€30,000,000 of State's Rent Deposits Not Returned

edellc

murphaph wrote: »

It's taxpayers' money. It is irrelevant (though sickening) if politicians etc. are taking the p!ss with their expenses. RA tenants who steal deposits (and it is stealing if they retain a returned deposit then seek another for the next property or move into local authority housing) are not stealing from some ethereal entity known as "the state", they are stealing from ordinary taxpayers back pockets.

Those in charge of this are the CWO's. They have the discretion to refuse these payments. They should be taking more of an interest. I as a landlord (with RA tenants!) would prefer if these deposits were not so easily come by as the easier they are to come by, the less likely a tenant is to care about whether they get their's back or not. A tenant who doesn't care about getting their deposit back is unlikely to look after the property as well as someone who does.

Taxpayers / state it makes no difference one a taxpayer pays their taxes it becomes the states money.

I agree that a tenant should not get a deposit for one place, leave it without getting deposit returned by landlord and then seek another one that is just madness and should never happen and it is up to the CWO to see that that behaviour does not happen...What I said was that if one deposit is given and then returned to the tenant when lease is up and that tenant then uses it directly to obtain another rental property...this is how most use the deposit situation and not pocketing it for themselves, where you do think all these tenants go once their lease is up?? they move to another rental property therefore using said deposit a second and third time.

It is not easy to get a deposit from the CWO and it as I have said is a one off payment and most people do not get multiply payments of deposits, maybe some get a second deposit under exceptional circumstances but certainly they do not get more than two.

I also agree that a tenant who doesnt care about getting their deposit back is not inclined to care about the property either, but that is a small minority of people who do this most people who have no option but to rent and have families and on RA do look after properties.

In relation to the council housing, this takes years to get and by years I mean anything up to 5/6 yrs depending on where in the country you are. Most people are not on RA that long unless they are single mothers, disability applicants or the lowest of the low career social welfare applicants.

As for politicians leading by example yes it is relevant as if the people who run the country can not act in a proper manner they can not expect others to do so and if politicians are taking the piss with their expenses then yes it is the same as welfare fraud as it is also the taxpayer that pays the politicians expenses it all comes from the same kitty

Victor

juan.kerr wrote: »

More bloody scroungers

Keep it constructive, please.

The_Conductor

Guys- regardless of who is benefiting from the money- the issue is more that it isn't being chased to ground and there is this large amount (€30m) that there has been little if any attempt to recover. If the argument is that its uneconomical to chase the figures- well, why not expand the unemployed work placement schemes into purpose fit sections to get them to chase these (and other 'uneconomic' sums). It would provide a cadre of unemployed people with skills in credit control, that will stand to them in any time, be it boom or bust.

It was never envisaged that the state would be footing these bills for deposits- these have traditionally been doled out of Community Welfare Officer's 'Hardship Funds'- aka a petty cash exercise to account for unexpected demands of CWOs. If its the case that tenants have to apply for a deposit in a regularised manner- rather than relying on the bounty of a 'hardship fund', and were more accountable for the deposit- and the chasing of the deposit from landlords- it would incentivise them to chase the landlord properly for any deductions, or if the tenant themselves were using the deposit in an inappropriate manner- it would stamp that out.

If people think that the CWOs 'Hardship funds' are going to continue to disburse deposits willy nilly in future- they really have no comprehension of just how bad this country's finances actually are. Our 21 billion in social welfare disbursements- is wholly unsustainable- and given the (foolish) guarantees the government have made to maintain headline rates- its so obvious that any disbursements that are not 'headline' disbursements, are going to be considered fair game.

I'm not blaming either tenants or landlords here- I'm blaming a system that allows these payments to slide as they are 'uneconomical' to allocate staff/resources to deal with them. We need a serious rethink here.......

Graces7

smcarrick. You say the present welfare system is "unsustainable" and I am not disagreeing with that at all.

