€30,000,000 of State's Rent Deposits Not Returned

athtrasna

RA is something that is frequently discussed on here, as are the number of landlords who don't return deposits at the end of a tenancy but this report in the Irish Times is shocking!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0810/1224321894021.html

So if a RA tenant moves out of one rented property, they are given a deposit for the new property? And there is no onus on them to return the deposit if/when returned by the previous landlord? And no sanction if deposit isn't returned due to damage of property?

Zamboni

athtrasna wrote: »

RA is something that is frequently discussed on here, as are the number of landlords who don't return deposits at the end of a tenancy but this report in the Irish Times is shocking!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0810/1224321894021.html

So if a RA tenant moves out of one rented property, they are given a deposit for the new property? And there is no onus on them to return the deposit if/when returned by the previous landlord? And no sanction if deposit isn't returned due to damage of property?

Unbelievable.
That is absolutely shocking.

convert

So if a RA tenant moves out of one rented property, they are given a deposit for the new property? And there is no onus on them to return the deposit if/when returned by the previous landlord? And no sanction if deposit isn't returned due to damage of property?

Read this online this morning and actually got a bit of a shock and wondered if I was missing something completely. Your comments actually summed up my thoughts exactly. I don't understand the RA system at all, so I thought I may have missed something or interpreted the article incorrectly (i.e. that the deposit which wasn't returned was actually used by the tenants for their next deposit).

Staggering if it's the case where people are able to keep the deposit (if it is returned by landlords) and then receive a subsequent deposit towards a new house/flat.

snubbleste

I think the slant on the article is wrong. Needs clarification. I presume the article means the money was given out and never returned?

Rent supplement tenants can apply for an ENP for a rental deposit. It tends to be allocated once per household. Tenant keeps it for the next property when they move on.

Ray Palmer

I think you can add a lot of 'possible' or 'can' to the article. Getting a deposit from social welfare is not easy and is a special payment.
The cost of chasing it may not be worth it. I agree with a deposit holding system which would address the issue more easily.

Snakeblood

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think you can add a lot of 'possible' or 'can' to the article. Getting a deposit from social welfare is not easy and is a special payment.
The cost of chasing it may not be worth it. I agree with a deposit holding system which would address the issue more easily.

The deposit was always fairly easy. Giving the deposit for the first place moved into was a matter of course, and if it wasn't returned on move, it was standard enough to give the next deposit. It was known that landlord like hanging onto deposits on the slimmest pretext.

fasttalkerchat

I assumed that LL's aren't returning it and tenants aren't chasing it up because its not their problem.

athtrasna

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I assumed that LL's aren't returning it and tenants aren't chasing it up because its not their problem.

I'd love to see stats (which we never will) of that v tenants pocketing it. I would imagine a not insignificant proportion of the deposit stays with the tenant.

BostonB

That is a national scandal.

No matter who didn't return it, be it LL or tenant the authority that gave it out should have the details of who it was given to and who should have given it back. Why can they not make some attempt to recover it now?

Another side of this is tenants who pocket RA before skipping out. In my experience this isn't chased up either.

ArtSmart

sihn. all ill-informed nonsense.

your concern should be with the newBOI policy which is trying to force tenants to set up standing orders.

ArtSmart

convert wrote: »

Read this online this morning and actually got a bit of a shock and wondered if I was missing something completely. Your comments actually summed up my thoughts exactly. I don't understand the RA system at all, so I thought I may have missed something or interpreted the article incorrectly (i.e. that the deposit which wasn't returned was actually used by the tenants for their next deposit).

Staggering if it's the case where people are able to keep the deposit (if it is returned by landlords) and then receive a subsequent deposit towards a new house/flat.

it's not. so contain your shock

BostonB

ArtSmart wrote: »

it's not. so contain your shock

Well you're a lot more sure than the dept about about it.

...The department said there was no automatic entitlement on the part of a social welfare recipient to payment of a deposit and that “every effort” was made to ensure tenants were not given multiple payments if they move repeatedly....

What BOI policy and how is it relevant to this thread?

ArtSmart

yes, yes I am.

2/ perhaps not this thread. but the BOI policy will affect LL pretty badly.

the policy is to demand tenants pay by standing order. as a substantial number wont be able to do this, being unemployed etc, it will reduce the tenant mkt. and indeed fuel the black mkt. opps, back anon

athtrasna

ArtSmart wrote: »

yes, yes I am.

