment per year? It would cost them more than that in accountancy fees.0 -
Advertisement
-
At its most basic level, if a landlord has one property and a choice of two tenants (one able to meet the requirement of a 2 month deposit and the other unable), the landlord will choose the one able to meet the requirement and have no moral qualms about the other not getting the house. In the absence of another house, the landlords decision leaves one person homeless regardless.
If neither tenant can meet the 2-month deposit requirement, the landlord will obviously adjust the requirement downwards. It's all about supply and demand and, whilst there is a supply of tenants with a 2-month deposit, a landlord would be stupid to request less.
Basically, as long as a landlord has all their properties occupied, they are not leaving anyone homeless - regardless of whether there is a 1, 2 or even 12 month deposit securing the tenancy.0 -
marathonic wrote: »Not an arsehole landlord - just one that would attempt to remove the discount from market rate if a tenant approached with a list resembling a snag-list for a new build house (including items that a landlord isn't typically responsible for and others that are nice-to-haves but not necessities - especially in a house rented below-market value).
I like how my reply was snipped too to remove some of the later advice regarding reducing the list, at least initially, to cover the items that a landlord is legally obliged to do (before prioritizing the rest for consideration).
The tone from the quote presented (appreciating I didnt see the thread or the context) shows no signs of the landlord engaging with the tenant to outline there needs to be some give or take, or there are some things they won't be managing.
Just an immediate "ah here **** off giving me grief" attitude and if anything smacks of this growing trend of some landlords looking for any excuse to dump tenants to try drive up their monthly intake due to RPZ's.0 -
The tone from the quote presented (appreciating I didnt see the thread or the context) shows no signs of the landlord engaging with the tenant to outline there needs to be some give or take, or there are some things they won't be managing.
Just an immediate "ah here **** off giving me grief" attitude and if anything smacks of this growing trend of some landlords looking for any excuse to dump tenants to try drive up their monthly intake due to RPZ's.
Maybe if the laws were applied evenly, landlords wouldn't feel the need to up the deposit.
Pretending landlords are increasing deposits (that they don't generally keep) because of greed is not the answer.0 -
So to be clear, this hypothesis on looking to move to a 2 month or 3 month deposit, or security deposit, is just simply to properly cover the costs of damages should they arise?
It's definitely not an intentional barrier to block out a certain demographic, that would be perceived as being the higher proportion of troublesome tenants?
We havn't even touched on how various Ministers and the actual government would perceive this, which is a clear barrier to those in social welfare receipt, or rent supplement to obtaining accommodation for themselves or their family. The Departments involved are flexible enough they can shift to providing the quantities involved to meet deposits for social welfare receipients?
Remembering that not all those on welfare or in receipt of assistance are on them, or will be on them permanently, for a lot of people its their tax paid helping them out over a hump while they get back into work or sorted. Can assure you that various politicians and parties won't be happily entertaining a situation where increased deposits becomes the norm, where the associated social welfare structures aren't able to adjust in tandem.
And when push comes to shove, it will be easier and just less tress, hassle and cost to bring in legislation making a one month deposit the legal agreement, as opposed to restructuring the Department of Social Welfare's workflow for rent suppliment to provide for multi month deposits.
Like I said, one month deposits have been the norm for decades and the it's been fine, the market only spiralling into madness in recent years, and nothing to do with deposits. Landlord swimming against the tide here, fear that if they don't get a bit organised about it, it's more quick regulation into their face. Was hearing a lady speak on Newstalk trying to advocate for landlords and it just came across poor and just didn't convey the genuine concern and issue here properly. Said it before, but how there isn't a robust organisation lobbying and representing landlords is mental.
Although at the same time probably what government and stakeholders want, get rid of you lot, the single, accidental landlords, and only have to deal with enterprise level property developers and management companies. Probably will be potentially worse for actual tenants, but the actual process of negotiation, lobbying and regulation would be much easier for government.0 -
Works both ways.
on RTB website, nearly twice as many orders for overholding in 2016 v deposit retention so that's even less of an issue!
284 - Deposit retention, 475 Overholding, 592 rent arrears
Ok let's look at the stats
3% Disputes were for Damage Beyond normal wear and tear.
13% Disputes were for Deposit retention
13% Disputes were for Invalid notice of termination
5% illegal eviction
8% standards and maintenance
8% over holding
9% breech of landlord obligations
7% rent arrears
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2
59% of cases submitted by tenants as opposed to 39% submitted by landlords
So this sob story by boards.ie landlords just doesn't add up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe if the laws were applied evenly, landlords wouldn't feel the need to up the deposit.
