Do Irish Landlords check the credit history of their prospective tenants?

djimi

Im not disputing that the law is in favour of tenants (Im not sure where you got the impression that I was), and Im not necessarily saying that landlords should not be able to request finance checks etc from tenants (although whether or not a private individual can be trusted with a tenants bank statements etc is another debate I suspect). What I am saying is that if one side of the tenancy feels that they should be able to protect themselves by running certain checks then I dont see why the same shouldnt apply to both parties. Even a record that management fees are up to date would be a start. Im not disputing that landlords should take measures to protect themselves (be it checks, additional deposits etc); what I am disputing is that there seems to be idea that tenants are not entitled to try and protect what they have put into the agreement (even if it significantly less than what the landlord has at stake).

drumswan

The_Conductor wrote: »

Because you are entrusting them with an asset possibly worth hundreds of thousands of Euro? If the rules are not changed to give landlords proper protection from rogue tenants- then of course, a landlord should do whatever they can do, to protect themselves. The law is firmly in favour of tenants- not landlords, no matter what you appear to believe.

When you enter a contract with a landlord you are trusting them to provide a home for you and your family, this is hardly a light undertaking. Any business can and should mitigate against risk, this is part and parcel of running any business.

Of course the law is stacked in favour of the tenant ahead of a simple business interest (which is what a property not occupied by its owner is), this is entirely correct. The right to shelter is in the declaration of human rights and naturally should be protected ahead of the right to turn a profit on a commercial venture.

The_Conductor

Simple business interest?
Unfortunately the vast preponderance of homes let in the last 5 years are the sole properties of people who can't afford to live in them- and indeed seldom is the business transaction of letting the property profitable- its a necessary evil, but unfortunately very often, not profitable.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of tenants who have this idea- that they're paying the landlord's mortgage, and the landlord is making a profit.........

drumswan

The landlords personal circumstances beyond his ability to provide the service I am paying for in full do not interest me.

gaius c

The_Conductor wrote: »

Because you are entrusting them with an asset possibly worth hundreds of thousands of Euro?

So?
Landlord knew the risks when they got into the letting game. If tenants really are that terrible and the risks are so high, then they shouldn't be in that business. The amount of their investment should be of no concern to the tenant and it's just a stalking horse argument intended to normalise gross invasion of privacy of tenants without commensurate improvement in security for tenants at risk from insolvent landlords.

Since we're talking about terrible tenants, why not talk about the very justified fear that giving the landlord your private financial information would lead to negative repercussions?

About 3 years ago, I had a landlord tell me "I've seen all the expensive gear you have in your house, you're well able to afford the increase" ,i.e. he let himself into the house when we were out and had a good snoop around our personal belongings. Give that chancer my financial details? You've got to be joking.

The_Morrigan

Credit checks can be run with a name, address and date of birth - the tenant doesn't need to hand over their bank statements. I would never agree to hand over a bank statement to a landlord either.
If I was a professional landlord I would be willing to give an undertaking that my management fees are up to date and the tenants that are going to reside in my property would not lose their facilities like parking access, building access etc. All it requires is a letter from the management company to say that the fees are paid in full or up to date.

drumswan wrote: »

When you enter a contract with a landlord you are trusting them to provide a home for you and your family, this is hardly a light undertaking. Any business can and should mitigate against risk, this is part and parcel of running any business.

Of course the law is stacked in favour of the tenant ahead of a simple business interest (which is what a property not occupied by its owner is), this is entirely correct. The right to shelter is in the declaration of human rights and naturally should be protected ahead of the right to turn a profit on a commercial venture.

The law is stacked in favour of tenants because they would be the consumer and typically considered the weaker party in a business transaction.
Both sides need to be protected or have recourse via a process that will be dealt with in a timely manner. The amount of time it takes to get out of a lease legally or legally evict a tenant is just madness. There are no guarantees in life and especially in times of economic turmoil personal situations can change drastically, there has to be a faster way to deal with tenancy disputes.

