Landlords to deduct Water Charges from Tenants Deposits

Muahahaha

The Water Charges debacle just took a new twist with the Minister responsible Alan Kelly announcing that-

1) If you own a property Irish Water will assume you are the occupier and therefore liable for the Water Charge
2) Landlords can apply to be exempt from the charge by handing over the name of the tenant to Irish Water (literally the Ministers words in the Dail)
3) If tenants do not pay then the landlord is entitled to deduct any monies owed from the tenants deposit

Number two above is what he said in the Dail and needs further clarification. My guess is that the Data Protection Commissioner will row his oar in here yet.

So we already have a deposit regime that is much in dispute between tenants and landlords with many landlords getting the reputation for with holding deposits and many tenants opting not to pay the last months rent to protect themselves from this.

The new Irish Water regime where the government seeks to turn the landlord into the tax collector of last resort is going to do nothing except exacerbate the situation even more IMO.

Wabbit Ears

Oh lordy, We really need better laws to protect us from these types of ministers

Gmaximum

Crazy to expect landlords to debt collect on behalf of the state.

The_Morrigan

Gmaximum wrote: »

Crazy to expect landlords to debt collect on behalf of the state.

erm....tenants of non resident landlords are expected to debt collect on behalf of the state.

snubbleste

Kelly said it will be in the new legislation.

It's not really new.
State expects tenants to retain 20% rent for non-resident landlords and hand it over to Revenue.

murphaph

Banana republic stuff. The housing crisis is bad enough without further incentives by government for landlords to exit the market altogether. What next? ESB and mobile phone bills to be landlord's ultimate responsibility.

Daith

So when a tenant gives notice, can a landlord just ring IW and find out if they've paid the bill?

Tar.Aldarion

More reasons for renters to not pay last months rent for landlords, just what they need

Grolschevik

I'm not entirely sure this has been thought though properly...

Wouldn't such a measure require the charge to be broken down monthly and bills issued accordingly?

But it's a flat charge for a few years, depending on the number of occupants. Will it be transferable like the TV license?
Potential hassle with house shares...

When it's metered, there will need to be bills more regularly than annually or quarterly, as tenant occupants come and go. So that landlords can check whether there are arrears based on the most recent bill.

Otherwise the collections department of IW will have to be huge.

Or am I missing something?

hfallada

What we need is what they do in Germany. There is no state body deposit protection scheme like some suggest is the solution for here. It obviously isnt considering how slow the PRTB is with dealing with disputes. In Germany you go to the bank with landlord and open a special bank account espically for deposits. Neither of you is allowed to take out the money without each others permission. The tenant gets to keep the interest on the money, so they get some benefits. Its good as the deposit is protected, but also since its a privately provided product its efficient. There is no cost to the tax payer.

This needs to be introduced here. I doubt it requires legalization and the tax payer is saved from having to pay for another semi-state body

Daith

Grolschevik wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure this has been thought though properly...

Wouldn't such a measure require the charge to be broken down monthly and bills issued accordingly?

But it's a flat charge for a few years, depending on the number of occupants. Will it be transferable like the TV license?
Potential hassle with house shares...

When it's metered, there will need to be bills more regularly than annually or quarterly, as tenant occupants come and go. So that landlords can check whether there are arrears based on the most recent bill.

Otherwise the collections department of IW will have to be huge.

Or am I missing something?

I don't know. It doesn't seem to be thought out with rented/shared accommodation.

Take the €100 grant. That won't happen till after the 3rd bill, sometime in Sept I guess. Do you have to be living in the same rented house for a year to avail of the grant?

Can Irish Water even issue a bill before the 1st April? What if tenants leave before then?

Big Davey

Something on the radio said if the tenant does not pay and there is no deposit to cover the bill (as often happens) it's up to the landlord to pay or there will be a judgement set against the property ! As if landlords did not have enough to pay and the non paying scumbag tenants did not get away with enough already what a mess this country is. The only solution is for landlords to get together and form a mob and intimidate the politicians as this seems to work.

Muahahaha wrote: »

The Water Charges debacle just took a new twist with the Minister responsible Alan Kelly announcing that-

1) If you own a property Irish Water will assume you are the occupier and therefore liable for the Water Charge
2) Landlords can apply to be exempt from the charge by handing over the name of the tenant to Irish Water (literally the Ministers words in the Dail)
3) If tenants do not pay then the landlord is entitled to deduct any monies owed from the tenants deposit

Number two above is what he said in the Dail and needs further clarification. My guess is that the Data Protection Commissioner will row his oar in here yet.

