What do you look for in New tenants?

sideshowbob321

Not sure it this was asked but just curious.... why is it preferable Not to take Hap/Rent allowance payments ?

The_Conductor

_Dara_ wrote: »

I have no doubt about either of these things happening. Sometimes people do shitty things. Plus ça change.

The thread was asking posters here what they look for in tenants. So why did you include a list containing some questionable things other landlords do if you don't do them yourself?

The OP is a landlord's son/daughter and asked is there anything else you look for in a tenant when letting out your (their) house- it wasn't specifically stated the respondents had to be landlords it was a list you should look out for........?

sideshowbob321 wrote: »

Not sure it this was asked but just curious.... why is it preferable Not to take Hap/Rent allowance payments ?

As to why some landlords are against HAP/RAS allowances-

1. They're paid in arrears- where all private tenancies pay in advance
2. They are subject to a wholly separate inspection- which is significantly in excess of the property requirements laid out in the Residential Tenancies Act- they're more akin to current building codes. For a landlord who has an older building- which is fully compliant- they could have thousands of Euro of remedial work needed- which isn't required if they take a private tenant on.

3. Some weird scheme rules- such as if the tenant doesn't pay their portion of the rent to the local authority- the landlord gets nothing- they don't get the local authority portion- or the tenants' portion

4. Some local authorities are appalling at communicating (anything at all) with landlords- and refuse to discuss tenancies, in their properties, on data protection grounds

5. Some landlords might assume a RAS or HAP tenant is a less socially desireable tenant than a private tenant (which is a load of manure- but some might assume this to be the case)

6. General snobbiness on the part of some people towards social welfare recipients

_Dara_

The_Conductor wrote: »

The OP is a landlord's son/daughter and asked is there anything else you look for in a tenant when letting out your (their) house- it wasn't specifically stated the respondents had to be landlords it was a list you should look out for........?

It's just very weird to me that a mod of this forum would post such a bonkers list that, one can't help but note, they distance themselves from once pressed. Really strange. Why would you post a list supposedly to help the OP that you apparently don't agree with?

Even the stuff on smokers is weird. My husband is a smoker (who always smokes on the balcony) and his fingers aren't stained. In fact I rarely see yellow-stained hands much at all these days.

__..__

The_Conductor wrote: »

Some landlord *do* those things.
Others- employ local investigators- who are even less savoury (and have been caught out- as per the cases the data protection commissioner has come across).

There is a valid argument to be made for good tenants and good landlords- having some sort of rating body- it could be the RTB itself- vet them as either prospective tenants or landlords.

In the UK- even the likes of 1-2-3 Direct sell landlord insurance- which includes (after 90 days) a rent protection- i.e. if the tenant stops paying the rent the landlord's insurance covers it. There is also a regime where a non-paying tenant can be evicted within 90 days. This particular company is licensed to operate here- however, they don't offer this product- for obvious reasons.

Tenants honestly don't realise just how the system is setup here- it copperfastens their residence in properties- regardless of pretty much anything.

My last experience of vetting tenants- involved a close work colleague- who had the equivalent of CVs on his desk- he narrowed it down to 10- and asked my opinion on them. He eventually went with a Filipino nurse and her family- who were working in the locality- whose tenancy was ending because their current landlord was selling the property- and this was all obvious from looking on the internet. He did however- have to turn off his phone- as he was getting a mental number of phone calls (this was a 3 bed house in Lucan)- to the extent he wasn't able to get his day job done.

In this forum- we tend to hear of nutty landlords- and nightmare tenants. We don't hear of what happens to 95% of tenants and landlords- who just get on with things and have a good business relationship with one another. Its the same anywhere on the internet- you only get the extreme stories- not what happens to the average person.

The list I gave- most certainly *is* extreme- but it also most certainly- is happening- in some isolated cases- and probably among landlords who have been burnt before and feel the need to go to these lengths to try and ensure they don't end up in these situations again.

Different people have pet hates- my own pet hate is smoking- whenever I meet people- I always look for nicotine stains. I've encountered lung cancer a few times in my life- and its something that never ceases to cause me anguish (wholly aside from the fact that I hate the smell of cigarettes and smoke).

Says it all really that in Ireland a landlord can not get insurance of rent paid at any price.

__..__

_Dara_ wrote: »

It's just very weird to me that a mod of this forum would post such a bonkers list that, one can't help but note, they distance themselves from once pressed. Really strange. Why would you post a list supposedly to help the OP that you apparently don't agree with?

