Impressive rental reply. What info would you send when replying to an ad?

LotharIngum

I have just returned from helping a colleague sift through enquiries she got about renting her apartment. Thankfully she followed my advice and specified email only.

But I was amazed at the amount of emails she got in 4 days. 360.


So she was inundated and wanted help organizing them.


About half of them that went straight to the deleted folder.

Things like "Hi, Text me back if the apartment is still available".
or "Hi, when can i view"

No information about the applicant whatsoever.

Others gave some information about themselves so they went to a folder to email back if a suitable tenant wasnt found from the impressive enquiries.

Straight to the top of the list was this one.

"Hi,
My name is _____ and my husbands name is ____.
We saw your advert and we thought it would suit us very well.

I am a <snip> and my husband is a <snip>.
We have no children, and no pets.

We have been renting for the last 5 years and our current landlord is selling up, so unfortunately we have to move.

We would be grateful if you contacted me at 087 xxxxx to arrange a viewing.

We have 2 months deposit and the first months rent ready and can move in immediatly. We do not require any assistance with the rent such as HAP.

I have attached work references for both of us plus a reference from our current landlord and our last landlord and you are welcome to call them to check them out.

We have never missed a rent payment ever and keep our current property to a very high standard. We understand that you want to be as hands off as possible and with that in mind, would probably only contact you during dire emergencies as we are quite handy and self sufficient.

I hope to hear from you soon."


That one went straight to the top of the list. There were others like that who were at the top too, but that one stuck out because all of the info was on it and all the contacts needed to check them out.

But up front they gave this information.

Names,
The fact that there is just the two of them. No children or pets.
References, work and previous landlords.
They stated that they knew the importance of not missing rent and being low maintenance.
They have the deposit and first months rent ready.
That they were currently renting for several years.
The reason they were leaving their current rental.
They stated they were not on HAP.
They attached all of their references and bank statements and payslips.

Basically they sounded like a dream couple, pending meeting them and checking out thier references which we read and they are very good.
They have practically got the property already and are being called back in the morning to invite for viewing. Now its just down to checking if they are indeed the very impressive people they say they are.

Compare that to all the other ones and its a clear winner, with other ones coming close.

So I was just wondering, what does everyone else do here when replying to an add. Some might think an email like that was overkill, but i thought it was great, as did my colleague.


Oh, and as an aside, of the replies who stated a reason that they were leaving their current rental, about 15 of them stated it was because their landlord was selling. That tells another story for another discussion though.

CiniO

It just confirms that good sales and marketing practices is a key in selling as well as in buying (or renting).

In short - you chose those people because they had best marketing practices.

You have no way of knowing if they'll be the best tenants. Very likely not.
But they know how to sell themselves as tenants, and that's why they got lucky.

It is actually very possible that person who just sent an email asking if place was still available would be much better tenant. But you'll never have a chance to find out.

beauf

15 out of 15 or 15 out of 1000.

Browney7

Settled then - if you want to do some identity theft, advertise on daft and people will immediately send payslips with PPS numbers and bank statements.

I wouldn't be sending them unsolicited in response to an ad but say that they can be provided on request but that's just me. All other information provided is very good though

hmw593

Browney7 wrote: »

Settled then - if you want to do some identity theft, advertise on daft and people will immediately send payslips with PPS numbers and bank statements.

I wouldn't be sending them unsolicited in response to an ad but say that they can be provided on request but that's just me. All other information provided is very good though

I don't think you can attach a file if replying to an advert on daft.ie

hmw593

but if you state in the advert to give some details about yourself but they ignore this and just ask 'can i view the house?' then I wont reply

or they respond on daft.ie asking something which is already clearly stated in advert eg how much is the deposit or are bills included or do you accept pets, I usually ignore these people too

CiniO wrote: »

It just confirms that good sales and marketing practices is a key in selling as well as in buying (or renting).

In short - you chose those people because they had best marketing practices.

