PRTB (Private Residential Tennancies Board) Ripoff


Yes, another case of giving it with one hand, and taking it away with the other.

Up to Friday, when I realised this rule, I was quite happy to pay for this "service" and I do think it is worth investing in residential property. I don't mind being regulated, I hate being ripped-off. However, you again seem to be avoiding my original point. I can't bear to make it again.
 
Sorry, some of my reply went in with the last post. How do you quote bits of a post and put your own reply in?
 
Want long term tenants? Put an early termination penalty clause in the the tenancy agreement/lease and look for tenants to whom this is acceptable.

Want constructive advice about complaining about the PRTB? Read my earlier contribution and/or start your own campaign as I suggested.

How are you being ripped off? The PRTB was long in gestation and people (in particular property investors) had lots of time to apprise themselves of the implications of the new body and rules and their clearly stated charges for registration. As such there is total transparency and to describe this as a "rip-off" is ridiculous whether you agree with it or not. If, in advance of the PRTB getting up and running, a property investor decided that this nominal charge for registration tipped the balance against property investment then s/he could easily liquidate the investment and seek an alternative.

Your original points were that (a) the PRTB is "useless" and (b) that you wanted to complain about them and their registration charges. I have dealt with the latter and somebody else dealt with the former earlier on.

I get the impression that you don't really like being challenged on this and are happy to do what seems to be the usual thing these days and blame it all on "rip-off Ireland" so maybe I'll leave it be at this stage...
 
I get the impression that you don't really like being challenged on this and are happy to do what seems to be the usual thing these days and blame it all on "ruip-off Ireland" so maybe I'll leave it be at this stage...
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly what it is. Rip off Ireland. Another Rip off Tax.

High Taxes = Rip Off Ireland.
 
ClubMan said:
Want long term tenants? Put an early termination penalty clause in the the tenancy agreement/lease and look for tenants to whom this is acceptable....
Click to expand...

Finally something constructive from this discussion. That's a good idea and I'll consider that next time I'm looking for a tenant.

ClubMan said:
Want constructive advice about complaining about the PRTB? Read my earlier contribution and/or start your own campaign as I suggested....
Click to expand...

I was looking for ideas on how to start a campaign, not to be to just to "start" one.


"Easily liquidate?". I wouldn't call getting taxed 20% on your gain "easy". If a landlord has forked out stamp duty (more nonsense tax) to buy an investment property and then is informed the following month of these new registration fees, I wouldn't consider it "easy" to just sell up. The stamp duty money would be down the drain and any appreciation on the property would be taxed.


I would like to revert again to my original post, that I would like to arrange some sort of protest. I wouldn't consider this just "happy to do what seems to be the usual thing these days and blame it all on "ruip-off Ireland"". I would like to do something about it, hence the original reason for posting this thread.

My original points:

a) Yes, ninsaga said that the PRTB was there "to administer & facilitate in the event of a dispute between landlord & tenant". I hope the day doesn't come when I have to rely on a "service" that is incapable of posting out a receipt within 6 months, to sort out legalities with a tenant. It may take decades.

b) You have never comented on the PRTB charging one landlord and not the other, for exactly the same thing.

I get the impression that you should be involved in politics because a) you abnormally defend a state-run body that is ripping people off and b) you are very obviously able to avoid the main issue without being embarrassed about it.
 
Europe is a big place without borders if that's the problem... No to mention the rest of the world where the fields are allegedly greener...
 
cathybun said:
Finally something constructive from this discussion. That's a good idea and I'll consider that next time I'm looking for a tenant.
Click to expand...
Glad to be of assistance but, to be fair, I think that others besides myself have contributed constructively to this thread before now even if you don't want to admit it or like what they were saying.
I was looking for ideas on how to start a campaign, not to be to just to "start" one.
Click to expand...
My third (?) post in this thread also contained some constructive suggestions about how to tackle this "issue" which you seem to have overlooked.
Presumably you were aware of stamp duty and CGT before you invested so it looks like laziness to dismiss these as nonsense or rip-offs. Do you think that people who invest in capital assets (myself included I might add) should not be taxed on gains arising?
See above.

Perhaps the tardiness in posting out receipts for fees paid is related to the fact that the body is only recently up and running? What impact does the lack of a receipt have on landlords? Do they need one in order to offset the charge against rental income? Would a cheque stub or other proof of payment suffice? Could they get a receipt by calling in and paying the fees in person?
b) You have never comented on the PRTB charging one landlord and not the other, for exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
They do not charge different landlords differently for the same thing.
I get the impression that you should be involved in politics because a) you abnormally defend a state-run body that is ripping people off and b) you are very obviously able to avoid the main issue without being embarrassed about it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the compliment but how am I defending a state run body and, besides, when did that become something obectionable? What issue am I still avoiding?
 
ClubMan said:
Glad to be of assistance but, to be fair, I think that others besides myself have contributed constructively to this thread before now even if you don't want to admit it or like what they were saying.
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant finally something constructive from you.

ClubMan said:
My third (?) post in this thread also contained some constructive suggestions about how to tackle this "issue" which you seem to have overlooked.
Click to expand...

to quote you from the referred post:


I was asking landlords how we could jointly protest, not how to do it on my own, as I would probably be waiting six years to hear back from the PRTB if I were to send in a single letter. As for my "local elected representative", didn't you gather my attitude to politicians from my last post? I think the only way to get some justice from this, is for as many landlords as possible to protest together at the same time, in some form e.g. if we could arrange to send letters to the PRTB all on the same day about this issue, we may get a response from them before next summer. Other ideas would be appreciated.



