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
Landlord won't go away!
Options
Comments
-
To be honest... if you want to have a private conversation, go somewhere private. A sitting room/living room or any other common area including the kitchen is not the area for wanting a private conversation because having it stay private is in complete contradiction to it being a common area.
You have bedrooms, so go there for your private chats or go outside to a cafe, McDonalds, Starbucks or whatever. I see absolutely no issues with an owner-occupier landlord or any other housemate hoggingthe living room because that's the entire point of having a common area living room in shared accomodation...
In my opinion, people that want a living room to themselves need to either buy their own house or rent by themselves, simple as. Or if you can't afford to do so, keep saving and get a TV in your room.0 -
You are sharing a house with six other people, I cannot fathom how you expect private space except for the room you rent!!0
-
makeorbrake wrote: »Your retracting and all but re-stating.
What you suggest about having exclusive use of the living room at certain times is completely unreasonable. If your conversations are so private, then drop down the local pub or cafe and meet there! If someone turned to me in my own home and told me in my own living room, "this is a private conversation", I wouldn't be long in telling them where to go!
You say asking her to "respect other peoples privacy is futile". Respect is a mutual thing and as much as you hate the fact (and this comes up time and time again on boards threads - and I've had 6 years experience of it previously) that you are living with a home owner.
Whilst I agree that you should bail out on the basis of what you mentioned re. her not contributing towards bills and scrounging food & cigs off the rest of you, I do NOT agree with the general points you raise re. living in a owner occupied house share.
If that remains your viewpoint, you are right not to enter into a owner occupied house share at any future point (I'm thinking of that from the point of view of the owner occupier as you would be doing them a dis-service).
My final point....
I hope that at some future point you get the opportunity to experience the 'dynamic' of a house share as an owner occupier. I can guarantee you it will temper and adjust the way you see it.
I was retracting my "warning to renters" and making a personal statement from my point of view. Please don't attack my point of view.
As I have said several times during the course of this thread, we were living in shared rented accommodation where there was a positive dynamic and mutual respect for everyone in the house.
I was (erroneously, apparently) under the impression that landlords who live in the house, but most especially those who return to the house after not being there when her tenants moved in, would respect that we don't want her there all the time. It's her house, but it's also our house, or at least we were under the impression that it was and this has been pointed out several times by other posters. Yes, I am renting a room, but we had a dynamic in the house that meant we all shared the communal facilities but one person did not monopolise any one room at any time. That is exactly what she is doing and it's making her tenants hate her and move out.
I don't think it's fair to say that I am doing a dis-service to her. I moved into a property that was not owner occupied. That's partly why I moved there in the first place. It is now owner occupied by a woman who really does make us feel like we're an inconvenience to her (aside from when she wants to steal things from us) and it does not feel like a home any more. I'm not doing anything to her, I'm still paying rent into her partner's bank account and paying bills and keeping the house in order. She's the one coming in and imposing on all of us and changing the dynamic in what was previously an enjoyable place to live.
Anyway, as I have stated several times, I am now looking into my options regarding moving out and personally, will never share with an owner-occupier ever again. I pay enough rent to feel like where I live is my home, and that is no longer the case.0 -
OP the point people are making is that not all owner occupiers are like that , not all landlords are cowboys, not all RA tenants are unreliable and not all housemates are perfect either. Generalisations like that are dangerous ones to make as they are not a 'one size fits all'.
Noone is attacking your personal view, they are asking that you don't lump everyone into the same pigeon hole that your current landlady fits into.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Grandpa Hassan wrote: »that's not necessarily fair. I have done it before, and had no problem. The owner has behaved no differently than a tenant would. There are as many bad housemates out there as bad owner occupier LLs
As an owner occupier- I had one otherwise lovely girl stay- who saw nothing wrong with leaving a large pot of slowly decomposing stew on the stove for a week +
On another occasion I had someone demand exclusive kitchen use between 5PM and 7PM *every* evening.
As for the number of people who believe *No Smoking In the House* means you have to open the window before you smoke in your bedroom.......
A nice German guy couldn't get his head around the fact that you have to turn on the immersion heater to heat water- and you have to remember to turn it off too. And no- its not free unlimited hot water. By the time he'd burnt out the second element on the immersion heater the writing was on the wall.
