Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Renting: Confirming salary / Bank statement
Options
Comments
-
Jambonjunior wrote: »Missed this post. So I have to assume now that we're all agreed now that a work reference should suffice rather than having to disclose salary or bank details?
+1 on that.0 -
Landlord's property is also private. He may choose to let to you without seeing any of those things, or those things may be a deal breaker for him.Hudson Dry Scarf wrote: »My bank account details are private, the amount of money I earn is private, what I spend my money on is private0 -
-
Landlord's property is also private. He may choose to let to you without seeing any of those things, or those things may be a deal breaker for him.
That's fine I will just find somewhere else, LL's can get away with this to some degree now as property is in short supply but it won't always be this way and as you can see from this thread the majority of people will refuse to hand over their bank statements.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »In cases such as you are describing- I would argue that there is a legitimate case for the tenant pursuing the landlord for damages- whether, or not, they were successful- I don't know- but they would certainly blacken the name of the landlord, highlight their activities and make anyone else inclined to behave in a similar manner think twice.
The entire rental industry in Ireland- is so screwed up- its quite unbelievable. Every single landlord in the country has been burnt by at least one tenant- some for 10s of thousands of Euro- and so many tenants have had their lives screwed around with by unscrupulous landlords- that its not funny.
The PRTB is not fit for purpose- nor is the 2004 Act. The interests of both landlords and tenants are being willfully ignored and/or manipulated by people- in the knowledge that there are damn all consequences for their actions.
It is a two way street though- both tenants and landlords are getting one hell of a raw deal out of the current setup.I challenge you to produce statistics to verify that statement! :eek:The_Conductor wrote: »Check out the PRTB case details- theres plenty there for starters- and thats just where people bothered to lodge cases. The number of cases of both landlords and tenants taking the piss- is staggering. The various bodies (including Threshold, the housing charities, DSP etc) keep their own stats- as do banks and other bodies- unfortunately- there isn't a composite of all of these anywhere- the only agnostic statistics- are the PRTBs- which only account for a very small fraction of the issues that actually occur (most people don't both reporting issues- because the perception is that there is absolutely no point).
With all due respect, if you have no statistics or data to back up your statement then you need to remove it!0 -
Advertisement
-
With all due respect, if you have no statistics or data to back up your statement then you need to remove it!
Boards isn't a peer reviewed paper. It's anecdotal. Perhaps The_Conductor shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement but burnt is a broad term. It's fair to say the majority of LL have had some issue with tenants, be it leases being broken, bills not being paid or things being broken beyond normal wear and tear. It's the cost of doing business but that doesn't make the statement any less valid.0 -
MarkAnthony wrote: »Boards isn't a peer reviewed paper. It's anecdotal. Perhaps The_Conductor shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement but burnt is a broad term. It's fair to say the majority of LL have had some issue with tenants, be it leases being broken, bills not being paid or things being broken beyond normal wear and tear. It's the cost of doing business but that doesn't make the statement any less valid.
Thanks for your opinion, but I stand by my request.0 -
This forum is a place for discussion not for making demands of other posters, regardless of the language used to do so. Rexer please do not post on this thread again.
Mod0 -
I guess one could extended burnt from just rent not paid.. to include time wasted stress with tenants not knowing their rights etc and be very demanding0
-
The_Conductor wrote: »In cases such as you are describing- I would argue that there is a legitimate case for the tenant pursuing the landlord for damages- whether, or not, they were successful- I don't know- but they would certainly blacken the name of the landlord, highlight their activities and make anyone else inclined to behave in a similar manner think twice.
The entire rental industry in Ireland- is so screwed up- its quite unbelievable. Every single landlord in the country has been burnt by at least one tenant- some for 10s of thousands of Euro- and so many tenants have had their lives screwed around with by unscrupulous landlords- that its not funny.
The PRTB is not fit for purpose- nor is the 2004 Act. The interests of both landlords and tenants are being willfully ignored and/or manipulated by people- in the knowledge that there are damn all consequences for their actions.
It is a two way street though- both tenants and landlords are getting one hell of a raw deal out of the current setup.
Looks like there's going to be some level of protection for tenants.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/banks-may-face-duty-of-care-over-evictions-in-buy-to-lets-1.23262640 -
Advertisement
-
Jambonjunior wrote: »Missed this post. So I have to assume now that we're all agreed now that a work reference should suffice rather than having to disclose salary or bank details?
This was in reply to a specific question relating to a rent increase and how a landlord would assess it given the tenant is already in the property and has been so for a minimum of a year.
