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

Irish times blames landlords for protecting their investment

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    crossmolinalad
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭crossmolinalad


    Graham wrote: »
    And you will no doubt be shocked and upset if deposits increase to take this into account.

    Had a landlord to blame for nothing wrong when I left the house , everything was repainted and clean ,gardens were all done but wont pay deposit back and never did
    I know why couple of months later the bank did reprocess the house and never have seen deposit back
    Its for a tenant a lot of money
    Landlord 1 still have deposit and landlord 2 wants his two months deposit and a month rent
    Outstanding balance for a tenant could become a little 10k and sometimes more moving house can cost a lot too


  • Options
    #93
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    crossmolinalad wrote: »
    Had a landlord to blame for nothing wrong when I left the house , everything was repainted and clean ,gardens were all done but wont pay deposit back and never did
    I know why couple of months later the bank did reprocess the house and never have seen deposit back
    Its for a tenant a lot of money
    Landlord 1 still have deposit and landlord 2 wants his two months deposit and a month rent
    Outstanding balance for a tenant could become a little 10k and sometimes more moving house can cost a lot too

    None of that changes the residential tenancies act or your requirement to continue to pay the rent up until the end of the tenancy.


  • Options
    #94
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Graham wrote: »
    I don't think it's the case that tenants drove landlords out of the market.

    Market rates drove landlords out of the market, something that's quite beyond a tenants influence even if they may have benefitted from it at the time.

    Markets have now swung the other way, which benefits some landlords.

    A sensible goal would be to bring some sort of stability to the rental market. Violent swings in both directions ultimately benefit neither landlords or tenants.

    Market rates? Possibly that and a combination of other factors.

    -Unable to access development funds and lack of zoned sites.
    -Change in tax laws, including reducing the amount of interest which can be claimed as an expense.
    -Interference of local govt in planning process (I've seen this first hand in Cork city. A mixed development of apartments over retail and office space rejected and turned into all office space by councillors, it never even got to the planning dept). With thousands of vacant offices around, and a massive shortage of domestic accommodation. *headshake*.
    -Addition of bureaucratic load. So much f-ing paperwork. It's a deterrent, especially for the traditional bunch of investors in their 50's who are looking for somewhere safe for the results of their toil, so they can live off it for a few years until they sell it up to fund the nursing home.


    That 4% freeze was unfairly implemented. How would a retailer react if his prices were frozen on a product he had on sale that week? You can now only sell cheese at 50% of market rate, making you a loss, even though all your neighbouring shops sell at full price.

    In our management company, we have seen 8 of the 50 units go up for sale for this very reason, and that freeze isn't in very long. Long term tenants, who never had the rent increased. Rent Frozen for the foreseeable. The landlord is now prevented from negotiating new terms with the tenant on lease renewal time. So they either sell up (usually to a spouse/child), or move in a family member, renovate, and re-let at market rent. Effectively chucking people out instead of even discussing rent. What earthly good is that doing?

    I wish the govt would take their paws off of the landlord control thing, because every thing they touch is making a jittery market go more nuts.


  • Options
    #95
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Bob24 wrote: »
    If you face homelessness with no alternative it is likely you will quality for public assistance. You can choose that. And in most people's cases homelessness is not on the table and there is a choice to move to a much further location and/or lower-end property/location.
    The statement I was addressing was that they have a choice not to rent, not that they have a choice not to rent in an expensive location.


  • Options
    #96
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    TheChizler wrote: »
    The statement I was addressing was that they have a choice not to rent, not that they have a choice not to rent in an expensive location.

    Yes this was addressed in my post you quoted (asking for public assistance is a choice they can make rather than trying to rent privately).

    But you still don't get my point: in most situations you can say people have another choice/option (even in extreme ones). But it doesn't mean that because there is another choice then the situation is acceptable to them and they should just shut up about it (and it also applies when talking about landlords, not just tenants).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Yes this was addressed in my post you quoted (asking for public assistance is a choice they can make rather than trying to rent privately).

    But you still don't get my point: in most situations you can say people have another choice/option (even in extreme ones). But it doesn't mean that because there is another choice then the situation is acceptable to them and they should just shut up about it (and it also applies when talking about landlords, not just tenants).

