PRTB

Pkiernan

"The Public Appointments Service intend to hold a competition for the purpose of
recommending a person for appointment to the position of
Director
Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB)
Closing Date: 17th December 2015


Pay
The salary scale for the position (rates effective from 1 July, 2013) is as follows:
Principal Officer Higher Personal Pension Contribution Salary Scale
€85,127, €88,454, €91,798, €95,135, €97,981"


Not bad pay for an organisation that demands money from landlords and does nothing in return.

Uriel.

Not sure that this thread is particularly appropriate to this forum.

But an organisation that has 50+ employees as well outsourced contracts and operates to a budget of something like €10m, I wouldn't classify the salary scale of the Director, the person who runs the organisation and answers to the Board, to be particularly outlandish. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if positions with similar responsibilities in the private sector carried higher entitlements.

lima

I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

L1011

lima wrote: »

I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

It is meant to provide landlords with the ability to get judgements against tenants for loss/damage.

mickdw

L1011 wrote: »

It is meant to provide landlords with the ability to get judgements against tenants for loss/damage.

The organisation is likely to be growing massively over the next years as they are going to be holding deposits now too. Image the staff that will be required for that.

khamilto

L1011 wrote: »

It is meant to provide landlords with the ability to get judgements against tenants for loss/damage.

And does so, as anyone who bothers to look at the outcome of the dispute resolutions can see.

borderlinemeath

lima wrote: »

I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

Yet it tries to present itself as a service for both tenant and landlord. A registration service for both, dispute resolution etc but isn't it a little ironic that the "service" it provides is far more geared towards protection of the tenant, yet it's the landlord that pays the fee??

Also the worst off a tenant can be is if the landlord withholds a deposit, which is usually a months rent. A tenant can cause tens of thousands worth of damage and further tens of thousands in unpaid rent yet pretty much get away scott free. And it's down to the ineptitude and incompetence of the PRTB that the rent arrears can run into such huge amounts.

Pkiernan

Uriel. wrote: »

Not sure that this thread is particularly appropriate to this forum.

But an organisation that has 50+ employees as well outsourced contracts and operates to a budget of something like €10m, I wouldn't classify the salary scale of the Director, the person who runs the organisation and answers to the Board, to be particularly outlandish. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if positions with similar responsibilities in the private sector carried higher entitlements.

Sorry for posting - didn't realise you were a Forum Moderator.

It is certainly applicable to the thousands of screwed over LL's in this country who have to pay €90 per tenancy to fund an organisation which despite its charter doesnt not help landlords, and is unable to legally enforce it's own decisions against rogue tenants.
It even describes itself as a "quasi-legal" body.
$100k per annum for a post where there is no accountability is a slap in the face to Landlords.
At least the IFA did something for farmers.

Graham

I'm not sure what the suggestion is here? The PRTB shouldn't have a director or the director or the PRTB should be on minimum wage?

Personally, I don't have an issue with the payscales for the position.

Uriel.

Pkiernan wrote: »

Sorry for posting - didn't realise you were a Forum Moderator.

It is certainly applicable to the thousands of screwed over LL's in this country who have to pay €90 per tenancy to fund an organisation which despite its charter doesnt not help landlords, and is unable to legally enforce it's own decisions against rogue tenants.
It even describes itself as a "quasi-legal" body.
k per annum for a post where there is no accountability is a slap in the face to Landlords.
At least the IFA did something for farmers.

The IFA is a farmer representation association. The PRTB does not represent landlords (or tenants for that matter).

The courts even have difficulties enforcing their own orders at times.

The PRTB is accountable to the Minister and thus the Oireachtas.
You should lobby the relevant Minister for changes to the law to strengthen the rights of Landlords.

Perceived lacunae in the law does not mean that a person earning a (starting) salary of €85k to run an organisation the size of the PRTB is overpaid.

Uriel.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And it's down to the ineptitude and incompetence of the PRTB that the rent arrears can run into such huge amounts.

I would argue that the problem lies predominately in the underpinning legislation rather than with the operation of the PRTB itself.

borderlinemeath

Uriel. wrote: »

I would argue that the problem lies predominately in the underpinning legislation rather than with the operation of the PRTB itself.

Yes and No.