But what do you see as the remedy alernative please (question mark not working on the keyboard)

Recently there was for example a case of a 7 year old boy collapsing from long term malnutrition and it was not that child benefit was not being paid

Listening to how other countries solve these issues.. they have feeding programmes in schools so that children get breakfast and lunch, rather than increasing benefits that do not get to the children.

( NB that is eg Canada where the latest figures for the homeless stand at 1.3 million)

The mother in that case said that by the day before child benefit was paid there was never any food in the house which suggests bad management .

Reducing benefits without some safety net for the vulnerable is a questionable issue.

There has also been of late a 50% refusal rate for applicants for disability

Do you see this kind of cutback as the way forward or what then

edellc

I have to agree with Grace, although 30million can not just be handed out without remorse or some attempt to recoup it, cutting benefits is not the way to go until some other alternative is in place. If FG got their way we would have a welfare and health system like that of America and we all see and know what dire conditions of destitute people are left in over there not to mention if you become sick with no health insurance.

We also can not look to the UK as when they are on welfare they have a better way of dealing with social housing, you would think that with all the ghost estates here that we should not have such issues as per the discussion of handing out millions in deposits to private landlords but yet again its a backwards way of doing things....bravo Ireland.

But I suppose to solve the problem would put lots of people out of business and those in power or in huge salary consultancy roles would lose out on such salaries so they like us to have these problems and to blame the poorest of the poor and for every taxpayer to follow suit as if they dont then shudder the thought of them having to pay more in taxes. Its a game of pass the parcel except the parcel is the blame game, of how the coppers are running dry, think we need to refocus and start looking back to the top of the pecking order and those who make decisions.

BostonB

Penalise who ever signed off on not tracking these deposits. Start tracking it now.

This country is awash with poor financial accountability with public money. Start chasing that down for a start.

The_Conductor

The case of the 7 year old boy collapsing from malnutrition- and the recent cases of scurvy in primary school children- are disgraceful- a complete and utter disgrace. Yes- children's benefit continues to be paid in respect of these children- and no, its very obviously not being used for its intended it be used for in a not insignificant number of cases. Look at the recent hullabaloo when Musgraves sponsored a drinks offer in conjunction with children's welfare day- aka, on the first Tuesday of the Month, as you've got your children's benefit- why not stock up on our cut price booze- its appalling. The national lottery statistics also show sharp peaks in ticket sales on welfare days- aka retailers are expecting people to use their benefit to fund alcohol purposes (though I doubt Musgraves will get so badly caught out again) and we have statistics inferring significant sales of lottery tickets (aka gambling) on days when there are welfare disbursements.

From this- we can infer that cash payments are not suitable (and not just children's benefit- other payments too) for who knows how many people. You can't actively discriminate against any particular section of the community- so a wholesale reform of the system would be necessary.

With respect of children- how about a vast push to encourage-

1. Parenting classes for all parents, no exceptions
2. A push to get unemployed certified as childcare workers (surely a significant number of our over 400,000 unemployed, both men and women, could be encouraged in this direction?)
3. A broadening of the pre-school care year to include all children under the age of 5
4. A change in the school year to lengthen the school year (the pre-text for having a 3 month summer break is that children had to help out on farms- which obviously isn't the case any longer- as we're predominantly an urban society)
5. Provision of meals in school for *all* school goers
6. Provision of supervised study and after-school clubs
7. Provision of book rental schemes
8. Provision of clothing and footwear for all children-

and in lieu of all of this........ the abolition of children's benefit.
So children get taken care of properly- without discrimination against anyone- everyone is fed, clothed and properly educated, at less cost than the current regime?

Thats just children's benefit.

Housing- thats a dynamite topic in an Irish context. We have on a global scale an almost unique attachment to ownership of property- and we haven't learnt any lessons from the 3 booms and busts since the late 60s.
We still have the mentality of turning up our noses at someone who can't afford to buy property- tinged with jealousy as they don't have a commensurate mortgage to everyone else now........
We need to somehow have an equitable system- those who have assets, pay a fair share, without being crucified, those who don't, don't end up turfed out on the street, but also don't have living conditions superior to someone working their butt off to make ends meet. How do you do this? I don't know.

