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

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Margaret McCormack from the IPOA says the tradition of a one-month deposit often does not cover costs when homes are damaged.

She said: "Property is a very expensive item and it has happened that they have substantially refurbished a property after it has been destroyed by a tenant.

"One month's rent would do very little to repair that damage."

I have a solution for you, Margaret.

Unfurnished rentals.

There, problem solved.

The_Conductor

Sandra Deafening Roundworm wrote: »

I have a solution for you, Margaret.

Unfurnished rentals.

There, problem solved.

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.

Michael D Not Higgins

Sandra Deafening Roundworm wrote: »

I have a solution for you, Margaret.

Unfurnished rentals.

There, problem solved.

The majority of people are looking for furnished properties when renting, in my experience. As a straw poll, 90% of Dublin rentals on Daft are furnished.

The problem isn't furnished rentals, the problem is tenants being able to cause more damage than the deposit covers and not have any consequences. Being unfurnished doesn't insulate a landlord from damages to the property either, just on damage to furnishings.

Caliden

I'd love unfurnished. Instead we're stuck with a **** couch and a table/chairs that don't match.

The couch isn't broken and damaged, it's just the most uncomfortable piece of **** I've ever had the displeasure of sitting on.

rawn

Caliden wrote:

I'd love unfurnished. Instead we're stuck with a **** couch and a table/chairs that don't match.

Unfurnished would be great if tenants didn't face the reality of having to pack up and move their furniture every year or so when the LL sells up/moves back in/increases the rent. I would gladly take an unfurnished place if I could sign a 5 year fixed term lease with guarantee of no rent increase in that time.

karenalot

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.

I went down the route of letting unfurnished properties last year having only done furnished before and now wouldn't do any other way. I provide the tenants with freshly painted white walls, wooden floors and built in white goods. The rest is up to them and they have to return the property in the same condition they received it in.

I was apprehensive at first as its not the norm here and my pictures on Daft didn't look half as good with empty shells of rooms but I was bombarded with calls and was surprised at the positive reaction I received. Nearly all prospective tenants complained about previous crappy rental furniture and lots wanted to make the rental their home with their own belongings.

Letting unfurnished wont stop tenants trashing the place if they really want to but for me it saved a ton of hassle and a fortune in expenses. For the tenants it also stops the nonsense of no pets or children being allowed because landlords are afraid their Bargaintown sofa from 1990 will be destroyed.

awec

I don't understand why more landlords don't do it. It must surely be cheaper for them and much less hassle and I reckon people would be falling over themselves to get a decent unfurnished property.

- No cost of having to buy furniture in the first place
- No phone calls for furniture related maintenance
- Much less potential for disputes when returning a deposit after the tenancy ends
- Much easier for tenant to clean empty rooms when moving out

What's not to like?

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The majority of people are looking for furnished properties when renting, in my experience. As a straw poll, 90% of Dublin rentals on Daft are furnished.

The problem isn't furnished rentals, the problem is tenants being able to cause more damage than the deposit covers and not have any consequences. Being unfurnished doesn't insulate a landlord from damages to the property either, just on damage to furnishings.

Nothing is perfect. There are always going to be problems no matter what you go with.

Yet as you can see in the posts above yours and the posts following yours. There is support for unfurnished rentals.

Citing that 90% of Dublin rentals on Daft are furnished only says that it is "just the way everyone has been doing it" with no questions being asked if its necessary or even wanted by renters.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Being unfurnished doesn't insulate a landlord from damages to the property either, just on damage to furnishings.

Of course not, but if I was a landlord Id prefer to spend money on only repairing damage to property and not property damage AND damage to furniture.

Take a look at what this person is dealing with; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057767933

Now I can concede that unfurnished rentals may not be for everyone and there will be some adjustment pains were it to become an option when looking at rentals. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, it's not fair but that's life.

gizmo81

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The majority of people are looking for furnished properties when renting, in my experience. As a straw poll, 90% of Dublin rentals on Daft are furnished.

The problem isn't furnished rentals, the problem is tenants being able to cause more damage than the deposit covers and not have any consequences. Being unfurnished doesn't insulate a landlord from damages to the property either, just on damage to furnishings.

On the flip side of this i have had a brown stained mattress flipped by a landlord in the hope I wouldn't' flip the mattress.

I have had a landlord send me cardboard to squash the springs sticking up through the sofa.

I have been told to use a clothes hanger as a shower hose holder.

I now have all my own furniture except a dining table. Yet landlords get the hump cause they don't want to remove their 1960's chairs with broken legs.

You can't win.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

On the flip side of this i have had a brown stained mattress flipped by a landlord in the hope I wouldn't' flip the mattress.

