There's eviction,and then,there's EVICTION.

AlekSmart

There's a somewhat testy wee situation over on AH relating to this Article from the Irish Independent of 23rd March...Most of the "sturm und drang" appears to revolve around a photo of the journalist concerned,so I'm attempting to post her words to see if there's a body of opinion out there on her situation....?

Caoimhe Ni Laighin – Published 23 March 2014

I Had a feeling this was brewing. I knew the day would come. A rent hike is what I foresaw, but no, full-blown eviction it is.

There isn't an ASBO against me. I haven't repeatedly blared The Prodigy at 3am. And I've never been late with my rent.

The apartment is required by the son of my landlord. And legally, they've every right to chuck me out in those circumstances.

I've been paying €1,150 a month on the apartment for two years. Alone. Before bills or blowdrys. I'm also a single mother, which is an expensive little lifestyle. In other words, I'm smashed as it is.

Lots of girls dream about trips to New York or Paris if they meet a man. My fantasies revolve around meeting someone with whom I could share my electricity bill.

And now I'm being turfed out into an extremely hostile market for renters. Anything decent in my area is €1,500. I just can't pay that.

And I'm not renting one of those depressing suicide boxes, with the carpet and wallpaper screaming at each other, the oven peeping out behind a curtain in the 'kitchen' and the electric fire menacingly threatening carbon dioxide poisoning.

There is an upsurge in economic evictions in Dublin right now. Rents are going through the roof and many renters are losing their homes as a result.

On average, it costs €1,200 a month to rent a house in Dublin, much higher than the national average. In the last quarter of 2013, prices rose 12 per cent in the capital, according to Daft.ie. And Daft is expecting an even greater hike when the first-quarter 2014 results are published.

And what is being done about this? Why, nothing, of course! Perish the thought of doing something sensible like bringing in rent control.

As for me, at 34, I'm being granted residential asylum in my mother's house.

'Asylum' perfectly describes our strange little collective of housemates.

There's my moody teenage son, my supremely matriarchal mother and my 20-year-old niece, who is a student in Trinity and the absolute antithesis of what I was at 20; a clean-living gym freak who has recently embarked on a fruitarian diet as her militant veganism wasn't masochistic enough.

I was thinking of pretending to prospective dates that it's actually MY house and I benevolently let my mother live there.

But I'd be rumbled by the never-ending stream of forty-something siblings who ensconce themselves uninvited in the living room, having let themselves in the front door with their own key.

I'm moving back into my bedroom, which has been frozen in time – the Roald Dahl books still on the shelves, the children's stickers still on the wall, the 500-year-old carpet to which I've always had a vicious allergy still on the ground.

I'm thinking, 'Wow, haven't I come far?' But also thinking that I'm very, very lucky to have a home.

Caoimhe Ni Laighin is a journalist with Nuacht and TG4.

Sunday Independent

So,how does post-2008 modern Ireland,address Caoimhe Ni Laighin's situation ?

Is it as clear-cut as she appears to believe ?

What would her reasonable options be ?

Is there a Government Policy out there which could regularize the Private Rental Market to short-circuit these occurences ?

low income single mother in not being able to afford home in upper-class area shocker. 1500 a month? She expects us to pick up the tab, does she?

I could certainly dig her up a massive list of properties to rent that are actually in her price range, assuming that she and nobody she knows has access to the internet, which seems to be the case.

The real story is her snobbishness.

Idbatterim

well it appears she either moves home or moves further out etc, can blame her for not wanting to live in a suicide box as she calls them, that would be the last resort for me too! But its ok, the older generations are sorted...

AlekSmart

I'm kinda wondering why,after this length of time as an EU member,we haven't taken on board some of the more civilized and functional aspects of European life.

The ability to have a Private Rental Accomodation sector not entirely the prevail of shady individuals,retired Gardai,Taxidrivers or Schoolmasters,is but one of these aspects.

Why,after 40 years of being European,do we still regard Landlord/Tenant relationships as being firmly rooted in our old Colonial past.

Secure,Long-Term,well managed Rental Contracts,with strong regulation should be readily available as an alternative to purchasing one's own residential property.

