Countdown to Deposit Ammendment in RTA

gizmo81

The goss is deposits included in legislation by the end of the year.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/requests-for-non-refundable-holding-deposits-on-rise-1.3185296

Gatling

So non refundable holding deposit likely on top of a double the normal deposits ,
It would be strange if it wasn't true ,I know of two estate agents who take non refundable holding deposits ,but don't guarantee tenants get the property

awec

It's a pretty shady practice in fairness and is little different to openly advertising for bribes.

Michael D Not Higgins

I've heard of non-refundable holding deposits before but it's usually in the case of removing the property from the market and wouldn't be collected from multiple parties. My current rental in the UK, I had to pay £200 as a holding deposit then after the lease was signed I paid the security deposit minus the £200 holding deposit. That would be the normal way it should work.

This reported practice sounds well dodgy and I'd love to know if there's any legal comeback for the shafted tenants.

awec

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I've heard of non-refundable holding deposits before but it's usually in the case of removing the property from the market and wouldn't be collected from multiple parties. My current rental in the UK, I had to pay £200 as a holding deposit then after the lease was signed I paid the security deposit minus the £200 holding deposit. That would be the normal way it should work.

This reported practice sounds well dodgy and I'd love to know if there's any legal comeback for the shafted tenants.

Hopefully some angle can be found and any landlord or letting agency found to be doing this is taken to the cleaners.

This is the sort of underhand **** that gives landlords a bad name.

Gatling

awec wrote: »

Hopefully some angle can be found and any landlord or letting agency found to be doing this is taken to the cleaners.

This is the sort of underhand **** that gives landlords a bad name.

It's usually asked for in cash so you have no paper trail and then it's the landlords word Vs tenant who might or might not have gotten a property

Fol20

Many landlords are leaving the market as the government are interfering so much. I do agree it is shady however if the government didn't interfere, they wouldn't have had to do it.

awec

Fol20 wrote: »

Many landlords are leaving the market as the government are interfering so much. I do agree it is shady however if the government didn't interfere, they wouldn't have had to do it.

Oh please. This is pure underhandedness that is possible purely because of the huge over-demand for property, it has absolutely nothing to do with government interference.

Michael D Not Higgins

awec wrote: »

Oh please. This is pure underhandedness that is possible purely because of the huge over-demand for property, it has absolutely nothing to do with government interference.

I'll usually defend landlords raising the rent during this housing shortage because it's a mess of the government's making, but I agree that this is totally just fleecing the punters, particularly foreigners with little recourse as identified in the article.

I doubt it is anywhere near commonplace but reporting of the issue will likely force the hand of the government to introduce legislation around deposits as gizmo has suggested.

LuckyLloyd

Fol20 wrote: »

Many landlords are leaving the market as the government are interfering so much. I do agree it is shady however if the government didn't interfere, they wouldn't have had to do it.

Nonsense. This is pure scumbag behaviour - all of the examples are picking on foreigners and young people. They wouldn't try that nonsense on older professional Irish people because they'd tell them to shove it and their property up their hole. And they'd be right.

Every example like this deepens the likelihood of further regulation. And the increasing advice to 'go AirBnB' increases the likelihood of a significant piece of legislation to limit short term letting in RPZs. And Landlords will only have themselves to blame.

DubCount

I can understand a non-refundable deposit to take a property off the market. I might not like it, but there is at least some rationale as the parties are intending to contract and it can be seen as being part of the overall lease agreement.

Taking money off prospective tenants is not part of any contract. The landlord is not providing any consideration for the money. How is this not just theft? I cant believe there needs to be new laws to stop this - surely we have laws against theft already !!

Fol20

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Nonsense. This is pure scumbag behaviour - all of the examples are picking on foreigners and young people. They wouldn't try that nonsense on older professional Irish people because they'd tell them to shove it and their property up their hole. And they'd be right.

Every example like this deepens the likelihood of further regulation. And the increasing advice to 'go AirBnB' increases the likelihood of a significant piece of legislation to limit short term letting in RPZs. And Landlords will only have themselves to blame.