Pretending landlords are increasing deposits (that they don't generally keep) because of greed is not the answer.
Landlords have the opportunity to take cases to the RTB but chose not to going by the figures from 2015.
Is it because these horrible tenants don't exist in the numbers that are claimed?
Or is it that the landlords shouting the loudest that the RTB is useless are the ones not registering and being caught?
13% of cases before the RTB in 2015 were for landlords retaining deposits, a higher percentage than any other reason, bar invalid termination of cases before them.0 -
Maybe if the laws were applied evenly, landlords wouldn't feel the need to up the deposit.
Pretending landlords are increasing deposits (that they don't generally keep) because of greed is not the answer.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point, it's poor, irrelevant and simply not the truth.
But there is a bigger debate and issue should landlords as a whole increase the deposit structure. It's a pretty big issue like. Not so much for landlords persay, I'm sure they will find someone to agree to those terms, like I never had to accept an unreasonable priced property, even when the market was seemingly mental, I was able to keep looking and find what suited me, and I found landlords that I suited for them.
This is basically though a manafactured barrier to certain demographics and certain situations for people, that simply won't be able to avail of the private sector as they would have historically, if they are hit with these increased deposits.
And like I said rightly or wrongly ( I think it's unwarranted and pointless considering the attention it will bring) you can bet it won't be long before it's coming up in Leinster house, and if it becomes a trend, where more and more see others doing it, except intervention in the form of legislation.
Housing is one of the headline issues for this minority government. Fine Gael struggling in the polls, already facing a backlash from the USC turnaround that has already pissed on the lower class and squeezed middle, being faced with a constructed barrier to housing will be a massive blow for them, along with the minority coalition of whom many operate on the behalf of lower to lower-middle income demographics.
So anything that goes up in price, that rebuffs a service or something that was once possible and now out of reach, is a trigger to an electorate, that politicians will then want to get out in front of it looking like they are making moves on their behalf.
Not even thinking long enough as to how the left and socialists, increasing in popularity, will play on this. Painting landlords as top hat wearing pigs at the trough standing on the backs of the working class. And that lot know how to work people into a frenzy.
Feel bad for landlords at times, there is still that age old stereotype that they are all out to screw people which isn't the case, I've only ever dealt with respectable, top quality landlords who were a pleasure to deal with, but there seems to be bad apples that still tarnish the reputation overall.
Seems anyway you try to do stuff, landlords are on a hiding to nothing and that isn't fair. But even moreso why it's incredible to me that there isn't a centralised, strong, representative body with people skilled enough to portray the genuine concerns and issues in a way that the public understand and sympathise.
Like from that post a bit ago, I'm no landlord and never have been, but if I was, and someone was mooching for free for a year for some case to go through, I'd be in that house dragging them out by the ankles and throwing their **** out on the street. But thats me and how I deal with people who take the piss with me or try to be billy big bollox. So I've nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for landlords who bide their time, take the financial hit, but go through proper due diligence and process for an eviction.
Like I don't think any genuine individual wouldn't look at those cases where tenants mooch and hide behind lax "rights" to sponge a free house for a year before a case is ruled on, and think thats right or in anyway justifiable.0 -
jamesthepeach wrote: »Get one of those 1067 tenants and a landlords can be pretty much ruined.
High risk game.
As someone mentioned earlier, the misunderstanding of risk is why companies and people make a mint from it.
A 1 in 1067 chance of you having a lemon, whereby you inherit more cost and expense then anticipated, as opposed to a minimum 12 month term of fixed income, is not what is coined as....high risk..
Sure I thought all landlords tricks of the trade like asking for bank accounts, payslips and a holy raft of unethical, questionably legal documentation and requirements beforehand are there to mitigate this risk? Or is it just the simple fact, like any business, like any entrepreneur, (which I consider landlords as) there is simply a case of risk regardless.0 -
-
TheDoc wrote:This is basically though a manafactured barrier to certain demographics and certain situations for people, that simply won't be able to avail of the private sector as they would have historically, if they are hit with these increased deposits.
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
So please show us these stats you have.
We actively advise landlords in this forum- not to pursue tenants- the costs and time involved can be immense- and the liklihood of getting anything back from a tenant- even if you get a judgement against them- is slim.
