nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Threshold: Landlords charging 2 month's rent deposit 'where they can't increase rent'

Graham

It's being reported by the Indo that the CEO of Threshold thinks increasing deposits are a direct result of landlords trying to boost their income in RPZs.

I don't know why it surprises me that the CEO of a national housing charity can't see a connection between increasing deposits and weakening landlords rights.

While I've no doubt there are a small minority of landlords that illegitimately attempt to hold on to tenants deposits, RTB cases certainly don't suggest it's suddenly reached epidemic proportions.

Maybe if certain national housing charities stopped advising tenants to overhold, landlords would feel less of a need to increase their security slightly by raising deposits.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Yourself isit

beauf wrote: »

The reality is there is a shortage of rental properties. Shortage of LL's. Making it uneconomical to be a LL isn't gong to fix anything. it will just make the shortage worse. LL should have stronger protection, to match the protection tenants have.

It's only uneconomical (if it is) to be a small time landlord. Which we need to move away from.

wordofwarning

gizmo81 wrote: »

Give a ring to IHRC because they are confident it is covered. All people, regardless of circumstances, must have the same access to services. If a rent is affordable to you but a condition of a lease e.g. deposit excludes you then you have a case.

Why stop at 2 months deposit? Are you saying that if I can afford the rent, but no deposit that I should scream discrimination and bring a case against a landlord?

Should I be able to go to a bank and buy a house with nothing down, but I can afford the repayment. If they question it, call it discrimination? If I don't have an entire downpayment for a PCP agree but can afford it. Is that discrimination too?

Companies, individuals and credit institutions are allowed to put checks on the credit worthiness of customers. A simple deposit is one of them.

gizmo81

wordofwarning wrote: »

Why stop at 2 months deposit? Are you saying that if I can afford the rent, but no deposit that I should scream discrimination and bring a case against a landlord?

Should I be able to go to a bank and buy a house with nothing down, but I can afford the repayment. If they question it, call it discrimination? If I don't have an entire downpayment for a PCP agree but can afford it. Is that discrimination too?

Companies, individuals and credit institutions are allowed to put checks on the credit worthiness of customers. A simple deposit is one of them.

Three months isn't simple.

Why be a landlord? If it was as bleak as posters here make out then sell. Don't punish tenants for bad decisions resulting in negative equity. Landlords aren't the saviours of the rental crisis they are the cause.

I love Sean nos

wordofwarning wrote: »

Should I be able to go to a bank and buy a house with nothing down, but I can afford the repayment.

Meh. You should be able to go to the local council and get a 5 bed house in Foxrock with a pool. If you don't, then that's discrimination obviously.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Majority of people struggle from week to week. This post seems completely deluded.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/one-in-four-parents-will-see-child-go-short-over-back-to-school-costs-1.3165648

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-life-is-unsustainable-meet-the-professionals-who-left-for-the-midwest-to-enjoy-a-better-quality-of-life-35923655.html

Of course they do and this is why I get so annoyed at the smoke and mirror job being done with actually supporting people who shouldn't be in the private rental sector. The government and certain groups are there jumping up and down saying 'first kill all the Landlords' meanwhile councils are laughing their tits off as they sit on empty social housing.

I'd be delighted to see the rental sector see a decrease in rents. I'm stuck under market value anyway and why should other people make money... err... I mean it's good for society.

PRIVATE LLs are not there to support societies ills - thinking so is the deluded part IMHO.

beauf

gizmo81 wrote: »

Majority of people struggle from week to week. This post seems completely deluded. ...

The point is the Govt has off loaded low cost housing, and social housing to the private sector. Which has no incentive to provide this, so it doesn't.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Of course they do and this is why I get so annoyed at the smoke and mirror job being done with actually supporting people who shouldn't be in the private rental sector. The government and certain groups are there jumping up and down saying 'first kill all the Landlords' meanwhile councils are laughing their tits off as they sit on empty social housing.

I'd be delighted to see the rental sector see a decrease in rents. I'm stuck under market value anyway and why should other people make money... err... I mean it's good for society.

PRIVATE LLs are not there to support societies ills - thinking so is the deluded part IMHO.