Again you've missed my point. You said it would be easy to liquidate after hearing the news of the arrival of the PRTB. I wouldn't consider 3%+ paid out in stamp duty easy to liquidate. So if this new fee (tax) did tip the balance against property investment, it would be too late, having paid the stamp duty.

I don't recall calling CGT nonsense or a rip-off and I was referring again to your suggestion that it would be "easy to liquidate". I was simply saying that this would not be the case, if both these taxes are payable. It seems you want to jump into more discussions about other topics about tax etc, rather than deal with the one at hand.


Again, another example of "act now, think later". The government are very good at creating new schemes to tax people, but when it comes to giving the service in return, they then have to deal with an "unexpected backlog". It's not like they couldn't find out in advance how much rental properties there were, they do have a very useful "service" called Revenue. If they had bothered, they could have anticipated the amount of work and employed temporary staff to deal with the first few months.

Yes, obviously you need a receipt to charge against rental income. Not sure about a cheque stub though. I can't see the revenue accepting it however. It would be a bit inconvenient to have to travel to the office just for a receipt, if you live in Cork.

ClubMan said:
They do not charge different landlords differently for the same thing.
Click to expand...

e.g. Case One: There are three people sharing and the landlord registers them. Two move out, and are replaced. Two more people have to be registered with the PRTB. The landlord is not charged for this re-registration.

Case Two: There are two people sharing and the landlord registers them. The both move out, leaving the house empty. Two more move in and are registered. A fee is then payable.

Please tell me, once and for all, how registering the two people in Case One, is any less trouble than registering the two people in Case Two, and why there is a fee payable only by the landlord in Case One.

ClubManThanks for the compliment but how am I defending a state run body and said:
There you go again!
Click to expand...
 
Hi all,
I was following this post with some mild interest, but to be perfectly frank I couldn't see why the €70 so enraged Cathy. However I think she has hit an important nail on the head with this comment:

"The government are very good at creating new schemes to tax people, but when it comes to giving the service in return, they then have to deal with an "unexpected backlog". It's not like they couldn't find out in advance how much rental properties there were, they do have a very useful "service" called Revenue. If they had bothered, they could have anticipated the amount of work and employed temporary staff to deal with the first few months."

The Government spent a load of money in advance publicity for the PRTB. The absolutely clear message for Landlords was

"we know that you haven't all registered with local authorities; this is a whole new ball game; you absolutely MUST register with PRTB; there is an absolutely STRICT deadline; we REALLY REALLY MEAN IT"


It now turns out that they really didn't mean it. When Landlords took them at their word (not all Landlords, but an awful lot of them) they were totally unprepared. This is the sort of thing which ultimately helps to perpetuate the attitude that the law can be ignored; The culture of unlawfulness which pervaded many layers of our society for many years is manifest in the slew of tribunals we now have. For the State to engage in a whole new venture which so clearly broadcasts the message that it is ok to ignore the law is really quite disgraceful.

Within one month of the registration deadline, the PRTB should have been prosecuting landlords for failure to register. There is no reason to blame this on lack of resources. As the Revenue does, they could have outsourced the prosecution work to private solicitors around the country. ( o.k. - there's a little self interest peeping through. sorry). The prosecutions should have been publicised.

The PRTB is a brand new body. It have a published response time for dealing with Landlord-Tenant disputes. It should respond to all correspondence within a set period. Performance parameters should be published. This stuff is not rocket science.
 
As a landlord who has been down the road of tenant eviction through solicitors, courts and baliffs, which is a very expensive and very lengthy procedure, I welcomed the creation of the PRTB and the mediation and adjudication service offered.

I don't see the E70 registration fee as a form of taxation, but as a fee for a service to be provided as and when required.

Although I do think that they should have allowed up to 2 tenancies to be registered in 1 year without incurring a second fee.
Put an early termination penalty clause in the the tenancy agreement/lease and look for tenants to whom this is acceptable....
Click to expand...

This is a good idea - anyone know if this would this be legal under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004?
 
What extra work do the PRTB have to do to warrant the second or any subsequent registration during a year (or registration change)?

Surely the 70e should be for the property and residents in it for the year. Maybe a 10e admin charge would be acceptable for changing details but I cant see why another 70e is required.
 
I've been a landlord for 7-8 tears now. I have not registered with the PRTB and don't intend to do so. Never had a problem with tenants in any property - the trick is to charge a relatively high rent, get good people in and look after them well.

In terms of have some very onerous exit clause penalty - forget it. People are not going to sign up to something which over commits them and even if they do for example say they will pay 6 months rent.... what do you do? Get a 6 month rent in advance, or when they tell you they are moving out next week say to them "but you promised to give me 6 months notice"? There is no way that's going to happen.....

I don't have a problem paying €70 as such, in fact I have looked after tenants to a cost way in excess of that kind of sum where the costs was not tax deductable. However I prefer to invest in managing the relationship on a personal basis and not some quango.

And by the way...... there was a co-ordinated campaign against the PRTB by the Irish Property Owners Association (IPOA) who are not represented on teh PRTB by their PR guy Finian somethingorother. As a result of their intervention a number of things were negotiated but generally there is still a lot of unrest in the IPOA on the PRTB and it's workings (or lack of same).

Personally Cathybun I think you were being wound up by some of teh early contributions and the best logic was provided by UNIMPOSU!MJJ (or whatever the name was.


Roy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register