    I get your point, we just don't agree on it. I for example wouldn't qualify for any sort of public assistance but can't buy. I suppose I'm in the lucky position where I could choose to move home if I had to but there are plenty out there for whom that isn't an option and have to rent somewhere somehow.


  • Options
    #98
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,937 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    TheChizler wrote:
    I get your point, we just don't agree on it. I for example wouldn't qualify for any sort of public assistance but can't buy. I suppose I'm in the lucky position where I could choose to move home if I had to but there are plenty out there for whom that isn't an option and have to rent somewhere somehow.

    The thing about the two month deposit if you were to ban anything more than a months deposit its not going to increase supply. Its only going to do the opposite. If a landlord sells a property as a result the only people it benefits is people who can afford to buy. If you can afford to buy you'll be able to afford more than one months deposit.

    If you have issues with getting together a 2 month deposit the last thing you need is landlords leaving the rental market and reducing already tight supply.


  • Options
    #99
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    The thing about the two month deposit if you were to ban anything more than a months deposit its not going to increase supply. Its only going to do the opposite. If a landlord sells a property as a result the only people it benefits is people who can afford to buy. If you can afford to buy you'll be able to afford more than one months deposit.

    If you have issues with getting together a 2 month deposit the last thing you need is landlords leaving the rental market and reducing already tight supply.

    The flipside of that coin- is the person who is buying the property that the landlord is selling- is probably vacating another rental property elsewhere- so while you have 1 less unit on the rental market- you also have one less tenant- so its a bit of a closed circuit.

    I'm not suggesting units leaking out of the rental market is a good idea- simply pointing out that its not necessarily as negative as many people automatically assume.


  • Options
    #100
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The flipside of that coin- is the person who is buying the property that the landlord is selling- is probably vacating another rental property elsewhere- so while you have 1 less unit on the rental market- you also have one less tenant- so its a bit of a closed circuit.

    I'm not suggesting units leaking out of the rental market is a good idea- simply pointing out that its not necessarily as negative as many people automatically assume.

    Most people tend to buy a bigger unit than they have been renting such as a couple renting a 1 bed apartment buy a 3 bed house. the result of that is fewer vacant places. Renting is a more efficient use of housing since people rarely rent more than they need but often buy and live in more than they need.


  • Options
    #101
    xpletiv
    Registered Users Posts: 1,031 ✭✭✭xpletiv


    The IT are right; two months deposit is ludicrous, and LL should be ashamed of themselves. That could easily be 4k euros, and anyone below the age of 30 will struggle to get that kind of cash together, or at least amongst anyone I know. Sure 1 months deposit was hard enough when I was dealing with it a few years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    xpletiv wrote: »
    The IT are right; two months deposit is ludicrous, and LL should be ashamed of themselves. That could easily be 4k euros

    To put the deposit requirements into perspective, it's generally less than 1% of the value of the property a tenant is being entrusted with.

    Should the tenant stop paying rent, a landlord could loose 10 - 15 times that amount assuming no physical damage to the property.


  • Options
    #103
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    Graham wrote: »
    To put the deposit requirements into perspective, it's generally less than 1% of the value of the property a tenant is being entrusted with.

    Should the tenant stop paying rent, a landlord could loose 10 - 15 times that amount assuming no physical damage to the property.

    Government should then make such arrangements that in case of a non-paying tenant the loses are 3-5 times smaller.


  • Options
    #104
    jamesthepeach
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭jamesthepeach


    grogi wrote: »
    Government should then make such arrangements that in case of a non-paying tenant the loses are 3-5 times smaller.

    Government should ensure there are no losses .That a tenant can be removed immediately and held fully responsible for all cost incurred should they go bad.


  • Options
    #105
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    jamesthepeach wrote: »
    Government should ensure there are no losses .That a tenant can be removed immediately and held fully responsible for all cost incurred should they go bad.

    There should be some balance - and a bit of time for the court to decide.

    Eviction based on one missed payment is IMHO a bit excessive, but two missed payments could initialize the proceedings, which should conclude within a month.