ILLS? People receiving social welfare, child support, HAP, Rent Allowance, Disability aren't a problem, misfortune or harm.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Three months isn't simple.

Why be a landlord? If it was as bleak as posters here make out then sell. Don't punish tenants for bad decisions resulting in negative equity. Landlords aren't the saviours of the rental crisis they are the cause.

Why be a retailer, or investor or bother to get out of bed in the morning? The market dictates the rents. The market in this case shouls have a huge, well funded and comfortable safety net built in, in the form of a proper social housing plan. That's the cause of this, not someone caught in a bad property deal, trying to make the best of it and paying almost huge tax rates.

The Student

Yet again Landlords are getting a beating. The simple fact is that more social houses need to be built. The endless interference by the Govt in the rental market is going to have dire consequences for all.

Landlords should be able to protect their asset. Tenants should be protected aswell but neither should be protected to the determinant of the other.

If the RTB was doing what it should and protecting both parties the demands for deposits would not be so high.

Threshold should be directing its energy towards the Govt to increase the supply of housing and let the private market finds it own equilibrium.

gizmo81

Why should landlords only be allowed to rent to wealthy people?

Everybody benefits from welfare, majority of people receive children allowance.

beauf

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's only uneconomical (if it is) to be a small time landlord. Which we need to move away from.

Large investment LL have even less empathy or interest in providing low cost or social housing. They are only interested in making maximum profit. That isn't at the low end.

You're thinking of rental market as its a service. It isn't. Thats Govt funded housing.

beauf

gizmo81 wrote: »

Why should landlords only be allowed to rent to wealthy people?

It called the private rental market.

For the greater part of the 20th century the private rented sector was in long-term decline. The combination of growth in owner-occupation and the role of the state as a landlord, through local authority housing and latterly the Housing Association movement, contributed to a decline in the private rented sector (PRS).
Rising prosperity and pro home-ownership Government policies brought owner-occupation to its peak in the 1980s, whilst reducing the private rented sector. During this period owner-occupied dwellings rose by 24% whilst the private rented sector contracted by 10%.
Growth in the PRS was inhibited by a regulatory regime that discouraged landlords [weasel words]. Regulated rents reduced returns and tenant legislation limited the landlords' right to recover their property from a defaulting tenant.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

ILLS? People receiving social welfare, child support, HAP, Rent Allowance, Disability aren't a problem, misfortune or harm.

<snip>

The groups above should not be in the private rental sector for any number of reasons. Taking disability for one, the chances of a properly adapted home even given a six year tenure as one example. People on social welfare should be in social housing. HAP/RA should be for people transitioning to jobs where they can support themselves, not as a stop gap for social housing.

Everyone with kids gets child support so I'm not sure what the point is there.

AlanG

If a tenant does not pay rent there is a minimum of 6 weeks before the date can even be asked to move out so 2 months is totally reasonable. I paid 2 months for an unfurnished in Australia and 3 months for a furnished apartment - quite normal in Sydney CBD.

gizmo81

Social housing creates ghettos, we need much tighter regulation on private rental accommodation.

I'd suggest landlords sign away the property to a third party, long term leases, stronger rent controls,

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry I know this isn't meant to get personal but quit the inverted snobbery and high horse.

The groups above should not be in the private rental sector for any number of reasons. Taking disability for one, the chances of a properly adapted home even given a six year tenure as one example. People on social welfare should be in social housing. HAP/RA should be for people transitioning to jobs where they can support themselves, not as a stop gap for social housing.

Everyone with kids gets child support so I'm not sure what the point is there.

All disabilities aren't physical ones, nor are they long-term.

Yourself isit

beauf wrote: »

Large investment LL have even less empathy or interest in providing low cost or social housing. They are only interested in making maximum profit. That isn't at the low end.

You're thinking of rental market as its a service. It isn't. Thats Govt funded housing.

No I said nothing like that. There's a lot of poor mouth landlords on here - surprising given that rents have increased 30% or so. If it still seems uneconomical then we need to move away from small time landlordism to larger scale landlords.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Social housing creates ghettos, we need much tighter regulation on private rental accommodation.

