How common are bad tenants?

Diemos

I really don't want a landlord vs tenant argument.

My last 3 properties I have lived in for 4, 3 and 4 years respectively. No damage ever done, rent always paid in full and on time.

I have rented for 15+ years now, between rooms and then full properties.
A significant proportion of my social group rent (all professionals, would like to buy but life isn't that simple). My point is they have all kept their rented properties in good nick and (to the best of my knowledge) pay on time.

But I have a question, from my experience, being a landlord must be a easy way to make money.

But on here, it's just horror story after horror story.

So how common are bad tenants?
Given the difficulties with bad tenants, why do landlords not appreciate good tenants more?

MarkAnthony

Diemos wrote: »

But I have a question, from my experience, being a landlord must be a easy way to make money.

What gives you that impression? If I buy gold bars worth €1000 and offer them for sale at €500 I'll have an easy job selling them but I won't be making any money, in fact I'll be losing it won't I?

Diemos wrote: »

But on here, it's just horror story after horror story.

I'm not really sure that's true, I'm always going on about how good my tenants are but I'm unlikely to start a thread don the subject, it's not particularly interesting.

Diemos wrote: »

So how common are bad tenants?

It will vary hugely but I'd say be a LL for long enough you'll eventually get stung.

Diemos wrote: »

Given the difficulties with bad tenants, why do landlords not appreciate good tenants more?

Again what gives you the impression they don't?

Diemos

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What gives you that impression? If I buy gold bars worth €1000 and offer them for sale at €500 I'll have an easy job selling them but I won't be making any money, in fact I'll be losing it won't I?

If people were not making money out of it no one would do it.
Some people may get stung, like any investment vehicle.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Again what gives you the impression they don't?

Experience. I have seen friends and neighbours move out because rent increases have meant that they can get a similar property cheaper down the road. Some landlords will take a rate slightly below market rate if they have a good tenant and an easy life (I certainly would if I were in that boat). Others invite trouble for an extra 100€ per month, maybe it's necessity, maybe it's greed. I don't know.

Claw Hammer

Bad tenants are as common as muck.

Sapphire

Diemos wrote: »

...

But on here, it's just horror story after horror story.

So how common are bad tenants?
Given the difficulties with bad tenants, why do landlords not appreciate good tenants more?

People only tend to research tenancy rights or seek clarification when there is a problem so its expected that this forum would have a disproportionate volume of dissatisfied tenants or landlords.

I've never needed to start a thread on here because overall my landlords have been pretty fair, and I've been a decent tenant who always got my full deposit back. But I'd say this forum would be the first place I'd try for guidance if my landlord started dicking me around on our agreement.

DubCount

According to the RTB annual report for 2015, they receive an average of 25 new cases per week. Some of these are going to relate to bad landlords (holding deposits, illegal evictions etc.), but looking at published decisions, I reckon at least 1/3 relate to bad tennants - mainly for non-payment of rent, overholding etc.

8/9 new complaints per month may not sound like much, but I think its way too many. Thats only cases opened in the RTB. There are also cases of tennants with several months arrears but the matter is not bad enough to have been referred. If you are a small landlord, 1 case is enough to cost several thousand Euro and more heartache than anyone can reasonable be expected to go through.

It like being asked to walk through a minefield with "just a couple of mines". You only need to stand on one to wish you had not taken the walk !!

Michael D Not Higgins

DubCount wrote: »

According to the RTB annual report for 2015, they receive an average of 25 new cases per week. Some of these are going to relate to bad landlords (holding deposits, illegal evictions etc.), but looking at published decisions, I reckon at least 1/3 relate to bad tennants - mainly for non-payment of rent, overholding etc.

8/9 new complaints per month may not sound like much, but I think its way too many. Thats only cases opened in the RTB. There are also cases of tennants with several months arrears but the matter is not bad enough to have been referred. If you are a small landlord, 1 case is enough to cost several thousand Euro and more heartache than anyone can reasonable be expected to go through.

It like being asked to walk through a minefield with "just a couple of mines". You only need to stand on one to wish you had not taken the walk !!

If we take your 9 per month and double it for tenants not brought through the RTB, we get over 200 bad tenants per year.

