Tenants can "live free" for 18 months!

ongarboy

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/tenants-who-stop-paying-rent-can-live-free-for-18-months-30452306.html

Interesting article in Indo this morning about how tenants can effectively live for free for 18 months as landlords are powerless in that time to evict them for not paying rent.

I have been put off buying investment properties for this very reason. I've heard too many stories from friends who've had their stress levels multiplied from rent dodging tenants while still having to pay the mortgage on such properties. I know most tenants are compliant but it seems a growing sub set know "the system" and exploit it for all it's worth. My partner's mother finally got rid of awful tenants just recently who had 1000s in arrears. She has decided to sell the house as she couldn't face the slow and costly legal challenge to recoup the lost income after numerous attempts to get it off them directly or face the risk of new equally unruly tenants. She heard from mutual friends that the same tenants were now doing the same thing with their current landlord. I'd say there are some amount of tenants who go from one landlord to another like this. References can easily be forged if agencies are not involved.

Definitely a system needs to be there to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords but if the government want more landlords to release accommodation to address the housing shortage, there has to be more protection for landlords too. While the interest rates I'm earning in the bank is fairly crap, I have peace of mind not having tenant risk.

Shedite27

Are there any "grey area" solutions available to landlords? Can they cut off electricity etc?

The_Morrigan

Folks I am putting up a warning now.
If I see one mention of scum, vultures, cowboys etc mentioned on either side of the business transaction bans will be handed out. Discuss the article, discuss solutions and discuss failings - but under no circumstances are you to make insulting comments about an entire faction of the rental markert, whether that be tenants or landlords.

keith16

The_Morrigan wrote: »

If I see one mention of scum

You might want to read the OP then.

As for the solution? None that I can see. The government doesn't care about tenants or landlords. Long term, sustainable and mutually beneficial renting will never ever happen in Ireland.

The_Morrigan

keith16 wrote: »

You might want to read the OP then.

As for the solution? None that I can see. The government doesn't care about tenants or landlords. Long term, sustainable and mutually beneficial renting will never ever happen in Ireland.

The OP has been contacted to amend the OP - and I'd advise you not to discuss moderation on thread, it's a site wide rule.

Eldarion

And yet we see the argument in all the mortgage arrears threads that if you're renting and you don't pay your rent you're out on your ear within a month.

The entire property system in this country is a joke. Eviction proceedings should take 30-60 days max after notices of arrears and evictions have been served.

Repossessions I can understand taking a little longer as we're dealing with debt obligations versus asset assessment/valuation and eventual seizure but definitely should be well underway by the 12-month mark if no effort has been made by the debtor to engage the creditor.

I can't see either happening though as it's our own people's mentality and lack of responsibility that brings us into these messes.

OldNotWIse

Shedite27 wrote: »

Are there any "grey area" solutions available to landlords? Can they cut off electricity etc?

That constitutes constructive illegal eviction. LL can face major fines for this.

shruikan2553

Eviction for non payment is definetly something that should be sorted within the month. Currently you have to give someone 14 days to pay before you can even start the eviction process. They should atleast combine it so you have 14 days to pay and 14 days to leave. I would be all for 14 days to pay or leave but that's not going to happen. At that stage the LL should be able to arrive with gardai and throw them out.

OU812

There's a web service called Cozy in the US that addresses this very problem. Landlords rate their tenants (who are linked to their SSN) & the ones which are good get good properties & the ones who are bad, don't. It also provides payment methods, maintenance methods etc. Works very well for low cost (free for tenants), unfortunately here you don't have to provide your PPS/SSN & as a result the landlord suffers. It should be mandatory to provide a PPS when renting something as large a value as a property.

emeldc

OU812 wrote: »

There's a web service called Cozy in the US that addresses this very problem. Landlords rate their tenants (who are linked to their SSN) & the ones which are good get good properties & the ones who are bad, don't. It also provides payment methods, maintenance methods etc. Works very well for low cost (free for tenants), unfortunately here you don't have to provide your PPS/SSN & as a result the landlord suffers. It should be mandatory to provide a PPS when renting something as large a value as a property.

You need a PPS no. for the PRTB form. If they wont give it, run a mile.

