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

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.....
 
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.
 
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...
 
wigwam said:
Is this not a resource issue? Slagging off the PRTB without considering this is pointless...
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register