Eviction drama

Mr.Mackey

Hi,

We're currently 3 months behind with our rent over various months not together. The landlord came to the house shouting and screaming tonight, I completely agree with him and do wish we could pay.

We don't get rent allowance but luckily I started a job Mon, I told him I'd pay him every penny back as soon as I get my first pay cheque.

He said its not good enough and wants me out straight away, I apologised and tried to explain, he threw in some dirty digs about I was nothing but this and that. I can understand why he was angry.

Thing is I completely understand where is coming from but we had no way of paying over the last while, I'm hoping to be in a position to pay him back in the next few weeks.

The lease is out of date by a year, do we still have a right to 14 days notice.

I should have this thing cleared in a 3 weeks but 14 days is a bit much, we never contacted him because he's a violent man and we've seen signs of this even when we were on good terms with him.

If the lease isn't renewed is it still valid? do I have any rights?

Aka Ishur

Of course you do, you are now on part 4. He needs to give notice,

Mr.Mackey

Thanks

Whats part 4?

What is the legal standing of the out of date lease?

daithi1970

Contact the PTRB or Free Legal Aid for advice-mind you, it sounds as if you would be better off away from a llord with an inclination towards violence..


daithi

D3PO

your entitled to 14 days notice of arrears if you don't pay in that time (sounds like you cant) then he can issue you notice to quit.

so bottom line is if he follows protocol he can evict you and to be honest has every right to but so far he hasn't followed the correct protocol.

The_Conductor

He needs to serve 14 days notice of arrears. You have to clear the outstanding debt inside the 14 days- or else, he then issues an eviction notice.

I can understand why he is angry- but he has seriously screwed up though- he needs to follow set procedures.

Why didn't you approach the Community Welfare Officer or someone else- for assistance- instead of allowing arrears build up? You can't hand over 3 months in one foul swoop- you won't have anything to live on. You've been lax in sorting this- and now the landlord is livid. Its understandable- but he still needs to follow process.

Mr.Mackey

I have never claimed rent allowance, when I approached the Community Welfare Officer back when I lost my job, I was screamed out of the office and told I wasn't entitled to anything, I think they say this to everyone.

I wasn't expecting to be out of work as long as I have been, I guess my attitude back then was they can keep keep their money, this was my first time being unemployed and I believe its a system that encourages you to lie to get what you need to survive.

Thankfully I'm back in a solid job so hopefully rooting down the back of the couch for rent money won't be an issue in the future, we never missed 2 months together, we just fell behind a week, then 2 weeks and before we knew it we were a month behind, we don't drink and don't have lavish lifestyles, we're very lucky to have been assisted while I was unemployed, while its not an good enough excuse to fall behind in rent, if was out of our means and a cheaper house was out of the question due to lack of money for a deposit.

I spoke to Threshold today who were very helpful. I'm just going to move out and pay the guy back in full asap.

Thanks for all yer replies they helped put my mind at ease.

P. Breathnach

Mr.Mackey wrote: »

... I'm just going to move out and pay the guy back in full asap....

You accept that you were responsible for the rent falling into arrears, even though you were not able to avoid it; you understand why the landlord is angry and frustrated; you intend, after moving out, to clear the arrears.

I think the landlord is the loser in this situation: good and honourable tenants are worth having.

Tenants who pay their rent on time are also worth having.

ted1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think the landlord is the loser in this situation: good and honourable tenants are worth having.

Rubbish , if there not paying rent there worthless .its as simple as that.

Santa Cruz

Surely there is room for some mediation here.
No one will be a winner.
The poster has to go off, get new accommodation, produce a deposit and one months rent in advance probably.
The landlord loses a genuine tenant.
Maybe not handled well from the start by both parties.

Of course there is no need for unprofessional behaviour such as shouting and verbal abuse by the Landlord (or the Community Welfare Officer)

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

Tenants who pay their rent on time are also worth having.

Of course. But it's not a perfect world, and some tenancies don't work out 100%. Rent paid late is considerably better than rent unpaid.

beauf

The LL has no excuse for being unprofessional. . But 3 months behind in rent and no communication. That for some of you is a good and honourable and genuine?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

...Rent paid late is considerably better than rent unpaid.