McGrath5

Why is it when the landlord breaks the terms of the lease, he/she has to experience the full weight of the law come down on them, but when the tenant decides to act up, the law actually protects him/her?

OldNotWIse

McGrath5 wrote: »

Why is it when the landlord breaks the terms of the lease, he/she has to experience the full weight of the law come down on them, but when the tenant decides to act up, the law actually protects him/her?

The law doesn't protect him, but there are proper procedures that must be followed - issue termination order (depending on circumstances - lease breach, lease end, end of part 4 for prescribed reason etc) and if this is not adhered to, seek enforcement order. It's not that the law favours tenants but this process takes time, which I agree is unfair on LL's btw. And I suspect this is why so many LL's try to take the law into their own hands and attempt illegal evictions.

Sam the Sham

ongarboy wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/tenants-who-stop-paying-rent-can-live-free-for-18-months-30452306.html

Interesting article in Indo this morning about how tenants can effectively live for free for 18 months as landlords are powerless in that time to evict them for not paying rent.

I have been put off buying investment properties for this very reason. I've heard too many stories from friends who've had their stress levels multiplied from rent dodging tenants while still having to pay the mortgage on such properties.

Stop right there. What makes you think landlords "have to pay the mortgage"? There's no evidence of this. The number of BTL repossessions has been derisory and there are a good many landlords collecting rent and not paying the mortgage (effectively free money from the state in many cases).

If tenants suddenly have the same sort of "indulgence" (although landlords can get away with not paying the mortgage for longer than 18 months), then it's only fair play.

Of course, a fair system would be: if you don't pay your mortgage, your property gets repossessed and resold by the bank (and you owe the difference); if you don't pay your rent, you have to find other accommodation. Such a regime might also take some of the bubbliciousness out of the Dublin house market.

Villa05

It is very intresting how irish society threats nonpayers of mortgages and rents. Quiet a contrast for an equal offence. Both being wrong and the mechanisms for resolution should be swift.

McGrath5

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The law doesn't protect him, but there are proper procedures that must be followed - issue termination order (depending on circumstances - lease breach, lease end, end of part 4 for prescribed reason etc) and if this is not adhered to, seek enforcement order. It's not that the law favours tenants but this process takes time, which I agree is unfair on LL's btw. And I suspect this is why so many LL's try to take the law into their own hands and attempt illegal evictions.

I would see an 18 month time frame from the moment of non payment to actual eviction as been very much in favour of the tenant and also been very protectionist of the tenants "rights".

This is a system that is in dire need of reform.

The_Morrigan

Folks thesolution has been banned I've deleted all his posts as he was trolling and I've also had to delete all the replies.
Apologies to the posters who were trying to put him right, but it was a fruitless exercise.

If we can please continue with the discussion of the article in the OP - if any further posts are made that are in the trolling/flaming/baiting vein, please report the posts and let the moderators deal with them.

Thank you

TheBandicoot

Agree with the article, and I'm not a landlord or anything. The present situation is a nightmare for them.

Michael D Not Higgins

The PRTB obviously is a low priority for the government. They either haven't properly budgeted for the demand on its resources or it's designed that way. As they say, don't attribute malice what can be described by incompetence, so we'll assume the former.

The issue with mortgage arrears and repossessions is complicated by banks playing the waiting game for the market to recover but in the case of the non-paying tenant, there can be no excuses. The article mentions 475,000 people renting, let's assume an average of two people per rental, that's about 240,000 rentals. 900 cases since 2012 is let's say 400/year. That means one in every 600 rentals gets to the point of failing the PRTB and having to go through court and only one in three of those has a court order so far. I don't have data for all PRTB cases and would love to see the breakdown of how many total, how many are retracted after the other party capitulate after the formal request to involve the PRTB, etc.

I can only guess that the numbers get larger the further back the chain you get (400 cases for enforcement order, 4,000 total cases?, 40,000 problems before the PRTB get involved?) but it clearly shows a problem with the system.

Cuddlesworth

McGrath5 wrote: »

I would see an 18 month time frame from the moment of non payment to actual eviction as been very much in favour of the tenant and also been very protectionist of the tenants "rights".

This is a system that is in dire need of reform.

