Would you pay 2 months deposit?

Tarzana

makeorbrake wrote: »

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?

I understand the need for them but would be very reluctant to pay a large deposit over a landlord to plonk in their bank account. And unless it becomes a norm or there is more security in it, I won't be doing it, as I would imagine many other wouldn't. That was the risk I was talking about earlier with regards to LLs. It's in everyone's interest to move to a third party system. But as it now, not a chance I'd hand over two month's deposit, I would make other arrangements. Like someone mentioned, in London, if a deposit that large is taken, an inventory is made up and strict guidelines exist regarding wear and tear, so that deposit deductions can be fairly decided on. Here, wear and tear is much more at the LLs discretion. I would not be happy having so much money tied up in such a hokey system and I'd say I'm far from alone here. It's not the norm anyway at the moment, despite was is being claimed on this thread.

makeorbrake

Tarzana wrote: »

I understand the need for them but would be very reluctant to pay a large deposit over a landlord to plonk in their bank account. And unless it becomes a norm or there is more security in it, I won't be doing it.

If it was optional - as a tenant - of course, you'd minimise risk and opt for somewhere that doesn't ask for 2 months.

Tarzana wrote: »

Here, wear and tear is much more at the LLs discretion.

In a dispute, it comes down to whats set down in law.

Tarzana wrote: »

I would not be happy having so much money tied up in such a hokey system

Without reform of the PRTB (and possibly legislative change), then any escrow system established by the PRTB would be hokey-er than ever!

Tarzana wrote: »

It's not the norm anyway at the moment, despite was is being claimed on this thread.

It's not the norm but it's going to become the norm. Put yourself in a LL's shoes and you get clarity on that (and ironically, I'm not a LL myself).

Tarzana

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not the norm but it's going to become the norm. Put yourself in a LL's shoes and you get clarity on that (and ironically, I'm not a LL myself).

You don't know that - time will tell. But it's not a foregone thing. And if the market changes - it definitely won't become the norm. Granted, in Dublin at least, the market isn't likely to change for quite some time. But in other parts of the country, even now, not a hope of getting tenants to agree to it.

Mrs OBumble

Tarzana wrote: »

But in other parts of the country, even now, not a hope of getting tenants to agree to it.

There's plenty of chance of getting quality tenants in Galway to agree

No idea what demand is like elsewhere, though.

Snake

handlemaster wrote: »

Two months should be standard. A months rent does'nt cover much when damage occurs not to mention hassle of organising the clean up etc. Then theres the time period it cant be rented.

The time space between tenants is a landlords problem. You can't make a tenant pay extra deposit just incase you evict him and you need to cover a months rent. That's absolutely ridiculous

Snake

Squatman wrote: »

nobody can sell anything for more than what someone is willing to pay... having said that, i was asked for 6 weeks deposit. I didnt take it,it really is taking the piss. Id be more likely to abuse the place in spite of the LL.

Am I the only one that finds this post completely ridiculous?

Tarzana

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There's plenty of chance of getting quality tenants in Galway to agree

No idea what demand is like elsewhere, though.

I didn't say every other part of the country. I'm sure demand is high in most or some of the cities.

womandriver

JustAThought wrote: »

Ive been burned a number of times by tenants - leaving overnight and leaving large gas and electricity bills unpaid - damage to the property and/or items missing - and that's before you consider the lack of income for the finalinth while
You try and sort out the mess and take
Time From Work to screen possible
Tenants, clean and upgrade the place, and wait & establish where tenants are ( holidays, hospital, work assignment.. O ... Did a runner ). It's a major hassle and a Lot of expense - new keys, transfer of bills , parking permits etc,

So I now ask for the first months rent and 6 weeks deposit upfront - and tbh next time I will be asking for 2 months . The last tenant actually made over 200 marks on the freshly painted walls, scribbled on the desk & set two lit joss sticks down on the inbuilt furniture totally ruining it - not to Mention the outstanding e300 gas bill and LX bill....

Two months.. Common sense.

The common denominator here is you. If it's happened with a number of different tenants, is it something to do with your behaviour as a landlord? Are you a terrible landlord that drives people to this?

Have you considered this?

makeorbrake

GrayFox208 wrote: »

The time space between tenants is a landlords problem. You can't make a tenant pay extra deposit just incase you evict him and you need to cover a months rent. That's absolutely ridiculous

You've misread the scenario. Who said anything about covering time between tenancies!? It's a question of damage limitation - in terms of the damage in $$ that a tenant can do.

Tarzana wrote:

And if the market changes - it definitely won't become the norm.

News for you. It's not necessarily about the market! I live in an area that probably commands little interest (as there are no jobs here) for rental. Notwithstanding that, I know people who are leaving properties empty right now rather than risk having tenants in them.


I told you to take a moment and look at it from a LL's perspective. Given your comments, I doubt very much you have done so.

womandriver wrote:

The common denominator here is you. If it's happened with a number of different tenants, is it something to do with your behaviour as a landlord? Are you a terrible landlord that drives people to this?

Have you considered this?

Have you considered that you have some contemplating of your own to do!?

Greenmachine

beauf wrote: »

They'd need to be good to commute from Scandinavia

Guess that was directed at me. My point was more "when in rome...."
It is the norm there, if I was looking to rent there, I would have to agree to their norms. Didn't mean anything else by it.

womandriver

Have you considered that you have some contemplating of your own to do!?[/QUOTE]

I don't think so, I'm not a landlord and I didn't pay 2 months deposit as we weren't required to. So no contemplation for me on any of those matters.

We did have a landlord go in to receivership tho and took our deposit with him, so I can certainly understand tenant's concerns, this kind of thing is happening all too often these days. How is the tenant protected then if they've handed over 2 months deposit?