Rather incredibly,our native regard for such an oderely Rental Centred process appears to be lacking...hard to fathon really ?

johnnyskeleton

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

low income single mother in not being able to afford home in upper-class area shocker. 1500 a month? She expects us to pick up the tab, does she?

I assume she expects the government to force NAMA and the banks to start selling / renting out properties at market values thus reducing the super-normal rents, rather than allow people who bought and can no longer afford their mortgages to live at a subsidised rate!

gaius c

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

low income single mother in not being able to afford home in upper-class area shocker. 1500 a month? She expects us to pick up the tab, does she?

I could certainly dig her up a massive list of properties to rent that are actually in her price range, assuming that she and nobody she knows has access to the internet, which seems to be the case.

The real story is her snobbishness.

Pay the hyper-rent or move to Ballyfermot?

Speaking of which, asking rents for houses in Ballyfermot are pushing €1200 a month, which when you consider the earning power of people who live there is insane money.

bcmf

Had to help a group of foreign national workmates and the crap their landlord started throwing at them to get them out.
They were/are great tenants but the landlord wanted a massive raise in rent.
I warned the lads that the landlord wants you out and hopes you wont agree to the rent hike.
Short version - I told them everything in registred letters and keep a copy. Even after they were discussing new terms they got an eviction notice.
They eventually agreed to the hike but got the landlord to do a heap of work on the house (after I told the lads to make up a list of stuff they had fixed in the house that they had informed the landlord of but never got done and to tell the landlord they would bill him for the work done).
Reckon its happening a lot.

RichardAnd

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

low income single mother in not being able to afford home in upper-class area shocker. 1500 a month? She expects us to pick up the tab, does she?

I could certainly dig her up a massive list of properties to rent that are actually in her price range, assuming that she and nobody she knows has access to the internet, which seems to be the case.

The real story is her snobbishness.

That's a rather short-sighted view. It's more likely that she's simply trying to highlight problems with the rental market. I didn't detect that she was attempting to make the case that her rent should be state subsidised. I'm sure that she could rent a house in her price range, but perhaps she can't for reasons not mentioned in the article.

I've never espoused the "dead money" view on renting. However, the thought of handing over 1200-1500 euro per month on a house makes me cringe.

Younger people are faced with some very stark choices when it comes to finding a home. They can pay a crazy amount of rent, or they can attempt to get a mortgage to buy a house that is still going for far more than its real worth. The first option eats nicely into what is probably an already lean monthly wage, and the latter choice will leave the said person in debt for 30+ years.

Of course, as someone said above, the older generations are fine. Ah shure they're young...

Peregrinus

RichardAnd wrote: »

That's a rather short-sighted view. It's more likely that she's simply trying to highlight problems with the rental market. I didn't detect that she was attempting to make the case that her rent should be state subsidised. . . .

No, but she is calling for rent control - i.e. legislated limits on the amount by which landlords can increase rents (usually, though, protecting only sitting tenants).

I think, though, there's two points she's overlooking.

First, as she concedes, it's reasonable for her current landlord to terminate her lease, because he requires the property for his own family purposes. So, even with rent-control legislation, she's still be leaving this flat and looking for another. And, as a new tenant in some other flat, she wouldn't benefit from rent control in fixing the initial rent. The landlord could let the flat at whatever the market would bear; it's only thereafter that his rent increases would be restricted. And, of course, knowing that his opportunity to increase rent would be limited, he'd pitch the initial rent as high as possible. In her current situation, I doubt that she would be better off in a rent-controlled regime.

Second, there's this:

"And I'm not renting one of those depressing suicide boxes, with the carpet and wallpaper screaming at each other, the oven peeping out behind a curtain in the 'kitchen' and the electric fire menacingly threatening carbon dioxide poisoning."

It's likely that in a rent-controlled environment there would be more such flats, not fewer, on the market. If the return that landlords can earn is kept down by capping rents or rent increases, then the only way to maximise profits is to reduce outgoings- so grottier flats, with grottier fitting out and grottier decor, are to be expected.