So we already have a deposit regime that is much in dispute between tenants and landlords with many landlords getting the reputation for with holding deposits and many tenants opting not to pay the last months rent to protect themselves from this.

The new Irish Water regime where the government seeks to turn the landlord into the tax collector of last resort is going to do nothing except exacerbate the situation even more IMO.

Gmaximum

The_Morrigan wrote: »

erm....tenants of non resident landlords are expected to debt collect on behalf of the state.

Erm...... its not income tax it's a utility charge.

Gmaximum

The_Morrigan wrote: »

erm....tenants of non resident landlords are expected to debt collect on behalf of the state.

Erm...... its not income tax it's a utility charge.

skydish79

What if landlords deduct the water charge but just pocket the money for themselves

handlemaster

skydish79 wrote: »

What if landlords deduct the water charge but just pocket the money for themselves

What if tenants just pay and not worry about landlord

Daith

handlemaster wrote: »

What if tenants just pay and not worry about landlord

If I paid my final bill it still could take a while for IW to take that money as a direct debit. In which case I wouldn't get my deposit back until then probably?

I guess for the moment I'll just pay IW at a post office and show him the receipt if I leave.

Big Davey

hfallada wrote: »

What we need is what they do in Germany. There is no state body deposit protection scheme like some suggest is the solution for here. It obviously isnt considering how slow the PRTB is with dealing with disputes. In Germany you go to the bank with landlord and open a special bank account espically for deposits. Neither of you is allowed to take out the money without each others permission. The tenant gets to keep the interest on the money, so they get some benefits. Its good as the deposit is protected, but also since its a privately provided product its efficient. There is no cost to the tax payer.

This needs to be introduced here. I doubt it requires legalization and the tax payer is saved from having to pay for another semi-state body

That makes far too much sence for it to be introduced here.

The_Conductor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

More reasons for renters to not pay last months rent for landlords, just what they need

More reason for landlords to demand in excess of a month's deposit from prospective tenants.........- just what they need.......

Its not pro-landlord- or anti-tenant- its the government making everyone's life a misery, without exception.

The_Morrigan

Gmaximum wrote: »

Erm...... its not income tax it's a utility charge.

Neither tax nor utility was mentioned in my post. I simply stated that tenants are expected to collect obo the state....what's the difference?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

If I was going to do a runner and use the deposit for the last months rent I now have the added incentive of saving 160 quid from the water bill. Seems a no brainer for dodgy tenants to be honest.

Daith

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Neither tax nor utility was mentioned in my post. I simply stated that tenants are expected to collect obo the state....what's the difference?

It should be between the occupier and the utility. Sure why not add on every other bill also?

There's also the issue of when IW can produce your final bill and the time in paying it. I know I've paid ESB bills for former apartments weeks into my new tenancy.

Barely There

Grolschevik wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure this has been thought though properly...

Hang on, you're not suggesting this Goverenment are making up policy as it goes along in a reactionary way to pander to the public mood.

Because I'd find that difficult to believe.

MouseTail

skydish79 wrote: »

What if landlords deduct the water charge but just pocket the money for themselves

A new tenancy cannot be registered with IE if arrears are outstanding, so what benefit have they from pocketing it?

murphaph

If this sees the light of day I won't be letting anything without a minimum 3 month deposit. Way too risky if a LL can be landed with a couple of years unpaid water bills. How can such poor legislation be made though? There are 3rd world countries that handle this stuff better, never mind the likes of Germany.

Daith

MouseTail wrote: »

A new tenancy cannot be registered with IE if arrears are outstanding, so what benefit have they from pocketing it?

So a tenant doesn't pay last months rent, does a runner and a landlord needs to pay IW to lease his place again? Sorry, a new tenant can't register with IW? Bloody hell.

Tar.Aldarion

The_Conductor wrote: »

More reason for landlords to demand in excess of a month's deposit from prospective tenants.........- just what they need.......

Its not pro-landlord- or anti-tenant- its the government making everyone's life a misery, without exception.

That is true.
On a side note I can see more protests over that haha.

DuckHook

What if the potential damage to the property has already eaten up the deposit, does the landlord then just has to essentially pay somebody else's water bill?

mountsky

Sit back,relax, it'll be grand,let the universe sort it out

The_Conductor

DuckHook wrote: »

What if the potential damage to the property has already eaten up the deposit, does the landlord then just has to essentially pay somebody else's water bill?

No- the presumption is the government has first dibs on the deposit- and whatever is left is there for the landlord to deduct damage etc from........ If its insufficient- the presumption is the landlord takes the hit.......