At the moment the LL has no reason to believe that will the case. They could be looking at an even bigger loss.

the_syco

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Rent paid late is considerably better than rent unpaid.

There is no such thing as late rent, but the LL has no-one but themselves to blame for not going through the legal process to evict the OP sooner.

Would ensure any valuables can't be taken easily, in case he tries something rash whilst you're not at home... Also, not sure why you weren't getting rent allowance?

jmayo

The only thing I keep thinking is if only the tenant was an owner/mortgage holder there would be a possy of people around to make sure they weren't evicted, even if they had not been keeping up with their payments for much much longer than 3 months.

And the same people who would see the landlords side in this discussion would be calling the banks theives and leeches for having the temerity to send letters reminding the defaulter to make payments.

One rule for some I guess.
If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

The only thing I keep thinking is if only the tenant was an owner/mortgage holder there would be a possy of people around to make sure they weren't evicted, even if they had not been keeping up with their payments for much much longer than 3 months.

And the same people who would see the landlords side in this discussion would be calling the banks theives and leeches for having the temerity to send letters reminding the defaulter to make payments.

One rule for some I guess.
If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

Sorry but that's nonsense. There are very few people who are mainly self serving individuals with a vested interest that would fight against a mortgagee being evicted.

Most people would agree that weather you own or rent if your not paying your bills you should be kicked out of where your living. This them and us thing people try and invent between renters and mortgage holders is a joke.

Scortho

jmayo wrote: »

The only thing I keep thinking is if only the tenant was an owner/mortgage holder there would be a possy of people around to make sure they weren't evicted, even if they had not been keeping up with their payments for much much longer than 3 months.

And the same people who would see the landlords side in this discussion would be calling the banks theives and leeches for having the temerity to send letters reminding the defaulter to make payments.

One rule for some I guess.
If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

Jmayo I wish that those not keeping up with repayments on mortgages were repossessed. Many others on this forum I think would as well.
What message does it send out if people are in arrears for more than 90 days yet still living in a house that they clearly cannot afford?
It tells other mortgage holders that they can go off and do the same.

beauf

So if someone missed 3 payments after 200 or 300 payments on time. You'd kick them out. Seems a bit unreasonable to me.

The law is "The landlord MUST give you written notice of termination and the notice period depends on the length of the tenancy"

Landlords can give less notice if the tenants are not keeping their obligations (28 days)

djimi

beauf wrote: »

So if someone missed 3 payments after 200 or 300 payments on time. You'd kick them out. Seems a bit unreasonable to me.

The law is "The landlord MUST give you written notice of termination and the notice period depends on the length of the tenancy"

No when it comes to non-payment of rent it doesnt. You are entitled to 14 days notice of arrears after which time a 28 notice of termination can be issued.

The Spider

Scortho wrote: »

Jmayo I wish that those not keeping up with repayments on mortgages were repossessed. Many others on this forum I think would as well.
What message does it send out if people are in arrears for more than 90 days yet still living in a house that they clearly cannot afford?
It tells other mortgage holders that they can go off and do the same.

Hang on here's the thing, if the tenant doesn't pay, then the landlords mortgage on the property is in arrears, because presumably he's using the rent to cover the majority of the mortgage.

So the landlord becomes one of those people not keeping up repayments because his tenants didn't pay their rent, he ends up with a bad credit rating with the bank knocking on his door, the tenants move out into another property with a clean slate?

Seriously this is so far from being the same thing it's unreal, the tenants are paying for a service, the landlord is (presumably) paying the bank so he doesn't become one of the people who default that people give out about so regularly.

beauf

djimi wrote: »

No when it comes to non-payment of rent it doesnt. You are entitled to 14 days notice of arrears after which time a 28 notice of termination can be issued.

Sorry yes I forgot that exception.

Potatoeman

The Spider wrote: »

Hang on here's the thing, if the tenant doesn't pay, then the landlords mortgage on the property is in arrears, because presumably he's using the rent to cover the majority of the mortgage.

So the landlord becomes one of those people not keeping up repayments because his tenants didn't pay their rent, he ends up with a bad credit rating with the bank knocking on his door, the tenants move out into another property with a clean slate?

Seriously this is so far from being the same thing it's unreal, the tenants are paying for a service, the landlord is (presumably) paying the bank so he doesn't become one of the people who default that people give out about so regularly.

