Eviction after 50 years

Everything is over 3,000 a month...where they live now.

They have been getting a great deal since the 1980s at least. 40 years. How much could they have saved during that time?

As usual only half the facts shared.

Not sure why they deserve a free house in an upmarket area to be honest.

I'm reminded of leases that one would sometimes see on old Land Registry deeds: "rented for a sum of one shilling a year for 999 years".

Regardless of the circumstance here, this illustrates the big problem with renting. You don't own the house, so you can never be secure. I personally know people who rented a house for 20 years and were finally asked to leave when the owner decided to sell.

Does anyone know what the rent on a house in the 1980s would have been? I can't imagine that it was anything more than 100 a month or something obscenely low by today's standards.

Nah, dogecoin all the way!

"I'm reminded of leases that one would sometimes see on old Land Registry deeds: "rented for a sum of one shilling a year for 999 years"."

Those are ground rents, not rents. You had to pay a substantial sum up front to buy the lease. The purpose of ground rents was often to stop people building unsuitable things, e.g. a slaughter house in a residential area.

This is a larger conversation that is one of the many elephants in the herd that currently screams in the corner of the room that is Ireland. I know people who got social housing for a song in areas near my mom. I could not afford to buy anything there, so I ended up moving to Wexford, which I'm ambivalent about at best. I've worked for my entire adult life, never drawn welfare, and never used a single state service beyond the library. Should anyone be getting "free" accommodation in and excellent location when working people are unable to do so?

It's a can of worms, but it really needs to be discussed.

Most would have been since bought out. Legislation was passed providing for this

I think it would actually be good for landlords if there were clear, enforceable tenant protection rules in place. Right now it seems that a misbehaving tenant can get away with not paying the rent, trashing the place and the landlord would be happy to pay the tenant to leave. While on the other hand, a tenant of 20-50 years can be thrown out on the street with a short notice?

Imagine if you started to rent a house in your 30s, lived there for 50 years and now you, in your 80s, are asked to leave to find another place? It must be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, yet landlord class would see nothing wrong with it.

That is exactly my point. The tenants were give a notice to vacate the property they lived in most of their lives, they are now overholding and not leaving because there is no point for them to hurry. Why did this happen? Because the rules are bad and unenforceable. Is the rules being bad the natural state of things and is this the way it must be? No. Look at the tenant protections in the USA, or Germany and copy those. Otherwise, each "struggling family" case would need to be considered by An Dáil, just to be fair.

your point was also this

which is complete nonsense. after that period of time they have to give 224 days notice.

Clearly not, which is why Richard Boyd/Barrett is now championing the case of yet another downtrodden renter being thrown to the ditch from their leafy 'home' in South Dublin because they refused to adhere to the official notice they were given to vacate.

And election after election people still vote for this cretin.

The more up to date version of those agreements are leases of land for 99 years at €1 pa if demanded and renewable on the same terms. They are not ground rent and are sometimes called "peppercorn rents".

Why would you say it's a temporary solution? Many people have no interest or ability to buy property. It's pretty normal in the rest of Europe. For many here it's normal, I know of people in their 80s and 90s who are renting. Now lately financially it doesn't make sense but that's a relatively recent thing.

Lazy asses, they loved to rent for nothing and took no responsibility for their own lives. They should be going to Leitrim now and take their violin with them. Why do they even write an article about them, like why do they waste energy on these wasters!

The article starts off with "the family, who wishes to remain anonymous".

What bit of that entitles some randomer to post personal details of them on an open forum?

That's up there with "ah sure they're a politician/rugby player/tv star, they asked for it"

Whatever the merits of their issue and the case RBB is making for them, they don't deserve to be doxxed on boards.

I grew up in a council estate. My father paid rent to the local council, how much I don't remember but it was certainly lower than a mortgage at the time. At some point, I think in the early 90s, he was given the option of buying the house from the council, the amount asked was a no-brainer. Other people in the estate were given the same option, yet many chose not to take the council up on their once in a lifetime offer. Sometimes people turn off their logic filter when making decisions. As has been pointed out, what has that family done with their money for the last 40 years.

Again, why does the fact that they're looking for the state to assist them entitle the world to know their personal business?

And to have that personal business posted on public forums by either a randomer who's either making it up or somehow found out some info, or someone known them who knows their personal business (I'm not sure which is worse, tbh).

if what has been posted here is correct, and it might not be, then RBB can feck off with looking for sympathy for them. If you only release half the story in an attempt to get sympathy then don't be surprised if the other half doesn't reach the public domain.