As i already said, i think this is dodgy and wouldnt do it myself. However when the government interfere like what they have done with rent control, i could see some people trying to do this. This industry already has so much legislation as it is why bring in more. Why do ll only have themsleves to blame, in any other industry the market decides price, why does the government have to come in every few years and change the goal post. I would understand if there was a monopoly however it is mainly small time ll that run it and are just trying to make a bit of cash or a pension investment. It should be the ll's right to let do whatever he wants with his asset be in short term lets or long term lets.

LuckyLloyd

Well no, it shouldn't because the needs of our society and economy are intertwined with residential property. Our constitution has a provision around that. If the market and standard practices become harmful or likely to prevent a large portion of society being happy and productive our parliament has a duty to step in. That may mean property is not a slam dunk investment or wealth instrument. So be it - property should primarily be a home.

dennyk

DubCount wrote: »

I can understand a non-refundable deposit to take a property off the market. I might not like it, but there is at least some rationale as the parties are intending to contract and it can be seen as being part of the overall lease agreement.

I'd still call it shady even then; it'd be reasonable enough if it's non-refundable in the event that the tenant doesn't go through with the lease or breaks their fixed-term lease early, I'd say (since the landlord is then out potential rent money and relisting fees, etc.), but if the tenant completes their lease, pays rent as agreed, and doesn't cause damage to the place, it ought to be refunded at the end of the tenancy like any deposit.

In the US you often have to pay a non-refundable application fee when applying for an apartment lease, but that's usually just $25-$30 or so, to cover the cost of a credit and background check. A nonrefundable €300 "deposit" that doesn't even guarantee you a lease is just outright theft, no other word for it.

the_syco

Sounds like another scam that preys on the foreigners before they come to Ireland, to let apartments that don't exist.

gizmo81

Rents have doubled and trebled since 2015. €€€€€

Every landlord in the country has been guaranteed a rent increase every year something that was rare before this. €€€€

Protections means longer leases meaning less empty time between leases. €€€€€€

Every landlord has the opportunity to 'substantially refurbish' their property to get an exemption above 4% increase. €€€€€

What has happened?:

Standards have dramatically fallen

In 2016, Dublin City Council’s environmental health unit inspected 1,751 private-rented units, and found that 1,388 didn’t meet the minimum standards in place at the time.

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/08/15/with-refurbishments-come-evictions-and-rent-rises-for-tenants/

http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimedesk/landlord-trying-to-rent-out-log-cabins-for-700

Landlords are trying to circumvent the legislation through

Scamming tenants with non-refundable deposit

Removing services previously associated with a tenancy, parking, furniture

Cleaning fees

Maintenance

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/the-state-of-places-some-landlords-try-to-rent-they-dont-even-bother-to-clean-them-35433260.html


All preempted in 2016

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/landlords-will-attempt-to-dodge-new-rules-to-cap-rent-increases-35295999.html


http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/if-landlords-cant-profit-from-dublin-rents-theyre-in-the-wrong-business-tenants-association-768985.html

Regulation is the only way as landlords cannot seem to operate in a professional manner.

And also a little injection of reality, that two bed apartment is not Windsor Castle.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056170773&page=586

Graham

Or an alternative point of view.

Property prices have increased so investors have to pay significantly more for an investment property.
Landlords can no longer charge market rate.
Landlord have been forced to accept new terms for existing rentals with no say in the matter.
DCC have started to do more inspections than usual.
It can still take up to 18months to remove a non-paying tenant. Costing the landlord up-to 1800%+ of the deposits.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

Or an alternative point of view.

1>Property prices have increased so investors have to pay significantly more for an investment property.
2>Landlords can no longer charge market rate.
3>Landlord have been forced to accept new terms for existing rentals with no say in the matter.
4>DCC have started to do more inspections than usual.
5>It can still take up to 18months to remove a non-paying tenant. Costing the landlord up-to 1800%+ of the deposits.

1. If it wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it. (I guarantee RTB registrations up in 2016 reports)
2. There's a crisis there's not a market. There's exploitation.
3. Landlords have not been able to act professionally so they don't get a say.
4. DCC should be doing more. A property should be inspected before it enters the rental market. (Do you want to clarify or revise your comment as it's very concerning)
5. If you don't want risks don't go into business.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

1. If it wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it. (I guarantee RTB registrations up in 2016 reports)
2. There's a crisis there's not a market. There's exploitation.
3. Landlords have not been able to act professionally so they don't get a say.
4. DCC should be doing more. A property should be inspected before it enters the rental market. (Do you want to clarify or revise your comment as it's very concerning)
5. If you don't want risks don't go into business.

