The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlords’ tales from the renta

garhjw

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think that says more about you than them. Of course some humans behave dreadfully at times, does this mean we should simply discard them on the streets or in a cell?

Yes we should discard them if they decide not to behave like a normal person. They make a decision and should deal with the consequences.

The_Conductor

garhjw wrote: »

They make a decision and should deal with the consequences.

At present- there are no consequences for them.
That is the knux of the problem.
Why bother subscribing to social norms- when they can have it all?

Wanderer78

amcalester wrote: »

Eh yeah, and if/when they learn to play nice they can be welcomed back into the fold.

garhjw wrote: »

Yes we should discard them if they decide not to behave like a normal person. They make a decision and should deal with the consequences.

The_Conductor wrote: »

At present- there are no consequences for them.
That is the knux of the problem.
Why bother subscribing to social norms- when they can have it all?

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

garhjw

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

Nonsense. In this case the tenant knew what they were doing gaming the system. Don’t try to disguise it with societal issues. Some people are just bad.

Wanderer78

garhjw wrote: »

Nonsense. In this case the tenant knew what they were doing gaming the system. Don’t try to disguise it with societal issues. Some people are just bad.

so what should we do with these 'bad' people?

garhjw

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what should we do with these 'bad' people?

Prosecute and imprisonment where appropriate. Homeless if they can’t respect property which doesn’t belong to them.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

Herein lies the problem, we have people similar to yourself offer a justification/excuse for peoples behavior. Some people are bad and the quicker all sides agree to deal with these people the better it will be for the majority of people.


There should be consequences for those who do wrong otherwise the division between tenants and landlords will increase.

Remember we are all suffering because of the actions of the minority who act with complete impunity.

Wanderer78

garhjw wrote: »

Prosecute and imprisonment where appropriate. Homeless if they can’t respect property which doesn’t belong to them.

does/would this actually work, does imprisoning people actually work?

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what should we do with these 'bad' people?

Evict them and introduce for example a three strike rule with the council. If you get three strikes the State no longer has a legal responsibility to house you. You are on your own. This would not be a black and white rule to take account of those with mental health issues.

But those who cause misery for communities should be held accountable for there actions.

Speed up evictions in the private sector rather than just moving the problem from social housing to private housing via rental properties.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote: »

Evict them and introduce for example a three strike rule with the council. If you get three strikes the State no longer has a legal responsibility to house you. You are on your own. This would not be a black and white rule to take account of those with mental health issues.

But those who cause misery for communities should be held accountable for there actions.

Speed up evictions in the private sector rather than just moving the problem from social housing to private housing via rental properties.

people who are more conservatively justified just love their 3 strikes stuff, does this stuff actually work, does it actually help to resolve complex social issues? if leaving people 'on their own', would this actually resolve issues, or simply introduce more complex ones? by moving our housing policies more towards an 'on your own' approach, i.e more towards a privatised approach, how have those that have been unable to 'do their own' faired out?

with roughly 50% of inmates engaging in criminal activities after incarceration does this approach actually work?

again, im in agreement, these 'bad' people need to be dealt with, our current policies are exposing both tenant and landlord, i.e. both are getting screwed.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

people who are more conservatively justified just love their 3 strikes stuff, does this stuff actually work, does it actually help to resolve complex social issues? if leaving people 'on their own', would this actually resolve issues, or simply introduce more complex ones? by moving our housing policies more towards an 'on your own' approach, i.e more towards a privatised approach, how have those that have been unable to 'do their own' faired out?

with roughly 50% of inmates engaging in criminal activities after incarceration does this approach actually work?

again, im in agreement, these 'bad' people need to be dealt with, our current policies are exposing both tenant and landlord, i.e. both are getting screwed.

I personally don't hold with the excuse of social depravation as a justification for some peoples behavior. The majority of people are good and we have proven in some instances we cant change people no matter how much support we give them no matter how much counselling we give them.

If people wont stay within societal norms then we need to look at other ways to deal with them. If it means keeping a repeat criminal offender in prison then so be it. If it means housing someone in the arse end of nowhere with only foodstamps to survive then so be it.

If there were consequences for bad behaviour then others may change their behavior aswell.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote: »

I personally don't hold with the excuse of social depravation as a justification for some peoples behavior. The majority of people are good and we have proven in some instances we cant change people no matter how much support we give them no matter how much counselling we give them.

If people wont stay within societal norms then we need to look at other ways to deal with them. If it means keeping a repeat criminal offender in prison then so be it. If it means housing someone in the arse end of nowhere with only foodstamps to survive then so be it.

If there were consequences for bad behaviour then others may change their behavior aswell.

so effectively we discard people if they dont fit the societal norm?

bare in mind, some humans show little of no signs of aderring to societal norms no matter what approaches are taken, whether it be by 'punishment' methods via our judicial system, again, we dont live in a world of equal opportunities, we dont live in a perfect world, and probably never will. its also important to realise, many of these individuals are actually born with pre-dispositions or disorders, that severally curtails their abilities to achieve the goals of others, such as owning your own home, or creating a successful career etc, add that to complex environmental situations, generally results in very very complex problems. again, we dont live in a perfect world, so lets not pretend we do

handlemaster

The_Conductor wrote: »

You can do all the research in the world- and still end up with a dud.
As it stands- tenants can have any findings made against them taken down off the RTB website- contrary to the report in the Irish Times- so even if there are significant misdeeds- unless the landlord decides to invest the time and effort in pursuing the tenant- its not going to show up in any searches people do.

