Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PRTB

Options
  • 16-12-2015 3:13pm
    #1
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭


    "The Public Appointments Service intend to hold a competition for the purpose of
    recommending a person for appointment to the position of
    Director
    Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB)
    Closing Date: 17th December 2015


    Pay
    The salary scale for the position (rates effective from 1 July, 2013) is as follows:
    Principal Officer Higher Personal Pension Contribution Salary Scale
    €85,127, €88,454, €91,798, €95,135, €97,981"


    Not bad pay for an organisation that demands money from landlords and does nothing in return.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Not sure that this thread is particularly appropriate to this forum.

    But an organisation that has 50+ employees as well outsourced contracts and operates to a budget of something like €10m, I wouldn't classify the salary scale of the Director, the person who runs the organisation and answers to the Board, to be particularly outlandish. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if positions with similar responsibilities in the private sector carried higher entitlements.


  • Options
    #3
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.


  • Options
    #4
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,852 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    lima wrote: »
    I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

    It is meant to provide landlords with the ability to get judgements against tenants for loss/damage.


  • Options
    #5
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,284 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    L1011 wrote: »
    It is meant to provide landlords with the ability to get judgements against tenants for loss/damage.

    The organisation is likely to be growing massively over the next years as they are going to be holding deposits now too. Image the staff that will be required for that.


  • Options
    #6
    khamilto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭khamilto


    L1011 wrote: »
    It is meant to provide landlords with the ability to get judgements against tenants for loss/damage.
    And does so, as anyone who bothers to look at the outcome of the dispute resolutions can see.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    lima wrote: »
    I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

    Yet it tries to present itself as a service for both tenant and landlord. A registration service for both, dispute resolution etc but isn't it a little ironic that the "service" it provides is far more geared towards protection of the tenant, yet it's the landlord that pays the fee??

    Also the worst off a tenant can be is if the landlord withholds a deposit, which is usually a months rent. A tenant can cause tens of thousands worth of damage and further tens of thousands in unpaid rent yet pretty much get away scott free. And it's down to the ineptitude and incompetence of the PRTB that the rent arrears can run into such huge amounts.


  • Options
    #8
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Uriel. wrote: »
    Not sure that this thread is particularly appropriate to this forum.

    But an organisation that has 50+ employees as well outsourced contracts and operates to a budget of something like €10m, I wouldn't classify the salary scale of the Director, the person who runs the organisation and answers to the Board, to be particularly outlandish. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if positions with similar responsibilities in the private sector carried higher entitlements.

    Sorry for posting - didn't realise you were a Forum Moderator.

    It is certainly applicable to the thousands of screwed over LL's in this country who have to pay €90 per tenancy to fund an organisation which despite its charter doesnt not help landlords, and is unable to legally enforce it's own decisions against rogue tenants.
    It even describes itself as a "quasi-legal" body.
    $100k per annum for a post where there is no accountability is a slap in the face to Landlords.
    At least the IFA did something for farmers.


  • Options
    #9
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    I'm not sure what the suggestion is here? The PRTB shouldn't have a director or the director or the PRTB should be on minimum wage?

    Personally, I don't have an issue with the payscales for the position.


  • Options
    #10
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Sorry for posting - didn't realise you were a Forum Moderator.

    It is certainly applicable to the thousands of screwed over LL's in this country who have to pay €90 per tenancy to fund an organisation which despite its charter doesnt not help landlords, and is unable to legally enforce it's own decisions against rogue tenants.
    It even describes itself as a "quasi-legal" body.
    k per annum for a post where there is no accountability is a slap in the face to Landlords.
    At least the IFA did something for farmers.

    The IFA is a farmer representation association. The PRTB does not represent landlords (or tenants for that matter).

    The courts even have difficulties enforcing their own orders at times.

    The PRTB is accountable to the Minister and thus the Oireachtas.
    You should lobby the relevant Minister for changes to the law to strengthen the rights of Landlords.

    Perceived lacunae in the law does not mean that a person earning a (starting) salary of €85k to run an organisation the size of the PRTB is overpaid.


  • Options
    #11
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    And it's down to the ineptitude and incompetence of the PRTB that the rent arrears can run into such huge amounts.

    I would argue that the problem lies predominately in the underpinning legislation rather than with the operation of the PRTB itself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    Uriel. wrote: »
    I would argue that the problem lies predominately in the underpinning legislation rather than with the operation of the PRTB itself.

    Yes and No.

    Yes the legislation is the problem for evicting problem tenants. But the PRTB "backlog" is hugely problematic and a big part in accumulating loss of rent. ie, the inability to deal with the volume of queries, disputes, squatters, overholders, landlords withholding deposits etc and it's refusal to enforce any decision that is made in the landlords favour as the tenant tends to play the poor mouth.


  • Options
    #13
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.