1. if (and it's a big if) it's profitable for new investors it's because the market rents have increased in line with property prices. Anyone who thinks rent caps are going to increase supply is quite frankly deluded.
2. I assume you were out supporting the landlords during the meltdown when rents fell through the floor? You appear to think tenants are the only ones effected by the supply limits and increasing property prices. If you stop and joint the dots for a minute you might realise there's 2 sides to spiralling rents.
3. Waffle based on the frankly rather weak premise that all landlords are evil.
4. I've no idea what's getting you in a tizzy about this. DCC are doing more inspections so naturally the numbers go up. How many of those breaches of minimum standards are for very minor items that were quickly rectified?
5. Bit of a pointless statement to be honest. Of course there's risk in any business, most investors price this risk in. Increasing risk = increasing margins to mitigate the risks.

VonBeanie

gizmo81 wrote: »

1. If it wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it. (I guarantee RTB registrations up in 2016 reports)
2. There's a crisis there's not a market. There's exploitation.
3. Landlords have not been able to act professionally so they don't get a say.
4. DCC should be doing more. A property should be inspected before it enters the rental market. (Do you want to clarify or revise your comment as it's very concerning)
5. If you don't want risks don't go into business.

LOL

1. If its easy to make money as a LL, why not do it yourself? Run the numbers and see how you get on - you might surprise yourself !!
2. That's not exploitation, that's economics. If prices increase, its because there is more demand than supply. The government should be building social housing in stead of trying to come up with regulation after regulation which only leads to loophole after loophole.
3. You can ignore landlord concerns if you want. But don't complain when more of them leave, supply decreases, and prices go up even more.
4. DCC should be doing more of this. If we had more housing supply, we would have LLs competing for tenants and inferior property would be left vacant.
5. You only take a risk in business for a reward. Its a lack of risk v reward that is driving down supply.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

1. if (and it's a big if) it's profitable for new investors it's because the market rents have increased in line with property prices. Anyone who thinks rent caps are going to increase supply is quite frankly deluded.
2. I assume you were out supporting the landlords during the meltdown when rents fell through the floor? You appear to think tenants are the only ones effected by the supply limits and increasing property prices. If you stop and joint the dots for a minute you might realise there's 2 sides to spiralling rents.
3. Waffle based on the frankly rather weak premise that all landlords are evil.
4. I've no idea what's getting you in a tizzy about this. DCC are doing more inspections so naturally the numbers go up. How many of those breaches of minimum standards are for very minor items that were quickly rectified?
5. Bit of a pointless statement to be honest. Of course there's risk in any business, most investors price this risk in. Increasing risk = increasing margins to mitigate the risks.

1. Registrations will increase this year. I know you don't like facts and figures but that's just truth.
2. My rent over the decade of before during the crash went from 1500 to 1300 and up to 1950 in 2015. I don't think any landlord needed a vigil. I know no one whose rent halved.
3. No different to your all landlords are victims.
4.The fact you think property inspections are a problem, why would anyone not want better standards?
5. Well stop moaning about the risks then. Everyday you're moaning about the risks landlords face, you're close to launching a Trocaire appeal.

gizmo81

VonBeanie wrote: »

LOL

1. If its easy to make money as a LL, why not do it yourself? Run the numbers and see how you get on - you might surprise yourself !!
2. That's not exploitation, that's economics. If prices increase, its because there is more demand than supply. The government should be building social housing in stead of trying to come up with regulation after regulation which only leads to loophole after loophole.
3. You can ignore landlord concerns if you want. But don't complain when more of them leave, supply decreases, and prices go up even more.
4. DCC should be doing more of this. If we had more housing supply, we would have LLs competing for tenants and inferior property would be left vacant.
5. You only take a risk in business for a reward. Its a lack of risk v reward that is driving down supply.