With regards to your rights point, I agree that you have the right to shelter, but you also have the right to earn a living, rights are not absolute and sometimes they are ignored or waived to balance the scales of justice. I see no reason why an overstaying tenant should be afforded their right to shelter to the detriment of a landlord who can no longer earn a living because his tenants have decided to squat and not pay rent.

The_Conductor

drumswan wrote: »

The landlords personal circumstances beyond his ability to provide the service I am paying for in full do not interest me.

Providing both sides abide by the agreement- and honor their obligations- everything is fine. The issue is- there are severe repercussions for many landlords when their tenants do not hold up their side of the agreement- however few repercussions for tenants.

The law, as it stands, is not fit for purpose for either landlords or tenants- and is often blatantly ignored. It is not fit for purpose.

drumswan

The_Conductor wrote: »

Providing both sides abide by the agreement- and honor their obligations- everything is fine. The issue is- there are severe repercussions for many landlords when their tenants do not hold up their side of the agreement- however few repercussions for tenants.

Are you joking? Homelessness as a result of illegal eviction is the worst case scenario for the tenant.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

Are you joking? Homelessness as a result of illegal eviction is the worst case scenario for the tenant.

Bankruptcy and repossessions are a worst case scenario for a landlord.

Both sides have their problems to deal with, in fact there is a thread in the last few days about a homeowner who is homeless because his tenants won't vacate despite being given notice last year.

djimi

The_Conductor wrote: »

Providing both sides abide by the agreement- and honor their obligations- everything is fine. The issue is- there are severe repercussions for many landlords when their tenants do not hold up their side of the agreement- however few repercussions for tenants.

The law, as it stands, is not fit for purpose for either landlords or tenants- and is often blatantly ignored. It is not fit for purpose.

There are still repercussions for the tenant though; even if they may not be as severe as they are for the landlord. Knowing that management fees are up to date for example would at least give peace of mind that the tenant wont find their car clamped or their keyfob deactivated. Even that alone is a decent indication of whether the landlord has the financial ability to manage the tenancy (I would have thought that when financial difficulty hits, the management fees on your rented property would be the first thing to fall by the wayside).

I dont think this has to be a landlord vs tenant issue; there is risk involved in both sides, and I doubt many will dispute that the landlord has the greater risk and the fewer rights. I dont like the attitude that its okay for a landlord to cover themselves, but a tenant is not entitled to do likewise.

The_Conductor

gaius c wrote: »

So?
Landlord knew the risks when they got into the letting game.

The vast preponderance of recent landlords are not landlords by choice- it is a situation they never expected to be in. They are not professional landlords- and unfortunately often it shows. That said- they do deserve protection too.

gaius c wrote: »

If tenants really are that terrible and the risks are so high, then they shouldn't be in that business.

Most tenants are fine. Most landlords are fine. We only hear of the horror stories- or the amazingly good stories. What happens to 90% of tenants and landlord's- doesn't raise an eyebrow for anyone, which is how it should be. The other 10% tends to be so bad that it often makes the international media.

gaius c wrote: »

The amount of their investment should be of no concern to the tenant and it's just a stalking horse argument intended to normalise gross invasion of privacy of tenants without commensurate improvement in security for tenants at risk from insolvent landlords.

The amount of their investment is obviously of no concern to most tenants. However- its an obvious issue in that in most countries its recognised, with the provision of an independent deposit agency, who insist on 2 or 3 months rent, as a deposit. In cases where the tenant deserves the deposit back- they get it back promptly. In cases where they don't- its released to the landlord promptly, to allow them remedy the situation and relet the property. Its seen as fair, equitable- and fast. We need something along these lines- and it would go far to fixing the current mess we have.

