Thousands of tenants in Ireland live in squalor

DadaKopf

Some shocking statistics out today about the level of Victorian-era standards in flats across Ireland. Of the 60,000 people receiving rent supplement due to low incomes, most of them are living in places that don't meet minimum standards - 78% in of people in Dublin City who are on rent supplement lived in sub-standard accomodation. The poorest of the poor are still living in squalor. One family had to leave one flat because of a rat infestation and an entire bedroom being covered in mould. The landlord didn't do anything about it.

Although 6,300 rented properties fell below minimum requirements, only 11 legal cases were taken against landlords. This is apart from the fact that the so-called 'minimum standards' still let landlords get away with providing near-poverty conditions. The standards don't even make it compulsory to provide hot water all day, and an open fire or gas heater is still the only required heating source. What century is this?

More than that, tenants' rights here are extremely weak.

Given our illustrious history dealing with tenants' rights, absentee landlords through our own independence struggle, I'm sure Michael Davitt would be turning in his grave. And how on earth are we to move towards a more 'environmentally sustainable' future if so many rented properties are so sick that living in them is a health risk? The good ones are still decrepit, and the only decent ones cost more than most can afford.

We need a new tenants' rights movement. It's not enough that a few NGOs carry the torch on the margins while everyone else stands idly by, helpless, or unwilling to allow such a movement because they're property owners.

I mean, as a simple start, all we need are dignified (not minimum) enforcable standards, a system of certification for all landlords, a change in culture similar to America, France, Germany where flats are entirely self-furnished, with this must come stronger tenant rights and long leases so that people can rent their 'home', and a well resourced unit to prosecute landlords.

I realise how difficult this is... but where could someone start in looking to build such a movement?

daithicarr

i dont know about having to furnish houses your self being the norm. would that include things like fridges and washing machines, even if not, thats a lot of stuff to move. i have moved house 10 times with my family and 6 times my self, moving is already difficult enought without having to bring the entire contents of a house along with me.

Why do houses have to come unfurnished in order for us to get better tenant rights?

DadaKopf

They'd have to be complimentary. I'm talking about people being able to rent a 'home', not just a temporary place to live. For those who do not wish to or cannot take the risk to get out a massive loan to settle down somewhere, a stable renting situation is really important.

gurramok

Can the councils do anything about it?

Back in pre-independence days, the DCC or corpo in Dublin didn't care about the conditions of the tenements(flats to you and me) as landlords made up majority of the DCC back then blocking any progress.

So are the present day councils turning a blind eye?

fly_agaric

DadaKopf wrote: »

More than that, tenants' rights here are extremely weak.

It's funny. I remember someone in another forum on this board trying to convince me that the prtb meant we now had good tenants rights!
I think he might have been a landlord or something...

DadaKopf wrote: »

Given our illustrious history dealing with tenants' rights

"illustrious history"? Is it not a shameful history of 3rd world style city slums + tenements...

gurramok

Prime Time special on it now.

Shocking 3rd world conditions subsidised by the taxpayer to the ignorant landlords

jmayo

gurramok wrote: »

Prime Time special on it now.

Shocking 3rd world conditions subsidised by the taxpayer to the ignorant landlords

Just yet another example of failed public service monitoring of standards and the inability of our government & local authorities to forumlate legislation in the first place.
It can be added to the illustrious list that includes nursing homes and creches.

DadaKopf

jmayo wrote: »

Just yet another example of failed public service monitoring of standards and the inability of our government & local authorities to forumlate legislation in the first place.
It can be added to the illustrious list that includes nursing homes and creches.

I saw the PrimeTime programme. Absoluely shocking, but not so surprising. But I don't think this is an issue confined to the poorest and most vulnerable in Ireland. It's a connected issue with our Victorian attitudes towards people who rent and our tenancy culture.