I manage a number of units on behalf of siblings (who had to emigrate during the downturn, but plan to come back at some stage). From 5 units- I've had 7 tenants overhold, 1 tenant caused structural damage to an apartment block, the unit that was damaged from a gas explosion at the back of Jurys on Bridge Street in Galway- belongs to one of my sisters- and I've had two units (one each in Dublin and Galway) used as brothels.
I accept this is my personal experience- however, I've no reason to believe its any different from anyone else.
In no case (above) did I bother bringing a case to the RTB- I did however pursue a case for civil damages against the tenant who caused structural damage (at the insistence of the insurance company).
Landlord insurance- is all well and good- but it doesn't cover against any of the above.
This evening I'm helping a neighbour in Lucan whose former list of tenants (in the one house- just off Main Street Lucan)- include a chilled college drop out who ran a grow house, members of an ethnic minority who sparked an evacuation by trying to get free gas and electricity, a restrauneur who delibertly didn't heat the unit during the winter- so he could use it as a food store overflow for his restaurant- and burst all the pipes- and his last tenants- a couple of taxi drivers- managed to drive through a reinforced security gate on-site- writing off their car in the process. Thats just my next door neighbour. He didn't bring any cases against anyone either- he picks himself up off the ground each time, spends a couple of weeks fixing up the mess- and relets the property to hopefully a better tenant.
The perception, rightly or wrongly, is there is absolutely no point in a landlord bringing a case to the RTB- he/she will only eventually have to go to the court to enforce it- the tenant will plead penury- and the landlord has clocked up a couple of grand in costs for nothing. The tenant on the other hand- has nothing to loose- if anything at all goes wrong- lob a case in to the RTB- and the perception is the RTB will fight the tenant's corner (unless its patently clear that they're taking the piss- in which case, they've still lost nothing).
I.e. the tenant can't loose- and its only in exceptional cases, that the landlord can win- and even when they do- its meaningless- as the tenant can always apply to the RTB to have the case details taken down from their website- so there is no public record of the misdemeanor for future prospective landlords.
Its a heads I win, tails you loose, situation.
So- why would there be stats?0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »So please show us these stats you have.
We actively advise landlords in this forum- not to pursue tenants- the costs and time involved can be immense- and the liklihood of getting anything back from a tenant- even if you get a judgement against them- is slim.
I manage a number of units on behalf of siblings (who had to emigrate during the downturn, but plan to come back at some stage). From 5 units- I've had 7 tenants overhold, 1 tenant caused structural damage to an apartment block, the unit that was damaged from a gas explosion at the back of Jurys on Bridge Street in Galway- belongs to one of my sisters- and I've had two units (one each in Dublin and Galway) used as brothels.
I accept this is my personal experience- however, I've no reason to believe its any different from anyone else.
In no case (above) did I bother bringing a case to the RTB- I did however pursue a case for civil damages against the tenant who caused structural damage (at the insistence of the insurance company).
Landlord insurance- is all well and good- but it doesn't cover against any of the above.
This evening I'm helping a neighbour in Lucan whose former list of tenants (in the one house- just off Main Street Lucan)- include a chilled college drop out who ran a grow house, members of an ethnic minority who sparked an evacuation by trying to get free gas and electricity, a restrauneur who delibertly didn't heat the unit during the winter- so he could use it as a food store overflow for his restaurant- and burst all the pipes- and his last tenants- a couple of taxi drivers- managed to drive through a reinforced security gate on-site- writing off their car in the process. Thats just my next door neighbour. He didn't bring any cases against anyone either- he picks himself up off the ground each time, spends a couple of weeks fixing up the mess- and relets the property to hopefully a better tenant.
The perception, rightly or wrongly, is there is absolutely no point in a landlord bringing a case to the RTB- he/she will only eventually have to go to the court to enforce it- the tenant will plead penury- and the landlord has clocked up a couple of grand in costs for nothing. The tenant on the other hand- has nothing to loose- if anything at all goes wrong- lob a case in to the RTB- and the perception is the RTB will fight the tenant's corner (unless its patently clear that they're taking the piss- in which case, they've still lost nothing).
I.e. the tenant can't loose- and its only in exceptional cases, that the landlord can win- and even when they do- its meaningless- as the tenant can always apply to the RTB to have the case details taken down from their website- so there is no public record of the misdemeanor for future prospective landlords.
Its a heads I win, tails you loose, situation.
So- why would there be stats?
Sorry but that is ridiculous. It costs around €100 to bring a case to tribunal at the RTB.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Sorry but that is ridiculous. It costs around €100 to bring a case to tribunal at the RTB.
