Living with owner occupier

I was just wondering if it's generally accepted that this is a nightmare? I avoided them in Dublin as I had the idea that the person would feel like it was their home and I was an annoyance there as opposed to being equals/flatmates. I ended up in this situation in Belgium (actually the girl doesn't even own the place but it's all her furniture etc) and it's driving me insane. Basically she thinks it's 'her' place and I should do everything she says.

She just seems to expect to live as though she were alone here. She moans at me for every last little thing (last week for not closing the bathroom door as I brushed my teeth and today for not sweeping the floor), yet seems to have absolute no consideration for me. She regularly has friends staying without even asking me if it's OK (why would she? It's 'her' house :rolleyes:), she comes into my room all the time to take stuff like lamps and random stuff she'd left in here before I moved in. She has parties without even informing me. She is basically completely intolerant of me, and yet either oblivious or doesn't care that she's REALLY annoying to live with. I've been in 10+ flatshares and never had this problem before. I just hate feeling like I'm some sort of guest in my own home .

Is this typical of the situation or is she just a cow?

dny123456

Mooo.

rain on

You had a thread or two about this before didn't you? I'm on my second owner-occupier share at the moment (only left the last one because I moved cities) and both of them have been a dream, nicely kept houses, broken things fixed ASAP (because they have to live with them too!), considerate housemates, good craic, no hassle at all.

My experience might be atypical at the other end of the spectrum from yours, I don't reckon all owner-occupiers are as sound as the ones I've lived with, but she still sounds like an almighty pain in the arse. Consideration costs nothing like.

Nope, wasn't me, not on this forum. I'm curious because I've turned a lot of places down in the past because they were own occupied and I'm wondering if it was justified. Also, my best mate is considering an owner occupied apartment and asked me what I thought - obviously based on my experience I said to be careful who she chose!

In my case, I'm not sure if she's being a b*tch cos she can get away with it, or she genuinely believes I'm an annoying flatmate. I just can't believe the absolute sh*te she gives out about. I was rushing out of the flat to do an errand there today, bumped into the table on the way out, knocking it slightly out of alignment and knocking over a salt cellar (nothing spilled). I came in 5 mins later to find her in the flat, she'd already fixed the table and gave out to me about it. I can't imagine anyone else really even noticing this!! I'm very quiet, I never have guests over, I wash my dishes immediately, basically spend as little time there as possible and she still manages to pick on these tiny things.

dny123456

But did you not say, that she doesn't own the place... ie. she is _not_ an owner occupier, just the leaseholder, making you a licensee?

Would the advice then, not be, yes owner occupiers are great, don't be a secondary tenant.

Really just sounds like she's a cow, nothing to do with her being owner occupier, thinking she's owner occupying, leaseholder, co-tenant or sub tenant, she'd be a cow either way.

Well, she owns all the furniture and 'stuff', she's very protective of it and this is the main issue I felt I might have with an owner occupier. I obviously respect peoples' property, but things do happen with wear and tear. In the past I've always been a 'secondary tenant' as in I paid the rent to the person on the lease, and I've never felt like this before, I guess because they weren't super paranoid about all the furniture and everything. With this girl, it's like she wants to be in charge when it suits, like making the rules and having her friends over all the time, yet she wants to be equal when it comes to cleaning and maintenance! I really don't think you can have it both ways. I thought maybe I was overreacting a bit but now it doesn't seem to be normal to behave like this!

rain on

I'd say most of the advice you got in your extremely long PI thread is still valid (dunno if linking to a PI thread from elsewhere is kosher but it's easy to find anyway). Not a nice situation to be in, but July's not far away now.

Yep I know. Although it's so bad I'm still trying to get out before then!
So you don't think being super protective of property and furnishings is typical in this situation? I DO understand why one would be, after spending good money on stuff, but wear and tear happens...

rain on

Protective to a degree is one thing if she bought it and it's nice stuff, but still, if you're going to live with other people you have to accept that accidents happen and wear and tear happens. My housemates have both been really laid back about their stuff and I think you have to have a certain amount of calmness if you're going to let other people live in your house (whether it's yours as in you own it or "yours" as in you were there first and furnished it).
She doesn't sound like she wants to live with other people at all. Without knowing both sides of the story it's impossible to say if it's you or if she'd be like that with anyone, but that level of pickiness and giving out is just feckology regardless of whether you like the other person or not.

the_syco

[quote=[Deleted User];60163637]I'm very quiet, I never have guests over, I wash my dishes immediately, basically spend as little time there as possible and she still manages to pick on these tiny things.[/quote]
You act timid, so it seems she thinks she has poweh. Try telling her to STFU.

libertas

As an owner occupier for the last three years, let me give the other side of the story.

