Impossible to get reply from Landlords ads.

Technocentral

I'm looking for a one bedroom place around Dublin City Centre for around 1000 pm since 2 weeks ago, when I reply to ads telling them about myself ( mature, permanent job in the public sector, excellent references etc) I never get a reply. How are people supposed to get viewings, any tips?

testicles

This post has been deleted.

AlanG

How are you contacting them - by text, email or phone? If text then assuming other people are ringing why should they bother ringing you when you haven't bothered to ring them.
You need to ring if you want the apartment.

dearg lady

Agreed, if looking for house share e-mail is generally better, for a whole property definitely ring

Technocentral

I have no problem ringing.
The places I have contacted through Daft are through their internal email system as none had phone numbers listed. I rang another one and the mailbox was full, texted and haven't heard back, are there any agencies that source apartments for tenants in that price range?

Michael D Not Higgins

There is a shortage of rental properties. Some people are willing to offer more than the advertised price, or a larger deposit, in order to secure the flat. If a landlord is reviewing a couple of dozen replies to his ad, those are the ones that would stand out. If you can afford it, I would suggest offering a larger deposit. Also say you have all your documentation, other landlord's references, etc. ready to go.

Technocentral

Michael D Not Higgins wrote:

There is a shortage of rental properties. Some people are willing to offer more than the advertised price, or a larger deposit, in order to secure the flat. If a landlord is reviewing a couple of dozen replies to his ad, those are the ones that would stand out. If you can afford it, I would suggest offering a larger deposit. Also say you have all your documentation, other landlord's references, etc. ready to go.

Would never offer more than advertised price, I don't encourage greed, places aren't worth the amount asked never mind more, I do say in my replies that all reference's and deposit etc ready to go.

athtrasna

Technocentral wrote: »

Would never offer more than advertised price, I don't encourage greed, places aren't worth the amount asked never mind more, I do say in my replies that all reference's and deposit etc ready to go.

Supply and demand. Small supply, others offering to pay more.

Cathmandooo

€1,000 for your own place in Dublin City Centre is a very low budget at the moment. A quick look on daft shows 8 properties for that budget, most of which are actually places to share or studios.

A 1 bed apartment for €1,000 will be snapped up very quickly and probably for more than the advertised price.

You can stick to your guns and not offer over the asking rent but you might be left on the shelf with no place to rent.

You need to up your budget or lower your criteria to a studio or a shared place.

Hrududu

The same thing happened to me last year when I was looking. One place looked good. I emailed via daft and got no reply but the ad was being renewed every day. So I rang the office of the company and the told me that they don't deal with properties over the phone and that I should email via daft. Sent an email and never heard back

Baby01032012

It's just down to the volume of emails a landlord gets in response to an add these days

You seem to be putting all the right info in the email

Maybe attach refs if possible

Technocentral

Thank you for the last two constructive, positive messages, can you add attachments in daft? Am on phone so not near desktop to check,

Michael D Not Higgins

It doesn't look like you can attach anything on the daft contact form. I agree with the above, city centre for 1000 is slim pickings. Almost certainly going for more than that.

Technocentral

Hrududu wrote:

The same thing happened to me last year when I was looking. One place looked good. I emailed via daft and got no reply but the ad was being renewed every day. So I rang the office of the company and the told me that they don't deal with properties over the phone and that I should email via daft. Sent an email and never heard back

Did you get a place in the end?

davo10

Technocentral wrote: »

Thank you for the last two constructive, positive messages, can you add attachments in daft? Am on phone so not near desktop to check,

Op, you will probably have to up your budget and be prepared to pay more than the advertised listing rate. I have an apartment in Dublin and when the tenants moved out a couple of months ago I was going to hold on and use it/let kids use it for concerts/weekends etc during summer. The EA I use told me I was crazy, the day he advertised it he got something like 50 emails, with lots of offers to pay above the advertised rate. It is supply and demand.

handlemaster

Anything and everything will be viewed when you email. Treat it like a job application in that write correctly and professionally . Say you have deposit and first months rent. References from employer and former landlord... put everything in the email that you would like to see yourself if it was your property

davo10

handlemaster wrote: »

Anything and everything will be viewed when you email. Treat it like a job application in that write correctly and professionally . Say you have deposit and first months rent. References from employer and former landlord... put everything in the email that you would like to see yourself if it was your property

All that is the bare minimum now required, a lot of landlords, nvluding muself look for three months rent in advance.

handlemaster

davo10 wrote: »

All that is the bare minimum now required, a lot of landlords, nvluding muself look for three months rent in advance.