At nearly half a million rentals in the country, I think that's a pretty low rate. That's a 0.04% chance per year of having bad tenants.

DubCount

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If we take your 9 per month and double it for tenants not brought through the RTB, we get over 200 bad tenants per year.

At nearly half a million rentals in the country, I think that's a pretty low rate. That's a 0.04% chance per year of having bad tenants.

Sorry for the typo that should have read 9 per week and not 9 per month. Thats about a 0.1% chance if there are 500,000 tennants in the country.

That is only cases opened with RTB. There are other bad tennants that never get that far.

Also, the financial impact of one bad tennant on a small landlord is so severe, that even if the risk of getting stung is low, it drives landlords away from the market. It doesn't have to be that way. Other jurisdictions seem to be able to deal with rogue tennants quicker and for less money that we do.

Sad Professor

Small landlords undoubtedly feel the burn of a bad tenant worse than "professional" landlords with load of a properties. Regardless of the truth of what Diemos said about landlording being an "easy way to make money", a lot of landlords probably got into it thinking that it was. Landlords should have more protection from bad tenants than they currently have, but renting out a property is still an investment and investments have risks.

Michael D Not Higgins

DubCount wrote: »

Sorry for the typo that should have read 9 per week and not 9 per month. Thats about a 0.1% chance if there are 500,000 tennants in the country.

That is only cases opened with RTB. There are other bad tennants that never get that far.

Also, the financial impact of one bad tennant on a small landlord is so severe, that even if the risk of getting stung is low, it drives landlords away from the market. It doesn't have to be that way. Other jurisdictions seem to be able to deal with rogue tennants quicker and for less money that we do.

I think you're making it out to be worse than it is. A lot of the open cases get sorted before tenants cause damage or overhold for several months without paying rent. I'd love to see a breakdown of the costs to landlords as an average. It would be useful to factor it in as a risk as part of doing calculations on return.

MarkAnthony

Diemos wrote: »

If people were not making money out of it no one would do it.
Some people may get stung, like any investment vehicle.

There are significant differences with property. It's certainly not an easy way to make a buck. As for the number of people doing it - there's no where near enough as it's not overly profitable. Other avenues (AirBnB) are becoming more and more popular.

Diemos wrote: »

Experience. I have seen friends and neighbours move out because rent increases have meant that they can get a similar property cheaper down the road. Some landlords will take a rate slightly below market rate if they have a good tenant and an easy life (I certainly would if I were in that boat). Others invite trouble for an extra 100€ per month, maybe it's necessity, maybe it's greed. I don't know.

Normally a necessity, however it's unusual in Dublin to have a legal rent increase with a similar property available at a lower rate within a reasonable distance. That said can a property in Foxfield be €2000 a month and one in Kilbarrack be €1500 a month for an identical house? Absolutely but that's always been the case in Dublin due to area snobbery.

Grolschevik

Michael D Not Higgins wrote:

I think you're making it out to be worse than it is. A lot of the open cases get sorted before tenants cause damage or overhold for several months without paying rent. I'd love to see a breakdown of the costs to landlords as an average. It would be useful to factor it in as a risk as part of doing calculations on return.

Also, I'd imagine that a fair proportion of reported bad tenants are serial offenders?

handlemaster

OP you hang around with people who are similar to you.. So you only know a certain type of renter.. Did you ever mean anyone or see anyone and say to yourself .. I wouldnt like to give them the time of day ? Well these people live somewhere and more often than not in rented accomodation. .. I am sure OP you meet people like this every day..

pwurple

I think every landlord comes up against them at some stage.

In fairness, sometimes the bad tenant isn't down to someone being a bad person. My worst tenant situation was a couple whose relationship was breaking down, and they put me in the middle of it by damaging my property during their arguments. I'm sure they are lovely people separately.

It's the same as any job dealing with the public. Ask anyone in retail, or a call center, a cinema, or any kind of service job. Sometimes the public sucks.

I remember when I was a student, i had a job in a cinema, which involved cleaning up after people. I could not believe how filthy some people could be, and was sure they just treated public spaces like this and treated their homes better. Now I know that's not the case.

newacc2015

DubCount wrote: »

According to the RTB annual report for 2015, they receive an average of 25 new cases per week. Some of these are going to relate to bad landlords (holding deposits, illegal evictions etc.), but looking at published decisions, I reckon at least 1/3 relate to bad tennants - mainly for non-payment of rent, overholding etc.

