'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

Grandpa Hassan

Gatling wrote: »

As I said earlier if rs covered the current going rates and removed any financial liability for landlords in terms of redecorating ,wear and tear and more serious stuff they would be queuing up to get rs tentants in the door .

I'm not arguing but demonising 90,000 people give or take currently getting rs while waiting to be housed is stupid Rediculous .

It's another bubble wanting to implode

Maybe they would. But RS don't do that. And LLs are left exposed as a result

Cuddlesworth

Gatling wrote: »

As I said earlier if rs covered the current going rates and removed any financial liability for landlords in terms of redecorating ,wear and tear and more serious stuff they would be queuing up to get rs tentants in the door .

I'm not arguing but demonising 90,000 people give or take currently getting rs while waiting to be housed is stupid Rediculous .

It's another bubble wanting to implode

Social housing is the responsibility of the state. Not private landlords.

Gatling

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Maybe they would. But RS don't do that. And LLs are left exposed as a result

There exposed with normal professionals look at the case last week over stayers in court because there house wasn't built .

And yes the same can happen with rs tenants

Fact of the matter is especially in Dublin its all about money and nothing more viewing are turning into open auctions to see who will pay most

cerastes

The_Conductor wrote: »

In which case- the system needs to be changed- so that people are not handed deposit after deposit on a plate. Landlord's need to take cases at the PRTB- its there to protect both tenants and landlords- and if tenants misbehave- there deserves to be a record of their misbehaviour on file- aside from anything else- it would protect prospective landlords from them in future.

The system is so piss poor its not funny. The manner in which the government has abdicated all responsibility for housing a significant portion of the population who are not capable of housing themselves- is almost criminal.......

Even when there is a record it can be hidden, I took a tenant to the prtb, who turned up with a professional advisor, no doubt free for them and something I couldn't afford.
Cut a long story short, the tenants agreed to leave and the advisor could say nothing when a littany of anti social behaviour was highlighted, tenants barely said a word.

The thing is, when I went to look up the case, it turned out the tenant had it removed from public viewing???
There needs to be a record of that kind of behaviour, but why would it ever happen because that is not in the interest of the state bodies that process tenants into homes, and I say process because it is a numbers exercise to them, they don't want to have to rehouse people because of anti social behaviour and will turn a blind eye to problems and do nothing to penalise bad tenants because it makes their job harder, so in a nutshell bad tenants will have no record to be checked by future landlords.

Gatling wrote: »

Oh yeah perception is the problem here ,
But landlords and I'd say it's now the majority are only interested in money ,but I've said this before its a charity but a business .

I'd guarantee you anything if the government decided to pay the current going rates and cover everything including from wear and tear to serious stuff without any funds required from the landlords they would be queuing up to take tenants on rs due to maximum profits and zero expenditure or liability .

If rather see non furnished properties to become standard that way tenants have to furnish them ,
And a minimum age before one can apply for rs .

Of course they are interested in the money, its a business transaction, and its not in the SW interest to pay rates aside from the fact its a numbers exercise to them and they can see how much they are saving by pushing or trying to push the rent down, and when that fails, they do stuff like this, because in the majority there is a large backlash against RA tenants, its unfortunate for the good ones, but I don't think the bad ones are in the minority, SW has fostered an attitude which promotes bad behaviour and squandering state resources for short term benefit that crates longterm problems.

Gatling wrote: »

As I said earlier if rs covered the current going rates and removed any financial liability for landlords in terms of redecorating ,wear and tear and more serious stuff they would be queuing up to get rs tentants in the door .

I'm not arguing but demonising 90,000 people give or take currently getting rs while waiting to be housed is stupid Rediculous .

It's another bubble wanting to implode

But in reality they don't, far from it, where they actually have a policy of not paying the full rental amount by turn a blind eye to the fact that tenants make up the difference.

MarkAnthony

Any anger/frustration/vitriol directed at anyone other than our feckless government on this is misdirected. None of this would be an issue given three things:

A proper credit referencing system that would take into account judgements against bad tenants.

A proper system for both Landlord and tenants to resolve issues in a timely fashion without huge losses to either side.

The abdication of responsibility during a housing crisis to the private sector. Because as history tells us that works so well in a crisis :rolleyes:

The simple easy fix that would resolve this tomorrow is frequently put forward by landlords. The Local Authority becomes the tenant and sublets to the person on RA. Everything is there, the legal frame work, similar systems - everything except the will. Don't get mad at us, get mad at them.

superelliptic

Eric Cartman wrote: »

people on SW can be some of the most litigious in the country id say its more likely you'll have a few ambulance chasing chancer solicitors up in court trying to win a bit of compo for irelands 'must unfortunate'

Nah.

the_syco

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A proper credit referencing system that would take into account judgements against bad tenants.

