Irish times blames landlords for protecting their investment

amcalester

twill wrote: »

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.

And reducing it's risk, albeit only marginally as even with 2 months deposit it won't cover the losses incurred by a non-paying or over holding tenant.

You're right about the second part, though in practice I doubt IRES will be renting to many HAP or Rent Allowance tenants at current prices. These tenants will be left to the "amateur" landlords with 1 or 2 properties.

The silver-lining here might be that the Government actually do something here to improve things for both tenants and landlords.

A deposit escrow system for tenants and a more streamlined eviction process for non-paying tenants would help.

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

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'

With 72pc of those civil actions relating to non payment of rent, it's hardly any news that landlords are now asking for two months deposit.

The_Conductor

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

With 72pc of those civil actions relating to non payment of rent, it's hardly any news that landlords are now asking for two months deposit.

The report actually makes very interesting reading- and while its selectively quoted by Gizmo (and Threshold and a few other bodies)- its actually dangerous for them to quote it- in case someone actually takes a half hour out to actually read it.........

Confirmed by phone- 2016 report has already been presented to the Department and is due to be published this week.

twill

amcalester wrote: »

And reducing it's risk, albeit only marginally as even with 2 months deposit it won't cover the losses incurred by a non-paying or over holding tenant.

You're right about the second part, though in practice I doubt IRES will be renting to many HAP or Rent Allowance tenants at current prices. These tenants will be left to the "amateur" landlords with 1 or 2 properties.

No, but the point is that profileration of vulture funds in the market will drive up rents and influence renting practices negatively, which may well introduce double deposit across the board.

The silver-lining here might be that the Government actually do something here to improve things for both tenants and landlords.

A deposit escrow system for tenants and a more streamlined eviction process for non-paying tenants would help.

Not going to happen. The stringent controls on private landlords are a sop to renters, but there will be no corresponding rent or market controls.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

As in The Conductor's post, retention of the deposit is a non-issue really. Renters have more than sufficient protection there. How struggling families are expected to get the deposit together in the first place is another issue.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

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'

.

Civil Proceedings
The RTB’s legal advisors obtained 302 Circuit Court Orders in 2015. In the majority of the 302 cases, the RTB were awarded its costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

51% or 154 orders obtained for Rent Arrears or related

That is 0.04% of all registered tenancies in 2015 Report for rent arrears

Page 35 makes no mention to the amount of individual rent arrears i.e. large

The report doesn't use the words 'large' in monetary context or 'long-term' nor does 'unfair' appear in the report at all.

amcalester

twill wrote: »

No, but the point is that profileration of vulture funds in the market will drive up rents and influence renting practices negatively, which may well introduce double deposit across the board.

Possibly, but I don't see 2 months deposit as a requirement to be a negative (and I'm a renter not a landlord).

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Civil Proceedings
The RTB’s legal advisors obtained 302 Circuit Court Orders in 2015. In the majority of the 302 cases, the RTB were awarded its costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

51% or 154 orders obtained for Rent Arrears or related

That is 0.04% of all registered tenancies in 2015 Report for rent arrears

The RTB undertook 953 civil actions, securing 302 Circuit court orders in 2015. It must be noted, 442 of these actions relate to cases overhanging from 2014, and a further 86 from 2013 and previous years. In addition, criminal proceedings, under the 2004 Act, were removed as an option in the 2015 amendment to the Act. Of the convictions secured by the Board at circuit court in 2015, 75% related to cases taken by landlords (predominantly relating to non-payment of rent and or overholding) 24% relate to unfair deposit retention cases taken by tenants, and 1% relate to third party cases taken as cases to the RTB- by parties who are neither tenant nor landlord.

These are the cases- which were *not* complied with- on foot of RTB dispute determinations- i.e. cases were taken by either party, the board found in favour of one or the other party- and the party who lost the cases failed to comply with the determination order. I.e. this represents the cases that the RTB choose to send for civil proceedings- after they got ignored by the party they found against- it is not a reflection on the cases brought to the RTB- its a reflection of the people who lost cases- who decided to ignore the determination orders against them............

