Irish times blames landlords for protecting their investment

handlemaster

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-no-end-in-sight-to-dublin-s-housing-crisis-1.3171535?mode=amp

Una is clearly unhappy with landlords . How dare they ask for a deposit of two months rent !!! Una has obviously never rented à property to a tenant. As is if the landlord is not paid or property damaged their is very little recourse for this. The PRTB are toothless and to get a non paying tenant out could take two years. Perhaps Una should look into this ? A deposit after all is money put aside to pay for damage or un paid rent. The tenant gets it back if they have complied with the contract they signed.

Dr_Kolossus

Is this girl for real? its news to her that 1 months rent is suddenly not adequate to cover landlords exposure to damage/non paying tenants. She is supposed to be a journalist, it is obvious she has done absolutely zero research.

For once I'll say well done to a REIT. They have managed to raise awareness of a problem to this 'journalist' who has been living under a rock.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

jamesthepeach

Maybe she should look at the amount to of deposit you pay when hiring a car.
Sorry excuse for journalism. And shame on the editor for letting that badly research rubbish through.

jamesthepeach

Patww79 wrote: »

The problem isn't really the two months of it was an actual 'deposit', it's the fact that it's a large amount you don't see again. Most landlords will cook up every story going to keep it all.

The landlord doesn't get their property back for 6 years. And there is a hell of a lot more money tied up in that.

myshirt

I think her point is that you can't expect to mitigate all the risk, yet retain all the reward.

TheChizler

She has a point though. It's only relatively recently since demand has gone so high that landlords have been able to make this requirement. The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

TheChizler

jamesthepeach wrote: »

The landlord doesn't get their property back for 6 years. And there is a hell of a lot more money tied up in that.

And gets paid rent in exchange for the rights to the property in the meantime.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

gizmo81

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

3% or 193 Disputes were for Damage above normal wear and tear.

13% or 881 Disputes for Deposit Retention


https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Sad Professor

I agree with her. Until we have deposit protection and proper security of tenure, landlords should not be allowed to demand double deposits.

irelandrover

TheChizler wrote: »

She has a point though. It's only relatively recently since demand has gone so high that landlords have been able to make this requirement. The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

Since demand is a lot higher there is a greater risk of overholding. Especially with Threshold giving the advice to tenants to overhold.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

The problem isn't really the two months of it was an actual 'deposit', it's the fact that it's a large amount you don't see again. Most landlords will cook up every story going to keep it all.

I've rented for years and never yet failed to get the full deposit back at first time of asking tbh

DubCount

Una is clearly unhappy with landlords. She has clearly never tried to have an overholding tenant evicted. A few points struck me about the article though .......

1) I would welcome more hotel rooms coming on stream. This might soften demand for AirBnB which in turn may stop some of the transfer of residential property from long term to short term letting.

2) For all those who believe in professional REITs being better for tenants than small scale landlords, perhaps there is lesson in this. A new policy for 2 months deposit rolled out across 2000+ units after 1 decision by 1 company, and that decision will likely change the entire Irish market to follow that decision as the new norm.

3) Are tenant rights in other parts of Europe really that much stronger than Ireland? The only other market I have much experience of is the UK, and they are certainly well below Irish levels of tenant protection.

4) When will Una and co understand that the only way to stop rent inflation and house price inflation and the rise in homelessness, is more competition ........ from more properties being built in areas where there is demand. Everything else is just sweeping out the tide.

jamesthepeach

TheChizler wrote: »

And gets paid rent in exchange for the rights to the property in the meantime.

He hopes.

gizmo81

You would have to laugh at the people complaining about this, especially those saying "handing it over to a dodgy LL" when the LL introducing this is a large scale LL the very type the same people are crying out for. You couldn't make it up.

The sooner people get it into their heads that LLs are running a business to make money and are fully entitled to protect themselves the better.

gizmo81 wrote: »

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

8% or 541 disputes in regard to Over holding as opposed to
9% or 609 disputes in regard to a breach of landlord obligations.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

With a number or posters here along with the likes of threashold encouraging tenants to act the b*llocks and dispute everything it's not surprising that tenants have more disputes with who knows how many being done purely out of spite. On the other hand id bet 99% of the LL disputes are genuine.

amcalester

gizmo81 wrote: »

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

8% or 541 disputes in regard to Over holding as opposed to
9% or 609 disputes in regard to a breach of landlord obligations.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

And what are the numbers for landlords that don't take disputes to the RTB?

gct

Heavy smell of vested interests in this thread. Landlords do get away with far too much in this country.

amcalester

Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »

You would have to laugh at the people complaining about this, especially those saying "handing it over to a dodgy LL" when the LL introducing this is a large scale LL the very type the same people are crying out for. You couldn't make it up.