2/ perhaps not this thread. but the BOI policy will affect LL pretty badly.

the policy is to demand tenants pay by standing order. as a substantial number wont be able to do this, being unemployed etc, it will reduce the tenant mkt. and indeed fuel the black mkt. opps, back anon

This doesn't make any sense to me. If someone is unemployed and claiming RA, the RA is given to the tenant so why would the tenant be unable to pay the rent by SO?

I would imagine it is in the best interest of tenant and landlord that the rent is paid by standing order. I can't see any reason not to

ArtSmart

athtrasna wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense to me. If someone is unemployed and claiming RA, the RA is given to the tenant so why would the tenant be unable to pay the rent by SO?

I would imagine it is in the best interest of tenant and landlord that the rent is paid by standing order. I can't see any reason not to

yeah. i know you dont.

that's the beauty of being unemployed, you can organise all your funds efficiently, unlike employed people.

and even better, as an unemployed person whose rent subsidy is decreasing, you get the opportunity to tell your landlord your going to pay less rent from now on

yup. it's win win

BostonB

Why not start your own thread on the BOI issue its got nothing to do with this topic. Especially as you give no details of it.

The only reason not to pay by SO is to miss the rent due date to pay for something else. athtrasna's point is RA can't be used for anything else. If its not RA, then it suggests the rent is unaffordable, so you have to move. Or the LL has to lower the rent, if they want to keep you as a tenant. Personally I don't like SO's as in my experience, they often go wrong, and always to the disadvantage to the person paying it.

Why are you more sure than the Dept that deposits are given out to people who've not returned it previously.

riclad

i think the welfare officer may try to make sure , you only get 1 deposit, but person x may live in a flat for 3 years, then move to another flat in another area
with a different welfare officer.
if you ask for a second deposit,it maybe refused,
i dont know if its enforced in most cases.
i know woman ,who lived in ra house ,for 7 years,
did she give her deposit back, to welfare when she got a council flat.
i dont know.
I would be more concerned about the total cost of ra,
when it would be cheaper to buy houses for people on the list,
The days of the councils paying 250k, for 1 house is gone .

Snakeblood

ArtSmart wrote: »

yeah. i know you dont.

that's the beauty of being unemployed, you can organise all your funds efficiently, unlike employed people.

and even better, as an unemployed person whose rent subsidy is decreasing, you get the opportunity to tell your landlord your going to pay less rent from now on

yup. it's win win

Rent allowance isn't 'general spending* money'. If you're using it to pay for other stuff, you're using it wrong. Even if its needed for something else, it's not what the money is paid to you for, so complaining that it's no longer discretionary income is a bit crap, frankly.

*And by spending, I'm not implying that you are using it on luxury items.

riclad

MOST Landlords will give u notice, if you cant afford to pay the rent
agreed to when you moved in.

ArtSmart

BostonB wrote: »

Why not start your own thread on the BOI issue its got nothing to do with this topic. Especially as you give no details of it.

The only reason not to pay by SO is to miss the rent due date to pay for something else. athtrasna's point is RA can't be used for anything else. If its not RA, then it suggests the rent is unaffordable, so you have to move. Or the LL has to lower the rent, if they want to keep you as a tenant. Personally I don't like SO's as in my experience, they often go wrong, and always to the disadvantage to the person paying it.

Why are you more sure than the Dept that deposits are given out to people who've not returned it previously.

Boston, you live in a different world, one with a different language, one which is impossible to speak to.

Still, a world so clear cut, so obviously logical, where complexities are reduced to formula, with the flick of a wrist, must be a very reassuring place to live.

Art out.

BostonB

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it.

In the real world the LL has to feed their own kids, pay the bills too. The tenant isn't going to help the LL when the LL ESB gets cut off.

MariMel

I got RA ages ago for a while.....and have had RA again now for my last 3 houses and I have NEVER gotten even a tenner towards my deposit.

So its not an automatic payment even for the first property.
Ive moved areas and dealt with numerous different cwo's too.

edellc

I really feel if you want to comment on this issue then you need to understand how it works, rather than just sounding off incorrectly.

Just because you are on RA does not entitled you to a deposit from the CWO it is only given in exceptional circumstances, and it is a one off payment if you do get it.

Anyone who avails of it uses it as their deposit, once the tenancy is up and they are moving to another property then the returned deposit from the Landlord is used to secure the new property so it is in most cases returned to the tenant and then used again. To suggest that when this deposit is returned to the tenant and for the tenant to return it to the CWO and then ask for it back again for the next property is just ridicules as the amount of paper work that would be required its just not worth it.

