Kicked out of RAS property after 10 years

StillWaters

Anynama141 wrote: »

It looks rather like you are not getting it. In other countries, the system provides for people living in rented accommodation for as long as they wish. You've surely heard of this in other countries?

So why are New Begging not campaigning for that here, if it is people's homes that they are really protecting?

New Beginnings make no bones about the fact they are a lobby/campaign group for home owners/mortgage holders.

I definitely think there is a space for a campaign group for renters, particularly when more BTLs go into recievership. Perhaps you should start such a group?

Anynama141

StillWaters wrote: »

New Beginnings make no bones about the fact they are a lobby/campaign group for home owners/mortgage holders.

Their slogan is ""Fairness and Recovery for all" - but they are not concerned with fairness for paying renters, only for non-paying 'buyers'?

Well that sounds very fair for all, doesn't it?

StillWaters wrote: »

I definitely think there is a space for a campaign group for renters, particularly when more BTLs go into recievership. Perhaps you should start such a group?

If I rented in Ireland, I'd consider it. I don't.

Also, unlike New Beginning, David Hall etc., I have a hard time putting my hands in other people's pockets.

StillWaters

Anynama141 wrote: »

Their slogan is ""Fairness and Recovery for all" - but they are not concerned with fairness for paying renters, only for non-paying 'buyers'?

Well that sounds very fair for all, doesn't it?

If I rented in Ireland, I'd consider it. I don't.

Also, unlike New Beginning, David Hall etc., I have a hard time putting my hands in other people's pockets.

Well in fairness, everyone knows what newbeginnings agenda is, and renters do not figure.

I am not a renter either, so am not inclined to set up a campaign group, but until someone does they will find it difficult to be heard amongst all the noise. The parties renters would traditionally have looked to to look after their interests are too busy campaigning against property (landlord) tax.

Anynama141

StillWaters wrote: »

The parties renters would traditionally have looked to to look after their interests are too busy campaigning against property (landlord) tax.

There is a heavy irony there, isn't there? The only socialists in the world campaigning against property tax. You couldn't make it up.

murphaph

Anynama141 wrote: »

It looks rather like you are not getting it. In other countries, the system provides for people living in rented accommodation for as long as they wish. You've surely heard of this in other countries?

Name a country where a landlord can never evict a paying tenant under any circumstances?

Cuddlesworth

Richard Dower wrote: »

We'll see how things go....those wondering, i've been in front of four doctor/medical panels over the years and they've always signed off on my condition as legit, but i'd prefer not to disclose it here,

I don't see why not, you have "disclosed it" multiple times over the years. Sounds horrible btw.

Anynama141

murphaph wrote: »

Name a country where a landlord can never evict a paying tenant under any circumstances?

Who said anything about not evicting under any circumstances?

If tenants are not paying or are causing problems for other people, of course it should be possible to evict them - because they will be in breach of their contract. Same as people who 'own' houses that they bought with massive borrowings from the bank should be evicted if they breach the terms of their contract.

But some people think those people should be allowed breach their contracts with impunity. I think that is ridiculous. It's the double standards and hypocrisy that bother me.

Gatling

In this case the op wasn't been evicted by a dodgy landlord,
The bank took possession of the house from the original owner after defaulting a mortgage and informed the council it wasn't renewing the original 10 year lease

murphaph

Anynama141 wrote: »

Who said anything about not evicting under any circumstances?

You did. You claimed there were other countries that allowed tenants to remain in situ for their whole life should they want to. Conveying such a right to a tenant automatically implies that the landlord would not be able to regain possession until the tenant left of their own accord.

Richard Dower

Just a further update - i am not alone in the pain, there is a single chap in his late 30's beside me....quiet as a mouse btw, who is also on RAS - he too was told to leave. So both RAS tenants told to quit.

There are two further properties owned by the original landlord/now reposessed by bank located here as well, but they are on RA not RAS. I spoke to them and said they heard nothing and are staying?

So only RAS contracts were not renewed?....do you think the bank will turf out the other tenants as well?....i assume since its RA with no 4 year contract and the fact they can raise rent if they want that RA tenants are more attractive to the bank?

I'm starting to wonder if the bank wants everyone gone so they can just sell everything, maybe for redevelopment.

StillWaters

The bank aren't Landlords. They will want to sell the property. The RA tenants are on a different lease to you, they can be asked to leave either when the property goes on the Market (with appropriate notice) or when it goes sale agreed. This could be in a few months, or a few years. Alternatively the bank could sell as a tenanted property. There is no way of telling.

Anynama141

murphaph wrote: »

You did. You claimed there were other countries that allowed tenants to remain in situ for their whole life should they want to. Conveying such a right to a tenant automatically implies that the landlord would not be able to regain possession until the tenant left of their own accord.

