Non payment of rent

jimwallace197

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-would-not-follow-the-law-the-next-time-landlord-who-lost-25k-in-ordeal-with-rentdodging-tenants-37317965.html

Something I feel quite strongly about myself as I'm a landlord. Makes a change from the usual media bashing of landlords.

Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident across the country, aswell as the government continually giving better protections to tenants maybe they should look at protecting landlords better in cases like this also and we avoid the mass exodus of landlords from the property currently.

18 months of a legal process, ridiculous

Eric Cartman

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

amcalester

Eric Cartman wrote: »

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

Can you imagine the outrage if the government passed legislation to expedite evictions?

Eric Cartman

amcalester wrote: »

Can you imagine the outrage if the government passed legislation to expedite evictions?

which would free up properties for people who can afford to pay...

Its just Irish people resting on this stupid famine / English landlord thing of the past, we have very short memories with a lot of things, but for some reason we still think evictions are a bad thing.

11214

Eric Cartman wrote: »

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

If we were ever lucky enough to have the system changed I think 60 days is still to long to wait to evict.

dudara

If there were quicker evictions (and I do agree with introducing a more efficient process), the government and local authorities would be put under even more pressure to house people as they get evicted. I’d imagine that they will try to defer this as long as possible

Eric Cartman

dudara wrote: »

If there were quicker evictions (and I do agree with introducing a more efficient process), the government and local authorities would be put under even more pressure to house people as they get evicted. I’d imagine that they will try to defer this as long as possible

funnily enough though, being able to evict people faster probably wouldn't change that. If you think about it, a tenant facing current eviction is still likely engaged with homeless services to find them somewhere new, so that workload doesn't change , it just has more time pressure on it, however on the other side, more places become available as people are forcibly removed.

You would also probably minimise turnaround time on properties as often over holders have electricity and gas cut off for unpaid bills and the house is getting damp and damaged.

Eric Cartman

11214 wrote: »

If we were ever lucky enough to have the system changed I think 60 days is still to long to wait to evict.

In an ideal world, I think most people would agree to 60 days, personally I'd be round with a pistol and new locks at 6am on day 7 were it legal but its hard to get people over to my utopian vision of the world sometimes :pac:

jimwallace197

dudara wrote: »

If there were quicker evictions (and I do agree with introducing a more efficient process), the government and local authorities would be put under even more pressure to house people as they get evicted. I’d imagine that they will try to defer this as long as possible

The whole system is fundamentally flawed. Why should someone who is not working or willing to pay rent out of their own pocket have a say where they can or cannot live. There are plenty of empty properties down the country that these people should have no choice but to take or face homelessness.

I understand we are a socialist society and increasingly a more liberal one day by the day but this is all taking the p**s.

A line needs to be drawn in the sand that if you want to live in your ideal location then you need to be prepared to pay your own way.

KevinCavan

It seems to be the same in the u.k. based on reality t.v. shows about the issue.

CPTM

I think they're trying to discourage property investors from entering the market, to free up property for genuine primary home owners. I'm in the position to buy another house but I don't want to because of the lack of support for landlords and high tax on income. So that's one less person who's joining the queues of people buying houses. Conversely, it encourages landlords to sell and get out of the game, which increases the supply.

The angle this backfires though, is all the empty houses that are lying around which are not getting rented out because landlords don't want the hassle anymore. They see where the buying market is going and they'll sell up once it hits the high point. 3 empty houses around me here in south Dublin for the past 2 years, and one of which has been empty for nearly 5 years.

Eric Cartman

KevinCavan wrote: »

It seems to be the same in the u.k. based on reality t.v. shows about the issue.

watching all those scumbags have an hour to remove their possessions is my favourite thing, love shows like that.

johnnyskeleton

amcalester wrote: »

Can you imagine the outrage if the government passed legislation to expedite evictions?

There would be only a small amount. The amount of people who stand up for private renatl tenants is almost nil.

Now if they were to evict a local authority tenant due to anti social behaviour there would be protests, or if they were to evict a mortgagor because they stopped paying their mortgage there would be outrage and letters to TDs.

But no one cares about the plight of ordinary tenants. They are neither to be pitied and cared for like social tenants, noe are they considered to be part of the majority of the voters who either own or aspire to own property.

The only people that society cares less about than tenants is landlords

dudara

Eric Cartman wrote: »

watching all those scumbags have an hour to remove their possessions is my favourite thing, love shows like that.

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

jimwallace197

CPTM wrote: »

I think they're trying to discourage property investors from entering the market, to free up property for genuine primary home owners. I'm in the position to buy another house but I don't want to because of the lack of support for landlords and high tax on income. So that's one less person who's joining the queues of people buying houses. Conversely, it encourages landlords to sell and get out of the game, which increases the supply.

The angle this backfires though, is all the empty houses that are lying around which are not getting rented out because landlords don't want the hassle anymore. They see where the buying market is going and they'll sell up once it hits the high point. 3 empty houses around me here in south Dublin for the past 2 years, and one of which has been empty for nearly 5 years.

It only makes sense for a landlord to enter this market if they have a large portfolio of properties mainly run and managed by a good agent. Anything else & its a nightmare.