To also suggest that landlords are not returning full deposits is also wrong, yes there are plenty of rogue landlords and rouge tenants but if you keep the property in good condition then there is no need for deposits to be retained, however as I have said in numerous threads we do need proper rental laws that are enforceable quickly and having a holding company for deposits is a huge part of that.

I do believe that if a tenant get a CWO deposit and then secures a council house then the tenant should have to return the deposit, likewise if the tenant moves home then the deposit should be returned, but if they are going to use it to secure another property then returning and reissuing it just doesnt make sense in my eyes.

I would like to see how they came to this figure or is it just a blanket figure of how much money has been issued as a deposit from the CWO.

It doesnt however surprise me the lack of accounting for this as with all government departments they all lost the run of themselves with spending, this is just another example.

However instead of bashing everyone who are the poorest in society and need financial assistance from the state, lets look at those who are suppose to responsible for the coppers of this country and how easily they spend taxpayers money without accounting for it.

athtrasna

edellc wrote: »

However instead of bashing everyone who are the poorest in society and need financial assistance from the state, lets look at those who are suppose to responsible for the coppers of this country and how easily they spend taxpayers money without accounting for it.

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves? Thirty million euro not returned? That's a massive amount. Accountability required.

edellc

Of course accountability is required, however how many of the 30million was used as a follow on deposit for another property, how much of it was pocketed by landlords, how much of it pocketed by tenants??

It is up to those in government to be held responsible for their lack of accounting and lack of recovering this money...yes tenants have a moral obligation to this money as like any social welfare money it is not their's it is the states money, but government must lead by example and if ministers and county councils misuse state money then how can they expect the most hard up of our society to abide by rules and regulations that they themselves fail to do...It is not one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

A new set of regulations needs to be implemented regarding these kind of payments, but instead of the mickey mouse policies that are in place now that are available to the PRTB we need actual laws that can be followed and implemented immediately. All Landlords should be registered and all should have to take rent allowance with non-discrimination (most dont take RA as they are not registered for tax on a rental property therefore screwing the system out of even more money while holding on to deposit, how is this right either) while all deposits should not be held by landlords but by an independent body that draws up a proper inventory with photographic evidence before a tenancy commences, that way if damage is incurred to property then yes retention of deposits or part of them is allowed, but this is all needs to be accounted for with both the independent body and the state agency who issue such deposits.

athtrasna

edellc wrote: »

All Landlords should be registered and all should have to take rent allowance with non-discrimination (most dont take RA as they are not registered for tax on a rental property therefore screwing the system out of even more money while holding on to deposit, how is this right either).

A common misconception. We have a rented property as do many of our friends (usually in the case where both people had their own property before marriage, property in negative equity so renting is our only option) and I don't know anyone who takes RA. Fully registered with PRTB and Revenue, all taxes paid. We don't take RA largely because of the delays that are common in the system with RA taking months to be approved and RA being paid in arrears rather than in advance. Property has been rented long term.

edellc

Fair play to you and your friends for being registered and doing it correctly however from my experience there are a lot of landlords that dont register for rental tax and keep everything on the QT.

So if a landlord is not registered then there has to be laws in place to force them to be and if you are registered then you have nothing to worry about, the system also needs to change regarding RA, it needs to be a quicker process so that there should be no discrimination within the rental sector as now a days lots of people find themselves in need help through no fault of their own and are not making a career out of being on welfare, those who are need to be addressed but the majority are real honest applicants in desperate need of help and we have a system that does help but just very slowly.

The vast majority of properties out there dont accept rent allowance and I feel very strongly that this is very wrong, as a person should be judged on the "interview" process of viewing a property and not on if they are on RA or not.

BostonB

edellc wrote: »

...The vast majority of properties out there dont accept rent allowance and I feel very strongly that this is very wrong, as a person should be judged on the "interview" process of viewing a property and not on if they are on RA or not.

I think you'll find very many (40% see below) don't advertise that they accept it. But in fact end up accepting it.

....UPDATE: 9th February, 2012. The quarterly DAFT.ie rental report is now available where Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton provides a commentary and background information on the decision to cut the levels of rent allowance last month. Minister Burton says “Since 2005, rent supplement expenditure has increased from €369 million to some €503 million in 2011. The number of people claiming the allowance increased from almost 60,200 in 2005 to over 96,800 at end 2011, a 61% increase. In terms of overall share in the market, rent supplement accounts for approximately 40% of the private rental market.”...

Link

Another point about the state paying deposits. Any security in holding a tenants deposit is largely negated if its not their money at risk. Likewise if most of the rent is paid for by someone else. it certainly increases the potential risk for the LL.

