Tenant Refusing To Pay Rent * MOD WARNING IN POST #1 *

beauf · 21-01-2021 12:52am

I'm not sure what going to the RTB achieves. Other than wasting more time and money.

There's very little come back for the tenant unless the LL pursues them to the courts.

It's not even useful as a deterrent. The case will be impossible to find on their systems, and the stats will only tell the story the govt wants them to tell.

21-01-2021 8:19am

WhyTheFace wrote: »

OP here..

Just to give you an update. The agent has been useless in all this. As I live in the east and my brother, who part owns the house lives in the town where the house is, he visited the tenant.

Tenant said he had an expensive divorce in Poland and broadband to pay and couldn't pay rent. Brother said that wasn't his problem, money is owed to the tradesmen and they will come looking for it.

That was last Friday. I got a call from the agent saying the tenant said he was moving out this Friday. Needless to say we won't be seeing any of the €4k he owes us but we are just happy he is leaving.

The biggest issue here is that the agent told is in July he was going to be approved for HAP, we kept waiting and the agent kept saying don't worry, the process is slow due to Covid but you will get back pay. Then in Nov that agent left the company and his replacement said no HAP applied for, presumably because tenant was working.

TBH I am more pissed off with the agent than the tenant, we could have started actively seeking unpaid rent back in August were it not for them.

well, id just be glad they are leaving,but if you have records from the agent saying HAP was apllied for then maybe you can take them to task once the tenant has left.
As for following the tenant up, it will probably be an expensive waste of time, for one, I dont believe the rtb will take a case against them if they have left the property as there would be no means to contact them to take a case. They could simply go dark and not respond to any query from their new address. If the tenant was to stay, you might actually be able to take a case to get your money back, but it still might not materialise. Id just be happy they are gone, maybe try take a case and keep a record of what the rtb say, even a ruling in your favour, but I would say it would cost to enforce in court, in terms of time and money and you still might end up with nothing.
I highly suspect the rtb dont take cases where the tenant cant be located, or keep records of non payment, might be worth taking it to them just so you know you tried.

By rights, the first instance you didnt get rent, regardless of Hap being applied for or that you were told, you should have started the process however that was to evict, not 100% sure what it was back then re lockdown.
Id consider moving yourself or the brother in and renting rooms, a non payer would be out in 30 mins, or maybe some areas are allowed air bnb still for non resident owners, definitely is allowed for resident owners though.

WhyTheFace · 24-01-2021 5:37pm

OP here..

We have gained access to the property and thankfully there are no issues and it is ready to rent again.

To try to minimise the financial impact of such tenants again is it allowable to seek a deposit of two month's rent?

I appreciate that this would be a lot of money for some but we are just trying to avoid a repeat of losses again.

24-01-2021 5:41pm

WhyTheFace wrote: »

OP here..

We have gained access to the property and thankfully there are no issues and it is ready to rent again.

To try to minimise the financial impact of such tenants again is it allowable to seek a deposit of two month's rent?

I appreciate that this would be a lot of money for some but we are just trying to avoid a repeat of losses again.

I’ve been requiring the equivalent of three months rent on signing of leases for years, this equates to first month, last month and one month deposit. Some prospective tenants refuse, no prob, move on.

WhyTheFace · 24-01-2021 5:50pm

Dav010 wrote: »

I’ve been requiring the equivalent of three months rent on signing of leases for years, this equates to first month, last month and one month deposit. Some prospective tenants refuse, no prob, move on.

I wonder does it narrow the pool of potential decent tenants though?

Or is it a case that if they can afford that they are likely to be more stable with respect to rent?

24-01-2021 5:55pm

WhyTheFace wrote: »

I wonder does it narrow the pool of potential decent tenants though?

Or is it a case that if they can afford that they are likely to be more stable with respect to rent?

It does narrow the pool, and some good tenants are likely to be put off. But the fact that I have the equivalent of two months rent does provide some reassurance.

beauf · 24-01-2021 6:15pm

3 months is the norm in some countries.

I've found the cheaper a place is the more hassle you get with it. But you can still get hassle with any tenant regardless of price point.

24-01-2021 6:27pm

beauf wrote: »

3 months is the norm in some countries.

I've found the cheaper a place is the more hassle you get with it. But you can still get hassle with any tenant regardless of price point.

My experience is the same, higher rent city apartments, no issues. I had a very nice 4-bed house reasonably priced outside Dublin, endless problems, I sold it a year ago.

Government buildings · 24-01-2021 9:14pm

Why don't you sell it now you have the chance? property prices going up. What if you get another dodgy tenant?

touts · 24-01-2021 9:18pm

WhyTheFace wrote: »

OP here..

We have gained access to the property and thankfully there are no issues and it is ready to rent again.