  • Options
    #106
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    grogi wrote: »
    There should be some balance - and a bit of time for the court to decide.

    Eviction based on one missed payment is IMHO a bit excessive, but two missed payments could initialize the proceedings, which should conclude within a month.

    Never gonna happen. Any politician who tries to initiate something like this will be crucified by the media.


  • Options
    #107
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,839 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Graham wrote: »
    To put the deposit requirements into perspective, it's generally less than 1% of the value of the property a tenant is being entrusted with.

    Should the tenant stop paying rent, a landlord could loose 10 - 15 times that amount assuming no physical damage to the property.

    So stop renting it out if you deem the risk too great.


  • Options
    #108
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,839 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    jamesthepeach wrote: »
    Government should ensure there are no losses .That a tenant can be removed immediately and held fully responsible for all cost incurred should they go bad.

    Just to be clear here, you want to offload all the risk onto the tenant? A very extreme example of wanting your cake and wanting to eat it.

    Absolute nonsense and would quite rightly be laughed out the door if any government were to even contemplate it.

    Letting is a business, business has risk, if you don't like the risk sell the house and put the money in your mattress.


  • Options
    #109
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Never gonna happen. Any politician who tries to initiate something like this will be crucified by the media.

    I know - and that's sad. That's the way to help ease the crisis...

    Protect good tenants, protect good landlords...


  • Options
    #110
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    awec wrote: »
    So stop renting it out if you deem the risk too great.

    That's an option, but it eats into the landlords return on investment.

    Much better, from the landlords pov, to reduce the level of risk by increasing the deposit.


  • Options
    #111
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    awec wrote: »
    Just to be clear here, you want to offload all the risk onto the tenant? A very extreme example of wanting your cake and wanting to eat it.

    Absolute nonsense and would quite rightly be laughed out the door if any government were to even contemplate it.

    Letting is a business, business has risk, if you don't like the risk sell the house and put the money in your mattress.

    it's not a binary option for the landlord though, is it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    awec wrote: »
    So stop renting it out if you deem the risk too great.

    I didn't say the risk was too great, I was explaining how increasing the deposit might mitigate the risks slightly (as is happening).


  • Options
    #113
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,839 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    amcalester wrote: »
    That's an option, but it eats into the landlords return on investment.

    Much better, from the landlords pov, to reduce the level of risk by increasing the deposit.

    Indeed it does, but the constant talk as if landlords are doing everyone a favour by letting people live in their houses out of the goodness of their hearts is getting really tiresome. It's a business, all business has risk associated with it.

    1 month deposits have been the norm for years, the sole reason landlords are asking for more now is because demand allows them to. This whole "oh it's so risky" thing is a distraction.


  • Options
    #114
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    awec wrote: »
    Indeed it does, but the constant talk as if landlords are doing everyone a favour by letting people live in their houses out of the goodness of their hearts is getting really tiresome. It's a business, all business has risk associated with it.

    1 month deposits have been the norm for years, the sole reason landlords are asking for more now is because demand allows them to. This whole "oh it's so risky" thing is a distraction.

    And why market does look like it looks? Because it is too risky compared to the possible benefit. A lot of LL got out of it.
    So those who stayed can ask more...

    Simple.


  • Options
    #115
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,765 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    awec wrote: »
    Indeed it does, but the constant talk as if landlords are doing everyone a favour by letting people live in their houses out of the goodness of their hearts is getting really tiresome. It's a business, all business has risk associated with it.

    1 month deposits have been the norm for years, the sole reason landlords are asking for more now is because demand allows them to. This whole "oh it's so risky" thing is a distraction.

    But Threshold advising people to overhold hasnt been the norm for years, only allowing a 4% increase hasnt been the norm for years. Th epart 4 rights changing to 6 years has not been the norm for years.

    Landlords been forced into this situation due to changes in their business practises that are completely outside their control.


  • Options
    #116
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,839 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    grogi wrote: »
    And why market does look like it looks? Because it is too risky and a lot of LL got out of it. So those who stayed are asking more... Simple.

    Not really, the market has had an over demand for quite a while now. Long pre-dating the RPZs etc.

    The idea the market is what it is because some landlords have left it is more than a bit misleading and a distortion of reality.