You get good landlords and good tenants- and you get weirdos too- unfortunately its very hard to tell them apart at the outset.0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Morrigan wrote: »OP the point people are making is that not all owner occupiers are like that , not all landlords are cowboys, not all RA tenants are unreliable and not all housemates are perfect either. Generalisations like that are dangerous ones to make as they are not a 'one size fits all'.
Noone is attacking your personal view, they are asking that you don't lump everyone into the same pigeon hole that your current landlady fits into.
Fair enough, I apologise.0 -
I'm not 'attacking' anything. You've expressed an opinion and I've expressed the opposite opinion :-)allandanyways wrote: »I was retracting my "warning to renters" and making a personal statement from my point of view. Please don't attack my point of view.
I get it. You resent a home owner now being in the house.allandanyways wrote: »As I have said several times during the course of this thread, we were living in shared rented accommodation where there was a positive dynamic and mutual respect for everyone in the house.
If you have a strength of conviction about that, why don't you all say exactly that to her i.e. "We don't want you here all the time". Personally, I think there are a couple of reasons why - even though thats what you think - you are not coming straight out with it - and I don't think any of those reasons reflect well on you.allandanyways wrote: »I was (erroneously, apparently) under the impression that landlords who live in the house, but most especially those who return to the house after not being there when her tenants moved in, would respect that we don't want her there all the time.
Sure - it is and I have as yet not seen you suggest anything that she has denied you full use of the house.allandanyways wrote: »It's her house, but it's also our house, or at least we were under the impression that it was and this has been pointed out several times by other posters.
You are not talking about 'sharing' the 'communal' facilities. You are saying that you all - at various times can use the 'communal facilities' exclusively/separately. There's nothing 'communal' about that! It's totally unreasonable.allandanyways wrote: »Yes, I am renting a room, but we had a dynamic in the house that meant we all shared the communal facilities but one person did not monopolise any one room at any time. That is exactly what she is doing and it's making her tenants hate her and move out.
That's a fair point....although I think you said that this was likely to happen at some point - just that it has happened much sooner than you were told. I guess peoples circumstances change. On the basis of that - if you fundamentally can't countenance sharing with an owner occupier, there's absolutely nothing to discuss. Simply move out.allandanyways wrote: »I don't think it's fair to say that I am doing a dis-service to her. I moved into a property that was not owner occupied. That's partly why I moved there in the first place.
If you 'hate' her, then you resent her being there. Don't tell me that there isn't an undercurrent on the basis of that. The only evidence of 'imposing' from what you have articulated is by way of her simply 'being there'.:rolleyes:allandanyways wrote: »I'm not doing anything to her, I'm still paying rent into her partner's bank account and paying bills and keeping the house in order. She's the one coming in and imposing on all of us and changing the dynamic in what was previously an enjoyable place to live.
Do you think then that an owner occupier could never offer a house share that could be fair and equitable? If you ever go down that road, please come back on boards and post up your experience of it.allandanyways wrote: »Anyway, as I have stated several times, I am now looking into my options regarding moving out and personally, will never share with an owner-occupier ever again. I pay enough rent to feel like where I live is my home, and that is no longer the case.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »A nice German guy couldn't get his head around the fact that you have to turn on the immersion heater to heat water- and you have to remember to turn it off too. And no- its not free unlimited hot water. By the time he'd burnt out the second element on the immersion heater the writing was on the wall.
In fairness, immersions are a terrible and inefficient design. I'm glad I have an instantaneous gas boiler that heats the water.0 -
OP, just move out as you decided - only possible solution.
As for the owner's behaviour, I can only say one thing: if she was a tenant, placed on the couch like a statue, preventing everybody else from using the TV, always disturbing when somebody happened to be around, not even budging when she was asked, in advance, for an hour or two to watch a single show, she would be considered a "housemate from hell" and rightfully so. Add in the non-payment of bills and petty theft, and the picture is complete.
She really gets a free pass here as she's the owner, and really everybody think "her house, her rules" - a mentality that nicely confirms the suspicion that a owner-occupier might be much more difficult to deal with than a tenant housemate.