There is a different dynamic when living in an owner occupied house and to any new house sharers, I tell them this before they move in.

Advantages for the sharer:
1. House usually well kept/clean and more likely to be furnished to a higher standard.
2. If theres a problem, your 'landlord' is right there to sort it out...and its more likely to get sorted out as its directly in their interests too.
3. Nobody else has to put a bill in their name, has to arrange for actual bills to be paid, etc. They only have to pay their share when its calculated and presented to them.

Disadvantages for the sharer:
1. A lot of people (and in my experience particularly irish people) like to find a nice clean gaff to move into. However, when it comes to 'leaving stuff the way they found it', they couldn't give a f**k. A bit of a generalisation but I've found it to be true. Yes, wear and tear is fine but beyond that ...and it does go beyond that - cos it shows - a lot of people don't give a f**k and think they can treat stuff like they would with the cheap run down furnishings in a full on rental scenario.
So, for sharers who act like this and feel this way, then this is the biggest point of friction.
2. The dynamic of the house is different because whether the sharer likes it or not, the owner occupier DOES run the show and it can't be any other way. If theres resentment in this respect, then go live somewhere else.

The bottom line is that its a two way street. I've often thought about some of the characters I've had as sharers and how they would fare doing the owner occupier thing themselves. For a lot of these, they would never do it because they couldn't deal with the unreasonable attitudes and behaviours they show themselves as house-sharers - fact.
In my case, I take the whole cleaning thing out of the equation and do it all myself. Yet you will get some ignorant bastards that don't appreciate this and think they can leave stuff in a heap.
My experience with non-irish has been quite the opposite. No problems with attitude, paying rent or treating the house and its contents with respect.

mikemac

OP, didn't you post this twice already in the personal issues forum last month?
Did you take any of the advice given? Made any progress?

mikemac

mikemac wrote: »

OP, didn't you post this twice already in the personal issues forum last month?
Did you take any of the advice given? Made any progress?

Posted it once, I think there was a similar thing but it wasn't me. I did take most of the advice but it wasn't much use as this girl is 100% unreasonable and just totally ignores anything I say.
I think she'd be difficult to live with in any situation, but in this one, she does have that 'power' in that it's 'her' place with her stuff and she thinks she can live as if she lived there alone

I'm looking for a sublet or something for the next few months but it's very difficult to get something so short term.

2. The dynamic of the house is different because whether the sharer likes it or not, the owner occupier DOES run the show and it can't be any other way. If theres resentment in this respect, then go live somewhere else.

What does 'running the show' mean though? Obviously any owner occupier is going to have some rules about cleaning, furniture, electricity use and what have you, but what about stuff like having friends over, people to stay, using the living room etc? When I move into a place I want to feel like it's home, not that I'm a guest (who is paying a fair whack of rent and doing loads of cleaning!) That means having a reasonable standard of cleanliness and being considerate but not feeling restricted and uncomfortable. I remember seeing posts here from owner occupiers who thought it was fine to take in a lodger but not let them use the living room or kitchen, or to make them go home at weekends! To me that's pure madness :eek

libertas

'Running the show' means ultimately the owner occupier dictates how things run within the gaff. I think what it boils down to is whether you get on or not. If you don't then, please do yourself (and her) a favour and start looking for another place.

Life is too short. Move on - don't stay and fight. Discuss things, yes. If they're not open to discussion, then move. If they think your the one thats being unreasonable (right or wrong) and your not going to be happy with the arrangement thats in place, then move.

If its a case that its difficult to find another place, well then you have to accept the situation that you've got - make it work and get on with it.

I've had people stay in my place who have been a pleasure to deal with. I've had others who never let up - and whilst that didn't do me any good, its a lose:lose situation. ie. it didn't do them any good either in that I never cut them any slack on anything.

As regards those that don't want lodgers using the kitchen, living room or staying weekends, I suppose anything can be negotiated prior to the lodger moving in. Thats the time to make things clear for both parties. The weekend thing is understandable from a owners point of view - if thats what they want. They might have less prospective lodgers but it could well suit lodgers too. The flipside is that the lodger can always ask that this be reflected in the rent. If its not practical, then move on to the next prospect. As regards the kitchen and living room, thats a bit impractical. Although there are circumstances that can bring people around to this way of thinking (maybe past experience with lodgers that can't clean up after themselves!). The living room can be an awkward one - when it comes to tv viewing habits. However, I will not surrender my living room to anyone but I will share it.

bangersandmash

libertas wrote: »

The dynamic of the house is different because whether the sharer likes it or not, the owner occupier DOES run the show and it can't be any other way. If theres resentment in this respect, then go live somewhere else.