A landlord should be able to afford this. They should have a fund for these and any other issues.
The problem with Ireland is that rent is about the same as a mortgage so you get people that are not financially secure becoming landlords.

beauf

The Spider wrote: »

Hang on here's the thing, if the tenant doesn't pay, then the landlords mortgage on the property is in arrears, because presumably he's using the rent to cover the majority of the mortgage....

That's the nature of a business though. You need to have a margin and protection to allow for loss of income. A tenant might not pay or even the property might not rent every month of the year. every year. You'd also have to allow for repairs and refurbishment on a more frequent basis than a domestic property.

Of course some people fall into being a LL without planning to be, and are unable to walk away from it.

The Spider

beauf wrote: »

That's the nature of a business though. You need to have a margin and protection to allow for loss of income. A tenant might not pay or even the property might not rent every month of the year. every year. You'd also have to allow for repairs and refurbishment on a more frequent basis than a domestic property.

Of course some people fall into being a LL without planning to be, and are unable to walk away from it.

Agree, however most small businesses don't have a contingency fund to cover three months of non payment of costs, he's probably eaten into his fund put aside for repairs etc. a month yes, but a quarter of the year??

jimmycrackcorm

Potatoeman wrote: »

A landlord should be able to afford this. They should have a fund for these and any other issues.
The problem with Ireland is that rent is about the same as a mortgage so you get people that are not financially secure becoming landlords.

Cashflow is a huge issue for many small businesses, which you can classify many landlords as. It's equally a similar problem for others who are not getting paid on time by their customers. Unless you feel that anyone engaging in any firm of business should have a huge stash of cash behind them.

Potatoeman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Cashflow is a huge issue for many small businesses, which you can classify many landlords as. It's equally a similar problem for others who are not getting paid on time by their customers. Unless you feel that anyone engaging in any firm of business should have a huge stash of cash behind them.

You need to be able to provide the service you offer. You can always be hit with unexpected bills.

jmayo

D3PO wrote: »

Sorry but that's nonsense. There are very few people who are mainly self serving individuals with a vested interest that would fight against a mortgagee being evicted.

Ehh check out the situation in South Kildare last week where a receivor and a new tenant were forcibly chased off a property even though it had
millions of debts attached to it and banks had appointed receivor.
Or better still look up the rodolphus allen trust.
The few individuals who do fight against mortgagee evictions are very vocal and will even resort to violent conduct.

You do also recall the high profile case where people were up in arms over an elderly couple being evicted from their home in Dalkey/Kiliney.
How much media coverage did that get until it turned out they had 20 odd properties ?

D3PO wrote: »

Most people would agree that weather you own or rent if your not paying your bills you should be kicked out of where your living. This them and us thing people try and invent between renters and mortgage holders is a joke.

I can pull up posts here, and you know it, where people draw a distinction between a mortgagee who is not paying and a renter who is not paying.
Some are more equal than others according to some.

Scortho wrote: »

Jmayo I wish that those not keeping up with repayments on mortgages were repossessed. Many others on this forum I think would as well.

That is my point, but we do have some who do see a major distinction between mortgagee who doesn't pay and tenant who doesn't pay.

The Spider wrote: »

Hang on here's the thing, if the tenant doesn't pay, then the landlords mortgage on the property is in arrears, because presumably he's using the rent to cover the majority of the mortgage.

So the landlord becomes one of those people not keeping up repayments because his tenants didn't pay their rent, he ends up with a bad credit rating with the bank knocking on his door, the tenants move out into another property with a clean slate?

Seriously this is so far from being the same thing it's unreal, the tenants are paying for a service, the landlord is (presumably) paying the bank so he doesn't become one of the people who default that people give out about so regularly.

But what about the landlords who have tenants paying them and they are then not passing it onto the mortgage holder.
In fact the landlord is playing the poormouth looking for their bailout.

And before you come up wtih some waffle, this has been happening quiet a lot and you will find rent collection agencies have had to be appointed in quiet a few cases to circumvent landlords pulling this trick.

And the reason I brought landlords into this is that I wanted to draw attention to fact nobody is coming out fighting for tenants who cannot pay or refuse to pay.