8/9 new complaints per month may not sound like much, but I think its way too many. Thats only cases opened in the RTB. There are also cases of tennants with several months arrears but the matter is not bad enough to have been referred. If you are a small landlord, 1 case is enough to cost several thousand Euro and more heartache than anyone can reasonable be expected to go through.

It like being asked to walk through a minefield with "just a couple of mines". You only need to stand on one to wish you had not taken the walk !!

Except did you know as a Landlord if you can the RTB about a tenancy dispute, they will often tell you they arent bothered taking on your case? They phrase it more nicely. If a case is below a monetary limit, they arent interested in taking it on. That bar is considerably lower for tenants ie it is far easier for a tenant to dispute an issue, than a LL to do so.

My favourite stat from the RTB is on 'unfairly withheld' deposits. You know the issue that is allegedly super common to the extent that the Government will probably spend tens of millions on a deposit protection scheme not fit for purpose. Anyway only 0.3% of all tenancies end up with a dispute in the RTB. Only 40% of deposits were only unfairly, a further 40% some what unfairly withheld and other 20% were fairly withheld, despite the tenants not agreeing with it

There are so horrific landlords. But there is far more horrific tenants. A lot of Irish tenants can't seem to respect property. Irish people go into a rented property with a chip on their shoulder. Everyone from the student union of Ireland to the media and even the Government are telling telling them LL's are only out to screw them. I believe that is part of the issue with tenants in Ireland, they nearly always defensive with their landlord.

With the right screening you can limit your bad tenants ie dont take first year students ever and try to avoid second years. Avoid female student tenants. I have yet to hear of a student female tenancy ending without drama ie at least one of the girls usually moves out over pretty BS. Only take people with references. If someone seems off in the interview, dont give the property to them. The golden rule is if someone is demanding at the interview, they will be demanding for the entire tenancy. I know of several Landlords who let houses to Germans, who despite their long history of renting are actually horrific tenants ie not paying rent, demanding pretty things like the light bulb to be replaced in the fridge ASAP. Stereotyping is bad and wrong etc etc. But if you work in hospitality, you will quickly see a certain group of guests are nearly always trouble

The_Conductor

Diemos wrote: »

If people were not making money out of it no one would do it.
Some people may get stung, like any investment vehicle.

The simple fact of the matter is- the proportion of property for sale- nationally- has never had as many previous rental properties, as it does now (the second highest category are executor sales).

Landlords are not necessarily making money- and a significant cohort- particularly smaller landlords- are simply leaving the sector- which in turn is driving scarcity for tenants who want to rent- its a bit of a vicious circle.

It is not a valid assumption that landlords are making money- many are not.

Keep in mind- several of the government levies (such as USC for example) are on net rental income- rather than profit- which is quite unique for a business proposition- any other business proposition pays tax on the basis of their profit- not on the basis of their net turnover.

Diemos wrote: »

Experience. I have seen friends and neighbours move out because rent increases have meant that they can get a similar property cheaper down the road. Some landlords will take a rate slightly below market rate if they have a good tenant and an easy life (I certainly would if I were in that boat). Others invite trouble for an extra 100€ per month, maybe it's necessity, maybe it's greed. I don't know.

Most landlords will price a good relationship with a tenant into the price charged- up to a point. However- rents were fast to fall when the economy was up the creek- from a business perspective- there will be rises and falls- and its wholly irrational to expect rapid falls- and slow rises- it all depends on external factors. If a tenant can move and get a property of a similar spec locally for a better price- they should maximise their net income- and do so. I know I would.

The_Conductor

Grolschevik wrote: »

Also, I'd imagine that a fair proportion of reported bad tenants are serial offenders?

Unfortunately- the RTB allow people to have cases against them taken down- so often there may not be a record were prospective landlords or other parties to check (unless of course the legal route was taken- in which case the dispute becomes a matter of public record).