18 months is on the extreme side.

The process is,

Notice of arrears
Notice of eviction
PRTB case/judgement
District court judgement for eviction and arrears
Sheriff Eviction and attempted recovery of arrears


The PRTB have upped their game recently from what I have heard in terms of time. District court delay is entirely dependant on the location you're in. It can scale anywhere from a month to a year. Then the sheriff delay is usually a month in Dublin at least.

Realistically you should be able to go to the sheriff with the PRTB judgement, the District Court simply goes along with whatever that judgement says.


I have said on this forum and will continue to say it. You should not be a landlord if your unable to absorb the risk of a hit in 20k+ in damages and arrears. I have seen "professional working couples" do serious damage and I have seen 3-4k corporate leases go awry.

Cuddlesworth

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The PRTB obviously is a low priority for the government. They either haven't properly budgeted for the demand on its resources or it's designed that way. As they say, don't attribute malice what can be described by incompetence, so we'll assume the former.

The issue with mortgage arrears and repossessions is complicated by banks playing the waiting game for the market to recover but in the case of the non-paying tenant, there can be no excuses. The article mentions 475,000 people renting, let's assume an average of two people per rental, that's about 240,000 rentals. 900 cases since 2012 is let's say 400/year. That means one in every 600 rentals gets to the point of failing the PRTB and having to go through court and only one in three of those has a court order so far. I don't have data for all PRTB cases and would love to see the breakdown of how many total, how many are retracted after the other party capitulate after the formal request to involve the PRTB, etc.

I can only guess that the numbers get larger the further back the chain you get (400 cases for enforcement order, 4,000 total cases?, 40,000 problems before the PRTB get involved?) but it clearly shows a problem with the system.

I got the impression that most leave in the month leading up to the district court case, very few actually wait for the eviction itself. Its difficult to summons or recover anything from people you can't locate. Most landlords recover the property and don't bother with the district court, since their is no point.

Michael D Not Higgins

I was watching a programme recently about repossessions in England on Channel 4 I think. Their powers for evicting and recovering costs were much further reaching. In one of the cases they had lawful authority to forcefully enter to evict the family and in another they could confiscate the tenant's property to recover the costs of rent arrears. I know it sounds heartless to do that to someone but if you've let it get to that stage, you deserve to be removed and pay what you owe.

foggy_lad

Shedite27 wrote: »

Are there any "grey area" solutions available to landlords? Can they cut off electricity etc?

There is no grey area at all! cutting off the power or other utilities of any premises where a tenant lives is an offence even if you are owed hundreds of thousands.

To offer some balance on the timeframes etc it has to be understood that tenants as a whole are not generally wealthy or able to come up with money to pay solicitors and take landlords to court over their rights so the whole system is geared towards righting the balance.

Landlords are property owners and are should be professional in their dealings with their tenants but many are not. Many take a deposit and will keep it as funds to redecorate/cover normal wear&tear, many others leave premises unsafe or unsecured due to not keeping up to the required standard or just buy poor quality crap second hand appliances which only last a few months and they then blame the tenants when these break.

Most landlords have a solicitor or some other legal person to act on their behalf in the event of disputes etc and they also have more access to funds for taking action against tenants, Tenants do not have this power.

Mr. Incognito

It could be sorted if the PRTB were any way efficient, which they are not.

I have had matters listed before them and everything has to be sent to Cork to be scanned into the system. They have lost documents. Mis Copied things. Their Briefs are all over the place.

They are disorganised and could care less. Every department is segmented and there is no continuity to any file.

Fix the PRTB and get it running properly and the tenants would have no system to game

Michael D Not Higgins

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It could be sorted if the PRTB were any way efficient, which they are not.

I have had matters listed before them and everything has to be sent to Cork to be scanned into the system. They have lost documents. Mis Copied things. Their Briefs are all over the place.

They are disorganised and could care less. Every department is segmented and there is no continuity to any file.

Fix the PRTB and get it running properly and the tenants would have no system to game

It's in everyone's interest as the same delay that lets tenants stay put is the delay of tenant's getting back a disputed deposit.

emeldc

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I have said on this forum and will continue to say it. You should not be a landlord if your unable to absorb the risk of a hit in 20k+ in damages and arrears.