Yes the legislation is the problem for evicting problem tenants. But the PRTB "backlog" is hugely problematic and a big part in accumulating loss of rent. ie, the inability to deal with the volume of queries, disputes, squatters, overholders, landlords withholding deposits etc and it's refusal to enforce any decision that is made in the landlords favour as the tenant tends to play the poor mouth.

lima

Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

Uriel.

lima wrote: »

Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

I do think the improvement in the legislation and the processes, including the PRTB, is to be greatly welcomed. However, I would also be of the belief, as would many others, that the balance of rights has shifted too much towards tenants. I think that the rights that tenants have, generally, are spot on - it's not a matter, IMO, of eroding such rights, rather I think to strike more of balance, the rights, or at least the approach to, landlords needs to be greatly improved now.

To have situations where tenants can stay in a property unlawfully for up to (and sometimes more than) 12 months without paying rent, and can trash the place - doing thousands of euro worth of damage, with little to know recourse for the landlord in practical terms, is really a diabolical situation. I believe such situations have a negative impact on the rental sector as a whole, for both landlords and tenants generally.

I am sure that landlords would be greatly satisfied if the law and the procedures allowed for more timely evictions; and if a greater deposit amount was compulsory. I think there should be a standard deposit amount, which should be significant and it should be held in trust by the PRTB and fully refundable subject to any legitimate withholding arbitrated and decided by the PRTB. Undoubtedly it would take some time for the rental sector to adjust to such a move, but longer term it would lead to a better situation for all.

lima

Uriel. wrote: »

I do think the improvement in the legislation and the processes, including the PRTB, is to be greatly welcomed. However, I would also be of the belief, as would many others, that the balance of rights has shifted too much towards tenants. I think that the rights that tenants have, generally, are spot on - it's not a matter, IMO, of eroding such rights, rather I think to strike more of balance, the rights, or at least the approach to, landlords needs to be greatly improved now.

To have situations where tenants can stay in a property unlawfully for up to (and sometimes more than) 12 months without paying rent, and can trash the place - doing thousands of euro worth of damage, with little to know recourse for the landlord in practical terms, is really a diabolical situation. I believe such situations have a negative impact on the rental sector as a whole, for both landlords and tenants generally.

I am sure that landlords would be greatly satisfied if the law and the procedures allowed for more timely evictions; and if a greater deposit amount was compulsory. I think there should be a standard deposit amount, which should be significant and it should be held in trust by the PRTB and fully refundable subject to any legitimate withholding arbitrated and decided by the PRTB. Undoubtedly it would take some time for the rental sector to adjust to such a move, but longer term it would lead to a better situation for all.

Yes that does seem fair actually

borderlinemeath

lima wrote: »

Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

Once again a sweeping generalisation that all landlords are making a profit.
You're fond of pigeonholing landlords into the greedy, profiteering, lawless image so beholden of the poor tenant who has no rights whatsoever:rolleyes:

lima

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Once again a sweeping generalisation that all landlords are making a profit.
You're fond of pigeonholing landlords into the greedy, profiteering, lawless image so beholden of the poor tenant who has no rights whatsoever:rolleyes:

PRTB ensures there are less of those types of landlords, therefore it is a good thing.

housetypeb

lima wrote: »

Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

True,it is providing a service for profit- a profit that the government feels the need to meddle in and cap for a two year period.

lima

housetypeb wrote: »

True,it is providing a service for profit- a profit that the government feels the need to meddle in and cap for a two year period.

Well rents are getting ridiculous because landlords are milking the situation. Poor young people are getting screwed over when they are just starting out in life

Graham

lima wrote: »

Well rents are getting ridiculous because landlords are milking the situation. Poor young people are getting screwed over when they are just starting out in life

Rents are getting ridiculous because supply cannot meet demand.

lima

Graham wrote: »

Rents are getting ridiculous because supply cannot meet demand.

Yeah free market blah blah etc.

But also landlords are taking advantage of this to try to recoup their negative equity.. basically screwing the younger generation for their own mistakes.. The quality of rentals in Ireland is awful yet innocent people have to put up with higher and higher costs for the same bad service

Glad I bought off a bust landlord so I don't have to put up with this sh*te!

borderlinemeath

lima wrote: »

Yeah free market blah blah etc.

But also landlords are taking advantage of this to try to recoup their negative equity.. basically screwing the younger generation for their own mistakes.. The quality of rentals in Ireland is awful yet innocent people have to put up with higher and higher costs for the same bad service

Glad I bought off a bust landlord so I don't have to put up with this sh*te!

A lot of landlords will not furnish rentals to a high standard because they have most likely been burned a few times by tenants. I've seen the damage that tenants can do to expensive solid wood furniture, appliances and even sellotaped over vents and disable extractor fans in bathrooms causing mould build up. The last tenant in my husbands rental not only destroyed all the furniture but stole a tumble dryer as well. Guess what? The next tenants didn't get a tumble dryer as the house has a garden.