This is a great point, people have been screaming out for professional landlords, and now that we have them and they are running it as a professional business with increased damage limitation, those same posters are now complaining that it's unfair.

Sad Professor

amcalester wrote: »

And what are the numbers for landlords that don't take disputes to the RTB?

Probably about the same as tenants who don't take disputes to the RTB.

amcalester

Sad Professor wrote: »

Probably about the same as tenants who don't take disputes to the RTB.

I very much doubt that.

Browney7

Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »

With a number or posters here along with the likes of threashold encouraging tenants to act the b*llocks and dispute everything it's not surprising that tenants have more disputes with who knows how many being done purely out of spite. On the other hand id bet 99% of the LL disputes are genuine.

"I don't like those numbers that I can't refute but I'll have a go at it anyway...."

You and many others on this forum often advise people with genuine cases not to pursue via the RTB as it'll look bad or jeopardise future tenancies or to move on and move out so which is it?

twill

amcalester wrote: »

This is a great point, people have been screaming out for professional landlords, and now that we have them and they are running it as a professional business with increased damage limitation, those same posters are now complaining that it's unfair.

I can't say I heard any great demands for vulture funds charging double deposit.

dudara

It's a big change in mentality for Irish renters, hence why it's causing upset. Also, given that monthly rents are now much higher, a two month deposit can be around the €4K mark, which is a lot of money. You can see why tenants are emotional about it.

Give it time and it will become the new norm, especially given the increased professionalism of landlords since the REITs arrived. Most tenants are reacting based on their experience of the stereotypical "dodgy" small scale landlord.

amcalester

twill wrote: »

I can't say I heard any great demands for vulture funds charging double deposit.

Double deposits are merely a by-product of a more professional rental market.

Are you saying there were no calls for a more professional approach to renting?

We have to take the rough with the smooth.

listermint

So there is arguing back and forth here. But is their anyone arguing that deposit escrow is not needed.


Because that's something to argue about its fairly evident it's required. Would cut out all the nonsense squabbling in a thread like this

Sad Professor

dudara wrote: »

It's a big change in mentality for Irish renters, hence why it's causing upset. Also, given that monthly rents are now much higher, a two month deposit can be around the €4K mark, which is a lot of money. You can see why tenants are emotional about it.

Give it time and it will become the new norm, especially given the increased professionalism of landlords since the REITs arrived. Most tenants are reacting based on their experience of the stereotypical "dodgy" small scale landlord.

It will only become the norm if tenants feel they are getting something in return. Namely deposit protection and security of tenure, which most landlords are opposed to, but things like this will probably hasten the introduction of.

dudara

^Agreed - it's give and take on both sides really, but overall hopefully the emergence of more professional landlord-tenant relationships

twill

amcalester wrote: »

Double deposits are merely a by-product of a more professional rental market.

Are you saying there were no calls for a more professional approach to renting?

We have to take the rough with the smooth.

This is not indicative of a more professional approach, it is indicative of an investor fund maximising its capital. It puts more pressure on renters and also the taxpayer, who will have to fund the deposits for rent allowance renters.

Looking at some places and between first months rent and two months deposit, you are looking at the his of 5-6 thousand upfront. That's a huge chunk of change and let's be honest here, many landlords will bend over backwards to find a reason not to return a deposit. You'd swear that landlords w doing gods work the way some people go on, they're not they're trying to squeeze every last penny out of what they have and landlords crying that the rent doesn't cover the mortgage, boo bloody hoo. If you bought a house and can't keep up pavements its not your tenants fault. If these deposits were going into a secure account not controlled by the landlord the maybe, at least them there would be protection for the tenant.

The_Conductor

Marco Obedient Springboard wrote: »

You would have to laugh at the people complaining about this, especially those saying "handing it over to a dodgy LL" when the LL introducing this is a large scale LL the very type the same people are crying out for. You couldn't make it up.

This is a very valid point.
The fact that its a large scale REIT with over 2,000 properties- means they are defining what the new 'norm' is.