I have no idea what proportion of bad tenants are serial offenders- however- I would hazard that perhaps 90% of problem tenants are never reported by landlords- who once they manage to get the property back (at all) simply chalk it up to experience- and insist on covering themselves three ways with any future prospective tenants- i.e. it could be the case that a few bad apples are causing trouble for everyone- however, it may very well be more than just a few...........

The_Conductor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think you're making it out to be worse than it is. A lot of the open cases get sorted before tenants cause damage or overhold for several months without paying rent. I'd love to see a breakdown of the costs to landlords as an average. It would be useful to factor it in as a risk as part of doing calculations on return.

A lot of the issue- is there simply isn't a 'normal'. I've seen landlords who have had to spend weeks getting properties repainted again and again- when former tenants painted every single room black- in fairness to the tenant- they didn't do any other damage- but you have no idea how many coats of paint it took before the black was confined to history- and it was easier to simply buy new doors.

I've also seen the other end of the scale- where a sibling had just over 40k of structural damage done when a tenant decided to start a barbeque next to the tank of calor gas which was being used by the next door neighbour (Jury's Holiday Inn Galway) for kitchen cooking purposes). They literally blew the wall off the house (on Bridge Street). Miraculously no-one was seriously hurt. The property was vacant for over 4 months being renovated after that incident- and the tenants scarpered without even telling us what happened (final year students from NUIG). Their parents who had acted as guarantors for their children- played schmum.........

My sis's next tenant there- paid rent on time for the next 18 months- and then stopped. It took just under 2 years to evict her. My sis got the property back in reasonable condition- for which she counted her blessings- and sold it at the first opportunity............

I have no idea what proportion of tenants are bad tenants- I just don't know any landlord who hasn't encountered at least one- and most landlords I know- have had a string of them. I've come to the conclusion that good tenants are like gold dust- if you get good tenants- they are to be cherished- but there is an expectation that you're not going to get good tenants- its quite remarkable luck if you do (despite whatever criteria you may use to try and get the best possible tenants).

My sis' non-paying tenant is a practicing solicitor- someone you might have assumed would be a professional who would take good care of the property- well, she didn't- she knew the law- she saw how others were getting away with abusing it- and did the same herself.

CruelCoin

Diemos wrote: »

But I have a question, from my experience, being a landlord must be a easy way to make money.

But on here, it's just horror story after horror story.

So how common are bad tenants?
Given the difficulties with bad tenants, why do landlords not appreciate good tenants more?

The vast majority of tenants are fine, but it only takes one bad one to negate all your earnings from the previous 5 years.
In that respect, they are all too common.

Many landlords are paying mortgages on their properties, and the rents as sitting right now, sometimes don't cover the mortgage. Let alone appliances, upkeep etc.

The idea of "i'm a good tenant and so are my friends, therefore landlords are printing money" is silly.

My family has had one social housing case (foisted on us by the hse) destroy the apartment. Not a single wall without a hole in it, not a single appliance in working order, etc. Then there have the ones where rent stops and it takes ages to get them out, etc etc.

There is a reason why some landlords can be so militant. Once bitten twice shy and all that.

murphaph

newacc2015 wrote: »

I know of several Landlords who let houses to Germans, who despite their long history of renting are actually horrific tenants ie not paying rent, demanding pretty things like the light bulb to be replaced in the fridge ASAP. Stereotyping is bad and wrong etc etc. But if you work in hospitality, you will quickly see a certain group of guests are nearly always trouble

That's interesting because a standard German residential lease invariably includes a small repairs clause whereby things like that up to a value of €410 per annum are the tenants responsibility. Maybe those German tenants just learned to play the Irish system fast.

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

That's interesting because a standard German residential lease invariably includes a small repairs clause whereby things like that up to a value of €410 per annum are the tenants responsibility. Maybe those German tenants just learned to play the Irish system fast.

I've just helped with a contract for a 2 bed apartment- with a clause whereby the tenant is liable for the first 40 Euro of any repair- or 10% of the value of any repair- to a maximum of 40 Euro. It also contained a list of local tradespeople- all of whom have agreed 24 hour call-outs- via bookings made with the property manager (or alternatively the tenant can organise their own tradesperson for small repairs- however, they'll not get the rates the property manager can organise).