So first month last month and one months deposit ?

You would be surprised what potential tenant s would email. .. such as ... one liners like.... Is the property for rent still... no name or aanything

davo10

handlemaster wrote: »

So first month last month and one months deposit ?

Exactly.

TheDoc

davo10 wrote: »

All that is the bare minimum now required, a lot of landlords, nvluding muself look for three months rent in advance.

epic lols....

I'd say that is actually more an edge case then the norm. What possible justification is there for THREE months rent in advance, assuming you also want a deposit separately.

Jesus at some point in time there needs to be some regulation and standards set for the private rent market when it comes to new agreements. Three months in advance is mental.

Graham

TheDoc wrote: »

What possible justification is there for THREE months rent in advance

How about we start with the fact it can take 12 - 24 months to evict someone after they stop paying rent entirely.....

Technocentral

TheDoc wrote:

Jesus at some point in time there needs to be some regulation and standards set for the private rent market when it comes to new agreements. Three months in advance is mental.

Greed always gets its way, though there must be the odd decent Landlord? In 20 or so years of renting I had about 2 out of 17.

hardCopy

Baby01032012 wrote: »

It's just down to the volume of emails a landlord gets in response to an add these days

You seem to be putting all the right info in the email

Maybe attach refs if possible

A previous letting agent I dealt with told me that she knows if she shows a property to 8 or 10 people in busy market, one of them is guaranteed to take it. It's not worth her while showing it to 20 or 30 people so once she has enough confirmed viewers she just tells everyone else it's gone. Those viewing slots could be filled within a couple of hours of an ad going up in a busy location.

Baby01032012

TheDoc wrote: »

epic lols....

I'd say that is actually more an edge case then the norm. What possible justification is there for THREE months rent in advance, assuming you also want a deposit separately.

Jesus at some point in time there needs to be some regulation and standards set for the private rent market when it comes to new agreements. Three months in advance is mental.

Because so many tenants use the deposit as the last months rent. So 3 months is becoming far more common in order to have a safeguard deposit. Similar to much of Europe.

In addition to property damage there now is water charges which if in arrears can fall back on the owner.

A deposit holding service by the Rtb would help this but doesn't seem to be any movement towards this

davo10

TheDoc wrote: »

epic lols....

I'd say that is actually more an edge case then the norm. What possible justification is there for THREE months rent in advance, assuming you also want a deposit separately.

Jesus at some point in time there needs to be some regulation and standards set for the private rent market when it comes to new agreements. Three months in advance is mental.

Okey dokey, now could you move to one side, the person behind you wants to sign a lease.

You do realise that the three months is not a deposit? It is (as per the previous post), the first months rent, the last months rent and a deposit equivalent to one month. Simples.

Sad Professor

3 months rent in advance is absurd. Current market conditions may allow landlords to get away with this, but in the long run it will only increase calls for greater regulation. Landlords aren't going to get better protection from non-paying tenants by exploiting potentially good tenants in the middle of a rental crisis.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

Landlords aren't going to get better protection from non-paying tenants by exploiting potentially good tenants in the middle of a rental crisis.

It's a fairly blunt stick alright but until the law changes to speed up the legal eviction process I can't see what other option are available to landlords.

Sad Professor

hardCopy wrote: »

A previous letting agent I dealt with told me that she knows if she shows a property to 8 or 10 people in busy market, one of them is guaranteed to take it. It's not worth her while showing it to 20 or 30 people so once she has enough confirmed viewers she just tells everyone else it's gone. Those viewing slots could be filled within a couple of hours of an ad going up in a busy location.