On a final note, why does the rent go to her "partner's" account? Is she the owner at all?0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »A nice German guy couldn't get his head around the fact that you have to turn on the immersion heater to heat water- and you have to remember to turn it off too. And no- its not free unlimited hot water. By the time he'd burnt out the second element on the immersion heater the writing was on the wall.
In fairness, it's an incredibly backward design that you have here.
Where I come from, hot water tanks have this amazing new technology called a "thermostat" that causes the element to cut out when the water is hot enough. And there's none of this switching them off rubbish, because people understnad the the Legionnaires disease risk associated with having a tank of tepid water sitting around all day.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mrs OBumble wrote: »In fairness, it's an incredibly backward design that you have here.
Where I come from, hot water tanks have this amazing new technology called a "thermostat" that causes the element to cut out when the water is hot enough. And there's none of this switching them off rubbish, because people understnad the the Legionnaires disease risk associated with having a tank of tepid water sitting around all day.
I guess the point is that its not a complicated system (even if it is somewhat archaic) and it shouldnt need explaining more than once...0 -
"preventing everybody from using the TV"? That's not what the OP has described. You think that she has to leave the room so that someone else can watch something else? How self-centric is that exactly!?H3llR4iser wrote: »As for the owner's behaviour, I can only say one thing: if she was a tenant, placed on the couch like a statue, preventing everybody else from using the TV, always disturbing when somebody happened to be around, not even budging when she was asked, in advance, for an hour or two to watch a single show, she would be considered a "housemate from hell" and rightfully so.
No - that's the single issue upon which the decision to move out becomes clearcut.H3llR4iser wrote: »Add in the non-payment of bills and petty theft, and the picture is complete.
We reading the same info?H3llR4iser wrote: »always disturbing when somebody happened to be around
Free pass? What free pass?H3llR4iser wrote: »She really gets a free pass here as she's the owner
Well, I should very much hope so! It is her house and therefore, she would have to take responsibility and set house rules. You think if you were an owner occupier renting out rooms that you WOULDNT set house rules? Good luck with that!H3llR4iser wrote: »And really everybody think "her house, her rules"
A MENTALITY? It's not a MENTALITY. It's a set of house rules (i.e. whatever was agreed upon prior to the lodger agreeing to take the room).H3llR4iser wrote: »a mentality that nicely confirms the suspicion...
You mean that if you - at a later stage - feel you can do what the hell you like, the homeowner isn't likely to take your crap!? Damn straight.H3llR4iser wrote: »....that a owner-occupier might be much more difficult to deal with than a tenant housemate.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »"preventing everybody from using the TV"? That's not what the OP has described. You think that she has to leave the room so that someone else can watch something else? How self-centric is that exactly!?
It is clear the lady is sitting there from early morning to late evening. Now, you enter a room where somebody else is doing their own business - watching TV, knitting, reading a book, whatever really. Do you go on and change the TV channel because you want to watch a different show, or put music blasting on? You don't, because you respect the fact that person was there before you and you have no right to interrupt what they are doing.
If said person, however, pulls the "been there before you" trick consistently, it gets unfair to the other tenants. It's a matter of common sense: it's a shared area, use it as you please while respecting the others - which means watch your show and then leave, not sit there 18 hours a day. Owner or not.
The OP stated, repeatedly, that the landlady has a habit of constantly talking over other people conversations, the TV and so on. Could the case for "go to your room and shut her out" be made? Certainly, but it still doesn't change the fact that the lady's behaviour is unnecessarily nosy and rude, depending on the situations.We reading the same info?No - that's the single issue upon which the decision to move out becomes clearcut.
I reiterate: if whatever the landlady is doing a tenant did, he/she would be universally condemned as a selfish, horrible housemate.Free pass? What free pass?
But as she owns the place according to many posters, this lady can simply walk over anybody else in the house. If the concept of "OP, if you want privacy rent alone" is valid for the landlady as well, in the form of "if you want to do whatever you please whenever you please, do not take in sharing tenants".
As simple as it is, if that's the idea one should never, ever be an "owner occupier". The moment somebody pays for accommodation, he/she should also be able to reasonably benefit of the comforts of such arrangement without the constant "owner is watching you" harassment.Well, I should very much hope so! It is her house and therefore, she would have to take responsibility and set house rules. You think if you were an owner occupier renting out rooms that you WOULDNT set house rules? Good luck with that!