I don't know what kind of property you're letting, but those kind of figures would be enough to put most small investors into repossession territory.

Cuddlesworth

emeldc wrote: »

I don't know what kind of property you're letting, but those kind of figures would be enough to put most small investors into repossession territory.

Estimate of up to 10 months rent lost, plus refit of furniture, kitchen, bathroom, new plastering on walls, etc.

Its not guaranteed to happen, its simply a possible risk. But I think people underestimate how much of a risk it is, since most landlords here are 1 to 2 property owners at most. Whereas the people I worked for would in general have 5+ properties.

I don't rent properties, I used to repair them and maintain contact with the industry as I find it interesting. People seem to find it difficult to understand that malicious or ignorant damage can costs thousands, since they place it into context of themselves in their own properties.

3DataModem

The only practical solution to this at the moment is be very selective about tenants.

Choose tenants based on their likeliness to default.

Hence why first time renters, non-nationals, large non-family groups, and low-income people are often discriminated against.

Sam the Sham

emeldc wrote: »

I don't know what kind of property you're letting, but those kind of figures would be enough to put most small investors into repossession territory.

If there were any meaningful repossessions going on....

sunnysoutheast

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I have said on this forum and will continue to say it. You should not be a landlord if your unable to absorb the risk of a hit in 20k+ in damages and arrears. I have seen "professional working couples" do serious damage and I have seen 3-4k corporate leases go awry.

It's sensible business planning to have contingency, but under current laws it's almost impossible to collect any damages which are eventually awarded which is why, in practice, most landlords settle for their property back with "deposit" returned through gritted teeth or even resort to buying out a bad tenant.

It wouldn't take long for 20k (o/s rent and damages) to become a significant proportion of turnover, particularly given unrecoverable legal costs. These input costs will simply feed into increased rents over time.

I know of more than a few people who have (usually inherited or previous PPR) properties which they have left empty and secured due to the current asymmetric nature of the rental market. It's simply not worth the risk renting them out due to eviction delays, damage, overholding, etc.

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

I don't know what kind of property you're letting, but those kind of figures would be enough to put most small investors into repossession territory.

Small investors really shouldn't be trying to make money off BTL then.

The thing is it would be interesting to look at it from a professional landlord verses trying to make money for a BTL by don't it you self. I would say its much less of a problem for the professional landlord who runs it as a business and had the money to do it correctly, than for those who are hoping to cover the mortgage with the rent and are doing it themselves to save money, and are more likely to be than bit squeezed to have the property rented all the time.

MouseTail

MYOB wrote: »

Small investors really shouldn't be trying to make money off BTL then.

A healthy competitive market has players of all sizes, be it corner shops to large multiple stores, small start up software companies to the MNCs. Property investment is no different. The risk will always be greater for the small player, but it would be very bad news for renters if barriers to entry were put up to stop small investors entering the market. You would end up with one or two players having the rental market stitched up, and almost certainly price fixing. Shudder.

MouseTail

MouseTail wrote: »

A healthy competitive market has players of all sizes, be it corner shops to large multiple stores, small start up software companies to the MNCs. Property investment is no different. The risk will always be greater for the small player, but it would be very bad news for renters if barriers to entry were put up to stop small investors entering the market. You would end up with one or two players having the rental market stitched up, and almost certainly price fixing. Shudder.

That true, however it the idea of doing a BTL by yourself and expecting your risk profile is going to be the same as a profession investor is a bit silly.

emeldc

mariaalice wrote: »

That true, however it the idea of doing a BTL by yourself and expecting your risk profile is going to be the same as a profession investor is a bit silly.

But the risk should be proportionally the same. Are we not all bound by the same rules. There is nothing to suggest that a professional LL can get rid of a bad tenant any quicker than I can.

zef

Its basically theft on a grand scale and should be treated as such, with harsher penalties to show it is not socially acceptable.
In the security industry it is reckoned about 10% of the population has the propensity to steal, be it active theft or more passively, e.g. finding money that just dropped out of the pockets of a person in front of them.
If a landlord is a business, and taxed as such, its a bit of a joke that if the Ll changes the locks in order to get his own home back after being owed however many thousands, he or she can be liable for 10k+ for illegal eviction.
Its put me right off renting my home out to move to a town a bus and a train away, which would suit me for college.
A painter was telling me of his last job, a total refurb of an apt. The tenant was leaving on a Friday and felt sorry for a homeless lad outside. Gave him the keys to the apt, asking him to be out by Sunday. Him and his mates trashed the place, even I was shocked st the gory details. ****e all over the place, flooded, anything not nailed down gone.