This is only for small repairs- which the tenant agrees are caused by unusual or abnormal use of the appliances, the property, its fixtures and fittings- or activities other than those normal for a residential dwelling. So far this has covered a broken hinge on the door of the washing machine (which the tenants child caused- by their own admission)- and replacing a few fuses (the tenant bought an arc welder in Aldi and thought it was fine to plug it in, in the living room)........

I don't see why arrangements like this aren't more the norm?
I also don't see how or why we don't massively go down the road of letting unfurnished- at a reasonable discount- hell- most landlords will happily organise transport for a tenant if they were to go down this road.

Siipina

murphaph wrote: »

That's interesting because a standard German residential lease invariably includes a small repairs clause whereby things like that up to a value of €410 per annum are the tenants responsibility. Maybe those German tenants just learned to play the Irish system fast.

I can only speak for myself and friends and as being German I can tell you that Germans probably learned that they get screwed otherwise. I am renting since nearly ten years and I always paid my rent on time, left the property spotless when I moved in cleaned, repaired and paid for minor fixes myself and I can tell you I got just one kick after another. I had only one absolutely great Landlady, unfortunately I had to move to the west coast for work. The thing with Irish Landlords is they just want to make as much money as possible and most dont care about anything else and are only trouble to deal with. I can understand it might be hard to understand that the couch is broken if you see it only once a year but if you buy cheap used crap you should be not surprised. We have a saying in german: If you buy really cheap, you buy it twice and it true. If you buy the cheapest washing mashine you can get, dont be surprised its broken after 2 years. The Landlord is then claiming the tenant broke it on purpose. Most germans would know as they bought a lot of furnitures in their lives as you have all your own stuff on the Continent, in my opinion it the better system anyway. It feels like your home and you treat it like that, here it mostly feels like living in somebody else's crap and you have to beg to get it repaired if you cant do it yourself and no dont even think to get the deposit back.
It takes a bit time to get used to the irish system and after the first two lettings people learn their lession. <mod snip >

Sorry for sounding so bitter I have just again a Landlady who doesnt give a s...t again and for 100 % I wont see a cent of my deposit.

DSN

It's silly to say all you hear on here is about woeful tenants & LLs. Sure like anything - who gonna come on saying oh my tenants or my LL is the best in the world
In saying that I have been renting an apt for over 11 years now & I have been incredibly lucky with tenants so far thank goodness. But I value good tenants above following rent hike trends & always have. I manage it myself & I interview potential tenants & check references thoroughly as is possible. I know things can still go wrong, but I would not trust an agency or anyone to find tenants for me (maybe that's the control freak in me though!). Once a tenant is in am totally hands off unless they call re something broken/issues etc which will try to resolve asap.
With re it being 'easy' money though, depends what you see as easy money I suppose - on paper the rent just covers the mortgage which is great because I know that is not often the case, but I do have a hefty tax bill at end of the year & all the expenses - but I see it as savings plan & am hoping it's a good investment long term.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

I also don't see how or why we don't massively go down the road of letting unfurnished- at a reasonable discount- hell- most landlords will happily organise transport for a tenant if they were to go down this road.

I think the market would be very small for unfurnished lettings as people don't want buying furniture or other appliances for a place they don't own which they only intend living in short term (relatively speaking) until they can buy and the stuff more than likely won't be right for the the place they buy or even the next place they rent.

I don't know anyone (myself very much included) who would go near an unfurnished rental. Now I know there are a small number of people who want to long term rent and may be interested but overall I would say the market would be very small.

Siipina

Oh no not just ONE Landlord, except of two all of them in nearly ten years and I can tell you the same is for my friends.
I do well know that there are as well s..t tenants ( I belive the wore houses are not THAT many) but what I dont get is and that was one of the questions of the OP, if you have good tenants why do you try to squeeze more and more out of them but dont deliver your part?
And then when the tenants are getting frustrated and dont care anymore either start winging about the bad tenants?
I had a lot of LL who actually behaved like LL from the 1800 century. No joke, one LL told me I am just living in the house because of her grace :eek: Yep and I payed a lot of money for her grace, oh and before you think it was my fault, she wanted to put up the rent illegally and I told her about the law. In my first rental I didnt even have a proper bed and only really old mattresses and was told this is normal from the LL. I have so many storys like that. Start treating the good tenants better and you wont have so many bad tenants in the future.

athtrasna

Mod note

Can we leave off the generalisations about nationalities please. They are not helpful and border on breach of forum charter. Thanks

Bold Abdu

The_Conductor wrote: »

Keep in mind- several of the government levies (such as USC for example) are on gross rental income- rather than net rental income- which is quite unique for a business proposition- any other business proposition pays tax on the basis of their profit- not on the basis of their turnover.