PrimeTime touched off, but didn't go into depth about why this is happening. On one hand, you have depressingly weak legislation which I'm surprised is 'out of date' considering it was the first of its kind when it was introduced in 1993. Second is financing inspectors and legal proceedings. Local authorities don't have enough money and freedom of what they do have to carry out the tasks we expect them to. A 2005 report has estimated a funding shortfall nationally of up to €1.5 billion. Local authorities don't have the power to do much, either - most things are decided by central Government or national-level agencies who take their lead from Government. Of 30 functions assigned to the average local authority in Germany, Irish local authorities had only 10, none including activities that really count. Lastly, local authorities are messed up because too much of the work is done by unaccountable quangos that don't talk to each other - local authorities have weak capacities to co-ordinate the activities of over 400 different agencies across the country. I should say that the twin strategies of outsourcing government to quangos and the surrendering of social goods to market mechanisms is a prime cause of all this.

It's a disgrace that social welfare and accomodation inspectors don't share information or link payments to landlords to compliance with standards.

In sum: the whole system is dysfunctional. But, as Threshold say, there are some very basic measures that can be taken, provided funding is allowed: a national system of compulsory certification for all landlords, rent control, and long-term leases.

And, by any way, jmayo, local authorities cannot formulate legislation, that's the job of the Oireachtas and Judiciary. We wouldn't want the People's Republic of Cork getting notions, eh?

ntlbell

It's grand, one of the richest in the world we are.

jmayo

DadaKopf wrote: »

I saw the PrimeTime programme. Absoluely shocking, but not so surprising. But I don't think this is an issue confined to the poorest and most vulnerable in Ireland. It's a connected issue with our Victorian attitudes towards people who rent and our tenancy culture.

PrimeTime touched off, but didn't go into depth about why this is happening. On one hand, you have depressingly weak legislation which I'm surprised is 'out of date' considering it was the first of its kind when it was introduced in 1993. Second is financing inspectors and legal proceedings. Local authorities don't have enough money and freedom of what they do have to carry out the tasks we expect them to. A 2005 report has estimated a funding shortfall nationally of up to €1.5 billion. Local authorities don't have the power to do much, either - most things are decided by central Government or national-level agencies who take their lead from Government. Of 30 functions assigned to the average local authority in Germany, Irish local authorities had only 10, none including activities that really count. Lastly, local authorities are messed up because too much of the work is done by unaccountable quangos that don't talk to each other - local authorities have weak capacities to co-ordinate the activities of over 400 different agencies across the country. I should say that the twin strategies of outsourcing government to quangos and the surrendering of social goods to market mechanisms is a prime cause of all this.

It's a disgrace that social welfare and accomodation inspectors don't share information or link payments to landlords to compliance with standards.

In sum: the whole system is dysfunctional. But, as Threshold say, there are some very basic measures that can be taken, provided funding is allowed: a national system of compulsory certification for all landlords, rent control, and long-term leases.

And, by any way, jmayo, local authorities cannot formulate legislation, that's the job of the Oireachtas and Judiciary. We wouldn't want the People's Republic of Cork getting notions, eh?

I know the local authorities if anything have very little powers, and do not forumlate legislation. Then again as I said, does our government?
It takes years to come up with anything and it usually ends up sanitised becuase of vested interests.
But the local authorities are responsible for some things in this mess, but again like their esteemed collaegues in the HSE they rarely cover themselves in glory. Are they responsible for adherence to fire standards ?
Also funding is often used as an excuse for poor work practices and low productivity.

murphaph

Society fails to build sufficient public housing stock to house those unable to house themselves. Society then pays "rent supplement" to tenants to help them pay their rent, but stop the presses, do any of you lot realise that rent supplement doesn't actually supplement the rent! The rules of the scheme state that the rent paid to the landlord MUST NOT exceed the rent supplement.

Example...single parent or couple with one child receive the whopping sum of €953 pm rent supplement if they live in Dublin (yes yes, I hear all the neo cons decry this sum!). The scheme rules do not allow these people to approach a landlord of a reasonable 3 bed semi renting at say, €1200 pm and make up the shortfall themseslves...THIS IS STRICTLY AGAINST THE RULES so they do what? They find landlords who own tired or run dow properties which can only rent for small money, well below what the landlord would get if he could afford to do the property up.