If the owner is not able to do so, he/she should be very clear from the beginning, explaining the "tenants" are actually "paying guests" with only use of their room allowed. Not sure if it's legal, but from experience I can tell it's de facto the way day-to-day living turns in many owner-occupier arrangements (not only in Ireland, mind you).
For mentality, I mean the concept that an owner-occupier can do whatever he/she pleases and the tenants should just shut up and go to their rooms. Anyway you clearly did not understand the whole predicament, as the OP made clear that the owner wasn't living in the house when she initially rented the room. The whole initial premise was completely different from what it is now, but all the tenants are still paying exactly what they did when they were allowed more free reign and autonomous management of their spaces, which clearly they aren't anymore.A MENTALITY? It's not a MENTALITY. It's a set of house rules (i.e. whatever was agreed upon prior to the lodger agreeing to take the room).
You mean that if you - at a later stage - feel you can do what the hell you like, the homeowner isn't likely to take your crap!? Damn straight.0 -
Nonsense. Unless the OP's talking about a palatial mansion with multiple communal rooms, then the above would not be practical. For 99% of people, a living room's going to have a TV running. Read a book? - in your room (or another communal room if there's one available). "knitting"? - not likely to bother anyone!H3llR4iser wrote: »It is clear the lady is sitting there from early morning to late evening. Now, you enter a room where somebody else is doing their own business - watching TV, knitting, reading a book, whatever really. Do you go on and change the TV channel because you want to watch a different show, or put music blasting on? You don't, because you respect the fact that person was there before you and you have no right to interrupt what they are doing.
No you don't 'go and change the channel' if someone is in the middle of something. It's a house SHARE - all that's coming through from this thread is selfishness! If you're saying that both the OP, other lodgers and the owner occupier don't accommodate and consider one another by showing some flexibility as regards what they all want to watch, then any of them that don't facilitate same are being selfish. That does NOT require anyone else to leave the room! - remember, most likely this is the only comfortable communal room in the house.
50% right. Watch what you want and share that option amongst all others in the household. If the owner occcupier isn't facilitating that, then the OP is dead right....but the very same goes for every other resident. You certainly don't turn to any other resident in the living room and say "do you mind - this is a private conversation"! (code for go sling yer hook).H3llR4iser wrote: »If said person, however, pulls the "been there before you" trick consistently, it gets unfair to the other tenants. It's a matter of common sense: it's a shared area, use it as you please while respecting the others - which means watch your show and then leave, not sit there 18 hours a day. Owner or not.
It hasn't been made clear whether this was a personality idiosyncrasy or done with an intent to purposely disrupt. If the former, that could be the case with any resident of the household. It's not ideal - but what the hell are you going to do about it! Change that persons personality? Anybody entering into a house share (any house share) can expect there to be characteristics they see in others that they simply don't like. If people are not open to that, then they should pay out - and go for sole occupancy - end of.H3llR4iser wrote: »The OP stated, repeatedly, that the landlady has a habit of constantly talking over other people conversations, the TV and so on.
Certainly? See above. It's not clear that's the case. If it is the case, then the OP is dead right to have an issue with that.H3llR4iser wrote: »Could the case for "go to your room and shut her out" be made? Certainly..
nosy? Where does nosy come into it? Are you referring to the OP's "do you mind, this is a private conversation?" That's absolutely indefensible - and it's the OP that's being downright rude.H3llR4iser wrote: »..but it still doesn't change the fact that the lady's behaviour is unnecessarily nosy and rude, depending on the situations.
In many ways, it's simply an irrelevance in making a distinction between owner occupier or lodger/tenant in that general statement. If someone is disrespectful or selfish, that's exactly what they are - regardless of whether owner or lodger/tenant.H3llR4iser wrote: »I reiterate: if whatever the landlady is doing a tenant did, he/she would be universally condemned as a selfish, horrible housemate.
"where in this thread is this simply walk over anbody else in the house evidenced? ...but yes, I whole heartedly agree - it cuts both ways re. what expectations of privacy or more accurately (given what the OP has articulated here) EXCLUSIVE use of the house/parts of the house/facilities within the house - are concerned.H3llR4iser wrote: »But as she owns the place according to many posters, this lady can simply walk over anybody else in the house. If the concept of "OP, if you want privacy rent alone" is valid for the landlady as well, in the form of "if you want to do whatever you please whenever you please, do not take in sharing tenants".