I'd suggest landlords sign away the property to a third party, long term leases, stronger rent controls,

You realise that most of us would be DELIGHTED to hand the property over at even 75% of market value. Councils won't take the property on that basis in the VAST MAJORITY of cases. They want the LL to indemnify all the risk.

Properly spread out social housing does not cause ghettos.

Are you suggesting that social tenants aren't just as nice and good as private tenants? :pac: Perish the thought!

Samuel T. Cogley

Yourself isit wrote: »

No I said nothing like that. There's a lot of poor mouth landlords on here - surprising given that rents have increased 30% or so. If it still seems uneconomical then we need to move away from small time landlordism to larger scale landlords.

Sweet Jesus no we don't.

Taxes from corporations will be tiny compared to private LLs. Rents from Private LLs will be tiny compared to corporations who will stick in a rowing machine and exercise bike, a guard and charged €2000 a month for a one bed.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You realise that most of us would be DELIGHTED to hand the property over at even 75% of market value. Councils won't take the property on that basis in the VAST MAJORITY of cases. They want the LL to indemnify all the risk.

Properly spread out social housing does not cause ghettos.

Are you suggesting that social tenants aren't just as nice and good as private tenants? :pac: Perish the thought!

Definition of Ghetto

ghetto
ˈɡɛtəʊ/Submit
noun
1.
a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
verb
verb: ghetto; 3rd person present: ghettoes; past tense: ghettoed; past participle: ghettoed; gerund or present participle: ghettoing
1.
put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Definition of Ghetto

ghetto
ˈɡɛtəʊ/Submit
noun
1.
a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
verb
verb: ghetto; 3rd person present: ghettoes; past tense: ghettoed; past participle: ghettoed; gerund or present participle: ghettoing
1.
put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group.

Not even sure what point you're trying to make now - slums are slums for a reason, sometimes due to lack of resources, sometime due to lack of education. Never it seems due to a lack of fags and Sky Sports.

On the final point - reread my post.

beauf

Yourself isit wrote: »

No I said nothing like that. There's a lot of poor mouth landlords on here - surprising given that rents have increased 30% or so. If it still seems uneconomical then we need to move away from small time landlordism to larger scale landlords.

Well thats exactly what is happening. There is a move from small LL to larger ones. been happening for about 20yrs, more rapidly in recent years.

...and we have the biggest shortage of rental property in the history of the state.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Are you suggesting that social tenants aren't just as nice and good as private tenants? :pac: Perish the thought!

You seemed to suggest that I didn't know the definition of a ghetto or slum.

Neither have anything to do with the behaviour 'nice and good' that you suggest.

I never suggested the character or behaviour of people in Ghettos.

I merely used the word ghetto to describe the action you favour and did so in the context of it's definition.

Where people live doesn't define their character as you suggest.

I love Sean nos

gizmo81 wrote: »

we need much tighter regulation on private rental accommodation.

What?

Samuel T. Cogley

Anyway it was nice to see this given it's monthly airing. I'm sure we've made some progress in coming up with a sensible well thought out solution.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Where people live dissent' define their character as you suggest.

You suggested it actually by using a word with negative connotations and ignoring what was said about sensible social housing policies. But I don't think we'll agree on anything, so we'll just have to disagree.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You suggested it actually by using a word with negative connotations and ignoring what was said about sensible social housing policies. But I don't think we'll agree on anything, so we'll just have to disagree.

I use words as defined. Any negative connotations regarding the type of people in Ghettos are ones you've put on the word not me.

Graham

Mod Note

gizmo81/Sam, please take the ghetto debate to PM.

Graham

I see the chairperson of Threshold was on Morning Ireland today:

Threshold chairperson Aideen Hayden said that Threhold wants landlords charging one month’s rent as a deposit to be stated in law.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

I see the chairperson of Threshold was on Morning Ireland today:

Threshold chairperson Aideen Hayden said that Threhold wants landlords charging one month’s rent as a deposit to be stated in law.

It's great to see Threshold are on to this. Hopefully we'll see this as a matter of urgency.