To try to minimise the financial impact of such tenants again is it allowable to seek a deposit of two month's rent?

I appreciate that this would be a lot of money for some but we are just trying to avoid a repeat of losses again.

You're a sucker for punishment. Why on earth are you going to do this to yourself again. I'd change all the locks and sell it now while you have the chance.

WhyTheFace · 24-01-2021 9:47pm

touts wrote: »

You're a sucker for punishment. Why on earth are you going to do this to yourself again. I'd change all the locks and sell it now while you have the chance.

We only bought the property 2 years ago for 100k. There is no mortgage and we can get 1,200e per month.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread the issue was more so with the agent here who told us for 4 months that HAP and HAP back payments were in the way.

In fairness to the tenant as soon as we confronted him face to face he was gone a week later. Just wish we had done it months ago.

Definetly some learnings to take from this.

bunnyboxer · 25-01-2021 2:01am

WhyTheFace wrote: »

We only bought the property 2 years ago for 100k. There is no mortgage and we can get 1,200e per month.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread the issue was more so with the agent here who told us for 4 months that HAP and HAP back payments were in the way.

In fairness to the tenant as soon as we confronted him face to face he was gone a week later. Just wish we had done it months ago.

Definetly some learnings to take from this.

I'd make sure that the tenant is in a good job with a good company and request any tenant to have a letter from their HR department detailing their in full employment and the number of years there. It's easy to research the company on Google and employee on linkedin. If you cant get these type of tenants I'd be selling.

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 2:16am

bunnyboxer wrote: »

I'd make sure that the tenant is in a good job with a good company and request any tenant to have a letter from their HR department detailing their in full employment and the number of years there. It's easy to research the company on Google and employee on linkedin. If you cant get these type of tenants I'd be selling.

but importantly, don't make that a condition of tenancy. give everyone the same opportunity to provide those credentials. you can also ask for a payslip.

asking for 3 months rent (1st, last, deposit) is a good way to screen people.

jimmycrackcorm · 25-01-2021 3:08am

WhyTheFace wrote:

Definetly some learnings to take from this.

For a start, forget using an agent. Money for nothing.

PommieBast · 25-01-2021 2:14pm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

but importantly, don't make that a condition of tenancy. give everyone the same opportunity to provide those credentials. you can also ask for a payslip.

Is this legal though? Recollections that many things that were proxies for filtering out those on rent allowance (or whatever it is called these days) have got landlords into serious trouble.

beauf · 25-01-2021 2:23pm

Best not to ask for anything pick your own filter on the information people volunteer, and don't give any feedback, or replies.

mrslancaster · 25-01-2021 3:10pm

beauf wrote: »

Best not to ask for anything pick your own filter on the information people volunteer, and don't give any feedback, or replies.

Compared to getting a mortgage or bank loan or even car financing it seems residential landlords are expected to hand over a very expensive item without asking for basic information. I don't think that's the case for commercial leases where the owner wants all kinds of financial information & guarantees. How is it ok for them to ask for the information & they're not accused of discrimination

beauf · 25-01-2021 3:24pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Compared to getting a mortgage or bank loan or even car financing it seems residential landlords are expected to hand over a very expensive item without asking for basic information. I don't think that's the case for commercial leases where the owner wants all kinds of financial information & guarantees. How is it ok for them to ask for the information & they're not accused of discrimination

Because the Govt out sourced their obligation to provide housing to the private sector, who didn't want it. So the Govt had to strong arm the sector into being unable to refuse it.

You don't have to ask for anything in particular, you can just ignore applications that don't volunteer the required information. I don't think there's any obligation to reply to anyone, or explain your criteria. If there was you could say you just rolled a dice.

mrslancaster · 25-01-2021 3:41pm

beauf wrote: »

Because the Govt out sourced their obligation to provide housing to the private sector, who didn't want it. So the Govt had to strong arm the sector into being unable to refuse it.

You don't have to ask for anything in particular, you can just ignore applications that don't volunteer the required information. I don't think there's any obligation to reply to anyone, or explain your criteria. If there was you could say you just rolled a dice.

Thanks beauf. Trying to understand if discrimination laws are the same for everyone then how can banks etc refuse some people a mortgage or loan based on employment status or ability to repay but a residential landlord is not allowed to ask for that security? Even employers - they ask for evidence of education, experience, qualifications etc before they employ someone.

Is that discrimination of residential landlords?

edit: Not tenant or ll, just find this topic interesting

beauf · 25-01-2021 3:52pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Thanks beauf. Trying to understand if discrimination laws are the same for everyone then how can banks etc refuse some people a mortgage or loan based on employment status or ability to repay but a residential landlord is not allowed to ask for that security? Even employers - they ask for evidence of education, experience, qualifications etc before they employ someone.