Even the stuff on smokers is weird. My husband is a smoker (who always smokes on the balcony) and his fingers aren't stained. In fact I rarely see yellow-stained hands much at all these days.

Go on now, admit it, he doesn't always smoke on the balcony.

I think you are taking everything on here a bit personally. If you like a landlord or his methods walk away. Simple as.

_Dara_

__..__ wrote: »

Go on now, admit it, he doesn't always smoke on the balcony.

Nope, he literally never smokes indoors. Ever. Even with sauce taken. Even in the depths of winter. Never happens. We both dislike the smell of a room that’s been smoked in. And we respect the landlord’s rules.

Why would this be seen as an impossible feat?

__..__

_Dara_ wrote: »

Nope, he literally never smokes indoors. Ever. Even with sauce taken. Even in the depths of winter. Never happens. We both dislike the smoky smell of a room that’s been smoked in.

Why would this be seen as an impossible feat?

It's not impossible. Just not believable to me anyway. But I'm a sceptic.
And a bit tongue in cheek.

_Dara_

__..__ wrote: »

It's not impossible. Just not believable to me anyway. But I'm a sceptic.
And a bit tongue in cheek.

If you can't imagine a scenario where someone always smokes outside, that says more about you, to be honest. I find that most smokers are very mindful these days about not smoking indoors. It's become the default to smoke outside, many are used to it as the norm.

__..__

_Dara_ wrote: »

If you can't imagine a scenario where someone always smokes outside, that says more about you, to be honest. I find that most smokers are very mindful these days about not smoking indoors. It's become the default to smoke outside, many are used to it as the norm.

Right you are so.

Neyite

I've rented places for the last 25 years - possibly since before some posters here were even born. :P And yet, according to some of you, we would not be given a tenancy by you.

I've a kid.
I've a smoker partner who has NEVER smoked inside (eh, we've a kid and I also cannot stand the smell of smoke)
We both work full time so the place is unoccupied during the day.
I sometimes buy Penny's shoes.
I'd laugh in your face if you asked me for a 3month deposit, or my bank statements.
If you were inspecting my car as 'proof' you'd be way off base too.

And you'd miss out on a family who has been told by nearly every landlord that we are model tenant and they were sorry to see us leave.

My current landlord has rented his place very competitively to us. No lease signed, just me putting the money into his bank account every month. We cut our own grass with a borrowed lawnmower, keep the place as clean and as maintained as we can.

Incidentally he had a single working bloke in before us and the build up of dirt, dust and grime not to mention the disgusting toilets from the filthy fcuker left him with some serious deep cleaning to do. I've finally got the loos sparkling 8 months after we moved in thanks to a weekly scrub with the strongest stuff I could find. My hob is on the blink and because our LL has given us such a terrific rate of rent and is a sound skin, I've bought a mid-range replacement and am getting an electrician to fit it at my own cost, as the LL I know is a busy bloke. He'll offer to pay, but I'm happy to cover the cost.

My previous tenancy was a no-lease place too that we stayed in for 8 years. By mutual agreement, the LL kept the deposit in lieu of the last month, and he got a spotless place to hand over to new tenants. I never had his address, just his bank details and his mobile number, but I paid my rent on time and he fixed stuff fairly promptly for me. Happy days.

The one before that was a disaster - and was one of only a couple of places I had through an agency. Nothing ever got fixed by them, and they refused to hand over my deposit despite signing off on the place being left pristine. It was only when I managed to do a bit of detective work to find the owner of the property and contact her directly to talk about it we realised that they were stiffing her too. They had told her that they needed to retain it and had paid for a deep clean and arrears on bills and they were also using the last month's rent that should be owed to her. She popped in and and we had a lovely chat over a cuppa and sorted it out.

If people want to judge me on my messy car, my kid and my cheap shoes, that's their loss. No wonder landlords have nightmare tenants if they pick the ones wearing designer clobber and with the flash car. The phrase "fur coat and no knickers" springs to mind.

__..__

Neyite wrote: »

I've rented places for the last 25 years - possibly since before some posters here were even born. :P And yet, according to some of you, we would not be given a tenancy by you.

I've a kid.
I've a smoker partner who has NEVER smoked inside (eh, we've a kid and I also cannot stand the smell of smoke)
We both work full time so the place is unoccupied during the day.
I sometimes buy Penny's shoes.
I'd laugh in your face if you asked me for a 3month deposit, or my bank statements.
If you were inspecting my car as 'proof' you'd be way off base too.

