Viewings on my current rental property

voluntary

Chris Ugly Rigor wrote: »

Tenants should accept that viewings will be required towards the end of a tenancy. It should be in all leases / law.

Guaranteed they have no problem turning up to a viewing of another rental that a tenant is living in. Do they think that owners move into a hotel before they put their homes up for sale? Absolutely bizarre stuff.

This is a whishy washy stuff. The legislation says otherwise. Thankfully.

Fol20

voluntary wrote: »

This is a whishy washy stuff. The legislation says otherwise. Thankfully.

So you as a landlord want to cost yourself more money with all of the anti ll legislation?

voluntary

Fol20 wrote: »

Very skeptical your an LL when you offer a rental refund for a taking up 30mins of a tenants time.. all the tenant does normally when i advertise is continue to watch tv or stay in their bedroom when i follow the person around. Their not digging through your stuff. They are quickly looking in each room to see if they like it.

Not any more but I did just that. Got into an informal agreement with the tenant before selling. The last two or three months he paid half the rent in return for allowing viewings and keeping the house tidy for viewings. He was OK with that and I was happy as the place got sold.

voluntary

Fol20 wrote: »

So you as a landlord want to cost yourself more money with all of the anti ll legislation?

I'm all pro private LL legislation. If you read my other posts you'd know I'm pretty much against tax discrimination of private Landlords and in support of fast removal of non paying / bad tenants.

Just this particular one is pretty much crazy in my view.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Pussyhands, you will be buying in the major recession later this year anyway so don't be too concerned about such comical tenant issues.

Bluefoam

voluntary wrote: »

Not any more but I did just that. Got into an informal agreement with the tenant before selling. The last two or three months he paid half the rent in return for allowing viewings and keeping the house tidy for viewings. He was
OK with that and I was happy as the place got sold.

voluntary wrote: »

Never organised a viewing during tenancy or never been asked to allow viewing during tenancy.

I don't believe a word of it...

voluntary

Bluefoam wrote: »

I don't believe a word of it...

You got me here. This was pretty much an exception. Just before selling. Would never do that seeking new tenants. Selling takes months, hence the agreement with the tenant.

mrslancaster

Its understandable that a 'LL would try to find new tenants asap to minimise any vacancy but the OP does not have to agree to viewings during their tenancy IMO.

The EA can organise viewings for the day after the OP moves out, all day long if necessary.

Why do EA's have open viewings for rentals anyway? It's not like selling where buyers can bid against each other & the seller will hopefully get the best price.

A new tenant is entitled to know the current rent which should be the same or + 4% if in RPZ. I don't see the point of having dozens of people at a viewing anyway as it just wastes everyone's time.

If there's no major refurbishment work being done then there's no reason the EA & 'LL can't get their act together and get the property advertised weeks in advance & have a shortlist of potential tenants ready to view within a day or two of the OP leaving.

Lots of sympathy for LLs who get screwed over by bad tenants but OP is paying for a service and the 'LL should provide it to the last day of the tenancy. ��

voluntary

Chris Ugly Rigor wrote: »

Pussyhands, you will be buying in the major recession later this year anyway so don't be too concerned about such comical tenant issues.

1. You mistaken me for somebody else.

2. I got off the 'rental business' mainly due to the taxation. It wasn't worth it, there are better investment options. Maybe if I thought the property market will go that high as today then I'd hold a bit longer, but you never know the future so no regrets here.

I got better and worse tenants over the years. A non paying one too. Paid the first month only and then nothing, just a constant chain of false promises and lies. Thankfully I was only down 4 months payment when he 'voluntarily' moved out. 4 months no rent plus bills needed to be sorted and the place was left in kind of a bad state (nothing serious though). Anyway, it wasn't that tenant who put me off the business, it was mainly due to taxes.

q85dw7osi4lebg

I didn't direct that at you, Pussyhands confirmed.

voluntary

Chris Ugly Rigor wrote: »

I didn't direct that at you, Pussyhands confirmed.

Yes you did. The third time in this thread and each time removed by the mod. Maybe mod considers banning you this time for a day or two so you stop annoying people.

Bluefoam

Likewise the landlord is entitled to inspect the property at some stage after the tenant has vacated the property, they are entitled to have the property handed back in the same condition as when it was occupied. They are entitled to have the property returned to that condition by professionals and are entitled to reimbursement from the tenant. They are entitled to hold onto the deposit (if there's anything left) until costs are settled. And are entitled to provide an honest assessment of the tenant by review...

voluntary

Bluefoam wrote: »

Likewise the landlord is entitled to inspect the property at some stage after the tenant has vacated the property, they are entitled to have the property handed back in the same condition as when it was occupied. They are entitled to have the property returned to that condition by professionals and are entitled to reimbursement from the tenant. They are entitled to hold onto the deposit (if there's anything left) until costs are settled. And are entitled to provide an honest assessment of the tenant by review...

What's worth entitlement without enforcement?

Nothing.

Bluefoam

voluntary wrote: »

Bluefoam wrote: »

Likewise the landlord is entitled to inspect the property at some stage after the tenant has vacated the property, they are entitled to have the property handed back in the same condition as when it was occupied. They are entitled to have the property returned to that condition by professionals and are entitled to reimbursement from the tenant. They are entitled to hold onto the deposit (if there's anything left) until costs are settled. And are entitled to provide an honest assessment of the tenant by review...

What's worth entitlement without enforcement?

Nothing.

I don't believe a word of it...

Fol20

mrslancaster wrote: »

Its understandable that a 'LL would try to find new tenants asap to minimise any vacancy but the OP does not have to agree to viewings during their tenancy IMO.

The EA can organise viewings for the day after the OP moves out, all day long if necessary.

Why do EA's have open viewings for rentals anyway? It's not like selling where buyers can bid against each other & the seller will hopefully get the best price.

A new tenant is entitled to know the current rent which should be the same or + 4% if in RPZ. I don't see the point of having dozens of people at a viewing anyway as it just wastes everyone's time.

If there's no major refurbishment work being done then there's no reason the EA & 'LL can't get their act together and get the property advertised weeks in advance & have a shortlist of potential tenants ready to view within a day or two of the OP leaving.

Lots of sympathy for LLs who get screwed over by bad tenants but OP is paying for a service and the 'LL should provide it to the last day of the tenancy. ��

When you go to view a place, your not guaranteed to get the place. Its an interview and the ll wants to get someone they think they will gel well with and will pay rent. You allow x amount of people inas not all will be interested in it also

mrslancaster

Fol20 wrote: »

When you go to view a place, your not guaranteed to get the place. Its an interview and the ll wants to get someone they think they will gel well with and will pay rent. You allow x amount of people inas not all will be interested in it also

Agree, thats why I think it's wasting a lot of folks time, no guarantees. I don't know the answer but maybe LL's / EA's could ask interested people to submit relevant details first & then arrange viewings for the few they think would be a good fit?
A bit like a company advertising a job, not every applicant will have the required qualifications or experience. Employers dont call everyone for interview.

open viewings for rentals reminds me of a jobs fair where everyone brings along a cv but nobody actually hires there, just my opinion

davindub

Op, I am a landlord but have had a period working with tenants rights.

All I would say if you can accommodate the landlord regardless of the lease, it's a reasonable thing to do. I understand you don't want open viewings with your property in situ, but maybe compromise and allow accompanied viewings (i.e. apointments only)?

As a landlord I can fill property quickly but I would be looking for decent tenants, sometimes that takes a bit longer to investigate etc.

nothing

If a landlord/estate agent showed me a property with a tenant still there, it would entirely put me off renting from them. Partly because they clearly care more about not losing a week rent than the current tenants privacy, and that in itself is not a quality I'd find too endearing - what other ways would they trample over me as a future tenant? And I find viewing with someone else's belongings all over the place makes it much more difficult to envision my own stuff in there, it's easier with a "blank" canvas.

Op is perfectly entitled to refuse, why is their inconvenience less important than the landlords? The landlord is in business, and the loss of a week's rent between tenancies is just part of the costs of that business - surely you need time to inspect after a tenancy ends and to make any repairs or adjustments needed? It's rarely going to be a case of one moving out on the last day of the month and another moving in on the first.

Fol20

mrslancaster wrote: »

Agree, thats why I think it's wasting a lot of folks time, no guarantees. I don't know the answer but maybe LL's / EA's could ask interested people to submit relevant details first & then arrange viewings for the few they think would be a good fit?
A bit like a company advertising a job, not every applicant will have the required qualifications or experience. Employers dont call everyone for interview.

open viewings for rentals remind me of a jobs fair where everyone brings along a cv but nobody actually hires there, just my opinion

Right now though it is against the law to discriminate so you have to do open viewings and allow everyone view it.

I would be ok with something like that however unless its the norm, it would put off a lot of people from even looking at it if they had to submit info in advance similar to unfurnished vs furnished.

Fol20

nothing wrote: »

If a landlord/estate agent showed me a property with a tenant still there, it would entirely put me off renting from them. Partly because they clearly care more about not losing a week rent than the current tenants privacy, and that in itself is not a quality I'd find too endearing - what other ways would they trample over me as a future tenant? And I find viewing with someone else's belongings all over the place makes it much more difficult to envision my own stuff in there, it's easier with a "blank" canvas.

Op is perfectly entitled to refuse, why is their inconvenience less important than the landlords? The landlord is in business, and the loss of a week's rent between tenancies is just part of the costs of that business - surely you need time to inspect after a tenancy ends and to make any repairs or adjustments needed? It's rarely going to be a case of one moving out on the last day of the month and another moving in on the first.

On average i suspect 90pc of viewing are done while previous tenant are living there if not more. Its the norm for ea to do this also and not just private ll.

Dont know how you can see this as ll trampling on a tenants privacy. They are not forcing their way into, they are simply trying to get everything aligned so once you move out another moves in. It doesnt mean you have been spied on your entire stay there. In my case i dont do regular inspection unless i think something strange is going on as i want them to feel like they dont have a ll unless a job is needed. Its only when time comes to re let i check if i can show people around.

As others have pointed out, whatever costs are bared on the ll eventually make their way to the tenant. Be in the form of direct higher rent or yet another excuse why ll may leave or not even try entering the rental market due to higher costs. Less supply equals higher rent for tenants.

You say its rarely the case of a day in between move in and out. You assume wrong. The majority of the time, i would do a day between rentals. Generally speaking, all that would be done between tenancies is a clean up and potentially one coat of paint if its shabby looking. Both of these can be arrange and done fairly quckly.

nothing

Fol20 wrote: »

On average i suspect 90pc of viewing are done while previous tenant are living there if not more. Its the norm for ea to do this also and not just private ll.

Dont know how you can see this as ll trampling on a tenants privacy. They are not forcing their way into, they are simply trying to get everything aligned so once you move out another moves in. It doesnt mean you have been spied on your entire stay there. In my case i dont do regular inspection unless i think something strange is going on as i want them to feel like they dont have a ll unless a job is needed. Its only when time comes to re let i check if i can show people around.

As others have pointed out, whatever costs are bared on the ll eventually make their way to the tenant. Be in the form of direct higher rent or yet another excuse why ll may leave or not even try entering the rental market due to higher costs. Less supply equals higher rent for tenants.

You say its rarely the case of a day in between move in and out. You assume wrong. The majority of the time, i would do a day between rentals. Generally speaking, all that would be done between tenancies is a clean up and potentially one coat of paint if its shabby looking. Both of these can be arrange and done fairly quckly.

I can only say that we have very different experiences of renting. The only time I ever viewed somewhere with tenants in was student housing, where you viewed in April or May for a place in September, and when there are several people sharing they don't tend to care.

As the law stands, it's entirely up to the tenant to allow it, and I don't think it's fair on a tenant to call them awkward for refusing to allow strangers into their home.

voluntary

Fol20 wrote: »

On average i suspect 90pc of viewing are done while previous tenant are living there if not more. Its the norm for ea to do this also and not just private ll.

I think you're talking out of your arse here. 90%? How did you come up with this specific number? I honestly don't believe this is a norm, rather an exception.

If I was a tenant and had good relations with LL and was asked to allow a viewing, I might possibly consider letting 2 persons at a time and only while I'm home and watching them. Open viewing or over 2/3 strangers at a time? No freaking chance. Viewing while my personal belongings are still at home and I'm not around - that's again no chance.

Even if you don't mind strangers in your home, this is a big inconvenience. I'd feel under pressure to tidy up the place, hide my personal belongings, secure any sort of documents and private items (you don't want risking let's say your passport or tax return going missing or even photographed). Letting strangers in is an inconvenience and security/safety risk which is totally avoidable. Then in this era you have people walking around with their camera phones taking pictures and recording videos, how do you prevent them recording your home/personal life?

Fol20

voluntary wrote: »

I think you're talking out of your arse here. 90%? How did you come up with this specific number? I honestly don't believe this is a norm, rather an exception.

If I was a tenant and had good relations with LL and was asked to allow a viewing, I might possibly consider letting 2 persons at a time and only while I'm home and watching them. Open viewing or over 2/3 strangers at a time? No freaking chance. Viewing while my personal belongings are still at home and I'm not around - that's again no chance.

Even if you don't mind strangers in your home, this is a big inconvenience. I'd feel under pressure to tidy up the place, hide my personal belongings, secure any sort of documents and private items (you don't want risking let's say your passport or tax return going missing or even photographed). Letting strangers in is an inconvenience and security/safety risk which is totally avoidable. Then in this era you have people walking around with their camera phones taking pictures and recording videos, how do you prevent them recording your home/personal life?

I dont have stats to back this up. I said that figure to highlight the norm. I deal with ea on a regular basis so i stay informed on the market for both buying and letting.ea also advertise with previous tenants in house.depending on tenants most are completely fine with it and very little are not ok with it. So to answer your question, im backung it up through my experience of dealing with several ea on a regular basis for years. How do you back up your thoughts?

Open house is understandable as there is no control over viewing. For most ea i deal with. Its viewings on a 1:1 basis bar one.this way you get a better feel for a tenant instead of trying to back track later when they say they are interested.

In relation to cameras etc, if you want to avoid this there is two aspects to prevent it. The tenant be there during viewing so he can put a stop to it. Second any decent ea will tell you to put the phone away if you take it out. I have seen this happen and blocked it.not all ea will care about this aspect mind you but most will.

dennyk

Bluefoam wrote: »

True & the cost of business gets passed onto the end client. Hence the high rents in the market.

That isn't how "the market" works. Landlords (on the whole, mind; there may always be individual exceptions) will always charge the highest rent that they think they can get for their place. No sane landlord is going to say "Oh, well, I could rent this place for €1500 easily, but since the last tenant allowed viewings so I didn't have to let it sit empty for a few weeks between tenancies, I'll only charge €1400!"

q85dw7osi4lebg

dennyk wrote: »

That isn't how "the market" works. Landlords (on the whole, mind; there may always be individual exceptions) will always charge the highest rent that they think they can get for their place. No sane landlord is going to say "Oh, well, I could rent this place for €1500 easily, but since the last tenant allowed viewings so I didn't have to let it sit empty for a few weeks between tenancies, I'll only charge €1400!"

Complete and utter tripe. I rented for 3 years in the past and the rent wasn't once increased as we were so called great tenants. Tenant behaviour absolutely comes into it.

Dav010

Chris Ugly Rigor wrote: »

Complete and utter tripe. I rented for 3 years in the past and the rent wasn't once increased as we were so called great tenants. Tenant behaviour absolutely comes into it.

I think will become less common unfortunately due to the introduction of RPZ legislation. If a LL doesn’t raise by 4% each year, this will effect what can be charged going forward. The more “professional” LLs that enter the market, the less consideration will be given to just how good you are.

voluntary

Dav010 wrote: »

I think will become less common unfortunately due to the introduction of RPZ legislation. If a LL doesn’t raise by 4% each year, this will effect what can be charged going forward.

I'm pretty sure If the landlord doesn't increase 4% one year, he can do the double increase the second year, triple increase the third year basically adding years since the last increase.

voluntary

Dav010 wrote: »

In relation to the op, I am loathe to quote the Threshold website because it is unashamedly biased towards tenants, even they acknowledge there is no specific legislation relating to viewings when tenancies are coming to an end. They state that by agreement, LL can have viewings before the current tenancy ends. If that agreement forms part of the rental contract the tenant agrees to and signs when the tenancy commenced, then you should be bound by it.

Op has confirmed that his/her contract contained such a clause and he/she agreed to it when agreeing to rental contract.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy/access-to-your-home/

This is wrong interpretation and would fail if you bring it up with PRTB or in court. Tenant is only required to allow landlord entry for inspections, to carry out necessary repairs or in emergencies.
Performing landlords business on premise during rental is not one of the reasons tenant is obliged to allow the property to be entered.

mrslancaster

voluntary wrote: »

This is wrong interpretation and would fail if you bring it up with PRTB or in court. Tenant is only required to allow landlord entry for inspections, to carry out necessary repairs or in emergencies.
Performing landlords business on premise during rental is not one of the reasons tenant is obliged to allow the property to be entered.

Seems perfectly reasonable if tenant is paying rent that they have the right to say who can enter the property.
If I rent a car for 2weeks the car hire company can't show it to another customer until I bring it back then they have to make sure it is cleaned and all the service checks are done before the next customer collects it. And if it's damaged I would be charged

I know the asset value is hugely different but imo the principal is the same.

Fol20

Fol20 wrote: »

Right now though it is against the law to discriminate so you have to do open viewings and allow everyone view it..

Don't know where you're getting that info from but it's 100% incorrect. It is definitely against the law to discriminate, but you can pick and choose who you want at a viewing as you see fit. Open viewings are pretty much the norm, but not because it's mandatory.