Tenant left behind tons of rubbish

whereto now

My tenant was due to move out on Mon but I discovered 2 days ago that she had already moved, she had stopped answering my calls so I knew something was up..... I went to the house today and to say its filthy would be an understatement !! The house is not my issue though, I can deal with that, although how anyone can leave a house in that condition.....don't get me started.....

The garden shed is packed and I mean packed with black bags full of rubbish, I've never seen anything like it, the garden has about another 30 bags of rubbish plus loose rubbish all over the place.....

The tenant was on rent allowance and I'd like to know if there is any point in reporting this to the council, I know I'm screwed but I'd like to save another landlord this problem if I can....I have contacted PRTB so I'll wait to see what they say....

Anyone thinking that I'm one of those bad landlords is welcome to come and see the mess left by this person, who's rent every worker including myself is paying for... I consider myself a good landlord and try to work with my tenants, if I could I would sell up and never have this hassle but the house is'nt worth what I paid for it so I'm stuck with it..... thats not my gripe...
I am now going to have to pay for a skip and pay at least 2 people to clear out this shed and garden, its way too big a job for me on my own.......

So rant over.... my question is ... Is there any point in reporting this to the council or am I just wasting my time ????
I feel better now after that little rant...... glass of wine now I think....

Penny Tration

Did you take a deposit from the tenant?

If so, keep invoices for all work carried out beyond normal wear and tear, and deduct the cost from their deposit.

FourFourRED

Thems the breaks

PLUG71

Scumbags!!

It happening everywhere to be honest!

Hope you got a deposit?

If you did I would make sure they did not see a cent of it again..

whereto now

Aodhagan wrote: »

Thems the breaks

If you read my post you would see that I said I realise theres nothing I can do but my question was is there any point in reporting this to the council to save some other landlord the same headache.....

whereto now

green_screen wrote: »

Did you take a deposit from the tenant?

If so, keep invoices for all work carried out beyond normal wear and tear, and deduct the cost from their deposit.

Yeah in a perfect world that'd be my solution too but she has'nt paid any rent in a month so theres nothing left there I'm afraid.....I just really want to try to stop her doing this to someone else......

PLUG71

whereto now wrote: »

Yeah in a perfect world that'd be my solution too but she has'nt paid any rent in a month so theres nothing left there I'm afraid.....I just really want to try to stop her doing this to someone else......

I see these stunts day after day where I live and i'm afraid its like p1ssing in the wind with these types of people!

Did you use an agency, maybe if you did you could make like difficult for them be complaining to the agency?!!

whereto now

PLUG71 wrote: »

I see these stunts day after day where I live and i'm afraid its like p1ssing in the wind with these types of people!

Did you use an agency, maybe if you did you could make like difficult for them be complaining to the agency?!!

No did'nt use an agency.... I'll be contacting the council and social welfare on Monday,I'm just going to get the place sorted and put it behind me but I won';t be as friendly to the next tenants which is sad but I'm not going through this again...
Thanks for the replies, I think I just needed to get it off my chest.....

PLUG71

whereto now wrote: »

No did'nt use an agency.... I'll be contacting the council and social welfare on Monday,I'm just going to get the place sorted and put it behind me but I won';t be as friendly to the next tenants which is sad but I'm not going through this again...
Thanks for the replies, I think I just needed to get it off my chest.....

Been there bud and its not a nice situation.

Maybe try to get private letters the next time that work and are less likely to trash your house/

whereto now

PLUG71 wrote: »

Been there bud and its not a nice situation.

Maybe try to get private letters the next time that work and are less likely to trash your house/

Yeah thats the plan for next time, feeling better now, don't know if it was the wine or boards..... thanks all...

Fratton Fred

Happened to a friend a couple of years ago. They left behind a Jack Russell as !

Mrs OBumble

What would you hope to achieve by telling the council?

Chances are they are on the housing list - so if the council got the idea that there's a problem with the tenant, then they might stay on the list (and thus in private rental with another LL) for longer.

I'm actually surprised you didn't get complaints about rats from the neighbours and the council already.

homerno

whereto now wrote: »

Yeah thats the plan for next time, feeling better now, don't know if it was the wine or boards..... thanks all...

Been there got the tee shirt , Rent allowance tenants are too high a risk , The prtb are are just money grabbers so landlords are left high and dry ,, you stand a much better chance with working tenants, sad but true . I am a landlord many years and had to learn the hard way. I was tempted to advertise a property on daft a few years back using pictures of the house taken the day an african lady left it like wild pigs had been let run wild in the house for months with just a note saying it would be available as soon as it was revamped in the coming weeks, You got away light my friend , chalk it down to experience .

UserNo1

blah blah blah

Santa Cruz

And people wonder why landlords wont take rent allowance tenants

The_Morrigan

Folks if this turns into another RA tenant bashing thread I will lock it up.

Think_then_talk

Rent allowance tenants are the not all the same, In every walk of life you will get dirty rotten people, However we now ask for eight weeks in advance. If they don't own it they don't respect it.

martinn123

This happened to me a few years ago, rubbish, nappies, and cinders from the fire, all in the garden. Grass was two feet high, carpets had been used to toilet train the children, and curtains to wipe their bottom.

Strangely they also left a wreck of a car, in my driveway.

So a little detective work, found out their new address, I packed all the rubbish, nappies bags of Krap, etc, into the car, barely room for the driver, and towed it to the new home. Might have been a rat in there as well.