It's attitudes like this which make it clear that owner occupiers should be avoided like the plague. When someone is paying rent then it's their home too, regardless of who pays the bills or owns the furniture. 'Running the show' as you put it is a euphemism for treating renters in owner-occupier properties as second-class citizens. Fortunately in the current rental market there is plenty of opportunities for people to 'go live somewhere else'.

libertas wrote: »

As regards the kitchen and living room, thats a bit impractical. Although there are circumstances that can bring people around to this way of thinking (maybe past experience with lodgers that can't clean up after themselves!).

A bit impractical? The fact that you actually consider the possibility of a tenant paying rent but not having access to a kitchen boggles the mind.

libertas

bangersandmash wrote:

It's attitudes like this which make it clear that owner occupiers should be avoided like the plague. When someone is paying rent then it's their home too, regardless of who pays the bills or owns the furniture. 'Running the show' as you put it is a euphemism for treating renters in owner-occupier properties as second-class citizens. Fortunately in the current rental market there is plenty of opportunities for people to 'go live somewhere else'.

First of all, 'running the show' is not my turn of phrase, it was the OP's. Secondly, the Owner is the one thats there as a constant. The way the house is run isn't going to vary every time someone new moves in, is it? Treating lodgers as second class citizens is not on my list of priorities. Oh and by the way, MY interpretation of 'running the show' is about the person who is the responsible one who has to make sure everything is sorted, bills paid, repairs done, oil ordered, etc.

bangersandmash wrote:

A bit impractical? The fact that you actually consider the possibility of a tenant paying rent but not having access to a kitchen boggles the mind.

Would I personally consider it - absolutely not. I am 'considering' it here as the OP presented it - with a possible (and real) reason as to why an Owner has come round to such a drastic impractical approach.

As regards 'go live somewhere else', that isn't something to be considered in a owner occupied house - but applies to any house share. The whole thing boils down to whether people are getting on or not. Your quite right, there are plenty of rental options but you'd be surprised at the amount of people that want to be 'victims' and won't sling their hooks, continue to be miserable (and try to make others miserable) and stay put unless someone else makes their mind up for them.

The_Conductor

On the continent (and in the US) the norm is for properties to be let vacant- i.e. people bring their own possessions and furniture with them where-ever they go. They also normally stay there for far longer periods of time than here- and have both greater rights but also greater obligations regarding the property.

Yes- the Belgian girl is renting the property- however, you are effectively living with her 'under licence' rather than as a co-tenant, and are there at her sole discretion.

She will have rules and expectations about the person who is sharing with her- if you are unhappy with this- move- find your own place and do as you please.

She is not being a cow- its a case of different societal norms more than anything else. If anything the situation is very similar to an Irish person taking in a lodger under the Rent-a-room scheme. The person has no actual rights, implied or otherwise, and is there at the discretion of the owner and can be asked to leave at any stage without notice.

Its how things are done elsewhere. Some people may be more easy going than others- thats life. If you're not happy- move.

smccarrick

smccarrick wrote: »

On the continent (and in the US) the norm is for properties to be let vacant- i.e. people bring their own possessions and furniture with them where-ever they go. They also normally stay there for far longer periods of time than here- and have both greater rights but also greater obligations regarding the property.

Yes- the Belgian girl is renting the property- however, you are effectively living with her 'under licence' rather than as a co-tenant, and are there at her sole discretion.

She will have rules and expectations about the person who is sharing with her- if you are unhappy with this- move- find your own place and do as you please.

She is not being a cow- its a case of different societal norms more than anything else. If anything the situation is very similar to an Irish person taking in a lodger under the Rent-a-room scheme. The person has no actual rights, implied or otherwise, and is there at the discretion of the owner and can be asked to leave at any stage without notice.

Its how things are done elsewhere. Some people may be more easy going than others- thats life. If you're not happy- move.

I know all that. I never said I had a problem with the fact she 'runs the show', rather the fact that she asks so many things of me that she doesn't do herself. If she wanted a spotless house, I'd be more than happy to oblige, but what happens is I clean up everything after use, then come home to a pile of her dirty dishes which I then have to wash so I can make dinner. She has friends to stay all the time, but she said no when I asked if my friend could stay a couple of nights. It's unfair, unreasonable and hypocritical. Yes, I know it's 'her house', she has said that herself, but I still think it's a rotten attitude to have, and this has made me wary of owner occupiers for the future. This is the kind of thing everyone dreads when they see the 'owner occupier' up on Daft.