Pensions and welfare

So- we need to encourage a fundamental rethink here.
Its the older generation who don't want their property to be considered as an asset when assessing eligibility towards provision of state care in old age. Its the younger generations who have mortgage millstones who can only dream of retirement like their parents (and indeed in many cases may have false ideas of the retirements their parents are managing to live). We have a generational divide- what suits one generation puts a cost on another- and vice versa. The recent papers (OECD) have suggested that rather than cutting our pension and/or social welfare rates, if its politically untenable- simply to remove all index/inflation linking going forward- so they would cost less in real terms. Aka- a person today will have far better retirement conditions than someone ten years hence, however in 10 years time, 224 Euro will be worth a hell of a lot less in real terms, than it is today.

Meanwhile- we still have a fundamental current account deficit of about 9 billion (admittedly better than many expected) that has to be tackled. Whatever way we look at it- there are going to be even more unhappy people out there.

The_Conductor

BostonB wrote: »

Penalise who ever signed off on not tracking these deposits. Start tracking it now.

This country is awash with poor financial accountability with public money. Start chasing that down for a start.

Part of the issue is the deposits are granted from 'hardship funds' which are controlled by the CWOs. There is no specific scheme to dole out deposits- they are habitually doled out as 'exceptional payments'. As it stands the CWOs are so overwhelmed with their work load- they are not in a position to do anything in this respect- aka it will have to be hived off on another section- somewhere else.

All payments like this should be habitually chased, certainly.

Jesus Shaves

BostonB wrote: »

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it.

In the real world the LL has to feed their own kids, pay the bills too. The tenant isn't going to help the LL when the LL ESB gets cut off.

If you can't afford to be a landlord then don't be one.

fasttalkerchat

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

If you can't afford to be a landlord then don't be one.

Agreed. I'm sick of hearing that a LL says they will return the deposit at the end of the month because they are short of cash. The worst thing is that many tenants regard the deposit as a sunk cost and its a bonus if they get more than half back!

The_Conductor

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Agreed. I'm sick of hearing that a LL says they will return the deposit at the end of the month because they are short of cash. The worst thing is that many tenants regard the deposit as a sunk cost and its a bonus if they get more than half back!

If you have an issue with not getting a deposit (or a portion of it) back- start a PRTB case- thats what they are there for. Its in the interests of both landlords and tenants that deposits etc be kept above board. Wide sweeping statements like yours do nothing to help either tenants or landlords- they are more suited to a Joe Duffy call-in.....

fasttalkerchat

smccarrick wrote: »

If you have an issue with not getting a deposit (or a portion of it) back- start a PRTB case- thats what they are there for. Its in the interests of both landlords and tenants that deposits etc be kept above board. Wide sweeping statements like yours do nothing to help either tenants or landlords- they are more suited to a Joe Duffy call-in.....

I said that I have heard that attitude several times. Personally I know a few students who were delighted that they got back the full deposit.
This attitude comes about because of the experiences of a substantial number of of tenants.
About the PTRB, this is the way to resolve issues on a case by case basis but they are powerless to prevent those LLs from trying to hold on to money that isn't there's.

The_Conductor

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

If you can't afford to be a landlord then don't be one.

Whats that supposed to mean?
A landlord is offering a service- just the same as shopkeeper- if you can't pay for your milk and butter- do you expect to walk out the door of the shop with them anyway? If a tenant has a financial problem- they need to discuss it both with the landlord and (if appropriate) their local CWO. A lot of recent 'landlords' are only landlords out of necessity- their jobs moved and they need to rent elsewhere- or their current home is unsuitable for children- so they are letting their sole property and renting elsewhere. If you stiff these people with cut-off electricity bills, unpaid rent etc- you are not hammering some faceless entity- you could potentially destroy them.

If you have a problem with a landlord- report them to the PRTB- starting all these hysterical stories and suggesting that landlords are somehow to blame for the ills of society- is one of the more blinkered viewpoints out there. They are people providing a service that society demands (and in many cases, are renting their sole property out, as its unsuitable to their current needs).