The whole topic of this thread is how a landlord would assess you before beginning a tenancy with them and this is why bank statements are required in this case.Jambonjunior wrote: »So I have to assume now that we're all agreed now
To be all agreed, you have to understand what the other people are saying0 -
Hudson Dry Scarf wrote: »I've never personally heard of anyone being asked for there only on here have I read about it so I reckon its still very uncommon and should stay that way.
A reference from an employer, a reference from your previous LL and a months rent upfront and deposit is all any LL should be entitled to.
This is not what I said. Please don't add your own text to what I've said and then try and pass it off as a quote from me.0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »This is not what I said. Please don't add your own text to what I've said and then try and pass it off as a quote from me.
I think its very very obvious I was not trying to pass it off as a quote from you hence the bold, I was adding my own text into it to "correct it" or as a "fyp" as happens in posts on boards regularly.0 -
Hudson Dry Scarf wrote: »I think its very very obvious I was not trying to pass it off as a quote from you hence the bold, I was adding my own text into it to "correct it" or as a "fyp" as happens in posts on boards regularly.
You quoted me directly and bolded it. It looked nothing like what you've said you were trying to achieve. Indeed it is done regularly but is anannotated. This wasn't done either.
If you consider it to be a small number of landlord's I suggest you ring around a few letting agents and ask them their pre letting requirements0 -
How on earth does paying deposit and first month indicate that a potential tenant has ability to pay the rent on an on-going basis? I have done it each time I rented in the past.
Get over it, black out any bits you dont want landlord to see, it is perfectly reasonable. You cant buy a car without doing a credit check, get over it, if you dont like it rent somewhere else.
Buy is the key word.
You are not buying the property, but renting it.
Do you provide bank statements when renting a car ?Barely Hedged wrote: »Have you got numbers for the amount of tenants it's happening to?
It doesn't matter what the numbers are.
If it is only 1 in a 100 it doesn't matter.
Or maybe you haven't noticed the many thousands of buy to let mortgages in serious arrears of multiple years. :rolleyes:
Why shouldn't a tenant have as much right to enquire into a landlord's financial standing re the property they are renting as the landlord has to enquire into the tenants financial standing.
At least one landlord here can see that even if you can't.Barely Hedged wrote: »This private individual you speak of is not a random person on a street. They are someone handing control of their asset to you with significant downside risks to them. Is it not prudent for them to try and cover themselves and mitigate losses as best the can in this situation
Who says they have to store the data?
Yes it is your asset or maybe like in many thousands of cases it is the banks which haven't been paid in years.
Why shouldn't a tenant see if you have been paying for "your" asset.
BTW this whole argument raises an interesting question regarding Data Protection.
If you are handling sensitive personal data then you can be classed as a Data Controller or at least a Data Processor.
If you store it or are responsible for it then you are most likely a Data Controller.
I believe once, someone would need to conclusively check this with guys in Portarlington, a landlord gets a bnank statement they are then responsible for it and could be classed as a data controller.
Data controller definitionWhen you give your personal details to an organisation or individual, they have a duty to keep these details private and safe. This process is known as data protection. We refer to organisations or individuals who control the contents and use of your personal details as 'data controllers'.
Data processor definitionAs mentioned above, if you hold or process personal data, but do not exercise responsibility for or control over the personal data, then you are a "data processor".0 -
Buy is the key word.
You are not buying the property, but renting it.
Do you provide bank statements when renting a car ?
It doesn't matter what the numbers are.
If it is only 1 in a 100 it doesn't matter.
Or maybe you haven't noticed the many thousands of buy to let mortgages in serious arrears of multiple years. :rolleyes:
Why shouldn't a tenant have as much right to enquire into a landlord's financial standing re the property they are renting as the landlord has to enquire into the tenants financial standing.
At least one landlord here can see that even if you can't.
Yes it is your asset or maybe like in many thousands of cases it is the banks which haven't been paid in years.
Why shouldn't a tenant see if you have been paying for "your" asset.
BTW this whole argument raises an interesting question regarding Data Protection.
If you are handling sensitive personal data then you can be classed as a Data Controller or at least a Data Processor.
If you store it or are responsible for it then you are most likely a Data Controller.
I believe once, someone would need to conclusively check this with guys in Portarlington, a landlord gets a bnank statement they are then responsible for it and could be classed as a data controller.
Data controller definition
Data processor definition
When renting a car the car owner has insurance for damage and the crédit card preclears payment. No such thing for property rental0 -
Buy is the key word.
You are not buying the property, but renting it.
Do you provide bank statements when renting a car ?
Does a tenant buy insurance in case they default or lose their job? Rental companies can mitigate their risk. Can you explain how a landlord can do the same as a rental company to mitigate their risk?It doesn't matter what the numbers are.
If it is only 1 in a 100 it doesn't matter.