What would you have the landlords do? Improve the accomodation to a point where they could get rents above the rent supplement limits but then only charge the rent at those limits? Are landlords supposed to charitably house those members of society who can't afford to house themselves or should not society as a whole take on that burden ?

Lastly, as someone on the other side of the fence I assure you....the law is most definitely stacked in the tenants' favour.If a tenant decides not to pay rent, does anyone want to hazrd a guess how long it takes to get them out........
Of course, we all go around wearing stovepipe hats and beating up poor people with our canes! :rolleyes: One poblem tenant can sink a landlord-some of whom take massive risks to build a property portfolio. If all private rented accomodation was taken out of circulation tomorrow, what would happen?

DadaKopf

Are you a landlord?

This is about ensuring basic liveable standards and rights for all tenants to live their lives in a home in dignity. You saw how many of the people in the documentary had been living in their places for many, many years.

I mean, what does anyone think the solutions are?

lostexpectation

we need most civil servants/ la authorite employees to check and enforce these standards, that what public servants are for.

gurramok

murphaph wrote: »

What would you have the landlords do? Improve the accomodation to a point where they could get rents above the rent supplement limits but then only charge the rent at those limits? Are landlords supposed to charitably house those members of society who can't afford to house themselves or should not society as a whole take on that burden ?

Thats a sickening attitude.

Landlords provide a service and that service should have basic living standards fit for human habitation, thats what we're talking about...not about rights and wrongs of property portfolio's.

patzer117

murphaph wrote: »

What would you have the landlords do? Improve the accommodation to a point where they could get rents above the rent supplement limits but then only charge the rent at those limits? Are landlords supposed to charitably house those members of society who can't afford to house themselves or should not society as a whole take on that burden ?

Lastly, as someone on the other side of the fence I assure you....the law is most definitely stacked in the tenants' favour.If a tenant decides not to pay rent, does anyone want to hazard a guess how long it takes to get them out........

I'm completely with you here murphaph. The idea that tenants don't have rights is ignorant. If i don't pay rent I can stay in the house for up to 6 months before the case is brought to court, and the landlord can do nothing about that.

If you want to talk about proper accommodation, leases are enforceable by law, don't get yourself into a situation where you don't have a good lease, simple as.

Look at it from a landlord's point of view - he can lose half a year's rent on a single tenant, plus the costs of going to court, purely to get his own house back? the law in this country is disgraceful

DadaKopf

You're a landlord, too, eh?

jmayo

patzer117 wrote: »

I'm completely with you here murphaph. The idea that tenants don't have rights is ignorant. If i don't pay rent I can stay in the house for up to 6 months before the case is brought to court, and the landlord can do nothing about that.

If you want to talk about proper accommodation, leases are enforceable by law, don't get yourself into a situation where you don't have a good lease, simple as.

Look at it from a landlord's point of view - he can lose half a year's rent on a single tenant, plus the costs of going to court, purely to get his own house back? the law in this country is disgraceful

Ah God be with the days when you could sent the bailiff round with the peelers and turf out the peasants on the road :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Here's a crazy idea: how about everyone accepts the idea that both landlords and tenants have rights, and that the current situation in Ireland is less than ideal.

Then we can actually have an intelligent discussion.

mikemac

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a sickening attitude.

Landlords provide a service and that service should have basic living standards fit for human habitation, thats what we're talking about...not about rights and wrongs of property portfolio's.

+1

Muraph, I think I've read some post from you about some problem commerical tenant your family had and this has totally skewed your perspective.

Nobody is asking a landlord to let their property's below the market rate for the "social good". Renting out a property is a business transaction and should be a decent property for a fair rent, easy as that.
But if they are going to rent, then it should be a mininum standard. Some of the flats on that programme were sickening

And while I don't like to say it, it could well take a fire that kills several people in some dodgy firetrap before any action is taken.

fly_agaric

murphaph wrote: »

Lastly, as someone on the other side of the fence I assure you....the law is most definitely stacked in the tenants' favour.If a tenant decides not to pay rent, does anyone want to hazrd a guess how long it takes to get them out........