If I were a shopkeeper and you robbed me blind- I'd have to shut up shop in no time flat. A landlord is no different- many of them are being forced to shutup shop.

The_Conductor

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

they are powerless to prevent those LLs from trying to hold on to money that isn't there's.

Not entirely. Under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- their judgement is legally binding. If you have a judgement registered against a landlord- if they refuse to pay, the intention is that the PRTB then pursue them through the courts to enforce the judgement (I am not aware of this happening- however this is what is legislated for).

If you have an issue- report it. Normally even the threat of having an issue reported is sufficient for tenants and landlords to come to amicable arrangements- for those cases where it isn't- follow it through- if the landlord is chancing his arm, at very least you'll be saving other people a similar experience with him or her in future.

fasttalkerchat

smccarrick wrote: »

Not entirely. Under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- their judgement is legally binding. If you have a judgement registered against a landlord- if they refuse to pay, the intention is that the PRTB then pursue them through the courts to enforce the judgement (I am not aware of this happening- however this is what is legislated for).

Agreed. However it doesn't prevent cases where LLs hold on to €100 for "cleaning" and the tenant says ah well, at least I got most of the money. In another industry a customer would expect to get 100% of their money but bad practice is tolerated by many people.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

If you have an issue with not getting a deposit (or a portion of it) back- start a PRTB case- thats what they are there for. Its in the interests of both landlords and tenants that deposits etc be kept above board. Wide sweeping statements like yours do nothing to help either tenants or landlords- they are more suited to a Joe Duffy call-in.....

Again, with deepest respect for all you say.. what is a person needing RA to do when a landord withholds the deposit whih they absolutely need for their next deposit ( question mark not working on keyboard)

Most of us do not have resources to draw on. And we cannot wait for a PTRB wheel to grind exceedingly slowly.

There was a thread here recently re a landlord waiting on a couple who were apparently caught up in a delay that was probably not their fault.

We have had issues re getting deposits back too often now and last time had to very reluctantly stop paying rent the last few weeks to offset the deposit on the new place.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

The case of the 7 year old boy collapsing from malnutrition- and the recent cases of scurvy in primary school children- are disgraceful- a complete and utter disgrace. Yes- children's benefit continues to be paid in respect of these children- and no, its very obviously not being used for its intended it be used for in a not insignificant number of cases. Look at the recent hullabaloo when Musgraves sponsored a drinks offer in conjunction with children's welfare day- aka, on the first Tuesday of the Month, as you've got your children's benefit- why not stock up on our cut price booze- its appalling. The national lottery statistics also show sharp peaks in ticket sales on welfare days- aka retailers are expecting people to use their benefit to fund alcohol purposes (though I doubt Musgraves will get so badly caught out again) and we have statistics inferring significant sales of lottery tickets (aka gambling) on days when there are welfare disbursements.

From this- we can infer that cash payments are not suitable (and not just children's benefit- other payments too) for who knows how many people. You can't actively discriminate against any particular section of the community- so a wholesale reform of the system would be necessary.

With respect of children- how about a vast push to encourage-

1. Parenting classes for all parents, no exceptions
2. A push to get unemployed certified as childcare workers (surely a significant number of our over 400,000 unemployed, both men and women, could be encouraged in this direction?)
3. A broadening of the pre-school care year to include all children under the age of 5
4. A change in the school year to lengthen the school year (the pre-text for having a 3 month summer break is that children had to help out on farms- which obviously isn't the case any longer- as we're predominantly an urban society)
5. Provision of meals in school for *all* school goers
6. Provision of supervised study and after-school clubs
7. Provision of book rental schemes
8. Provision of clothing and footwear for all children-

and in lieu of all of this........ the abolition of children's benefit.
So children get taken care of properly- without discrimination against anyone- everyone is fed, clothed and properly educated, at less cost than the current regime?

Thats just children's benefit.