Or maybe you haven't noticed the many thousands of buy to let mortgages in serious arrears of multiple years. :rolleyes:
I have. Theres approximately 475k rental properties in Ireland. Just under 15k of these properties have a buy to let mortgage on them thats in arrears of "multiple years". As a percentage thats just over 3% or just under 97% of properties that your point doesnt apply to.
In any case, for the non 97% of renters the government, in the past few days, has released provisional legislation that will make the banks take on the responsibilities associated with tenants leases when they repossess a property.Why shouldn't a tenant have as much right to enquire into a landlord's financial standing re the property they are renting as the landlord has to enquire into the tenants financial standing.
At least one landlord here can see that even if you can't.
What would a tenant like to know exactly?
Ive never disagreed with it - can you provide me with quotes?Yes it is your asset or maybe like in many thousands of cases it is the banks which haven't been paid in years.
Why shouldn't a tenant see if you have been paying for "your" asset.
We're talking about 3% here?BTW this whole argument raises an interesting question regarding Data Protection.
If you are handling sensitive personal data then you can be classed as a Data Controller or at least a Data Processor.
If you store it or are responsible for it then you are most likely a Data Controller.
I believe once, someone would need to conclusively check this with guys in Portarlington, a landlord gets a bnank statement they are then responsible for it and could be classed as a data controller.
Data controller definition
Data processor definition
In that scenario, a landlord looking at a bank statement would be a data processor. Whats the interesting argument youre suggesting?0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »Does a tenant buy insurance in case they default or lose their job? Rental companies can mitigate their risk. Can you explain how a landlord can do the same as a rental company to mitigate their risk?
You will often find tenants may have income protection or serious illness cover.
The rental market has changed and it isn't the old days where only the poor unemployed and students rented.
And guess what if they stop paying their rent you can, in theory anyway, have them removed.
The reason I say theory is because how screwed up eviction can be in this country.Barely Hedged wrote: »I have. Theres approximately 475k rental properties in Ireland. Just under 15k of these properties have a buy to let mortgage on them thats in arrears of "multiple years". As a percentage thats just over 3% or just under 97% of properties that your point doesnt apply to.
Actually I see you honed in on my "multiple years" which of course we know glosses over the total number of properties that are actually in arrears.
Granted I should have just said arrears.
Normally in a properly functioning market and banking system, a lot of these properties in arrears of over a single year (21,800) should be subject to foreclosure and inconvenience or worse financial loss to the tenant.
As of Dec 2014 figures state that roughly 35,000 buy to let mortgages were in arrears.
This was broken down into:
in arrears upto 90 days - 6,000
in arrears of between 90 and 180 days - 2,600
in arrears of between 181 to 360 days - 4,400
in arrears of between 361 to 720 days - 6,800
in arrears of over 720 days - 15,000
So really one could say your 3% propeties with questionable solvent landlords has now become over 7%.Barely Hedged wrote: »In any case, for the non 97% of renters the government, in the past few days, has released provisional legislation that will make the banks take on the responsibilities associated with tenants leases when they repossess a property.
Does this include repayment of deposits ?Barely Hedged wrote: »What would a tenant like to know exactly?
Are you paying for your asset and it's relevant charges (i.e. management fees).Barely Hedged wrote: »Ive never disagreed with it - can you provide me with quotes?
You are being a bit of a politican now.
You never outright said you disagree, but you jumped down posters throats demanding to know what numbers of tenants were left high and dry by landlords with their own questionable credit rating.Barely Hedged wrote: »We're talking about 3% here?
As I said above it is more than 3% or would you be happy with tenants who haven't paid their dues in over 90 days.
If you are willing to agree tenants should be allowed have rent arrears of over 2 years then indeed we can go with your 3%.Barely Hedged wrote: »In that scenario, a landlord looking at a bank statement would be a data processor. Whats the interesting argument youre suggesting?
Data processors need to be registered.
Do you demand tenants send their statements to you?
In which case I believe you are a data controller because you are then responsible for that data.
BTW that would be around €400 per year afaik.0 -
You will often find tenants may have income protection or serious illness cover.
The rental market has changed and it isn't the old days where only the poor unemployed and students rented.
And guess what if they stop paying their rent you can, in theory anyway, have them removed.
The reason I say theory is because how screwed up eviction can be in this country.
"You will often find tenants may" - says it all about that point you're making
There has always been a cross section of people who rented - it was never just only the poor or unemployed.
Thats a fantastic example of risk mitigation - "in theory" they can removed. How do you mitigate the risk while the theory plays out?Actually I see you honed in on my "multiple years" which of course we know glosses over the total number of properties that are actually in arrears.
Granted I should have just said arrears.