I'm encountering this quite a bit of at the moment. Agents not interested in returning calls/answering emails once they have enough interested parties. Many of them are also pretty rude to deal with it. Total reversal from when we were last in the market. We've had better experience with landlords who are handling the properly themselves. Unlike agents, they seem to recognise a good tenant when they see one. However, I'd rather deal with an agent, at least for the first year.

PierreLeCake

I am a Landlord who uses Daft when advertising a property. I only vet tenants by email now . The reason for this is because I am a PAYE worker who can't be answering my phone during working hours. In the past when I gave my phone number I would specify - Please ring between 6 and 7 pm but people would ring at anytime. A lot of callers were Foreign Nationals with poor English and it could be quite confusing and frustrating for both parties when they were asking specific questions about the property. The last time I rented out my property I got 40 replies within 8 hours of the Ad going up. People enquiring about RA could be politely rejected without having a barney on the phone. Even though the ad said No RA a lot of the enquires where about RA. This was prior to the new rules on so called RA discrimination and the house was well above RA limits. The house has always rented above RA limits but in the past people would ring and try to get to do deals and pay the difference in cash. Basically they would be asking you to falsify RA forms and then accuse you of discrimination, being a Tax Dodger etc when you refused.
All that messing can be filtered out by using email only. Emails also give you a feel for the potential tenant before you ever meet them.

The OP seems to be doing the right thing. People who got priority are the ones who gave the most information.
An email that would make you attractive to a LL would go something like this -

Hi ,
I am interested in renting your apartment. I am a single male / Female who is currently working in the IFSC for GlobalCorp Banking as an accountant. I have worked for this company for the last 10 years. I have work references and my current landlords reference. I am leaving my current rental property as my Landlord is selling up. I am ready to move into your property as soon as its available. I am a clean and reliable tenant who takes their responsibilities seriously.

Don't lie on your application. Like a previous poster said nowadays its like a job interview. Some replies gave me a laugh. One guy claimed to be a Doctor is St James but could n't spell St James and wanted to know would I take RA. Another claimed to work for Google but his email address was yahoo.ie. Another claimed to be a Veterinarian but could n't spell it. Don't big yourself up. A Foreign National told me he was the CEO of his company but as a landlord all I could hear was "I am self employed with an irregular income"

Daft seems to have some kind of alerting for Tenants. I one query within 5 minutes of my Ad going up. One liner emails are a nuisance. Things like "When can I cum and see ur house" Avoid txtspeak. Its a nightmare for LL's of an older generation. Give as much information as possible outlining why you are the best Tenant in the world and why the Landlord should bite his hand off to get you.
Some people recommend offering more money. I don't like this because I don't want to be gouging people or getting in to a bidding war between people desperate to get accommodation. The price I advertise is the price I will rent for on the ground that just because someone offers me more money does n't mean they can afford it and it might cause me problems further down the line.
Other LL's would take a different view and Estate Agent are getting a commission so they are more likely to consider an increased offer.
Another problem with going through EA's is they have multiple properties to rent with the ensuing multiple queries so they will respond to the first few most likely candidates and ignore the rest as they know they will have it rented after 1 viewing.
I'm not sure if this helps the OP in any way but I just wanted to give a Landlords perspective of why you can't contact LL's directly by phone anymore.

Claw Hammer

Sad Professor wrote: »

3 months rent in advance is absurd. Current market conditions may allow landlords to get away with this, but in the long run it will only increase calls for greater regulation. Landlords aren't going to get better protection from non-paying tenants by exploiting potentially good tenants in the middle of a rental crisis.

One thing bad tenants don't like is handing over money. LLs are tripping over themselves to get out of a bouyant letting market. In a time of shortage rents, deposits etc will go up. That is the reality. There is complete inertia on this at government level.Virtually nothing is being done to assist the supply situation.

Technocentral

Claw Hammer wrote:

One thing bad tenants don't like is handing over money. LLs are tripping over themselves to get out of a bouyant letting market. In a time of shortage rents, deposits etc will go up. That is the reality. There is complete inertia on this at government level.Virtually nothing is being done to assist the supply situation.