Leaving aside who is to blame for people living is sub-standard accomodation...I think you may see the law as stacked against you because you are on the other side of the fence.

You complain about difficulty in shifting a non paying tenant but would you be keen on living long-term, maybe raising a family in private rented accomodation in Ireland?
Would you feel secure that you + your kids would not end up on your ear on quite short notice?

But maybe renting is just for students, "gastarbeiter", and wasters...

fly_agaric

DadaKopf wrote: »

You're a landlord, too, eh?

Hardly surprising. Everyone in this country seems to have wet dreams about being a landlord! Which is really strange given what a cross it must to bear for those so chosen by Our Lord <wipes away a little tear>

murphaph

fly_agaric wrote: »

Leaving aside who is to blame for people living is sub-standard accomodation...I think you may see the law as stacked against you because you are on the other side of the fence.

Yes. I am on the other side of the fence so I can bring another dimension to this one dimensional 'debate'. I am currently losing money every day due to a non-paying commercial tenant who is operating a succesful business from my property. This matter is in the court system. I have to pay large sums in legal fees to get my own property back. is that right? Irish law is quite clear....you only cease to be a tenant when a judge of the circuit court says so. If I decide not to pay rent I can sit on my behind and let the landlord go to court to evict me. It will take months, if not years and will cost large amounts of money. Of course, this doesn't fit in with the image of victorian era absentee landlords making money off the backs of others. I know full well there are disgraceful landlords out there, but there are disgraceful tenants too fellas. Deal with it. Some landlords get shafted by scumbag tenants and that's fact. This doesn't mean the minimum standards shouldn't be met by any landlord.

fly_agaric wrote: »

You complain about difficulty in shifting a non paying tenant

Is that wong of me? Should I let them stay for free while I pay hefty public liability insuance premiums etc?

fly_agaric wrote: »

but would you be keen on living long-term, maybe raising a family in private rented accomodation in Ireland?

Well, I would not like to be funding a rented house long term as I believe it is dead money (though so is mortgage interest of course) however if I was in a position where I was in receipt of rent supplement or the RAS scheme I would be reasonably secure.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Would you feel secure that you + your kids would not end up on your ear on quite short notice?

You can't evict people at short notice. The law means anyone renting in excess of 6 months is etitled to be offered a 4 year lease.

fly_agaric wrote: »

But maybe renting is just for students, "gastarbeiter", and wasters...

Well at the end of the day, the irish preference is for home ownership. This means that tenants will always be a smaller group than home owners. If you are a small group you will command fewer powers. Tenants' rights groups (Mieterverein) in Germany are very strong because they have so many members who can fund legal teams and so on. Irish tenants are proprtionally a much smaller group and so will struggle to organise like this. The law is already quite generous towards tenants. ALL private residential tenancies must be registered with the PRTB by law. The PRTB are a nominally free service for tenant's to use if they feel aggrieved.

At the end of the day lads. Landlords give their eye teeth for good tenants and do not go out of their way to upset them. Indeed if you browse landlords' forums you'll often see discussions of holding rent down to keep a good tenant rather than risk an increase forcing the good tenant out.

There are 2 sides to every story and without private landlords the state would have to build tens of thousands of homes or tens of thousands of people would be homeless but being a landlord is a business, not a charity.

By the way, even in Germany, the land of tenant's rights, a landlord can take posession of his property regardless of the length of tenancy, so long as he needs it for his own use. This means that german law recognises that the landlord is the ultimate owner and has rights greater than that of the tenant, as is right and proper. He paid for it.

murphaph

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a sickening attitude.

Landlords provide a service and that service should have basic living standards fit for human habitation, thats what we're talking about...not about rights and wrongs of property portfolio's.

Yes. All rented properties should meet the minimum standards. If they don't the PRTB should step in. That's what it's for (the landlords pay for it by the way-most tenant's rights organisations are funded by the tenants!).

