'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

Cuddlesworth

athtrasna wrote: »

I'm really at a loss to see why the government has the right to make any laws on how a private individual decides who to entrust their property to.

At a guess, I'm going to say that there are some figures we are not seeing driving this. I wouldn't be surprised if the temporary accommodation bill for social welfare has shot through the roof in the last three years. The rental market has returned and for the vast majority of landlords, they don't have any financial incentive to take on the risk of RA tenants.

This won't solve it but I'm used to stupid bills being pushed through now.

Big Davey

According to the new legislation what exactly will a landlord be able to ask a prospective tenant to provide them with to prove they are of good character and can pay the rent ?

MarkAnthony

Big Davey wrote: »

According to the new legislation what exactly will a landlord be able to ask a prospective tenant to provide them with to prove they are of good character and can pay the rent ?

12 months rent up front.

Eldarion

MarkAnthony wrote: »

12 months rent up front.

You joke but don't be surprised by landlords demanding 2x rate as deposit and the first 2 month's and last month's rent in advance to skirt this legislation.

And before people jump that people won't pay it or they'd never get tenants, I know plenty of landlords who would prefer to have their properties sit idle rather than risk the alternative. It's a disgrace and a failure of the system that it makes sound financial sense to have a property sitting idle rather than to risk renting to a small minority of non professionals. No money is better than a wrecked property.

iainBB

Eldarion wrote: »

You joke but don't be surprised by landlords demanding 2x rate as deposit and the first 2 month's and last month's rent in advance to skirt this legislation.

That is what I have just decided this morning. Increase deposit for my property and rent in advance.

MarkAnthony

I'll be asking for the US expectation. First and last months rent (gives the tenant some security that I'm not keeping a huge deposit) and a security deposit of one months rent.

Even a proper credit referencing system would fix it for non RA based tenants. RA based tenants simply need the local authority to be the actual tenant. I simply don't understand why these simple fixes aren't being pursued, but this la la land horse crap is.

by the seaside

athtrasna wrote: »

I'm really at a loss to see why the government has the right to make any laws on how a private individual decides who to entrust their property to.

Well, I'm sure most of wouldn't want rental ads on daft.ie saying 'No Jews', to take an extreme example. So, it's just a question of where you draw the line (once you accept the government does have the right to make some laws on how a private individual decides who to entrust their property).

Arbiter of Good Taste

It seems to me that Aodhan O'Riordan and his buddies want to push the small landlord out of the market and replace with large property management companies.

I do wonder how all these tenants who constantly harp on about their "greedy" landlord will feel when faced with a faceless corporation who don't give a damn about hard luck stories.

At the moment, my tenants pay about €200 per month below market value because they are great tenants and I don't want to risk losing them. An extra €2,400 per annum (before tax!) is not much if I get a new tenant that wrecks the place. A property management company has to report to shareholders, if they can get away with increasing the rent year on year, then they are going to increase the rent year on year.

hfallada

Eldarion wrote: »

You joke but don't be surprised by landlords demanding 2x rate as deposit and the first 2 month's and last month's rent in advance to skirt this legislation.

And before people jump that people won't pay it or they'd never get tenants, I know plenty of landlords who would prefer to have their properties sit idle rather than risk the alternative. It's a disgrace and a failure of the system that it makes sound financial sense to have a property sitting idle rather than to risk renting to a small minority of non professionals. No money is better than a wrecked property.

I personally think a 2 months rent as a deposit minimum should be the norm. One months deposit is not enough at all. Especially considering a LL is often ****ed over by the PRTB(they wont enforce something unless there is a large settlement).

The German deposit protection seem is provided by private banks. The LL and the tenant go to a bank and open up a special joint savings account. 2 signatures are required to withdraw the money. If there is no issues, the 2 people allows the money to be given to the tenant plus interest on savings. If there is outstanding rent or damages. Its deducted from the deposit in the bank.

The PRTB can handles its minimal work load. A deposit protection scheme will be a disaster for them

Arbiter of Good Taste

by the seaside wrote: »

Well, I'm sure most of wouldn't want rental ads on daft.ie saying 'No Jews', to take an extreme example. So, it's just a question of where you draw the line (once you accept the government does have the right to make some laws on how a private individual decides who to entrust their property).

Completely irrelevant analogy.

What relevance does being Jewish have on a person's ability to pay their rent? Being in receipt of social welfare, in a system where there is no direct payment to the LL and can be stopped without warning, is relevant.

by the seaside

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Completely irrelevant analogy.

What relevance does being Jewish have on a person's ability to pay their rent? Being in receipt of social welfare, in a system where there is no direct payment to the LL and can be stopped without warning, is relevant.