Knocked on the door, and said, " you left this stuff behind you "

Strangely their new landlord was a Guard, don't think they saw out the lease.

LFC Murphy

You could ring the welfare officer and report. I had a similar issue a few years back... Fun thing was I had the tenants ring me pleading for me to retract so they could regain RA...

And no not bashing RA, as my current tenants are RA and are a dream (fingers crossed)

_Kaiser_

whereto now wrote: »

No did'nt use an agency.... I'll be contacting the council and social welfare on Monday,I'm just going to get the place sorted and put it behind me but I won';t be as friendly to the next tenants which is sad but I'm not going through this again...
Thanks for the replies, I think I just needed to get it off my chest.....

First off, I completely sympathise - the mess you've been left is completely unacceptable by any standards and I'd definitely report it and keep any deposit to cover the costs of cleaning it up.

BUT.. to hold your NEXT tenant "responsible" is equally unacceptable in my opinion. Sure, once bitten twice shy and all that, but all that's needed here is closer vetting, occasional visits to inspect (pre-arranged of course!), and a final inspection before they leave.

Not every tenant is a dirty scumbag and to assume they are by refusing certain tenants automatically, demanding higher deposits (with no security for the tenant if you go into bankruptcy in the meantime, spend it, or decide to otherwise keep it without just cause) and so on, is equally a bad idea - to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Don't forget tenants are equally taking a chance with you. You do sound like a decent sort to be fair but if I met you tonight to look at your place how would I know that? I could proceed based on the idea that you'll be another one of those cowboy landlords that are all too common, OR I could take you at your word, expect you to be straight with me, and go from there - which would you prefer?

I personally have always dealt fairly and honestly with landlords, and I deal direct with them - none of this agency muppetry where you are left chasing people who don't give a toss either way - but in return for that I expect a certain standard, responsiveness and fairness as well.. it is after all a pretty expensive service you're offering - not the get rich quick/easy money scheme that too many landlords think it is. In return I treat the place as if it was my own and it's kept as good or better than when I got it.

Just suggesting that you keep some perspective here and look at it from both sides before you go turning away potentially excellent tenants purely because they fit some preconceived notion.

homerno

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

First off, I completely sympathise - the mess you've been left is completely unacceptable by any standards and I'd definitely report it and keep any deposit to cover the costs of cleaning it up.

BUT.. to hold your NEXT tenant "responsible" is equally unacceptable in my opinion. Sure, once bitten twice shy and all that, but all that's needed here is closer vetting, occasional visits to inspect (pre-arranged of course!), and a final inspection before they leave.

Not every tenant is a dirty scumbag and to assume they are by refusing certain tenants automatically, demanding higher deposits (with no security for the tenant if you go into bankruptcy in the meantime, spend it, or decide to otherwise keep it without just cause) and so on, is equally a bad idea - to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Don't forget tenants are equally taking a chance with you. You do sound like a decent sort to be fair but if I met you tonight to look at your place how would I know that? I could proceed based on the idea that you'll be another one of those cowboy landlords that are all too common, OR I could take you at your word, expect you to be straight with me, and go from there - which would you prefer?

I personally have always dealt fairly and honestly with landlords, and I deal direct with them - none of this agency muppetry where you are left chasing people who don't give a toss either way - but in return for that I expect a certain standard, responsiveness and fairness as well.. it is after all a pretty expensive service you're offering - not the get rich quick/easy money scheme that too many landlords think it is. In return I treat the place as if it was my own and it's kept as good or better than when I got it.

Just suggesting that you keep some perspective here and look at it from both sides before you go turning away potentially excellent tenants purely because they fit some preconceived notion.

In the ideal world there is nothing wrong with your advice, Unfortunately because of the prtb being our only port of call which is completely unfair and useless to any landlord if the op wants to survive he or she needs to smarten up or face the possibility of getting themselves into a situtation where they could quickly become bankrupt, 3 months up front is fast becoming the norm along with two previous landlord references , work references copies of passports , and ( 3 months bank statements, which i find a step too far?) even with all this there is still a risk of getting burned , however until the prtb office is closed down sadly these inportant steps could and should be used to lesson the risks .

_Kaiser_

homerno wrote: »

In the ideal world there is nothing wrong with your advice, Unfortunately because of the prtb being our only port of call which is completely unfair and useless to any landlord if the op wants to survive he or she needs to smarten up or face the possibility of getting themselves into a situtation where they could quickly become bankrupt, 3 months up front is fast becoming the norm along with two previous landlord references , work references copies of passports , and ( 3 months bank statements, which i find a step too far?) even with all this there is still a risk of getting burned , however until the prtb office is closed down sadly these inportant steps could and should be used to lesson the risks .

3 months deposit could be what? 3/4 grand in Dublin? I can't see many tenants handing that over with no security they'll get it back at all

I wouldn't be giving anyone my bank statements or passport details - I might as well just hand it out on the street

This may be the "norm" for some of these landlords with "notions" in Dublin but I can tell you as a professional with a damn good job and spotless rental history anyone who asked me for that sort of stuff would be told to keep their palace.