Housing- thats a dynamite topic in an Irish context. We have on a global scale an almost unique attachment to ownership of property- and we haven't learnt any lessons from the 3 booms and busts since the late 60s.
We still have the mentality of turning up our noses at someone who can't afford to buy property- tinged with jealousy as they don't have a commensurate mortgage to everyone else now........
We need to somehow have an equitable system- those who have assets, pay a fair share, without being crucified, those who don't, don't end up turfed out on the street, but also don't have living conditions superior to someone working their butt off to make ends meet. How do you do this? I don't know.

Pensions and welfare

So- we need to encourage a fundamental rethink here.
Its the older generation who don't want their property to be considered as an asset when assessing eligibility towards provision of state care in old age. Its the younger generations who have mortgage millstones who can only dream of retirement like their parents (and indeed in many cases may have false ideas of the retirements their parents are managing to live). We have a generational divide- what suits one generation puts a cost on another- and vice versa. The recent papers (OECD) have suggested that rather than cutting our pension and/or social welfare rates, if its politically untenable- simply to remove all index/inflation linking going forward- so they would cost less in real terms. Aka- a person today will have far better retirement conditions than someone ten years hence, however in 10 years time, 224 Euro will be worth a hell of a lot less in real terms, than it is today.

Meanwhile- we still have a fundamental current account deficit of about 9 billion (admittedly better than many expected) that has to be tackled. Whatever way we look at it- there are going to be even more unhappy people out there.

Thank you for the care an thought in this. And yes, so many have no idea how to budget and how to cook. Look at the trolleys in supermarkets.

An yes, children and the old must be cared for, as must the less obviously disabled eg mentally ill.

Always safety nets. chatted with a late middle aged woman last week who was fearful that the govt would run out iof money and she would not get her pension.

I am very old now and one one thing that frequently strikes me is that things we used to do for others, including family, just as a matter of course, people now expect payment for. We always were taught to look after family, to keep an eye on neighbours. Should not be the state;'s job.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

Whats that supposed to mean?
A landlord is offering a service- just the same as shopkeeper- if you can't pay for your milk and butter- do you expect to walk out the door of the shop with them anyway? If a tenant has a financial problem- they need to discuss it both with the landlord and (if appropriate) their local CWO. A lot of recent 'landlords' are only landlords out of necessity- their jobs moved and they need to rent elsewhere- or their current home is unsuitable for children- so they are letting their sole property and renting elsewhere. If you stiff these people with cut-off electricity bills, unpaid rent etc- you are not hammering some faceless entity- you could potentially destroy them.

If you have a problem with a landlord- report them to the PRTB- starting all these hysterical stories and suggesting that landlords are somehow to blame for the ills of society- is one of the more blinkered viewpoints out there. They are people providing a service that society demands (and in many cases, are renting their sole property out, as its unsuitable to their current needs).

If I were a shopkeeper and you robbed me blind- I'd have to shut up shop in no time flat. A landlord is no different- many of them are being forced to shutup shop.

But you see what many of us are experiencing time an time again is that we are paying for a service we are not getting. The place we rent is our home. And in many cases it is way below what eg the landlord would live in. Repairs and maintenance not done

If you were a shopkeeper. to use your own metaphor, short changing customers, selling shoddy goods that were in poor repair, then surely you would go out of business.

And at least the lls you refer to have a roof over them; many of us have to take what we can to have that basic privilege.

Cuts all ways.

Jesus Shaves

smccarrick wrote: »

Whats that supposed to mean?
A landlord is offering a service- just the same as shopkeeper- if you can't pay for your milk and butter- do you expect to walk out the door of the shop with them anyway? If a tenant has a financial problem- they need to discuss it both with the landlord and (if appropriate) their local CWO. A lot of recent 'landlords' are only landlords out of necessity- their jobs moved and they need to rent elsewhere- or their current home is unsuitable for children- so they are letting their sole property and renting elsewhere. If you stiff these people with cut-off electricity bills, unpaid rent etc- you are not hammering some faceless entity- you could potentially destroy them.