Frank Lee Midere

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, but she is calling for rent control - i.e. legislated limits on the amount by which landlords can increase rents (usually, though, protecting only sitting tenants).

I think, though, there's two points she's overlooking.

First, as she concedes, it's reasonable for her current landlord to terminate her lease, because he requires the property for his own family purposes. So, even with rent-control legislation, she's still be leaving this flat and looking for another. And, as a new tenant in some other flat, she wouldn't benefit from rent control in fixing the initial rent. The landlord could let the flat at whatever the market would bear; it's only thereafter that his rent increases would be restricted. And, of course, knowing that his opportunity to increase rent would be limited, he'd pitch the initial rent as high as possible. In her current situation, I doubt that she would be better off in a rent-controlled regime.

Second, there's this:

"And I'm not renting one of those depressing suicide boxes, with the carpet and wallpaper screaming at each other, the oven peeping out behind a curtain in the 'kitchen' and the electric fire menacingly threatening carbon dioxide poisoning."

It's likely that in a rent-controlled environment there would be more such flats, not fewer, on the market. If the return that landlords can earn is kept down by capping rents or rent increases, then the only way to maximise profits is to reduce outgoings- so grottier flats, with grottier fitting out and grottier decor, are to be expected.

Nevertheless most european countries have such laws and good rental housing. The real kicker is she should be able to buy a house on her rental money were houses allowed to fall.

Peregrinus

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Nevertheless most european countries have such laws and good rental housing.

They do, but they have much less flexible rental markets. Tenants, for example, typically furnish rented properties, and are responsible for decoration (and redocorating). This makes renting a signficant investment; rental terms are longer and the frictional costs of moving from one premises to another are higher. That might actually suit Caoimhe Ni Laighin, but it wouldn't suit a large section of the traditional population that rents, who are in the rental market precisely because it's flexible and they don;t want to make a long-term commitment to a property.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The real kicker is she should be able to buy a house on her rental money were houses allowed to fall.

In general it will always cost more to buy a house than to rent, for obvious reasons. If this is not the case then the market is distorted. Were house prices to fall, you would expect rents also to fall, so that she might still choose to rent rather than to buy.

whippet

Firstly .. Sunday Independent ... larger tabloid.

Anyway:



I Had a feeling this was brewing. I knew the day would come. A rent hike is what I foresaw, but no, full-blown eviction it is.



There isn't an ASBO against me. I haven't repeatedly blared The Prodigy at 3am. And I've never been late with my rent.

Irrelevant nonsense

The apartment is required by the son of my landlord. And legally, they've every right to chuck me out in those circumstances.

God forbid someone might want to use their own asset, totally emotive use of the word chuck ... she had her tenancy ended in accordance to the law

I've been paying €1,150 a month on the apartment for two years. Alone. Before bills or blowdrys. I'm also a single mother, which is an expensive little lifestyle. In other words, I'm smashed as it is.

Again, irrelevant. We all have to cut our cloth to suit.

Lots of girls dream about trips to New York or Paris if they meet a man. My fantasies revolve around meeting someone with whom I could share my electricity bill.

You landlord and the readers can't help you with that. This is a personal problem; not a societal one.

And now I'm being turfed out into an extremely hostile market for renters. Anything decent in my area is €1,500. I just can't pay that.

Thank your lucky stars that you have been paying below market rates up to now. If you can't afford the market rates you are living beyond your means. Move to an area that you can afford.

And I'm not renting one of those depressing suicide boxes, with the carpet and wallpaper screaming at each other, the oven peeping out behind a curtain in the 'kitchen' and the electric fire menacingly threatening carbon dioxide poisoning.
well then don't .. but if you want to pay peanuts for a right location you won't have a choice. Move out of the city and you will have the best of choice for your budget


There is an upsurge in economic evictions in Dublin right now. Rents are going through the roof and many renters are losing their homes as a result.

any evidence to back this up? or just a random presumption to suit your rant?


On average, it costs €1,200 a month to rent a house in Dublin, much higher than the national average. In the last quarter of 2013, prices rose 12 per cent in the capital, according to Daft.ie. And Daft is expecting an even greater hike when the first-quarter 2014 results are published.

find me any western capital city who's rents are lower than the national average. Want to live in the capital? expect to pay more. there are also more opportunities, amenities etc in the city.