Of the

Lux23

She is completely right. I would have no problem handing over double deposits if it was held by a third party. Some landlords just see a deposit as another few quid to put in their pocket and as a tenant, you have no real way of knowing how trustworthy a landlord is until the last minute.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Civil Proceedings
The RTB’s legal advisors obtained 302 Circuit Court Orders in 2015. In the majority of the 302 cases, the RTB were awarded its costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

51% or 154 orders obtained for Rent Arrears or related

That is 0.04% of all registered tenancies in 2015 Report for rent arrears

Page 35 makes no mention to the amount of individual rent arrears i.e. large

The report doesn't use the words 'large' in monetary context or 'long-term' nor does 'unfair' appear in the report at all.

+1
It doesn't use arbitrary terms or expressions which are open to interpretation.
It would be nice if it provided a few cold hard statistics- on the size of deposits unfairly held, the length of time people overheld, the amount of rent arrears etc- however, you can find these in individual circuit court judgements (which are publicly available) only they're not in a useful compendium.

I.e. Half of the circuit court cases that the RTB obtained judements in, related to non-payment of rent. One quarter of the cases related to overholding. One quarter related to unfair retention of deposits.

I'd love to know what the third party cases were/are- however, thats for another day.

Over 3/4 of cases are taken by landlords, of which non-payment of rent / rent-arrears, makes up over half the cases

1/4 of cases are taken by tenants- of which over 3/4 relate to unfair retention of deposits.


The big thing I'd note- is landlords appear to be using the RTB a whole lot more in 2015- than in previous years- and where they are- a whole of the cases were found in their favour.

Tenants- are taking a significant and rising number of cases- however, given the vast increase in the workload of the board- the absolute percentage of tenant cases- is actually falling. The biggest issue by far for tenants- is unfair retention of deposits- however, of the cases taken- over a third were not upheld (for whatever reason).

I think we really need to see the 2016 report- to see if these trends are upheld- as it does seem 2015 was a watershed year for the RTB.

grogi

And that's the property problem in a nutshell.

There is a huge asymmetry of risks between landlord and a tenant. Landlord is accountable for almost everything, but has very little leverage. PRTB is too slow to act. There is very little tax incentive as well.

To mitigate the risks the landlord must take bigger deposit or simply leave the business. That severely limits the market for an average tenant.

Carlos Orange

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.

I'm sure government interference with the rental market and the limited availability of housing probably both impact on the cost of damages and unpaid rent. Even if you assume neither have changed over time that doesn't mean that the deposit has ever covered these costs.

Dr_Kolossus

Just to add to the points made by previous posters. The unfair retention by landlords probably reflects a few hundred EUR in most cases, while the non payment by tenants, often runs into the 10's of thousands.

So its a little unfair on landlords when using only absolute numbers of cases, when the value lost by landlords can be many, many multiples of the value individual tenants cases.

FYI, i'm a landlord of one property, with a great tenant paying approx 30% below MKT rate, and I've no intention in raising it, as the tenant is so good. But if I were to let again, it would be nice to have some additional security

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Although I have the same experience as you it doesn't negate the facts that many landlords will try to hold on to the deposit.

Just in this forum alone there are many stories of deposits not repaid.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?subforums=1&forum=38&query=landlord+deposit

Of course each case is separate, but in my view asking for double deposits is a way for landlords to get a bigger lump-sum at the beginning of the tenancy, one that they may be reluctant to give back later.

Graham

biko wrote: »

in my view asking for double deposits is a way for landlords to get a bigger lump-sum at the beginning of the tenancy

That's kinda the whole point of a deposit.

Still a massive imbalance when you compare the risks for both parties.

Tenants maximum potential loss (until the RTB weigh in) = 2 months deposit.
Landlords maximum potential loss = 18 months rent + any damage to the property.

Marcusm

Sad Professor wrote: »

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

I'm not sure what's proper deposit protection. I recently returned from the UK and rented for my last two years there. When the lease was up the landlord and then agent had trouble getting the deposit released from the deposit protection scheme as it had been left in the name of any old agent who'd closed down and gone to Australia!