Who said anything about preventing someone from 'reasonably benefiting' from use of the house? You think then there shouldn't be any house rules whatsoever? Do you think that the owner occupier has any other choice (whether they like it or not, in such a house share scenario, the responsibility befalls them to set that out from the very outset)? If house rules are agreed from the outset either the lodger agrees to same OR they say "thanks but no thanks". It's no different a scenario in this regard than anyone organising a house share. As regards "owner is watching you" - where does that statement come from in relation to this specific thread? Even considering it outside the context of this thread, it seems that you make assumptions/do yourself a dis-service/would do an owner occupier a dis-service - if that is your automatic reflex regardless of who you are actually dealing with!H3llR4iser wrote: »As simple as it is, if that's the idea one should never, ever be an "owner occupier". The moment somebody pays for accommodation, he/she should also be able to reasonably benefit of the comforts of such arrangement without the constant "owner is watching you" harassment.
Again, relating that back to this thread, the OP has not suggested that the owner occupier has said that. However, I do agree completely if there are such owner occupiers out there, they should state exactly that - if that is their understanding of how they want things to run. ....BUT....you assume "from [your] experience" that's the norm. You're doing a lot of people a dis-service with that assumption. It's certainly not my idea of how such a house share should run!...so thank you for including us all in that totally inaccurate sweeping statement.H3llR4iser wrote: »If the owner is not able to do so, he/she should be very clear from the beginning, explaining the "tenants" are actually "paying guests" with only use of their room allowed. Not sure if it's legal, but from experience I can tell it's de facto the way day-to-day living turns in many owner-occupier arrangements (not only in Ireland, mind you).
You're plucking that from thin air. Personally, I believe on judging each case on its own merits - NOT tar and feathering every owner occupier. Nor is what you suggest here clear from this particular case.H3llR4iser wrote: »For mentality, I mean the concept that an owner-occupier can do whatever he/she pleases and the tenants should just shut up and go to their rooms.
Sure, I did. Please READ my posts on this thread. I even confirmed that back to the OP, that she acknowledged that the 'dynamic' in the house had changed. That's totally unavoidable. She's the home owner - she can't change that fact! With that comes responsibility.H3llR4iser wrote: »Anyway you clearly did not understand the whole predicament, as the OP made clear that the owner wasn't living in the house when she initially rented the room. The whole initial premise was completely different from what it is now, but all the tenants are still paying exactly what they did when they were allowed more free reign and autonomous management of their spaces, which clearly they aren't anymore.
Furthermore, the OP was aware that this was likely to happen - just not as soon as she was told - or was envisaged....or should we also tar and feather the owner occupier for having become unemployed?0 -
allandanyways wrote: »She's a bit of a petty person, despite my earlier statement that she's relatively sound. When I said it to her about my missing cigs, she said "Ah sure, I fixed the window in the kitchen, so I think I'm entitled to take some form of payment". :mad:
That takes the biscuit! Surely she's responsible for wear and tear on the house? Unless one of ye broke the window of course.
You said she's not working, is this why she's not paying the bills and thieving from you do you reckon? Frickin cheek anyway. I would be out in a flash TBH, leave her at it.0 -
I would be far from happy living with this type of situation.
At this stage I would do the following
Have a chat with the other renters and make them aware that she is not paying any thing toward the mortgage or bills. I would also ask them is she eating there food/ drinking there milk?
The next night she is in the sitting room I would have all the tenets there and then ask her when are you giving us all a rent reduction?
I would just remind her that since there are now x number in house she should be reducing down the rent you are all currently paying.
I would say to her that you wants the bills divided by x number also.
I would also ask in front of the other can have the sitting room the following night due to y and then say like I could do before //// came back to live here.
It is time this woman realised that she needs you all to stay in the her home to pay her mortgage.
The reality is that a lot of people don't want to live with an owner occupier.0 -
It doesn't matter if the owner gets enough in rent to pay her mortgage, nothing to do with the OP.I would be far from happy living with this type of situation.
At this stage I would do the following
Have a chat with the other renters and make them aware that she is not paying any thing toward the mortgage or bills.
Why should the rent change just because one person went away for a few months? By your statement you could argue that the rent should have been higher while the owner was away as less people were living in the houseI would just remind her that since there are now x number in house she should be reducing down the rent you are all currently payingallandanyways wrote: »Then, in January, the landlord moved back from Germany as she lost her job and has taken residency back up in her attic room (she lived in the house previously before I had moved in)0 -
OP. Dont let bitterness consume you.
You obviously dont like her and dont like living with her, so why are you?
Move. Get on with your life where you are happier.0 -
It doesn't matter if the owner gets enough in rent to pay her mortgage, nothing to do with the OP.
Why should the rent change just because one person went away for a few months? By your statement you could argue that the rent should have been higher while the owner was away as less people were living in the house
The LL did not live there when the tenants moved in - the OP said she's been there for 7 months and the LL decided to move in less than 2 months ago. Whatever about the rent reducing, the bills should most certainly be reducing. The LL sounds like a right tight ass if you ask me - the LL is using up utilities, broadband presumably, tv, electricity, etc yet is contributing zero to all of these expenses! The LL also uses their food. It's completely unacceptable.
OP, I hope things have changed since your last post.0 -
tinkerbell wrote: »The LL did not live there when the tenants moved in - the OP said she's been there for 7 months and the LL decided to move in less than 2 months ago. Whatever about the rent reducing, the bills should most certainly be reducing. The LL sounds like a right tight ass if you ask me - the LL is using up utilities, broadband presumably, tv, electricity, etc yet is contributing zero to all of these expenses! The LL also uses their food. It's completely unacceptable.
OP, I hope things have changed since your last post.
If the OP doesn't like it - leave. The behaviour of the landlord tells me that she wants the tenants out. If she's freeloading off the tenants then she's doing it to p1ss them off in the hope that they'll pack their bags0 -
Advertisement
-
If the LL is there 24/7 I'd say the bill has spiked. Also, I'd wonder if there are normal radiators in her attic bedroom, as I doubt it. I'd also assume the LL is using electric radiators up there.tinkerbell wrote: »The LL sounds like a right tight ass if you ask me - the LL is using up utilities, broadband presumably, tv, electricity, etc yet is contributing zero to all of these expenses! The LL also uses their food. It's completely unacceptable.
OP, I hope things have changed since your last post.
On this note; OP, check the rent locally. I'd wonder if she's hoping to rent the house at a higher rate as a whole, but needs everyone out first. Either that, or she plans to sell an empty house (which she must empty first).Mongfinder General wrote: »If she's freeloading off the tenants then she's doing it to p1ss them off in the hope that they'll pack their bags0 -
Nice, you think she should move out of her home (which it is) just like that?Mongfinder General wrote: »If the OP doesn't like it - leave. The behaviour of the landlord tells me that she wants the tenants out. If she's freeloading off the tenants then she's doing it to p1ss them off in the hope that they'll pack their bags
I think she should go the the PRTB and take a case against the landlady.
I'd say she'd get a nice few thousand in compensation, and that just might make the landlady think twice in future.0 -
Nice, you think she should move out of her home (which it is) just like that?
I think she should go the the PRTB and take a case against the landlady.
I'd say she'd get a nice few thousand in compensation, and that just might make the landlady think twice in future.
I thought the OP was effectively a licencee? Does the PRTB cover that??0 -
Nice, you think she should move out of her home (which it is) just like that?
I think she should go the the PRTB and take a case against the landlady.
I'd say she'd get a nice few thousand in compensation, and that just might make the landlady think twice in future.
Have you read the thread?0 -
-
OP, in the short term while you're waiting to move out, if there's a programme on TV that you really want to watch, turn on the subtitles. If anyone asks why, just point out that it's a programme you're really interested in, but you're having problems hearing it/missing bits of the dialogue.
On the Sky Remote, hit the "help" button, down arrow (to subtitles), right arrow (to on), press select. If you really want a running commentary, turn on the audio description in the same menu :pac:0 -
If you have such a good dynamic with the rest of the housemates would renting a house together not be a better option?0
-
Advertisement