Landlords run a business. Do you believe a landlord should shoulder the cost of a non-paying tenant?

gurramok

murphaph wrote: »

Yes. All rented properties should meet the minimum standards. If they don't the PRTB should step in. That's what it's for (the landlords pay for it by the way-most tenant's rights organisations are funded by the tenants!).

So they should be meeting minimum standards for humans to live in, that's what the topic is about.

Its a pity most landlords in my view do not register with the PRTB, otherwise the PRTB would have more resources, that's next in the property 'scandal news' when the revenue get off their behinds and start chasing the amateur BTL's en masse who are dodging rental tax.
(how do i know its en masse?..just look at the PRTB list for a local area you know and compare to what's actually rented, the time lapse excuse of the list is not worthy
I myself reported about 12 unregistered properties to the PRTB about 6 months ago, they have not been registered yet according to the latest list)

Its no surprise these dodgy landlords do not register with the PRTB, they get caught for tax and do not have to meet living standards as they 'are under the radar'

murphaph wrote: »

Landlords run a business. Do you believe a landlord should shoulder the cost of a non-paying tenant?

No, that's not what the topic is about. You brought your personal situation about a commercial tenant.
We are talking about non-commercial tenants especially the poorer ones who need a roof over their heads with certain landlords having them living in squalor.
Go watch the prime time programme (http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/) and you see what we are discussing.

fly_agaric

murphaph wrote: »

Is that wong of me? Should I let them stay for free while I pay hefty public liability insuance premiums etc?

No. If your tenant won't pay the agreed rent they should leave within a reasonable time. If they still won't leave after that you should be able to get the state involved to see that they do without a very costly and lengthy legal process.

gurramok wrote:

We are talking about non-commercial tenants especially the poorer ones who need a roof over their heads

Yes.

murphaph wrote: »

You can't evict people at short notice. The law means anyone renting in excess of 6 months is etitled to be offered a 4 year lease.

For 6 months you can kick someone out at your discretion...at 6 months you have to make a decision.
Even during the next 3.5 years I recall there is a quite generous list of exceptions to the rule. Then after 4 years are up - back to square one for the tenant isn't it?

murphaph wrote: »

Well at the end of the day, the irish preference is for home ownership.

Of course, given that tenants rights are not really good enough at the moment for someone looking for security to build their life, raise a family etc.

murphaph wrote: »

This means that tenants will always be a smaller group than home owners.

I don't think that follows.

gurramok wrote:

Its a pity most landlords in my view do not register with the PRTB

Interesting...
Why is the current govt (being rough and ready and counting the last FF/Green/PD coalition as a continuation) so obsessed with creating all these shiny new public sector quangos to administer everything anyway? They sound good but that seems to be about it for alot of them - obvious example being the largest (HSE).

mikemac

gurramok wrote: »

So they should be meeting minimum standards for humans to live in, that's what the topic is about.

Its a pity most landlords in my view do not register with the PRTB, otherwise the PRTB would have more resources, that's next in the property 'scandal news' when the revenue get off their behinds and start chasing the amateur BTL's en masse who are dodging rental tax.
(how do i know its en masse?..just look at the PRTB list for a local area you know and compare to what's actually rented, the time lapse excuse of the list is not worthy
I myself reported about 12 unregistered properties to the PRTB about 6 months ago, they have not been registered yet according to the latest list)

Its no surprise these dodgy landlords do not register with the PRTB, they get caught for tax and do not have to meet living standards as they 'are under the radar'

From what little I know, the Revenue are in no rush to pursue them. They can do it in a few years time when penalties, interest and legal fees have been clocked up. And then they declare an amnesty and woe betide the landlords who don't come forward.
Hey, it's easy to say nothing will happen but the Revenue are damn efficent and they certainly did their job on the offshore Ansbacher accounts.

Murpaph, as already stated this thread is not about commerical tenants. So you've been messed around? So what, this has nothing to do with this thread. Take it to the legal forum.