You have no way of knowing if they'll be the best tenants. Very likely not.
But they know how to sell themselves as tenants, and that's why they got lucky.

It is actually very possible that person who just sent an email asking if place was still available would be much better tenant. But you'll never have a chance to find out.

Andycap8

They would be my dream applicant.

The Student

Short list based on your gut and the quality of the enquiry. If you can check them on Facebook I found it invaluable. I am only on phone at moment. Will give more detailed response when I get to PC.

tvjunki

Sounds too good to be true.
Ring references and make sure you mess up the address and ask a few questions. You will soon see if it is their friends. Ask for copy of prtb reg.
Ask for bank statements and you will see if they are actually paying rent.
Go on rtb and type in the address or the persons name and you will see if they have any cases against them.
Meet the potential tenant and ask.a few questions and sit back. Potential tenants will tell you everything even the information you don't want to know.

ted1

By showing them to you did she not breach GPDR?

johnnyskeleton

In a market where there are more lettings than tenants, the tenant has a choice of places and can view them at leisure. When there is a surefeit of tenants and not enough properties, lanlords can be choosy as to who they let to.

Obviously the points they put forward make them a great tenant such as being experienced renters with no issues. However, the fact that they say these things doesnt necessarily make it true, nor less true of other applicants.

IMO, it shows that they are at the end of the road in terms of trying to find a place but have to resort to giving all this info up front. Or they could be well versed scammers.

So my advice is make a call based on having seen them, and other applicants.

Fian

ted1 wrote: »

By showing them to you did she not breach GPDR?

GDPR does not prevent you from sharing your own personal data with someone.

what do you mean by "them"? Sharing the references provided by previous landlords is also not a GDPR breach. The references were provided in order to be given to prospective landlords.

GDPR does not operate as some kind of blanket to prevent communication, it is intended to prevent companies from abusing your data without your permission. It does so in a pretty heavy handed way, probably because heavy handed is necessary, but this is all fine.

stinkbomb

Yes, a dream applicant...no kids or pets or on HAP, I presume you filtered all those out and illegally discriminated against them? And now you're here to boast about it?

Claw Hammer

stinkbomb wrote: »

Yes, a dream applicant...no kids or pets or on HAP, I presume you filtered all those out and illegally discriminated against them? And now you're here to boast about it?

Who in their right mind would take HAP when hey don't have to?

Graces7

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who in their right mind would take HAP when hey don't have to?

Why not? And by the way it is illegal; to refuse a tenant on HAP and rightly so.

stinkbomb

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who in their right mind would take HAP when hey don't have to?

There is no good reason not to, and if you deny tenants on those grounds you are acting illegally as well as immorally and I hope you are reported to the RTB and anyone else possible.

STB.

Graces7 wrote: »

Why not? And by the way it is illegal; to refuse a tenant on HAP and rightly so.

Because the Council insist on property standards that they don't provide themselves.

If the HAP tenant stops paying the Council then the Council stop paying you.

And finally, private housing being used for Social Housing is simply not compatible.

There's 3 reasons for you. Illegal my backside. Proving it would be the issue.

Buy your own property and see how advisory you are.

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

Why not?

Because it's paid in arrears, and if the tenant doesn't pay their share, the LL only finds out when the money doesn't appear in their account. If there's a problem with the system (and all HAP people get affected), the LL won't be told.

Also, the house has to be upgraded, which I doubt they'll make back from the tenant, as the HAP rate is usually below market rate.

stinkbomb wrote: »

if you deny tenants on those grounds

Unfortunately the tenant before you got the place. Only a fool says its because of HAP (and there has been a few fools brought to court over this).

EdgeCase

Children are all of a sudden shunned from accomodation as an inconvenience much like you're also punished at work for daring to reproduce.

You'd wonder what kind of weird society we are building? One like Japan, full of old people who'll have to be looked after by robots ?!