Until there's the same security for tenants as landlords are looking for, anyone who would hand over the stuff you mention is crazy IMO

ballyharpat

I have to say that I agree with most people not wanting to let to people on RA-the main reason for me would be wear and tear, if people are not working they are going to be in the house a lot more and put items to their limit, also, if there is a problem with RA, there is nothing the landlord can do about it and not much the tenent can do either. Having said that, I have two properties let out at the moment. One apartment to two single guys they pay the rent and have no problems-touch wood. But the place is a typical sweaty bachelor pad with boxes and beer bottles etc piled up-but not my business really. I got them through a friend of mine that works with one of them.
MY other place is a house that I have let out to a single mother with a 2 year old. She had no references and no history of renting, It didn't bother me, I checked out her Facebook page, saw that her cousin was married to someone I went to school with, I rang them and said would they stand by her if there were any problems with rent or damage to the property and they guaranteed that my place would be looked after, it's been 3 months and the place is great and she is very happy.

I also stipulate in the contracts that I will be giving a walk through to check for any minor repairs that need to be done-after all, it's a rental, they do not care as much about my property as I do....

Both properties were let within 2 hours of advertising and 1/2 the deposits were given before the move in date. I would have them both let in a few hours again if I wanted.....

homerno

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

3 months deposit could be what? 3/4 grand in Dublin? I can't see many tenants handing that over with no security they'll get it back at all

I wouldn't be giving anyone my bank statements or passport details - I might as well just hand it out on the street

This may be the "norm" for some of these landlords with "notions" in Dublin but I can tell you as a professional with a damn good job and spotless rental history anyone who asked me for that sort of stuff would be told to keep their palace.

Until there's the same security for tenants as landlords are looking for, anyone who would hand over the stuff you mention is crazy IMO

regarding your( notions) I recently changed tenants in sereral properties due to rent increases, i looked for all the above including the bank statements ,(I did not look at them however but it eased my mind a little that they could provide them) If i had ten times the amount of properties to rent i could still have let them all, in fairness they were all in the dublin area,,, i hate the way everything has changed for the worst in ireland , when i started out everything was done with a handshake and im a man of my word ,, sadly them days are gone,, its ironic the prtb are there to protect tenants when in fact they cause more trouble for tenants than anything else, and put many accidental landlord/ladys into horrible stressfull unnessary situtations mentally and financially .regards

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

all that's needed here is closer vetting...
Don't forget tenants are equally taking a chance with you.

So closer vetting yet both parties are still taking a chance, right? Therefore, closer vetting still doesn't give the landlord any guarantee.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

BUT.. to hold your NEXT tenant "responsible" is equally unacceptable in my opinion.

You cannot seriously propose to the OP that they don't protect themselves after what has happened. From a tenants perspective, sure - it's not ideal if landlords feel they have to up the amount of deposit taken. However, clearly this is not coming about without good reason, right? You should channel your dissatisfaction with this type of outcome to the PRTB. Clearly, the blame for this lies at their door. If they dealt with things properly and in a timely manner, then there may be no need for larger deposits.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

I could proceed based on the idea that you'll be another one of those cowboy landlords that are all too common, OR I could take you at your word, expect you to be straight with me, and go from there - which would you prefer?

The OP can come back and respond. However, if I was in their shoes, on the basis that the PRTB offers no protection, I'd take the required deposit off you (required being enough to cover eventualities such as this one).
On the 'cowboy landlords' bit, clearly there are equally a substantial number of errant tenants around!

Kaiser2000 wrote:

it is after all a pretty expensive service you're offering - not the get rich quick/easy money scheme that too many landlords think it is.

Easy money? Get rich quick? You honestly think there's anyone out there that thinks that!?

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Just suggesting that you keep some perspective here and look at it from both sides before you go turning away potentially excellent tenants purely because they fit some preconceived notion.

Preconceived notions?

suave.4u

whereto now wrote: »

My tenant was due to move out on Mon but I discovered 2 days ago that she had already moved, she had stopped answering my calls so I knew something was up..... I went to the house today and to say its filthy would be an understatement !! The house is not my issue though, I can deal with that, although how anyone can leave a house in that condition.....don't get me started.....

The garden shed is packed and I mean packed with black bags full of rubbish, I've never seen anything like it, the garden has about another 30 bags of rubbish plus loose rubbish all over the place.....

The tenant was on rent allowance and I'd like to know if there is any point in reporting this to the council, I know I'm screwed but I'd like to save another landlord this problem if I can....I have contacted PRTB so I'll wait to see what they say....

Anyone thinking that I'm one of those bad landlords is welcome to come and see the mess left by this person, who's rent every worker including myself is paying for... I consider myself a good landlord and try to work with my tenants, if I could I would sell up and never have this hassle but the house is'nt worth what I paid for it so I'm stuck with it..... thats not my gripe...
I am now going to have to pay for a skip and pay at least 2 people to clear out this shed and garden, its way too big a job for me on my own.......

So rant over.... my question is ... Is there any point in reporting this to the council or am I just wasting my time ????
I feel better now after that little rant...... glass of wine now I think....

Sorry but I want to hear the other side of the story as well.

_Kaiser_

makeorbrake wrote: »

So closer vetting yet both parties are still taking a chance, right? Therefore, closer vetting still doesn't give the landlord any guarantee.