If you have a problem with a landlord- report them to the PRTB- starting all these hysterical stories and suggesting that landlords are somehow to blame for the ills of society- is one of the more blinkered viewpoints out there. They are people providing a service that society demands (and in many cases, are renting their sole property out, as its unsuitable to their current needs).

If I were a shopkeeper and you robbed me blind- I'd have to shut up shop in no time flat. A landlord is no different- many of them are being forced to shutup shop.

It's fairly clear what it means when you have landlords on here complaining about fee, charges and almost anything else they can complain about.
We all know the majority of landlords are only in it for the money.

Graces7

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

It's fairly clear what it means when you have landlords on here complaining about fee, charges and almost anything else they can complain about.
We all know the majority of landlords are only in it for the money.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in that surely. It should be a business arrangement.

We pay for a service and in good hands... trouble is that there seem to be few good hands at times. And too much of a hassle to get service

Although I agree re the complaints;)

But nothing wrong in the premise in any way. Should be as sm rightly says, like a shop

Jesus Shaves

Graces7 wrote: »

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in that surely. It should be a business arrangement.

We pay for a service and in good hands... trouble is that there seem to be few good hands at times. And too much of a hassle to get service

Although I agree re the complaints;)

But nothing wrong in the premise in any way. Should be as sm rightly says, like a shop

No, nothing wrong with it until you get a landlord who is renting his own residence like mccarick said above and they then can't afford the costs that come with being a landlord and they fail to pay back your deposit due to lack of funds, that was my point

Graces7

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

No, nothing wrong with it until you get a landlord who is renting his own residence like mccarick said above and they then can't afford the costs that come with being a landlord and they fail to pay back your deposit due to lack of funds, that was my point

Ah, I understand now; sorry... we were on different tracks of the same disc.

Yes amateur landlords.

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah, I understand now; sorry... we were on different tracks of the same disc.

Yes amateur landlords.

I was actually responding to the post about the tenant who refused to pay any utility bills, had the electricity cut off, and then fecked off, leaving the landlord with a 2k electricity bill, and a reconnection charge.

Amateur landlords give professional landlords who manage their properties properly and take good care of their tenants, a bad name. Tenants who leave bills and debts for the landlord in their wake, may give certain classes of tenants a bad name. Unfortunately landlords have to deal with imperfect situations the whole time- and unfortunately good tenants encounter amateur landlords who haven't got a clue what letting a property entails or what their obligations towards their tenants actually are.

You have good and bad landlords, you also have good and bad tenants. Anecdotes about rental allowance, RAS, and other classes of social welfare recipients have many landlords deliberately excluding large swathes of potential renters from their property- and the ineptitude of many landlords towards their property and their tenants- leaves a sour taste for many people renting (and also many people out of pocket).

The whole point of the PRTB was to act as a go-between all aspects of the equation when disputes arise- however the ham handed manner in which it can take 18 months for a case to get heard at all, means no-one, tenants or landlords, have any faith in it.

Its far from a good situation- perhaps the proposed lodging of deposits in an external organisation could resolve some issues- doubtless it would also create others.

I'm not pro-landlord, or pro-tenant- I'm more a realist- you have very good landlords and you have very good tenants. There are bad apples among both groups though- who seriously colour people's expectations, to the detriment of people who genuinely try to play by the rules.

The_Conductor

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

It's fairly clear what it means when you have landlords on here complaining about fee, charges and almost anything else they can complain about.

Landlords will complain about fees, charges, tax, damage to their property. Tenants will complain about landlords ignoring their legitimate complaints about property, taking forever to fix things when something goes wrong, unfair keeping of deposits etc. This does not mean that the landlords or the tenants are right or wrong. Its the internet- you only hear horror story, or improbably wonderful stories- you don't hear what happens to the average tenant with the average landlord. When people are satisfied with their tenant- or tenants satisfied with their landlord- no-one tends to say anything- leaving us all with very skewed impressions of whats actually happening out there. I've rented before- and had the most horrific of experiences (which I've recounted on boards many years ago). I've also had a lovely landlord- who I rented from for a few years, who unfortunately I've never mentioned before. Thats life. (I own my own place now, unfortunately as it turns out, so I'm not renting any more).

