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

Media: 'Professionals only' - Daft.ie ordered to block discriminatory terms in ads

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    overkill602
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭overkill602


    Leftist lunacy continues however most markets don’t use similar terms in advertising but higher risk here and delinquency encouraged by our politicians with no will to address antisocial or non-payment of rent will ensure continued shrinkage

    Requesting 1 year bank statement proving rent was paid on time especially in an area where demand is high is not unreasonable.


  • Options
    #33
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Sarn wrote: »
    All it does is waste people’s time. Instead you’ll be discriminated against when you go to view. The reason you didn’t get the place will never be disclosed.

    If twenty people queue for a property (which isn't unusual)- and a landlord or an agent asks a prospective tenant- tell me why I should give you my property instead of another of those who are viewing the property- is this now also illegal? When you choose one person over another- by definition, you are discriminating against the person who wasn't chosen. It was up to now fine to do this- providing you studiously kept away from discrimination as defined by the act- now, with this half baked measure- discrimination no longer has a definition- its whatever the homeless bodies/organisations/industry want it to be, on a day by day basis.

    If we really want to get rid of more housing stock from the rental market- this is yet another damn good reason to do so. On the brightside- it'll drive some more supply into the secondhand market- however, secondhand supply doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment, even in Dublin.


  • Options
    #34
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    overkill602 wrote: »
    Requesting 1 year bank statement proving rent was paid on time especially in an area where demand is high is not unreasonable.

    And where someone is not in a position to show a history of paying their rent on time- alongside a statement from their last 2 landlords to the effect that they're good decent tenants who moved for 'listed reasons' (which can be verified by a prospective landlord).

    If a landlord is not allowed to conduct due diligence on a prospective tenant they may (if they're unlucky) end up with a nightmare- and they may have sanctions taken against them at the RTB by third parties (including any or all of the neighbouring properties).

    Different people have different rights and obligations towards different parties. You cannot hand someone all the rights, and someone else all the obligations- and then wonder why the person with all the obligations decides to tell you to take a hike.


  • Options
    #35
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,788 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    nuac wrote: »
    Prohibiting a LL from seeking references is crazy.

    Unless I've missed something - you are still allowed ask for them????

    Just not insist in advertising that they are essential......


  • Options
    #36
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    screamer wrote: »
    Landlords looking for bank statements... that’s a step too far. No way I’d give that level of personal detail to anyone.

    why ? normal outside of ireland to give this information. Even if you rent a car thats worth 20k you have a precharge on your credit card. The price of a property far in exceeds this


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    Steve wrote: »
    Just saying, those begrudging the Fallons for making a few bob from Daft need to realise they are also the owners of boards and are financing the forums we post on.

    That aside, everything the government has done insofar as meddling in the private rental sector in the last decade has failed - I am hesitant to believe that imposing punitive legal sanctions on the advertisers will have any better outcome.

    Yes, just the latest in a sequence of measures over this and the last government ensuring that the Dublin rental market is a disaster (not really functionally in any remotely efficient way) whether for renter or non REIT landlord. As has been happening, a good many landlords see no purpose in it if legislation and rules are wholly tilted in favour of the delinquent who knows the system. It can also be noted that the RTB are comically inefficient. There can be fifty coming to viewings of anything half decent. Thanks to this manifestly bonkers ruling from this random quango, this market shrinking rubbish will continue. Clown world stuff.


  • Options
    #38
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Subutai wrote: »
    It's an allowable expense, and so essentially free furniture and appliances as revenue do not police which house it is placed into.
    They're not 100% expensable surely? At most ~half free?


  • Options
    #39
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,172 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Unless I've missed something - you are still allowed ask for them????

    Just not insist in advertising that they are essential......

    So you could just say in the advert, "References will be requested" or something similar?


  • Options
    #40
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,494 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    I think to be fair people are looking at this the wrong way.

    You aren't allowed to discriminate in rental lettings for reasons of HAP for example.

    However some landlords might not know this.

    If they appear to discriminate then they are leaving themselves open to litigation.
    And if you spell it out clearly in the rental ad, then you wont be in a good position to defend your case.