Well to be blunt, there ARE no guarantees in life and certainly not property. If you (not you personally) aren't prepared to accept the potential risk, then maybe getting into landlording isn't for you

You cannot seriously propose to the OP that they don't protect themselves after what has happened. From a tenants perspective, sure - it's not ideal if landlords feel they have to up the amount of deposit taken. However, clearly this is not coming about without good reason, right? You should channel your dissatisfaction with this type of outcome to the PRTB. Clearly, the blame for this lies at their door. If they dealt with things properly and in a timely manner, then there may be no need for larger deposits.
The OP can come back and respond. However, if I was in their shoes, on the basis that the PRTB offers no protection, I'd take the required deposit off you (required being enough to cover eventualities such as this one).
On the 'cowboy landlords' bit, clearly there are equally a substantial number of errant tenants around!

I've no problem with a landlord protecting themselves but that doesn't absolve them of THEIR responsibility to vet their prospective tenants properly first rather than just accepting the first one who'll pay up

The PRTB are equally useless for tenants. Oh sure, the laws are there and in theory there's a process but have a read of some of the threads here to see how much weight they carry in the real world - for both landlords AND tenants

As I keep saying, what's needed here is for the rental sector to be taken seriously and treated as a professional service by ALL SIDES - landlords, tenants and regulators/government. Until that happens it'll continue to be "cowboy country" with amateur landords and bad tenants abound.

Easy money? Get rich quick? You honestly think there's anyone out there that thinks that!?

Yep, or are you forgetting the "good times" when everyone thought they too could be a landlord. You only have to look at the BTL arrears situation to see how many got into it without thinking it through properly, or the "reluctant landlords" who bought unsuitable property to get on the "ladder" and are now stuck with it and renting it out without realising their responsibilities

Preconceived notions?

Indeed, such as "all RA tenants are wasters and not worth the effort!"

makeorbrake

suave.4u wrote: »

Sorry but I want to hear the other side of the story as well.

Forget my query in my last post re. preconceived notions. You've just clarified that.

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well to be blunt, there ARE no guarantees in life and certainly not property. If you (not you personally) aren't prepared to accept the potential risk, then maybe getting into landlording isn't for you

Ok, so the OP should learn nothing from this experience and change nothing in their approach to letting out a property? Ah sorry, they should carry out closer vetting.
Yet you say this =>

Kaiser2000 wrote:

I wouldn't be giving anyone my bank statements or passport details - I might as well just hand it out on the street

So you would be the landlord with that sixth sense - nobody would get a dodgy reference past you right? ...or if they did, oh well, then - take the hit, is what you propose.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Yep, or are you forgetting the "good times" when everyone thought they too could be a landlord. You only have to look at the BTL arrears situation to see how many got into it without thinking it through properly, or the "reluctant landlords" who bought unsuitable property to get on the "ladder" and are now stuck with it and renting it out without realising their responsibilities

This is 2014. What you are talking about is now historic - and it only serves to underscore my point i.e. there's no easy money to be had here. As an aside, you're also talking about people that were speculating on the rising tide of property prices (because they certainly weren't motivated by rental yields!) rather than landlords who approach it principally from the point of view of rental income.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

The PRTB are equally useless for tenants. Oh sure, the laws are there and in theory there's a process but have a read of some of the threads here to see how much weight they carry in the real world - for both landlords AND tenants

Agreed.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Indeed, such as "all RA tenants are wasters and not worth the effort!"

There are additional issues with RA tenants. Additional wear and tare being one. Issues with payment (not necessarily the tenants fault) being another.

_Kaiser_

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, so the OP should learn nothing from this experience and change nothing in their approach to letting out a property? Ah sorry, they should carry out closer vetting.
Yet you say this =>
So you would be the landlord with that sixth sense - nobody would get a dodgy reference past you right? ...or if they did, oh well, then - take the hit, is what you propose.

Pretty much. Sorry, but there are no guarantees in life. You weigh up the risks and you take your chances and hopefully it works out - but sometimes it doesn't and that's life.

However in the OP's case, he should also make regular inspections of the property (within reason and always agreed in advance) and a final check before a tenant leaves. In that way he can help mitigate that risk.

This is 2014. What you are talking about is now historic - and it only serves to underscore my point i.e. there's no easy money to be had here. As an aside, you're also talking about people that were speculating on the rising tide of property prices (because they certainly weren't motivated by rental yields!) rather than landlords who approach it principally from the point of view of rental income.

It may have started in 2006 but the effects are still very much being felt in 2014. Landlords who got into it as an investment without looking into it properly or knowing their rights and obligations, or who are forced into it because the place they bought is no longer suitable and/or they are struggling to meet the mortgage themselves

These people haven't gone away.

There are additional issues with RA tenants. Additional wear and tare being one. Issues with payment (not necessarily the tenants fault) being another.

Sorry, but "wear and tear" is another fact of life you should accept as a landlord. What do you propose? Hours of occupancy?

Besides, most places I've seen are very clearly fitted out to the minimum standard required with cheap furniture and appliances. It doesn't actually make sense as the risk is higher that you'll need to replace/fix the stuff sooner anyway through no other reason than it IS cheaper/not as good.

I'm not saying the place needs to be kitted out with top-dollar stuff but again, weigh up the risks and proceed accordingly - OR just rent it unfurnished or with the very basics.

ballyharpat

Sorry, but "wear and tear" is another fact of life you should accept as a landlord. What do you propose? Hours of occupancy?
No, the landlord cannot suggest or impose 'hours of occupancy' however, I would much rather have a working couple with one child in my 2/3 bedroom property than 3 couples. If I have the choice between the two, guess which one I will choose?