Is it legal in Ireland to discriminate against a couple with kids?!

amcalester

Graces7 wrote: »

Why not? And by the way it is illegal; to refuse a tenant on HAP and rightly so.

Illegal to discriminate, not illegal to refuse. An important distinction.

Claw Hammer

stinkbomb wrote: »

There is no good reason not to, and if you deny tenants on those grounds you are acting illegally as well as immorally and I hope you are reported to the RTB and anyone else possible.

There are many good reasons not to. The tenant being on HAP will not have the means to pay for damages or any other losses. The rent is lower than market, paid in arrears and can be interrupted by tenants not paying as well as the council insisting on standards and only guaranteeing the deposit if there is damage. The RTB have no role in tenant selection and intending HAP tenants can whinge to the RTB all day long for all I care.

stinkbomb

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There are many good reasons not to. The tenant being on HAP will not have the means to pay for damages or any other losses. The rent is lower than market, paid in arrears and can be interrupted by tenants not paying as well as the council insisting on standards and only guaranteeing the deposit if there is damage. The RTB have no role in tenant selection and intending HAP tenants can whinge to the RTB all day long for all I care.

HAP tenants pay the same deposit as anyone else, and most are working, and as likely or not to pay for any damage as any other tenants.

The fact that so many landlords do not understand the scheme, how it works, or who uses it is pathetic, but its not an excuse for your illegal discrimination.

stinkbomb

the_syco wrote: »

Because it's paid in arrears, and if the tenant doesn't pay their share, the LL only finds out when the money doesn't appear in their account. If there's a problem with the system (and all HAP people get affected), the LL won't be told.

Also, the house has to be upgraded, which I doubt they'll make back from the tenant, as the HAP rate is usually below market rate.


Unfortunately the tenant before you got the place. Only a fool says its because of HAP (and there has been a few fools brought to court over this).

Well I wouldn't mention the HAP until you gave me an agreement in writing to rent to me, then I'd get you to court when you reneged once you discovered the hap.

AND the landlord only finds out rent hasn't been paid when its not paid from anyone else, same as HAP. Rent may technically be paid in arrears, but LL
s take a month upfront from the tenant, then the HAP comes next month from the council, so effectively it is in advance, same as any other tenants.

Funny how so many daft ll's have such strong opinions about somehting they don't understand.

Carlos Orange

stinkbomb wrote: »

There is no good reason not to, and if you deny tenants on those grounds you are acting illegally as well as immorally and I hope you are reported to the RTB and anyone else possible.

HAP tenants are legally entitled to higher housing standards than normal private tenants. The requirements enforced supposedly arbitrarily vary based on local authority and the person you deal with. That is reason alone to avoid it even if it didn't involve dealing with additional parties beyond just the tenant.

stinkbomb

No they aren't.

stinkbomb

its just an excuse LL's use because they won't provide basic habitable accommodation

10pennymixup

Graces7 wrote: »

Why not? And by the way it is illegal; to refuse a tenant on HAP and rightly so.

Since when has it been illegal to refuse a prospective tenant that wishes to pay their rent with HAP payments?

I thought it was just illegal to discriminate against prospective tenants solely because they were in receipt of some social welfare payment such as HAP. That their application must be considered like everyone else that applied.

Big difference.

They way you put it, means if a LL rejects a tenancy application from someone on HAP, then they are doing something illegal. That they must give it to the HAP applicant - no choice if they want to follow the law. Even if they have pets, no references, their income isn't enough to cover bills/ rent, over occupancy etc. etc.

A LL is quite within their rights to refuse an application from anyone, as long as they are not doing it solely on the grounds of the applicant wishing to pay rent with a social welfare payment.

EDIT: looks like someone made the point when I was typing, must learn to type quicker.

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

No they aren't.

Yes the standards are higher than the 2008/9 and 17 legislation for rental accommodation standards. And as someone said earlier, they differ from LA area to LA area.