The_Conductor

The simple answer is- move. People are like the way she is unfortunately- its part of human nature. Its the pits- but at least your relationship with her is only short-term........

libertas

Yes, moving is the answer. Some things can be sorted at the initial viewing stage eg. getting a commitment that its ok to have friends stay. Otherwise, you only have your gut instinct to go on as regards whether you will get on or not.
I don't think 'owner occupier' should automatically mean bad news to prospective 'renters'. People vary - thats the nuts and bolts of it - whether owner occupier or landlord or sharing with other tenants on an equal basis. The only difference is that when the lodger is dissatisfied and can't see a way for that to change, the obligation is on them to improve their own situation by moving on.

bobbiw

[quote=[Deleted User];60163222]I was just wondering if it's generally accepted that this is a nightmare? I avoided them in Dublin as I had the idea that the person would feel like it was their home and I was an annoyance there as opposed to being equals/flatmates. I ended up in this situation in Belgium (actually the girl doesn't even own the place but it's all her furniture etc) and it's driving me insane. Basically she thinks it's 'her' place and I should do everything she says.

She just seems to expect to live as though she were alone here. She moans at me for every last little thing (last week for not closing the bathroom door as I brushed my teeth and today for not sweeping the floor), yet seems to have absolute no consideration for me. She regularly has friends staying without even asking me if it's OK (why would she? It's 'her' house :rolleyes:), she comes into my room all the time to take stuff like lamps and random stuff she'd left in here before I moved in. She has parties without even informing me. She is basically completely intolerant of me, and yet either oblivious or doesn't care that she's REALLY annoying to live with. I've been in 10+ flatshares and never had this problem before. I just hate feeling like I'm some sort of guest in my own home .

Is this typical of the situation or is she just a cow?[/quote]


I was thinking about renting a room in my house. But as a professional with a working wife I would need similar rules.

I would need to say no guests, no dinner parties, clean your mess as soon as its made. In fact I would more want people to stay sort of in their own room. Now this place has a seperate studio type room with its own bathroom.

But again, if someone is paying me 1200 a month to rent a room they better not think that they are in any way on equal footing to me when I am shelling out 8,000 in mortgage payments each month.

The_Conductor

bobbiw wrote: »

But again, if someone is paying me 1200 a month to rent a room they better not think that they are in any way on equal footing to me when I am shelling out 8,000 in mortgage payments each month.

I really hope these figures aren't anywhere near ballpark figures (either).....?

irelandrover

bobbiw wrote: »

I was thinking about renting a room in my house. But as a professional with a working wife I would need similar rules.

I would need to say no guests, no dinner parties, clean your mess as soon as its made. In fact I would more want people to stay sort of in their own room. Now this place has a seperate studio type room with its own bathroom.

But again, if someone is paying me 1200 a month to rent a room they better not think that they are in any way on equal footing to me when I am shelling out 8,000 in mortgage payments each month.

You want someone to pay you 1200 a month for a for a room in a house where they will have to stay in their room the whole time? And be treated like a second class citizen?

libertas

@bobbiw: Sounds a bit too restrictive to be honest. No problem on the 'clean your mess as soon as its made' (I insist on this myself), not allowing guests isn't ideal but if they know upfront and are still happy with this arrangement, fair enough. After that, unless you have a second living room for their use, I think its a bit extreme to expect them to 'stay in their own room'. I have (currently) and in the past had lodgers who prefer to spend majority of their time in their own room - but thats their decision. They have full access to all of the house - albeit that everyone has to share the space available.

bobbiw

Of course they have access to the whole house, well at least the first two floors. Their room is on the ground level and the living room and living areas are on the first floor.

The figures are accurate in terms of cost so they get to live in a pretty nice place for 1200 a month but as I said its costing me 8000 a month for the mortgage and taxes.

The real reason about not having guests is that i dont want them having people sleeping over. So I dont want random people in my house in the middle of the night.

for one thing they may get shot as an intruder. (I am not in Ireland)

The_Conductor

bobbiw wrote: »

Of course they have access to the whole house, well at least the first two floors. Their room is on the ground level and the living room and living areas are on the first floor.

The figures are accurate in terms of cost so they get to live in a pretty nice place for 1200 a month but as I said its costing me 8000 a month for the mortgage and taxes.

The real reason about not having guests is that i dont want them having people sleeping over. So I dont want random people in my house in the middle of the night.

for one thing they may get shot as an intruder. (I am not in Ireland)

Fair enough.
8k a month for mortgage and taxes sounds horrendous to be honest- and at very least in an Irish context- you will *not* find anyone willing to houseshare with an owner-occupier and pay 1200 a month. In an Irish context its stretching credulity to expect 600-700- any more than this is a pipe dream.....