If you rent a car, you are allowed a certain mileage, when you go above that mileage, you have to pay extra for the 'wear and tear'

I can minimise my wear and tear by doing my own 'Vetting'

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Pretty much. Sorry, but there are no guarantees in life. You weigh up the risks and you take your chances and hopefully it works out - but sometimes it doesn't and that's life.

lol. The easiest way the OP can mitigate risk (alongside more thorough vetting) is by taking whatever deposit is required to assuage such potential loss. That's definitely what I would do were I in their shoes - despite your protests.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

in the OP's case, he should also make regular inspections of the property (within reason and always agreed in advance) and a final check before a tenant leaves. In that way he can help mitigate that risk.

Agreed on the regular inspections. As regards 'a final check before the tenant leaves', please read the OP's initial post. This 'type' of tenant doesn't facilitate the final inspection you have in mind!

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Sorry, but "wear and tear" is another fact of life you should accept as a landlord. What do you propose? Hours of occupancy?

Let's put this back in it's proper context, shall we? This was mentioned with regard to whether people should have 'preconceived notions' (your words) about RA tenants. You say wear and tear is a fact of life. I say, fine....with the addendum that wear and tear will be substantially greater with a RA tenant. Would it be fair enough to have this as a 'preconceived notion'?

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Besides, most places I've seen are very clearly fitted out to the minimum standard required with cheap furniture and appliances. It doesn't actually make sense as the risk is higher that you'll need to replace/fix the stuff sooner anyway through no other reason than it IS cheaper/not as good.

We're back to your point re. life and it being full of risks and the need to mitigate risk. Clearly, many landlords feel the need to mitigate risk by furnishing with sub-standard items.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

I'm not saying the place needs to be kitted out with top-dollar stuff but again, weigh up the risks and proceed accordingly - OR just rent it unfurnished or with the very basics.

Preaching to the converted re. renting unfurnished. However, it's going to take a culture change in Ireland to bring that about - and most likely we'll be waiting forever before it actually happens.

foggy_lad

whereto now wrote: »

If you read my post you would see that I said I realise theres nothing I can do but my question was is there any point in reporting this to the council to save some other landlord the same headache.....

Yes I would report it to the local council as they will be happy to note that on any housing application for her, I would also get in touch with the local rubbish collection company and see if they will give you a price to clear the shed contents into the bin lorry, it would fit better in the compactor than in a skip or two and might save you some money.

uck51js9zml2yt

A family member rents several houses. I've lost track of the times he's been burnt by working professionals.
Strangely he's never had a problem with those on RA.

Rented myself for a few years a long time ago and was out of work for a while. When I moved out the landlady didn't even have to clean a cup in tthe flat whereas my neighbour was out working all day and she had to dump everything in the flat and redecorate when he left.

Mrs W

We had a similar one a few months ago, even though the bin was paid for she decided to hide it all in the attic
Had her mams address that she moved to so delivered the whole lot of all the **** she left to the front garden!

I'd love it if there was a registry of tenants, like a credit check?

murphaph

OP look for at least 2 and better 3 months deposit next time. Look for work references which you actually verify. Look up work in phone book, don't use number given on reference. The second last landlord's reference is much more important than the last one. Check Facebook page. Get copies of ID and yes...require some proof they can at least theoretically afford the place. Redacted bank statements showing salary are fine. PRTB won't protect landlords. We have to protect ourselves.

getaroom

I had a similar issue 3 years ago. The tenant left some charming graffiti over every wall - in 2foot letters.
I opened a face book page (in his own name) and posted the photos of the property along with info taken from an old BEBO account I found.
I thought I would have heard from the Data Commissioner - but I did not. The FB page is still live.
I hope it has had a bearing on his employment prospects or even future property rentals.

murphaph

Mrs W wrote: »

I'd love it if there was a registry of tenants, like a credit check?

Should be a registry of tenants and landlords alike to be honest. Let the chancers on both sides find each other I say. Until that day each "side" will have to play the cards they've been dealt. LLs have zero power once a tenancy commences, so they need to get their act together as much as humanly possible BEFORE it commences to discourage anyone who might be a threat to your property/livelihood.

Borderfox

Left in the same position a while ago, I got emerald waste to remove everything for me

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

OP look for at least 2 and better 3 months deposit next time. Look for work references which you actually verify. Look up work in phone book, don't use number given on reference. The second last landlord's reference is much more important than the last one. Check Facebook page. Get copies of ID and yes...require some proof they can at least theoretically afford the place. Redacted bank statements showing salary are fine. PRTB won't protect landlords. We have to protect ourselves.

Ah see this now is exactly the problem..

Tell me, what "protection" does a tenant have from an unscrupulous landlord or at all really?

- If I'm renting a place from someone and the washing machine decides to flood the place and the landlord sits on the problem or ignores it entirely what recourse do I have?

- If the landlord decides to issue eviction notices because they want to rent the place for a few hundred more next month, what protection have I got from that - especially if they say they're actually planning to move back but later "change their mind"?

- If a landlord decides they're gonna keep my deposit for some nonsense reason, what real option have I got to get it back?

- If the landlord goes bankrupt, where's my protection?

Don't tell me the PRTB is "protecting" tenants because you only have to read the threads here to see how useless and ineffective they are for BOTH sides.