There are. Without doing a tonne of research on the subject, in France you can sell your property to somebody and rent it back from them until you die. I'm sure if you bothered to look, you would find plenty of other examples, but I doubt you are interested in actually learning anything.

sunnysoutheast

Anynama141 wrote: »

There are. Without doing a tonne of research on the subject, in France you can sell your property to somebody and rent it back from them until you die. I'm sure if you bothered to look, you would find plenty of other examples, but I doubt you are interested in actually learning anything.

That is equity release, rather than an open-ended tenancy. Also possible in the UK, but seldom a good deal for the homeowner - although I think Jeanne Calment sold her house to her son-in-law under the scheme and lived to be 122!!

French tenancy agreements are three years (private landlord - corp is six) which automatically renew (not sure offhand if the renewal auto-renews). Landlords can only terminate at the anniversary if they want to sell or move in. Tenants can be evicted for breaching the lease but it takes years.

Of course, to get back to the OP's situation, nobody is breaking a contract simply by declining to renew it.

murphaph

Anynama141 wrote: »

There are. Without doing a tonne of research on the subject, in France you can sell your property to somebody and rent it back from them until you die. I'm sure if you bothered to look, you would find plenty of other examples, but I doubt you are interested in actually learning anything.

That has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make.

snubbleste

OP, I'd try to find a place yourself if you can.
There are cases of people on RAS about to be evicted and then being told by the Council to seek homeless services from the Council!

Anynama141

murphaph wrote: »

That has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make.

The point I was making is that, in Ireland, if you are a renter you are regarded as some sort of second class citizen. Everything I've seen in this thread confirms that view - the notion that if you are a renter, you don't have a right to regard your dwelling as your home.

ProudDUB

Anynama141 wrote: »

The point I was making is that, in Ireland, if you are a renter you are regarded as some sort of second class citizen. Everything I've seen in this thread confirms that view - the notion that if you are a renter, you don't have a right to regard your dwelling as your home.

You are living in someone elses property. Of course you are going to have a different status level to someone who owns their own home. (And by status, I don't mean on a social level, but in what rights and levels of security that you have.) I rent too. I don't see myself as a second class citizen at all. Just someone with a different set of circumstances to those who own.

Look at it from the other side for a minute. Let's say that you buy a house, or inheirit your old family home. You rent it out for a few years. Then after a few years, one of your kids wants to live in it, or you want to live in it, or you want to sell it to pay for your kids to go to college, or you have lost your job and you need the cash from the sale, just to put food on the table.

So you tell the tenant that you will not be renewing his/her lease. Is it fair to you, that you can not ever do that EVER, as that house is someone elses "home" and that because of that, they have a God given right to stay there for as long as they please? Is it fair that you, the owner of it, have zero rights what so ever to a house that YOU own? How is that fair to you? Answer: It is not. It is impossible to legislate for all that imo & keep both sides 100% happy with their lot.

I get that as a bank is the one turfing you out, it is easy to look at this as a cold hearted corporate transaction. But the majority of land lords in this country are private individuals. They are entitled to some sort of protection too, that gives them some sort of say in what happens to their own property.

Anynama141

ProudDUB wrote: »

I get that as a bank is the one turfing you out, it is easy to look at this as a cold hearted corporate transaction. But the majority of land lords in this country are private individuals. They are entitled to some sort of protection too, that gives them some sort of say in what happens to their own property.

I've complained long and loud about the lack of protection for landlords in this country, and suggested the setting up of a register of problem tenants. That's one side of the issue.

I'm also pointing out that renters who are living up to the terms of their contracts are not allowed (it seems) to have a home, unlike the people who 'own' their houses but are not living up to the terms of their mortgage contract. I'm pointing out this blatant double standard because it galls me that this passes more or less without comment in Irish civil society, while we have weekly protests when anyone tries to evict mortgage defaulters (even millionaire mortgage defaulters) from the properties they are taking a free ride in.

djimi

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'm also pointing out that renters who are living up to the terms of their contracts are not allowed (it seems) to have a home, unlike the people who 'own' their houses but are not living up to the terms of their mortgage contract. I'm pointing out this blatant double standard because it galls me that this passes more or less without comment in Irish civil society, while we have weekly protests when anyone tries to evict mortgage defaulters (even millionaire mortgage defaulters) from the properties they are taking a free ride in.

The problem is not with the renters, its with those who think that people should be able to get away without paying their mortgage.