It's amazing how you incorrect you are about the subject, and still "have such strong opinions about somehting (you) don't understand", and "The fact that (you) do not understand the scheme, how it works, or who uses it is pathetic".

Those are your words are in inverted commas.

Graces7

10pennymixup wrote: »

Since when has it been illegal to refuse a prospective tenant that wishes to pay their rent with HAP payments?

I thought it was just illegal to discriminate against prospective tenants solely because they were in receipt of some social welfare payment such as HAP. That their application must be considered like everyone else that applied.

Big difference.

They way you put it, means if a LL rejects a tenancy application from someone on HAP, then they are doing something illegal. That they must give it to the HAP applicant - no choice if they want to follow the law. Even if they have pets, no references, their income isn't enough to cover bills/ rent, over occupancy etc. etc.

A LL is quite within their rights to refuse an application from anyone, as long as they are not doing it solely on the grounds of the applicant wishing to pay rent with a social welfare payment.

EDIT: looks like someone made the point when I was typing, must learn to type quicker.

sigh...

Graces7

10pennymixup wrote: »

Since when has it been illegal to refuse a prospective tenant that wishes to pay their rent with HAP payments?

I thought it was just illegal to discriminate against prospective tenants solely because they were in receipt of some social welfare payment such as HAP. That their application must be considered like everyone else that applied.

Big difference.

They way you put it, means if a LL rejects a tenancy application from someone on HAP, then they are doing something illegal. That they must give it to the HAP applicant - no choice if they want to follow the law. Even if they have pets, no references, their income isn't enough to cover bills/ rent, over occupancy etc. etc.

A LL is quite within their rights to refuse an application from anyone, as long as they are not doing it solely on the grounds of the applicant wishing to pay rent with a social welfare payment.

EDIT: looks like someone made the point when I was typing, must learn to type quicker.

That is not what it means as you well know. And I have been discriminated against quite openly simply due to HAP.

Graces7

psinno wrote: »

HAP tenants are legally entitled to higher housing standards than normal private tenants. The requirements enforced supposedly arbitrarily vary based on local authority and the person you deal with. That is reason alone to avoid it even if it didn't involve dealing with additional parties beyond just the tenant.

Please provide the official source of this (false) info. Maybe the RTB site?

power pants

Graces7 wrote: »

That is not what it means as you well know. And I have been discriminated against quite openly simply due to HAP.

Did you put in a complaint? did you win?

Maybe the landlord just didnt think you were suitable for his property.

ted1

Fian wrote: »

GDPR does not prevent you from sharing your own personal data with someone.

what do you mean by "them"? Sharing the references provided by previous landlords is also not a GDPR breach. The references were provided in order to be given to prospective landlords.

GDPR does not operate as some kind of blanket to prevent communication, it is intended to prevent companies from abusing your data without your permission. It does so in a pretty heavy handed way, probably because heavy handed is necessary, but this is all fine.

The potential tenant shared it with their potential landlord whinthen showed it to the OP.

Claw Hammer

stinkbomb wrote: »

HAP tenants pay the same deposit as anyone else, and most are working, and as likely or not to pay for any damage as any other tenants.

The fact that so many landlords do not understand the scheme, how it works, or who uses it is pathetic, but its not an excuse for your illegal discrimination.

You have not denied the rent is lower than market. How can someone on HAP afferd to pay damages of 5k say? I know a landlord who had 23k worth of damage caused by a HAP tenant. Think the tenant paid?

amcalester

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You have not denied the rent is lower than market. How can someone on HAP afferd to pay damages of 5k say? I know a landlord who had 23k worth of damage caused by a HAP tenant. Think the tenant paid?

