How can the county council deny these charges !

the_syco

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas

Moyross was mentioned earlier. I think we should look at who doesn't cause trouble, and let them move out, and leave the rest in the hole.

Oh, and do a random lotto; whoever wins gets their house raided by trainee cops.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

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.

So if you total a car that you rented from a company, it's a civil matter, and not a criminal matter?

Claw Hammer

the_syco wrote: »

Moyross was mentioned earlier. I think we should look at who doesn't cause trouble, and let them move out, and leave the rest in the hole.

Oh, and do a random lotto; whoever wins gets their house raided by trainee cops.


So if you total a car that you rented from a company, it's a civil matter, and not a criminal matter?

Yes.

endacl

naughtb4 wrote: »

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

Get the deposit for a mortgage together and pay for one, they do.

Otherwise, what was that clever Dutch model? The empty shipping containers? ‘Scum Villages’, I believe it translates as?

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

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

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

But remember - it's possible that your kid could end up in primary school alongside kid(s) from a family like this. It's not feasible to totally socially exclude them. They're still human beings, at the end of the day.

Claw Hammer

When soldiers and their families were housed by the Dept of Defence the houses were inspected every week by the Commanding Officer of the barracks. The cost of repairing any damages was taken from the wages of the soldier concerned. Houses given to people by the council should be inspected weekly and the cost of repairs demanded and paid immediately or else the tenant is out.

hawkelady

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

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

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

But remember - it's possible that your kid could end up in primary school alongside kid(s) from a family like this. It's not feasible to totally socially exclude them. They're still human beings, at the end of the day.

They pulled up floorboards and copper pipe and took doors off hinges for gods sake !! They are animals and should be treated as such.

strandroad

The_Conductor wrote: »

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?)

Whatever about living conditions, these people must be seriously mentally unstable to cause so much damage and live in filth for so long. It was a drug den I guess. I don't think their kids were fed clothed or thought about much at all.
The parents need a detox or mental health facility and their kids need good care with someone else.

splinter65

endacl wrote: »

Get the deposit for a mortgage together and pay for one, they do.

Otherwise, what was that clever Dutch model? The empty shipping containers? ‘Scum Villages’, I believe it translates as?

I like the idea of the shipping containers.
If you clearly don’t need a toilet or a bed or any kind of furniture but do need somewhere to lie down where you won’t be moved on in the morning by AGS the a shipping container on a piece of waste land near a luas stop but away from neighbors sounds perfect.

splinter65

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

But remember - it's possible that your kid could end up in primary school alongside kid(s) from a family like this. It's not feasible to totally socially exclude them. They're still human beings, at the end of the day.

Ah mrsbumble why would any decent council tenant be forced to live beside or even near to the likes of the tenants in that article.
Sure that wouldn’t be fair? Can you imagine?

Del2005

Where my parents are from there are several abandoned villages relatively close to towns. Any problem tenants should be moved to these locations and made live beside each other. Let the anti social tenants then learn what it's like to live beside anti social tenants, instead of making normal people continue to suffer them.

Spanish Eyes

I like the idea of bad tenants being on a list with the RTB. I know they have details of disputes but it is hard to follow sometimes, and you have to trawl a bit. But it's a start I suppose.

Say every tenant who had a judgment against them with RTB was on a register accessible by potential LLs or something like that? There has to be something to protect LLs.

I also agree that the Council and the LL who enter into a joint RAS, HAP or whatever should co fund an insurance policy, so that if things go south, at least the LL has some redress, as generally speaking the tenants may qualify for FLA. An awful burden on a LL to have to take things to court at their own expense, IMV.

I suppose Data Protection or some other Civil Liberties stuff would come into play about revealing the names of very bold tenants though.

Honestly, who would want to be a LL today at all?

Cuddlesworth

Del2005 wrote: »

Where my parents are from there are several abandoned villages relatively close to towns. Any problem tenants should be moved to these locations and made live beside each other. Let the anti social tenants then learn what it's like to live beside anti social tenants, instead of making normal people continue to suffer them.

Doesn't work like that. They don't suffer, they live together like pigs in ****. Happy and content.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

Why should the scum get council houses over the people who behave themselves?

Claw Hammer wrote: »

When soldiers and their families were housed by the Dept of Defence the houses were inspected every week by the Commanding Officer of the barracks. The cost of repairing any damages was taken from the wages of the soldier concerned. Houses given to people by the council should be inspected weekly and the cost of repairs demanded and paid immediately or else the tenant is out.

Pay with what? If they're on the dole, they'll just say that they cannot afford the amount, but will pay a fiver a week until whenever.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Say every tenant who had a judgment against them with RTB was on a register accessible by potential LLs or something like that? There has to be something to protect LLs.

In a perfect world. But in a perfect world, there wouldn't be scum.

In Ireland, said names get deleted for Data Protection laws.

Eric Cartman

this is why landlords jump through hoops to avoid social tenants. Even if they got a civil case against them they'd get nothing back.


"and copper piping and floor boards had been removed"
tells me all I need to know.

Taylor365

It's not illegal to set the barrier too high for HAP is it? (the good ol' 3 months rent deposit, first and last, etc)

splinter65

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Doesn't work like that. They don't suffer, they live together like pigs in ****. Happy and content.

Well the best of luck to them, as long as they’re not bothering decent people who just want to live a decent life.

GGTrek

In 2012 the paladins of tenants at the RTB refused termination notice of the tenant: https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/purchase-orders/final-do-to-issue-01937-07.pdf?sfvrsn=0

I do not know how but the name of the tenant does not appear in the RTB search only in the determination order content I posted.

Other news about the tenants:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/part-paralysed-woman-allegedly-assaulted-with-wine-bottle-1.2514322?mode=amp