It wasn't an analogy. The OP stated:

I'm really at a loss to see why the government has the right to make any laws on how a private individual decides who to entrust their property to.

Viper_JB

Big Davey wrote: »

According to the new legislation what exactly will a landlord be able to ask a prospective tenant to provide them with to prove they are of good character and can pay the rent ?

Could they not still ask for an employment reference?

by the seaside

Viper_JB wrote: »

Could they not still ask for an employment reference?

I doubt you could insist on a current employer's reference, because it's just another way of ensuring you don't get someone who is unemployed. I wonder if you could request an employment reference from within the last five years.

cerastes

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

At a guess, I'm going to say that there are some figures we are not seeing driving this. I wouldn't be surprised if the temporary accommodation bill for social welfare has shot through the roof in the last three years. The rental market has returned and for the vast majority of landlords, they don't have any financial incentive to take on the risk of RA tenants.

This won't solve it but I'm used to stupid bills being pushed through now.

Its not like they are trying to tell us what to drink, smoke,maybe not those, what Im allowed or not allowed to say about a religious organisation, what to do with private property, hang on I'll get one.
Why do I feel like I woke up in a dictatorship?
This is the same party that had a member moralise over abortion? and then wants to foist this on people.

Whats happening here is they placate enough people to be appear to be doing something, anything, while in fact they are abusing making legislation because they are enshrining a fcuk up in law. All you need to look at is the stupidity of minimum standards, and shutting down bedsits when they are a suitable and viable option for some.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'll be asking for the US expectation. First and last months rent (gives the tenant some security that I'm not keeping a huge deposit) and a security deposit of one months rent.

Even a proper credit referencing system would fix it for non RA based tenants. RA based tenants simply need the local authority to be the actual tenant. I simply don't understand why these simple fixes aren't being pursued, but this la la land horse crap is.

That probably is all well and good there, the thing is, it could take a year or realistically even two to clear out a bad tenant.
What needs to be overhauled is the eviction process and allowing people to intentionally forego paying rent when it is being provided to them, the tenant in these cases should simply be bypassed and get a stub as they do and all payments to landlords and deductions of their entitlements made at source, becuase clearly some people arent able to manage it even when they are handed it all.

hfallada wrote: »

I personally think a 2 months rent as a deposit minimum should be the norm. One months deposit is not enough at all. Especially considering a LL is often ****ed over by the PRTB(they wont enforce something unless there is a large settlement).

The German deposit protection seem is provided by private banks. The LL and the tenant go to a bank and open up a special joint savings account. 2 signatures are required to withdraw the money. If there is no issues, the 2 people allows the money to be given to the tenant plus interest on savings. If there is outstanding rent or damages. Its deducted from the deposit in the bank.

The PRTB can handles its minimal work load. A deposit protection scheme will be a disaster for them

Who manages the deposit if there is a deduction? will the landlord be penalised if that organisation dissagrees? ie with penal fines/gifts to tenants?
Or will it be the PRTB or some similar screw up that costs yet more?

the_syco

Viper_JB wrote: »

Could they not still ask for an employment reference?

You mean ring their mate Tommo who will give you an outstanding reference? I never quite saw the purpose of these.

hfallada

the_syco wrote: »

You mean ring their mate Tommo who will give you an outstanding reference? I never quite saw the purpose of these.

Well considering nearly every serious professional has a linkedin profile that will be sufficient. Like my parents are Landlords and I know most of their friends google potential tenants. With their email address you can literally pull up their facebook, twitter, linkedin and even their tastes in music on youtube. If you have 10 people email you on daft. A quick google search and you will find one with a job within 2 mins

Crumbs868

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

It seems to me that Aodhan O'Riordan and his buddies want to push the small landlord out of the market and replace with large property management companies.

I do wonder how all these tenants who constantly harp on about their "greedy" landlord will feel when faced with a faceless corporation who don't give a damn about hard luck stories.

At the moment, my tenants pay about €200 per month below market value because they are great tenants and I don't want to risk losing them. An extra €2,400 per annum (before tax!) is not much if I get a new tenant that wrecks the place. A property management company has to report to shareholders, if they can get away with increasing the rent year on year, then they are going to increase the rent year on year.

Exactly, a good tenant is more appreciated by a small landlord. A large corporation can charge top dollar for rent as repairing any damage is not an issue for them as they will likely have staff and materials on their books to turn a repair around quickly and finding a new tenant is no hassle to them

by the seaside

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Exactly, a good tenant is more appreciated by a small landlord. A large corporation can charge top dollar for rent as repairing any damage is not an issue for them as they will likely have staff and materials on their books to turn a repair around quickly and finding a new tenant is no hassle to them

Good point. Related to this, let's say 10% of tenants are 'bad' (as an example).