HAP rent isnt lower than market rent, the amount the council pays is limited but the tenant tops up the balance.

pc7

They seem very good on paper, ring the job references (google number don't go by what they provided). Search for their social media profiles to see if party central. Search names and landlords name on rtb.ie for disputes. (https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/search-results/listing/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaC1yZXN1bHRzXC9saXN0aW5nIiwia2V5d29yZHMiOiJhb2lmZSBsdXN0ZWQiLCJjb2xsZWN0aW9uIjoiYWRqdWRpY2F0aW9uX29yZGVyc3x0cmlidW5hbF9vcmRlcnMifQ)
Meet them, use your gut, property is an expensive asset, you need to avoid overholding or damage at all cost.

10pennymixup

Graces7 wrote: »

sigh...

Tired?

Graces7 wrote: »

That is not what it means as you well know. And I have been discriminated against quite openly simply due to HAP.

Apologies to anyone that sees this as coming across semantic but Graces7 you were posting misinformation. Simples.

You stated that it was "illegal to refuse" it's not, it's illegal to discriminate. You don't/ didn't know what the legislation means, not me. Either that or you meant something vastly different to that which you typed. Whichever, it's still misinformation, end of I'm not going to hark on anymore about it.

I don't want to sound harsh but in reality I can't care about your belief that you were discriminated against because of HAP. It is very possible you didn't get the place/ places for many other reasons. One obvious reason being there was a better (for whatever reason) applicant. The applicant that ended up in the property.

And I am not trying to turn this into a anti RA/RAS/HAP/FIS or whatever type thread (so I'll not post again about SW rent payments on this thread ). FWIW I don't have a problem with receiving SW rent payments. And if anyone reading this thinks this a tongue in cheek statement, genuinely I don't have a problem with any type of payment for rent in advance.

power pants

10pennymixup wrote: »

Tired?



Apologies to anyone that sees this as coming across semantic but Graces7 you were posting misinformation. Simples.

You stated that it was "illegal to refuse" it's not, it's illegal to discriminate. You don't/ didn't know what the legislation means, not me. Either that or you meant something vastly different to that which you typed. Whichever, it's still misinformation, end of I'm not going to hark on anymore about it.

I don't want to sound harsh but in reality I can't care about your belief that you were discriminated against because of HAP. It is very possible you didn't get the place/ places for many other reasons. One obvious reason being there was a better (for whatever reason) applicant. The applicant that ended up in the property.

And I am not trying to turn this into a anti RA/RAS/HAP/FIS or whatever type thread (so I'll not post again about SW rent payments on this thread ). FWIW I don't have a problem with receiving SW rent payments. And if anyone reading this thinks this a tongue in cheek statement, genuinely I don't have a problem with any type of payment for rent in advance.

Couldn't agree more!

stinkbomb

10pennymixup wrote: »

Since when has it been illegal to refuse a prospective tenant that wishes to pay their rent with HAP payments?

I thought it was just illegal to discriminate against prospective tenants solely because they were in receipt of some social welfare payment such as HAP. That their application must be considered like everyone else that applied.

Big difference.

They way you put it, means if a LL rejects a tenancy application from someone on HAP, then they are doing something illegal. That they must give it to the HAP applicant - no choice if they want to follow the law. Even if they have pets, no references, their income isn't enough to cover bills/ rent, over occupancy etc. etc.

A LL is quite within their rights to refuse an application from anyone, as long as they are not doing it solely on the grounds of the applicant wishing to pay rent with a social welfare payment.

EDIT: looks like someone made the point when I was typing, must learn to type quicker.

The point being, obviously, is that ll's ARE refusing prospective tenants purely on the basis of being on HAP, and are admitting to it all over this forum.

stinkbomb

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You have not denied the rent is lower than market. How can someone on HAP afferd to pay damages of 5k say? I know a landlord who had 23k worth of damage caused by a HAP tenant. Think the tenant paid?

You think they would have paid if they weren't on HAP? Of course not. There are bad tenants and good tenants, being on HAP has nothing to do with which you are.

Claw Hammer

stinkbomb wrote: »

You think they would have paid if they weren't on HAP? Of course not. There are bad tenants and good tenants, being on HAP has nothing to do with which you are.

