Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Long term tenant worries

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Cash_Q wrote: »
    I think you should go to the RTB And ask what the entitlements are from the tenants perspective and then live up to all your obligations. .

    The RTB is not an advisory agency. The people who answer the phones are usually junior civil servants. It is never any of the adjudicators who ultimately make the decisions.


  • Options
    #33
    househero
    Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭househero


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that the op has no rights to get his property back?

    No and don't you know it. What I wrote was... as the tenant had not been an issue for 13 years (ops words, not mine). He deserves more than an out on your arse letter from a solicitor.

    Too many mentally ill landlords on here, telling others to go the litigation route without even having a chat with the man.


  • Options
    #34
    househero
    Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭househero


    endacl wrote: »
    Yep. I have. And you have. And everybody else who pays tax has.

    6 children had a safe stable home to grow up in. And two landlords benefitted from a significant sum of stable government provided money over 13 years.

    Two sides to every story.


  • Options
    #35
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    And 6 kids going into the workforce paying for that other group of lay abouts - pensioners.


  • Options
    #36
    househero
    Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭househero


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    And 6 kids going into the workforce paying for that other group of lay abouts - pensioners.

    Hahahaha. On full salary pensions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    Creol1 wrote: »
    HAP actually isn't paid out of exchequer funding; it's paid by local councils, whose main income is commercial rates.

    HAP is administered through Local Government, but is funded by Exchequer funds.


  • Options
    #38
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    househero wrote: »
    Too many mentally ill landlords on here, telling others to go the litigation route without even having a chat with the man.
    Taking informed advice from a professional in order to ensure clarity and correct procedure isn't 'litigation'.

    It's simply making sure that the rules are followed by the landlord. Surely you must approve of a landlord following the rules? Even a mentally ill one?


  • Options
    #39
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    househero wrote: »
    No and don't you know it. What I wrote was... as the tenant had not been an issue for 13 years (ops words, not mine). He deserves more than an out on your arse letter from a solicitor.

    Too many mentally ill landlords on here, telling others to go the litigation route without even having a chat with the man.

    What the OP was advised to do- is to get a solicitor to draft a formal letter terminating the tenancy for onward conveyancing to the tenant- rather than doing one up themselves, to ensure they served the notice of termination (which is *not* an eviction) correctly.

    Getting a solicitor to write a letter- is most certainly not 'going the litigation route' as you put it.


    Calling tenants or landlords- mentally ill- is a post that falls far below the acceptable standard of posting in this forum- and you are under notice not to post again in this thread.

    Everyone else- there is an expectation that posters will remain civil towards one another- cognisant of the fact that many opposing viewpoints can and will be aired. Anyone else who fails to meet this 'civility measure'- will be taking a posting holiday from the forum- while they reassess their posting style.

    Regards,

    The_Conductor


  • Options
    #40
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    househero wrote: »
    6 children had a safe stable home to grow up in. And two landlords benefitted from a significant sum of stable government provided money over 13 years.

    Two sides to every story.

    What do you mean by government provided money? You do realise that money comes from all of us, the taxpayers, don't you?


  • Options
    #41
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    What do you mean by government provided money? You do realise that money comes from all of us, the taxpayers, don't you?

    This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Graces7 wrote: »
    This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping

    Half the food you buy in the shop is vat exempt, someone on welfare might be paying a very very small amount of vat every week out of money handed to them by those of us who pay vastly more tax. Not just on our groceries but on our salaries, our cars, etc and then have to pay our own mortgage/rent also.

    Now as I've said before I've no issue with people who are genuinely out of work they should receive welfare. But it should be short term solution limited in time. Someone living in a house provided to them by tax payers should not be having 6 children simple as that, they should be having no children as all their efforts should be going into getting a job and spending money on trying to house themselves. When they are housing themselves and paying rent/a mortgage then they can think about having children.


  • Options
    #43
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Graces7 wrote: »
    This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping
    It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

    Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.


  • Options
    #44
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    endacl wrote: »
    It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

    Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.

    Instead they spent the 13 years creating 6 kids. And us mugs working all year round to fund it.


  • Options
    #45
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Graces7 wrote: »
    This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping

    No VAT on most essentials so that's incorrect.

    Also, who gives them the money they are paying the tax with? It's being handed to them and they are handing it back. How is that them paying it exactly?


  • Options
    #46
    Keyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Keyzer


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    It's great that people reliant on handouts can just go and have 6 kids no bother. Sure the rest of us can just pick up the cost. Nice job.

    Probably can't afford rain coats for his little major...


  • Options
    #47
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    endacl wrote: »
    It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

    Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.

    Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.


  • Options
    #48
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    rawn wrote: »
    Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.

    No doubt.


  • Options
    #49
    martinr5232
    Registered Users Posts: 2,298 ✭✭✭martinr5232


    rawn wrote:
    Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.


    Maybe if taxation on rental income wasnt so high rents would be lower.


  • Options
    #50
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    martinr5232 wrote: »
    Maybe if taxation on rental income wasnt so high rents would be lower.

    Is that a flying pig up there?


  • Options
    #51
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    rawn wrote: »
    Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.

    And fewer would be living in expensive hotel rooms costing you taxpayers even more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    endacl wrote: »
    It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

    Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Interesting (and a bit depressing) to see what has became of a thread whereby someone was simply asking for advice on how to properly terminate a tenancy.


  • Options
    #54
    mgn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭mgn


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Is that a flying pig up there?

    Do you own a rental property?


  • Options
    #55
    breadmond
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭breadmond


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Interesting (and a bit depressing) to see what has became of a thread whereby someone was simply asking for advice on how to properly terminate a tenancy.

    And people wonder why boards is dying......


  • Options
    #56
    Yakuza
    Registered Users Posts: 5,141 ✭✭✭Yakuza


    Can the place not be sold with a sitting tenant, in the same way was bought by the OP? Whatever rental arrangements the new owner wants to put in place won't be the OP's concern.


  • Options
    #57
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Yakuza wrote: »
    Can the place not be sold with a sitting tenant, in the same way was bought by the OP? Whatever rental arrangements the new owner wants to put in place won't be the OP's concern.
    Of the total available housebuying market, how many will be on the lookout for a house with an existing tenant?
    How will this number affect the selling price?


  • Options
    #58
    Yakuza
    Registered Users Posts: 5,141 ✭✭✭Yakuza


    Fair enough, but I'm sure there are investors out there that might appreciate a relatively stable income from a well-established tenant.


  • Options
    #59
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Graces7 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Right back atcha. ;)


  • Options
    #60
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Yakuza wrote: »
    Can the place not be sold with a sitting tenant, in the same way was bought by the OP? Whatever rental arrangements the new owner wants to put in place won't be the OP's concern.

    Can be bought, but can be extremely difficult to mortgage, as banks require vacant possession.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Yakuza wrote: »
    Fair enough, but I'm sure there are investors out there that might appreciate a relatively stable income from a well-established tenant.

    Not many, especially if the property is in an RPZ and/or is currently rented below market rate.

    Between potential owner-occupiers and potential investors who prefer to start from scratch or can’t get a mortgage on an occupied property, having long term tenants in situ will push away a clear majority of potential buyers and others will know they have a strong hand. It would definitely impact the selling price negatively by quite a margin.

    Also I’ve been a a lot of viewing as a potential buyer (as owner occupier) and it’s basically usual practice to sell a property empty. I have viewed dozens of rental properties and every single one was either empty or to be emptied or to be emptied before signing contracts. Most people will find it strange if it is not the case.


Advertisement