Would you pay 2 months deposit?

Bepolite

Guaranteed not to go pink in the can.

beauf

I have no idea what that means.

beauf

Tarzana wrote: »

Well then those landlords should be more empathetic and understanding of the fact that two month's deposit money is too much for many people, no? If there was a third party system, people might be more amenable to scraping together the money. As it stands now, it's a huge risk handing that much over to landlords, when money is so tight for many. And yes, landlords have their pick of tenants but I'd personally rather live in a dump or far out of the city than hand over that much in the current system. I realise landlords couldn't give a crap and I totally accept that. I'd tend to with the poster who said earlier in the thread that it's not as common as LLs are making out on this thread though. I have yet to come across it, and I recently found high quality accommodation in the competitive Dublin market.

I think you are missing the point slightly. Why should LL have to bear the cost of someone else damage. If people caused hundreds if not thousands of damage to a hire car, they wouldn't expect the hire company to pay for it.

murphaph

On the point of hire cars...you generally pay at least a 1 grand deposit on a car that might cost 20 grand a house or flat costs many multiples of that....

makeorbrake

murphaph wrote: »

On the point of hire cars...you generally pay at least a 1 grand deposit on a car that might cost 20 grand a house or flat costs many multiples of that....

It's an excellent analogy. If you put the faintest of dents in a hire car, you will pay. If you return it filthy, you'll pay a cleaning/valet fee.

When it comes to a property, regrettably the same doesn't apply.

anothernight

Bepolite wrote: »

why not start a thread here, subject to moderator approval, gather some of the best policies from other countries, suggest a solution and use this site to get people to join your cause.

While I think this is a great idea, I do wonder whether the people in this forum would ever be able to agree on housing policy. Too many threads where people consider it acceptable to not pay their rent because they want a decrease, or think that the garden should be looked after by the landlord (I bet they'd ask for their dishes to be done too, if they could :rolleyes:). I'm sure we also have those landlords that put up places barely fit to live in, even if they're not as vocal in this particular forum.

If you think there is a chance for agreement, and that people might actually contact their relevant TDs at some stage, it would be good to ask a moderator for their blessing in having a decent thread for that type of discussion.
Great things have been done through boards.ie before.

In my opinion, the single thing that would make the biggest difference would be a compulsory escrow system for rent deposits. It would stop renters from doing a runner without paying the last month's rent, and landlords from stealing the deposit without appropriate justification. Much less likely for the tenants to destroy the property if they know they'll have to pay for at least some of the repairs, even if most of the time the deposit covers only a fraction of the repair costs.

beauf

How about renters insurance like car insurance. The LL could claim off this for damages. The tenants have the PRTB.

makeorbrake

anothernight wrote: »

While I think this is a great idea, I do wonder whether the people in this forum would ever be able to agree on housing policy.

There's no way in the world that those looking at it from the two main perspectives (i.e. LL's view and tenants view) would agree on all things. Notwithstanding that, there have definitely been a few things that most people on here seem to agree on.

The first one being that the PRTB does not function effectively. Whether that's a result of the underlying legislation or that quango itself or both - this needs to be addressed. Whether a complaint is put forward by LL or tenant, that complaint needs to be dealt with in a timely manner.

With regard to escrow, I don't think either side would have an issue with this - but there is absolutely no point in going there without the PRTB being restructured into an effective organisation. Furthermore, there is the danger that others might pick this up and run with it - with the motivation of turning this into a revenue raising exercise.

With regard to rent supplement, surely there has to be a point where someone who wrecks a house is simply cut off from rent supplement/rehousing at the tax payers expense? This to me - and I'm open to correction - is a no brainer.

With regard to rent supplement, the tenancy should be made between LL and the hse/local authority directly - not with their 'customer'.

There is probably scope for more common ground - but those four above would be fundamental. If only those were achieved, it could change the housing landscape completely for landlord and tenant alike.

Greenmachine

Wouldn't pay in Dublin. It is far from the norm. It is however more common in Scandinavia to pay two months deposit for a unfurnished apartment. They tend to be bigger too with better transport links.

beauf

They'd need to be good to commute from Scandinavia

Tarzana

beauf wrote: »

I think you are missing the point slightly. Why should LL have to bear the cost of someone else damage.

Did I say they should? Where? I just think that in the current system, two month's deposit is far too much to hand over, not knowing what your landlord is like. Remember, there are absolutely awful tenants, but there are also absolutely awful landlords, and with the market the way it is, tenants aren't in the position to look for references or bank statement. There's a certain amount of risk in any money-making venture, and being a landlord is no different.

I've yet to be convinced it's the norm though, I literally don't know anyone in Ireland who has ever paid two month's deposit, and that's including people who have moved recently.

And for the record, I HATE the current common tenant practice of not paying the last month's rent and using your deposit. I would never do it myself and it's essentially trying to pull a fast one of the LL, living them picking up the cost for anything that should been deducted from the deposit. It also makes LLs wary and gives all tenants a bad name.

beauf

Tarzana wrote: »

Did I say they should? Where? I just think that in the current system, two month's deposit is far too much to hand over, not knowing what your landlord is like. Remember, there are absolutely awful tenants, but there are also absolutely awful landlords, and with the market the way it is, tenants aren't in the position to look for references or bank statement. There's a certain amount of risk in any money-making venture, and being a landlord is no different....

The deposit serves a specific purpose. Either it covers the cost and/or discourages people from damages or it doesn't.

Not all LL are making money. Many have to rent their old homes due to financial hardship. So thats a sweeping generalization that isn't always true. Many would like to sell out but the banks won't let them.

As you say its not very common...yet.