I was just pointing out that if you have a lot of "bad" tenants, maybe it not just bad luck

makeorbrake

womandriver wrote: »

I was just pointing out that if you have a lot of "bad" tenants, maybe it not just bad luck

Yes, of course. How wrong of me. 'bad tenants' as you put it - are totally discerning. What are they like Robin Hood or something? Only punish those pesky landlords that deserve it?


Give me a break!:rolleyes:

womandriver

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, of course. How wrong of me. 'bad tenants' as you put it - are totally discerning. What are they like Robin Hood or something? Only punish those pesky landlords that deserve it?


Give me a break!:rolleyes:

And I suppose bad landlords are as rare as the tooth fairy :rolleyes:

Getting very defensive there when my post wasn't even directed at you. But cheers for the reasoned and rational response :rolleyes:

upandcumming

jygk vvi

makeorbrake

womandriver wrote: »

And I suppose bad landlords are as rare as the tooth fairy :rolleyes:

Getting very defensive there when my post wasn't even directed at you. But cheers for the reasoned and rational response :rolleyes:

YOU made the point that bad tenants are a consequence of bad LL's.


And I have no reason to be anything other than objective. Just for your own information, I'm not a LL. ;-)

womandriver

makeorbrake wrote: »

YOU made the point that bad tenants are a consequence of bad LL's.


And I have no reason to be anything other than objective. Just for your own information, I'm not a LL. ;-)

I made no such point, sweeping statements are not my thing. I asked a question. Go back and read my original post.

Just for your own information, I have zero interest in whether you're a LL or not. Again, read my original post, it wasn't in any way related to you.

Now, I've other things to be doing than bickering with randomers on the internet so good night.

makeorbrake

womandriver wrote: »

I made no such point, sweeping statements are not my thing. I asked a question.

That was the inference.

womandriver wrote: »

Just for your own information, I have zero interest in whether you're a LL or not. Again, read my original post, it wasn't in any way related to you.

With every post, I care less of what you think. However, you said I was getting defensive - I put it out there that I have nothing to be defensive about i.e. I'm not a LL.

womandriver wrote: »

Now, I've other things to be doing than bickering with randomers on the internet so good night.

Bickering may indeed be your interest. Just in case you haven't noticed, this is a discussion board...for...emm...reasoned and rational discussion! ...but you're terribly busy so let me not take up any more of your time....:rolleyes:

Tarzana

makeorbrake wrote: »

News for you. It's not necessarily about the market! I live in an area that probably commands little interest (as there are no jobs here) for rental. Notwithstanding that, I know people who are leaving properties empty right now rather than risk having tenants in them.

Well, that's up to them. Nobody is going to hand over more than they need to.

makeorbrake

Tarzana wrote: »

Well, that's up to them. Nobody is going to hand over more than they need to.

Agree with you 100% and if I was a tenant myself, I'm sure I'd prefer to shell out 1 months deposit rather than two. However, don't assume that this is necessarily market led. If it's just not worth the ulcer, many LL's may well come to the conclusion that they'd rather leave the damn thing unoccupied if the potential tenant won't front up 2x months $.

anothernight

womandriver wrote: »

The common denominator here is you. If it's happened with a number of different tenants, is it something to do with your behaviour as a landlord? Are you a terrible landlord that drives people to this?

Have you considered this?

In the hypothetical case that the poster was a bad landlord, are you saying that the tenants were justified in causing deliberate damage and not paying amounts due? Because that's certainly how it reads to me.

As a current tenant, if my landlord was a "terrible landlord", I would never take the morally reprehensible choice of causing damage or leaving without paying what I owe. I would just move elsewhere, because no one is forcing me to stay. If I could be "driven" to do those things, as you say, that would mean that I'm the kind of person who breaks the law seemingly for no benefit to anyone. Surely that also means that I'd be a "terrible tenant"?


So yeah, maybe JustAThought did actually have bad tenants...

Tarzana

makeorbrake wrote: »

Agree with you 100% and if I was a tenant myself, I'm sure I'd prefer to shell out 1 months deposit rather than two. However, don't assume that this is necessarily market led. If it's just not worth the ulcer, many LL's may well come to the conclusion that they'd rather leave the damn thing unoccupied if the potential tenant won't front up 2x months $.

A tenant who won't pay a two month deposit isn't necessarily a bad tenant though. In fact, I'd say most would be good tenants. It's a bizarre reason to reject someone, especially if they can provide good references.

makeorbrake

Tarzana wrote: »

A tenant who won't pay a two month deposit isn't necessarily a bad tenant though.

I agree 100% - they may not be bad tenants. However, the reality is that you never know who you're dealing with. Certain checks may minimise that risk but in no way do they remove it.

Conversely, I'd wager that the proportion of tenants who would stump up 2x months deposit are that bit less likely to be 'bad tenants'.

Tarzana

makeorbrake wrote: »

Conversely, I'd wager that the proportion of tenants who would stump up 2x months deposit are that bit less likely to be 'bad tenants'.

Well, having a higher salary or whatever certainly doesn't guarantee that they are less likely to be pigs or damage the place. It just means they have the money, that's all.

makeorbrake

Tarzana wrote: »

Well, having a higher salary or whatever certainly doesn't guarantee that they are less likely to be pigs or damage the place. It just means they have the money, that's all.

Once again, I don't disagree with you :-)
However, in a certain percentage of cases, it may make the difference in terms of any loss suffered. In a certain percentage of cases, it may make tenants who would otherwise decide (of their own accord) to use the deposit in lieu of their last months rent NOT to do so.


It's not an ideal measure - but in the absence of any other options, I'm sure you can understand if a LL uses whatever means is available to mitigate against loss.

Of course, if the PRTB was functioning in the way that it otherwise might, then perhaps this whole thread would be unnecessary.......?