.

This is incorrect. Net rental income is subject to USC.

Bold Abdu

Bold Abdu wrote: »

This is incorrect. Net rental income is subject to USC.

Net rental income not net profit. Big big difference.

DubCount

Lucille Embarrassed Reader wrote: »

Net rental income not net profit. Big big difference.

What is the difference between net profit and net rental income?

Bob24

Siipina wrote: »

Oh no not just ONE Landlord, except of two all of them in nearly ten years and I can tell you the same is for my friends.
I do well know that there are as well s..t tenants ( I belive the wore houses are not THAT many) but what I dont get is and that was one of the questions of the OP, if you have good tenants why do you try to squeeze more and more out of them but dont deliver your part?
And then when the tenants are getting frustrated and dont care anymore either start winging about the bad tenants?
I had a lot of LL who actually behaved like LL from the 1800 century. No joke, one LL told me I am just living in the house because of her grace :eek: Yep and I payed a lot of money for her grace, oh and before you think it was my fault, she wanted to put up the rent illegally and I told her about the law. In my first rental I didnt even have a proper bed and only really old mattresses and was told this is normal from the LL. I have so many storys like that. Start treating the good tenants better and you wont have so many bad tenants in the future.

Not saying what you are describing doesn't exist, but this is not my experience at all.

I am currently paying well below market rate and clearly the landlord is not increasing the rent because she trusts me and knows I only tend to contact her when there is a serious issue she should be aware of or something which involves a large amount of money.
This is not isolated and I have had another landlord before making efforts to get me to stay.

Of course all landlords won't be the same: some will focus on maximum rent (even if it means changing tenant often), and other will focus on convenience for them (keep reliable and not over-demanding tenants in the long term).

colm_mcm

DubCount wrote: »

What is the difference between net profit and net rental income?

Rental income doesn't take expenditure into account.

MarkAnthony

Siipina wrote: »

Oh no not just ONE Landlord, except of two all of them in nearly ten years and I can tell you the same is for my friends.
I do well know that there are as well s..t tenants ( I belive the wore houses are not THAT many) but what I dont get is and that was one of the questions of the OP, if you have good tenants why do you try to squeeze more and more out of them but dont deliver your part?
And then when the tenants are getting frustrated and dont care anymore either start winging about the bad tenants?
I had a lot of LL who actually behaved like LL from the 1800 century. No joke, one LL told me I am just living in the house because of her grace :eek: Yep and I payed a lot of money for her grace, oh and before you think it was my fault, she wanted to put up the rent illegally and I told her about the law. In my first rental I didnt even have a proper bed and only really old mattresses and was told this is normal from the LL. I have so many storys like that. Start treating the good tenants better and you wont have so many bad tenants in the future.

I don't get this or why people find themselves in this position, surely you were aware of the condition of the place before moving in? Yet people still seem to take these places.

There are good and bad Landlords like tenants, it's not overly difficult to spot a bad LL tbh.

Bob24

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There are good and bad Landlords like tenants, it's not overly difficult to spot a bad LL tbh.

I wouldn't agree on that last point. Many LLs will hire agents to advertise their property and find a tenant, and the behaviour of the agent is not an indication of how good the LL is (two brilliant landlords I had were employing rubbish agents which never showed up on time or completed the paperwork properly, but in both cases things dramatically improved when the agent got out of the picture and I got direct access to the LL).

Then of course if the property itself is in very bad condition, it is not a good sign :-)

CloudCumulus

In some cases it's pretty much you get what you givemy first experience of renting was an eye opener, and that was due to < Mod snip - No names permitted >

They were grand in many ways but unbeknownst to us we were signing our rights away every time we renewed the lease so when we were forced to leave due to a drop in income (it was either that or squat, which I wouldn't do) they refused to give back our deposit. They even made us go to the bank to increase the deposit when the rent was being increased.