Also- in rebuttal of the various comments on this thread- regarding unfair retention of deposits- Gizmo has kindly supplied us with the following:

gizmo81 wrote: »

In the last RTB report (2015)

0f the 319,600 registered tenancies, there were 4,023 dispute resolution services of which,

881 Disputes taken by tenants for Deposit Retention
608 disputes found either fully or partially in favour of the tenant.
273 found the deposit retention to be justified by the landlord

I.e. almost a third of tenant deposit retention disputes taken to the RTB- were found to be without justification.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I.e. in 2015 - 0.276% of tenancies featured a dispute for unfair retention of a deposit. Of these disputes - two thirds were wholly or partially upheld. One third were found to be "meritless or vexatious disputes".


Page 35 of the report- also details the number of civil court orders obtained in 2015.

953 civil actions were undertaken.

51% related to large rent arrears and/or non-payment of rent by tenants
23% related to unfair retention of deposits
21% related to longterm overholding / overholding with non-payment of rent
1.7% relate to unlawful termination of a tenancy
3.25% relate to 'other'

I.e. there is a small issue with the unfair retention of deposits- by a small number of landlords, in the country. There are over 3 times as many cases found in favour of landlords- featuring non-payment of rent, rent arrears or overholding by tenants.

The 2016 RTB report is due to be published in the coming weeks- and it will be interesting to see if the figures in it support the trend apparent in the 2015 report.

The big difference between the 2015 RTB and previous years reports- is the number of judgements made for unfair retention of deposits- fell from the no. 1 complaint to the Board- a position it held for several preceding years- firmly to the third most common complaint.

I.e. in 2015- for the first time- the number of complaints taken by landlords and found in favour by the board- for non-payment of rent, or overholding either featuring payment of rent, or non-payment of rent- vastly exceeded (by over 3 fold) the number of cases taken by tenant's for unfair retention of deposits. Of the cases taken by tenants for unfair retention of deposits- two thirds were found in favour by the board- and one third rejected.

I'm looking forward to the 2016 report- apparently, its due this week.

amcalester

twill wrote: »

This is not indicative of a more professional approach, it is indicative of an investor fund maximising its capital. It puts more pressure on renters and also the taxpayer, who will have to fund the deposits for rent allowance renters.

And reducing it's risk, albeit only marginally as even with 2 months deposit it won't cover the losses incurred by a non-paying or over holding tenant.

You're right about the second part, though in practice I doubt IRES will be renting to many HAP or Rent Allowance tenants at current prices. These tenants will be left to the "amateur" landlords with 1 or 2 properties.

The silver-lining here might be that the Government actually do something here to improve things for both tenants and landlords.

A deposit escrow system for tenants and a more streamlined eviction process for non-paying tenants would help.

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

51% related to large rent arrears and/or non-payment of rent by tenants 23% related to unfair retention of deposits 21% related to longterm overholding / overholding with non-payment of rent 1.7% relate to unlawful termination of a tenancy 3.25% relate to 'other'

With 72pc of those civil actions relating to non payment of rent, it's hardly any news that landlords are now asking for two months deposit.

The_Conductor

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

With 72pc of those civil actions relating to non payment of rent, it's hardly any news that landlords are now asking for two months deposit.

The report actually makes very interesting reading- and while its selectively quoted by Gizmo (and Threshold and a few other bodies)- its actually dangerous for them to quote it- in case someone actually takes a half hour out to actually read it.........

Confirmed by phone- 2016 report has already been presented to the Department and is due to be published this week.

twill

amcalester wrote: »

And reducing it's risk, albeit only marginally as even with 2 months deposit it won't cover the losses incurred by a non-paying or over holding tenant.

You're right about the second part, though in practice I doubt IRES will be renting to many HAP or Rent Allowance tenants at current prices. These tenants will be left to the "amateur" landlords with 1 or 2 properties.

No, but the point is that profileration of vulture funds in the market will drive up rents and influence renting practices negatively, which may well introduce double deposit across the board.

The silver-lining here might be that the Government actually do something here to improve things for both tenants and landlords.

A deposit escrow system for tenants and a more streamlined eviction process for non-paying tenants would help.

Not going to happen. The stringent controls on private landlords are a sop to renters, but there will be no corresponding rent or market controls.

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking at some places and between first months rent and two months deposit, you are looking at the his of 5-6 thousand upfront. That's a huge chunk of change and let's be honest here, many landlords will bend over backwards to find a reason not to return a deposit. You'd swear that landlords w doing gods work the way some people go on, they're not they're trying to squeeze every last penny out of what they have and landlords crying that the rent doesn't cover the mortgage, boo bloody hoo. If you bought a house and can't keep up pavements its not your tenants fault. If these deposits were going into a secure account not controlled by the landlord the maybe, at least them there would be protection for the tenant.