Its a recipe, alongside tenants not paying their last month's rent- for landlords to demand 2 or 3 month's rent as the deposit (as happens in most other places).

There is a lack of any thought gone into this.

MouseTail

Sensible thing to do is up the rent a bit, and let it inclusive of water charges.

Daith

MouseTail wrote: »

Sensible thing to do is up the rent a bit, and let it inclusive of water charges.

Or treat it as any other utility? Kinda baffled as to why IW is deemed so special here.

MouseTail

Daith wrote: »

Or treat it as any other utility? Kinda baffled as to why IW is deemed so special here.

Because unpaid charges can be a charge on the property, not the case with other utility bills.

piperh

murphaph wrote: »

If this sees the light of day I won't be letting anything without a minimum 3 month deposit. Way too risky if a LL can be landed with a couple of years unpaid water bills. How can such poor legislation be made though? There are 3rd world countries that handle this stuff better, never mind the likes of Germany.

Thing is if the tennant is the type to do a runner with the last month rent they'll be well aware you've got 3 months deposit so they'll just not pay for 3 months. Tennants these days know it's going to take you longer than that to get them out so they've nothing apart from a reference to lose.

The government are really clutching at straws now with their panic and solutions over collection. It shouldn't fall to the landlord.

mickdw

It is pretty obvious that the governments main intention here is to tie the water charge to a property so that it can be recovered with interest should the property be disposed of (much like other charges & taxes).
All the comments re making it the landlords responsibility to ensure it has been paid are poorly thought out and should they proceed with this nonsense, they will run into trouble. It simply wont work. It will have to be treated like all other utilities. Better require an up front deposit from new account holders than attempting to make the landlord liable. They would do this but that wouldnt cover the issue of homeowners not paying, so they need to tie it to the property to prevent a complete collapse of Irish Water.
There is no doubt that a utility company with power to compel householders is a very bankable company. Much more attractive for take over too.

keno-daytrader

MouseTail wrote: »

Because unpaid charges can be a charge on the property, not the case with other utility bills.

What makes IW so special to other semi states? Stand up for your self as a landlord.

Gmaximum

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Neither tax nor utility was mentioned in my post. I simply stated that tenants are expected to collect obo the state....what's the difference?

There is a big difference between paying a tax and a utility bill. Revenue also have greater powers for revenue collection and application of relief at source.

If this method of collection is introduced and proper metering is introduced landlords could be taken for a complete ride. As an extreme example what happens if a tenant leaves the taps running for duration of a tenancy never paying a bill.

As other posted have said landlords aren't on the hook for other bills that tenants are liable for

The_Morrigan

Gmaximum wrote: »

There is a big difference between paying a tax and a utility bill. Revenue also have greater powers for revenue collection and application of relief at source.

If this method of collection is introduced and proper metering is introduced landlords could be taken for a complete ride. As an extreme example what happens if a tenant leaves the taps running for duration of a tenancy never paying a bill.

As other posted have said landlords aren't on the hook for other bills that tenants are liable for

You're missing the point. Your first comment on this thread was...

Gmaximum wrote: »

Crazy to expect landlords to debt collect on behalf of the state.

There is no mention of tax or utility bills - purely collection of monies owed for a third party.

Why is it crazy, if tenants are expected to do the same for non-resident landlords?

It's the same concept, only the other side of the coin - with regards to IW if the tenant doesn't register/pay the landlord is expected to pay, with regards to the non-resident tax, if the landlord doesn't register/pay then the tenant is liable.

davo10

I just spoke to IW about this. I wanted to check if my tenants had signed up, IW will not give out that information.

What he did say is that if tenant has not signed up by time bill is generated, they will contact me. I can then give them tenants details and quote " we will chase them from that point onward". Happy days.

HeidiHeidi

How does it work in terms of billing for tenants who leave mid-billing-period?

From what I've heard bills will issue 4 times per year (open to correction on that). So lets say end of March, June, Sept and Dec.

What if a tenant of an apartment (which will never be metered) leaves at the end of February? or the tenant of a flat/house which is metered leaves at the end of July?

Has any provision been made for divvying bills up into smaller chunks than year quarters?

This differs from electricity and gas in that some properties will never be metered, and for those that are, there is no mention of being able to submit meter readings outside of the standard reading times.

And then, what about the allowance - how will that be refereed for tenancies which do not conform to exact year periods?