The main reason for letting a room in an Irish context- is the ability to generate an additional 10k gross income per annum, tax free. Once you go one penny over the 10k (which includes all bill shares), the whole lot is taxed.......

Obviously the motivations and sums involved with you are entirely different.

D3PO

what I dont understand is why somebody with an 8k a month mortgage would need a lodger ?

and besides that point you cant realistically think somebody would shell out that much with restrictions like the ones your proposing

The_Conductor

D3PO wrote: »

what I dont understand is why somebody with an 8k a month mortgage would need a lodger ?

and besides that point you cant realistically think somebody would shell out that much with restrictions like the ones your proposing

Perhaps they've over-extended themselves?
Ps- while I don't condone shooting people- if I met a stranger on the stairs at home late at night- I'd hit them with a golf club or baseball bat first, and ask questions later......

I don't know how they do things in the States- it does seem like a silly amount of money for a monthly mortgage- irrespective of the salary I was on, I would not like to be in a financial position like that.......

bobbiw

Well in the US its tax deductable. So if you pay 8k a month thats around 96k a year.

If you make 300k as a family then instead of paying tax on 300 you pay it on 204. That helps.

Believe it or not it ends up not being that much because you spend more.

I think the rules are more because if a person is going to stay in a home that they realisticly cant or are unlikely to ever to afford then they should live by some rules.

I dont want to spend that much money to find a dinner party in my living room when I want to watch tv. Likewise I dont want people running amuck in my home and having a party when I want to sleep.

The spare room is isolated enough and has its own bathroom, microwave, fridge, lcd tv, etc.

Its just a waste not to use it. Because 15k extra a year is basicly a loan on a ferarri.

D3PO

bobbiw wrote: »

I dont want to spend that much money to find a dinner party in my living room when I want to watch tv. Likewise I dont want people running amuck in my home .

the point is its also their home whilst they are paying to stay there, which also makes it their living room.

The_Conductor

bobbiw wrote: »

Well in the US its tax deductable. So if you pay 8k a month thats around 96k a year.

If you make 300k as a family then instead of paying tax on 300 you pay it on 204. That helps.

In Europe (in general) there is no way on earth tax incentives like that would be offered. Totally aside from property bubbles all over the continent, largely as a result of favourable tax regimes (there were whole ghost towns built in Ireland for tax purposes)- governments just don't have the money anymore......

Do I understand this correctly- the entirety of your mortgage payment- and not just the interest component thereof, is deductable against gross income for tax purposes? Remarkable if it is the case.

bobbiw wrote: »

Believe it or not it ends up not being that much because you spend more.

Multiplier effect? It just sounds like a hell of a lot of money. Out of curiousity- what is the principle, and over what time scale are you paying off the mortgage? Total stupidity over here has 35 and 40 year mortgages being common place- which is just a different form of stupidity.....

bobbiw wrote: »

I think the rules are more because if a person is going to stay in a home that they realisticly cant or are unlikely to ever to afford then they should live by some rules.

I am all for rules being imposed on people living in another person's home. What I was thinking though is surely they could rent their own apartment for that sort of money? It just seems like an awful lot for letting a room at? I don't know where you are though- so perhaps I'm just not familiar with the specifics.

bobbiw wrote: »

I dont want to spend that much money to find a dinner party in my living room when I want to watch tv. Likewise I dont want people running amuck in my home and having a party when I want to sleep.

I understand. My point though is that someone paying 1,200 a month will also have expectations. Its a lot of money- you have to realistically expect they will have demands too. It does sound more like a self contained maisonette though- with its own small kitchen, bathroom, living room? If its self contained- why not give it its own entrance and you could totally ignore them to your hearts content?

bobbiw wrote: »

The spare room is isolated enough and has its own bathroom, microwave, fridge, lcd tv, etc.

Add an external door and a partition wall- and you're sorted......

bobbiw wrote: »

Its just a waste not to use it. Because 15k extra a year is basicly a loan on a ferarri.

To be perfectly honest- if I had a spare 15k a year sloshing around- I wouldn't be splashing out on a Ferrari- each to themselves.......

bobbiw

The interest is tax deductible as is the property taxes.

The average rent for a one bedroom apartment where I live is between 1500 for a shabby one to 2500 for a nice one.

I wouldnt be buying a ferarri either.

rain on

bobbiw wrote: »

I think the rules are more because if a person is going to stay in a home that they realisticly cant or are unlikely to ever to afford then they should live by some rules.