And you'd miss out on a family who has been told by nearly every landlord that we are model tenant and they were sorry to see us leave.

My current landlord has rented his place very competitively to us. No lease signed, just me putting the money into his bank account every month. We cut our own grass with a borrowed lawnmower, keep the place as clean and as maintained as we can.

Incidentally he had a single working bloke in before us and the build up of dirt, dust and grime not to mention the disgusting toilets from the filthy fcuker left him with some serious deep cleaning to do. I've finally got the loos sparkling 8 months after we moved in thanks to a weekly scrub with the strongest stuff I could find. My hob is on the blink and because our LL has given us such a terrific rate of rent and is a sound skin, I've bought a mid-range replacement and am getting an electrician to fit it at my own cost, as the LL I know is a busy bloke. He'll offer to pay, but I'm happy to cover the cost.

My previous tenancy was a no-lease place too that we stayed in for 8 years. By mutual agreement, the LL kept the deposit in lieu of the last month, and he got a spotless place to hand over to new tenants. I never had his address, just his bank details and his mobile number, but I paid my rent on time and he fixed stuff fairly promptly for me. Happy days.

The one before that was a disaster - and was one of only a couple of places I had through an agency. Nothing ever got fixed by them, and they refused to hand over my deposit despite signing off on the place being left pristine. It was only when I managed to do a bit of detective work to find the owner of the property and contact her directly to talk about it we realised that they were stiffing her too. They had told her that they needed to retain it and had paid for a deep clean and arrears on bills and they were also using the last month's rent that should be owed to her. She popped in and and we had a lovely chat over a cuppa and sorted it out.

If people want to judge me on my messy car, my kid and my cheap shoes, that's their loss. No wonder landlords have nightmare tenants if they pick the ones wearing designer clobber and with the flash car. The phrase "fur coat and no knickers" springs to mind.

You should tell the pope all that and he'll make you a saint. But for someone to hand over a property to it they'll need to vet you first. If you don't want to be better by then then you don't have to be and can move on. They will just vet the next person as best they can. It's not personal, it's just different methods for people to narrow down who to offer the property to.

pwurple

No smokers. No pets. 
Good references. Preferably from someone I know in the city, another registered landlord. 
I personally tend to avoid single people. (Sorry single people, but have had experiences with renting to single people who seem to think I am their mother. I will not be popping around to change the lightbulbs. but a good reference can mitigate this)
Clean appearance. Well kept ironed clothes, just an idea that they won't turn the place into a rat infested pig sty. I generally ask if they like to cook... for me, someone who can cook is likely to be able to look after themselves like a grown up.
Honking smell of toiletries is a warning sign for me. I avoid people with the look of being very high maintenance or obsessed with own appearance. (Have had bathrooms completely destroyed by cosmetics. Have had floors destroyed by weights, and neighbour complaints from the noise of fitness equipment)
Employed for more than 2 years, with employer reference.

_Dara_

pwurple wrote: »

I personally tend to avoid single people. (Sorry single people, but have had experiences with renting to single people who seem to think I am their mother. I will not be popping around to change the lightbulbs. but a good reference can mitigate this)

Oh shtop, I've had housemates before who were adamant that the landlord should not only come over to change the bulbs but should also pay for them. I'd be eye-balling them in disgust whilst getting out the stepladder and doing the job myself. Pathetic.

Now, I lived in a high-ceiling house before where the landlord did come around to help with some light-bulb changing but that was only because a regular step-ladder wouldn't cut it. That was an exception though.

Neyite

__..__ wrote: »

You should tell the pope all that and he'll make you a saint. But for someone to hand over a property to it they'll need to vet you first. If you don't want to be better by then then you don't have to be and can move on. They will just vet the next person as best they can. It's not personal, it's just different methods for people to narrow down who to offer the property to.

Tis all right - I'm an athiest. So thats one less thing for the pope to do today

I've no issue with a landlord vetting me. They can check with my employer that I have a job and therefore an income. You can check with the last few landlords that I handed back the place in the same state I got it and that I paid their rent on time. You can verify that the house remained smoke and pet free for the duration.

I do have an issue handing over months of bank statements to another civilian. Even my mother would never dream of asking that information. I do have an issue with you checking my tyres and brake pads and fingers for nicotine stains. Actually, I'd find it pretty funny.