Sam the Sham

zef wrote: »

Its basically theft on a grand scale and should be treated as such, with harsher penalties to show it is not socially acceptable.

If that's "theft on a grand scale," what do you call landlords who have stopped payment on their mortgages but still charge rent? Now imagine a landlord who has multiple properties and is not servicing the mortgages on any of them but collecting rent on all of them. Now stop imagining.

The_Morrigan

Sam the Sham wrote: »

If that's "theft on a grand scale," what do you call landlords who have stopped payment on their mortgages but still charge rent? Now imagine a landlord who has multiple properties and is not servicing the mortgages on any of them but collecting rent on all of them. Now stop imagining.

You call them defaulters.

emeldc

Sam the Sham wrote: »

If that's "theft on a grand scale," what do you call landlords who have stopped payment on their mortgages but still charge rent? Now imagine a landlord who has multiple properties and is not servicing the mortgages on any of them but collecting rent on all of them. Now stop imagining.

But the LL will be ultimately responsible for the mortgage. The tenants are rarely if ever held responsible for the rent and damage.

Sam the Sham

emeldc wrote: »

But the LL will be ultimately responsible for the mortgage.

There is very little evidence that that will ever be the case. The mortgages will be written down without the landlord ever losing possession of the property or properties. And, given the extent of taxpayer bailouts of the banks holding the mortgages, it is the taxpayer making up the difference. Free money for landlords!

When that stops, I might have a tiny bit of sympathy for those dealing with bad tenants. Until then, crocodile tears: being a landlord is a cushy number and, basically, a one-way bet.

The_Morrigan

Sam the Sham wrote: »

There is very little evidence that that will ever be the case. The mortgages will be written down without the landlord ever losing possession of the property or properties. And, given the extent of taxpayer bailouts of the banks holding the mortgages, it is the taxpayer making up the difference. Free money for landlords!

When that stops, I might have a tiny bit of sympathy for those dealing with bad tenants. Until then, crocodile tears: being a landlord is a cushy number and, basically, a one-way bet.

Sam just a word of warning, it is against the charter to engage in a 'Them vs Us' discussion here. So please don't go down the route of just slagging off landlords 'just because' - it won't be tolerated.

/Mod

the_syco

emeldc wrote: »

But the risk should be proportionally the same. Are we not all bound by the same rules. There is nothing to suggest that a professional LL can get rid of a bad tenant any quicker than I can.

A pro LL may be able to absorb the costs, and have a kitty for such eventualities.

If it's paying the mortgage of what they see as their "nest egg", pension, etc, the small landlord may go into full panic mode when their tenant misses a few months rent.

Tar.Aldarion

A place I was living in put up the rent, I left and so did all but one person living there, talk to him a year later and the new tenants had not paid rent once. Nothing they could do until the tenants just upped and left one day. This is often why I put forth to landlords that they should value good tenants, bad ones generally completely wreck a house and/or don't pay.

Calina

McGrath5 wrote: »

I would see an 18 month time frame from the moment of non payment to actual eviction as been very much in favour of the tenant and also been very protectionist of the tenants "rights".

This is a system that is in dire need of reform.

IMHO it's not so much the system as the culture of the industry is in need of reform. How people approach it. Put simply, there is no system you can put in place in Ireland that will lead to reform if it doesn't come with attitude changes as well. There is a monumental lack of trust here and you cannot fix that with a system; it's a mindset problem.

Thargor

What about a hypothetical situation I always wanted to ask about where:

-You're the landlord

-You rent out a property you own thats not your primary residence.

-No leases signed, no PTRB reregistration (illegal blah blah... well this is the way the 8-9 houses Ive rented in Ireland have worked so Id say its widespread...)

-Tenant stops paying, refuses to engage.

