Landlord won't change address

GBX

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

After first week here I received around 15 letters, for a mixture of landlord, he's sons daughters brothers and sister.

pilly wrote: »

I think the extent of post is over exaggerated here to be honest. I've received 1 letter this week and that would be about average.

Based on the OP... I don't think its exaggerated at all :rolleyes:

Claw Hammer

seamus wrote: »

. To the landlord, it's just money, it's just an asset. It's not a human right or a necessity.

Money is a necessity. How long will you last without it?

pwurple

seamus wrote: »

The balance will always have to tip towards the tenant. For them, it's a roof over their head, a basic human right. To the landlord, it's just money, it's just an asset. It's not a human right or a necessity.

The landlord stands to lose the roof over their head too. It's considerably more than "just an asset". It's their livelihood.

rsynnott

Garrett Fast Ponytail wrote: »

And there is the issue, is it any wonder LL try all the tricks they can to maintain control of their property when this is the case yet the pitch forks are out by many here just becuse LL try to protect themselves.

Bad tenants, those not paying rent etc should be out within 30 days, physically removed if necessary.

I find this attitude of "there exist bad tenants, thus that excuses landlords doing whatever they feel like with tenants in general" absolutely bizarre. If a restaurant gave you food poisoning, you would not accept "oh, well, someone didn't show up for their booking at the restaurant across the road last week" as any sort of excuse. The existence of bad tenants is not the average tenant's problem.

I think part of the problem is that certain landlords don't realise that the modern landlord-tenant relationship is one of service provider-customer; they seem to think they're the scary grandmother off Downton Abbey or something.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The balance will always have to tip towards the tenant. For them, it's a roof over their head, a basic human right. To the landlord, it's just money, it's just an asset. It's not a human right or a necessity.

It shouldn't tip in the tenants favour, LLs are operating a business it's not their job to provide housing aside from doing so to make as much money as possible with the least amount of costs (with the biggest costs being bad tenants, not paying rent etc).

I think LLs need to keep far more control over their property than they currently have.

makeorbrake

rsynnott wrote: »

I find this attitude of "there exist bad tenants, thus that excuses landlords doing whatever they feel like with tenants in general" absolutely bizarre.

You've tacked on the last part of that sentence yourself! Sweeping statements much?


Furthermore, the way that has been phrased is insightful as to your own mindset/attitude/bias.

rsynnott

makeorbrake wrote: »

You've tacked on the last part of that sentence yourself! Sweeping statements much?

I was paraphrasing what I was quoting, and a general common attitude on these threads that "[abusive landlord thing] is okay because some tenants are bad!"

Furthermore, the way that has been phrased is insightful as to your own mindset/attitude/bias.

What, that I believe that bad landlords exist? I mean, this isn't exactly a controversial position. To be clear, I'm not saying that all landlords are bad by any means; the majority are anywhere from good to well-meaning but incompetent.

On the main topic, could the landlord not just use An Post's redirection thingy? Used it before; it more or less works.