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

JDD

Okay I see the reasoning why you can't renege on a contract offered to someone who only tells you afterwards that they are on HAP. But if you were down to two candidates, one on HAP, one not, you're always going to pick the one who isn't on HAP because they'll have a higher income, right?

So if you asked all your prospective tenants for proof of income, and a certain amount of them are under a threshold (decided by you), you'd just discount them because there is a higher risk they won't meet a months rent, or won't be able to compensate you for damage. You're not discriminating against them because a portion of their rent payment comes from HAP, you're discriminating against them because they're poorer than other candidates. Which is perfectly legal.

Twenty Grand

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

Not worth the hassle when there's plenty looking who don't need assistance.

Claw Hammer

JDD wrote: »

Okay I see the reasoning why you can't renege on a contract offered to someone who only tells you afterwards that they are on HAP. But if you were down to two candidates, one on HAP, one not, you're always going to pick the one who isn't on HAP because they'll have a higher income, right?

So if you asked all your prospective tenants for proof of income, and a certain amount of them are under a threshold (decided by you), you'd just discount them because there is a higher risk they won't meet a months rent, or won't be able to compensate you for damage. You're not discriminating against them because a portion of their rent payment comes from HAP, you're discriminating against them because they're poorer than other candidates. Which is perfectly legal.

That is indirect discrimination which may well be illegal. If you have 2 candidates, pick the one you want, don't explain. If challenged later, say it was because the referees of the one chose were more positive.

beauf

10pennymixup wrote: »

...genuinely I don't have a problem with any type of payment for rent in advance.

I never understood the reason for the rent in arrears.

That's basically a free loan of one months rent and no deposit.

LotharIngum

CiniO wrote: »

It is actually very possible that person who just sent an email asking if place was still available would be much better tenant. But you'll never have a chance to find out.

Good point.
She needed to sort the list into the people she wanted to show to, so she put 10 into the list who she will show it to and then check their refs etc.

Then the next bunch of viewers will be the people who told her a bit about themselves but who she has to contact to get more info.
I don't think she'll even get to those tbh after seeing the first group, if even one of them is as good as their application says.

And then she would have to strike out on about 30 people to get to the rest.
The order was self selecting really.

angela1711

It’s hard to believe that nowadays you need to promote yourself as if you were applying for a job in Google just to get an extremely overpriced apartment in Dublin.
Also, if you want to rent your property you should have it up to a certain standard.
The requirements for HAP aren’t anything out of this world- Clean walls, fire blanket, smoke alarm, no mold, working central heating etc. If the apartment you intent to rent is in bits you shouldn’t be allowed to rent it at all regardless if the prospective tenants are on HAP or not.

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

The point being, obviously, is that ll's ARE refusing prospective tenants purely on the basis of being on HAP, and are admitting to it all over this forum.

All I was doing pointing out the difference in discriminate and refuse.

I am sure there are some LL's doing as you say either in ignorance of the law or full knowledge of it, there has to be. It stands to logic. There are bad apples in all walks of life.

But when you say "LL's ARE refusing" do you mean all LL's or just some? It's just that I don't believe it's any more a few.

10pennymixup

beauf wrote: »

I never understood the reason for the rent in arrears.

That's basically a free loan of ones months rent and no deposit.

Agree. It makes a mockery of the renting business format.

stinkbomb

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

So you would illegally discriminate, you openly admit it? You are the worst cowboy LL.

You've got it all wrong and you know nothing about it.

stinkbomb

beauf wrote: »

I never understood the reason for the rent in arrears.

That's basically a free loan of one months rent and no deposit.

The tenant has to pay the first month upfront, AND THE DEPOSIT, same as anyone else. You are WRONG.
The council pays in arrears but the tenant has to make it so it is as if it is in advance. So actually less risk to the Landlord rather than more.