# Proposed new legislation for landlords to hand deposits to PRTB ??



## nannyogg (27 Apr 2009)

There is a private members bill before the dail ( Ciaran Lynch TD - Labour) - which among other things proposes that landlords must submit the deposit they receive to the PRTB and that to get it back at the end of the lease or whatever - the tenant or the landlord and tenant (in event of a dispute ) have to apply to the PRTB for it to be refunded !! - given how poor the service is from the PRTB already - how could anyone imagine this would work ?? 
In the meantime the money is to be invested and yes you've guessed it - the interest goes to the state !

[broken link removed]

Nannyogg


----------



## Trustmeh (27 Apr 2009)

Wow. That certainly makes my decision in the next election very simple. 
They obviously are wasting time coming up with unworkable ideas that they know will go nowhere simply to target voters that are anti-LL.
I love the tagline ... "We are neither FF nor FG. We are labour." ...so clever.


----------



## bankrupt (28 Apr 2009)

Having a government agency holding deposits is a sensible practice that is already in place in other countries.  I do not think it is reasonable that this agency holds onto any interest accrued, this should be returned with the deposit in my view.  I share the other posters' concerns that the PRTB could not manage such a system at the moment but presumably that could be rectified?


----------



## Trustmeh (28 Apr 2009)

Simple solution to that for LL's - dont take deposits anymore. Just ask for first and last months rent in advance.  Be sure to get in there on the first day of the last month and inspect the property for any damages. Good luck evicting a tenant though if they have last months rent paid and they obviously owe you for damages.

I cannot see this being workable in any manner positive for LL's. Unless there is first month, last month rent paid AND a deposit given to prtb - then im all for it.  But of course this would make it even more difficult for tenants.

Seriously...is there really a problem here? Or is it just political spin and nanny-stateism?


----------



## MelF (28 Apr 2009)

I know this happens in Australia, whereby tenants are required to pay the usual 4 weeks/one month's rent in advance etc as well as a 6 week security bond which is placed with the relevant govt department and which they will return some thirty days after the apartment is vacated. The difference being I guess is that like most systems in Oz the dept is streamlined and efficient - not like our good old PRTB!


----------



## Timbo (28 Apr 2009)

nannyogg said:


> There is a private members bill before the dail ( Ciaran Lynch TD - Labour) - which among other things proposes that landlords must submit the deposit they receive to the PRTB and that to get it back at the end of the lease or whatever - the tenant or the landlord and tenant (in event of a dispute ) have to apply to the PRTB for it to be refunded !! - given how poor the service is from the PRTB already - how could anyone imagine this would work ??
> In the meantime the money is to be invested and yes you've guessed it - the interest goes to the state !
> 
> [broken link removed]
> ...


 
A long overdue change. Works well in Australia. 

And at the risk of being pithy, I find it a bit strange that the issue of who takes the interest is contentious, given that LLs have trousered that themselves up until now.


----------



## murphaph (28 Apr 2009)

Timbo said:


> A long overdue change. Works well in Australia.
> 
> And at the risk of being pithy, I find it a bit strange that the issue of who takes the interest is contentious, given that LLs have trousered that themselves up until now.


Yes and if the PRTB was even able to confirm your tenancy registration in less than the present 10 weeks (some people never even get a letter of confirmation) or basically do anything it is currently charged with in a timely professional manner then I'd be in favour of it being applied here. The problem is the PRTB are muppets.

In Germany the landlord and tenant commonly just open a joint account together and lodge the deposit (usually not insignificant) into it. Neither party can keep the money without the other's consent. It works reasonably well and Germany is renowned for tenants' rights.

The landlord is not fairly represented by the PRTB. See the thread on the tenant threatening the landlord with a shotgun and note it took the PRTB over a year and a half to reply to the landlord when he told them he wanted the tenant out.


----------



## Trustmeh (28 Apr 2009)

Just got confirmation of my PRTB registration from last October on Monday. 7 Months!


----------



## DeeFox (28 Apr 2009)

I sent application form to prtb last October.  Tenant can't get a parking permit without the prtb number and despite numerous calls form both myself and the tenant we still have not got a registration number for this tenancy.  We have a short term solution for the parking which is not ideal.  Think prtb is not up to the job.