The landlord in the article- is getting EUR50 a month- from a previous tenant who ran up arrears of 50k.

There is a reasonable presumption that if someone is renting a unit in D4- that they're going to be of a certain calibre- I know I could never ever dream to afford to rent in D4- nor would I try- this landlord has gotten caught by at least 2 people on this property (no idea from the article whether or not he has additional units- however, the way its worded, I suspect not).

The system is setup to protect tenants at all costs- even if they destroy property and don't pay rent. Anyone who sticks their necks up and points out the inequity of some tenants getting away with this behaviour- gets strips torn out of them. You cannot mitigate against criminal behaviour- when society and the law is stacked against you. The law- meanwhile- is meandering around the place to suit political ends- whatever makes good media- gets pushed- and crucifying landlords- while ignoring the likes of this guy's tenants and their mayhem- is what sells papers.

The Irish Times is going out on a limb even publishing articles like this- you quite simply do not get the other side of the equation in the Irish media- its all about the poor tenant- even where the poor tenant has taken a high spec unit in D4 and thrashed it- while availing of 2 years rent free accommodation- it simply is politically incorrect to call out any tenants on the actions of the few who cause such misery and hardship all round.

The RTB *is not fit for purpose*. Ideally- it should be disbanded- and a neutral body take its place- where tenants and landlords are both treated in a fair but neutral manner- and there is an expectation that both tenants and landlords will obey the law. In addition- the manner in which a non-paying tenant can play the system for 2+ years availing of rent-free accommodation- or indeed the manner in which a landlord owed 50k is only repaid at EUR50 a month- simply is inequitable- and a recipe to get any sane landlords the hell out of the system ASAP.

On the brightside- all those landlords exiting the system- are making additional units available to buy on the market for owner-occupiers- however, the manner in which the owner occupiers first time buyer inducement doesn't include second hand property- effectively devalues secondhand property by a minimum of 20k per unit.

The whole sector is so messed up- its quite unbelievable just how screwed up it is.

Nicely summed up

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so effectively we discard people if they dont fit the societal norm?

bare in mind, some humans show little of no signs of aderring to societal norms no matter what approaches are taken, whether it be by 'punishment' methods via our judicial system, again, we dont live in a world of equal opportunities, we dont live in a perfect world, and probably never will. its also important to realise, many of these individuals are actually born with pre-dispositions or disorders, that severally curtails their abilities to achieve the goals of others, such as owning your own home, or creating a successful career etc, add that to complex environmental situations, generally results in very very complex problems. again, we dont live in a perfect world, so lets not pretend we do

You are interpreting what I said as either black or white. You don't use the same rules for everyone but at some point you have to say stop. Societal norms dictate if you murder you are imprisoned. We them reduce sentences for mitigating circumstances yet the families of the victim are forgotten. The majority of people in social areas are the nicest you will ever meet yet they must suffer daily anti social issues because we are looking after the minority at the expense of the majority.

Mad_maxx

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this problem has complexity at all levels. some humans simply cannot help themselves, we dont live in a perfect world whereby we all have equal opportunities in life

I pity your grim pessimism, your expectations are so low when it comes to some people, you don't even think they can avoid living like pigs

Pkiernan

Question for the far left tenant sympathisers:

Imagine you had a job.
Your employer stops paying you.
You refuse to go to work.
You get fined 20 grand for refusing to work.

Sound reasonable?

sk8board

Full time LL here.

The numbers are high, but the arrears are about 1 year of rent, pretty normal for a tenant who goes all the way through notifications, RTB judgement, appeals and court. If it was a 2 bed in a rural town, the same arrears would be €10k and this article wouldn’t even be published.

I was asked just last week why i don’t just sell everything and buy one big property in the city center with a huge rent. Naturally, this is why.

2/3s of all LLs own one property. The investment risks are simply massive and the single biggest risk to manage is a delinquent tenant (not lower rents, or a drop in house prices, or repair bills).
If one of my tenants stops paying the rent, I’m down x% of my income for a period of time while we go through the process, whereas this LL is basically f6€ked.

The current issue is too many amateur LLs, who don’t want to be LLs, reluctantly trying to comply with the controls and regulations, but want to hold on to a property asset, and are screwed on tax as they have other full time job income, have no incentive to stay, but lots of incentive to sell.
The RTB annual report bears this out - 212k LLs in 2012, and 22k places on daft, with 165k today and 3k places on daft.

The LL number will continue to fall now that capital appreciation is topping out.