In fact it is the opposite, where the above poster is blaming them for some poor landlord probably not being able to meet their mortgage repayment.

Tenants who do not pay are seen as fair game for eviction and rightly so.
But if the person not paying is a mortgage holder we have wailing and joe duffy's phone line glowing with support for them.

To me there is no distinction.
But to others in Ireland once someone has their name on the deed they are above certain rules.

djimi

jmayo wrote: »

Tenants who do not pay are seen as fair game for eviction and rightly so.
But if the person not paying is a mortgage holder we have wailing and joe duffy's phone line glowing with support for them.

To me there is no distinction.
But to others in Ireland once someone has their name on the deed they are above certain rules.

There is a massive distinction legallly though. By law a tenant can be evicted in 42 days for non-payment of rent. When it comes to non-repayment of a loan such as a mortgage there are no such black and white laws.

Im not necessarily suggesting that one should be treated with more leniency than the other, but there is no point in trying to compare the two situations as they are two entirely different situations.

jmayo

djimi wrote: »

There is a massive distinction legallly though. By law a tenant can be evicted in 42 days for non-payment of rent. When it comes to non-repayment of a loan such as a mortgage there are no such black and white laws.

Im not necessarily suggesting that one should be treated with more leniency than the other, but there is no point in trying to compare the two situations as they are two entirely different situations.

I know there is huge legal difference and the appartus for eviction are vastly different.
If someone is a couple of months with no rent then fair enough initiate proceedings to turf them out and similarly if a mortgage holder is 6 months behind then initiate the proceeding to turf them out if they are not making any effort to pay.

In this country a tenant not paying is seen as an irratation for their landlord and God forbid might be getting them a bad credit rating as they can't repay their mortgage.
Yet a landlord or mortgage holder not repaying their debts to the banks, that we the taxpayers either own, support or do business with, is seen by a fair chunk of the population as people who should be cut a hell of a lot of slack.
Of course the poster who brought up the above has no problem (in other threads) of advising landlords and homeowners who can't repay their debts to not bother trying as they should get a bailout courtesy of the bank owners (for many cases us taxpayers) and/or the other bank customers.
Fooking hypocrits is all I say.

beauf

jmayo wrote: »

...I can pull up posts here, and you know it, where people draw a distinction between a mortgagee who is not paying and a renter who is not paying....Some are more equal than others according to some....

I haven't though much about it. But if I had put 50k into something, over many years and was put out for being late with 3 or 4k. Then would be chased for the balance of 100k. I would think thats a little different to have have a deposit of 2K and be 3 or 4k in arrears. From a Bank POV the 3 or 4 months arrears on a mortgage of 20~35yrs its a very short minded view. Someone might put years into paying off their family home. But I doubt they'd put the same effort into a debt, after being evicted. I think you'd have to look at these things case by case.

The Spider

jmayo wrote: »

I know there is huge legal difference and the appartus for eviction are vastly different.
If someone is a couple of months with no rent then fair enough initiate proceedings to turf them out and similarly if a mortgage holder is 6 months behind then initiate the proceeding to turf them out if they are not making any effort to pay.

In this country a tenant not paying is seen as an irratation for their landlord and God forbid might be getting them a bad credit rating as they can't repay their mortgage.
Yet a landlord or mortgage holder not repaying their debts to the banks, that we the taxpayers either own, support or do business with, is seen by a fair chunk of the population as people who should be cut a hell of a lot of slack.
Of course the poster who brought up the above has no problem (in other threads) of advising landlords and homeowners who can't repay their debts to not bother trying as they should get a bailout courtesy of the bank owners (for many cases us taxpayers) and/or the other bank customers.
Fooking hypocrits is all I say.

Here is the difference in a nutshell, a tenant pays for a service, if they don't pay for the service then they can't expect to use it. Much in the same way if I stay in a hotel, I have to pay to stay there, when I don't pay I'm turfed out.

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

A mortgage holder has more than likely put down a hefty deposit and paid off a chunk of their loan, depending on how long they've had their house.

beauf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Cashflow is a huge issue for many small businesses, which you can classify many landlords as. It's equally a similar problem for others who are not getting paid on time by their customers. Unless you feel that anyone engaging in any firm of business should have a huge stash of cash behind them.