As for security for tenants of insolvent landlords- in situations like that- there should be cognisance of the tenancy, and proper arrangements to transfer both rent collection, and duty towards the tenant, to the nominal 3rd party, where a lender is taking control of the property, safeguarding the tenant- and ensuring there is continuity of tenancy for the tenant. In any other country this is how it would be managed.

gaius c wrote: »

Since we're talking about terrible tenants, why not talk about the very justified fear that giving the landlord your private financial information would lead to negative repercussions?

We're not talking about giving landlords any financial information- simply running a credit check on a tenant. If you have no credit history- so be it. If you have loans and a credit card- which have not had any issues- all the better. If you have county judgements against you- alarm bells should start ringing. You're not showing the landlord a salary slip, your bank account or any other information- its the simply credit report you can get on anyone in most other countries.

gaius c wrote: »

About 3 years ago, I had a landlord tell me "I've seen all the expensive gear you have in your house, you're well able to afford the increase" ,i.e. he let himself into the house when we were out and had a good snoop around our personal belongings. Give that chancer my financial details? You've got to be joking.

And I hope you told the landlord in no uncertain terms that he had no right to invade your privacy- as he obviously did. I am all for everyone keeping their side of the agreement- and the landlord obviously didn't- in your case.

djimi

The_Conductor wrote: »

We're not talking about giving landlords any financial information- simply running a credit check on a tenant. If you have no credit history- so be it. If you have loans and a credit card- which have not had any issues- all the better. If you have county judgements against you- alarm bells should start ringing. You're not showing the landlord a salary slip, your bank account or any other information- its the simply credit report you can get on anyone in most other countries.

Can a private individual request a credit check on someone in this country? I thought they couldnt.

The_Conductor

djimi wrote: »

There are still repercussions for the tenant though; even if they may not be as severe as they are for the landlord. Knowing that management fees are up to date for example would at least give peace of mind that the tenant wont find their car clamped or their keyfob deactivated. Even that alone is a decent indication of whether the landlord has the financial ability to manage the tenancy (I would have thought that when financial difficulty hits, the management fees on your rented property would be the first thing to fall by the wayside).

I think its perfectly reasonable for a tenant to ask whether the management fees on the unit they are renting are up to date, or not. I don't understand why any reasonable landlord would have an issue with this (unless of course they're not paying it- in which case the tenant should be made aware of the situation).

djimi wrote: »

I dont think this has to be a landlord vs tenant issue; there is risk involved in both sides, and I doubt many will dispute that the landlord has the greater risk and the fewer rights. I dont like the attitude that its okay for a landlord to cover themselves, but a tenant is not entitled to do likewise.

The report a credit rating agency gives- is broad and vague- it highlights any issues that have arisen in the past- without giving any great amount of information. It is more pertinent for a landlord who might find out information on how a tenant has historically paid their bills- than it might be for a tenant on the financial difficulty a landlord might now find themselves in.

In an Irish context- its pretty moot- seeing as we don't use credit ratings to any great extent- though it is something we could apply more judicially.

Tenants do need protection esp. in cases where a property may be repossessed by a lender- this is an aspect of Irish law that is seriously lacking at the moment.

The_Conductor

djimi wrote: »

Can a private individual request a credit check on someone in this country? I thought they couldnt.

You need a signed release from the person- and the person must have been resident in the country currently, or at some stage in the previous 12 years. Experian are easiest to deal with. Think its about 6.50 per report.

gaius c

The_Conductor wrote: »

We're not talking about giving landlords any financial information- simply running a credit check on a tenant. If you have no credit history- so be it. If you have loans and a credit card- which have not had any issues- all the better. If you have county judgements against you- alarm bells should start ringing. You're not showing the landlord a salary slip, your bank account or any other information- its the simply credit report you can get on anyone in most other countries.