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

We all know the majority of landlords are only in it for the money.

Of course the majority of landlords are in it for the money. Its a business. They'd be clinically insane if the bottom line was not the reason they were landlords- its not in their interest to make a loss. Its also not in their interest to have a high turn-over of tenants- which equates with vacant periods, loss of income and the hassle of having to get new tenants on a regular basis. Any sane landlord takes good care of his or her tenants, in the expectation or hope that they have a longstanding arrangement- a profitable relationship.

Of course they're in it for the money- its a business after all......

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

But what do you see as the remedy alernative please (question mark not working on the keyboard)

Hold down the "Alt" key ( to the left of the keyboard), and type 63 to get a question mark.

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

We all know the majority of landlords are only in it for the money.

The majority? So those not in the majority are landlords that do it for the common good? Me bollix they are!

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

Thank you for the care an thought in this. And yes, so many have no idea how to budget and how to cook. Look at the trolleys in supermarkets.

Unfortunately- the 'ready meal' culture probably is here to stay. The best most families can hope for is a family meal around the kitchen table at least once a week. Some people call it progress, and the fast pace of modern living, sometimes I wonder though.

Graces7 wrote: »

An yes, children and the old must be cared for, as must the less obviously disabled eg mentally ill.

Certainly children, the infirm and the aged should be cared for. The question though is- what should this care entail, and more fundamentally- who should pay for it. We've been remarkable at kicking the can down the road for a long time- we promise all sorts of wonderous goodies for everyone, however the day of reckoning has caught up with us, and we need to figure how to pay for it all- or if cutting back, what is a basic entitlement, and what is the icing on the cake that we don't really need to provide towards.

Graces7 wrote: »

Always safety nets. chatted with a late middle aged woman last week who was fearful that the govt would run out iof money and she would not get her pension.

If you're talking to her again, you can reassure her, despite the fact that we're still in the IMF/EU/WB rescue- we've managed to start borrowing on the international markets again- a fair bit earlier than anticipated. We're not going to run out of money- the price of the money (aka how much investors charge the government to lend to it) is more the issue, than it is whether we can access funds....... Your friend's pension is safe.

Graces7 wrote: »

I am very old now and one one thing that frequently strikes me is that things we used to do for others, including family, just as a matter of course, people now expect payment for. We always were taught to look after family, to keep an eye on neighbours. Should not be the state;'s job.

Yes- it is sad that the modern world means most people only think of themselves. In the past we knew all our neighbours, and we looked out (and after) one another. People are so wrapped up in their own lives now- that very often people may not even know their neighbours names, much less have a friendly relationship with them. As for family- with the advent of travel, most families are far more scattered than they ever were before- so where we might once have had siblings, parents, cousins, living in the vicinity- now its less and less likely- which means people who have a reasonable expectation of a bit of peace and quiet in their old age, are often left to fend for themselves, to unreasonable levels. Is it right, or natural- of course not. Is there any way to reverse this- probably not- short of reverting to a previous era, which short of some sort of global catastrophic event, is unlikely to come about.......

When people say things aren't as they used be- very few of them have probably taken the time to sit down and think of how things really were, how modern life has stripped much of the humanity from society- and whether 'progress' really is progress at all, when if anything its awaken primeval self serving attitudes in society.

ahnowbrowncow

smccarrick wrote: »

I've rented before- and had the most horrific of experiences (which I've recounted on boards many years ago).

You've piqued my curiosity, would you mind sharing a link of the thread or it's name?

That "many years ago" line reeled me in

The_Conductor

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

You've piqued my curiosity, would you mind sharing a link of the thread or it's name?

That "many years ago" line reeled me in

Damn, now I'm going to have to go hunt......
It dates back to my student days, renting a room weekdays, in Stillorgan, and coming back on a Sunday evening to find my room thrashed with used condoms in the bed...... The landlady refused to refund my deposit, to be honest, I was relieved to get the hell out of there.......

Off hunting, I go.......