See what you and others like you are forgetting is that a rental property is a tenant's HOME as well (not just their investment/side income) and most people renting (especially in Dublin) don't have the luxury of plodding through the PRTB process for a year - only for any judgement to be ignored in the real world anyway - and most certainly couldn't afford to have 3-5k tied up for months at a time either if the landlord decides they don't want to give it back or has spent it, or indeed gone bankrupt!

The reason the laws are (supposedly) weighted in favour of tenants is because they have a lot more to lose than a landlord who will still have a roof over their own head regardless - even if they themselves aren't paying their mortgage, whereas a tenant can be issued notice immediately for non/late payment of even a single month's rent.

As for your idea of work references, if my employer told you anything beyond the fact that I worked there they would be in breach of data privacy and ultimately that check means feck all anyway.. I could be made redundant or be given a pay cut in the morning - are you going to sue my employer for the rent?

Facebook? Not everyone uses it and anyone with any sense will have it all locked down so that won't tell you anything - or would that be a sign that this tenant must have something to hide rather than them just valuing their privacy against total strangers?

Would you be willing as a landlord to hand over the same information to me in regards to your employment status, mortgage payments, income levels, references from previous tenants etc - after all, I want to be sure you can afford to pay your mortgage every month too with money to spare if that washing machine does go and that you'll fix it without a fuss - that's fair too, right?

See, in the real world your "protections" are as meaningless as they are for tenants and all they really serve to do is alienate the decent ones. As I said if I had some random private landlord who I don't know from Adam acting as if they're my bank in looking for all this personal (and unnecessary for the purpose) information, they'd be told they can keep their property!

The problem is we have landlords who expect all of the reward with none of the risk and as little work required as possible, forgetting that the rental sector - like any business - really revolves on trust on BOTH sides. The focus doesn't need to be so much at "protecting" yourself at the start (notwithstanding practical things like trying to get the best landlord/tenant you can based on your meetings with them), as ensuring that there IS practical, efficient AND enforceable means of resolving any problems if they DO arise, and to be fair I'd say (or would like to think anyway) that 95% of tenancy agreements proceed without a hitch.

Nekarsulm

So rant over.... my question is ... Is there any point in reporting this to the council or am I just wasting my time ????
I feel better now after that little rant...... glass of wine now I think....

Depending on the size of town you are from, you can visit the local letting agents and advise them of the facts of the case. They don't need this tenant causing problems, that they will have to deal with down the line. You can report to the council office involved, if so do it in writing and register it. It wont do much good , but it will help your frame of mind! Either way, you are going to be clearing up the mess, and it can get expensive, as some dumps charge up to 3 Euro per bin bag.
(once rented out a little farmhouse to a Taxi driver, he was a keen fisherman, and there were lakes all around the property. One year later, he moved out suddenly, and we found that the three or four small farm sheds were filled to the roof with bin bags of rubbish, so he was drawing them from his entire family and "disposing" of them there) Two skips had to be hired!

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Ah see this now is exactly the problem..

Tell me, what "protection" does a tenant have from an unscrupulous landlord or at all really?

- If I'm renting a place from someone and the washing machine decides to flood the place and the landlord sits on the problem or ignores it entirely what recourse do I have?

- If the landlord decides to issue eviction notices because they want to rent the place for a few hundred more next month, what protection have I got from that - especially if they say they're actually planning to move back but later "change their mind"?

- If a landlord decides they're gonna keep my deposit for some nonsense reason, what real option have I got to get it back?

- If the landlord goes bankrupt, where's my protection?

Don't tell me the PRTB is "protecting" tenants because you only have to read the threads here to see how useless and ineffective they are for BOTH sides.

See what you and others like you are forgetting is that a rental property is a tenant's HOME as well (not just their investment/side income) and most people renting (especially in Dublin) don't have the luxury of plodding through the PRTB process for a year - only for any judgement to be ignored in the real world anyway - and most certainly couldn't afford to have 3-5k tied up for months at a time either if the landlord decides they don't want to give it back or has spent it, or indeed gone bankrupt!

The reason the laws are (supposedly) weighted in favour of tenants is because they have a lot more to lose than a landlord who will still have a roof over their own head regardless - even if they themselves aren't paying their mortgage, whereas a tenant can be issued notice immediately for non/late payment of even a single month's rent.

As for your idea of work references, if my employer told you anything beyond the fact that I worked there they would be in breach of data privacy and ultimately that check means feck all anyway.. I could be made redundant or be given a pay cut in the morning - are you going to sue my employer for the rent?

Facebook? Not everyone uses it and anyone with any sense will have it all locked down so that won't tell you anything - or would that be a sign that this tenant must have something to hide rather than them just valuing their privacy against total strangers?

Would you be willing as a landlord to hand over the same information to me in regards to your employment status, mortgage payments, income levels, references from previous tenants etc - after all, I want to be sure you can afford to pay your mortgage every month too with money to spare if that washing machine does go and that you'll fix it without a fuss - that's fair too, right?

See, in the real world your "protections" are as meaningless as they are for tenants and all they really serve to do is alienate the decent ones. As I said if I had some random private landlord who I don't know from Adam acting as if they're my bank in looking for all this personal (and unnecessary for the purpose) information, they'd be told they can keep their property!

Earlier in the thread, you said this when referring to landlords =>

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Sorry, but there are no guarantees in life. You weigh up the risks and you take your chances and hopefully it works out - but sometimes it doesn't and that's life.

If the attitude towards the landlord is "tough", then would you not be applying the very same logic (after all, this is YOUR logic) to all of the above?