The RTB reports have not show the true fall in amateur LLs as they started including all the Approved housing boards tenancies last year.

lcwill

Mad_maxx wrote: »

For another thread but the Irish tax system is very unfavourable for equity fund investors, people really are steered towards property

I think this must be a big part of it. Probably a lot of landlords would not consider taking on all this hassle if they had the equivalent of an ISA to put money into, and didn't have such ridiculous taxation of ETFs.

padd b1975

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Then what do we do with them?

We ve successfully exposed both the tenant and landlord, what a bloody mess

Tell them to grow up and familiarise themselves with the concept of personal responsibility for starters.

Samuel T. Cogley

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/people-before-profit-and-solidarity-fail-to-galvanise-voters-1.3905141?fbclid=IwAR3LQlwX5GOfETPL25a--lZ5ophyRnccStBdAVOPkctqkLH51oW9c9Q6sZc

Another interesting piece in the IT. This time about the Loony Left not getting the votes they were expecting over the housing crisis. Is it a hope beyond hope that people are realising that continually screwing LL's is not actually the way to keep them in the market?

Until rogue tenants are made to suffer along with rental laws that are massively biased in favour of tenants then this will continue.

If a tenant is not paying they should be out immediately, personally I think within a month is perfectly fair but even say 3 months to give some time for a process. After this they are physically removed if necessary and thrown on the side of the street if necessary.

Getting them out in 3 months immediately limits the amount of arrears racked up so it might be possible for a LL to recoup. The tenant should have a significant proportion of their salary/dole dudected at source then to pay the arrears and they should be heavily fined and this also taken from their salary/dole at source

Implement something like this and go real hard on a few cases early to get the word out there and you would quickly see tenants think twice about messing LLs around.

garhjw

Lindsey Fierce Smallpox wrote: »

Until rogue tenants are made to suffer along with rental laws that are massively biased in favour of tenants then this will continue.

If a tenant is not paying they should be out immediately, personally I think within a month is perfectly fair but even say 3 months to give some time for a process. After this they are physically removed if necessary and thrown on the side of the street if necessary.

Getting them out in 3 months immediately limits the amount of arrears racked up so it might be possible for a LL to recoup. The tenant should have a significant proportion of their salary/dole dudected at source then to pay the arrears and they should be heavily fined and this also taken from their salary/dole at source

Implement something like this and go real hard on a few cases early to get the word out there and you would quickly see tenants think twice about messing LLs around.

I think 1 to 1.5 months should be the maximum time allowed. The impact on non payment of rent for some landlords can be significant. It would change things a lot if there was a mechanism to deal with rogue tenants.

Lux23

I didn't think it looked like they caused €20,000k worth of damage though, it was just rubbish that could be easily picked up.

Graces7

Lux23 wrote: »

I didn't think it looked like they caused €20,000k worth of damage though, it was just rubbish that could be easily picked up.

agree.. seen far worse on some of he UK rental programmes

Fol20

garhjw wrote: »

I think 1 to 1.5 months should be the maximum time allowed. The impact on non payment of rent for some landlords can be significant. It would change things a lot if there was a mechanism to deal with rogue tenants.

I think the system will never be efficient enough to be that quick but 3 months would be acceptable imo.

Cryptopagan

sk8board wrote: »

The current issue is too many amateur LLs, who don’t want to be LLs, reluctantly trying to comply with the controls and regulations, but want to hold on to a property asset, and are screwed on tax as they have other full time job income, have no incentive to stay, but lots of incentive to sell.
The RTB annual report bears this out - 212k LLs in 2012, and 22k places on daft, with 165k today and 3k places on daft.

I’m sure you’re right, but for whom is it an issue other than the “amateur” landlords themselves? As a society, do we care if they sell up and leave the market? Either their property will be purchased as a residence, or else by a larger landlord. I don’t see any reason why government should incentivize small time landlords.

jam_mac_jam

Unpaid rent should also go on your credit record. It seems unfair that you can get a bad mark for failing to pay your credit card or a telephone bill but you can not pay rent for a year and its fine. I think three months would be fair before eviction. I don’t think you can throw somebody out after a month, that’s a bit much.

However in a functioning market you need support and regulations on both sides. There should be a central place for deposits to protect the tenant and some come back for the landlord if the tenant does not pay.

theguzman

I'd have evicted them myself within the month, if they tried to stay then a criminal conviction for myself wouldn't worry me in the grand scheme of things but one thing for sure they would not stay in my house like that.

Fol20

theguzman wrote: »

I'd have evicted them myself within the month, if they tried to stay then a criminal conviction for myself wouldn't worry me in the grand scheme of things but one thing for sure they would not stay in my house like that.

I presume your not a landlord then

Samuel T. Cogley

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I’m sure you’re right, but for whom is it an issue other than the “amateur” landlords themselves? As a society, do we care if they sell up and leave the market? Either their property will be purchased as a residence, or else by a larger landlord. I don’t see any reason why government should incentivize small time landlords.

I'd presume we do as it's not a great situation for a family to be in that to get a decent 3-bedroom house they need to spend double what the mortgage would be. Not everyone can or should buy property.

As for a larger LL buying the property, the won't. They are buying new properties so that they can charge top rents.