This is about landlords providing a basic standard. Even you couldn't fail to shocked by the standards people are living in.
If landlords comply with regulations and provide a decent home then people will be happy to live there and pay market rent. Or at least the Community Welfare officer can pay market rate

johnnyskeleton

The problem is not the landlords, it's the whole country.

Renting in the private sector is overpriced, cramped and generally very poor, and whatever is so substandard that it simply won't be taken by anyone who has any choice, is foisted on the private rent relief tenants.

murphaph

micmclo wrote: »

Murpaph, as already stated this thread is not about commerical tenants. So you've been messed around? So what, this has nothing to do with this thread. Take it to the legal forum.

Don't fcuking tell me where to take anything. You live in blissful ignorance of the law which applies equally to commercial and residential lettings for your information. The law sides with the tenant owing to successive precendents set since independence.

micmclo wrote: »

This is about landlords providing a basic standard. Even you couldn't fail to shocked by the standards people are living in.
If landlords comply with regulations and provide a decent home then people will be happy to live there and pay market rent

How wrong you are. There are overholding tenants all over this country who are withholding rent from landlords of perfectly fine accomodation. You can't see a tenant being at fault, can you?!

By the way, as I ALREADY STATED the social welfare DOES NOT PAY MARKET RATES in Dublin at any rate unless you have at least 3 kids. The rent supplement scheme does not allow tenants to make up a shortfall between the supplement paid and the market rent. You scuttle off and find a house for €1200 in south Dublin. Good luck with that.

murphaph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Renting in the private sector is overpriced

Not based on the cost of a buy to let mortgage taken out in recent years. Many landlords actually subsidise their mortgage with their own pay as the rent is insufficient to cove the mortgage.

gurramok

murphaph wrote: »

Not based on the cost of a buy to let mortgage taken out in recent years. Many landlords actually subsidise their mortgage with their own pay as the rent is insufficient to cove the mortgage.

Yes, rent is overpriced along with house prices themselves. On the curve, rents will come down but not as much i think as the fall in house prices due.

Hence yields are abysmal. Overpriced houses purchased by BTL's in recent years relying on rent to help with their jumbo mortgages is so amateurish.

Agree with you on the social welfare payments aspect, have 3 kids and be a single mother to get that extra rent allowance. (a friend of a friend is a landlord and his tenant pays 1100 from welfare to pay for the 2bed apt)

As noted in the programme, single men as usually the ones who end up in the sh1tholes.
Still the argument here is standards and some landlords are getting away with 3rd world conditions without penalty.

sovtek

murphaph wrote: »

At the end of the day lads. Landlords give their eye teeth for good tenants and do not go out of their way to upset them. Indeed if you browse landlords' forums you'll often see discussions of holding rent down to keep a good tenant rather than risk an increase forcing the good tenant out.

Thats strange every landlord I've had seems to think that I am his personal atm and that there is no responsibility on his part to provide a decent living space much less a premium living space with the premium rent he requires me to pay. I've also had a landlord start to renovate his house while 6 people were still living there (who had so for years and care more about the place than he did) so he and his trophy wife would not have to move into the kip his place had become. You complain about how long it takes to get someone that isn't paying rent to get out. Ask me how long it took to get some modicum of compensation for his numerous and blatant infringements of my rights and of the rights of the other tenants...off which he was collecting a fortune monthly. We were one of dozens. Poor agreived little stupidly rich landlords.

murphaph

sovtek wrote: »

Thats strange every landlord I've had seems to think that I am his personal atm and that there is no responsibility on his part to provide a decent living space much less a premium living space with the premium rent he requires me to pay. I've also had a landlord start to renovate his house while 6 people were still living there (who had so for years and care more about the place than he did) so he and his trophy wife would not have to move into the kip his place had become. You complain about how long it takes to get someone that isn't paying rent to get out. Ask me how long it took to get some modicum of compensation for his numerous and blatant infringements of my rights and of the rights of the other tenants...off which he was collecting a fortune monthly. We were one of dozens. Poor agreived little stupidly rich landlords.

these guys obviously feel they can get away with extracting the urine out of you. I would have moved out if my landlord was disturbing me in my home. If people take it, some landlords will do it. If people won't take it, landlords won't do it.

