Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Eviction drama

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    The arguement that many make is that the home is sacred and people should not be evicted but only mortgage holders.

    I dont believe either should get to stay if they dont pay.

    Where show me one post in this thread that says that. Everybody here agrees that mortgage holder or not if you don't pay you should lose your home.

    However people understand the difference in process in regards to how both work.

    If the situation was that a tenant who missed rental payments would be easily pursued for this backdated rent, plus interest plus penalties like a mortgage holder is then there could be a argument that they should be treated the same.

    But the fact is this isn't the case, you don't pay your rent you get evicted yo move somewhere else and that's the end of it in all honesty you don't get that scenario as a homeowner. You get repoed and still owe the debt and penalties.

    So all those cribbing about equal rights for tenants need to realize you cant have your cake and eat it. Ive not seen one person defending tenants and equally calling for a system that allows for LL's to quickly and easily go via the court and get a judgement for monies due with penalties and interest for non paying tenants.


  • Options
    #63
    Mr.Mackey
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭Mr.Mackey


    gaius c wrote: »
    Do you find that everybody in life screams at you a lot?
    You're not exaggerating for effect by any chance?

    No I'm not exaggerating, the HSE are very difficult to deal with, hopefully you'll never have to deal with them.

    Thankfully I've managed to secure a loan with the bank so he'll be paid off in full by Fri.

    I understand I should have been paying but the rent was out of my means during that time, thankfully this is nearing resolution.


  • Options
    #64
    road_high
    Registered Users Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    3 months behind on rent seems a bit much...to say the least. Surprised the landlord was so lenient.


  • Options
    #65
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    D3PO wrote: »
    Where show me one post in this thread that says that. Everybody here agrees that mortgage holder or not if you don't pay you should lose your home.

    However people understand the difference in process in regards to how both work.

    If the situation was that a tenant who missed rental payments would be easily pursued for this backdated rent, plus interest plus penalties like a mortgage holder is then there could be a argument that they should be treated the same.

    But the fact is this isn't the case, you don't pay your rent you get evicted yo move somewhere else and that's the end of it in all honesty you don't get that scenario as a homeowner. You get repoed and still owe the debt and penalties.

    So all those cribbing about equal rights for tenants need to realize you cant have your cake and eat it. Ive not seen one person defending tenants and equally calling for a system that allows for LL's to quickly and easily go via the court and get a judgement for monies due with penalties and interest for non paying tenants.

    It is a common mindset. You dont see protesters at evictions of tennants.

    It is also equally difficult for a tennant to pursue a landlord for their deposit so it cuts both ways.


  • Options
    #66
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    It is a common mindset. You dont see protesters at evictions of tennants.

    It is also equally difficult for a tennant to pursue a landlord for their deposit so it cuts both ways.

    How so? The PRTB will help the tenant get the deposit back. The LL also is tied to the property and can be found easily. They also have means, as they have a property. So they can be chased for money.

    No way of tracking a tenant, they can just disappear. Even if you do find them, if they don't have money, you can't get it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    D3PO wrote: »
    Are you really asking that question ? :eek::eek:

    If a toerag non paying tenant doesn't pay and digs their heels in they may cause a LL to default, wreck his credit rating, cause them unreal levels of financial stress and put them in a position where there family home might be put in jepordy.

    Financial investments may go up or down. Nothing is risk free, nor should it be. If you are a landlord, you have speculated and if you get burned, well thats the market.

    I mean isint this the logic you are applying to tenants?


  • Options
    #68
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Thats not the market.
    Its a long term loan with appropriate protection and terms and conditions attached.
    Its not the role of a dice in a casino like some James Bond movie.


  • Options
    #69
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    beauf wrote: »
    Thats not the market.
    Its a long term loan with appropriate protection and terms and conditions attached.
    Its not the role of a dice in a casino like some James Bond movie.

    Its part of the speculation that a landlord signs up for when he starts to rent a property. The hypocrisy in D3PO's post is staggering. He is claiming tough **** on tenants, but then quickly takes offence that he would be treated in a similar way by the bank....


  • Options
    #70
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    You're assuming assumption is that people become LL as a business decision and not through financial hardship. Its quite often the latter. Even where its a business decision, it may not be speculating on the property market and capital gains as the primary goal of the business.


  • Options
    #71
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Its part of the speculation that a landlord signs up for when he starts to rent a property. The hypocrisy in D3PO's post is staggering. He is claiming tough **** on tenants, but then quickly takes offence that he would be treated in a similar way by the bank....

    No the point he made was that a tenant stops paying his rent, it's the landlord who's on the hook for missed mortgage repayments, bad credit rating and their own home under threat because a tenant doesn't pay, the tenant has none of these ultimately they just leave the property and that's the end of it.