1. Because I chose not to like some landlords should.
2. This has nothing to do with social housing
3. Registrations are up and will continue to rise in the 2016 RTB report.
4. Private landlords do not have an entitlement to discriminate, let's call a spade a spade.
5. €1500 for a shed is pretty rewarding, see Funny houses to rent thread linked earlier.

And finally tenants are not scape goats for landlords bad investments.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

1. Registrations will increase this year. I know you don't like facts and figures but that's just truth.

It's quite impressive that you're able to predict what 'will' happen while also claiming it's a fact.

gizmo81

Like morning follows night, registrations increase and landlords make money.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

Like morning follows night, registrations increase and landlords make money.

Awesome, increased supply and investors seeing a return should sort the rental market in no time then. Good old supply and demand.

gizmo81

An increased supply of slums won't fix nothing.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

An increased supply of slums won't fix nothing.

Ok now you're just being plain silly so I'll bow out before you try and convince me every one of the new RTB registrations you're predicting is a slum. :rolleyes:

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

]

79% of a random sample of private rented units inspected by DCC in 2016 did not meet minimum standards.

79%

Minimum Standards

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=11538

As I stated earlier as morning follows night these stats are on trend as in the years 2012-2016
78% of private rented units inspected by DCC were non-compliant.

Fol20

gizmo81 wrote: »

1. If it wasn't profitable they wouldn't be doing it. (I guarantee RTB registrations up in 2016 reports)
2. There's a crisis there's not a market. There's exploitation.
3. Landlords have not been able to act professionally so they don't get a say.
4. DCC should be doing more. A property should be inspected before it enters the rental market. (Do you want to clarify or revise your comment as it's very concerning)
5. If you don't want risks don't go into business.

Speaking from experience in both buying and letting both now and back when prices were at their rock bottom. The investment yield was actually better when prices were at their lowest. Even though rental prices have gone up a good bit over the past few years. The cost of buying as gone up substantially more and is less attractive to investors. My yields have gone from being as high as 10-15pc when rents were low and property prices were low to only about 6-8pc now.

Please tell me where ll don't act professionally. Please back it up with facts as there are bad ll and tenants out there and all people talk about is the 1pc of both parties involved.

The more legislation involved the more costly it will be to enter the market. Based on what your saying you could compare it to how people are taxed. Everyone should be audited. While now they cherry pick a few every year and that keeps most(not all) in line.

It's very easy to say if you don't want risk. Don't go into business. Well a lot of people are in fact getting out of it for this very reason. It should be treated like every other business. You can't exactly walk out of a shop without paying for your bottle of milk so why should you be able to get away living rent free and not pay the consequences. If everyone thought like that, no one would be able to rent.

VonBeanie

gizmo81 wrote: »

1. Because I chose not to like some landlords should.
2. This has nothing to do with social housing
3. Registrations are up and will continue to rise in the 2016 RTB report.
4. Private landlords do not have an entitlement to discriminate, let's call a spade a spade.
5. €1500 for a shed is pretty rewarding, see Funny houses to rent thread linked earlier.

And finally tenants are not scape goats for landlords bad investments.

1. You choose not to make easy money - that is an unusual stance. If you ever change your mind, I think you'll find it more difficult to make a profit than you might expect.
2. This has everything to do with social housing - just ask someone on HAP trying to get somewhere to rent in Dublin at the moment. Social Housing, Students and Professionals are all chasing the same private rental stock. Take out social housing demand, and it would free up a lot of property in the private rented sector.
3. I'm not sure how you have advance access to the 2016 RTB Report. To be honest, whether the number of registered landlords increases or not will make little difference to the current problems. If you have 200 tenants chasing 100 new rentals in 2015 and 300 tenants chasing 120 new rentals in 2016, is not a sign of a market that is attracting enough landlords. If we had enough new LLs coming into the market, we wouldn't have rent inflation.
4. Private LLs do not have a right to discriminate - I fully agree. Not sure of the relevance, but I do agree.
5. By all means ban portacabins and garages and sheds etc. being put up for rent. That doesn't change the balance between risk and return for LLs renting regular houses and apartments.