Legislation prevents landlords from renting an empty shell which would ensure tenants use their own furniture and appliances, which they might look after a bit better if they had to shell out for repairs and maintenance and replacements. It would suit both sides if this particular type of rental was allowed.

lima

borderlinemeath wrote: »

A lot of landlords will not furnish rentals to a high standard because they have most likely been burned a few times by tenants. I've seen the damage that tenants can do to expensive solid wood furniture, appliances and even sellotaped over vents and disable extractor fans in bathrooms causing mould build up. The last tenant in my husbands rental not only destroyed all the furniture but stole a tumble dryer as well. Guess what? The next tenants didn't get a tumble dryer as the house has a garden.

Legislation prevents landlords from renting an empty shell which would ensure tenants use their own furniture and appliances, which they might look after a bit better if they had to shell out for repairs and maintenance and replacements. It would suit both sides if this particular type of rental was allowed.

You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves

Graham

lima wrote: »

This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves

Wow, I don't know where your experience of landlords comes from. That certainly hasn't been the attitude I've come across.

As in any walks of life, there's good and bad. That goes for landlords and tenants.

Uriel.

lima wrote: »

You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves

You can make the same cultural attitude arguments in the context of the many bad tenants out there. As I've said, there needs to be a balanced approach where all rights are respected in a balanced manner.

Government has already tinkered with the market, and being honest I think government intervention is required, but successive governments have failed to provide overarching solutions that respect all sides. Which is incredibly difficult admittedly.

There's a myriad of things that could be used to help:
Provision for unfurnished lettings,
Long term secure leasing
Greater rent control
Bigger deposits managed indpendently
Better enforcement procedures etc

athtrasna

Mod note

This thread is about the PRTB not housing supply, not government policy and most definitely not about stirring landlord V tenant tensions.

Leave the modding to the mods and report don't retort.

Thanks

borderlinemeath

You say this....

lima wrote: »

You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

And then you also say this..

I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

I think most people know that on paper it's meant to help landlords, but it absolutely doesn't, and in fact can cost them plenty more in the long run. And a tenant might have emigrated for over a year by the time their claim for unreturned deposit comes up. As an organisation it's badly run and managed, so god help both landlord and tenant when they become custodians of deposits.

Lets hope the new director is on a performance based trial and if eligible for a bonus scheme, then it's also performance related.

Uriel.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You say this....




And then you also say this..



I think most people know that on paper it's meant to help landlords, but it absolutely doesn't, and in fact can cost them plenty more in the long run. And a tenant might have emigrated for over a year by the time their claim for unreturned deposit comes up. As an organisation it's badly run and managed, so god help both landlord and tenant when they become custodians of deposits.

Lets hope the new director is on a performance based trial and if eligible for a bonus scheme, then it's also performance related.

There's no bonus scheme.

Would like to hear why you think the organisation is badly run and organised?

Is it sufficiently resourced and have sufficient support to do the job it is tasked with?

borderlinemeath

Uriel. wrote: »

There's no bonus scheme.

Would like to hear why you think the organisation is badly run and organised?

Is it sufficiently resourced and have sufficient support to do the job it is tasked with?

.


The registration database is poorly maintained and irregularly updated.
The rental index - ditto.

Communication is poor, emails are not answered (personal experience) phonecalls are fobbed off with standard replies that don't answer queries (personal experience) and in one case a registration was failed to be registered and the cheque returned SIX MONTHS later and they insisted on charging the late fee for their incompetence on somehow failing to register the tenant. My husband only paid the late fee as he can put it against his taxes and it's necessary for MiR.
The waiting lists for both landlord and tenant speak for themselves. That's probably down to insufficient staff numbers.

beauf

lima wrote: »

Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

Its all paid for by rent. So indirectly the tenants pay for it. The PRTB seems ok in minor disputes. But seems powerless to protect the LL from large losses. Arguably it makes these losses worse. The LL will recover this from rent. So the tenants will also be impacted by the lack of protection for LL from the PRTB.

star_spotter

Graham wrote: »

Rents are getting ridiculous because supply cannot meet demand.

yes and this political stunt by that clown alan kelly will make things worse , landlords were already a hysterically demonised group , they are now more penalised

i bought an apartment three weeks before this came in , there is a tenancy in place since march so despite my only taking over last week , i cant raise the rent until march 2017 , the rent is absurdly low as well

star_spotter

beauf wrote: »

Its all paid for by rent. So indirectly the tenants pay for it. The PRTB seems ok in minor disputes. But seems powerless to protect the LL from large losses. Arguably it makes these losses worse. The LL will recover this from rent. So the tenants will also be impacted by the lack of protection for LL from the PRTB.

how will the landlord recover anything from rent when rent is frozen for two full years , this move will deter many from letting out properties , im of mind to now sell on what i only bought two months ago

beauf

star_spotter wrote: »

....i bought an apartment three weeks before this came in....

star_spotter wrote: »

how will the landlord recover anything....im of mind to now sell on what i only bought two months ago

If you bought into this business without a long term plan and doing the research yes you should.