  • Options
    #14
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    lima wrote: »
    Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

    I do think the improvement in the legislation and the processes, including the PRTB, is to be greatly welcomed. However, I would also be of the belief, as would many others, that the balance of rights has shifted too much towards tenants. I think that the rights that tenants have, generally, are spot on - it's not a matter, IMO, of eroding such rights, rather I think to strike more of balance, the rights, or at least the approach to, landlords needs to be greatly improved now.

    To have situations where tenants can stay in a property unlawfully for up to (and sometimes more than) 12 months without paying rent, and can trash the place - doing thousands of euro worth of damage, with little to know recourse for the landlord in practical terms, is really a diabolical situation. I believe such situations have a negative impact on the rental sector as a whole, for both landlords and tenants generally.

    I am sure that landlords would be greatly satisfied if the law and the procedures allowed for more timely evictions; and if a greater deposit amount was compulsory. I think there should be a standard deposit amount, which should be significant and it should be held in trust by the PRTB and fully refundable subject to any legitimate withholding arbitrated and decided by the PRTB. Undoubtedly it would take some time for the rental sector to adjust to such a move, but longer term it would lead to a better situation for all.


  • Options
    #15
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Uriel. wrote: »
    I do think the improvement in the legislation and the processes, including the PRTB, is to be greatly welcomed. However, I would also be of the belief, as would many others, that the balance of rights has shifted too much towards tenants. I think that the rights that tenants have, generally, are spot on - it's not a matter, IMO, of eroding such rights, rather I think to strike more of balance, the rights, or at least the approach to, landlords needs to be greatly improved now.

    To have situations where tenants can stay in a property unlawfully for up to (and sometimes more than) 12 months without paying rent, and can trash the place - doing thousands of euro worth of damage, with little to know recourse for the landlord in practical terms, is really a diabolical situation. I believe such situations have a negative impact on the rental sector as a whole, for both landlords and tenants generally.

    I am sure that landlords would be greatly satisfied if the law and the procedures allowed for more timely evictions; and if a greater deposit amount was compulsory. I think there should be a standard deposit amount, which should be significant and it should be held in trust by the PRTB and fully refundable subject to any legitimate withholding arbitrated and decided by the PRTB. Undoubtedly it would take some time for the rental sector to adjust to such a move, but longer term it would lead to a better situation for all.

    Yes that does seem fair actually


  • Options
    #16
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    lima wrote: »
    Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

    Once again a sweeping generalisation that all landlords are making a profit.
    You're fond of pigeonholing landlords into the greedy, profiteering, lawless image so beholden of the poor tenant who has no rights whatsoever:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #17
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    Once again a sweeping generalisation that all landlords are making a profit.
    You're fond of pigeonholing landlords into the greedy, profiteering, lawless image so beholden of the poor tenant who has no rights whatsoever:rolleyes:

    PRTB ensures there are less of those types of landlords, therefore it is a good thing.


  • Options
    #18
    housetypeb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    lima wrote: »
    Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

    True,it is providing a service for profit- a profit that the government feels the need to meddle in and cap for a two year period.


  • Options
    #19
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    housetypeb wrote: »
    True,it is providing a service for profit- a profit that the government feels the need to meddle in and cap for a two year period.

    Well rents are getting ridiculous because landlords are milking the situation. Poor young people are getting screwed over when they are just starting out in life


  • Options
    #20
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    Well rents are getting ridiculous because landlords are milking the situation. Poor young people are getting screwed over when they are just starting out in life

    Rents are getting ridiculous because supply cannot meet demand.


  • Options
    #21
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    Rents are getting ridiculous because supply cannot meet demand.

    Yeah free market blah blah etc.

    But also landlords are taking advantage of this to try to recoup their negative equity.. basically screwing the younger generation for their own mistakes.. The quality of rentals in Ireland is awful yet innocent people have to put up with higher and higher costs for the same bad service

    Glad I bought off a bust landlord so I don't have to put up with this sh*te!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    lima wrote: »
    Yeah free market blah blah etc.

    But also landlords are taking advantage of this to try to recoup their negative equity.. basically screwing the younger generation for their own mistakes.. The quality of rentals in Ireland is awful yet innocent people have to put up with higher and higher costs for the same bad service

    Glad I bought off a bust landlord so I don't have to put up with this sh*te!

    A lot of landlords will not furnish rentals to a high standard because they have most likely been burned a few times by tenants. I've seen the damage that tenants can do to expensive solid wood furniture, appliances and even sellotaped over vents and disable extractor fans in bathrooms causing mould build up. The last tenant in my husbands rental not only destroyed all the furniture but stole a tumble dryer as well. Guess what? The next tenants didn't get a tumble dryer as the house has a garden.

    Legislation prevents landlords from renting an empty shell which would ensure tenants use their own furniture and appliances, which they might look after a bit better if they had to shell out for repairs and maintenance and replacements. It would suit both sides if this particular type of rental was allowed.