I dont want to spend that much money to find a dinner party in my living room when I want to watch tv. Likewise I dont want people running amuck in my home and having a party when I want to sleep.

That's where consideration comes in, in most situations I find something like "Are you in on Wednesday, I was thinking of having X over for dinner" goes a long way. Not making a racket when other people are trying to sleep is basic consideration as well in my book. Maybe rules vs consideration is just semantics though.

Thoie

I don't think you can put a blanket ban on owner-occupiers.

I'd be the horrible kind - if I was renting a room out there'd be certain rules that a lot of people would hate - no noise after 11 on a week night, no inviting strangers to stay unless I'd met them and agreed first, if you're going to bring a bunch of people home after the pub, call me first to ask. This is why I don't have a lodger - they'd hate me Like other people have said, I wouldn't take kindly to finding a stranger in the hall in the middle of the night. While some people will say my "rules" are pretty much common decency in any shared place, I've shared with a lot of people in the past who had no consideration for their home or their housemates.

On the other hand I have a friend who'd like to buy her own place, and share the place, mainly for company. She's very easy going, and would probably make a great landlady, but she's aware that she may have problems finding a renter as a lot of people steer clear of owner occupied places.

If your friend is considering renting one of these places, I'd suggest asking the owner if they have time for a loooong chat beforehand to discuss all these things.

bobbiw

Thoie wrote: »

I don't think you can put a blanket ban on owner-occupiers.

I'd be the horrible kind - if I was renting a room out there'd be certain rules that a lot of people would hate - no noise after 11 on a week night, no inviting strangers to stay unless I'd met them and agreed first, if you're going to bring a bunch of people home after the pub, call me first to ask. This is why I don't have a lodger - they'd hate me Like other people have said, I wouldn't take kindly to finding a stranger in the hall in the middle of the night. While some people will say my "rules" are pretty much common decency in any shared place, I've shared with a lot of people in the past who had no consideration for their home or their housemates.

On the other hand I have a friend who'd like to buy her own place, and share the place, mainly for company. She's very easy going, and would probably make a great landlady, but she's aware that she may have problems finding a renter as a lot of people steer clear of owner occupied places.

If your friend is considering renting one of these places, I'd suggest asking the owner if they have time for a loooong chat beforehand to discuss all these things.

Saying all that, i would let them have more rights, dinner parties, friends over, more usage of the kitchen. If they were paying half of what the place would rent for. In my case its around 10-12k a month.

So if they fork out 5-6k a month then no problem.
look at it this way.
if the average Irish 3 bed would rent out for 1500 a month, then its the same as them getting a room for 150 a month.

You wouldnt expect to rent a room out for 150 and let them have the run of the place would you

Thoie

bobbiw wrote: »

Saying all that, i would let them have more rights, dinner parties, friends over, more usage of the kitchen. If they were paying half of what the place would rent for. In my case its around 10-12k a month.

So if they fork out 5-6k a month then no problem.
look at it this way.
if the average Irish 3 bed would rent out for 1500 a month, then its the same as them getting a room for 150 a month.

You wouldnt expect to rent a room out for 150 and let them have the run of the place would you

No, but even at €150 a month I wouldn't rent a place that's purely a bed.

You might get the odd business man who literally just wants a place to sleep a couple of nights a week, and always eats out, etc., but the majority of people renting are looking for a home, not a place to sleep. Even at €150 a month I expect to be able to cook dinner, have a shower, have a visitor and have a sofa to sit on from time to time.

bobbiw

well people can choose what they want to do. If they want to live in my place they need to live by the way i want my property to be lived in.

They cant pay 1200 a month and have all their friends over and have parties and dinners etc. because its my home.

Now not to be funny but if someone is only going to pay 1200, then they cant afford to live where i live and if i let them have a room then thats the way it is.

i sometimes wonder if this is part of the problem that is going to cause the devestation to the irish property market.


People thought it was their god given right to own property, to have a job, to have healthcare, to have a new car, etc etc

When in fact its not. You dont have a right to anything. You just think you do.

The_Conductor

bobbiw wrote: »

well people can choose what they want to do. If they want to live in my place they need to live by the way i want my property to be lived in.

They cant pay 1200 a month and have all their friends over and have parties and dinners etc. because its my home.

Now not to be funny but if someone is only going to pay 1200, then they cant afford to live where i live and if i let them have a room then thats the way it is.

i sometimes wonder if this is part of the problem that is going to cause the devestation to the irish property market.


People thought it was their god given right to own property, to have a job, to have healthcare, to have a new car, etc etc

When in fact its not. You dont have a right to anything. You just think you do.