Wow, a decent person who can't afford 3 months rent for the basics like a place to live is potentially a " bad tenant", ****ed up attitude, shame on you.

Michael D Not Higgins

Mod: Technocentral, your tone and attacking of posters is not appreciated. People are giving you their experience and opinions. You don't have to accept it but you do have to be civil.

Sad Professor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

One thing bad tenants don't like is handing over money. LLs are tripping over themselves to get out of a bouyant letting market. In a time of shortage rents, deposits etc will go up. That is the reality. There is complete inertia on this at government level.Virtually nothing is being done to assist the supply situation.

There are bad tenants and bad landlords. Bad tenants don't like handing money over. And bad landlords don't like handing money (deposits) back. They also don't like providing the full services that said money pays for, or have a tendency to pass any such expenses onto the tenant in the next rent increase. Both need protection, but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable. They need a home and are renting because they are not in the financial position to buy. The "reality" of the market being in crisis and government failure to address it does not give landlords permission to exploit good tenants who are just looking for a place to live.

iainBB

Sad Professor wrote: »

There are bad tenants and bad landlords. Bad tenants don't like handing money over. And bad landlords don't like handing money (deposits) back. They also don't like providing the full services that said money pays for, or have a tendency to pass any such expenses onto the tenant in the next rent increase. Both need protection, but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable. They need a home and are renting because they are not in the financial position to buy. The "reality" of the market being in crisis and government failure to address it does not give landlords permission to exploit good tenants who are just looking for a place to live.

Who says landlord's are in a better position Your generalising there.

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

There are bad tenants and bad landlords. Bad tenants don't like handing money over. And bad landlords don't like handing money (deposits) back. They also don't like providing the full services that said money pays for, or have a tendency to pass any such expenses onto the tenant in the next rent increase. Both need protection, but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable. They need a home and are renting because they are not in the financial position to buy. The "reality" of the market being in crisis and government failure to address it does not give landlords permission to exploit good tenants who are just looking for a place to live.

The market being the market landlords can push for higher deposits. About 5 years ago on this forum tenants were gloating about how much they had negotiated down their rent. It is a matter for the government to properly manage supply. The landlord is often more vulnerable than the tenant which is why they are selling out.When people are exiting from what should be an ideal time in the cycle with rents at their highest ever there must be something wrong.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

but tenants far more so because they are more vulnerable.

Just to redress the balance its worth pointing out that one bad tenant can financially ruin an entire family the effects of which can easily run far beyond the loss of the property being rented.

Technocentral

Michael D Not Higgins wrote:

Mod: Technocentral, your tone and attacking of posters is not appreciated. People are giving you their experience and opinions. You don't have to accept it but you do have to be civil.

Fair enough. Some good positive advice <snip>, I'll remove myself from this thread, I still believe there are some decent people out there though.

Sad Professor

The landlord is never more vulnerable than the tenant. The landlord owns the property and has the power to increase rents, refuse to carry out repairs, and evict the tenant from their home — with potential repercussions should the tenant choose to challenge them but most won't. Tenants may be able to use the law beyond what is justifiable to overhold and avoid paying rent, but that does not change the fact that landlords hold most of the power.

Tenants are not in a better position than landlords. If they were they wouldn't be tenants. Some landlords are financially vulnerable and in bad position generally, but for reasons that have nothing to do with tenant rights. Good tenants should not be expected to suffer for landlords who made bad investments. If being a landlord is a business as landlords claim then they should not be gambling their family's future on its smooth-sailing success. I assume private landlords are getting out of the market because it's no longer looking like the risk-free investment that it once was.

Some landlords talk as if they are the only ones taking a risk. Tenants are taking a risk as well. On a landlord who owns a property that will be their home for the next however many years. A bad landlord can cause no end of stress and upheaval for good tenants.