Murphaph is. See below.

murphaph wrote: »

At the end of the day I know my finances are sound and any property I have for rent is mine to rent to whomever I choose or to leave vacant. I only have 1 residential unit let in Ireland, the rest is light industrial/commercial so it's not something that really affects me but if and when the residential unit comes up for rent I'll be adopting a Teutonic attitude and will seek detailed information about the tenant's ability to pay. I'll also require 2 months rent as a deposit and will let unfurnished (insofar as Irish law allows). I will not be offering the prospective tenant the opportunity to see my credit report or my bank balance in return. If any prospective tenant is unhappy with those conditions then they need not apply. I will make it all clear in the ad.

djimi

The_Conductor wrote: »

You need a signed release from the person- and the person must have been resident in the country currently, or at some stage in the previous 12 years. Experian are easiest to deal with. Think its about 6.50 per report.

Ah fair enough, I thought that only financial institutions and the likes were entitled to request a credit check on someones behalf.

The_Morrigan

djimi wrote: »

Ah fair enough, I thought that only financial institutions and the likes were entitled to request a credit check on someones behalf.

You can do your own - might not be a bad idea to provide them along with your pps etc for the purposes of the PRTB registration!

SpaceTime

I have to say when I was renting I did a quick background check of my landlord, as I had really serious issues with a previous one not carrying out maintenance and not paying management company fees.

There's nothing worse than being stuck in a lease with someone who won't fix some fundamental problems with the property due to lack of funds. I don't think anyone likes having to continuously 'remind' someone to do what's a basic part providing an accommodation service as part of a lease.

I can see the other side of it too, where a tenant has a history of not paying bills or rent.

The only thing I would say though is that a landlord can get and check references, where as it's very difficult for a tenant to get references for a landlord.

murphaph

Yes I'll be seeking more than just a credit score. I'll be seeking 3 months payslips and/or bank statements with non-salary related entries blacked out.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

Yes I'll be seeking more than just a credit score. I'll be seeking 3 months payslips and/or bank statements with non-salary related entries blacked out.

And if it were me you were asking for this you'd be told swiftly where to go!

As far as I'm aware you're not even resident in Ireland. Why on earth would I give you all that with no guarantees in return?

(Spoken as a professional adult, with a decent wage, full-time job and who has rented many properties over the years without any issue - indeed they were usually returned in better shape than I found them)

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And if it were me you were asking for this you'd be told swiftly where to go!

As far as I'm aware you're not even resident in Ireland. Why on earth would I give you all that with no guarantees in return?

(Spoken as a professional adult, with a decent wage, full-time job and who has rented many properties over the years without any issue - indeed they were usually returned in better shape than I found them)

It's a pity all tenants aren't like you. If they were landlords would need no checks.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

It's a pity all tenants aren't like you. If they were landlords would need no checks.

I take the point (and thanks) but equally there are lots of dodgy landlords too. We see stories about them here every week - and the "accidental landlord" excuse doesn't wash with me. If they weren't prepared to do it right they shouldn't have gotten into it.

Do you not see however how your list of requirements would come across to perspective tenants - particularly those of us who DO live up to our obligations and have certain expectations and requirements to be met as well. I think asking for that sort of info would actually put off the type of tenant you'd be hoping to secure.

murphaph

Perhaps. I'm sure it would put some people off but I'd be hoping that in putting off say 25% of decent people that I'd be putting off 90% of the dodgy ones. It's purely a business decision based largely on experience.

In the absence of new legislation to speed up evictions of rogue tenants then landlords will be forced more and more into more stringent financial vetting of their tenants before tenancies begin.

I'd only be asking the likely tenant for proof of income. In Germany prospective tenants are often asked for this just when applying!

whiteandlight

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps. I'm sure it would put some people off but I'd be hoping that in putting off say 25% of decent people that I'd be putting off 90% of the dodgy ones. It's purely a business decision based largely on experience.

In the absence of new legislation to speed up evictions of rogue tenants then landlords will be forced more and more into more stringent financial vetting of their tenants before tenancies begin.

I'd only be asking the likely tenant for proof of income. In Germany prospective tenants are often asked for this just when applying!