----------



## LLDLY (28 Apr 2009)

MelF said:


> I know this happens in Australia, whereby tenants are required to pay the usual 4 weeks/one month's rent in advance etc as well as a 6 week security bond which is placed with the relevant govt department and which they will return some thirty days after the apartment is vacated. The difference being I guess is that like most systems in Oz the dept is streamlined and efficient - not like our good old PRTB!


I quite agree!!!


----------



## AlbacoreA (28 Apr 2009)

The PRTB are completely inadequate.


----------



## nannyogg (28 Apr 2009)

The australian system sounds good but what about the tenant moving to a different place- they have to come up with another 6 weeks security deposit and then wait 4 weeks to get their original back from their first letting and so be out of pocket of up to three months money while waiting a month to get the original deposit back  - the tenant would have to have a healthy bank account to be able to do this . 

As to the prtb - we applied to  register our last tenancy in early feb and we still haven't received a registration number etc. - so i wouldn't be confident of their ability to deal with an added responsibility especially as there is an embargo on recruitment in the PS 

The German one sounds better - fairer and quicker 

nannyogg


----------



## mathepac (29 Apr 2009)

Timbo said:


> ... I find it a bit strange that the issue of who takes the interest is contentious, given that LLs have trousered that themselves up until now.


There's a substantial difference between between a landlord potentially retaining a couple of years interest on a grand less DIRT [ say (1,000 x 1% x 2) x 75% = €15 ] and a quango retaining the interest on possibly 10's of 1,000's of deposits.

BTW, given their response times to registrations and dispute resolution, currently being reported as anything from months to years, what happens when the poor tenant wants to move flat? Where does s/he raise the wherewithall for another deposit if the PRTB still has the original one in "safe-keeping"?


----------



## Bronte (29 Apr 2009)

I've just realised something, it would be great if the PRTB were to hold deposits, it wouldn't really affect landlords and it would show up what an incompetent organisation the PRTB is.  Can you imagine the airwaves with all the tenants waiting months for the PRTB to return deposits, it would be hilarious.  

Timbo I cannot believe that you seriously think landlords are making any interest on the paltry deposits they have.  Most people in Ireland pay 1 months deposit, say 1K for a house and 500 for a flat, where are you going to make money on this?


----------



## NHG (29 Apr 2009)

What happens if the deposit is'nt due to be refunded to the tenant due to damage, rent not paid etc will the PRTB come to inspect the place & mediate?

We need to stand up for ourselves once and for all, we have been taken for fools for far to long now!


----------



## Trustmeh (29 Apr 2009)

I agree with Nannyogg - Maybe im not the average Landlord - but I always treat my tenants as fairly as possible. I hand back the deposit when they hand back the keys. I have all the bills sorted before they leave - the house cleaned (by them) and inspected by me.  Im sure you wont get a load of tenants on here arguing against the deposits going to the prtb - but in the long run it will be them that suffer. Although I do agree that the German method sounds interesting. However, my system has worked for me adn ive never had one tenant complain or feel cheated.


----------



## Guest128 (29 Apr 2009)

I agree its a fairly unworkable proposal and I have just emailed the Labour press office expressing my own doubts about its merit.....


----------



## bugler (29 Apr 2009)

There is nothing wrong with the idea, nor is it unworkable. It just needs to be handled by a competent agency with the adequate resources. 



> I agree with Nannyogg - Maybe im not the average Landlord - but I always treat my tenants as fairly as possible. I hand back the deposit when they hand back the keys. I have all the bills sorted before they leave - the house cleaned (by them) and inspected by me. Im sure you wont get a load of tenants on here arguing against the deposits going to the prtb - but in the long run it will be them that suffer. Although I do agree that the German method sounds interesting. However, my system has worked for me adn ive never had one tenant complain or feel cheated.



That's fine for tenants who have you as a LL. But the number one issue Threshold have to deal with is deposit retention by the landlord. Sure, sometimes it is probably merited. But other times it is certainly not, and there are many landlords who use it as an added bonus at the end of year or as a fund to give their place a clean using cleaning contractors (or claiming to). 

The holding of deposits by a separate body is a good idea. The PRTB's incompetence / lack of resourcing is a separate issue altogether, which would need tackling if the plan were to be implemented.


----------



## mathepac (29 Apr 2009)

bugler said:


> ... The PRTB's incompetence / lack of resourcing is a separate issue altogether, ...


