Security of Tenure for Tenants

Graces7

beauf wrote: »

Kind of a different spin on it there Grace

You have to see the worst then look for the best! There were spider colonies; there was black mould. There were rats around. But these things can be ..organised. And were. Although I did abandon that small room!

The real problem there was a very old neighbour who thought he owned the place! Tried to use a former old right of way that his solicitor had told him was no longer valid. Through the back garden … then across the fields, It was overgrown so he decided to clear it by setting fire to it and nearly destroyed the ESB overheads. I wrote a lot of that on boards at the time.

Deep rural Ireland has hidden depths and charms! And eccentricities.. And I never sought a neat semi etc. Would bore me to death!

It was safe; for as long as maybe. And that means a lot.

beauf

Graces7 wrote: »

You have to see the worst then look for the best! There were spider colonies; there was black mould. There were rats around. But these things can be ..organised. And were. Although I did abandon that small room!

The real problem there was a very old neighbour who thought he owned the place! Tried to use a former old right of way that his solicitor had told him was no longer valid. Through the back garden … then across the fields, It was overgrown so he decided to clear it by setting fire to it and nearly destroyed the ESB overheads. I wrote a lot of that on boards at the time.

Deep rural Ireland has hidden depths and charms! And eccentricities.. And I never sought a neat semi etc. Would bore me to death!

I don't see what any of that has to do with this thread.

beauf

brisan wrote: »

8-10 weeks is still too long for a serious complaint by either a landlord or a tenant

You could be 6 months to 2 years evicting a someone. In that context 2 months is short.

One again that's a resourcing issue, and reflects govt low priority on housing.

Fol20

eleventh wrote: »

All my rentals (with one 1-year exception) have been where the house/apartment/building was owned.
The idea of a LL depending on rent to pay the mortgage on the property was not a thing until fairly recently. I would say it began in the tiger years and increasing since to a point it's now seen as normal. It's not how it should be.

In my example above. I don’t even take into account a mortgage. Both are just hard cash.

Leveraged property is one of the advantages when done right with property that you can’t do with stocks

eleventh

nibtrix wrote: »

Ok, apologies, I do get you. I just believe from a practical viewpoint that there would be relatively few cases where it would work out for both tenant and landlord, and the cost and complexity of legislating for such a system wouldn't be worth it in the greater scheme of things.

To discuss this we'd probably need some statistics, if there are any, on how long people are staying places, or someone who has insight into that.
I think it changes around age 30. Teens to 20s people would move several times, but less likely to want to move the older they get.

I think demand would increase if it was part of the system. There could be buildings or areas dedicated to long term renters, which would be better than having neighbours moving in and out every year or so.

I don't see what costs or complexity either, no more than any legislation.