-You move into the house with the tenant, get a few bank statements and bills sent round as proof of residence.

-Bag up the tenants crap and throw it out as owners in residence are allowed to do? Change the locks.

Whats the worst that could happen there? PTRB fine but you get your property back? All hypothetical not condoning it or anything its just a thought experiment.

OldNotWIse

Thargor wrote: »

What about a hypothetical situation I always wanted to ask about where:

-You're the landlord

-You rent out a property you own thats not your primary residence.

-No leases signed, no PTRB reregistration (illegal blah blah... well this is the way the 8-9 houses Ive rented in Ireland have worked so Id say its widespread...)

-Tenant stops paying, refuses to engage.

-You move into the house with the tenant, get a few bank statements and bills sent round as proof of residence.

-Bag up the tenants crap and throw it out as owners in residence are allowed to do? Change the locks.

Whats the worst that could happen there? PTRB fine but you get your property back? All hypothetical not condoning it or anything its just a thought experiment.

I'm thinking, implied contract? Dont know but thats the first hurdle that I would think of.

emeldc

Thargor wrote: »

What about a hypothetical situation I always wanted to ask about where:

-You're the landlord

-You rent out a property you own thats not your primary residence.

-No leases signed, no PTRB reregistration (illegal blah blah... well this is the way the 8-9 houses Ive rented in Ireland have worked so Id say its widespread...)

-Tenant stops paying, refuses to engage.

-You move into the house with the tenant, get a few bank statements and bills sent round as proof of residence.

-Bag up the tenants crap and throw it out as owners in residence are allowed to do? Change the locks.

Whats the worst that could happen there? PTRB fine but you get your property back? All hypothetical not condoning it or anything its just a thought experiment.

Hypothetically speaking of course, you are right. You get your property back and maybe the PRTB wont take any action at all. But what if your tenant is Mike Tyson :rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

Thargor wrote: »

What about a hypothetical situation I always wanted to ask about where:

-You're the landlord

-You rent out a property you own thats not your primary residence.

-No leases signed, no PTRB reregistration (illegal blah blah... well this is the way the 8-9 houses Ive rented in Ireland have worked so Id say its widespread...)

-Tenant stops paying, refuses to engage.

-You move into the house with the tenant, get a few bank statements and bills sent round as proof of residence.

-Bag up the tenants crap and throw it out as owners in residence are allowed to do? Change the locks.

Whats the worst that could happen there? PTRB fine but you get your property back? All hypothetical not condoning it or anything its just a thought experiment.

Tennent lodges a case with the PRTB, says he rented a house from you and then you moved yourself into it. All the evidence you have points to this, all the evidence he has points to this. 10k+ settlement for illegal eviction.

emeldc

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Tennent lodges a case with the PRTB, says he rented a house from you and then you moved yourself into it. All the evidence you have points to this, all the evidence he has points to this. 10k+ settlement for illegal eviction.

Have you any links to any cases where a LL was ever fined anything for an illegal eviction. Or even where a tenant took a case against a LL for an illegal eviction. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't find any.

Montroseee

emeldc wrote: »

Have you any links to any cases where a LL was ever fined anything for an illegal eviction. Or even where a tenant took a case against a LL for an illegal eviction. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't find any.

In my experience, they are few and far between. A tenant that engages in such behavior will usually not have the funds to bring it to court.

OldNotWIse

Montroseee wrote: »

In my experience, they are few and far between. A tenant that engages in such behavior will usually not have the funds to bring it to court.

PRTB can fast track a dispute wrt an illegal eviction and obtain a barring order pending resolution.

Also, what do you mean by "a tenant who engages in such behaviour"? What behaviour are you referring to?

Cuddlesworth

PRTB site, court decisions,

First page

http://www.prtb.ie/docs/default-source/court-decisions-enforcement-of-orders/final-dr1164-2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Third Page

http://www.prtb.ie/docs/default-source/court-decisions-enforcement-of-orders/final-tr111-dr1065-2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Fourth page

http://www.prtb.ie/docs/default-source/court-decisions-enforcement-of-orders/final-dr362-2011.pdf?sfvrsn=0

And so on. When you have no basis for the search it starts around 2012 but you get the gist.