    In fact this is what he says:

    The tenant has no stress they will just move somewhere else, they get away with things scott free essentially.

    And the chances of ever getting that money after finally securing an eviction are non existant.

    If somebody defaults on their mortgage they will eventually be repossessed and still bear the debt and penalties accrued after the property is sold. Granted a deal may be done in that regard but to try and compare the two situations and say they are the same is a joke.

    No hypocrisy there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    No the point he made was that a tenant stops paying his rent, it's the landlord who's on the hook for missed mortgage repayments, bad credit rating and their own home under threat because a tenant doesn't pay, the tenant has none of these ultimately they just leave the property and that's the end of it.

    In fact this is what he says:

    The tenant has no stress they will just move somewhere else, they get away with things scott free essentially.

    And the chances of ever getting that money after finally securing an eviction are non existant.

    If somebody defaults on their mortgage they will eventually be repossessed and still bear the debt and penalties accrued after the property is sold. Granted a deal may be done in that regard but to try and compare the two situations and say they are the same is a joke.

    No hypocrisy there.

    There is a very good reason the tenant is protected, and its demonstrated in countless threads on this very forum. Landlords abusing their power and putting peoples homes in jeopardy at a whim. You have no security of tenancy, which is why these rules exist. It's ridiculous to claim that the tenant is stress free, they are being evicted from their home! The landlord practically being unable to recoup the costs (or it being prohibitively expensive to do so) is probably the only scenario where the tenant doesn't lose out.

    If the landlord defaults, then its the bank who is left on the hook, and so it propagates up the chain.


  • Options
    #73
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    There is a very good reason the tenant is protected, and its demonstrated in countless threads on this very forum. Landlords abusing their power and putting peoples homes in jeopardy at a whim. You have no security of tenancy, which is why these rules exist. ITs ridiclous to claim that the tenant is stress free, they are being evicted from their home!

    If the landlord defaults, then its the bank who is left on the hook, and so it propagates up the chain.


    No, the landlord can be pursued and pay penalties, lose the property and any money he's invested in it.

    I don't know how many times I have to say this, but a tenant is paying for a service, they don't own the property, it isn't theirs they may call it their home but it isn't their house.

    All a tenant will lose is their deposit, the same as if I put down a deposit to book a venue for a night, if I break anything I loose the deposit, if I don't show up on the night, I lose the deposit. If I book a hotel online and don't show up I lose the deposit.

    A tenant doesn't pay their rent the only one losing is the landlord. If a landlord doesn't pay his mortgage he can be pursued for it till the day he dies, bar a deal with the bank.


  • Options
    #74
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »

    A tenant doesn't pay their rent the only one losing is the landlord. If a landlord doesn't pay his mortgage he can be pursued for it till the day he dies, bar a deal with the bank.

    Yeah and right back we go to, that regardless of the circumstances, engaging in being a landlord is speculation. There is no guarantee you will make money.

    It should also be kept in mind that most of them do make money, because if tenant default was so regular, we wouldn't see so many people becoming landlords.

    Why are people assuming the investment would be risk free? Its the same as anything else.


  • Options
    #75
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Yeah and right back we go to, that regardless of the circumstances, engaging in being a landlord is speculation. There is no guarantee you will make money.

    It should also be kept in mind that most of them do make money, because if tenant default was so regular, we wouldn't see so many people becoming landlords.

    Why are people assuming the investment would be risk free? Its the same as anything else.

    :rolleyes: Speculation? as in whether the price will go up or not on the property, or is it speculation that your tenants will pay the rent?

    There's pretty much an expectation that when someone rents a property that they'll pay their rent, that isn't speculation and more than likely the rent isn't covering the mortgage, although thanks to rising rents that's changing.


  • Options
    #76
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Speculation? as in whether the price will go up or not on the property, or is it speculation that your tenants will pay the rent?

    Both, they are inextricably linked for the landlord.

    Good lord read your own post, you say there is an "expectation" and then go on to say having an expectation is not speculation.....

    "Thanks" to raising rents? yeah its great that there are people in the country that can not afford a suitable place to live, wonderful.


  • Options
    #77
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Both, they are inextricably linked for the landlord.

    Good lord read your own post, you say there is an "expectation" and then go on to say having an expectation is not speculation.....

    Fair enough and that's why we'll never entertain anyone who isn't a professional and would never take anyone on rent allowance, as you say you've got to be careful in case you have a tenant who doesn't pay.


  • Options
    #78
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    would never take anyone on rent allowance.

    Nice to see the class war is still alive and well.


  • Options
    #79
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Nice to see the class war is still alive and well.