Is that discrimination of residential landlords?

edit: Not tenant or ll, just find this topic interesting

Because the Govt makes the rules.
Its not legally discrimination unless its defined in law.

https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/discrimination

beauf · 25-01-2021 3:55pm

For example a LL gets no Covid Relief, but is expected to finance the Govts rules around it.

This anti LL bias been going on for years. No one cares. But still complain about the housing crisis.

jimmycrackcorm · 25-01-2021 3:56pm

mrslancaster wrote:

Thanks beauf. Trying to understand if discrimination laws are the same for everyone then how can banks etc refuse some people a mortgage or loan based on employment status or ability to repay but a residential landlord is not allowed to ask for that security? Even employers - they ask for evidence of education, experience, qualifications etc before they employ someone.

The central bank requires banks to prove that applicants can afford their loans for macro economic purposes.

I.e. the effect of a tenant not paying a single landlord is negligible compared to ten thousand mortgage holders defaulting on a bank.

As we have learned from the 08 financial crisis.

beauf · 25-01-2021 4:07pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The central bank requires banks to prove that applicants can afford their loans for macro economic purposes.

I.e. the effect of a tenant not paying a single landlord is negligible compared to ten thousand mortgage holders defaulting on a bank.

As we have learned from the 08 financial crisis.

The central bank actually regulating, mortgage loans, was something the central bank and the govt ignored for many years, against all good sense. They let the banks go crazy. I'm open to correction, but it was long after 2008, that the regulators decided to do their actual job and force the banks to actually use good judgement on their mortgages.

So many industries good practice, regulation, and enforcing these is not a given, though you'd expect it to be.

mrslancaster · 25-01-2021 5:32pm

beauf wrote: »

Because the Govt makes the rules.
Its not legally discrimination unless its defined in law.

https://www.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/discrimination

Just read that link thanks. It doesn't say anything about a landlord not offering or terminating based on the ability to pay (ok that's different during covid).
I gather from many posts that a lot of landlords don't want to deal with SW or councils who want higher accommodation standards or have different payment terms.

In general though, is this just the same as how employment legislation & employment contracts evolved? Years ago people started jobs on a handshake & many employees were treated badly. Now nearly all companies have detailed employment contracts & company handbooks, policies etc which are all part of the package so both parties know where they stand.

People used to rent on a handshake too. Landlords handing over a property worth hundreds of thousands without security seems crazy. Maybe going through a solicitor to draw up the lease?

DubCount · 25-01-2021 7:25pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Just read that link thanks. It doesn't say anything about a landlord not offering or terminating based on the ability to pay (ok that's different during covid).
I gather from many posts that a lot of landlords don't want to deal with SW or councils who want higher accommodation standards or have different payment terms.

In general though, is this just the same as how employment legislation & employment contracts evolved? Years ago people started jobs on a handshake & many employees were treated badly. Now nearly all companies have detailed employment contracts & company handbooks, policies etc which are all part of the package so both parties know where they stand.

People used to rent on a handshake too. Landlords handing over a property worth hundreds of thousands without security seems crazy. Maybe going through a solicitor to draw up the lease?

The real problem is that the lease is becoming irrelevant. Whatever is agreed between LL and tenant in a lease is surpassed by the legislation (of which there is a constant stream).

beauf · 26-01-2021 1:05am

mrslancaster wrote: »

Just read that link thanks. It doesn't say anything about a landlord not offering or terminating based on the ability to pay (ok that's different during covid).
I gather from many posts that a lot of landlords don't want to deal with SW or councils who want higher accommodation standards or have different payment terms.

In general though, is this just the same as how employment legislation & employment contracts evolved? Years ago people started jobs on a handshake & many employees were treated badly. Now nearly all companies have detailed employment contracts & company handbooks, policies etc which are all part of the package so both parties know where they stand.

People used to rent on a handshake too. Landlords handing over a property worth hundreds of thousands without security seems crazy. Maybe going through a solicitor to draw up the lease?

I assume it's got nothing to do with employment law, but commercial law. With a load of special exceptions because it's to do with housing. Because the govt are trying to fill a huge gap they've abandoned.

Basically if you want to run a business you have to abide by the laws of the state. They just keep changing them though.

JimmyVik · 26-01-2021 12:35pm

DubCount wrote: »

The real problem is that the lease is becoming irrelevant. Whatever is agreed between LL and tenant in a lease is surpassed by the legislation (of which there is a constant stream).

Imagine being able to agree with a person to lease an item to them for a defined period of time - say 1 year.

Lessee and lessor pay and get paid and are both happy with the arrangement.
After their agreed year is up they each go their separate ways after both fulfilling their end of the agreement. They might even enter another agreement afterwards together.