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

The landlord is never more vulnerable than the tenant. The landlord owns the property and has the power to increase rents, refuse to carry out repairs, and evict the tenant from their home — with potential repercussions should the tenant choose to challenge them but most won't. Tenants may be able to use the law beyond what is justifiable to overhold and avoid paying rent, but that does not change the fact that landlords hold most of the power.

Tenants are not in a better position than landlords. If they were they wouldn't be tenants. Some landlords are financially vulnerable and in bad position generally, but for reasons that have nothing to do with tenant rights. Good tenants should not be expected to suffer for landlords who made bad investments. If being a landlord is a business as landlords claim then they should not be gambling their family's future on its smooth-sailing success. I assume private landlords are getting out of the market because it's no longer looking like the risk-free investment that it once was.

Some landlords talk as if they are the only ones taking a risk. Tenants are taking a risk as well. On a landlord who owns a property that will be their home for the next however many years. A bad landlord can cause no end of stress and upheaval for good tenants.

The landlord can be forced to carry out repairs by law. He has responsibility for various charges. He may well be in negative equity and losing money on the property. He can only increase rent up to market level and even then under restriction. He can be exposed to massive legal costs if a tenant acts up. A tenant can do what they like and walk away. The most they stand to lose is a deposit and put up with some repairs not being attended to for a time.

In fact this attitude that the landlord is the owner and so must be the mre powerful has become so pervasive that it is making things worse. It is seeing landlords sell up every day of the week thus aggravating the situation.

Sad Professor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The landlord can be forced to carry out repairs by law. He has responsibility for various charges. He may well be in negative equity and losing money on the property. He can only increase rent up to market level and even then under restriction. He can be exposed to massive legal costs if a tenant acts up. A tenant can do what they like and walk away. The most they stand to lose is a deposit and put up with some repairs not being attended to for a time.

Given that landlords currently complain about the length of time it takes a non-paying tenant to be evicted, how long does it take a tenant to take a landlord to court? Most have better things to be doing than dealing with cowboy landlords and will have moved out in the interim.

In fact this attitude that the landlord is the owner and so must be the mre powerful has become so pervasive that it is making things worse. It is seeing landlords sell up every day of the week thus aggravating the situation.

Landlords will not help this perception by using current market conditions to exploit good tenants.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

how long does it take a tenant to take a landlord to court?

You tell us, is it anything like the 1 - 2 years it can take to evict a non-paying tenant. Is the potential loss to a tenant anything like 2 years rent + untold repair costs?

ED E

Graham wrote: »

You tell us, is it anything like the 1 - 2 years it can take to evict a non-paying tenant. Is the potential loss to a tenant anything like 2 years rent + untold repair costs?

Seems like you're intentionally missing the point.

Court for the tenant isn't a practical way to solve issues as you'd have to live with said for an extended period.

Court for the landlord is a nightmare as you've stated, they're in the red for 2yrs or more.

These both being the case the system means diddly squat and the rules may as well be wiped from the statute as the have no value. End result, toxic market.


Continue to quote the regulations all you like, doesnt help either party.

Graham

ED E wrote: »

Seems like you're intentionally missing the point.

Court for the tenant isn't a practical way to solve issues as you'd have to live with said for an extended period.

Court for the landlord is a nightmare as you've stated, they're in the red for 2yrs or more.

These both being the case the system means diddly squat and the rules may as well be wiped from the statute as the have no value. End result, toxic market.


Continue to quote the regulations all you like, doesnt help either party.

For the record, I agree the current system is crap for both landlords and tenants. I don't remember any point where I suggested otherwise.

I do however strongly disagree with the assertion that the landlord holds all the power. Hence my post.

Sad Professor

Graham wrote: »

For the record, I agree the current system is crap for both landlords and tenants. I don't remember any point where I suggested otherwise.

I do however strongly disagree with the assertion that the landlord holds all the power. Hence my post.

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable. Which they are. What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand. But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year. I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home – or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

Graham

Sad Professor wrote: »

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable.

I disagree, both parties are vulnerable all be it in different areas.

Sad Professor wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Not at all what I said.