Tenants are not scapegoats for poor landlord investments. Equally, landlords should not be scapegoats for poor government policy. I know you wont agree with me, but the only government actions which will make any real difference to tenants are government actions that build more houses where people want to live.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

79% of a random sample of private rented units inspected by DCC in 2016 did not meet minimum standards.

79%

Minimum Standards

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=11538

As I stated earlier as morning follows night these stats are on trend as in the years 2012-2016
78% of private rented units inspected by DCC were non-compliant.

Ah here, that report focuses on pre 63 properties, not exactly a fair cross section of the rented market.

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Ah here, that report focuses on pre 63 properties, not exactly a fair cross section of the rented market.

+1

“motivated reasoning” — seeking out only the information that supports what you already believe

Cookie_Monster

gizmo81 wrote: »

79% of a random sample of private rented units inspected by DCC in 2016 did not meet minimum standards.

79%

Minimum Standards

nothing to do with the fact the minimum standards are, in parts, ludicrous perhaps?

Eg having to provide:

Fridge and freezer, or a fridge-freezer
Microwave oven
A washing machine
A clothes-dryer if the dwelling does not have a private garden or yard

Those, in the least, are completely unnecessary and should be the tenants problem to supply themselves. A unique peculiarity to the Irish rental market

A fixed heating appliance in each room, which is capable of providing effective heating and which the tenant can control
There is a permanently fixed heater in each bathroom/shower room and these heaters are properly ventilated and maintained

Again excessive, every single room does not need its own heater

So straight away

26% contained requirements under Article 7 in relation to heating facilities
22% contained requirements under Article 8 in relation to food preparation & storage & laundry

become questionable

Trying to compare a dwelling failing for structural or fire safety issues to one not having a microwave is hardly fair or reasonable.

gizmo81

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Ah here, that report focuses on pre 63 properties, not exactly a fair cross section of the rented market.

Graham wrote: »

+1

“motivated reasoning” — seeking out only the information that supports what you already believe

Surprise surprise these two fellas on to rubbish actual reports, facts and figures.

"Pre 63 Committee doesn't count as fairies live in those properties"
"The RTB 2015 report doesn't count as it was written by the devil"

Where's the other fella for the hat trick?

gizmo81

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

nothing to do with the fact the minimum standards are, in parts, ludicrous perhaps?

Eg having to provide:



Those, in the least, are completely unnecessary and should be the tenants problem to supply themselves. A unique peculiarity to the Irish rental market


Again excessive, every single room does not need its own heater

So straight away
become questionable

Trying to compare a dwelling failing for structural or fire safety issues to one not having a microwave is hardly fair or reasonable.

Proves my point times 100.

Failing is failing, the list of requirements is so basic that choosing to ignore it shows contempt for the customer and the law.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

The goss is deposits included in legislation by the end of the year.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/requests-for-non-refundable-holding-deposits-on-rise-1.3185296

I haven't been living under a stone- but this is a practice I've never come across before- and the Irish Times Article, is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time its ever been mentioned in this forum.

I fully accept that Threshold are pushing an agenda- however, just how prevalent are these 'holding deposits'- is it something that someone who is renting in the Irish market is likely to actually encounter- and is it widespread- or is it a small subset of assholes who are pulling stunts like this?

The whole concept of a non-refundable deposit is wholly untenable- and needs to be hit on the head before it becomes an issue (I'm not clear that it is anything other than a rare occurrence at present- the lack of any discourse on it up to this IT article- would suggest its a very recent phenomena).

Practices such as this- are unacceptable- and need to stomped on hard.

I'm not sure how widespread this practice is- but its obvious where it comes from- the 'welcome money' we all have to pay to do business in the retail sector- where it is equally unwelcome- and I'd argue a hell of a lot more prevalent.

I'm not clear that there is a specific amendment to the RTA needed to address this issue- as I suspect its extremely minor in nature- however, it shouldn't be happening, period.

A more comprehensive approach- making 'welcome money' illegal- across the board- and not just in the residential sector- is necessary.

Cookie_Monster

gizmo81 wrote: »

Proves my point times 100.

how so, exactly? How is having a heater in every room a realistic and sensible requirement? Both the house I built 3 years ago and the current one I'm building would not be rent-able in Ireland despite being massively above standard in every other way because of stupid rules like that.