    This isn't a Daft.ie policy, its state law. Daft are doing landlords a favour here.


  • Options
    #41
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,788 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Asking for a reference isn't in itself the problem (in the eyes of the adjudicator).

    It's the fact that you insist they are mandatory to be even considered.

    The finding appears to be age related because it descriminates in the WRC opinion against young people who have never rented before.

    The HAP thing is separate .

    EU law over rides Irish law under Doctrine of Supremacy - basically meaning that where Irish law and EU law differ - EU law applies .

    So if Daft are correct - then they should be able to overturn this .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,788 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    So you could just say in the advert, "References will be requested" or something similar?

    References preferred but not essential seems a logical way forward .

    But you would need proper legal clarity on that - not some random poster on boards who is possibly misinterpreting the findings of WRC.


  • Options
    #43
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,310 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    How about this, the government provide social housing. And let the private rental market provide housing to people re ting privately with their own money. Let the private landlord ask what he wants to , if perspective tenants have an issue they don’t need to apply


  • Options
    #44
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,788 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    ted1 wrote: »
    How about this, the government provide social housing. And let the private rental market provide housing to people re ting privately with their own money. Let the private landlord ask what he wants to , if perspective tenants have an issue they don’t need to apply

    How about this - landlords know - or should know that it's illegal* to discriminate against HAP.

    So don't be stupid and actually say you don't take HAP on a public add that ANYONE can find and see.

    Every rule that came in against Landlords is because at some point some landlord acted badly.

    *The rights and wrongs of that are a big matter in itself


  • Options
    #45
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    Delighted this is what IHREC are spending their time with.........


  • Options
    #46
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,310 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Old diesel wrote: »
    How about this - landlords know - or should know that it's illegal* to discriminate against HAP.

    So don't be stupid and actually say you don't take HAP on a public add that ANYONE can find and see.

    Every rule that came in against Landlords is because at some point some landlord acted badly.

    *The rights and wrongs of that are a big matter in itself

    What I’m saying is that the law is an ass and should be changed.
    They need to stop socialising private rentals. It’s the reason why rent is so dear.


  • Options
    #47
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    naughtb4 wrote: »
    Delighted this is what IHREC are spending their time with.........

    If Emily "career virtue signaller" Logan was abducted by aliens, it is beyond rational argument that Ireland would be a far better place.


  • Options
    #48
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    TheChizler wrote: »
    They're not 100% expensable surely? At most ~half free?

    Yeah, you’d get back about 50% of what you spent on them if you’re in the higher tax band. Some people do seem to think you can minus the full expense off the final tax bill for some reason. :eek:


  • Options
    #49
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,788 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    ted1 wrote: »
    What I’m saying is that the law is an ass and should be changed.
    They need to stop socialising private rentals. It’s the reason why rent is so dear.

    A change in the law on HAP would NOT bring down rents - unless landlords started getting out of HAP by the lorry load immediately.

    It's clear from all the roaring and screeching about RPZs that what Landlords want is for rents to go even beyond current levels.

    The market should set the rent we are always told


  • Options
    #50
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,029 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    What about rent a room ads? Specifically exempt from the equality legislation and backed up by wrc decisions?


  • Options
    #51
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,310 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Old diesel wrote: »
    A change in the law on HAP would NOT bring down rents - unless landlords started getting out of HAP by the lorry load immediately.

    It's clear from all the roaring and screeching about RPZs that what Landlords want is for rents to go even beyond current levels.

    The market should set the rent we are always told

    If the government provided social housing. It’d take people out if the private rental market. And prices would come down

    I rent out properties to tenants, whose rent is paid by the council. I set the rent based on what the council will pay : https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html#l4292e

    Many landlords do similar. If they didn’t pay so much the rent would be cheaper

    So to summarise the Mather doesn’t set the rate , the councils limits set the minimum rate.