A large landlord can price into the rent that 10 out of 100 tenants will be 'bad'. A small landlord (1 property) has a 10% chance that 100% of their tenants (i.e. 1 tenant) will be bad, and that could be catastrophic. Better to accept a lower rent for a seemingly 'good' tenant.

iainBB

by the seaside wrote: »

.Better to accept a lower rent for a seemingly 'good' tenant.

I would rather say "better to reduce the rent for a long standing tenant that has proven themselves.and higher the rent/ deposit for anyone else "


Anyone got any questions you could ask a tenant with the new laws?

Have you ever been evicted?
Reference from last landlord or other? (avoid the word work )
What is your monthly income?
What do you do during the day?
Why are you moving?
Are you currently studying or in college?(Avoid employment again).

Anything else?

by the seaside

iainBB wrote: »

I would rather say "better to reduce the rent for a long standing tenant that has proven themselves.and higher the rent/ deposit for anyone else "


Anyone got any questions you could ask a tenant with the new laws?

Have you ever been evicted?
Reference from last landlord or other? (avoid the word work )
What is your monthly income?
What do you do during the day?
Why are you moving?
Are you currently studying or in college?(Avoid employment again).

Anything else?

The problem is that some of these will be seen as indirect discrimination - it's just another way of getting to the same result.

This is certainly how racial discrimination etc. works.

neil_hosey

For anyone that house shares with randomers..

surely if they want to focus on tackling inequality they should make it illegal for advertisements that say "Females only" also. Sick of it tbh.

iainBB

by the seaside wrote: »

The problem is that some of these will be seen as indirect discrimination - it's just another way of getting to the same result.

This is certainly how racial discrimination etc. works.

Of course that was not my intention.

these questions where taken from landlords website on how to choose a tenant. I modify them to remove all the work direct question.

There must be some legal issues here as many companies use income as a way of choosing clients .

Car finance for example
They need to know can you afford the repayments.

Credit card companies off the top of my head .

Any application that asked you for income statement eg mortgage applications.
They ask for bank statements. Employer ref. Are they now illegal ?

CruelCoin

MrMorooka wrote: »

Maybe a better option would have been to find out why so many LLs don't accept RA, and then see what can be changed to address those concerns.

This may cause a ****storm, but i'll speak honestly and bluntly.

The perception is that those on welfare will trash the place, and that professionals would not.

Unfortunately, most people who trash rented property tend not to be the professionals!

by the seaside

neil_hosey wrote: »

For anyone that house shares with randomers..

surely if they want to focus on tackling inequality they should make it illegal for advertisements that say "Females only" also. Sick of it tbh.

Difficult one when you're sharing a property with someone rather than letting a property to someone.

When my daughters are grown up, I think I'd like them to be able to insist on sharing a two bedroom flat with a female, if that's what they're comfortable with.

the_syco

neil_hosey wrote: »

surely if they want to focus on tackling inequality they should make it illegal for advertisements that say "Females only" also. Sick of it tbh.

I've found that the "females only" are usually when there's already one female there, who feels safer with other females.

iainBB

the_syco wrote: »

I've found that the "females only" are usually when there's already one female there, who feels safer with other females.

I would feel safe with a professional renting my property. "Feeling safe" can still be discrimination.

by the seaside

iainBB wrote: »

I would feel safe with a professional renting my property. "Feeling safe" can still be discrimination.

Don't you think there is a difference between feeling physically safe in your own home, and 'feeling safe' in a business transaction?

Woshy

I'd imagine any sensible prospective tenant will volunteer information about their employment status though. If it continues to be hard to find somewhere to rent surely any smart person would be doing what they can to sell themselves I.e. Tell the landlord I work full-time at x for y years and things like that.

I am neither a landlord nor a tenant but I know if I was searching for a place to rent I'd be telling the landlord myself about my employment status and if I were a landlord I would be infinitely more likely to take on this type of tenant.

If the landlord never directly asks for information on employment status but goes with a tenant who has willingly given that information how would the unsuccessful tenants know that?

iainBB

by the seaside wrote: »

Don't you think there is a difference between feeling physically safe in your own home, and 'feeling safe' in a business transaction?

Of course we all know the difference no one is is saying that . Discrimination is choosing a person over another person based on race gender. Etc.

Regardless if personal or not.

Yeboah

when it was first looking for rented accommodation many moons ago I thought that "no social" on accommodation listings meant they did not want any party animals or outgoing people

I used to think weirdos and searched elsewhere