It is your house- and it is your perogative to set whatever rules you so decide on.

I would argue with you as to what people's rights and expectations are/should be.....

People do not have the right to own property. They have the right to purchase property, should they so decide, and should they be in a position to fund the purchase. This is what destroyed the US housing market- and as part of it- the global financial system- people expected to purchase property without ever having the means to pay for it. Ireland, unlike the US, did not have a subprime explosion catering to providing finance to those unable to afford it (for whatever reason). Unlike in the US- Irish people can not simply declare themselves bankrupt- and walk away from their debts- or akin the US- hand the keys back to the bank and let the bank. That is at least in part what has caused the global depression........

Irish people have a historic hatred of landlords- compounded by appalling rights and legislation recently introduced which has in fact swung the pendelum too far in the opposite direction- where landlords are now very much on the backfoot to try to ensure

In a US context- or an Irish context- 1200 a month is currently sufficient to service a mortgage on a 2-3 bed apartment/condo in a reasonable part of any town, or fund a mortgage in a slightly better part of town.

I am sure you have a lovely house- no-one is doubting it.

In an Irish context- every single person does have a right to healthcare- unlike in the US. They do not have the right to own a car or a house- unless they can afford to pay for it. They do have the right to public transport- or assistance towards accommodation- if they are unable to afford it. We have a wholly different system in Ireland to that in the States- its why our PRSI (social security) contributions are so high- people do have rights here that they do not have in the states...... Its also why your disposable income as a percentage of your gross income is so much higher there, than it is here- its a different political and social system.......

MysticalSoul

As an owner occupier, I am appalled the constraints Bobbi is insisting on. The room may have a microwave, but I, prefer to cook proper meals, so there is no way I would entertain such an arrangement, also, if I wanted to live in such a setting, I would probably go for a b&b instead.

As an owner occupier, I am pretty laid back. The only rule is that boy/girlfriends can stay occasionally, but not every night. This is ensuring that they are aware that the room is for single occupancy.

When I rented myself, there is only one owner occupier that I started to resent. She was doing exams and studied in the living room, which meant I had no where to eat my dinner, and hence, ended up eating out around that time, which I did resent, as I was paying rent every month. I have rented mostly with owner occupiers, and only ever had a problem once, so I do think it depends on the person. I have found that tenants are getting more and more picky - in a 2 bed place asking if the bathroom is shared, if bills are included etc. Considering my rent is the lowest in the area, it would be stupid to have it to include gas and esb, as that leaves it open to abuse.

bobbiw

smccarrick wrote: »

It is your house- and it is your perogative to set whatever rules you so decide on.

I would argue with you as to what people's rights and expectations are/should be.....

People do not have the right to own property. They have the right to purchase property, should they so decide, and should they be in a position to fund the purchase. This is what destroyed the US housing market- and as part of it- the global financial system- people expected to purchase property without ever having the means to pay for it. Ireland, unlike the US, did not have a subprime explosion catering to providing finance to those unable to afford it (for whatever reason). Unlike in the US- Irish people can not simply declare themselves bankrupt- and walk away from their debts- or akin the US- hand the keys back to the bank and let the bank. That is at least in part what has caused the global depression........

Irish people have a historic hatred of landlords- compounded by appalling rights and legislation recently introduced which has in fact swung the pendelum too far in the opposite direction- where landlords are now very much on the backfoot to try to ensure

In a US context- or an Irish context- 1200 a month is currently sufficient to service a mortgage on a 2-3 bed apartment/condo in a reasonable part of any town, or fund a mortgage in a slightly better part of town.

I am sure you have a lovely house- no-one is doubting it.

In an Irish context- every single person does have a right to healthcare- unlike in the US. They do not have the right to own a car or a house- unless they can afford to pay for it. They do have the right to public transport- or assistance towards accommodation- if they are unable to afford it. We have a wholly different system in Ireland to that in the States- its why our PRSI (social security) contributions are so high- people do have rights here that they do not have in the states...... Its also why your disposable income as a percentage of your gross income is so much higher there, than it is here- its a different political and social system.......

I agree with you on a lot of that. the subprime thing was nuts, well I suppose it was nuts at the top of the bubble. And it fueled it.

they didnt have that in Ireland and thankfully so, prices would have gone up a lot more. But saying that you were lucky a year or two ago to get a 6.5% so getting supprime for 5% wasnt that big a deal.

I do think universal healthcare is a good idea. Its just not the norm here. Not that if you are hit by a car they leave you on the side of the street but someone has to pay for it.

faceman

My best renting experience was with an owner occupier. House was better kept and we had a top of the rang telly and surround sound! His Da even came over to cut the grass from time to time!