Lex Hieronica

My partner is an insurance risk assessor and she has her reservations about this recent announcement by Mr Kelly. It seems the risk has significantly increased for people with property portfolios whom are in the letting business. As it has been clearly demonstrated that water charges are a very personal and ethical subject with the majority of people ,placing property owners in the despicable position of deducting water charges from tenants deposits will increase the risk to property of the respective owners.

The cost a few windows or doors and their replacement would far outweigh the amount of the deposit the letting agent holds (in most cases) . The honor system of leaving a property in good order is a tried and tested one and one which has worked until now. It is far to early of course to say if tenants will continue with this show of grace if their rights and principals are violated by this very draconian measure. Like wise of course the property owner is compromised by having to pay the tenants water charges rather than take the risk of the property not being left in good order and returning the deposit.

Either way the insurance premiums of the property owner will increase given this new dynamic ,coupled with the extra cost of water charges for their tenants property owners may have to increase rents to cover this extra cost. It really is not a very well thought form of taxation and should be re considered.

murphaph

MouseTail wrote: »

Sensible thing to do is up the rent a bit, and let it inclusive of water charges.

Not sensible at all I'm afraid. Have you ever seen a big fat guy at an all you can eat buffet? A restaurant can still win on all you can eat because there are many more people who eat less than they paid for, but in a tenancy there is only one customer and if he's the "fat guy" you are in big trouble.

It's never a good idea to rent with "bills included" unless it's a short term letting.

garhjw

I checked with the ODPC on this previously. It is ok for a landlord to provide IW with tenants names and addresses but it wasn't ok to provide PPS numbers. (PPS issue already sorted)

In leases I have for tenants it stTes the tenant is liable for all utilities and rates, including water. It just means tenant will have to provide proof that water bill had been settled when moving out. It is a bit of an inconvenience and not ideal as it can lead to further issues with deposit in the event other deductibles.

Another balls up by the government

Arbiter of Good Taste

It's such a shame that Ireland is the first country ever to introduce water charges and that we can't learn from other countries' experiences. Oh wait.......

ZENER

On the point about landlords being made collect for the state - a retail unit has it's rates tied to the property, if a business closes down owing rates the landlord has to pay them plus rates accrued while the unit is empty. So if a retailer failed to pay rates for a couple of years before closing down and doing a runner the landlord has to pay it !! This can be thousands of euro per year depending on the location.

As for residential properties - I think this will lead to many landlords just selling up meaning less rental properties available. Kenny really is living in a dream world, on TV tonight he said minimum wage is 35,000 per year !!

Ken

foggy_lad

Kelly brutan and vradkar will throw out just about any made up nonsense at this stage to try to force people to pay the charges! earlier Kelly was threatening people with jail if they did not pay up and all the consequences that would bring for them and their families!

these guys are worse than the Nazis! (but still better than the greens).

cerastes

snubbleste wrote: »

Kelly said it will be in the new legislation.

It's not really new.
State expects tenants to retain 20% rent for non-resident landlords and hand it over to Revenue.

The people that are supposed to be setting this up and creating legislation for it have no fcuking clue what they are doing or any experience it seems in dealing with anything going by how they propose to deal with rented units/landlords/tenants. It should have been just set up like any other utility, with the end user responsible. Not that I agree with it anyway, but their absolute incompetence is astonishing.

As for the tenant retaining 20%, in non resident situations, Im unaware of the specifics, but dont they just retain that themselves, besides, they are very much rewarded by doing very little, ie pay 80% of the rent, very easy to do. All they have to do is fill in a form and there is a huge incentive to do this, ie a 20% reduction in rent.
How is a landlord expected to extract extra money from a tenant? so its completely different, what if they just leave without paying? or even legitimately between billing cycles?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

More reasons for renters to not pay last months rent for landlords, just what they need

In that case, more reason for a landlord to demand, 1.3, 1.4 or 2 or more times the rent for deposit. Those making the comments that lead to thsi have no clue what they are saying or how that affects the situation of people living in these circumstances, thats both landlords/renters.
They have just made it difficult for both sides of that arrangement, and even conferred the idea on the renter, that if they dont pay, they wont be followed anyway, so just rack up the bill and dont pay.

murphaph wrote: »

If this sees the light of day I won't be letting anything without a minimum 3 month deposit. Way too risky if a LL can be landed with a couple of years unpaid water bills. How can such poor legislation be made though? There are 3rd world countries that handle this stuff better, never mind the likes of Germany.

Because the people who are spouting this have no real experience in the real world.

MouseTail wrote: »

Because unpaid charges can be a charge on the property, not the case with other utility bills.

Why dont they just follow the occupant/user?

