How can the county council deny these charges !

hawkelady

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/landlady-says-tenants-left-house-in-a-state-of-pure-chaos-and-destruction-36277874.html

Another reason landlords stay away from social housing tenants ! Not all are bad but the bad ones make the news !!

garhjw

Animals wouldn’t treat property like that.

hawkelady

And after the council vetting these animals they come along now when the damage is done and deny any responsibility!! The mind boggles

Cuddlesworth

hawkelady wrote: »

And after the council vetting these animals they come along now when the damage is done and deny any responsibility!! The mind boggles

Did you read the article? The landlord claims the council placed the tenants and are responsible for the damage(interesting if they win). The council claims the tenants were already in the property and as such, the landlord is responsible.

The cynic in me thinks the tenants did the old trick of not paying rent for a year or two, until eviction, then taking some of the rent they stole, paying the next landlord as private, then immediately telling the landlord they are going on RAS.

ThunbergsAreGo

hawkelady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/landlady-says-tenants-left-house-in-a-state-of-pure-chaos-and-destruction-36277874.html

Another reason landlords stay away from social housing tenants ! Not all are bad but the bad ones make the news !!

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

Mrs OBumble

naughtb4 wrote: »

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

hawkelady

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

hawkelady wrote: »

And after the council vetting these animals they come along now when the damage is done and deny any responsibility!! The mind boggles

Did you read the article? The landlord claims the council placed the tenants and are responsible for the damage(interesting if they win). The council claims the tenants were already in the property and as such, the landlord is responsible.

The cynic in me thinks the tenants did the old trick of not paying rent for a year or two, until eviction, then taking some of the rent they stole, paying the next landlord as private, then immediately telling the landlord they are going on RAS.

I did read it. It'll be interesting to see the judges take on it .. I'd be inclined to believe the ll as there will be contracts in place surely

ThunbergsAreGo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

I actually don't know, it's a difficult situation

No point in looking for damages from the as it will all come from the state anyway. I am not sure how you punish animals like these

hawkelady

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

Yes I would let them find their own way ... what would you do with them ? Put them in another house ??? I'd give them a cheap as chips portacabin at best.

Cuddlesworth

naughtb4 wrote: »

I actually don't know, it's a difficult situation

No point in looking for damages from the as it will all come from the state anyway. I am not sure how you punish animals like these

Its not even that. Imagine being the person in the council estate that has to live beside them if they do get "housed". Its the reason why a number of estates end up the way they do. Everybody decent does a runner eventually.

ThunbergsAreGo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its not even that. Imagine being the person in the council estate that has to live beside them if they do get "housed". Its the reason why a number of estates end up the way they do. Everybody decent does a runner eventually.

100%, it must be awful.

Give others a bad name

garhjw

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

Yes they should be homeless. If there are children involved they should be taken into care.

splinter65

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

Yes I think that their children should be removed from them and taken to a place of safety and comfort and that no further shelter or accommodation should be offered to them.

The_Conductor

garhjw wrote: »

Yes they should be homeless. If there are children involved they should be taken into care.

I don't agree with removing children from parents- unless it is absolutely necessary- however, there are clear child endangerment issues associated with parents bringing up children in conditions such as these- and there are compliance issues with removing toilets and other built-in conveniences, appliances and white goods (what the hell were they doing with them- selling them secondhand on buy-and-sell?)

I don't know who is in the right or wrong here- however, this tenant is the type of person who makes any sane landlord start crying when they hear the word 'RAS'. Its all well and good stating that you cannot discriminate against RAS tenants- however, if situations such as this continue to feature prominently in the media- landlords will avoid them without hitting any of the discrimination bullseyes..........

If the government are serious about RAS tenants being on a level footing with any other tenant- the flipside of the coin is there has to be consequences for tenants who behave like animals- and cutting landlords loose with no comeback has got to stop.

Yes- landlords are providing a service- however, the market in which they are operating is now subject to regulatory requirements such that it is no longer an open market arrangement- and you don't get to pick and choose- its either open market- or its not. The powers that have decided its not- QED- there are consequences as well as benefits of making this decision.

Claw Hammer

The_Conductor wrote: »

there are compliance issues with removing toilets and other built-in conveniences, appliances and white goods (what the hell were they doing with them- selling them secondhand on buy-and-sell?)

.

buy and sell hasn't been published in years. The trouble is that the RAS scheme is being used by councils to shift the problem tenants onto private landlords. The councils put in their own tenant but don't take responsibility for the damage caused by the tenant. The don't house the problem tenant in their own houses and thus don't have to pay if their own house is damaged.

jimmycrackcorm

Mrs OBumble wrote:

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

They'd certainly learn the value of free housing then.

But local authorities should be responsible for the damages caused by RAS and HAP tenants, especially since they're not allowed to be discriminated against for rentals.

murphaph

Hopefully a couple of precedents can be set and councils held financially responsible for such vandalism.

I don't even think it's an actual crime to smash your rented house up. If it was, the guards would have to prosecute those doing it. It's seen as a civil matter because the tenant is "in control of the property".

Such strange laws.