    Nope, you said as much yourself, that it's speculation on the landlords side as to whether a tenant pays or not, it's best to mitigate that risk on your investment by only going for tenants that are proportionally more likely to pay than those that may not.


  • Options
    #80
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    jmayo wrote: »
    The only thing I keep thinking is if only the tenant was an owner/mortgage holder there would be a possy of people around to make sure they weren't evicted, even if they had not been keeping up with their payments for much much longer than 3 months.

    And the same people who would see the landlords side in this discussion would be calling the banks theives and leeches for having the temerity to send letters reminding the defaulter to make payments.

    One rule for some I guess.
    If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

    Actually a very good point, I never looked at it that way. Renters have always been looked down on I think. Where we are, we've never been late with rent until this month, and at that it was 8 days and I literally did not sleep for those 8 days til I got it all together and ran in first thing to lodge it!. I was surprised that I just received one polite text this morning asking me if I could lodge it - I'd been quaking all week! :mad: Maybe because we were never late before (occasionally early) and tend not to be "problem tenants" - I dont know. But struggling to pay parent's mortgage too - its hard not to be annoyed when someone points out the differential treatment of various groups!


  • Options
    #81
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Nice to see the class war is still alive and well.

    Some dont allow those on allowance because they are not declaring rental income. We found out about ours that way - I had applied for rent relief (not knowing it had been phased out) and was told no sorry, can't give you RSI number - obvious who is not declaring! Sometimes its a snob thing, sometimes it's a tax thing - neither is right.:mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    Nope, you said as much yourself, that it's speculation on the landlords side as to whether a tenant pays or not, it's best to mitigate that risk on your investment by only going for tenants that are proportionally more likely to pay than those that may not.

    Its discrimination, which is legislated against in lots of other markets, its a disgrace that its not legislated against when it comes to someone securing a place to live.


  • Options
    #83
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Some dont allow those on allowance because they are not declaring rental income. We found out about ours that way - I had applied for rent relief (not knowing it had been phased out) and was told no sorry, can't give you RSI number - obvious who is not declaring! Sometimes its a snob thing, sometimes it's a tax thing - neither is right.:mad:

    In addition to one of them being illegal!

    Sorry to hear of your situation, you have my sympathies.


  • Options
    #84
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Its discrimination, which is legislated against in lots of other markets, its a disgrace that its not legislated against when it comes to someone securing a place to live.

    No it's not, I have every right to decide who lives in my investment, it's mine, I get to choose. Just as a golf club has every right to choose who it's members are.


  • Options
    #85
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    In addition to one of them being illegal!

    Sorry to hear of your situation, you have my sympathies.

    Aye that too. I know we should report but then we'd be out of a home :( I'm not doing too bad, feel lucky I can (most months) make ends meet and pay both but it is annoying that people are treated differently.


  • Options
    #86
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    No it's not, I have every right to decide who lives in my investment, it's mine, I get to choose. Just as a golf club has every right to choose who it's members are.

    Sure, unfortunately that right is/should be superseded by anti discrimination legislation.

    Would you agree with a sign in a pub that said no blacks? Or even better, no Irish?


  • Options
    #87
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    The Spider wrote: »
    No it's not, I have every right to decide who lives in my investment, it's mine, I get to choose. Just as a golf club has every right to choose who it's members are.


    That's true actually. I think discrimination can only work in a public vs private scenario. In your own home, you can pretty much be as racist/sexist/ageist/etc-ist as you want :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #88
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    Sure, unfortunately that right is/should be superseded by anti discrimination legislation.

    Would you agree with a sign in a pub that said no blacks? Or even better, no Irish?

    This isn't racism, before you try that card, this is ensuring that the tenants have the financial means to meet the commitment they make when they sign the lease, the same way the bank makes sure that I have the financial means to commit to a mortgage.


  • Options
    #89
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    This isn't racism, before you try that card, this is ensuring that the tenants have the financial means to meet the commitment they make when they sign the lease, the same way the bank makes sure that I have the financial means to commit to a mortgage.

    I'm not saying its racism, I'm saying its discrimination. If they are on rent allowance you can easily check that their payments meet the rent. You are rejecting them on the basis of the source of the money not the amount.


  • Options
    #90
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    I'm not sayings its racism, I'm saying its discrimination.

    In as much as it's discrimination when someone applies for a mortgage that they can't afford or keep up the repayments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ChRoMe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    The Spider wrote: »
    In as much as it's discrimination when someone applies for a mortgage that they can't afford or keep up the repayments.

    "If they are on rent allowance you can easily check that their payments meet the rent. You are rejecting them on the basis of the source of the money not the amount."


Advertisement