While Im not opposed to paying for water in theory in a fair system where the goal is conservation, passing on savings, having a quality service, something that wont be privatised ending up as a cash cow, this just shows the incompetence in IW, the Govt, they have no system in place that reflects the real world scenario of renting.
I have not passed on my tenants details, mostly as I was concerned about data protection and the validity of IW even getting my PPSN, but have told them (tenant), that as they are the end user, they will be liable for whatever it costs to supply water and this is already in my lease with them, they have agreed. However, this should get every landlord out there to push for protest as YOU will be held liable going by whats being said now, now they couldnt change legislation a few months ago and they absolutely needed a PPSN, but now amazingly, that has all changed, so I suggest get out there and protest, landlord, tenant, whatever, because it is each and everyone one of us that will pay the consequences of this inept bunch of fools. How can they not set this up? they have no credibility, I think this proves this has been a scam all along, they even downgraded the "free" allocation of water after "some" meters were installed around the country, I suggested in a previous post that they just made the data up, as I dont believe they could have accurately calculated the usage or needs of a household.

IW/this Govt are a joke,

Its a disservice to tenants and landlords, that they are too incompetent to deal with this effectively, as once anything like this is in place, it will be set in stone and unchangeable and both landlords and tenants will suffer from it.
ie just to mention few examples, some I believe brought up here already, for landlords, potential risk of non paying tenant and IW?Govt just wash their hands of it. For tenant, its going to be Landlords will have to demand an upfront payment many multiples of what people are complaining about already in terms of deposits as the Govt are just opening the door to people who will see they wont have to pay and wont be chased for it. Just another example of the Govt hitting those they can catch instead of who might really be liable (in anything), just so long as they get their cut, they are like a mafia.

masculinist

do landlords have no option to just rent property without water ? with the water disconnected ? they just rent the property. they dont care if e.g someone doesnt want ESB/GAS or gets their ESB/GAS cut off. Its the tenants responsibility to deal with all of that.










*I'll leave my views on Irish Water and the gombeen kleptocrats in the Dail for another section of boards*

cerastes

masculinist wrote: »

do landlords have no option to just rent property without water ? with the water disconnected ? they just rent the property. they dont care if e.g someone doesnt want ESB/GAS or gets their ESB/GAS cut off. Its the tenants responsibility to deal with all of that.

*I'll leave my views on Irish Water and the gombeen kleptocrats in the Dail for another section of boards*

I doubt it, property would need to have meet minimum standards, besides, why would anyone rent a house to someone where they might not or would definitely not have gas/oil/other heating or electricity. As a house needs to be habitable and keeping it heated and free from condensation is a good longterm thing for a property, not to mention the comfort of the occupants.

So they would have to care, otherwise how would the occupants keep the place warm? maybe ruin the fabric of the building burning rubbish in a a fireplace not designed for burning (ie gas fireplace) or worse, no heating, risking condensation from people and their activities that lead to it, ie living (exhaling), washing, cleaning, drying clothes. Or what of electric? maybe they might set up their own wiring installation from a generator? that would be a fire risk, one which might be dangerous to the property and to the occupants, one which no insurance policy would stand over. The idea that a tenant can go off and live how they choose is not realistic, there are many conditions, just as an owner has to live by conditions, many of which they take on automatically as their home is their own, but which tenants might not feel so inclined towards.

Really any utility should be the responsibility of the occupant, not that I agree with IW as its a quango exercise in shuffling the paperwork and moving it around the desk to make it look tidy, this whole thing, I was going to say makes, but its actually proves how incompetent and out of touch the Govt is. So long as they get their money, they will say anything.

Besides, I dont even think IW cant cut it off? so why would a landlord, only leave themselves open to a case against them, its a basic requirement (water).

jgarry28

It might make some landlords think twice about the quality of people they rent to. All too often absentee landlords rent to scumbags and don't give a crap how this will affect their neighbours. How about actually looking for references and finding good tenants that don't have a history of running out on their bills?

Arbiter of Good Taste

jgarry28 wrote: »

It might make some landlords think twice about the quality of people they rent to. All too often absentee landlords rent to scumbags and don't give a crap how this will affect their neighbours. How about actually looking for references and finding good tenants that don't have a history of running out on their bills?

In theory I agree. Unfortunately, you only have to look to Boards to see the amount of tenants who will fake references.

What we need is like what the Australians do - have a blacklist of aberrant tenants that landlords can check before signing a lease. At the very least, it makes for great telly when they go onto "current affairs" programmes boo-hooing about how they can't get a place to live because they wrecked any other place they ever rented.

In the interest of fairness, I have no problem with a similar list for slumlord landlords.