Claw Hammer

murphaph wrote: »

Hopefully a couple of precedents can be set and councils held financially responsible for such vandalism.

I don't even think it's an actual crime to smash your rented house up. If it was, the guards would have to prosecute those doing it. It's seen as a civil matter because the tenant is "in control of the property".

Such strange laws.

Quite a sensible law. The offence of criminal damage requires that the property damaged be the property of another. A person can do what they like with their own property including damaging or destroying it, unless of course they commit some other offences the property such as assault.
The voluntary transfer of possession by the owner means that the person holding the property is the owner's agent and presumed to be acting with the owners permission or consent in dealing with the property.

hawkelady

Claw Hammer wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Hopefully a couple of precedents can be set and councils held financially responsible for such vandalism.

I don't even think it's an actual crime to smash your rented house up. If it was, the guards would have to prosecute those doing it. It's seen as a civil matter because the tenant is "in control of the property".

Such strange laws.

Quite a sensible law. The offence of criminal damage requires that the property damaged be the property of another. A person can do what they like with their own property including damaging or destroying it, unless of course they commit some other offences the property such as assault.
The voluntary transfer of possession by the owner means that the person holding the property is the owner's agent and presumed to be acting with the owners permission or consent in dealing with the property.

But the property wasn't the tenants though

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Into a government built ghetto.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The voluntary transfer of possession

Who transferred the possession?

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

Into a government built ghetto.

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

server down

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

Not the fault of the buildings though.

hawkelady

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Into a government built ghetto.

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

Well what would you do then???

pilly

It's an absolutely ridiculous situation that LL's are expected to sign up to long leases with RAS tenants and have no comeback when a place is wrecked like this.

Where are the advantages to such a lease for LL's? There are none.

Then tenants wonder why they struggle so much to get a LL to accept it.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

So? No, seriously. So? Or do you expect the private LL to pick up the repair tab?

hawkelady

I know on current RAS contracts they say the council will cover any damage on the end of a tenancy up to and including one months rent and not over !!

Why in gods name would any landlord sign up to that !!

seamus

It sounds like there needs to be some level of insurance built-in to deal with instances like this. Whether that's insurance from the RAS or a statutory part of landlord insurance, ultimately the issue here is that honest people on any form of government assistance find it incredibly difficult to get rental properties because landlords are (somewhat legitimately) worried about being screwed at the end of the tenancy.

I think we're long overdue a form of registry held by the RTB where landlords and tenants can share an access code and each can view the history of the other, say the last five years - rentals they've had, arrears, evictions, RTB complaints, etc. At least then everyone can go in with their eyes open.

On what to do with these animals that move from place to place destroying everything, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas. 3 bed bungalows all with the exact same simple layout, filled with IKEA everything, a couple of KM from the nearest town and well away from neighbours. Properties so lacking in frills that they can be torn down and rebuilt in a few weeks if necessary.
If you get yourself "tagged" as one of these scumbags, then you can't get RAS/HAP, you can instead get one of these properties. That's your only option, take it or leave it.

Markcheese

seamus wrote:

On what to do with these animals that move from place to place destroying everything, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas. 3 bed bungalows all with the exact same simple layout, filled with IKEA everything, a couple of KM from the nearest town and well away from neighbours. Properties so lacking in frills that they can be torn down and rebuilt in a few weeks if necessary. If you get yourself "tagged" as one of these scumbags, then you can't get RAS/HAP, you can instead get one of these properties. That's your only option, take it or leave it.

The Dutch have special last chance complexs, dunno how it works out for them,

splinter65

seamus wrote: »

It sounds like there needs to be some level of insurance built-in to deal with instances like this. Whether that's insurance from the RAS or a statutory part of landlord insurance, ultimately the issue here is that honest people on any form of government assistance find it incredibly difficult to get rental properties because landlords are (somewhat legitimately) worried about being screwed at the end of the tenancy.

I think we're long overdue a form of registry held by the RTB where landlords and tenants can share an access code and each can view the history of the other, say the last five years - rentals they've had, arrears, evictions, RTB complaints, etc. At least then everyone can go in with their eyes open.

On what to do with these animals that move from place to place destroying everything, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas. 3 bed bungalows all with the exact same simple layout, filled with IKEA everything, a couple of KM from the nearest town and well away from neighbours. Properties so lacking in frills that they can be torn down and rebuilt in a few weeks if necessary.
If you get yourself "tagged" as one of these scumbags, then you can't get RAS/HAP, you can instead get one of these properties. That's your only option, take it or leave it.

I wouldn’t bother with bathrooms kitchens or even beds chairs etc.
They don’t really need them and they seem to resent them.
Imagine the effort that went into wrecking that place. Wow.

splinter65

Markcheese wrote: »

The Dutch have special last chance complexs, dunno how it works out for them,

I’m interested in this too but it’s hard to find out anything up to date about it.

Claw Hammer

hawkelady wrote: »

But the property wasn't the tenants though

The landlord pt the tenant in possession so its is the tenants as agent for the landlord. This is subject to an agreement with the landlord, which is a civil matter between landlord and tenant.