A hundred quid, lol.
The burden of evidence is immense for a landlord- there is an expectation that they are in the wrong- even if they're the one bringing the case.
It costs a tenant next to nothing to bring a case- regardless of the merits of their complaint- if the RTB were fair- there would be a similar burden of proof applied to cases- but that quite simply is not the case.
The perception is that the RTB fights a tenant's corner- and from the cases discussed in this forum- the main reason landlords bother to bring a case- is if they are sufficiently annoyed- not because they have any expectation of recompense for damage, unpaid rent, overholding, or recently- other residents in multi-unit-dwellings taking cases against landlords because of anti-social behaviour on the part of their tenants- or illegal activities being conducted in the properties. Or course- if insurance companies insist on the landlord bringing a case.
Most landlords are pragmatic- and while they may be unhappy, are satisfied enough to move on, if they get their unit(s) back with minimal damage (overholding notwithstanding). There are no statistics captured by anyone- which reflect this- why would there be?0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »A hundred quid, lol.
The burden of evidence is immense for a landlord- there is an expectation that they are in the wrong- even if they're the one bringing the case.
Having been at three RTB adjudications and two tribunals, the burden of proof is equal for both.
I had to have emails, call logs, sms, etc etc. The landlords in my case chose not to submit anything.
Both have equal opportunities to submit evidence and subpoena witnesses. Evidence is submitted online rather easily.0 -
Sorry but that is ridiculous. It costs around €100 to bring a case to tribunal at the RTB.
It just is not that easy. Lets say a tenant who has 3 months arrears, has received a valid notice of eviction, decides to smash the house up a bit and move out. How can the landlord find the tenant to bring a case against them? They are not likely to leave their contact details. If they are found, and you bring a case and win, how can you enforce the order. They are unlikely to have sufficient assets to be able to get your money anyway. Its more likely that the LL will suck up the loss and be thankful they don't have to go though months and months of RTB and court time to gain a valid eviction.0 -
Advertisement
-
It just is not that easy. Lets say a tenant who has 3 months arrears, has received a valid notice of eviction, decides to smash the house up a bit and move out. How can the landlord find the tenant to bring a case against them? They are not likely to leave their contact details. If they are found, and you bring a case and win, how can you enforce the order. They are unlikely to have sufficient assets to be able to get your money anyway. Its more likely that the LL will suck up the loss and be thankful they don't have to go though months and months of RTB and court time to gain a valid eviction.
Criminal damage isn't for the RTB.0 -
Maybe if the laws were applied evenly, landlords wouldn't feel the need to up the deposit.
Pretending landlords are increasing deposits (that they don't generally keep) because of greed is not the answer.
Landlords are increasing deposits because they can. Why are landlords so concerned about non rent payment in 2017 (that doesn't generally happen) rather than 2012?
Because they can.0 -
VonBeanie wrote:It just is not that easy. Lets say a tenant who has 3 months arrears, has received a valid notice of eviction, decides to smash the house up a bit and move out. How can the landlord find the tenant to bring a case against them? They are not likely to leave their contact details. If they are found, and you bring a case and win, how can you enforce the order. They are unlikely to have sufficient assets to be able to get your money anyway. Its more likely that the LL will suck up the loss and be thankful they don't have to go though months and months of RTB and court time to gain a valid eviction.
And a two or three months deposit will be of no comfort at all in such a scenario.0 -
Yourself isit wrote: »Landlords are increasing deposits because they can. Why are landlords so concerned about non rent payment in 2017 (that doesn't generally happen) rather than 2012?
Because they can.
Absolutely because they can, up until recently they didn't even have the option of that tiny sliver of additional security.0 -
-
Grolschevik wrote: »And a two or three months deposit will be of no comfort at all in such a scenario.
Being able to afford the higher deposit may indicate a tenant is in a financial position which makes them falling into arears less likely.
A tenant may be less flippant about walking away from a larger deposit.0 -
-
The_Conductor wrote: »We actively advise landlords in this forum- not to pursue tenants- the costs and time involved can be immense- and the liklihood of getting anything back from a tenant- even if you get a judgement against them- is slim.
I manage a number of units on behalf of siblings (who had to emigrate during the downturn, but plan to come back at some stage). From 5 units- I've had 7 tenants overhold, 1 tenant caused structural damage to an apartment block, the unit that was damaged from a gas explosion at the back of Jurys on Bridge Street in Galway- belongs to one of my sisters- and I've had two units (one each in Dublin and Galway) used as brothels.
