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

The_Conductor wrote:

By rights- no-one should know that any particular unit is a social housing unit- they should be absolutely no different from any other unit, and they should be maintained in an identical manner to any other unit.

That'd be ideal but when 9/10 houses are going to work, and the other isn't, it makes it clear IMO. Also, in a lot of cases I've seen, they're not maintained to the same standard.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

It shouldn't. Just because someone doesn't have a lot of money does not make them undesirable. I do wish we could get rid of this negative stereotype with social housing. It's also not a free house.

I'd agree with that, but its also likely that there's more undesirable potentials neighbours on the social housing list vs people who've had to work really hard to be able to buy one privately.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

First months rent last months rent and security is entirely fair. The security deposit is entirely upto the LL and tenant to negotiate, expressing it as a factor of rent is not helpful to be honest. In a top end let there would be very good reason to take a €10K deposit, even in a one bed apartment €2000 won;t make a dent in damages done if a tenant decides to go rogue.

Typical asshat TD rather than deal with the issue and introduce centrally held, or escrow deposits - I dunno with proper consequences in terms of credit ratings for deadbeat tenants, lets be less informed than your average social media user and question the legality of it. Is a lobotomy required to be a TD or is it optional?

And there in lies the point.

Politicians and TD's make they actions and points on behalf of their constituents, most of whom, won't be considering a 10k deposit for a one bed apartment (that's a ridiculous suggestion btw) but instead be the family who are unable to secure renting accomodation, because they are being blocked by landlords wild westery with deposits.

Like I said, called it absolutely ages ago that it was the next item to be tackled.

And claiming landlords should be allowed protect their assets is all well and good, but they are engaging in a service to citizens that is so obviously hot topic. So while yes, of course the government is going to need to build social housing and there needs to be more, are social housing recipients the people really affected?

If I had to move tomorrow and came into this arena of 3 months deposits I wouldn't even be able to stump that up, and I'm what is considered above average wage.

Sorry but this age old adage of landlord protecting their asset gets offset with the fact the service they provide is a core function to the citizens, and since it provides little evidence of self regulation, it needs to be regulated for them.

Like petrol stations cant band together and just hike pricing and gouge knowing everyone needs petrol, it's the same for landlords, whatever their feelings on their asset, that there is accepted risk and differentiation based on the service being provided. And to be honest any landlord that would believe it to be different is just being a fool.

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm not sure whether, or not, quarterly rent is a good idea- unless the profession of the tenant supports this sort of model (or indeed- if it were paid by a company- in which case it makes perfect sense).

In an Irish context- people have to accept- one month's rent as a deposit- is not normal- and furnished property- is not normal.

As soon as people have to pay a reasonable deposit and furnish and care for their home themselves- perhaps we might be in a position where we can have a more mature conversation about the residential sector?

What do you mean not normal? They are perfectly normal, that has what has been in place for decades, with only recent trends shifting towards this higher rate of deposit, or landlords looking for market rates unfurnished. When you consider unfurnished is the ABNORMAL in this market, who in their right mind would take that without a significant rent cut.

Comparing against other countries or nations is pointless, when you consider the infrastructure, governance and setup is totally different, assuming your going down the path of comparing how it works in other countries. We still have a cultural mindset of owning the home as everything, something that will take atleast two generations to subside, and that is assuming the current plight of housing continues, which it won't, because the electorate won't stand for it.

irelandrover wrote: »

Why is it not workable in the Irish rental market, what makes the irish rental market different?

Well where do you want to compare against and we can maybe get into specifics?

But for a start, landlords are unregulated, there is no central body or agency operating on their behalf, or any state sponsored or recognised body or agency when it comes to the service transactions between landlords and tenants.

We have a government/political arena whereby it's popularist. Landlords grievances and issues simply won't be recognised, as the larger affected portion is tenants, families, children, which will help shape a narrative of it being like the old tenants landlords running slums getting rich of the back of the poor.

And because of the landscape of people in the rental market, in certain situations, there is simply no scope for people to get access to the likes of 5k on a whim. If that got brought in tonight, most people are operating on, the vast majority, on the one month deposit. So they have to move, and yet need to stump up X amount from nowhere. Loans, borrowing...it's just a mess that there would be outcry over.

One month deposit has been around forever, and sorry but things have been fine. There isn't some epidemic of houses being ruined. Sure it happens, of course it happens. It's part of the unfortunate risks involved. But it's not the majority.

All of this to be honest just comes across as landlords getting the hump at regulation, bourne from their own inability to see the writing on the wall and the gravy train coming to the end, and trying to either get one back, or secure what was once had.

Sorry lads but if you want to "secure" and "protect" your asset, 1) You probably shouldn't have got into property and 2) Maybe you can just let it out to family or friends, and in a few decades time sell it off for your little lump sum as a pension or for your kids.