  • Options
    #117
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    awec wrote: »
    Indeed it does, but the constant talk as if landlords are doing everyone a favour by letting people live in their houses out of the goodness of their hearts is getting really tiresome. It's a business, all business has risk associated with it.

    1 month deposits have been the norm for years, the sole reason landlords are asking for more now is because demand allows them to. This whole "oh it's so risky" thing is a distraction.

    Is it a distraction though?

    There's been a massive increase in the number of disputed lodged with the RTB about over holding and non-paying tenants, so it could be argued that this is a result of tenant behavior.


  • Options
    #118
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭1874


    listermint wrote: »
    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

    Absolutely need some kind of escrow, but it needs to be seperate from the biased RTB, as much as I detest the idea that money would be wasted on more bureaucracy, the RTB is by no means impartial.
    crossmolinalad wrote: »
    Is one of the reasons I never pay the last(two)months (s) rent when I plan moving on

    And thats one of the reasons why it looks like deposits are going up, cant you see the connection?
    awec wrote: »
    So stop renting it out if you deem the risk too great.

    Would you be happy with a similar risk say with an employer? that they might decide just to not pay you for a month or two at their discretion? or because funds are low?
    awec wrote: »
    Indeed it does, but the constant talk as if landlords are doing everyone a favour by letting people live in their houses out of the goodness of their hearts is getting really tiresome. It's a business, all business has risk associated with it.

    1 month deposits have been the norm for years, the sole reason landlords are asking for more now is because demand allows them to. This whole "oh it's so risky" thing is a distraction.

    Its not a favour, its an exchange of a service for a price. Regarding deposits horses and carts were the norm for years, things change, and the changes are due to the risk of someone letting a house and not getting their part of a contracted agreement. Businesses have risk, but do you think any Business will happily let someone in and take their product or use their service AND not pay?? Do you think any business will just take the hit for shoplifting or theft? No, they will spread the losses across the business and the cost will be paid. You seem to think its an acceptable practice to not pay, and there should be no consideration given to outright theft.

    A deposit retention scheme is well overdue, but so long as all the factors are looked at impartially.


  • Options
    #119
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    irelandrover wrote: »
    But Threshold advising people to overhold hasnt been the norm for years,

    It was first put on the record in 2012 in an RTE Primetime Investigates special. So its been happening for at least 5 years- possibly longer.

    irelandrover wrote: »
    only allowing a 4% increase hasnt been the norm for years. Th epart 4 rights changing to 6 years has not been the norm for years.

    The first element of rent control came in on the 1st Jan 2016- 18 months ago.
    Part IV rights were 4 years- for 11 years- before they moved to 6 years. Yes, they weren't 6 years- but they were 4.
    irelandrover wrote: »
    Landlords been forced into this situation due to changes in their business practises that are completely outside their control.

    Not entirely- landlords have been asking and getting multiple months deposits with increasing frequency particularly over the last 18 months- and particularly in high demand areas. Its suddenly become topical and is hitting the media- because one of the REITs- who have just under 2,000 units under their control, have started asking for 2 months deposit as standard. It was becoming widespread before this point- but a REIT taking up the practice- is what has made it hit the headlines.


  • Options
    #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    awec wrote: »
    1 month deposits have been the norm for years, the sole reason landlords are asking for more now is because demand allows them to. This whole "oh it's so risky" thing is a distraction.

    Are you ignorant of all the new rules that have come in recently making life more difficult for LLs or just choosing to ignore them.

    There is no "sole reason" for LL demanding higher deposits, it's a combination of many things with the extremely unbalanced rights tenants now have compared to LLs being a driving force. Longer part 4s, rent controls, a totally tenant focused RTB, longer notice periods etc etc etc.

    None of the above have been "the norm for years" so why should LL not alter their approach?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »
    There is no "sole reason" for LL demanding higher deposits, it's a combination of many things with the extremely unbalanced rights tenants now have compared to LLs being a driving force. Longer part 4s, rent controls, a totally tenant focused RTB, longer notice periods etc etc etc.
    Why should those things specifically affect the deposit? What risk added by them does an increased deposit offset?


Advertisement