Since the bad ones yell the loudest, I'd say they won't do this, for a quite life.

Big Davey

Are you sure the case can be hidden from public viewing ?
If that's the case the PRTB are even more pointless.

cerastes wrote: »

Even when there is a record it can be hidden, I took a tenant to the prtb, who turned up with a professional advisor, no doubt free for them and something I couldn't afford.
Cut a long story short, the tenants agreed to leave and the advisor could say nothing when a littany of anti social behaviour was highlighted, tenants barely said a word.

The thing is, when I went to look up the case, it turned out the tenant had it removed from public viewing???
There needs to be a record of that kind of behaviour, but why would it ever happen because that is not in the interest of the state bodies that process tenants into homes, and I say process because it is a numbers exercise to them, they don't want to have to rehouse people because of anti social behaviour and will turn a blind eye to problems and do nothing to penalise bad tenants because it makes their job harder, so in a nutshell bad tenants will have no record to be checked by future landlords.




Of course they are interested in the money, its a business transaction, and its not in the SW interest to pay rates aside from the fact its a numbers exercise to them and they can see how much they are saving by pushing or trying to push the rent down, and when that fails, they do stuff like this, because in the majority there is a large backlash against RA tenants, its unfortunate for the good ones, but I don't think the bad ones are in the minority, SW has fostered an attitude which promotes bad behaviour and squandering state resources for short term benefit that crates longterm problems.



But in reality they don't, far from it, where they actually have a policy of not paying the full rental amount by turn a blind eye to the fact that tenants make up the difference.

cerastes

I believe its possible, it might be under certain circumstances, I couldn't see the record, I contacted the prtb and was told that it was the case, I believe some reason was given, don't know what but suspect it was a long the lines of fear it might bring their name down? Or might effect their ability to get somewhere else to stay if the statements I made which were reports of facts at the prtb were published. I suspected they were afraid their name would be on record forever and show what had been said against them or that it would be a public record as to what they had done.
I can't recall what type of hearing it was, but the person from prtb more or less chaired the meeting and we had to come to a solution, no determination was made as I didn't insist on it and preferred a settlement which I mainly dictated literally as in I had to speak and give the terms which had to be agreed to by the other party, I preferred this than having a determination made where I wasn't certain what the outcome night be if a decision was made in private by the prtb. I've a printed copy of my submission somewhere, but can't look it up on the prtb record as its not there for public viewing.

Big Davey

Ok if there was not an actual determination order they would have no need to publish it.
The determination order against a bad tenant I had is up there for everyone to see but I doubt many landlords check the site to be honest.
I will definitely check it with the experience I had.
With a RA tenant I must ad.



QUOTE=cerastes;94663235]I believe its possible, it might be under certain circumstances, I couldn't see the record, I contacted the prtb and was told that it was the case, I believe some reason was given, don't know what but suspect it was a long the lines of fear it might bring their name down? Or might effect their ability to get somewhere else to stay if the statements I made which were reports of facts at the prtb were published. I suspected they were afraid their name would be on record forever and show what had been said against them or that it would be a public record as to what they had done.
I can't recall what type of hearing it was, but the person from prtb more or less chaired the meeting and we had to come to a solution, no determination was made as I didn't insist on it and preferred a settlement which I mainly dictated literally as in I had to speak and give the terms which had to be agreed to by the other party, I preferred this than having a determination made where I wasn't certain what the outcome night be if a decision was made in private by the prtb. I've a printed copy of my submission somewhere, but can't look it up on the prtb record as its not there for public viewing.[/QUOTE]

Taylor365

Can turfing someone out not be written up in a contract?

Like they waive liability. ''For not paying the rent, you might get hurt or injured.''

In all seriousness, is it because it is still an 'illegal' eviction?

The_Conductor

Taylor365 wrote: »

Can turfing someone out not be written up in a contract?

Like they waive liability. ''For not paying the rent, you might get hurt or injured.''

In all seriousness, is it because it is still an 'illegal' eviction?

Yes- it is still an illegal eviction.
No, you cannot write it into a contract (and if you did- you yourself could end up in hotwater over it- even if you never invoked it).
You cannot take from any rights conferred by the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- you can grant additional rights- but you cannot detract from the Act.