Would it not be far better for landlords and tenants to come together and lobby for the PRTB to be disbanded and replaced with a functioning body that can implement all of the logical steps necessary to protect both parties?

In the meantime, until that happens, you couldn't possibly argue against landlords protecting their interests by way of increased deposits.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

The problem is we have landlords who expect all of the reward with none of the risk and as little work required as possible, forgetting that the rental sector - like any business - really revolves on trust on BOTH sides.

Trust? I would have said that the OP worked on the basis of trust and look where that got him/her?

Kaiser2000 wrote:

The focus doesn't need to be so much at "protecting" yourself at the start (notwithstanding practical things like trying to get the best landlord/tenant you can based on your meetings with them)

Ok, so by that logic there's no need for ANY deposit taking whatsoever!

Kaiser2000 wrote:

as ensuring that there IS practical, efficient AND enforceable means of resolving any problems if they DO arise, and to be fair I'd say (or would like to think anyway) that 95% of tenancy agreements proceed without a hitch.

Like your 'final inspection' concept? Time and time again, we see people suggest that they withhold the last months (or months plural) rent in lieu of a 'final inspection'. "Practical, efficient and enforceable" is not the current reality - and it won't be until the PRTB is reformed. In the meantime, a large enough deposit might go some way to insuring the tenant actually sticks around for that 'final inspection'.

_Kaiser_

makeorbrake wrote: »

Earlier in the thread, you said this when referring to landlords =>

If the attitude towards the landlord is "tough", then would you not be applying the very same logic (after all, this is YOUR logic) to all of the above?


Would it not be far better for landlords and tenants to come together and lobby for the PRTB to be disbanded and replaced with a functioning body that can implement all of the logical steps necessary to protect both parties?

In the meantime, until that happens, you couldn't possibly argue against landlords protecting their interests by way of increased deposits.

I agree and that's my point - as it stands BOTH sides are taking a chance, but landlords expecting tenants to hand over a load of personal information that has no relevance to the purpose, or demanding several thousand euro as deposit with no security for the tenant is both unreasonable, unwarranted and unrealistic.

Yes, as I also said, an effective, efficient and impartial appeals process to resolve any disputes is what's needed but unfortunately (as I keep saying!) until the private rental sector in this country is treated like a professional transaction/business by ALL sides - tenants, landlords and regulators/government - I wouldn't hold my breath for any significant change

The FIRST thing that needs to happen is for people to stop viewing the rental market as a stepping stone/temporary must do on the road to ownership, or as the option for the poor with no other choice... but with our government, media (and indeed ordinary people if this forum is any indication) all itching to kick it off again and "get on the property ladder", I can't see it happening.

The problem is a culture change is needed, not just regulatory and that's a lot harder to achieve given our obsession with owning property.

fash

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Tell me, what "protection" does a tenant have from an unscrupulous landlord or at all really?

Plenty- the PRTB will eventually get you your money.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If I'm renting a place from someone and the washing machine decides to flood the place and the landlord sits on the problem or ignores it entirely what recourse do I have?

plenty- deduct it from the rent- it says so right in the RTA.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If the landlord decides to issue eviction notices because they want to rent the place for a few hundred more next month, what protection have I got from that - especially if they say they're actually planning to move back but later "change their mind"?

Have they broken the lease? Attempted to charge above the market? Increased rent within the last year? If not-why do you suggest their rights should be limited? Bearing in mind that any other system ( of even longer changes back to market rent) will bring its own problems to be borne by society- especially new and arriving tenants.

Regarding their claim to move in-
Is there evidence their claim is invalid? Do they own their own house? From a different county? Bring their notice to the PRTB and they'll be fined.
Plus even beyond that, they have to tell tenant if they situation changes within 6 months.
So if you have been kicked out like that, and haven't got any evidence their notice was invalid- knock on the door 5 months later and see is the landlord is living there. If not- ka-ching - you know what the penalty for an illegal eviction is I assume.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If a landlord decides they're gonna keep my deposit for some nonsense reason, what real option have I got to get it back?

PRTB- what more do you want?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If the landlord goes bankrupt, where's my protection?

how often does that happen?
Besides when a receiver is put in place this is the one time I would personally suggest tenants to "run down the deposit". Safe in the knowledge that there is no comeback.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Don't tell me the PRTB is "protecting" tenants because you only have to read the threads here to see how useless and ineffective they are for BOTH sides.

they are pretty effective if you follow through for respondents with assets and when you know where that respondent lives.
To which category of respondent are those conditions more likely to apply?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I could be made redundant or be given a pay cut in the morning - are you going to sue my employer for the rent?

if there was misrepresentation- I'd certainly consider it. Beside if you were made unemployed- and had recently been employed, you are more likely to get a job quickly - since the "just fired" includes both "can find job quickly" and "can't find job quickly" categories of people.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Would you be willing as a landlord to hand over the same information to me in regards to your employment status, mortgage payments, income levels, references from previous tenants etc - after all, I want to be sure you can afford to pay your mortgage every month too with money to spare if that washing machine does go and that you'll fix it without a fuss - that's fair too, right?

sure it's fair- so ask them. All they can say is no.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem is we have landlords who expect all of the reward with none of the risk and as little work required as possible, forgetting that the rental sector - like any business - really revolves on trust on BOTH sides. The focus doesn't need to be so much at "protecting" yourself at the start (notwithstanding practical things like trying to get the best landlord/tenant you can based on your meetings with them), as ensuring that there IS practical, efficient AND enforceable means of resolving any problems if they DO arise, and to be fair I'd say (or would like to think anyway) that 95% of tenancy agreements proceed without a hitch.