Under no circumstances would I be handing over three months salary slips? That's bonkers! I wouldn't even bother after reading that in the ad even if it was a palace and I've been renting for 8 years without ever being late on payment. To be honest I don't know anyone who wouldn't take that as an affront.

djimi

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps. I'm sure it would put some people off but I'd be hoping that in putting off say 25% of decent people that I'd be putting off 90% of the dodgy ones. It's purely a business decision based largely on experience.

In the absence of new legislation to speed up evictions of rogue tenants then landlords will be forced more and more into more stringent financial vetting of their tenants before tenancies begin.

I'd only be asking the likely tenant for proof of income. In Germany prospective tenants are often asked for this just when applying!

To be honest, Id would say that a large percentage of the people who would be willing to agree to such a thing would be young and somewhat naive first time renters who dont know better, or people who are in desperate need of a property now. Im not sure if either of these fits with what you are trying to achieve.

Most potential tenants will take one look at your request and immediately look elsewhere. This isnt Germany, and at the moment the majority of Irish people are not going to hand over sensitive personal financial information to a private individual who they probably only know as a name and a phone number that they met from Daft. Not when there are so many stories of the type of cowboy who is playing landlord doing the rounds at the minute.

You say that you want proof of income; is the standard letter of employment not good enough for that? What business is it of yours how much the tenant comes home with?

I can see the logic of where you are coming from, but I think that you are on a hiding to nothing.

The_Conductor

While I appreciate that this isn't Germany- we really need a severe look at our Irish tenancy legislation- from both directions, and model revised legislation on the law in place in jurisdictions where long term rentals are far from unusual- and people, both landlords and tenants, view the law and the manner in which it is applied, as equitable.

At the moment- what we have, clearly isn't working for either tenants or landlords- and we have parties on both side of the equation being burnt by individuals who are playing the system.

murphaph

djimi wrote: »

the moment the majority of Irish people are not going to hand over sensitive personal financial information to a private individual who they probably only know as a name and a phone number that they met from Daft.

But you expect a landlord to hand over control of an asset worth several hundred thousand Euro to someone they only know as a name on daft.

djimi

I agree that our tenancy system needs a severe overhaul and doing so would change the mentality of both landlords and tenants. The PRTB is the biggest problem at the moment; if tenants knew that rent arrears would mean finding yourself sitting on the sidewalk surrounded by your possessions 6 weeks after the first notice of arrears then things would improve immeasurably. Its about finding the loopholes and closing them. We all know that they exist (every facet of Irish law seems full of them; you just need to take a look at motor tax for example...), and the biggest problem is that too many tenants know full well how to exploit them, but nothing is seemingly being done to sort the issues.

Sort out a properly functioning and efficient PRTB, and put in place an independant mechanism for holding deposits, and even with the laws as they are, both sides of the tenancy start to feel more secure.

djimi

murphaph wrote: »

But you expect a landlord to hand over control of an asset worth several hundred thousand Euro to someone they only know as a name on daft.

You trusting your asset to a tenant that you met on Daft is the reason why you are in this business. There are checks that you can do to cover yourself; references from previous landlords, employers etc, even credit checks apparently, but ultimately to have to draw the line somewhere.

You are not a financial institution or even a company of any kind. As a tenant, I have no reason to trust you with my personal financial information. I wouldnt trust that sort of information to a stranger that I met walking down the road, so Im not sure why you think I would trust it to you. I dont know who you are, and I dont know what hands my information will fall into or for what purpose it may end up being used if I give it to you. Im sorry if you dont like that, but thats the way it is. Nobody in their right mind is going to give that sort of sensitive financial information to a private individual that they dont know.

gaius c

murphaph wrote: »

But you expect a landlord to hand over control of an asset worth several hundred thousand Euro to someone they only know as a name on daft.

We don't expect you to do anything. We're just making it clear that your expectations are completely unreasonable and that 99% of tenants will steer clear of you.