    Landlords are screeching about RPZ because if they have been charging below market rate they can’t raise it , this causes issues when they sell


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,788 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    ted1 wrote: »
    If the government provided social housing. It’d take people out if the private rental market. And prices would come down

    I rent out properties to tenants, whose rent is paid by the council. I set the rent based on what the council will pay : https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html#l4292e

    Many landlords do similar. If they didn’t pay so much the rent would be cheaper

    So to summarise the Mather doesn’t set the rate , the councils limits set the minimum rate.

    Landlords are screeching about RPZ because if they have been charging below market rate they can’t raise it , this causes issues when they sell

    I feel that your stance that no HAP would reduce rents - conflicts with the general upset that you can only increase rents by 4 percent in RPZ.

    What I'm saying is - how will people upset by 4 percent INCREASE not being enough - handle reductions that you suggest building more social housing and having current HAP tenants live in those social houses will bring .


    My suspicion is that supply owned by people who object to RPZs will leave the market as soon as reductions look like on the cards.

    The guy who thinks 1700 plus 4 percent is not good enough is unlikely to stay on for 1700 MINUS 10 to 15 percent .

    This of course takes us into the arena that there are other significant issues to be tackled to boost supply

    So we won't get the benefit in full of HAP tenants leaving the market.


  • Options
    #53
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    el Fenomeno wrote: »
    I mean they can outlaw what they want - any half-arsed landlord can still find out with ease if their prospective tenant is a "professional" (and what "professional" is code for) or not.

    Professional is just code for 'nice and middle class'. In any case, the price of renting does pretty much all the discriminating any ll could ever want.


  • Options
    #54
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    ted1 wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    A change in the law on HAP would NOT bring down rents - unless landlords started getting out of HAP by the lorry load immediately.

    It's clear from all the roaring and screeching about RPZs that what Landlords want is for rents to go even beyond current levels.

    The market should set the rent we are always told

    If the government provided social housing. It’d take people out if the private rental market. And prices would come down

    I rent out properties to tenants, whose rent is paid by the council. I set the rent based on what the council will pay : https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html#l4292e

    Many landlords do similar. If they didn’t pay so much the rent would be cheaper

    So to summarise the Mather doesn’t set the rate , the councils limits set the minimum rate.

    Landlords are screeching about RPZ because if they have been charging below market rate they can’t raise it , this causes issues when they sell
    The HAP rates are not enough for new rentals in Dublin and are actually the reason rent is not higher. We left the rent low as the HAP tenant would have had to move out if we put up the rent. Going on for years and could easily get another €500 a month for the place. For this the government will force us to offer the same deal to a new tenant if she moves out.
    Secretly they will match the rent increase above the limits for sitting tenants above HAP rates.


  • Options
    #55
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,310 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Old diesel wrote: »
    I feel that your stance that no HAP would reduce rents - conflicts with the general upset that you can only increase rents by 4 percent in RPZ.

    What I'm saying is - how will people upset by 4 percent INCREASE not being enough - handle reductions that you suggest building more social housing and having current HAP tenants live in those social houses will bring .


    My suspicion is that supply owned by people who object to RPZs will leave the market as soon as reductions look like on the cards.

    The guy who thinks 1700 plus 4 percent is not good enough is unlikely to stay on for 1700 MINUS 10 to 15 percent .

    This of course takes us into the arena that there are other significant issues to be tackled to boost supply

    So we won't get the benefit in full of HAP tenants leaving the market.

    Your missing the point

    The guy charging mark rate of 1700 is happy
    The guy who did the decent thing and was charging a tenant 900, but can’t increase it to the market rate when a new tenant moves in , is not happy because he can’t achieve market rate or see it fir it’s market value as the rental income is so low.


  • Options
    #56
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ted1 wrote: »
    Your missing the point

    The guy charging mark rate of 1700 is happy
    The guy who did the decent thing and was charging a tenant 900, but can’t increase it to the market rate when a new tenant moves in , is not happy because he can’t achieve market rate or see it fir it’s market value as the rental income is so low.

    One option is to sell up and leave the market, sell to an owner occupier, perhaps come back in later at higher rent. Either way it rises rents.


  • Options
    #57
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    nuac wrote: »
    Prohibiting a LL from seeking references is crazy.
    The adjudicator Ms Orla Jones has very likely overstepped the mark in her leftist interpretative fervour of the law (some WRC adjudicators like some RTB ones tend to have a leftist selective bias)


    As clearly indicated in the Irish Times:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/daft-ie-ads-saying-rent-allowance-not-accepted-breached-law-body-finds-1.3992013


    "When contacted, Daft.ie said it was taking legal advice in relation to the ruling and therefore was precluded from commenting. It can appeal the decision to the High Court."


    In addition a like the RTE article because it has more details about the thinking of the adjudicator Ms Orla Jones:
    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0820/1069929-daft/


    She is personally responsible for the extreme political correctness shown in her ruling about "language control" on commercial speech (this is what advertising is) and excluding EU law considerations. This kind of language control would be unacceptable in political speech and would probably clash with other free speech regulations. The left is very illiberal and history proved again and again that they love to control and coerce speech.

    Another wonderful piece that is very likely illegal coming out of Ms Orla Jones ruling:
    "It has also directed daft.ie to "develop a methodology to identify, monitor and block discriminatory advertising on its website" based on a list of terms of trigger words and phrases provided previously to them by the IHREC and to be kept updated."
    IHREC does not have the power to dictate language or control speech as they please, only the courts have this power.


  • Options
    #58
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Any landlord worth their salt will be well able to do a bit of research on the background of potential tenants before letting. However the Letting Agents wont be prepared to make that type of effort. They rely on references and proof of income. I never believe references anyway because a landlord with a bad tenant wont put that down on paper because he would never get rid of tenant


  • Options
    #59
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    screamer wrote: »
    Landlords looking for bank statements... that’s a step too far. No way I’d give that level of personal detail to anyone.
    You would if it meant getting accommodation. As a landlord I want proof that a potential tenant has the funds and will have the funds to pay the rent. Give me proof or it will be Next Please!


  • Options
    #60
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Old diesel wrote: »
    It's clear from all the roaring and screeching about RPZs that what Landlords want is for rents to go even beyond current levels.
    Old way; increase rent when old tenant moves out, if you had rented it below the market rate.
    RPZ way; either you increase the rent by 4% whenever possible, or you may not get a chance to level it up, if the current tenant moves out.
    Old diesel wrote: »
    I feel that your stance that no HAP would reduce rents - conflicts with the general upset that you can only increase rents by 4 percent in RPZ.
    Old way; if you have a good tenant, leave the rent at the current level, as they're treating the house nicely, and increase the rent when they leave.
    RPZ way; increase the rent by 4% whenever possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    GGTrek wrote: »
    The adjudicator Ms Orla Jones has very likely overstepped the mark in her leftist interpretative fervour of the law (some WRC adjudicators like some RTB ones tend to have a leftist selective bias)


    As clearly indicated in the Irish Times:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/daft-ie-ads-saying-rent-allowance-not-accepted-breached-law-body-finds-1.3992013


    "When contacted, Daft.ie said it was taking legal advice in relation to the ruling and therefore was precluded from commenting. It can appeal the decision to the High Court."


    In addition a like the RTE article because it has more details about the thinking of the adjudicator Ms Orla Jones:
    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0820/1069929-daft/


    She is personally responsible for the extreme political correctness shown in her ruling about "language control" on commercial speech (this is what advertising is) and excluding EU law considerations. This kind of language control would be unacceptable in political speech and would probably clash with other free speech regulations. The left is very illiberal and history proved again and again that they love to control and coerce speech.

    Another wonderful piece that is very likely illegal coming out of Ms Orla Jones ruling:
    "It has also directed daft.ie to "develop a methodology to identify, monitor and block discriminatory advertising on its website" based on a list of terms of trigger words and phrases provided previously to them by the IHREC and to be kept updated."
    IHREC does not have the power to dictate language or control speech as they please, only the courts have this power.

    The country is run by a staunchly 'rightist' government for the last 8+ years (and i won't even go into what was in charge before that) so any leftist bias, perceived or otherwise, that has influence across society, it's only a finger in the dam towards addressing the imbalance.


Advertisement