As in The Conductor's post, retention of the deposit is a non-issue really. Renters have more than sufficient protection there. How struggling families are expected to get the deposit together in the first place is another issue.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

Page 35 of the report- also details the number of civil court orders obtained in 2015.

953 civil actions were undertaken.

51% related to large rent arrears and/or non-payment of rent by tenants
23% related to unfair retention of deposits
21% related to longterm overholding / overholding with non-payment of rent
1.7% relate to unlawful termination of a tenancy
3.25% relate to 'other'

.

Civil Proceedings
The RTB’s legal advisors obtained 302 Circuit Court Orders in 2015. In the majority of the 302 cases, the RTB were awarded its costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

51% or 154 orders obtained for Rent Arrears or related

That is 0.04% of all registered tenancies in 2015 Report for rent arrears

Page 35 makes no mention to the amount of individual rent arrears i.e. large

The report doesn't use the words 'large' in monetary context or 'long-term' nor does 'unfair' appear in the report at all.

amcalester

twill wrote: »

No, but the point is that profileration of vulture funds in the market will drive up rents and influence renting practices negatively, which may well introduce double deposit across the board.

Possibly, but I don't see 2 months deposit as a requirement to be a negative (and I'm a renter not a landlord).

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Civil Proceedings
The RTB’s legal advisors obtained 302 Circuit Court Orders in 2015. In the majority of the 302 cases, the RTB were awarded its costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

51% or 154 orders obtained for Rent Arrears or related

That is 0.04% of all registered tenancies in 2015 Report for rent arrears

The RTB undertook 953 civil actions, securing 302 Circuit court orders in 2015. It must be noted, 442 of these actions relate to cases overhanging from 2014, and a further 86 from 2013 and previous years. In addition, criminal proceedings, under the 2004 Act, were removed as an option in the 2015 amendment to the Act. Of the convictions secured by the Board at circuit court in 2015, 75% related to cases taken by landlords (predominantly relating to non-payment of rent and or overholding) 24% relate to unfair deposit retention cases taken by tenants, and 1% relate to third party cases taken as cases to the RTB- by parties who are neither tenant nor landlord.

These are the cases- which were *not* complied with- on foot of RTB dispute determinations- i.e. cases were taken by either party, the board found in favour of one or the other party- and the party who lost the cases failed to comply with the determination order. I.e. this represents the cases that the RTB choose to send for civil proceedings- after they got ignored by the party they found against- it is not a reflection on the cases brought to the RTB- its a reflection of the people who lost cases- who decided to ignore the determination orders against them............

Of the

Lux23

She is completely right. I would have no problem handing over double deposits if it was held by a third party. Some landlords just see a deposit as another few quid to put in their pocket and as a tenant, you have no real way of knowing how trustworthy a landlord is until the last minute.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Civil Proceedings
The RTB’s legal advisors obtained 302 Circuit Court Orders in 2015. In the majority of the 302 cases, the RTB were awarded its costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/annual-reports/annual-report-and-accounts-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

51% or 154 orders obtained for Rent Arrears or related

That is 0.04% of all registered tenancies in 2015 Report for rent arrears

Page 35 makes no mention to the amount of individual rent arrears i.e. large

The report doesn't use the words 'large' in monetary context or 'long-term' nor does 'unfair' appear in the report at all.

+1
It doesn't use arbitrary terms or expressions which are open to interpretation.
It would be nice if it provided a few cold hard statistics- on the size of deposits unfairly held, the length of time people overheld, the amount of rent arrears etc- however, you can find these in individual circuit court judgements (which are publicly available) only they're not in a useful compendium.

I.e. Half of the circuit court cases that the RTB obtained judements in, related to non-payment of rent. One quarter of the cases related to overholding. One quarter related to unfair retention of deposits.

I'd love to know what the third party cases were/are- however, thats for another day.

Over 3/4 of cases are taken by landlords, of which non-payment of rent / rent-arrears, makes up over half the cases

1/4 of cases are taken by tenants- of which over 3/4 relate to unfair retention of deposits.


The big thing I'd note- is landlords appear to be using the RTB a whole lot more in 2015- than in previous years- and where they are- a whole of the cases were found in their favour.