I've not seen any official figures on what percentage of defaulters, or disputes, are with RA tenants or non RA tenants. Anecdotally you hear conflicting experiences. Who knows.

murphaph

edellc wrote: »

It is up to those in government to be held responsible for their lack of accounting and lack of recovering this money...yes tenants have a moral obligation to this money as like any social welfare money it is not their's it is the states money, but government must lead by example and if ministers and county councils misuse state money then how can they expect the most hard up of our society to abide by rules and regulations that they themselves fail to do...It is not one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

It's taxpayers' money. It is irrelevant (though sickening) if politicians etc. are taking the p!ss with their expenses. RA tenants who steal deposits (and it is stealing if they retain a returned deposit then seek another for the next property or move into local authority housing) are not stealing from some ethereal entity known as "the state", they are stealing from ordinary taxpayers back pockets.

Those in charge of this are the CWO's. They have the discretion to refuse these payments. They should be taking more of an interest. I as a landlord (with RA tenants!) would prefer if these deposits were not so easily come by as the easier they are to come by, the less likely a tenant is to care about whether they get their's back or not. A tenant who doesn't care about getting their deposit back is unlikely to look after the property as well as someone who does.

juan.kerr

More bloody scroungers

Avatarr

Another day and yet another scandal in involving tax payers money. We cannot afford this waste, it's incredible that there is not a mechanism to account and track this money.

Yet we as citizens are seeing services curtailed in hospitals due to lack of funds.

I must admitt, every time I hear stories like this, I wonder how many other such poorly managed systems exist out there that are leaking a torrent of money we don't have.

edellc

murphaph wrote: »

It's taxpayers' money. It is irrelevant (though sickening) if politicians etc. are taking the p!ss with their expenses. RA tenants who steal deposits (and it is stealing if they retain a returned deposit then seek another for the next property or move into local authority housing) are not stealing from some ethereal entity known as "the state", they are stealing from ordinary taxpayers back pockets.

Those in charge of this are the CWO's. They have the discretion to refuse these payments. They should be taking more of an interest. I as a landlord (with RA tenants!) would prefer if these deposits were not so easily come by as the easier they are to come by, the less likely a tenant is to care about whether they get their's back or not. A tenant who doesn't care about getting their deposit back is unlikely to look after the property as well as someone who does.

Taxpayers / state it makes no difference one a taxpayer pays their taxes it becomes the states money.

I agree that a tenant should not get a deposit for one place, leave it without getting deposit returned by landlord and then seek another one that is just madness and should never happen and it is up to the CWO to see that that behaviour does not happen...What I said was that if one deposit is given and then returned to the tenant when lease is up and that tenant then uses it directly to obtain another rental property...this is how most use the deposit situation and not pocketing it for themselves, where you do think all these tenants go once their lease is up?? they move to another rental property therefore using said deposit a second and third time.

It is not easy to get a deposit from the CWO and it as I have said is a one off payment and most people do not get multiply payments of deposits, maybe some get a second deposit under exceptional circumstances but certainly they do not get more than two.

I also agree that a tenant who doesnt care about getting their deposit back is not inclined to care about the property either, but that is a small minority of people who do this most people who have no option but to rent and have families and on RA do look after properties.

In relation to the council housing, this takes years to get and by years I mean anything up to 5/6 yrs depending on where in the country you are. Most people are not on RA that long unless they are single mothers, disability applicants or the lowest of the low career social welfare applicants.

As for politicians leading by example yes it is relevant as if the people who run the country can not act in a proper manner they can not expect others to do so and if politicians are taking the piss with their expenses then yes it is the same as welfare fraud as it is also the taxpayer that pays the politicians expenses it all comes from the same kitty

Victor

juan.kerr wrote: »

More bloody scroungers

Keep it constructive, please.

The_Conductor

Guys- regardless of who is benefiting from the money- the issue is more that it isn't being chased to ground and there is this large amount (€30m) that there has been little if any attempt to recover. If the argument is that its uneconomical to chase the figures- well, why not expand the unemployed work placement schemes into purpose fit sections to get them to chase these (and other 'uneconomic' sums). It would provide a cadre of unemployed people with skills in credit control, that will stand to them in any time, be it boom or bust.