My parents on the other hand are landlords of several properties. Present the place well, treat tenants with respect and don't get formal about signing this and that, and they'll respect you back. They've never had a bad tenant.

Claw Hammer

Property tends to get the tenants it deserves. High calibre tenants will avoid run down properties in run down locations. Bad properties in bad locations will get bad tenants.

MarkAnthony

CloudCumulus wrote: »

In some cases it's pretty much you get what you givemy first experience of renting was an eye opener,

They were grand in many ways but unbeknownst to us we were signing our rights away every time we renewed the lease so when we were forced to leave due to a drop in income (it was either that or squat, which I wouldn't do) they refused to give back our deposit. They even made us go to the bank to increase the deposit when the rent was being increased.

My parents on the other hand are landlords of several properties. Present the place well, treat tenants with respect and don't get formal about signing this and that, and they'll respect you back. They've never had a bad tenant.

It's a business and a LL has to protect themselves by being formal and business like with the required paperwork. Signing fixed term leases is entirely down to the tenant and the tenant should do their research before signing anything.

athtrasna

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Property tends to get the tenants it deserves. High calibre tenants will avoid run down properties in run down locations. Bad properties in bad locations will get bad tenants.

Absolutely not true. Sweeping generalisations are not helpful.

Ms Doubtfire1

CloudCumulus wrote: »

They were grand in many ways but unbeknownst to us we were signing our rights away every time we renewed the lease so when we were forced to leave due to a drop in income (it was either that or squat, which I wouldn't do) they refused to give back our deposit.

You can't sign your rights away.EVER. The contract has to abide to the tenancy act, if it doesn't, the whole thing or parts of thereof are not valid

MarkAnthony

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

CloudCumulus wrote: »

They were grand in many ways but unbeknownst to us we were signing our rights away every time we renewed the lease so when we were forced to leave due to a drop in income (it was either that or squat, which I wouldn't do) they refused to give back our deposit.

You can't sign your rights away.EVER. The contract has to abide to the tenancy act, if it doesn't, the whole thing or parts of thereof are not valid

They can contract in addition to their right though. That's what tenants are doing every time they sign a new 12 month lease. There is zero benefit to tenants to do this unless they're coming the end of a Part IV or the LL is willing to omit a break clause.

intheclouds

CloudCumulus wrote: »

My parents on the other hand are landlords of several properties. Present the place well, treat tenants with respect and don't get formal about signing this and that, and they'll respect you back. They've never had a bad tenant.

Sure why be formal, pay them in change and vegetables, maybe barter a few goods?

Are you for real? You actually think that people should allow someone to rent their asset with nothing signed because they "shouldnt get formal"?

You know who gets very formal very fast? The Revenue Commissioners. Yep, they like to see documentation, plenty of it, and signatures.

You know who else likes to keep the paperwork in order? The Department of Social Protection. So maybe when a tenant asks the landlord to sign something for them for the Department of Social Protection the landlord should be saying "ah lads, lets not get formal".

And you know who else likes formality? PRTB.

Seriously - are you living in a pre civilised society or something that you think signing relevant paperwork is "getting formal"?

Ms Doubtfire1

MarkAnthony wrote: »

They can contract in addition to their right though. That's what tenants are doing every time they sign a new 12 month lease. There is zero benefit to tenants to do this unless they're coming the end of a Part IV or the LL is willing to omit a break clause.

Agreed.But only if in line with the tenancy act. Fore instance, my LL included a clause in his contract that I was to pay for maintenance of the heating system and septic tank. Wen straight to threshold with it and he got his wrist slapped big time. Basically, the law overwrites anything in a contract that is not in line with it.

CloudCumulus

MarkAnthony wrote: »

They can contract in addition to their right though. That's what tenants are doing every time they sign a new 12 month lease. There is zero benefit to tenants to do this unless they're coming the end of a Part IV or the LL is willing to omit a break clause.

This is exactly it. Obviously we were young and ignorant of our rights, but probably wouldn't have even known about the stuff we didn't 'have to' do, because we were great tenants who kept the place well, gave them 6 weeks notice we'd have to go but they did nothing about it and were really rude. Anyway I got PRTB to keep badgering them.
Basically, good experirnce dealing directly with landlords < mod snip - you have already been told NOT to name companies on here >

CloudCumulus

intheclouds wrote: »

Sure why be formal, pay them in change and vegetables, maybe barter a few goods?