My point is that I've got 25 years worth of excellent references- my landlords were free to pop in for a cuppa whenever they liked. I never had an issue with them needing to let themselves in while I was at work to do a necessary repair, because I've always managed to build a mutually respectful relationship with them. But based on this thread with the ridiculous criteria some have, I wouldn't have gotten further than a phone call.

I understand that it's a minefield to choose the right tenant, but making snap judgements based on a persons' circumstances and their clothes is not any guarantee that you get a decent tenant.

pwurple

Eh, fellow landlords, tread very carefully on requesting bank statements and other information. Data Protection issues. You need to have a data protection policy and procedure, detail what you will do with the information, why you need it etc.

I personally don't ask for that because it's a minefield. 

Another one, is taking the time to see it's a good fit for them. You will know the locality, the schools and families nearby if they have children. The traffic if they commute. The noise and buzz if it's in the city. Don't put a super-quiet shy person in a flat above a nightclub on a hopping busy street. Someone with a no flexibility in start times, and commute is not going to work out long term in a place with traffic gridlock every morning. 
Happy tenants = happy landlady.

__..__

Neyite wrote: »

Tis all right - I'm an athiest. So thats one less thing for the pope to do today

I've no issue with a landlord vetting me. They can check with my employer that I have a job and therefore an income. You can check with the last few landlords that I handed back the place in the same state I got it and that I paid their rent on time. You can verify that the house remained smoke and pet free for the duration.

I do have an issue handing over months of bank statements to another civilian. Even my mother would never dream of asking that information. I do have an issue with you checking my tyres and brake pads and fingers for nicotine stains. Actually, I'd find it pretty funny.

My point is that I've got 25 years worth of excellent references- my landlords were free to pop in for a cuppa whenever they liked. I never had an issue with them needing to let themselves in while I was at work to do a necessary repair, because I've always managed to build a mutually respectful relationship with them. But based on this thread with the ridiculous criteria some have, I wouldn't have gotten further than a phone call.

I understand that it's a minefield to choose the right tenant, but making snap judgements based on a persons' circumstances and their clothes is not any guarantee that you get a decent tenant.

I'm sure you would be a be a model tenant and would have no problems. People are taking all the things mentioned here too literally. For any landlord he will have his own things that he lets influence his decisions. Most use certain criteria plus common sense.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

davo10 wrote: »

Check RTB website, if they are on it, don't take the risk. References are an absolute must, and phone previous landlord to check them out. No pets, working couples with two incomes is preferable. Avoid HAP/RAS, but do not say that, if they ask, say you do accept both.

why avoid pets?

Ultimate Seduction

Jolie Thoughtless Spyglass wrote:

why avoid pets?

Suppose they'd ruin the furniture, even large outdoor dogs. One landlord here will accept cats though who **** and piss in the house, and climb all over everything.

Gas bunch of lads

Psychologeeee

I've provided a bank statement before, but a redacted one, just showing evidence of wages coming in each month. Failing that, I've just provided a redacted payslip.

srsly78

The_Conductor wrote: »

Different people have pet hates- my own pet hate is smoking- whenever I meet people- I always look for nicotine stains. I've encountered lung cancer a few times in my life- and its something that never ceases to cause me anguish (wholly aside from the fact that I hate the smell of cigarettes and smoke).

Well here is a tip for you: they changed the filter design on most cigarettes about 20 years ago - made it longer. Most smokers no longer have nicotine stains on their fingers, it just doesn't happen really. Only people smoking rollies or brands with a shorter filter will have stained fingers.

__..__

srsly78 wrote: »

Well here is a tip for you: they changed the filter design on most cigarettes about 20 years ago - made it longer. Most smokers no longer have nicotine stains on their fingers, it just doesn't happen really. Only people smoking rollies or brands with a shorter filter will have stained fingers.

You can always smell a smoker to be fair. You don't need to look at their hands.

Savannah Yellow Grapefruit

Savannah Yellow Grapefruit wrote: »

3 Months rent is fair. It might reduce the applicants some what

I think it's ridiculous to be honest especially when we have no escrow system and a dispute could take forever to resolve while you're waiting for your money back.

Cuddlesworth

Its interesting that "the conductors" comments went down so badly with most of you. Because I look at them and think to the problem tenants that I encountered in the past and still hear about today, while looking back at that list. Quite a few of those points would have saved those landlords 30k+.