It was never envisaged that the state would be footing these bills for deposits- these have traditionally been doled out of Community Welfare Officer's 'Hardship Funds'- aka a petty cash exercise to account for unexpected demands of CWOs. If its the case that tenants have to apply for a deposit in a regularised manner- rather than relying on the bounty of a 'hardship fund', and were more accountable for the deposit- and the chasing of the deposit from landlords- it would incentivise them to chase the landlord properly for any deductions, or if the tenant themselves were using the deposit in an inappropriate manner- it would stamp that out.

If people think that the CWOs 'Hardship funds' are going to continue to disburse deposits willy nilly in future- they really have no comprehension of just how bad this country's finances actually are. Our 21 billion in social welfare disbursements- is wholly unsustainable- and given the (foolish) guarantees the government have made to maintain headline rates- its so obvious that any disbursements that are not 'headline' disbursements, are going to be considered fair game.

I'm not blaming either tenants or landlords here- I'm blaming a system that allows these payments to slide as they are 'uneconomical' to allocate staff/resources to deal with them. We need a serious rethink here.......

Graces7

smcarrick. You say the present welfare system is "unsustainable" and I am not disagreeing with that at all.

But what do you see as the remedy alernative please (question mark not working on the keyboard)

Recently there was for example a case of a 7 year old boy collapsing from long term malnutrition and it was not that child benefit was not being paid

Listening to how other countries solve these issues.. they have feeding programmes in schools so that children get breakfast and lunch, rather than increasing benefits that do not get to the children.

( NB that is eg Canada where the latest figures for the homeless stand at 1.3 million)

The mother in that case said that by the day before child benefit was paid there was never any food in the house which suggests bad management .

Reducing benefits without some safety net for the vulnerable is a questionable issue.

There has also been of late a 50% refusal rate for applicants for disability

Do you see this kind of cutback as the way forward or what then

edellc

I have to agree with Grace, although 30million can not just be handed out without remorse or some attempt to recoup it, cutting benefits is not the way to go until some other alternative is in place. If FG got their way we would have a welfare and health system like that of America and we all see and know what dire conditions of destitute people are left in over there not to mention if you become sick with no health insurance.

We also can not look to the UK as when they are on welfare they have a better way of dealing with social housing, you would think that with all the ghost estates here that we should not have such issues as per the discussion of handing out millions in deposits to private landlords but yet again its a backwards way of doing things....bravo Ireland.

But I suppose to solve the problem would put lots of people out of business and those in power or in huge salary consultancy roles would lose out on such salaries so they like us to have these problems and to blame the poorest of the poor and for every taxpayer to follow suit as if they dont then shudder the thought of them having to pay more in taxes. Its a game of pass the parcel except the parcel is the blame game, of how the coppers are running dry, think we need to refocus and start looking back to the top of the pecking order and those who make decisions.

BostonB

Penalise who ever signed off on not tracking these deposits. Start tracking it now.

This country is awash with poor financial accountability with public money. Start chasing that down for a start.

The_Conductor

The case of the 7 year old boy collapsing from malnutrition- and the recent cases of scurvy in primary school children- are disgraceful- a complete and utter disgrace. Yes- children's benefit continues to be paid in respect of these children- and no, its very obviously not being used for its intended it be used for in a not insignificant number of cases. Look at the recent hullabaloo when Musgraves sponsored a drinks offer in conjunction with children's welfare day- aka, on the first Tuesday of the Month, as you've got your children's benefit- why not stock up on our cut price booze- its appalling. The national lottery statistics also show sharp peaks in ticket sales on welfare days- aka retailers are expecting people to use their benefit to fund alcohol purposes (though I doubt Musgraves will get so badly caught out again) and we have statistics inferring significant sales of lottery tickets (aka gambling) on days when there are welfare disbursements.

From this- we can infer that cash payments are not suitable (and not just children's benefit- other payments too) for who knows how many people. You can't actively discriminate against any particular section of the community- so a wholesale reform of the system would be necessary.

With respect of children- how about a vast push to encourage-

1. Parenting classes for all parents, no exceptions
2. A push to get unemployed certified as childcare workers (surely a significant number of our over 400,000 unemployed, both men and women, could be encouraged in this direction?)
3. A broadening of the pre-school care year to include all children under the age of 5
4. A change in the school year to lengthen the school year (the pre-text for having a 3 month summer break is that children had to help out on farms- which obviously isn't the case any longer- as we're predominantly an urban society)
5. Provision of meals in school for *all* school goers
6. Provision of supervised study and after-school clubs
7. Provision of book rental schemes
8. Provision of clothing and footwear for all children-

and in lieu of all of this........ the abolition of children's benefit.
So children get taken care of properly- without discrimination against anyone- everyone is fed, clothed and properly educated, at less cost than the current regime?