Tenants can now look forward to guaranteed rent increase that will be to the max at that time. It will be a jump of 2yrs rent maybe more if it was below the market rate previously. LL no longer has control to do it in smaller increments. If you make any losses in the meanwhile there's no other way to get it back as the PRTB is toothless for LL's.

star_spotter

beauf wrote: »

If you bought into this business without a long term plan and doing the research yes you should.

Tenants can now look forward to guaranteed rent increase that will be to the max at that time. It will be a jump of 2yrs rent maybe more if it was below the market rate previously. LL no longer has control to do it in smaller increments. If you make any losses in the meanwhile there's no other way to get it back as the PRTB is toothless for LL's.

how was i to know what minister kelly would do only three weeks after the hammer fell at auction

do you think i will not be able to increase the rent until march 2017 , i only discovered afterwards ( as it was a receivership sale so information was scarce ) that a tenancy was officailly in place since march of this year

Graham

star_spotter wrote: »

how was i to know what minister kelly would do only three weeks after the hammer fell at auction

do you think i will not be able to increase the rent until march 2017 , i only discovered afterwards ( as it was a receivership sale so information was scarce ) that a tenancy was officailly in place since march of this year

So there was insufficient due diligence and the downside is you miss out one rent review. Sounds, like you were quite lucky.

star_spotter

Graham wrote: »

So there was insufficient due diligence and the downside is you miss out one rent review. Sounds, like you were quite lucky.

what due dilligence , what are you on about ?

again , how was i to know what kelly would do ? , its not like i was charging the tenant money several months ago , i have not got a days rent off them as of yet

do you understand the nature of receivership sales , you dont always know the full story , i had the contract checked by my solicitor , everything was ok , at that stage the tenancy being in place was irrelevant

kelly changed everything

Graham

star_spotter wrote: »

what due dilligence , what are you on about ?

again , how was i to know what kelly would do ? , its not like i was charging the tenant money several months ago , i have not got a days rent off them as of yet

do you understand the nature of receivership sales , you dont always know the full story , i had the contract checked by my solicitor , everything was ok , at that stage the tenancy being in place was irrelevant

kelly changed everything

Would it be safe to assume you bought at a discount to take into account the fact you didn't know the full story. Regardless, the changes you're upset about would only equate to missing a single rent review.

If you're not getting any rent at the moment a rent review is surely the least of your worries.

I'm not sure how we got onto this from a discussion about the PRTB.

beauf

All the media, online, paper, and TV have been full of talk about controlling rises for a couple of years now.

If you are buying a place that has tenants, the details of that tenancy would have to be one of the primary concerns. If not....

star_spotter

Graham wrote: »

Would it be safe to assume you bought at a discount to take into account the fact you didn't know the full story. Regardless, the changes you're upset about would only equate to missing a single rent review.

If you're not getting any rent at the moment a rent review is surely the least of your worries.

I'm not sure how we got onto this from a discussion about the PRTB.

no i didnt get it at a discount , i bought it at an auction , i viewed the property in advance , nothing shady about it , sorry to disapoint you

im not entitled to any rent yet , i just took full ownership , the rent is way below market however , obviously the receiver was happy to get anything while arranging sale and a rent review took place earlier in the year , this information was not available to me prior to auction as i did not have the prtb tenancy document

surely you can see that minister kellys changes have effected many people who were not ripping anyone off

star_spotter

beauf wrote: »

All the media, online, paper, and TV have been full of talk about controlling rises for a couple of years now.

If you are buying a place that has tenants, the details of that tenancy would have to be one of the primary concerns. If not....

details of a tenancy were not an issue in the past

how long do tenancys last anyway , there is no duration listed on the copy i have and the prtb will only confirm or deny what you say to them , you cant ask them anything as the tenancy has the tenants name listed only

Graham

I didn't suggest you were ripping anyone off and I've no idea why you'd think I'm in anyway anti-landlord.