You have a asset that is worth 400K+ and a revenue stream that is currently coming close to 30k+ a year for most houses in Dublin. And a system in which the tenant can do tens of thousands in damages which can never be recovered in most cases. Is spending a hour or two to visit their current address and confirming that they both live there and are good neighbours really such a hostile idea? Ringing their workplace to confirm that do in fact, work there. Or that admitting that kids, smokers or tenants with lots of time on their hands are in general sub par candidates because of the wear and damage they do. Or acknowledging the fact that somebody who treats their own property like ****(car/clothes) would treat yours worse. Who cares if you are the exception, that doesn't reduce the risk involved.

_Dara_

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its interesting that "the conductors" comments went down so badly with most of you. Because I look at them and think to the problem tenants that I encountered in the past and still hear about today, while looking back at that list. Quite a few of those points would have saved those landlords 30k+.

But, like, looking at their footwear? Hitting up neighbours for dirt? I wouldn't dream of bothering people like that. Ah but here's a box of mass produced chocolate to placate you. What? WHAT? So strange. To be frank, those neighbours don't care about some randomer's 400k asset.

Some of the checks he describes are nothing short of creepy AF.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Suppose they'd ruin the furniture, even large outdoor dogs. One landlord here will accept cats though who **** and piss in the house, and climb all over everything.

Gas bunch of lads

Broken logic in my opinion

Humans and especially kids, are much more likely to cause significant damage to furniture than any pet can.

Kids will spill their drink/food on the couch, kids will wipe their dirty mucky hands on the couch. Kids will jump up and down on the bed and have play fights while crashing into everything and breaking stuff.

But a pet sleeping on a couch is a greater financial risk . The worst thing about pets is the shedding of hair. The end.

Landlords need to get rid of their backwards thinking.

Neyite

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You have a asset that is worth 400K+ and a revenue stream that is currently coming close to 30k+ a year for most houses in Dublin. And a system in which the tenant can do tens of thousands in damages which can never be recovered in most cases. Is spending a hour or two to visit their current address and confirming that they both live there and are good neighbours really such a hostile idea? Ringing their workplace to confirm that do in fact, work there. Or that admitting that kids, smokers or tenants with lots of time on their hands are in general sub par candidates because of the wear and damage they do. Or acknowledging the fact that somebody who treats their own property like ****(car/clothes) would treat yours worse. Who cares if you are the exception, that doesn't reduce the risk involved.

For the vast majority of folk with kids, bills relating to the roof over your head is the first you'll pay. Out of every monthly wage, the rent comes first, followed by electricity and heat. Food comes after that. After those essentials are paid for, we look at other stuff we need to pay for - stuff for school, winter coats, childrens shoes and so on take priority over a big car loan on a shiny audi. If I've a banger of a car that's 12 years old it's because I prioritise my home life expenses over it or fancy clothes on a wage that often falls short of stuff we need to buy every month.

Let's face it - landlords rent to folk who are on a low enough wage or have insufficient savings /security at that point in time to get their own mortgage. If they are that loaded to be able to afford a well maintained and newish car, expensive shoes, designer handbag and pay you 1500 a month for your gaff, they'd be in their own home, not yours. But because they are renting, it likely means that like most renters, they have to juggle the bills, and may decide to prioritise their car or their appearance over the rent or bills. Which sort of defeats the purpose of you vetting their appearance or car as a yardstick on their reliability as a rent-paying tenant.

__..__

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous to be honest especially when we have no escrow system and a dispute could take forever to resolve while you're waiting for your money back.

That's rent not deposit I believe.

__..__

Jolie Thoughtless Spyglass wrote: »

Broken logic in my opinion

Humans and especially kids, are much more likely to cause significant damage to furniture than any pet can.

Kids will spill their drink/food on the couch, kids will wipe their dirty mucky hands on the couch. Kids will jump up and down on the bed and have play fights while crashing into everything and breaking stuff.

But a pet sleeping on a couch is a greater financial risk . The worst thing about pets is the shedding of hair. The end.

Landlords need to get rid of their backwards thinking.

Not the worst think. The worst thing is the smell of them. If you could get let's that didn't smell that would go a long way.

Goat the dote

__..__ wrote: »

Not the worst think. The worst thing is the smell of them. If you could get let's that didn't smell that would go a long way.

I have a non shedding non smelling dog. If she shed or smelt she wouldn’t be here. She’s crate trained and house trained.

__..__

Goat the dote wrote: »

I have a non shedding non smelling dog. If she shed or smelt she wouldn’t be here. She’s crate trained and house trained.

There is no such thing as a no smelling dog.