But the essence of the Labour Party proposal is that the PRTB hold the deposits, so tackling their inability to discharge their current responsibilities is a prerequisite to implementing any change in the existing system of managing deposits.


----------



## Trustmeh (29 Apr 2009)

bugler said:


> The PRTB's incompetence / lack of resourcing is a separate issue altogether, which would need tackling if the plan were to be implemented.



See, I just dont get this. The PRTB have proven themselves to be a useless operation - that should be exercised from our budget rather than expanded to include other services and to cost us more money.

If they had come out of the blocks a winner and proven they were good at what they did then maybe it would make sense.


----------



## murphaph (29 Apr 2009)

On second thoughts (having read the above posts) I say let the PRTB hold the deposits. It'll be all over Joe Duffy how useless they are once tenants realise they'll be getting their deposits back in about 12 months. I presume if a landlord objects to the return of the deposit based on damage that a PRTB inspector must visit the property to make a decision. They haven't the manpower for this sort of thing, that much is obvious. Finally the sham that is the PRTB will make the media. Nobody will listen to landlords complaining but once it's the tenants.....


----------



## Trustmeh (29 Apr 2009)

The prtb in my eyes is just a stealth tax on property. Without my fee paid i cannot claim interest in my tax return. If a dispute ever arises I will be sorting it myself.


----------



## wigwam (1 May 2009)

Is this not a resource issue? Slagging off the PRTB without considering this is pointless.

If the PRTB had the resources they need to provide a proper service, ie additional manpower, these issues would not arise.

Staff should be redeployed within the public sector to where they are obviously required eg from the HSE to Dept of SW, PRTB etc...


----------



## mathepac (1 May 2009)

wigwam said:


> Is this not a resource issue? Slagging off the PRTB without considering this is pointless...


We don't know whether its a resource issue of just plain incompetence, carelessness or laziness.

So far all people have done is to point out that the PRTB isn't doing what it was established to do; if you see this as "slagging off" then maybe you have a particular axe to grind.


wigwam said:


> ....
> If the PRTB had the resources they need to provide a proper service, ie additional manpower, these issues would not arise...


You seem to know the answer to the question you posed earlier in your post and the proposed solution is to move staff (aka "resources" ?) around between the quangos to get some of them to work. Not a bad idea except that despite pouring money, people and capital projects into the HSE, for example, it doesn't work particularly well either.

Personally I've always preferred the term "people" to either "staff" or more especially "resources".

Do you have any views or suggestions regarding the Labour Party proposal?


----------



## z104 (2 May 2009)

Phoned the PRTB today. 
My first registration was lost and the second registration will take 13 weeks before I receive a letter confirming that i've registred. 13 weeks... This is 13 weeks after they take payment. It may take 4 weeks for them to take payment from you through laser or c.c.

What a joke.


----------



## Bronte (4 May 2009)

Niallers said:


> Phoned the PRTB today.
> My first registration was lost and the second registration will take 13 weeks before I receive a letter confirming that i've registred. 13 weeks... This is 13 weeks after they take payment. It may take 4 weeks for them to take payment from you through laser or c.c.
> 
> What a joke.


 
Have the PRTB taken the fee?  Do you have to get the tenant's to sign the form again or are they accepting a photocopy of the form?

I ask because it's entirely possible for the tenant's to be gone and the landlord unable to register.  The incompetence of the PRTB can have serious repercussions for landlords.


----------



## magoko101 (6 May 2009)

As has been mentioned previously... this is in operation in Australia. In NSW, the interest from these bonds helps to fund their equivalent of the PRTB.
If the PRTB were to hold the bonds, and a better service from them was the result then I don't see either landlord or tenant losing as a result.
The issue I would see is that the landlord or tenant may not be able to wait for a month for the deposit to be returned. If a landlord has had damage caused to their property then waiting a month may delay the repairs and affect how quickly the re-let it. Ditto for the tenant, they may need the deposit for a new lease and as often happens the deposit from the previous property is ear marked by tenants as the deposit for their new place.

Of course... as with road tax, the revenue generated is unlikely to be used to improve the resources of the PRTB (it's even possible that the more delays there are, the more attractive it would be to hang onto the deposits that little bit longer).


----------