You're choosing to ignore:

1) accidental landlords
2) landlords whose investment decisions don't make provision for 2 years of no rent and a trashed property.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand.

Good to hear.

Sad Professor wrote: »

But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year.

Awesome, as am I. I don't want to be moving every year either.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home

I don't think I ever suggested good tenants should be expected to sacrifice anything. In fact I think there should be tax incentives for landlords that are prepared to offer tenants greater security of tenure, longer leases etc.

Sad Professor wrote: »

or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

Ahh, here's where I recognise a few things things.

1) The market is struggling to meet current demand.
2) The government has almost completely abdicated responsibility for housing to the private sector
3) The legislation 'protecting' landlords from unscrupulous tenants is not fit for purpose. The result is increasing deposits in an attempt to give the illusion of additional security to wary landlords. Point 1) is making this possible/commonplace.

Here's a final thought:

Increasing protection for landlords AND tenants is not a mutually exclusive proposition. It is quite possible to do both.

ted1

Technocentral wrote: »

Would never offer more than advertised price, I don't encourage greed, places aren't worth the amount asked never mind more, I do say in my replies that all reference's and deposit etc ready to go.

Supply and demand, one of my current tenants offered 100 more then I was asking for. She got the place and I haven't raised her rent in three years. Happy to have her and we agreed a price.
I could raise it by about 300 but if I get a bad tenant it'll cost me more.

MarkAnthony

First, last and security isn't 3 months rent in advance, it's the months rent which is always paid 'in hand', the deposit and simply the final month in advance. It's a much better system for all concerned and the norm in the States. It protects the tenant as there is no way to withhold it and it protects the LL from a tenant who simply says 'use my security for the last month'; potentially leaving bills unpaid and damage to the property.

Flippin' 'eck, suggest anything that hasn't be grandfathered in by custom, practice and what Paddy down the pub says is right and people kick up an awful fuss.

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

Given that landlords currently complain about the length of time it takes a non-paying tenant to be evicted, how long does it take a tenant to take a landlord to court? Most have better things to be doing than dealing with cowboy landlords and will have moved out in the interim.



Landlords will not help this perception by using current market conditions to exploit good tenants.

There is never any need for a tenant to take a landlord to court. the tenant can complain to the PRTB and environmental officers. They will take the landlord to court and pay for it. Most landlords have better things to be doing than chasing cowboy tenants and are exiting the market driving rents even higher. Intending landlords asre put off by the carry on which is going on. Existing landlords cannot be blamed for doing what they can to protect themselves. They have to get as big a deposit as they can and charge as much rent as they can. In a few years when rents have fallen back the landlord still has to pay his loan.

handlemaster

Sad Professor wrote: »

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable. Which they are. What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand. But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year. I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home – or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

when you buy a property and rent it out only then will you see the reality for landlords . It only takes a bad tenant to cause alot of stress and financial loss. There are good tenants and bad tenants the landlord has to try and reduce risk. Eg. you buy car insurance and pay a premium based on others bad driving habits.... do you complain to the insurance co ? not buy insurance ? or go to another insurance co ?

4ensic15

Sad Professor wrote: »

I said landlords hold most of the power, not all of it, and that tenants are more vulnerable. Which they are. What you seem to be saying is that landlords facing financial ruin due to investments of their own choosing are more vulnerable than tenants paying for a roof over their head in the middle of a housing crisis.

Some landlords have been burned by bad tenants who treat their homes like sh*t. I understand. But with respect, Graham, I'm a good tenant and I take care of my home and I don't want to be moving every year. I can't speak for bad tenants. Nor should I be expected to sacrifice the rights that give me security and help me feel that a property is my home – or pay exorbitant deposits – because of the small landlord's fear of financial losses/loss of profits/whatever.

If there were a sufficient number of small landlords you wouldn't have a problem. You would be able to negotiate. competition would keep rents keen and standards up. The cause of your complaints is that there is not enough accommodation on the market. The reason for that is small landlords giving up and being reluctant to expand.

athtrasna

Mod note

As the OP has left the thread, and it has gone seriously off topic, thread closed.