I accept this is my personal experience- however, I've no reason to believe its any different from anyone else.
In no case (above) did I bother bringing a case to the RTB- I did however pursue a case for civil damages against the tenant who caused structural damage (at the insistence of the insurance company).
Landlord insurance- is all well and good- but it doesn't cover against any of the above.
This evening I'm helping a neighbour in Lucan whose former list of tenants (in the one house- just off Main Street Lucan)- include a chilled college drop out who ran a grow house, members of an ethnic minority who sparked an evacuation by trying to get free gas and electricity, a restrauneur who delibertly didn't heat the unit during the winter- so he could use it as a food store overflow for his restaurant- and burst all the pipes- and his last tenants- a couple of taxi drivers- managed to drive through a reinforced security gate on-site- writing off their car in the process. Thats just my next door neighbour. He didn't bring any cases against anyone either- he picks himself up off the ground each time, spends a couple of weeks fixing up the mess- and relets the property to hopefully a better tenant.
The perception, rightly or wrongly, is there is absolutely no point in a landlord bringing a case to the RTB- he/she will only eventually have to go to the court to enforce it- the tenant will plead penury- and the landlord has clocked up a couple of grand in costs for nothing. The tenant on the other hand- has nothing to loose- if anything at all goes wrong- lob a case in to the RTB- and the perception is the RTB will fight the tenant's corner (unless its patently clear that they're taking the piss- in which case, they've still lost nothing).
I.e. the tenant can't loose- and its only in exceptional cases, that the landlord can win- and even when they do- its meaningless- as the tenant can always apply to the RTB to have the case details taken down from their website- so there is no public record of the misdemeanor for future prospective landlords.
Its a heads I win, tails you loose, situation.
So- why would there be stats?
Out of interest, I'm sure there was some level of due diligence done before letting. Was it a case of lies/fraud upfront or what that caused people to be duped so often or lack of applicants? I know plenty people like me who have rented for seven years and never as much broke a chair?
Why didn't the insurance cover the structural damage? What does it cover at all in that case?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
This is over kill!
Its only a viable option in areas where there is a massive undersupply of property.
I'd argue that the whole solution to the issue- is to get more property out there- ASAP.
Most landlords I know- would welcome a massive increase in supply of good quality units- as soon as possible.
Current landlords would most probably have to do significant renovations to bring their units up to the specs of current constructions- or else their 1990s apartments and other dwellings- would languish untenanted (or- more probably- the rent would simply fall until such time as someone took the unit- on price grounds).
The current issue- has been percipitated through lack of supply. QED- the only possible solution- is to increase supply. This whole landlord versus tenant lark- is a perfect smoke screen- it shields the government and local authorities from actually taking the bull by the horns, telling all the NIMBYs that they have to agree to abolish building height regulations and they have to accept more high density units in their neighbourhoods.
Landlords- increased rents, increased deposits- and the most ridiculous of queues for even poor quality accommodation- are sympthomatic of a chronic lack of supply.
Honestly- most landlords would welcome significant investment in the sector- and any more pragmatic landlords, who intend to be in the sector long term, would use the opportunity to pull up their socks and improve their properties- for the betterment of tenants.
The whole saga where tenants and landlords are ritually invited to tear lumps out of each other- has gone on for too long. We need large quantities of good quality units, located where people actually want to live, delivered ASAP. This is the only thing that is going to address the ills of the sector. Everything will pale in comparison- if supply side issues are addressed in an appropriate manner.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Out of interest, I'm sure there was some level of due diligence done before letting. Was it a case of lies/fraud upfront or what that caused people to be duped so often or lack of applicants? I know plenty people like me who have rented for seven years and never as much broke a chair?
Why didn't the insurance cover the structural damage? What does it cover at all in that case?
That particular tenant is a well known solicitor who has since moved to Dublin.
A majority of the other tenants were sourced through a well known agency in Galway (which I still use)- and despite the issues encountered- these tenants reflected a minority of the tenants.
Forged documents- are rife in the sector- and quite often, there may be a language barrier (as in- despite living here- you'd be surprised at how many people profess an inability to converse in English (or French or German)). In Galway- a professional couple, with appropriate references from their last landlord etc- can suddenly morph into a group of students- or having a unit sublet to eastern european ladies of the night- and the first you hear about it- is when the Management Company give you a bollicking on the phone- normally after they've gotten nowhere with your Managing Agent.
The little list I listed- is from the period since 2003 (when my first sibling emigrated to South Africa).0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement