Irish times blames landlords for protecting their investment

handlemaster

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-no-end-in-sight-to-dublin-s-housing-crisis-1.3171535?mode=amp

Una is clearly unhappy with landlords . How dare they ask for a deposit of two months rent !!! Una has obviously never rented à property to a tenant. As is if the landlord is not paid or property damaged their is very little recourse for this. The PRTB are toothless and to get a non paying tenant out could take two years. Perhaps Una should look into this ? A deposit after all is money put aside to pay for damage or un paid rent. The tenant gets it back if they have complied with the contract they signed.

Dr_Kolossus

Is this girl for real? its news to her that 1 months rent is suddenly not adequate to cover landlords exposure to damage/non paying tenants. She is supposed to be a journalist, it is obvious she has done absolutely zero research.

For once I'll say well done to a REIT. They have managed to raise awareness of a problem to this 'journalist' who has been living under a rock.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

jamesthepeach

Maybe she should look at the amount to of deposit you pay when hiring a car.
Sorry excuse for journalism. And shame on the editor for letting that badly research rubbish through.

jamesthepeach

Patww79 wrote: »

The problem isn't really the two months of it was an actual 'deposit', it's the fact that it's a large amount you don't see again. Most landlords will cook up every story going to keep it all.

The landlord doesn't get their property back for 6 years. And there is a hell of a lot more money tied up in that.

myshirt

I think her point is that you can't expect to mitigate all the risk, yet retain all the reward.

TheChizler

She has a point though. It's only relatively recently since demand has gone so high that landlords have been able to make this requirement. The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

TheChizler

jamesthepeach wrote: »

The landlord doesn't get their property back for 6 years. And there is a hell of a lot more money tied up in that.

And gets paid rent in exchange for the rights to the property in the meantime.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

gizmo81

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

3% or 193 Disputes were for Damage above normal wear and tear.

13% or 881 Disputes for Deposit Retention


https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Sad Professor

I agree with her. Until we have deposit protection and proper security of tenure, landlords should not be allowed to demand double deposits.

irelandrover

TheChizler wrote: »

She has a point though. It's only relatively recently since demand has gone so high that landlords have been able to make this requirement. The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

Since demand is a lot higher there is a greater risk of overholding. Especially with Threshold giving the advice to tenants to overhold.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

The problem isn't really the two months of it was an actual 'deposit', it's the fact that it's a large amount you don't see again. Most landlords will cook up every story going to keep it all.

I've rented for years and never yet failed to get the full deposit back at first time of asking tbh

DubCount

Una is clearly unhappy with landlords. She has clearly never tried to have an overholding tenant evicted. A few points struck me about the article though .......

1) I would welcome more hotel rooms coming on stream. This might soften demand for AirBnB which in turn may stop some of the transfer of residential property from long term to short term letting.

2) For all those who believe in professional REITs being better for tenants than small scale landlords, perhaps there is lesson in this. A new policy for 2 months deposit rolled out across 2000+ units after 1 decision by 1 company, and that decision will likely change the entire Irish market to follow that decision as the new norm.

3) Are tenant rights in other parts of Europe really that much stronger than Ireland? The only other market I have much experience of is the UK, and they are certainly well below Irish levels of tenant protection.

4) When will Una and co understand that the only way to stop rent inflation and house price inflation and the rise in homelessness, is more competition ........ from more properties being built in areas where there is demand. Everything else is just sweeping out the tide.

jamesthepeach

TheChizler wrote: »

And gets paid rent in exchange for the rights to the property in the meantime.

He hopes.

gizmo81

You would have to laugh at the people complaining about this, especially those saying "handing it over to a dodgy LL" when the LL introducing this is a large scale LL the very type the same people are crying out for. You couldn't make it up.

The sooner people get it into their heads that LLs are running a business to make money and are fully entitled to protect themselves the better.

gizmo81 wrote: »

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

8% or 541 disputes in regard to Over holding as opposed to
9% or 609 disputes in regard to a breach of landlord obligations.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

With a number or posters here along with the likes of threashold encouraging tenants to act the b*llocks and dispute everything it's not surprising that tenants have more disputes with who knows how many being done purely out of spite. On the other hand id bet 99% of the LL disputes are genuine.

amcalester

gizmo81 wrote: »

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

8% or 541 disputes in regard to Over holding as opposed to
9% or 609 disputes in regard to a breach of landlord obligations.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

And what are the numbers for landlords that don't take disputes to the RTB?

gct

Heavy smell of vested interests in this thread. Landlords do get away with far too much in this country.

amcalester

Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »

You would have to laugh at the people complaining about this, especially those saying "handing it over to a dodgy LL" when the LL introducing this is a large scale LL the very type the same people are crying out for. You couldn't make it up.

This is a great point, people have been screaming out for professional landlords, and now that we have them and they are running it as a professional business with increased damage limitation, those same posters are now complaining that it's unfair.

Sad Professor

amcalester wrote: »

And what are the numbers for landlords that don't take disputes to the RTB?

Probably about the same as tenants who don't take disputes to the RTB.

amcalester

Sad Professor wrote: »

Probably about the same as tenants who don't take disputes to the RTB.

I very much doubt that.

Browney7

Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »

With a number or posters here along with the likes of threashold encouraging tenants to act the b*llocks and dispute everything it's not surprising that tenants have more disputes with who knows how many being done purely out of spite. On the other hand id bet 99% of the LL disputes are genuine.

"I don't like those numbers that I can't refute but I'll have a go at it anyway...."

You and many others on this forum often advise people with genuine cases not to pursue via the RTB as it'll look bad or jeopardise future tenancies or to move on and move out so which is it?

twill

amcalester wrote: »

This is a great point, people have been screaming out for professional landlords, and now that we have them and they are running it as a professional business with increased damage limitation, those same posters are now complaining that it's unfair.

I can't say I heard any great demands for vulture funds charging double deposit.

dudara

It's a big change in mentality for Irish renters, hence why it's causing upset. Also, given that monthly rents are now much higher, a two month deposit can be around the €4K mark, which is a lot of money. You can see why tenants are emotional about it.

Give it time and it will become the new norm, especially given the increased professionalism of landlords since the REITs arrived. Most tenants are reacting based on their experience of the stereotypical "dodgy" small scale landlord.

amcalester

twill wrote: »

I can't say I heard any great demands for vulture funds charging double deposit.

Double deposits are merely a by-product of a more professional rental market.

Are you saying there were no calls for a more professional approach to renting?

We have to take the rough with the smooth.

listermint

So there is arguing back and forth here. But is their anyone arguing that deposit escrow is not needed.


Because that's something to argue about its fairly evident it's required. Would cut out all the nonsense squabbling in a thread like this

Sad Professor

dudara wrote: »

It's a big change in mentality for Irish renters, hence why it's causing upset. Also, given that monthly rents are now much higher, a two month deposit can be around the €4K mark, which is a lot of money. You can see why tenants are emotional about it.

Give it time and it will become the new norm, especially given the increased professionalism of landlords since the REITs arrived. Most tenants are reacting based on their experience of the stereotypical "dodgy" small scale landlord.

It will only become the norm if tenants feel they are getting something in return. Namely deposit protection and security of tenure, which most landlords are opposed to, but things like this will probably hasten the introduction of.

dudara

^Agreed - it's give and take on both sides really, but overall hopefully the emergence of more professional landlord-tenant relationships

twill

amcalester wrote: »

Double deposits are merely a by-product of a more professional rental market.

Are you saying there were no calls for a more professional approach to renting?

We have to take the rough with the smooth.

This is not indicative of a more professional approach, it is indicative of an investor fund maximising its capital. It puts more pressure on renters and also the taxpayer, who will have to fund the deposits for rent allowance renters.

Looking at some places and between first months rent and two months deposit, you are looking at the his of 5-6 thousand upfront. That's a huge chunk of change and let's be honest here, many landlords will bend over backwards to find a reason not to return a deposit. You'd swear that landlords w doing gods work the way some people go on, they're not they're trying to squeeze every last penny out of what they have and landlords crying that the rent doesn't cover the mortgage, boo bloody hoo. If you bought a house and can't keep up pavements its not your tenants fault. If these deposits were going into a secure account not controlled by the landlord the maybe, at least them there would be protection for the tenant.

The_Conductor

Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »

You would have to laugh at the people complaining about this, especially those saying "handing it over to a dodgy LL" when the LL introducing this is a large scale LL the very type the same people are crying out for. You couldn't make it up.

This is a very valid point.
The fact that its a large scale REIT with over 2,000 properties- means they are defining what the new 'norm' is.

Also- in rebuttal of the various comments on this thread- regarding unfair retention of deposits- Gizmo has kindly supplied us with the following:

gizmo81 wrote: »

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

881 Disputes taken by tenants for Deposit Retention
608 disputes found either fully or partially in favour of the tenant.
273 found the deposit retention to be justified by the landlord

I.e. almost a third of tenant deposit retention disputes taken to the RTB- were found to be without justification.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I.e. in 2015 - 0.276% of tenancies featured a dispute for unfair retention of a deposit. Of these disputes - two thirds were wholly or partially upheld. One third were found to be "meritless or vexatious disputes".


Page 35 of the report- also details the number of civil court orders obtained in 2015.

953 civil actions were undertaken.

51% related to large rent arrears and/or non-payment of rent by tenants
23% related to unfair retention of deposits
21% related to longterm overholding / overholding with non-payment of rent
1.7% relate to unlawful termination of a tenancy
3.25% relate to 'other'

I.e. there is a small issue with the unfair retention of deposits- by a small number of landlords, in the country. There are over 3 times as many cases found in favour of landlords- featuring non-payment of rent, rent arrears or overholding by tenants.

The 2016 RTB report is due to be published in the coming weeks- and it will be interesting to see if the figures in it support the trend apparent in the 2015 report.

The big difference between the 2015 RTB and previous years reports- is the number of judgements made for unfair retention of deposits- fell from the no. 1 complaint to the Board- a position it held for several preceding years- firmly to the third most common complaint.

I.e. in 2015- for the first time- the number of complaints taken by landlords and found in favour by the board- for non-payment of rent, or overholding either featuring payment of rent, or non-payment of rent- vastly exceeded (by over 3 fold) the number of cases taken by tenant's for unfair retention of deposits. Of the cases taken by tenants for unfair retention of deposits- two thirds were found in favour by the board- and one third rejected.

I'm looking forward to the 2016 report- apparently, its due this week.