Renters who are on a fixed term lease are safe and can expect to remain in the property as their home; there is no issue there. A part 4 tenancy offers less protection, but then its not supposed to be an indefinite arrangement. If a tenant wants long term protection to turn their rental property into a home then they should look to sign a long term lease (10-25 years). We dont typically do this as tenants in Ireland; most people seem to sign a one year lease, let it lapse onto a part 4 tenancy then give out when they get termination notice because the landlord wants to sell etc.

In any rental situation, the tenant knows that they are only secure for the duration of the lease, be that 6 months, a year, 5 years, 25 years etc. The lease is the length of the contract between tenant and landlord; it is not an indefinite arrangement and it doesnt make sense to expect it to be. Thats the nature of renting; everyone knows this when they choose to rent as opposed to buying property.

Richard Dower

snubbleste wrote: »

OP, I'd try to find a place yourself if you can.
There are cases of people on RAS about to be evicted and then being told by the Council to seek homeless services from the Council!

Yup, i put this to them....what if they cant find a place within the 390pm cap limit, am i on my own?....go back to RA?....she wouldnt answer, totally dodged the question.

If they dont find a place by August 24th i will be forced to squat, they'll have to call the guards and arrest me.

Anynama141

Richard Dower wrote: »

Yup, i put this to them....what if they cant find a place within the 390pm cap limit, am i on my own?....go back to RA?....she wouldnt answer, totally dodged the question.

If they dont find a place by August 24th i will be forced to squat, they'll have to call the guards and arrest me.

Get onto some of those ant-eviction action groups - if you get no support, it will prove that they are just bullsh!tters who only care about dodging their debts while stealing property from the taxpayer.

Richard Dower

Anynama141 wrote: »

The point I was making is that, in Ireland, if you are a renter you are regarded as some sort of second class citizen. Everything I've seen in this thread confirms that view - the notion that if you are a renter, you don't have a right to regard your dwelling as your home.

+1.....not only that but there is a homeowner across from me and was giving me shiite about a van parked outside my house while doing repairs. Her attitufe was the same.....ooh you're only renting we own this house.

So what?....i was living there longer then her, and she dosent own her house its a mortgage....so she's basically renting for 25 years. It pisses me off that attitude people have to renters, :mad:

Richard Dower

Update - not a peep out of anyone in over a week, nothing happening....severe depression.

Richard Dower

New update -got a cal from LCC, they found a place, ergo their first offer. Pennywell Road.....have to meet them tomorrow to view it,

Bricking it.......:(

The unknown, new place...new enviroment, its a flat/apartment so no idea who is above or below, are they quiet?....too many questons!!!!! :(:(:(

No idea what to even look out for, its been 10 years since i saw a place rented, why things should i be looking at?

All i want is a QUIET place/area.....:(

Grandpa Hassan

It seems to me that you've already decided that you're not going to like anywhere you look at.

Look, you've had a great run for 10 years. Many renters woud have had to move a couple of times during that period. You need to get over the fact that you have to move, and approach the new place with an open mind. Don't compare it to the old place....look at it on its own merits.

The_Conductor

Let us know how it goes.

galwaytt

Richard Dower wrote: »

New update -got a cal from LCC, they found a place, ergo their first offer. Pennywell Road.....have to meet them tomorrow to view it,

Bricking it.......:(

The unknown, new place...new enviroment, its a flat/apartment so no idea who is above or below, are they quiet?....too many questons!!!!! :(:(:(

No idea what to even look out for, its been 10 years since i saw a place rented, why things should i be looking at?

All i want is a QUIET place/area.....:(

Hope it goes well for you.

Can I give a view from the other side too: my brother had a house leased to Co Co with an equally nice good tenant for nearly 10 years too. On summary notice Co Co moved the tenant and brother lost a good tenant and tenant lost a good home.

RAS doesn't seem to have suited anyone here.

Gatling

galwaytt wrote: »

Hope it goes well for you.

Can I give a view from the other side too: my brother had a house leased to Co Co with an equally nice good tenant for nearly 10 years too. On summary notice Co Co moved the tenant and brother lost a good tenant and tenant lost a good home.

RAS doesn't seem to have suited anyone here.

Moved or housed them?

Richard Dower

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

It seems to me that you've already decided that you're not going to like anywhere you look at.

Look, you've had a great run for 10 years. Many renters woud have had to move a couple of times during that period. You need to get over the fact that you have to move, and approach the new place with an open mind. Don't compare it to the old place....look at it on its own merits.

Tis hard...you've made a home and forced to move, i'm trying to not prejudge and give the new places a shot. But you never know what its like to live in a place UNTIl you live in it....if you get what i mean.

It looked Ok from the outside, was down there today....sure we'll know soon enough.

foggy_lad

Richard Dower wrote: »

It looked Ok from the outside, was down there today....sure we'll know soon enough.

Generally if an area looks good from the outside at first glance the it will be okay to live in.