However that being said, he always informed me in advance if he was having a party or if there was something out of the norm etc. I never cared though but I imagine i would have felt different if he didnt let me know.

It shouldnt matter whether someone is the owner occupier, a bit of courtesy never goes astray.

jenizzle

I lived with an owner occupier before and I would never do it again. While I may be tarring everyone with the same brush, I'd never want to put myself in that situation again.
She was obsessed with cleanliness, to the point where she scrubbed her carpets with a toothbrush and blamed it on my long trousers. She asked me to leave one month before my exams.
We weren't allowed use the downstairs bathroom as it was for guests only - even though she wouldn't allow guests to stay.

libertas

jenizzle wrote: »

She was obsessed with cleanliness

This is the core of most owner occupier/lodger disagreements I would say - or at least resentment starts at this point. It could easily be one of two extremes - ie. one obessed with cleanliness or the other not treating stuff like they would if it were their own - and/or all points in between.
One classic thing that I always noticed. Some of my lodgers would probably put me in the category above - but then I would say they didn't have the same regard for my stuff as they would if it was theirs. Having said that, the same lodgers would have their cars constantly at professional valet standard!
And as regards the cleaning, no one has EVER had to do any - or been asked to do any - other than an expectation that everyone leaves the place as they found it. Only one of the bunch that I've had did any cleaning voluntarily and he was Austrian. Go figure.

Also, a lot of people seem to write off the owner occupier deal as if it couldnt work regardless who your dealing with. I think some lodgers come up with this conclusion because they know they couldn't deal with people being the muckers that they are or have been as lodgers if they were doing the owner occupying...

bobbiw

A lot has to do with expectations that people have.

Some people who are used to living with room mates cant adjust to the lodger thing. they tend to think they are on equal footing with the home owner.

It is up to the owner to make the rules for living in their property and if the lodger doesnt like it then they dont have to rent the place.

If they agree to the rules then everything is cool.

serg353

libertas wrote: »

As an owner occupier for the last three years, let me give the other side of the story.

There is a different dynamic when living in an owner occupied house and to any new house sharers, I tell them this before they move in.

Advantages for the sharer:
1. House usually well kept/clean and more likely to be furnished to a higher standard.
2. If theres a problem, your 'landlord' is right there to sort it out...and its more likely to get sorted out as its directly in their interests too.
3. Nobody else has to put a bill in their name, has to arrange for actual bills to be paid, etc. They only have to pay their share when its calculated and presented to them.

Disadvantages for the sharer:
1. A lot of people (and in my experience particularly irish people) like to find a nice clean gaff to move into. However, when it comes to 'leaving stuff the way they found it', they couldn't give a f**k. A bit of a generalisation but I've found it to be true. Yes, wear and tear is fine but beyond that ...and it does go beyond that - cos it shows - a lot of people don't give a f**k and think they can treat stuff like they would with the cheap run down furnishings in a full on rental scenario.
So, for sharers who act like this and feel this way, then this is the biggest point of friction.
2. The dynamic of the house is different because whether the sharer likes it or not, the owner occupier DOES run the show and it can't be any other way. If theres resentment in this respect, then go live somewhere else.

The bottom line is that its a two way street. I've often thought about some of the characters I've had as sharers and how they would fare doing the owner occupier thing themselves. For a lot of these, they would never do it because they couldn't deal with the unreasonable attitudes and behaviours they show themselves as house-sharers - fact.
In my case, I take the whole cleaning thing out of the equation and do it all myself. Yet you will get some ignorant bastards that don't appreciate this and think they can leave stuff in a heap.
My experience with non-irish has been quite the opposite. No problems with attitude, paying rent or treating the house and its contents with respect.

I could not agree more with you

bobbiw

serg353 wrote: »

I could not agree more with you

Interesting.

Key thing is that most people who share are used to sharing with people who are on a equal footing as them.

If you are living with the owner then you are not on an equal footing as them. I personaly wouldnt like to do it.

I have friends who rent a couple of rooms out and although its an extra couple of grand a month I wouldnt like it. Especialy the idea of them having people over.

Also the idea of having the kitchen messed up by someone and left would drive me nuts. And of course I wouldnt want to come home and find the rented with a bunch of mates in the house.

Another guy I know rents out a room but its not directly attached to the main property. The guy has his own bathroom and parking and can use the kitchen. Although its kind of implied that he doesnt use the living room. But then again he has a big sofa in the bedroom.

I would admit it would be difficult to live in that situation. Kind of feeling like you were not welcome or wanted in a certain area, but if you are getting a good deal its perfect.