Theres no honing in or glossing intended. I cant second guess what youre thinking on an internet forum. You type what youre thinking. If youre not thinking it, you dont type it. I interpreted what you typed only.Normally in a properly functioning market and banking system, a lot of these properties in arrears of over a single year (21,800) should be subject to foreclosure and inconvenience or worse financial loss to the tenant.
So the tenant is at an advantage and the government is now introducing further legislation to protect them from repossession by the banks.As of Dec 2014 figures state that roughly 35,000 buy to let mortgages were in arrears.
This was broken down into:
in arrears upto 90 days - 6,000
in arrears of between 90 and 180 days - 2,600
in arrears of between 181 to 360 days - 4,400
in arrears of between 361 to 720 days - 6,800
in arrears of over 720 days - 15,000
So really one could say your 3% propeties with questionable solvent landlords has now become over 7%.
What would be an interesting stat would be how many of these properties are actually inhabited - vacant apartment blocks, ghost estates, apartments in Athlone and places like that.Does this include repayment of deposits ?
This is what the new legislation is for.Are you paying for your asset and it's relevant charges (i.e. management fees).
Id have no problem providing that.You are being a bit of a politican now.
You never outright said you disagree, but you jumped down posters throats demanding to know what numbers of tenants were left high and dry by landlords with their own questionable credit rating.
Im not being political - youre just letting your bias clud your opinion. I responded to a post that was full of hyperbole and just short of being put in a bleeding hearts column looking for the stats underlying the claims. I never said what you have suggested. Again, this is an internet forum - if i was thinking it, i would have typed it. Since you cannot provide proof, i obviously wasnt thinking it!As I said above it is more than 3% or would you be happy with tenants who haven't paid their dues in over 90 days.
If you are willing to agree tenants should be allowed have rent arrears of over 2 years then indeed we can go with your 3%.
Can you display numbers as to what the loss would be for the tenant v landlord in those two situations you have illustrated?Data processors need to be registered.
Do you demand tenants send their statements to you?
In which case I believe you are a data controller because you are then responsible for that data.
BTW that would be around €400 per year afaik.
So for collecting a PPSN from tenants, landlords would be required to register by your same logic? Maybe they need it when looking for proof of ID, a previous utility, salary cert...youre being very generous with your interpretation of the law0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »This was in reply to a specific question relating to a rent increase and how a landlord would assess it given the tenant is already in the property and has been so for a minimum of a year.
The whole topic of this thread is how a landlord would assess you before beginning a tenancy with them and this is why bank statements are required in this case.
To be all agreed, you have to understand what the other people are saying
I think you're being a little obtuse if you believe that a landlord can use a work reference for accessing ability to pay rent increases but not for accessing a tenant before beginning a tenancy.0 -
Advertisement
-
We did and I'm very glad we did, I'm now living in a private 17acre estate for a pittance lol I'm very fortunate but it never would've happened if I hadn't told the land lords to phuck off when they asked for proof of salary.Get over it, black out any bits you dont want landlord to see, it is perfectly reasonable. You cant buy a car without doing a credit check, get over it, if you dont like it rent somewhere else.0 -
Look lads/lasses the Ashley Madison data is out there, it's too late to be worrying about it now. :pac:0
-
Enough of the he said she said thing. If you want to argue a point between each other take it to pm please
Mod0 -
Jambonjunior wrote: »I think you're being a little obtuse if you believe that a landlord can use a work reference for accessing ability to pay rent increases but not for accessing a tenant before beginning a tenancy.
Below are some of the posts ive replied to when somebody has said that a salary reference is enough - im being far from obtuse.
If i was increasing the rent, the tenant will have been there a year thus their credit worthiness is no longer in doubt. A salary cert then indicates their earning potential. A salary cert does not indicate credit worthiness. Its a very distinct difference.Barely Hedged wrote: »How does a reference from your employer prove youre credit worthy ie you will pay and have paid your rent regularly in the past?Barely Hedged wrote: »The reality is, it doesn't. So what next?Barely Hedged wrote: »Not worth the paper it's written on. Do you accept that it's prudent to hand over control of an asset that can be worth several hundred thousand Euro for the price of a piece of paper?Barely Hedged wrote: »It shows you have paid your rent. How does a salary cert prove you've paid your rent?0 -
After all of this discussion I have to say I remain unconvinced that anything more than a reference from employer and previous agent should do the trick.
A bank statement* or disclosing salary is a substantial amount of private information to provide, and to any reasonable person doesn't give any more comfort that the tenant will pay than is provided by a work reference that gives a ballpark idea of salary, and a reference from a professional agent that the person has paid rent on time.
I'll heed the advice from those to rent elsewhere if I don't want to provide it.
*(unless one with all other transactions and the specific amounts for rent and salary blacked is acceptable)0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement