Fed-up being a landlord/time to sell?

makeorbrake

dolliemix wrote: »

I agree here. OP has the benefit of a million options here. Lucky her.

OP, it looks like you're guilty of being in a better financial position than your tenants. How very dare you!:D

dolliemix wrote: »

The people who were renting a house where the roof feel in twice and were told their rent was increasing by €300 ( if this is the amount you were increasing it by, it doesn't say) have limited options.

The ceiling was destroyed on two occasions due to the pure unadulterated negligence of the tenants! If we are to assume that we are dealing with mature sentient beings, then its quite obvious that if you don't pull over the shower curtain and allow masses of water onto the floor, it's going to result in major damage.

With regard to the rent increase, they hadn't had a rent increase in 6 years! Furthermore, IF the OP was going beyond market rates, then they are free to go find themselves a better deal elsewhere. If that's not the case, the OP is perfectly entitled to charge the going rate.

Labarbapostiza

makeorbrake wrote: »

So if it's sooo easy and all a LL has to do is 'sit on his fat arse' as you put it, how is it that the OP is considering getting out?

Because it appears, the small bit of time she's had to get off her ample arse in the last six years has been too much for her.

She's taking off a few years, for child raising. When she was working, it was probably something like human resources manger, or a "job" kind of like that. So she's probably never done a tap in her entire life. Working doesn't suit everyone, you know. It's not to everyone's taste.

So you (or others) have no need of this service? Why the attitude then? You don't need to lease a property? Nobody does, right?

Oh it's a service, yes, yes, indeed. Like the rack renting "service" the absentee British lords provided to the Irish. Ah yes; this is what Constant Markevic died over in that park for.

beauf

The OP should sell up. People obviously don't want the service a LL provides. Posters here seem to think you can get a mortgage given to you, the LL has unlimited resources for any demands no matter how unreasonable. Well if its easy money they should try it. I think the reality will work out a little different when they try to do it.

makeorbrake

@Labarbapostiza: Re. your last post - infantile degenerative nonsense - unworthy of further comment.

beauf wrote: »

Well if its easy money they should try it. I think the reality will work out a little different when they try to do it.

Not a chance beauf. They already know the answer. In any event, it appears its just plain 'evil' to be a landlord by all accounts.

dolliemix

makeorbrake wrote: »

OP, it looks like you're guilty of being in a better financial position than your tenants. How very dare you!:D


The ceiling was destroyed on two occasions due to the pure unadulterated negligence of the tenants! If we are to assume that we are dealing with mature sentient beings, then its quite obvious that if you don't pull over the shower curtain and allow masses of water onto the floor, it's going to result in major damage.

With regard to the rent increase, they hadn't had a rent increase in 6 years! Furthermore, IF the OP was going beyond market rates, then they are free to go find themselves a better deal elsewhere. If that's not the case, the OP is perfectly entitled to charge the going rate.

We're only getting one side of the story here.
And im wondering why

1. Tenants asked for a new bathroom ( thats a big ask so there must be more to the story)

2. Why has she been threatened with prtb TWICE?

Yes the OP is in a great financial position so just cough up the money and restructure the bathroom. €5000 is not much to ask of a landlord who is getting rent paid over 6 years. Landlords need to invest in improvements/ fixtures as do all homeowners over time.

The OP seems to want to have an easy life of collecting money. She's happily been taking rent from them for 6 years. If they were that bad as tenants why did she keep them on that long? She wanted to increase rent but isn't happy when tenants ask for improvements.

you and I dont know the whole story but the question from OP is should she get out of being landlord?

My response: yes her heart's not in it. It's a business venture, there's risk involved, there's expense involved and time and energy. If you're not prepared to deal with all these things and take the bad ( expenses/ time/ energy) with the good ( financial reward) then get out.

beauf

dolliemix wrote: »

....Why has she been threatened with prtb TWICE...

Why do you find this shocking? Its not unusual for people to go to the PRTB and be in the wrong. Its also not unusual for a LL to go to the PRTB and win their case.

dolliemix

beauf wrote: »

Why do you find this shocking? Its not unusual for people to go to the PRTB and be in the wrong. Its also not unusual for a LL to go to the PRTB and win their case.

I didnt say I find it shocking. Im just wondering why? Most happy tenants don't need to do this!

Larry Wildman

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

You did.

Larry, don't play games, please.

Who's playing games? Your inference is disgraceful.

Again, where did I mention race?

Are British, French and American people all white?

It seems like you're the one who's focussed on race...

makeorbrake

dolliemix wrote: »

We're only getting one side of the story here.
And im wondering why

You're wondering why? There's only one OP...unless you expect them to invite their tenant to contribute to this thread?

dolliemix wrote: »

1. Tenants asked for a new bathroom ( thats a big ask so there must be more to the story)

The same tenants that TWICE destroyed a ceiling because they wouldn't (purposely or otherwise...) pull over the shower curtain? It takes quite a body of water to cause that level of damage....TWICE!

dolliemix wrote: »

2. Why has she been threatened with prtb TWICE?

Hmm...might it be that the PRTB doesn't deal with complaints in a fair, equitable basis - with a bias strongly in favour of the tenant?

dolliemix wrote: »

yes her heart's not in it. It's a business venture, there's risk involved, there's expense involved and time and energy.

You acknowledge that it's a business venture yet in your earlier posts, you question the OP increasing the rent to current market rates and underscore the profit the OP is alleged to have made over the past 6 years? Those two things can't be reconciled.

dolliemix wrote:

Most happy tenants don't need to do this!

Most 'happy tenants' don't destroy 2 x ceilings through their own actions!

beauf

dolliemix wrote: »

I didnt say I find it shocking. Im just wondering why? Most happy tenants don't need to do this!

Most tenants don't destroy a ceiling or have mould growing on unwashed dishes.

I don't think "happy" comes into it.

But I do agree not everyone wants to a LL. If thats the case they should stop doing it. I know people who buy property and don't rent them. They eventually appreciate in value anyway. They just let friends and family use it if required.

dar100

Santa Cruz wrote: »

He really should consider renting it to some loser on rent allowance who
spends the day sitting on his arse watching Jeremy Kyle. That would be good business sense and socially responsible.

I didn't mention anyone on rent allowance, but know that you have brought it up, I feel obliged to answer:).

That is a very narrow minded world view you have, not all individuals on rent supplement sit around watching that twats TV show.

In fact most people are actually looking for work, not to mention those who are single parents, what would you have them do, become homeless? Or better again perhaps we should put them all in together in some type of ghetto, were we can forget about them and live the "capitalist dream"

beauf

makeorbrake wrote: »

...Hmm...might it be that the PRTB doesn't deal with complaints in a fair, equitable basis - with a bias strongly in favour of the tenant?...

The bias is not the PRTB. Its the law itself. Which is bias towards tenants.

That said. Thats not really relevant here. People often go to the PRTB when if they were better informed they would realise they were in the wrong.

Larry Wildman

dar100 wrote: »

I didn't mention anyone on rent allowance, but know that you have brought it up, I feel obliged to answer:).

That is a very narrow minded world view you have, not all individuals on rent supplement sit around watching that twats TV show.

In fact most people are actually looking for work, not to mention those who are single parents, what would you have them do, become homeless? Or better again perhaps we should put them all in together in some type of ghetto, were we can forget about them and live the "capitalist dream"

Setting sad scenarios aside, who wants to rent to someone who can't actually afford the property in question?

And like it or loath it, the reality is that crime, anti social behaviour and low morals are more prevalent anong those in receipt of rent allowance.

beauf

dar100 wrote: »

I didn't mention anyone on rent allowance, but know that you have brought it up, I feel obliged to answer:).

That is a very narrow minded world view you have, not all individuals on rent supplement sit around watching that twats TV show.

In fact most people are actually looking for work, not to mention those who are single parents, what would you have them do, become homeless? Or better again perhaps we should put them all in together in some type of ghetto, were we can forget about them and live the "capitalist dream"

He took the bait and you've followed.

There is no reason to derail every accommodation thread with all tenants/LL/RA are bad/good.

A separate of topic of how the "capitalist dream" fits with social housing provision would be much more interesting. Its really got nothing to do with LL's. Its more an issue of Govt policies.

beauf

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Setting sad scenarios aside, who wants to rent to someone who can't actually afford the property in question?

And like it or loath it, the reality is that crime, anti social behaviour and low morals are more prevalent anong those in receipt of rent allowance.

I don't see what that has to do with "I don't want to be a LL" thread.

makeorbrake

beauf wrote: »

The bias is not the PRTB. Its the law itself. Which is bias towards tenants.

Agreed.

beauf wrote: »

That said. Thats not really relevant here. People often go to the PRTB when if they were better informed they would realise they were in the wrong.

It may or may not be relevant here. It depends upon the tenants motives in saying they would go to the PRTB. They may or may not be 'wholesome'.

Larry Wildman

beauf wrote: »

I don't see what that has to do with "I don't want to be a LL" thread.

Plenty.

According to other posters, landlords have a moral obligation to deal with these people.

If that view is out there, it's a strong reason to get out of the rental business...

dar100

beauf wrote: »

I don't see what that has to do with "I don't want to be a LL" thread.

When did you get your Mod status:)

beauf

makeorbrake wrote: »

Agreed.

It may or may not be relevant here. It depends upon the tenants motives in saying they would go to the PRTB. They may or may not be 'wholesome'.

If you don't like being a LL. being dragged to the PRTB isn't going to make it better.

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Plenty.

According to other posters, landlords have a moral obligation to deal with these people.

If that view is out there, it's a strong reason to get out of the rental business...

They should see if moral obligation works with paying bills or the banks.

dar100

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Setting sad scenarios aside, who wants to rent to someone who can't actually afford the property in question?

And like it or loath it, the reality is that crime, anti social behaviour and low morals are more prevalent anong those in receipt of rent allowance.