But I get kinda sick to death of landlords playing poor mouth over A SIX FIGURE ASSET. Not only do you have this lump sum when you decide to sell, but your actively drawing down income from it each month. Wether it's tangible or not, well to be honest if its not, what are you doing in the landlord game.

It's a touch incredible at times, people sitting on six figure assets getting monthly supplements to their income for indefinite periods, giving out about it.

If you wanted to protect and asset, or have a safe investment, then there is dozens of things you could invest in that would provide a good ROI come retirement. The way some of you go on what you really want is someone to pay you 1000+ a month, but for there actually to be nobody living in the house.

And god forbid someone does have to live in this house, you'd prefer if they operated like robots and didn't actually do anything, except maybe sit on a chair, and sleep.

Some of the attitudes and posts are gas

TheDoc wrote: »

And there in lies the point.

Not really as you managed to miss it entirely. A top end let is not a one bed apartment. If you're renting a 4 bed house in D4 with all the trimmings the deposit needs to match the standard of fit not the rent.

TheDoc wrote: »

gizmo81 wrote: »

This below is why we need stricter controls because you have this poster on another thread going to punish a tenant for this:

I let a property to a tenant at a rate that's currently about 15% below market rent. If my tenant came to me with the following list, I'd do the minimum that I'm legally required to do and increase the rent to the maximum possible at first opportunity. However, currently I'm happy with the 15% reduction in rent for a hassle-free tenant.

The grass cut;
The chimney cleaned;
The septic tank cleared;
The sofa replaced;
A tile replaced;
A leaking door repaired;
Wall cracks repaired;
Garden wall caps repaired;
A BER cert;
A carbon monoxide monitor installed;
A fire blanket;
A fire extinguisher;

Just as there is arsehole tenants, there is arsehole landlords.

Smacks of an accidental landlord, or an absolute fool who got involved trying to make a quick turnover of $$ and is just out of their depth.

I totally get why he/she wants a hassle free tenant, just as I valued a hassle free landlord. But there is being hassle free, and then there is landlords wanting 1000+ a month but not want to accept how people actually live, and the service they are providing is a home.

Not an arsehole landlord - just one that would attempt to remove the discount from market rate if a tenant approached with a list resembling a snag-list for a new build house (including items that a landlord isn't typically responsible for and others that are nice-to-haves but not necessities - especially in a house rented below-market value).

I like how my reply was snipped too to remove some of the later advice regarding reducing the list, at least initially, to cover the items that a landlord is legally obliged to do (before prioritizing the rest for consideration).

Graham wrote: »

I'll try and explain in simple numbers why deposits are increasing.

Lets consider an apartment with €1,000 monthly rent

€2,000 deposit

Tenant stops paying and refuses to move out, landlord is hobbled by RTB.

12 - 18 months lost rent while RTB decide whether/when/how to enforce anything
+ untold amounts of stress
+ whatever damages may have been caused

€12,000 - €30,000 loss to landlord

Until there is a way to redress the imbalance, deposits are likely to keep increasing.

So are you suggesting I have a good chance of getting off scot-free if I decide to withhold rent for 18 months? Because if you are I'd love to give it a try after my landlord decided to look for a double deposit and a quarter years rent.

Graham wrote: »

I'll try and explain in simple numbers why deposits are increasing.

Lets consider an apartment with €1,000 monthly rent

€2,000 deposit

Tenant stops paying and refuses to move out, landlord is hobbled by RTB.

12 - 18 months lost rent while RTB decide whether/when/how to enforce anything
+ untold amounts of stress
+ whatever damages may have been caused

€12,000 - €30,000 loss to landlord

Until there is a way to redress the imbalance, deposits are likely to keep increasing.

Well then look at it from a tenants point ,
They pay the €3000 deposit and in 12 months demands a rent increase tenants says sorry I can't afford it so I won't be extending my lease ,
Landlord then goes silent until quitting day ,
Property is in immaculate condition tenant then needs the €3000 returned immediately to pay it to another landlord ,
Current landlord decides sorry im keeping the €3000 leaving the tenant who has do no wrong out of pocket for three grand and now homeless , landlord then repeats the same over and over meanwhile us tenants are stung and given and names .

I've been renting since I was 18 and now 38 and still renting unfortunately but nearly every deposit paid out had been kept by landlords with no comeback I've never caused damage or had complaints against me or my family but with situations like this I'd be homeless based off a landlord pocketing an easy €3000

gizmo81 wrote: »

That's just plain old scaremongering then.

Works both ways.

on RTB website, nearly twice as many orders for overholding in 2016 v deposit retention so that's even less of an issue!

284 - Deposit retention, 475 Overholding, 592 rent arrears