You'd have to have a certain amount of cash to operate.

A lot of small business'es are non longer offering credit and insist on cash up front because of these delays.

djimi

The Spider wrote: »

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

Thats not entirely true though, is it? The bank owns the property until the mortgage has been paid.

drumswan

The Spider wrote: »

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

What? The bank holds the deed to the house until the mortgage is paid off in full.

P. Breathnach

djimi wrote: »

Thats not entirely true though, is it? The bank owns the property until the mortgage has been paid.

That's not entirely true, though, is it? The bank does not own the property: it has a charge on the property. An owner has the right to decide who lives there (self, or tenants, or nobody); the bank cannot give somebody the keys and a licence to move in.

Scortho

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not entirely true, though, is it? The bank does not own the property: it has a charge on the property.

And if you fail to keep up repayments they can take that property.

drumswan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not entirely true, though, is it? The bank does not own the property: it has a charge on the property.

Can you clarify the difference? Whats to stop everyone from stopping mortgage payments if they already own their house?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I think in effect the house is security against the normally large loan you get for a house. So the bank does not own the property, you do but the house acts as collateral in the event that you don't pay back the money you owe.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

What? The bank holds the deed to the house until the mortgage is paid off in full.

A mortgage has what is known as Lien against it.

"In a typical lien, a debtor who owns property gives the lender the right to take the property if the debtor should default on the loan. Liens do not represent absolute ownership; the lien holder typically has no right to take possession of the property until default occurs."

So the bank can take repossession, but will have to go to court to do so.

beauf

jmayo wrote: »

...One rule for some I guess.
If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

If you could, would you get a mortgage, would anyone?

But turn the question around, how long and how much of a debt do you think should be allowed for a tenant?

Who pays for it?

P. Breathnach

drumswan wrote: »

Can you clarify the difference? Whats to stop everyone from stopping mortgage payments if they already own their house?

The fact that the lender has a charge on the property. That has a number of effects, the most important being:
- it prevents the owner selling the property without the permission of the party holding the charge (usually that means making an arrangement to clear any loan outstanding);
- it allows the lender apply to the court for possession of the property if the borrower does not keep to whatever arrangements have been made for repayment of the loan;
- it makes it difficult (but not impossible) for the borrower to raise another loan secured on the property.

P. Breathnach

Scortho wrote: »

And if you fail to keep up repayments they can take that property.

Only after getting the requisite court order. In general, the courts are reluctant to give such an order if the borrower is making an honest and reasonable attempt to make repayments. Where they do give an order for possession, it is fairly usual to grant a stay of several months.

I suspect that if a person simply stopped making payments, it would take more than a year, perhaps much more, before the lender actually got possession of the property.

The_Conductor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Only after getting the requisite court order. In general, the courts are reluctant to give such an order if the borrower is making an honest and reasonable attempt to make repayments. Where they do give an order for possession, it is fairly usual to grant a stay of several months.

I suspect that if a person simply stopped making payments, it would take more than a year, perhaps much more, before the lender actually got possession of the property.

Under the revised guidance to lenders, and the Personal Insolvency Act (which is taking registrations for the first time today)- this is likely to be greatly hastened. The era of it taking months or even years- should, if all goes according to plan, be behind us.

We need to get a normally functioning market in place, as quickly as possible- as the current quagmire is destroying the country and encouraging our brightest and best hopes for the future- to get the hell out of here.

lima

The_Conductor wrote: »

Under the revised guidance to lenders, and the Personal Insolvency Act (which is taking registrations for the first time today)- this is likely to be greatly hastened. The era of it taking months or even years- should, if all goes according to plan, be behind us.

We need to get a normally functioning market in place, as quickly as possible- as the current quagmire is destroying the country and encouraging our brightest and best hopes for the future- to get the hell out of here.

I will certainly be looking forward to Repossessed houses coming on to the market soon. Been waiting for ages now (I have no interest in SCD as I am from North Dublin)

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Here is the difference in a nutshell, a tenant pays for a service, if they don't pay for the service then they can't expect to use it. Much in the same way if I stay in a hotel, I have to pay to stay there, when I don't pay I'm turfed out.

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

A mortgage holder has more than likely put down a hefty deposit and paid off a chunk of their loan, depending on how long they've had their house.