Mr.Micro

Dog ignorant could be used to describe some the sharks that call themselves landlords, most probably IMO, non registered or tax compliant. A good christian country like this would one expect anything less. A pig of a letting agent once showed Mrs. Micro and myself around a place and he wanted a deposit to hold it for us, as we told him had another to look at but we were a bit desperate so Mrs. Micro gave him what was in her purse 50 euro ( I refused but Mrs Micro insisted). We looked at the other place, which turned out to be better, bigger and cheaper. The F...er refused to give our money back. I had to refund Mrs.Micro later, the gentleman that I am. I have encountered many such chancers and low lives in the renting business alas.

murphaph

Vast amounts of the renting stock is now in modern housing, built in the last 15 years. There's plenty of this type of housing available to rent in most suburban areas in Dublin at the moment. Why would anyone settle for a hovel? A room in a shared house in (say) D15 can be had for €350pm. Hardly going to break the bank. If you can't afford that you are clearly relying on the state (society) to support you, so why doesn't the state do a better job of it I wonder.

Mr.Micro

murphaph wrote: »

Vast amounts of the renting stock is now in modern housing, built in the last 15 years. There's plenty of this type of housing available to rent in most suburban areas in Dublin at the moment. Why would anyone settle for a hovel? A room in a shared house in (say) D15 can be had for €350pm. Hardly going to break the bank. If you can't afford that you are clearly relying on the state (society) to support you, so why doesn't the state do a better job of it I wonder.

If a family needs to rent then that price is about 10-1200 per month or more. Thats serious money to be paying out before bills, food etc. A mortgage would be better.

murphaph

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If a family needs to rent then that price is about 10-1200 per month or more. Thats serious money to be paying out before bills, food etc. A mortgage would be better.

But they can't get a mortgage for whatever reason or they'd have one. The (buy to let) landlord can get one, but is exposed to risk as he is then dependent on a third party (his tenant) paying his mortgage. In any case, as already noted, recent BTL landlords are often subsidising the mortgage from their own incomes. This of course means the landlord is totally dependent on the propety appreciating in value, which is poor business, but many silly people bought to let when they couldn't really make the sums add up.

cabinteelytom

Could a shakedown in the rental market be on it's way?
Many claim that a large proportion of the current housing stock is sitting vacant; and an economic downturn would motivate many owners to get their excess properties onto the rental market, to bring in some dosh.
I am extremely unhappy if the 'Rent Supplement' (or similar) is a publicly funded subsidy to lazy landlords of slum properties which merely results in extending the life of poor-quality housing stock. 'Board them up!'
The step needed now is; a simple legal means to have a dwelling condemned as unfit for habitation and not eligible for rent supplement; and let's spare the public purse (my taxes); and redistribute the tenants into the better housing stock.

murphaph

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Could a shakedown in the rental market be on it's way?
Many claim that a large proportion of the current housing stock is sitting vacant; and an economic downturn would motivate many owners to get their excess properties onto the rental market, to bring in some dosh.
I am extremely unhappy if the 'Rent Supplement' (or similar) is a publicly funded subsidy to lazy landlords of slum properties which merely results in extending the life of poor-quality housing stock. 'Board them up!'
The step needed now is; a simple legal means to have a dwelling condemned as unfit for habitation and not eligible for rent supplement; and let's spare the public purse (my taxes); and redistribute the tenants into the better housing stock.

Indeed. Of course the words "simple" and "legal" don't belong in the same sentence in this country. I wish we could abolish the common law and enact a codified system, like the continentals, particularly Germany. Clearly the minimum standards are very low as it stands. Perhaps the first thing that should be done is to increase those minimum standards. Energy testing is on the way which is a possible first step. However I would like to see more penalties against non-compliant tenants.