Are you for real? You actually think that people should allow someone to rent their asset with nothing signed because they "shouldnt get formal"?

You know who gets very formal very fast? The Revenue Commissioners. Yep, they like to see documentation, plenty of it, and signatures.

You know who else likes to keep the paperwork in order? The Department of Social Protection. So maybe when a tenant asks the landlord to sign something for them for the Department of Social Protection the landlord should be saying "ah lads, lets not get formal".

And you know who else likes formality? PRTB.

Seriously - are you living in a pre civilised society or something that you think signing relevant paperwork is "getting formal"?

Right, you clearly misunderstood. Draw up a tenancy, list the relevant info, everyone signs it.
Do you then need to go back to them after two years and say in accordance with the act, you are now entering part whatever and will need to sign the following? Yes if you want, but the choice is yours to do so as a LL. This is what I mean about being less formal, if you so choose. Did I say less formal or do away with formalities altogether?
Breathe and reboot dear.


Edit- sorry to the Mod, I didn't see the warning.

intheclouds

CloudCumulus wrote: »

Did I say less formal or do away with formalities altogether?

This is what you said:

CloudCumulus wrote: »

...don't get formal about signing this and that, and they'll respect you back.

Nowhere does that say "less formal". It implies that you never get formal to BEGIN with.

Only an idiot would not follow the "formalities".

The_Conductor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Property tends to get the tenants it deserves. High calibre tenants will avoid run down properties in run down locations. Bad properties in bad locations will get bad tenants.

That's just not true.

My sister had (she has since sold it) a nice property- in a nice area- which she let to a solicitor. The solicitor- doubtless having learnt from some of her clients- overheld, without paying rent- for almost 2 years- before she abandoned the property.

You can't automatically say that a professional won't overhold- or social welfare tenants are the sole type of tenant who destroy property- it simply doesn't hold water.

MarkAnthony

The_Conductor wrote: »

That's just not true.

My sister had (she has since sold it) a nice property- in a nice area- which she let to a solicitor. The solicitor- doubtless having learnt from some of her clients- overheld, without paying rent- for almost 2 years- before she abandoned the property.

You can't automatically say that a professional won't overhold- or social welfare tenants are the sole type of tenant who destroy property- it simply doesn't hold water.

I'd have been very tempted to make a complaint to the Law Society. It probably wouldn't have gone anywhere but there has to be an ethical issue there.

The_Conductor

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'd have been very tempted to make a complaint to the Law Society. It probably wouldn't have gone anywhere but there has to be an ethical issue there.

Possibly. However, it wasn't the route she took. Ethics seem to be in short supply across the board........

Shelflife

The_Conductor wrote: »

Possibly. However, it wasn't the route she took. Ethics seem to be in short supply across the board........

Or sit in her office and wait, making sure you tell everyone that comes in " no you go ahead im just waiting to collect my rent that wasnt paid for 2 years "

DubCount

DubCount wrote: »

What is the difference between net profit and net rental income?

Net profit would be what's left over after all expenses and mortgage has been paid. Net rental income is the amount left which is taxable after allowable expenses have been deducted.

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

Possibly. However, it wasn't the route she took. Ethics seem to be in short supply across the board........

Did she go down the RTB route? I'm sure a solicitor would have the means to pay back the rent after a determination order (or try and settle it without having name come up in the RTB published disputes).

Part of the problem is that most people overholding don't have the means to pay back what they owe so it's fruitless to even chase them through the system.

The_Conductor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Did she go down the RTB route? I'm sure a solicitor would have the means to pay back the rent after a determination order (or try and settle it without having name come up in the RTB published disputes).

Part of the problem is that most people overholding don't have the means to pay back what they owe so it's fruitless to even chase them through the system.

She didn't want the hassle- she was in the process of moving to Joburg (and indeed is still there)- she didn't want to leave me (or another sibling) to sort out the mess. I've bumped into the individual concerned through work, since then- and reminded her of how I knew her- and how I was aware of the situation. She excused herself from the case........