I take it you have stats to back that up?? Sweeping generalisation.

I'd argue that crime and anti social behaviour is more prevalent in these so called " white collar " individuals, just that they have the means to avoid been held accountable

beauf

dar100 wrote: »

When did you get your Mod status:)

Anyone can suggest common sense, if its not against the rules.

makeorbrake

beauf wrote: »

There is no reason to derail every accommodation thread with all tenants/LL/RA are bad/good.

I disagree. Tiresome though it may be (and clearly is), I'd say that the fact many tenants hold views like some here have posted is pertinent to the OP's original query.

dolliemix

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're wondering why? There's only one OP...unless you expect them to invite their tenant to contribute to this thread?


The same tenants that TWICE destroyed a ceiling because they wouldn't (purposely or otherwise...) pull over the shower curtain? It takes quite a body of water to cause that level of damage....TWICE!

Hmm...might it be that the PRTB doesn't deal with complaints in a fair, equitable basis - with a bias strongly in favour of the tenant?

You acknowledge that it's a business venture yet in your earlier posts, you question the OP increasing the rent to current market rates and underscore the profit the OP is alleged to have made over the past 6 years? Those two things can't be reconciled.

Of course Im wondering why...and there always is two sides to the story where tenants landlords are concerned.

I genuinely think the OP should have invested in a shower / bathroom where the water would not be flowing onto the bathroom floor so easily. A flimsy shower curtain is not the answer. If the roof fell in once - i really dont think she should have been relying on a shower curtain to stop the damage happening again.

Why could she not spend a bit of money on a shower with a higher rim?!! Its not rocket science. Yeah it might cost her a bit more money but worth it long term. And the roof would not have fallen in twice.

Do you have a problem with the PRTB protecting tenant's and landlord's rights? I personally think it's a Godsend. Keeping both parties on straight and narrow in the majority of cases.

Either way i still believe OP should sell up which is what this thread is about. It doesn't make a difference whether you agree with my reasoning or not.

Do you think she should hang on in there?

dar100

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Plenty.

According to other posters, landlords have a moral obligation to deal with these people.

If that view is out there, it's a strong reason to get out of the rental business...

Let me get this straight

LL don't have to have a moral obligation when dealing with tenents, but tenets have to have morals to rent, in your opinion???

beauf

makeorbrake wrote: »

I disagree. Tiresome though it may be (and clearly is), I'd say that the fact many tenants hold views like some here have posted is pertinent to the OP's original query.

Some of the views expressed are probably against the boards rules, and have nothing to do with the original query.

beauf

dolliemix wrote: »

Of course Im wondering why...and there always is two sides to the story where tenants landlords are concerned.

I genuinely think the OP should have invested in a shower / bathroom where the water would not be flowing onto the bathroom floor so easily. A flimsy shower curtain is not the answer. If the roof fell in once - i really dont think she should have been relying on a shower curtain to stop the damage happening again.

Why could she not spend a bit of money on a shower with a higher rim?!! Its not rocket science. Yeah it might cost her a bit more money but worth it long term. And the roof would not have fallen in twice.

Do you have a problem with the PRTB protecting tenant's and landlord's rights? I personally think it's a Godsend. Keeping both parties on straight and narrow in the majority of cases.

Either way i still believe OP should sell up which is what this thread is about. It doesn't make a difference whether you agree with my reasoning or not.

Do you think she should hang on in there?

Well you have a point that shower curtains are usually a bad solution. But I've seen them in houses for 20yrs and never brought down a ceiling. The PRTB is useful but its value for LL's is relatively little. and yes the issue is should the OP continues as a LL. I agree I don't see why they would bother, if they don't need to.

beauf

dar100 wrote: »

Let me get this straight

LL don't have to have a moral obligation when dealing with tenents, but tenets have to have morals to rent, in your opinion???

Please quote the legal requirement around morals for LL and tenants. Maybe there is one?

Labarbapostiza

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Who's playing games? Your inference is disgraceful.

Again, where did I mention race?

Are British, French and American people all white?

It seems like you're the one who's focussed on race...

Larry, okay maybe I had you all wrong. And you're not out burning crosses on people's lawns. And in fact, you're a united colours of Benneton kind of guy.

But

If you accept British, French, or Americans.........Why wouldn't you, say, accept Africans?

Larry Wildman

dar100 wrote: »

I take it you have stats to back that up?? Sweeping generalisation

Okay...

So you want stats to back up the contention that a landlord is more likely to have more issues with a skint jobless working class rent supplement recipient than a middle class professional?

Right...

What else do you want - Proof that the sun rises in the east?

Larry Wildman

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Larry, okay maybe I had you all wrong. And you're not out burning crosses on people's lawns. And in fact, you're a united colours of Benneton kind of guy.

But

If you accept British, French, or Americans.........Why wouldn't you, say, accept Africans?

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no such country as "Africa"...

I never mentioned race...you did.

I don't care about a prospective tenant's skin colour...just that they tick other boxes.