As for government meddling, I'd agree it should be let to a minimum.

I would disagree with the effect it's having on landlords who weren't ripping anyone off. A bi-annual rent review may be a pain in a rising market, not so much in a falling one so it should all balance out over the long term.

star_spotter

Graham wrote: »

I didn't suggest you were ripping anyone off and I've no idea why you'd think I'm in anyway anti-landlord.

As for government meddling, I'd agree it should be let to a minimum.

I would disagree with the effect it's having on landlords who weren't ripping anyone off. A bi-annual rent review may be a pain in a rising market, not so much in a falling one so it should all balance out over the long term.

the rent on this property is pathetically low and now it looks like i cant raise it for eighteen months

im fcuked , im now going to have to sell it on with the tenant in situ and most likely take a severe loss on the property as a result as no one will want to buy a place with a below market rent

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

I didn't suggest you were ripping anyone off and I've no idea why you'd think I'm in anyway anti-landlord.

As for government meddling, I'd agree it should be let to a minimum.

I would disagree with the effect it's having on landlords who weren't ripping anyone off. A bi-annual rent review may be a pain in a rising market, not so much in a falling one so it should all balance out over the long term.

In a rising market the landlord can't raise the rent, in a falling market the landlord can't stop it falling as the tenant can come back and demand a reduction. Look at the threads of 3 years ago on this forum.the only certainty is that rents will be forced up and up as more landlords head for the exit.

Graham

star_spotter wrote: »

the rent on this property is pathetically low and now it looks like i cant raise it for eighteen months

im fcuked , im now going to have to sell it on with the tenant in situ and most likely take a severe loss on the property as a result as no one will want to buy a place with a below market rent

That not a position I'd wish on anyone, best of luck getting it sorted.

If you haven't received rent in 2 months you should be looking to terminate the tenancy anyway.

star_spotter

Graham wrote: »

That not a position I'd wish on anyone, best of luck getting it sorted.

If you haven't received rent in 2 months you should be looking to terminate the tenancy anyway.

you dont understand , when you buy a place , it take two months to get all the change of ownership work done , i only offically became owner of this place a week ago but because a rent review took place last august and a tenancy was registered on the property last march , under the new legislation i cant raise the rent until mid 2017 , im going to meet the new tenants tomorrow , they have been paying the receiver up until now

Graham

star_spotter wrote: »

you dont understand , when you buy a place , it take two months to get all the change of ownership work done , i only offically became owner of this place a week ago but because a rent review took place last august and a tenancy was registered on the property last march , under the new legislation i cant raise the rent until mid 2017 , im going to meet the new tenants tomorrow , they have been paying the receiver up until now

Sorry for the misunderstanding, it must have come as quite a shock not to get rent for the months you didn't own the property.

4ensic15

star_spotter wrote: »

you dont understand , when you buy a place , it take two months to get all the change of ownership work done , i only offically became owner of this place a week ago but because a rent review took place last august and a tenancy was registered on the property last march , under the new legislation i cant raise the rent until mid 2017 , im going to meet the new tenants tomorrow , they have been paying the receiver up until now

The fact of a letting and the level of rent would have been disclosed prior to your signing the contract. You knew all along that you wouldn't be able to increase the rent until August 2016. So you have to wait a year longer. Take a constitutional challenge or suck it!

Graces7

lima wrote: »

You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves

Totally agree.. Shocked but not surprised by some of the posts here, given I am on my 6th Irish tenancy. I pay rent here; only good is usable items of furniture are thebed ( cast off of landlord) and two settees that have to be covered. An ancient tatty table, and a chest of drawers that fell apart.. chairs held together with string! oh and two cheap wardrobes ditto. I am lucky with a landlord who has replaced a fridge freezer from the ark but I told him where he could source a second hand one then. I supplied the microwave etc. In the previous place, every peice of furniture had been vandalised, graffitti... not my doing yet I was expected to live with it. I have never damaged any house or furniture and have always left a house in better condition than when I moved in. Painted here etc. I keep an eye on things and have free rein now re repairs etc.

star_spotter

Graham wrote: »

Sorry for the misunderstanding, it must have come as quite a shock not to get rent for the months you didn't own the property.

No and I have not complained about it here or anywhere else

beauf

The issue of poor furniture is solved by renting unfurnished. Which is the norm in other countries.

star_spotter

beauf wrote: »

The issue of poor furniture is solved by renting unfurnished. Which is the norm in other countries.

Tenants might then have to respect the contents of the property

Great idea