Thats just children's benefit.

Housing- thats a dynamite topic in an Irish context. We have on a global scale an almost unique attachment to ownership of property- and we haven't learnt any lessons from the 3 booms and busts since the late 60s.
We still have the mentality of turning up our noses at someone who can't afford to buy property- tinged with jealousy as they don't have a commensurate mortgage to everyone else now........
We need to somehow have an equitable system- those who have assets, pay a fair share, without being crucified, those who don't, don't end up turfed out on the street, but also don't have living conditions superior to someone working their butt off to make ends meet. How do you do this? I don't know.

Pensions and welfare

So- we need to encourage a fundamental rethink here.
Its the older generation who don't want their property to be considered as an asset when assessing eligibility towards provision of state care in old age. Its the younger generations who have mortgage millstones who can only dream of retirement like their parents (and indeed in many cases may have false ideas of the retirements their parents are managing to live). We have a generational divide- what suits one generation puts a cost on another- and vice versa. The recent papers (OECD) have suggested that rather than cutting our pension and/or social welfare rates, if its politically untenable- simply to remove all index/inflation linking going forward- so they would cost less in real terms. Aka- a person today will have far better retirement conditions than someone ten years hence, however in 10 years time, 224 Euro will be worth a hell of a lot less in real terms, than it is today.

Meanwhile- we still have a fundamental current account deficit of about 9 billion (admittedly better than many expected) that has to be tackled. Whatever way we look at it- there are going to be even more unhappy people out there.

The_Conductor

BostonB wrote: »

Penalise who ever signed off on not tracking these deposits. Start tracking it now.

This country is awash with poor financial accountability with public money. Start chasing that down for a start.

Part of the issue is the deposits are granted from 'hardship funds' which are controlled by the CWOs. There is no specific scheme to dole out deposits- they are habitually doled out as 'exceptional payments'. As it stands the CWOs are so overwhelmed with their work load- they are not in a position to do anything in this respect- aka it will have to be hived off on another section- somewhere else.

All payments like this should be habitually chased, certainly.

Jesus Shaves

BostonB wrote: »

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it.

In the real world the LL has to feed their own kids, pay the bills too. The tenant isn't going to help the LL when the LL ESB gets cut off.

If you can't afford to be a landlord then don't be one.

fasttalkerchat

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

If you can't afford to be a landlord then don't be one.

Agreed. I'm sick of hearing that a LL says they will return the deposit at the end of the month because they are short of cash. The worst thing is that many tenants regard the deposit as a sunk cost and its a bonus if they get more than half back!

The_Conductor

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Agreed. I'm sick of hearing that a LL says they will return the deposit at the end of the month because they are short of cash. The worst thing is that many tenants regard the deposit as a sunk cost and its a bonus if they get more than half back!

If you have an issue with not getting a deposit (or a portion of it) back- start a PRTB case- thats what they are there for. Its in the interests of both landlords and tenants that deposits etc be kept above board. Wide sweeping statements like yours do nothing to help either tenants or landlords- they are more suited to a Joe Duffy call-in.....

fasttalkerchat

smccarrick wrote: »

If you have an issue with not getting a deposit (or a portion of it) back- start a PRTB case- thats what they are there for. Its in the interests of both landlords and tenants that deposits etc be kept above board. Wide sweeping statements like yours do nothing to help either tenants or landlords- they are more suited to a Joe Duffy call-in.....

I said that I have heard that attitude several times. Personally I know a few students who were delighted that they got back the full deposit.
This attitude comes about because of the experiences of a substantial number of of tenants.
About the PTRB, this is the way to resolve issues on a case by case basis but they are powerless to prevent those LLs from trying to hold on to money that isn't there's.

The_Conductor

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

If you can't afford to be a landlord then don't be one.

Whats that supposed to mean?
A landlord is offering a service- just the same as shopkeeper- if you can't pay for your milk and butter- do you expect to walk out the door of the shop with them anyway? If a tenant has a financial problem- they need to discuss it both with the landlord and (if appropriate) their local CWO. A lot of recent 'landlords' are only landlords out of necessity- their jobs moved and they need to rent elsewhere- or their current home is unsuitable for children- so they are letting their sole property and renting elsewhere. If you stiff these people with cut-off electricity bills, unpaid rent etc- you are not hammering some faceless entity- you could potentially destroy them.

If you have a problem with a landlord- report them to the PRTB- starting all these hysterical stories and suggesting that landlords are somehow to blame for the ills of society- is one of the more blinkered viewpoints out there. They are people providing a service that society demands (and in many cases, are renting their sole property out, as its unsuitable to their current needs).

If I were a shopkeeper and you robbed me blind- I'd have to shut up shop in no time flat. A landlord is no different- many of them are being forced to shutup shop.

The_Conductor

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

they are powerless to prevent those LLs from trying to hold on to money that isn't there's.

Not entirely. Under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- their judgement is legally binding. If you have a judgement registered against a landlord- if they refuse to pay, the intention is that the PRTB then pursue them through the courts to enforce the judgement (I am not aware of this happening- however this is what is legislated for).

If you have an issue- report it. Normally even the threat of having an issue reported is sufficient for tenants and landlords to come to amicable arrangements- for those cases where it isn't- follow it through- if the landlord is chancing his arm, at very least you'll be saving other people a similar experience with him or her in future.

fasttalkerchat

smccarrick wrote: »

Not entirely. Under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- their judgement is legally binding. If you have a judgement registered against a landlord- if they refuse to pay, the intention is that the PRTB then pursue them through the courts to enforce the judgement (I am not aware of this happening- however this is what is legislated for).

Agreed. However it doesn't prevent cases where LLs hold on to €100 for "cleaning" and the tenant says ah well, at least I got most of the money. In another industry a customer would expect to get 100% of their money but bad practice is tolerated by many people.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

If you have an issue with not getting a deposit (or a portion of it) back- start a PRTB case- thats what they are there for. Its in the interests of both landlords and tenants that deposits etc be kept above board. Wide sweeping statements like yours do nothing to help either tenants or landlords- they are more suited to a Joe Duffy call-in.....

Again, with deepest respect for all you say.. what is a person needing RA to do when a landord withholds the deposit whih they absolutely need for their next deposit ( question mark not working on keyboard)

Most of us do not have resources to draw on. And we cannot wait for a PTRB wheel to grind exceedingly slowly.

There was a thread here recently re a landlord waiting on a couple who were apparently caught up in a delay that was probably not their fault.

We have had issues re getting deposits back too often now and last time had to very reluctantly stop paying rent the last few weeks to offset the deposit on the new place.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

The case of the 7 year old boy collapsing from malnutrition- and the recent cases of scurvy in primary school children- are disgraceful- a complete and utter disgrace. Yes- children's benefit continues to be paid in respect of these children- and no, its very obviously not being used for its intended it be used for in a not insignificant number of cases. Look at the recent hullabaloo when Musgraves sponsored a drinks offer in conjunction with children's welfare day- aka, on the first Tuesday of the Month, as you've got your children's benefit- why not stock up on our cut price booze- its appalling. The national lottery statistics also show sharp peaks in ticket sales on welfare days- aka retailers are expecting people to use their benefit to fund alcohol purposes (though I doubt Musgraves will get so badly caught out again) and we have statistics inferring significant sales of lottery tickets (aka gambling) on days when there are welfare disbursements.

From this- we can infer that cash payments are not suitable (and not just children's benefit- other payments too) for who knows how many people. You can't actively discriminate against any particular section of the community- so a wholesale reform of the system would be necessary.

With respect of children- how about a vast push to encourage-

1. Parenting classes for all parents, no exceptions
2. A push to get unemployed certified as childcare workers (surely a significant number of our over 400,000 unemployed, both men and women, could be encouraged in this direction?)
3. A broadening of the pre-school care year to include all children under the age of 5
4. A change in the school year to lengthen the school year (the pre-text for having a 3 month summer break is that children had to help out on farms- which obviously isn't the case any longer- as we're predominantly an urban society)
5. Provision of meals in school for *all* school goers
6. Provision of supervised study and after-school clubs
7. Provision of book rental schemes
8. Provision of clothing and footwear for all children-

and in lieu of all of this........ the abolition of children's benefit.
So children get taken care of properly- without discrimination against anyone- everyone is fed, clothed and properly educated, at less cost than the current regime?

Thats just children's benefit.

Housing- thats a dynamite topic in an Irish context. We have on a global scale an almost unique attachment to ownership of property- and we haven't learnt any lessons from the 3 booms and busts since the late 60s.
We still have the mentality of turning up our noses at someone who can't afford to buy property- tinged with jealousy as they don't have a commensurate mortgage to everyone else now........
We need to somehow have an equitable system- those who have assets, pay a fair share, without being crucified, those who don't, don't end up turfed out on the street, but also don't have living conditions superior to someone working their butt off to make ends meet. How do you do this? I don't know.