Oh wait ....

Taylor365 · 26-01-2021 7:39pm

All this boohoo. :pac:

You voted for them!

Again!

martinr5232 · 26-01-2021 8:55pm

Taylor365 wrote:

All this boohoo.

Taylor365 wrote:

You voted for them!

Doesnt matter who is in power there is no votes to be had siding with the greedy landlords.

WhyTheFace · 26-01-2021 10:37pm

Saw this posted by Owen Reilly, an estate agent in Grand Canal Dock area of Dublin

"Inefficient/not fit for purpose processes from the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) continue to cause great harm to landlords. A client of ours is now owed €18,480 in unpaid rent. The tenant has not paid any rent, not one penny since May last year despite the many financial supports that are available. Given the protection afforded tenants we were unable to issue a termination notice for months.

The RTB then conducted a ‘paper based adjudication’ in November, we are still waiting on a decision. When we ask why we don’t have a decision yet they blame Covid. Other bodies/companies are able to offer an efficient service yet the RTB cannot! They continue to demand a €90 charge from each landlord for each new tenancy. No one in the RTB seems to be accountable to anyone. In the meantime the tenant continues to abuse their processes causing great hardship to my client.

Assuming the RTB find in my client's favour, the tenant is then afforded many weeks’ notice to leave the property with no guarantee they will leave. My client then has to go to court to enforce the determination order. There is no fairness in this. The RTB needs to be urgently reformed. Tenants struggling financially deserve protection but not at the cost of private landlords. Are any other agents/landlords seeing this?"

27-01-2021 1:04pm

beauf wrote: »

Because the Govt out sourced their obligation to provide housing to the private sector, who didn't want it. So the Govt had to strong arm the sector into being unable to refuse it.

You don't have to ask for anything in particular, you can just ignore applications that don't volunteer the required information. I don't think there's any obligation to reply to anyone, or explain your criteria. If there was you could say you just rolled a dice.

Awaits the introduction of legislation, outlawing the rolling of dice.
If a landlord papered over cracks they would be hung, drawn and quartered publicly, while thats tongue in cheek, its probably more favourable to how many landlords have been treated, bar REITs

DubCount wrote: »

The real problem is that the lease is becoming irrelevant. Whatever is agreed between LL and tenant in a lease is surpassed by the legislation (of which there is a constant stream).

I suppose so, thats the same as saying, the real problem is that a tenant can just walk away. Im not on that not-so-merry-go-round anymore, so I cant recal, and I dont think it is the case, but it should be possible to write off unpaid rent to a set value, after which the RTB should support fast tracked eviction or fast tracked state support. That might get rid of those gaming the system, if its not economically viable, landlords will walk and are (I did). I'm glad I'm out because I think the concern is that there could be legislation introduced that might not be constitutional and it would be up to individuals to challenge it.
There easily could be a less painful way for unpaid rent to be accounted for, even if it might be a minor loss to the State in revenue, it could easily be seen as a cost of the State abrogating any/much/most/all responsibility for housing. It could lessen the burden on small landlords and would be easily provable so couldnt be scammed, ie records could be obtainable via any complaints process. The amount it would cost to the State would be tiny and spread out compared to a huge hit that could be experienced by one person/landlord which could write them off with one bad tenant and hence the viability (longterm reality/sustainability of being a landlord).

In reality, the state is willing to take zero tax take from REITs for taking large numbers of properties (at firesale) bargain basement discount prices just to get them off the books.
In reality, they should view the provision of small scale (or even any scale) of housing for rental as a no cost or cost neutral transaction (which would very likely actually save them money).
All the motions of taxation could be gone through, but by simply not making money on the transaction, taxes could be folded back into providing the accomodation at lower cost making it more affordable, without even having a complicated system, something that reduces the rent but also reduces the tax without even having actual cash transfers/transactions occur, imo could change the rental landscape.
Any private rental provided for by a private person saves the State in whatever it costs to acquire the funds to do that (which on a large scale are multi millions if not billions of Euros), which corresponds into taxation and less funds available elsewhere.
The technology exists to manage and monitor this cost effectively, it just requires an open mind and a sensible approach.

Does the State want to provide housing with all its associated problems (they cant through Councils seem to manage it and it requires a lot of money to fund/run such a thing, which is open to being hugely inefficient) or they can farm it out to the private sector with regulations, that ensure profitability/affordability/sustainability without causing harm to the property market, landlords or tenants.
I have said it before, the current system encourages and supports the worst kinds of landlords and tenants, good landlords and tenants and a lot of other people unconnected suffer because of what is basically cack handed, ill conceived, shortsighted mismanagement of the situation overall.

Tenant Refusing To Pay Rent * MOD WARNING IN POST #1 *

Comments