Renter doesn't pay rent = gerrrout
Lodger doesn't pay for a night in a hotel = gerrout
Mortgage holder doesn't pay mortgage = gerrout

I don't see the difference in any of the above

The_Conductor

lima wrote: »

I will certainly be looking forward to Repossessed houses coming on to the market soon. Been waiting for ages now (I have no interest in SCD as I am from North Dublin)

Its more probably West Dublin and commuter counties- than SCD

beauf

You must carry around 10k in your pocket exactly the same as €10 if you treat all money the same regardless of the amount.

Ray Palmer

lima wrote: »

Renter doesn't pay rent = gerrrout
Lodger doesn't pay for a night in a hotel = gerrout
Mortgage holder doesn't pay mortgage = gerrout

I don't see the difference in any of the above

Because
1 Renters can't be kicked out easily
2 A customer in a hotel can be kicked out very easily
3 Mortgage holder can't be kicked out easily either

So the difference would be pretty obvious. Where you call home is important legally which seems sensible.

How long now have you been waiting for repossessions? Were you one of the people saying you would buy once the bubble burst?

lima

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because
1 Renters can't be kicked out easily
2 A customer in a hotel can be kicked out very easily
3 Mortgage holder can't be kicked out easily either

So the difference would be pretty obvious. Where you call home is important legally which seems sensible.

How long now have you been waiting for repossessions? Were you one of the people saying you would buy once the bubble burst?

I emigrated 2004-2011 but thankfully I got a decent job offer so I returned. Watched the boom from afar but never wanted to buy in Ireland as was never sure that I would come home.

Based on that, I pretty much have no emotional connection with anyone else here apart from family/friends so I can't buy into the sob stories of people being 'put onto the street' for not paying their mortgages. From my view, there are people not paying their ways and are living for free who should be removed from their properties and their houses put up for sale by the banks, simple as. I just can't buy into the sense of entitlement Irish people have with feeling they are entitled to remain in their homes even though they are not paying for them, especially when they play the kids/suicide card. Maybe it's the same in some other countries but that still doesn't make it right

djimi

lima wrote: »

I emigrated 2004-2011 but thankfully I got a decent job offer so I returned. Watched the boom from afar but never wanted to buy in Ireland as was never sure that I would come home.

Based on that, I pretty much have no emotional connection with anyone else here apart from family/friends so I can't buy into the sob stories of people being 'put onto the street' for not paying their mortgages. From my view, there are people not paying their ways and are living for free who should be removed from their properties and their houses put up for sale by the banks, simple as. I just can't buy into the sense of entitlement Irish people have with feeling they are entitled to remain in their homes even though they are not paying for them, especially when they play the kids/suicide card. Maybe it's the same in some other countries but that still doesn't make it right

I find it very hard to get on board with your point of view when it is very obvious from reading your posts that your primary motivation for feeling this way is because you want to buy a cheap house. I wonder if you would display such a lack of empathy if the shoe was on the other foot and if, after buying your house, you suddenly found yourself in a situation where you could not afford to pay the mortgage repayments?

Ultimately a mortgage in arrears is between the lender and their customer. I think its right and fair that someone in arrears be given time to sort themselves out, and its up to the lender to set their tolerance level when it comes to how long to allow someone remain in arrears before they move to take decisive action. I know that with state owned banks its only natural that the tax payer is going to want to see mortgages that are in arrears get sorted quickly as the longer they remain in that state that more money they cost us all, but a balance has to be found.

Just to be clear, Im not suggesting that people should be allowed to remain in a property indefinitely when they are not paying their mortgage, nor am I trying to defend those who cant/wont pay their mortgages. I just get the impression that you feel that it should be a case of pay or get out, much like it is when renting, which is not something that I can support.

gaius c

Mr.Mackey wrote: »

I have never claimed rent allowance, when I approached the Community Welfare Officer back when I lost my job, I was screamed out of the office and told I wasn't entitled to anything, I think they say this to everyone.

Mr.Mackey wrote: »

Hi,

We're currently 3 months behind with our rent over various months not together. The landlord came to the house shouting and screaming tonight, I completely agree with him and do wish we could pay.

Do you find that everybody in life screams at you a lot?
You're not exaggerating for effect by any chance?