Tenants- are taking a significant and rising number of cases- however, given the vast increase in the workload of the board- the absolute percentage of tenant cases- is actually falling. The biggest issue by far for tenants- is unfair retention of deposits- however, of the cases taken- over a third were not upheld (for whatever reason).

I think we really need to see the 2016 report- to see if these trends are upheld- as it does seem 2015 was a watershed year for the RTB.

grogi

And that's the property problem in a nutshell.

There is a huge asymmetry of risks between landlord and a tenant. Landlord is accountable for almost everything, but has very little leverage. PRTB is too slow to act. There is very little tax incentive as well.

To mitigate the risks the landlord must take bigger deposit or simply leave the business. That severely limits the market for an average tenant.

Carlos Orange

TheChizler wrote: »

She has a point though. It's only relatively recently since demand has gone so high that landlords have been able to make this requirement. The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

I'm sure government interference with the rental market and the limited availability of housing probably both impact on the cost of damages and unpaid rent. Even if you assume neither have changed over time that doesn't mean that the deposit has ever covered these costs.

Dr_Kolossus

Just to add to the points made by previous posters. The unfair retention by landlords probably reflects a few hundred EUR in most cases, while the non payment by tenants, often runs into the 10's of thousands.

So its a little unfair on landlords when using only absolute numbers of cases, when the value lost by landlords can be many, many multiples of the value individual tenants cases.

FYI, i'm a landlord of one property, with a great tenant paying approx 30% below MKT rate, and I've no intention in raising it, as the tenant is so good. But if I were to let again, it would be nice to have some additional security

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

I've rented for years and never yet failed to get the full deposit back at first time of asking tbh

Although I have the same experience as you it doesn't negate the facts that many landlords will try to hold on to the deposit.

Just in this forum alone there are many stories of deposits not repaid.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?subforums=1&forum=38&query=landlord+deposit

Of course each case is separate, but in my view asking for double deposits is a way for landlords to get a bigger lump-sum at the beginning of the tenancy, one that they may be reluctant to give back later.

Graham

biko wrote: »

in my view asking for double deposits is a way for landlords to get a bigger lump-sum at the beginning of the tenancy

That's kinda the whole point of a deposit.

Still a massive imbalance when you compare the risks for both parties.

Tenants maximum potential loss (until the RTB weigh in) = 2 months deposit.
Landlords maximum potential loss = 18 months rent + any damage to the property.

Marcusm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I agree with her. Until we have deposit protection and proper security of tenure, landlords should not be allowed to demand double deposits.

I'm not sure what's proper deposit protection. I recently returned from the UK and rented for my last two years there. When the lease was up the landlord and then agent had trouble getting the deposit released from the deposit protection scheme as it had been left in the name of any old agent who'd closed down and gone to Australia!

Technocentral

TheChizler wrote:

She has a point though. It's only relatively recently since demand has gone so high that landlords have been able to make this requirement. The cost of damages or unpaid rent hasn't changed. What's changed is demand.

They are like hotels in Galway during the races, the vast majority of LL's will gouge whatever they can as everyone knows.

Mod Note

Let's avoid the sweeping generalisations about landlords or tenants. They're not helpful and they're not accurate.

jimmycrackcorm

biko wrote:

Of course each case is separate, but in my view asking for double deposits is a way for landlords to get a bigger lump-sum at the beginning of the tenancy, one that they may be reluctant to give back later.

Tenants have a guaranteed chance to recover their deposit from the rtb. But landlords have next to none trying to enforce the same on a disappearing tenant.

If you compare to the situation in the UK then it's interesting to observe how much comes up on the show "can't pay, won't pay" for the extent of issues for non payment of rent. I don't think I've ever seen then show tenants going after withheld deposits.

Technocentral

amcalester wrote:

Double deposits are merely a by-product of a more professional rental market.

You define professional as gouging as much as possible, not professional, greed!

amcalester

Technocentral wrote: »

You define professional as gouging as much as possible, not professional, greed!

No I don't, and I'm not sure I see the relevance of your post.

As has been shown by previous poster less than 1% of tenancies in 2015 resulted in a dispute being opened at the RTB for retained deposits, so landlords are returning deposits to tenants.

If your point is that rents are too high, then I'd agree with you but it's not the job of landlords to provide reasonably priced accommodation. They simply charge the market rate.

If you want rents to fall then lobby your TD to increase the supply by encouraging more building.

the_syco

Landlord doesn't give deposit back. there's a process.
Tenant disappears, nothing the landlord can really do about it.