The gross yield on rental properties in Dublin (8/9%) is much higher than in other cities (London 4/5%) but the risk is much higher as it extremely difficult to remove a bad tenant.

If the legislation was strengthened in favour of the landlord, I have no doubt there would be significant investment by buy to let landlords which would provide ample accommodation for those who are productive in society & in most need of accommodation without the ability to buy. (Students and young professionals).

Eric Cartman

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

that was just in reference to a particular uk show and I think the word is appropriate, the 'guests' of the show usually look like something off Jeremy Kyle.

dudara

I’m talking about the same show also. What’s clear from the show is how considerate the agents are when it comes to eviction. They often take good care of the people being evicted, helping them as much as possible. Many of the people being evicted are not “scumbags”.

jimwallace197

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

If anyone is mentally unwell or suffers from a disability then every support should be given, absolutely and I think the majority of people would be an agreement with that but what we have is the exploitation of a market by certain people with a huge sense of entitlement and an unwillingness to contribute anything meaningful in society.

Eric Cartman

dudara wrote: »

I’m talking about the same show also. What’s clear from the show is how considerate the agents are when it comes to eviction. They often take good care of the people being evicted, helping them as much as possible. Many of the people being evicted are not “scumbags”.

some are , some aren't , there are episodes where people kick off or have done damage to a property, in which case the word is very appropriate, those are my personal favourite ones to see turfed out. But the reality of it is, you are seeing literally the last stand a landlord or bank has over somebody , if they're on that show then there is debts of atleast a few thousand that are never going to be paid and as nice as unemployed Chantelle from slough might be, at the other end of it there could be a landlord who hasn't been paid in months who has a bank chasing him for a situation that could adversely affect his credit and through no fault of his own.

utmbuilder

it is sad when it destroys a landlord and their credit

you need deep deep pockets and be extremely flexible to enter the property market now

jimwallace197

utmbuilder wrote: »

it is sad when it destroys a landlord and their credit

you need deep deep pockets and be extremely flexible to enter the property market now

We have to ask ourselves why that it is though. Imo its down to an ineffective government more interested in soundbites that actually doing anything effective about the problem.

Of course, they dont want to lose the single mother/social welfare vote though.

The easier it is for landlords to enter the market with better protections for them, the quicker the housing crisis will be resolved. The difficulty a lot of first time buyers have in achieving a mortgage in Dublin is pricing them out of the market which is exacerbating the situation.

The government is following the german example of strong rental protections for tenants but instead without any of the attractions a investor would see in the market such as a more efficient eviction process of non payment of rent.

Eoghan Murphy is completely out of his depth

Samuel T. Cogley

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

I agree with you on the scumbag front but if it were me I'd be engaing with the LL and paying what I could even if it was only a tenner a week. Refering back to 'the UK show' most of the tenants have wrecked the place, completely disengaged and have a nicer car than I do sitting in the drive.

quadrifoglio verde

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In an ideal world, I think most people would agree to 60 days, personally I'd be round with a pistol and new locks at 6am on day 7 were it legal but its hard to get people over to my utopian vision of the world sometimes :pac:

When you add up the costs and the lost rent, the fine for an illegal eviction is much cheaper in the long run!

the_syco

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I agree with you on the scumbag front but if it were me I'd be engaing with the LL and paying what I could even if it was only a tenner a week. Refering back to 'the UK show' most of the tenants have wrecked the place, completely disengaged and have a nicer car than I do sitting in the drive.

Binge watching one show at the moment; Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!

The High Court writ has either collection of rent or eviction, or both.

If both, the agents can evict there and then, and either get payment on the day, or they can confiscate goods, such as the tenants car.

I notice a lot of them have their bags packed, and are just waiting on the bailiffs, as the council needs the bailiff letter to give the family emergency accommodation. I assume this process is so that the tenant can't rent out the house to someone else whilst the original tenant pays no rent and are housed by the council.

the_syco

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

When you add up the costs and the lost rent, the fine for an illegal eviction is much cheaper in the long run!

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a marked increase in them, tbh, due to tenants stopping to pay rent.

Eric Cartman

the_syco wrote: »

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a marked increase in them, tbh, due to tenants stopping to pay rent.

in Dublin PRTB land landlords are scared, coming home to all your stuff in the garden and new locks would still fly in a lot of rural villages with cash landlords, proper order too.

c montgomery

I have friends living in the estate that happened in.

Tenants were trouble from the 1st weekend, guards down regularly, dodgy people calling at all hours.

4ensic15

c montgomery wrote: »

I have friends living in the estate that happened in.

Tenants were trouble from the 1st weekend, guards down regularly, dodgy people calling at all hours.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-family-whose-home-of-six-years-was-rented-out-in-their-absence-are-back-in-property-court-hears-841586.html

c montgomery

4ensic15 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-family-whose-home-of-six-years-was-rented-out-in-their-absence-are-back-in-property-court-hears-841586.html

Fail to see the relevance to my post!?

the_syco

c montgomery wrote: »

Fail to see the relevance to my post!?

I think they quoted the wrong post.

utmbuilder

the_syco wrote: »

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a marked increase in them, tbh, due to tenants stopping to pay rent.

it has a lot to do with dublin , its a dangerous kip we live in now, not knowing whos who. the value of life is at a alltime low
with thugs.