Pensions and welfare

So- we need to encourage a fundamental rethink here.
Its the older generation who don't want their property to be considered as an asset when assessing eligibility towards provision of state care in old age. Its the younger generations who have mortgage millstones who can only dream of retirement like their parents (and indeed in many cases may have false ideas of the retirements their parents are managing to live). We have a generational divide- what suits one generation puts a cost on another- and vice versa. The recent papers (OECD) have suggested that rather than cutting our pension and/or social welfare rates, if its politically untenable- simply to remove all index/inflation linking going forward- so they would cost less in real terms. Aka- a person today will have far better retirement conditions than someone ten years hence, however in 10 years time, 224 Euro will be worth a hell of a lot less in real terms, than it is today.

Meanwhile- we still have a fundamental current account deficit of about 9 billion (admittedly better than many expected) that has to be tackled. Whatever way we look at it- there are going to be even more unhappy people out there.

Thank you for the care an thought in this. And yes, so many have no idea how to budget and how to cook. Look at the trolleys in supermarkets.

An yes, children and the old must be cared for, as must the less obviously disabled eg mentally ill.

Always safety nets. chatted with a late middle aged woman last week who was fearful that the govt would run out iof money and she would not get her pension.

I am very old now and one one thing that frequently strikes me is that things we used to do for others, including family, just as a matter of course, people now expect payment for. We always were taught to look after family, to keep an eye on neighbours. Should not be the state;'s job.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

Whats that supposed to mean?
A landlord is offering a service- just the same as shopkeeper- if you can't pay for your milk and butter- do you expect to walk out the door of the shop with them anyway? If a tenant has a financial problem- they need to discuss it both with the landlord and (if appropriate) their local CWO. A lot of recent 'landlords' are only landlords out of necessity- their jobs moved and they need to rent elsewhere- or their current home is unsuitable for children- so they are letting their sole property and renting elsewhere. If you stiff these people with cut-off electricity bills, unpaid rent etc- you are not hammering some faceless entity- you could potentially destroy them.

If you have a problem with a landlord- report them to the PRTB- starting all these hysterical stories and suggesting that landlords are somehow to blame for the ills of society- is one of the more blinkered viewpoints out there. They are people providing a service that society demands (and in many cases, are renting their sole property out, as its unsuitable to their current needs).

If I were a shopkeeper and you robbed me blind- I'd have to shut up shop in no time flat. A landlord is no different- many of them are being forced to shutup shop.

But you see what many of us are experiencing time an time again is that we are paying for a service we are not getting. The place we rent is our home. And in many cases it is way below what eg the landlord would live in. Repairs and maintenance not done

If you were a shopkeeper. to use your own metaphor, short changing customers, selling shoddy goods that were in poor repair, then surely you would go out of business.

And at least the lls you refer to have a roof over them; many of us have to take what we can to have that basic privilege.

Cuts all ways.

Jesus Shaves

smccarrick wrote: »

Whats that supposed to mean?
A landlord is offering a service- just the same as shopkeeper- if you can't pay for your milk and butter- do you expect to walk out the door of the shop with them anyway? If a tenant has a financial problem- they need to discuss it both with the landlord and (if appropriate) their local CWO. A lot of recent 'landlords' are only landlords out of necessity- their jobs moved and they need to rent elsewhere- or their current home is unsuitable for children- so they are letting their sole property and renting elsewhere. If you stiff these people with cut-off electricity bills, unpaid rent etc- you are not hammering some faceless entity- you could potentially destroy them.

If you have a problem with a landlord- report them to the PRTB- starting all these hysterical stories and suggesting that landlords are somehow to blame for the ills of society- is one of the more blinkered viewpoints out there. They are people providing a service that society demands (and in many cases, are renting their sole property out, as its unsuitable to their current needs).

If I were a shopkeeper and you robbed me blind- I'd have to shut up shop in no time flat. A landlord is no different- many of them are being forced to shutup shop.

It's fairly clear what it means when you have landlords on here complaining about fee, charges and almost anything else they can complain about.
We all know the majority of landlords are only in it for the money.

Graces7

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

It's fairly clear what it means when you have landlords on here complaining about fee, charges and almost anything else they can complain about.
We all know the majority of landlords are only in it for the money.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in that surely. It should be a business arrangement.

We pay for a service and in good hands... trouble is that there seem to be few good hands at times. And too much of a hassle to get service

Although I agree re the complaints;)

But nothing wrong in the premise in any way. Should be as sm rightly says, like a shop