Its still not a proper solution to the problem for both parties.

Tarzana

beauf wrote: »

Not all LL are making money. Many have to rent their old homes due to financial hardship. So thats a sweeping generalization that isn't always true. Many would like to sell out but the banks won't let them.

I know, and I do have sympathy for reluctant landlords, especially if they find themselves with tenants that take the mick. But reluctant or not, they need to commit fully to it unfortunately.

quadrifoglio verde

Two changes I'd like to see, an escrow system for deposits and the ability to have a non paying tenant evicted after 28 days in arrears.
The idea that a landlord can keep the deposit (although harder now a days due to the prtb) is ludicrous.
But what's also ludicrous is the fact that it can take upwards of a year to evict a non paying tenant. Quick evictions should be the norm.

davo10

beauf wrote: »

How about renters insurance like car insurance. The LL could claim off this for damages. The tenants have the PRTB.

Insurance is based on risk assessment and frequency, given how often claims would be made, I couldn't imagine how much that policy would cost.

davo10

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Two changes I'd like to see, an escrow system for deposits and the ability to have a non paying tenant evicted after 28 days in arrears.
.

Exactly, everyone wins in this, it's too hard to get deposits back, it's too hard to get scumbag tenants out. But it does not address the issue of damage exceeding the deposit so I still think 2 months is the way to go.

beauf

Tarzana wrote: »

...they need to commit fully to it unfortunately.

I no idea what what means, or how its related to this thread.

quadrifoglio verde

davo10 wrote: »

Exactly, everyone wins in this, it's too hard to get deposits back, it's too hard to get scumbag tenants out. But it does not address the issue of damage exceeding the deposit so I still think 2 months is the way to go.

Well in theory, damage that exceeds the deposit should be recoverable via the prtb.
But you'd have a better chance of getting milk from a bull.

davo10

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Well in theory, damage that exceeds the deposit should be recoverable via the prtb.
But you'd have a better chance of getting milk from a bull.

That's for sure, hence the reassurance of having 2 months deposit.

Tarzana

beauf wrote: »

I no idea what what means, or how its related to this thread.

It was just an aside. Not much to do with the thread at all, more just you're a landlord or you're not, why are you one doesn't come into it.

Grandpa Hassan

davo10 wrote: »

Exactly, everyone wins in this, it's too hard to get deposits back, it's too hard to get scumbag tenants out. But it does not address the issue of damage exceeding the deposit so I still think 2 months is the way to go.

I don't think people would mind 6 weeks or 2 months if it were held in escrow. If a tenant didn't want to do that, they could still rent privately directly from a LL rather than through an agent, only have the month, but risk the LL keeping it.

You have both options in London, and generally speaking the more high quality and expensive the place, the more likely it is to be rented through an agent with the deposit protection, inventory clerk, and 6/8weeks deposit. Crappy properties still get let directly by LLs through the internet, but the tenant takes their chances. There is zero protection.

beauf

Tarzana wrote: »

It was just an aside. Not much to do with the thread at all, more just you're a landlord or you're not, why are you one doesn't come into it.

I think you were making some kind of point that a LL should pay for someone else's damage for some reason that I can't fathom.

Tarzana

beauf wrote: »

I think you were making some kind of point that a LL should pay for someone else's damage for some reason that I can't fathom.

No I wasn't. I'm against large deposits being handed out in the current system. That =/= wanting the LL to pay for damage. There should be a more secure system before large deposits are handed over.

beauf

Ok I have no idea what you meant then.

Big Cheese

No way!

The_Conductor

Tarzana wrote: »

That =/= wanting the LL to pay for damage.

Just why should they? I'm genuinely interested in hearing where you're coming from.

Tarzana

beauf wrote: »

Ok I have no idea what you meant then.

That other bit I said was an aside. Other than that, I've been pretty consistent the whole thread on what I think about the whole thing. I can't really make it much clearer. Anyway, moving on!

Tarzana

The_Conductor wrote: »

Just why should they? I'm genuinely interested in hearing where you're coming from.

They shouldn't pay for the damage. I never said they should. Why are people confused about this? I just hate the idea of handing over two month's deposit to an LL for them to place in their own bank account. Especially as if a tenant does cause damage or not pay rent, it's going to cost a lot more than two months deposit. The bit you quoted there isn't me saying that LLs should pay for damages. =/= means 'does not equal'.

I don't really understand why people think me saying that handing over a huge deposit in the current system is not ideal equates to me saying LLs should cover damage caused by a tenant. There needs to be reforms obviously, so the LLs get more protection too. I'd pay two months deposit if it was handled by a third party.

I dunno, I really can't explain it any further. If you don't think I'm making sense, er, grand so?

makeorbrake

Tarzana wrote: »

They shouldn't pay for the damage. I never said they should. Why are people confused about this? I just hate the idea of handing over two month's deposit to an LL for them to place in their own bank account. Especially as if a tenant does cause damage or not pay rent, it's going to cost a lot more than two months deposit.

I don't really understand why people think me saying that handing over a huge deposit in the current system is not ideal equates to me saying LLs should cover damage caused by a tenant. There needs to be reforms obviously, so the LLs get more protection too. I'd pay two months deposit if it was handled by a third party.

I dunno, I really can't explain it any further. If you don't think I'm making sense, er, grand so?

So essentially, you understand the need for bigger deposits - in fact, you identify that even bigger deposits in cases won't go far in addressing potential losses in more extreme cases.

So either ...somehow...change is effected - to hold errant tenants (and landlords!) accountable ...or bigger deposits are the only way to go (even if they are still not ideal - for either party).


Does that sum it up?

beauf

I think the reason for paying a deposit is not understood.