  • Options
    #23
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    A lot of landlords will not furnish rentals to a high standard because they have most likely been burned a few times by tenants. I've seen the damage that tenants can do to expensive solid wood furniture, appliances and even sellotaped over vents and disable extractor fans in bathrooms causing mould build up. The last tenant in my husbands rental not only destroyed all the furniture but stole a tumble dryer as well. Guess what? The next tenants didn't get a tumble dryer as the house has a garden.

    Legislation prevents landlords from renting an empty shell which would ensure tenants use their own furniture and appliances, which they might look after a bit better if they had to shell out for repairs and maintenance and replacements. It would suit both sides if this particular type of rental was allowed.


    You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

    This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves


  • Options
    #24
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves

    Wow, I don't know where your experience of landlords comes from. That certainly hasn't been the attitude I've come across.

    As in any walks of life, there's good and bad. That goes for landlords and tenants.


  • Options
    #25
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    lima wrote: »
    You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

    This attitude of renters being sub-human house wreckers that you can abuse and milk needs to stop. The cultural attitude of landlords towards renters needs to change. Culturally this creates a blanket dislike towards landlords, so it's brought on by themselves

    You can make the same cultural attitude arguments in the context of the many bad tenants out there. As I've said, there needs to be a balanced approach where all rights are respected in a balanced manner.

    Government has already tinkered with the market, and being honest I think government intervention is required, but successive governments have failed to provide overarching solutions that respect all sides. Which is incredibly difficult admittedly.

    There's a myriad of things that could be used to help:
    Provision for unfurnished lettings,
    Long term secure leasing
    Greater rent control
    Bigger deposits managed indpendently
    Better enforcement procedures etc


  • Options
    #26
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Mod note

    This thread is about the PRTB not housing supply, not government policy and most definitely not about stirring landlord V tenant tensions.

    Leave the modding to the mods and report don't retort.

    Thanks


  • Options
    #27
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    You say this....

    lima wrote: »
    You can factor in depreciation into your tax calculations to cover the cost of wear and tear, so if you bought a reasonably decent couch for example it will pay for itself over time. Also, you can bill tenants for damages such as this, and the likes of the PRTB will help.

    And then you also say this..
    I don't think it's meant to do anything for the landlord, it protects tenants from undesirable landlords and ensures they comply with law.

    I think most people know that on paper it's meant to help landlords, but it absolutely doesn't, and in fact can cost them plenty more in the long run. And a tenant might have emigrated for over a year by the time their claim for unreturned deposit comes up. As an organisation it's badly run and managed, so god help both landlord and tenant when they become custodians of deposits.

    Lets hope the new director is on a performance based trial and if eligible for a bonus scheme, then it's also performance related.


  • Options
    #28
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    You say this....




    And then you also say this..



    I think most people know that on paper it's meant to help landlords, but it absolutely doesn't, and in fact can cost them plenty more in the long run. And a tenant might have emigrated for over a year by the time their claim for unreturned deposit comes up. As an organisation it's badly run and managed, so god help both landlord and tenant when they become custodians of deposits.

    Lets hope the new director is on a performance based trial and if eligible for a bonus scheme, then it's also performance related.
    There's no bonus scheme.

    Would like to hear why you think the organisation is badly run and organised?

    Is it sufficiently resourced and have sufficient support to do the job it is tasked with?


  • Options
    #29
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    Uriel. wrote: »
    There's no bonus scheme.

    Would like to hear why you think the organisation is badly run and organised?

    Is it sufficiently resourced and have sufficient support to do the job it is tasked with?
    .


    The registration database is poorly maintained and irregularly updated.
    The rental index - ditto.

    Communication is poor, emails are not answered (personal experience) phonecalls are fobbed off with standard replies that don't answer queries (personal experience) and in one case a registration was failed to be registered and the cheque returned SIX MONTHS later and they insisted on charging the late fee for their incompetence on somehow failing to register the tenant. My husband only paid the late fee as he can put it against his taxes and it's necessary for MiR.
    The waiting lists for both landlord and tenant speak for themselves. That's probably down to insufficient staff numbers.


  • Options
    #30
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    lima wrote: »
    Well I think it's a great thing to have, it adds a mediator into the equation and ensures landlords pay taxes and adhere to proper standards. Tough luck that the landlord has to pay for it, you are the one with the business providing a service for profit.

    Its all paid for by rent. So indirectly the tenants pay for it. The PRTB seems ok in minor disputes. But seems powerless to protect the LL from large losses. Arguably it makes these losses worse. The LL will recover this from rent. So the tenants will also be impacted by the lack of protection for LL from the PRTB.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    star_spotter
    Site Banned Posts: 18 ✭star_spotter


    Graham wrote: »
    Rents are getting ridiculous because supply cannot meet demand.

    yes and this political stunt by that clown alan kelly will make things worse , landlords were already a hysterically demonised group , they are now more penalised

    i bought an apartment three weeks before this came in , there is a tenancy in place since march so despite my only taking over last week , i cant raise the rent until march 2017 , the rent is absurdly low as well


Advertisement