Technocentral

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.

They are like hotels in Galway during the races, the vast majority of LL's will gouge whatever they can as everyone knows.

Mod Note

Let's avoid the sweeping generalisations about landlords or tenants. They're not helpful and they're not accurate.

jimmycrackcorm

biko wrote:

Of course each case is separate, but in my view asking for double deposits is a way for landlords to get a bigger lump-sum at the beginning of the tenancy, one that they may be reluctant to give back later.

Tenants have a guaranteed chance to recover their deposit from the rtb. But landlords have next to none trying to enforce the same on a disappearing tenant.

If you compare to the situation in the UK then it's interesting to observe how much comes up on the show "can't pay, won't pay" for the extent of issues for non payment of rent. I don't think I've ever seen then show tenants going after withheld deposits.

Technocentral

amcalester wrote:

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

You define professional as gouging as much as possible, not professional, greed!

amcalester

Technocentral wrote: »

You define professional as gouging as much as possible, not professional, greed!

No I don't, and I'm not sure I see the relevance of your post.

As has been shown by previous poster less than 1% of tenancies in 2015 resulted in a dispute being opened at the RTB for retained deposits, so landlords are returning deposits to tenants.

If your point is that rents are too high, then I'd agree with you but it's not the job of landlords to provide reasonably priced accommodation. They simply charge the market rate.

If you want rents to fall then lobby your TD to increase the supply by encouraging more building.

the_syco

Landlord doesn't give deposit back. there's a process.
Tenant disappears, nothing the landlord can really do about it.

4ensic15

gizmo81 wrote: »

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

fewer landlords make claims against tenants when they have a good case than the other way round. enforcement against former tenants is difficult, uncertain and expensive.

4ensic15

I am surprised that the vultures haven't started looking for guarantors who can be sued in the courts instead of going to the RTB.

the_syco

4ensic15 wrote: »

fewer landlords make claims against tenants when they have a good case than the other way round. enforcement against former tenants is difficult, uncertain and expensive.

And even if the landlord wins, they may only get the €0000's owed at €5 a week.

Bob24

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not my experience at all. I've been renting in Ireland for 11 years (5 different places) and always got my full deposit back. Not saying there aren't dodgy landlords out there, but saying "most landlords will cook up every story going to keep it all" is being extremely biased against landlords.

Eric Cartman

TheChizler wrote: »

The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

It takes over 6 months to evict a non paying tenant.
With regulations on rentals tightened, repairs are more expensive.
The inability to decline RA/HAP tenants has made landlords use roundabout ways to remove these tenants from the pool.

Bob24

handlemaster wrote: »

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 roperty 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.

The 2 months deposit is just the beginning. If we keep going the same direction we'll see landlords asking for more and more referrals, statements, and certificates of all kinds, and eventually requesting for someone to stand surety for the tenant with that person also having to provide all their details.

This is what happens when you try to fix a depleted housing market with more regulation to protect tenants. You might be helping tenants who are already in place (though not always, serial evictions due to the RPZ rent increase rules have shown it can have the opposite effect), but you are making it a hell for anyone looking for a new place as since landlords know they will be stuck with their tenants/rent level for a while they start being more and more demanding about who they pick (and have the leverage to be as there is a shortage of housing with loads of prospective tenants queuing-up).

The only solution to help tenants is to bring in more supply, not more protective legislation.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Graham

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The vast majority of landlords will hand back 2 months deposit exactly as they have in the past with 1 months deposit.

Arcade_Tryer

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There may be a dangerous precedent for easy credit growth here with these new deposit demands. It's ok for REITs which will most likely be professionally run with checks and balances, but the thought of that much extra money in the hands of "accidental landlords" and private landlords should be a worry.

Graham

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

There may be a dangerous precedent for easy credit growth here with these new deposit demands. It's ok for REITs which will most likely be professionally run with checks and balances, but the thought of that much extra money in the hands of "accidental landlords" and private landlords should be a worry.

If you think 2 months deposit is unreasonable, can you imagine entrusting something worth 100 - 200 times that amount to a relatively unknown tenant.