I have had a landlord send me cardboard to squash the springs sticking up through the sofa.

I have been told to use a clothes hanger as a shower hose holder.

I now have all my own furniture except a dining table. Yet landlords get the hump cause they don't want to remove their 1960's chairs with broken legs.

You can't win.

You are quite seriously one of the unluckiest tenants ever. You must be like some sort of sniffer dog for finding the worst landlords with the worst properties.

The last two times I had cause to chat with a landlord, a bed of dubious vintage was removed that afternoon and a broken immersion was replaced within 24 hours.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

You are quite seriously one of the unluckiest tenants ever. You must be like some sort of sniffer dog for finding the worst landlords with the worst properties.

The last two times I had cause to chat with a landlord, a bed of dubious vintage was removed that afternoon and a broken immersion was replaced within 24 hours.

I'm mid thirties and renting in Dublin since my early 20's.

It's not unusual to come up against dodgy mattresses, you only have to look on Daft.

awec

I wouldn't fancy taking a black light to many mattresses in rental accommodation.

Electric Sheep

awec wrote: »

I don't understand why more landlords don't do it. It must surely be cheaper for them and much less hassle and I reckon people would be falling over themselves to get a decent unfurnished property.

- No cost of having to buy furniture in the first place
- No phone calls for furniture related maintenance
- Much less potential for disputes when returning a deposit after the tenancy ends
- Much easier for tenant to clean empty rooms when moving out

What's not to like?

You get a different type of tenant as well, more likely to be a mature settled type of person who can afford to buy their own furniture and less likely to throw the sort of party where their own furniture will be wrecked.

peaches08

The CEO of threshold is a complete idiot..

Landlords are increasing deposits to cover the potential cost of damage to their property and for non payment of rent.
Once bitten and all that ....

For large commercial landlords, interest for deposits is part of their business model,
a deposit is a bond to be returned once the property is returned in a good state
the landlord takes all the risk on renting their properties to people who may potentially wreck them or do not pay rent.
this is why it's called a security deposit and if they make money from that it's their business, it's their property they are renting all their risk at a large level.

Other countries it's standard to ask for 2- 3 months deposit.

The government need to provide their own social housing, if people can't afford to live in private rented accommodation it's up to the government to provide accommodation, a proper system that doesn't depend on bully landlords to take their SW tenants on and all that comes with that.
in my experience SW tenants are high risk for non payment and for leaving your place in a complete state with no come back for the landlord on costs. At least 2 - 3 months deposit may cover lack of rent payments and damages to your house.

awec

peaches08 wrote: »

The CEO of threshold is a complete idiot..

Landlords are increasing deposits to cover the potential cost of damage to their property and for non payment of rent.
Once bitten and all that ....

For large commercial landlords, interest for deposits is part of their business model,
a deposit is a bond to be returned once the property is returned in a good state
the landlord takes all the risk on renting their properties to people who may potentially wreck them or do not pay rent.
this is why it's called a security deposit and if they make money from that it's their business, it's their property they are renting all their risk at a large level.

Other countries it's standard to ask for 2- 3 months deposit.

The government need to provide their own social housing, if people can't afford to live in private rented accommodation it's up to the government to provide accommodation, a proper system that doesn't depend on bully landlords to take their SW tenants on and all that comes with that.
in my experience SW tenants are high risk for non payment and for leaving your place in a complete state with no come back for the landlord on costs. At least 2 - 3 months deposit may cover lack of rent payments and damages to your house.

Landlords are taking a risk in exchange for someone else paying a large chunk of their mortgage (if they even have a mortgage). This always seems to be overlooked. Renting is a business and business always carries risk. It is not as if they get no reward.

And the security deposit is not the landlords money, so they should not be basing their business model on having it. I doubt any do. Truthfully any interest earned on a deposit should be returned to the tenant in an ideal world, indeed this is the norm in many countries.

the_syco

Graham wrote: »

Maybe if certain national housing charities stopped advising tenants to overhold, landlords would feel less of a need to increase their security slightly by raising deposits.

I'm surprised they haven't been sued for giving this advice!

The_Conductor

the_syco wrote: »

I'm surprised they haven't been sued for giving this advice!

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.........

The_Conductor

awec wrote: »

And the security deposit is not the landlords money, so they should not be basing their business model on having it. I doubt any do. Truthfully any interest earned on a deposit should be returned to the tenant in an ideal world, indeed this is the norm in many countries.

Definitely- however, keep in mind, current deposit rates are effectively zero. It won't always be this way- but as it stands- you're not going to earn anything for cash on deposit.

the_syco

The_Conductor wrote: »

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.........

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

Yourself isit

For unfurnished to work there would have to be longer term leases and some kind of quick furnishing lease system like they have in the US.

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.