I'd say 80-85% proceed without a significant hitch- that being in my experience.

Like all businesses, being a landlord is about reducing your risks and increasing your return.

Better vetting and- our laws being what they are-higher deposits coupled not accepting certain categories of risk is the way forward for landlords.

Regarding business, there are 2 types of business- ones who deal with repeat custom- and ones who don't.
Ones who don't include things like restaurants in tourist areas, hotdog sellers at football games etc. For these because there is no repeat custom whether they are good or bad- there is little incentive to be good. Certainly they get nothing out of it.
For repeat customer business- where providing a good service ensures increased revenue and profit- there is an incentive.
Which more closely describes the Irish rental market?

makeorbrake

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem is a culture change is needed, not just regulatory and that's a lot harder to achieve given our obsession with owning property.

Cultural change is a slow burner. Effective regulation should come first - and there is no earthly reason why it can't be achieved a thousand times better than the current implementation.

_Kaiser_

Replying to your edits...

makeorbrake wrote: »

Trust? I would have said that the OP worked on the basis of trust and look where that got him/her?

So the OP getting burned once mean that all future tenants should be met with unreasonable demands? (given the reality of the rental sector).

What if I had a bad experience with a landlord? Should I proceed on the assumption that you're some sort of cowboy as well that I'll need to "protect" myself against... or should I take you at your word and deal with you fairly and handle any issues IF they arise?

Ok, so by that logic there's no need for ANY deposit taking whatsoever!

Where did I say that a deposit shouldn't be required? What I'm saying is expecting a tenant to hand over 3-5k to average Joe landlord with no guarantee they'll see most of that, or indeed ANY of it back is ridiculous.

Like your 'final inspection' concept? Time and time again, we see people suggest that they withhold the last months (or months plural) rent in lieu of a 'final inspection'. "Practical, efficient and enforceable" is not the current reality - and it won't be until the PRTB is reformed. In the meantime, a large enough deposit might go some way to insuring the tenant actually sticks around for that 'final inspection'.

And what's to stop a landlord deciding they want to keep some or all of that deposit for some nonsense reason (we see threads on it all the time here). Oh sure, go to the PRTB you say but that takes a year and even if they find in the tenant's favour, the judgements are unenforceable in the real world unless you are willing to spend even more time on chasing it.

The only REAL way then would be to keep aside 10k to cover both the potential loss of your current deposit and a future one... but I can't see many tenants having that kind of cash to spare.

And what if the landlord goes bankrupt (another thing we're seeing more of on this forum). What happens to the tenant's deposit then?

As I said... landlords can't expect to get all the reward and none of the risk and a tenant has a LOT more to lose in reality

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Would you be willing as a landlord to hand over the same information to me in regards to your employment status, mortgage payments, income levels, references from previous tenants etc - after all, I want to be sure you can afford to pay your mortgage every month too with money to spare if that washing machine does go and that you'll fix it without a fuss - that's fair too, right?

I wouldn't provide any information to a prospective tenant no. It's my property. If I only want to let to people who provide me with what I require to commence a tenancy then that's my choice and it's your choice not to entertain such requests and to move on to a landlord that doesn't. It's not about fairness. It's about minimising my risk as I see it. Yes, I will certainly alienate some potentially good tenants, but I calculate that I will alienate almost all potentially delinquent tenants by requesting such things, so the move is a sensible one from my perspective.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

See, in the real world your "protections" are as meaningless as they are for tenants and all they really serve to do is alienate the decent ones. As I said if I had some random private landlord who I don't know from Adam acting as if they're my bank in looking for all this personal (and unnecessary for the purpose) information, they'd be told they can keep their property!

That's your prerogative. If the market changes around you though and these things become common place, you'll have to either live with friends or family or buy your own place. The increased deposit is already becoming more commonplace in Dublin.

dissed doc

Report her to the council, and get cleaners in. Keep receipts, then sue her for the amount over what the deposit is worth if it that much.

Then charge the next tenant two months deposit up front.

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

demanding several thousand euro as deposit with no security for the tenant is both unreasonable, unwarranted and unrealistic.

It's no longer unrealistic in high demand areas to request 2 or 3 months deposit because it's happening!

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

It's no longer unrealistic in high demand areas to request 2 or 3 months deposit because it's happening!

More fool any tenant then who is willing to hand over large sums of money with no guarantee or (realistic/practical) comeback if it goes wrong.

But then the current situation in Dublin is an aberration and unsustainable as we're already starting to see.

Personally I wouldn't be basing my business model on a temporary set of circumstances - unless we are indeed back in 2006 where property and rent can only go up!! :rolleyes:

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

More fool any tenant then who is willing to hand over large sums of money with no guarantee or (realistic/practical) comeback if it goes wrong.

But then the current situation in Dublin is an aberration and unsustainable as we're already starting to see.

Personally I wouldn't be basing my business model on a temporary set of circumstances - unless we are indeed back in 2006 where property and rent can only go up!! :rolleyes:

Once 2 or 3 months rent becomes the norm then that'll remain the norm. I'm sure a month's rent wasn't being asked for 20 years ago. As I said...tenants ARE now handing over 2 or 3 month's deposits.