And what is being done about this? Why, nothing, of course! Perish the thought of doing something sensible like bringing in rent control.

Can you explain how this would work in a fragmented rental market, where there are a huge number of individual accidental landlords. When supply comes on board will there be any 'control' for landlords to stop falling rents? or is 'control' a one way street?


As for me, at 34, I'm being granted residential asylum in my mother's house.

'Asylum' perfectly describes our strange little collective of housemates.

34 and employed .. you'd expect an educated professional at this stage in their life to be a little more financially secure ...


I was thinking of pretending to prospective dates that it's actually MY house and I benevolently let my mother live there.

I suppose that would give a better impression than a mid-thirties professional with no sense of security.


I'm thinking, 'Wow, haven't I come far?' But also thinking that I'm very, very lucky to have a home.

Throw in a token condescending '1st world problem' line to wrap up.

Caoimhe Ni Laighin is a journalist with Nuacht and TG4.
Sunday Independent

i'd beg to differ

AlekSmart

Peregrinus wrote: »

They do, but they have much less flexible rental markets. Tenants, for example, typically furnish rented properties, and are responsible for decoration (and redocorating). This makes renting a signficant investment; rental terms are longer and the frictional costs of moving from one premises to another are higher. That might actually suit Caoimhe Ni Laighin, but it wouldn't suit a large section of the traditional population that rents, who are in the rental market precisely because it's flexible and they don;t want to make a long-term commitment to a property.

In general it will always cost more to buy a house than to rent, for obvious reasons. If this is not the case then the market is distorted. Were house prices to fall, you would expect rents also to fall, so that she might still choose to rent rather than to buy.

Good points ,well made Peregrinus.

I suppose the first phrase that jumped out at me was that "Responsible for",in relation to furnishing and decorating...

It has been my experience (as a close friend of a Landlord)that this is essentially seen as being TOTALLY a requirement of the Landlord and has no relevance to tenants.

Mention of a "Traditional Market that rents" raises the issue of some essential cultural difference between "Our" renters and those from other juristictions ?

I would have thought that Germany,for example,would have a significant number of feckless or otherwise deficient individuals who seek accomodation also,so how are these catered for ?

I think the remark about not wanting to make a "Long-Term committment to Property" is highly pertinent,as it represents,for me,the essential difference between Ireland and the ROTW...Mainstream Irish society appears totally incapable of contemplating the very existence of such Individuals,much less having an organized structure to facilitate them.

This lack of recognition leads to tenancy,as a concept, being regarded as something akin to Cruel & Unusual Punishment and thus,left to the tender mercies of the current wildly variable collection of Landlords,each with their own notions of what constututes an acceptable business approach.

Rather than focus exclusively on the "Property Market",perhaps we first need to look at the deeper cultural issues the Country has with the "Private Rental Accomodation" concept itself ?

Peregrinus

Fair points.

I'm not saying that in Germany there is no transient population of students, etc, who rent a place not expecting to stay there very long. But they're a comparatively small sector of the market. It's not uncommon for middle-class families to live in rented accommodation long-term.

And this used to be the case in Ireland, too. A hundred years ago, it was in fact usual for middle-class families to rent their houses. Even those who owned houses quite often let them out, and lived in other houses, which they rented because they wanted to live in a different neighbourhood, or close to work (practically nobody had cars) or close to other family members. They had less emotional connection with the houses they lived in and also - I think this is quite a big factor - they had less stuff. Packing up your stuff and moving it to another house was a much simpler operation then than it would be now. So moving house was not the big deal it is for us.

It was (among other things) stringent rent control laws (later struck down as unconstitutional) which put an end to this. At a time of galloping inflation during and in the years after the Great War, rent controls were introduced to protect tenants from large rent increases. The result was to devalue significantly the ownership of tenanted property; landlords couldn't get adequate returns from investment in property, so they stopped investing, and the rental property stock degraded over time. This led to the perception that you couldn't get decent rented accommodation, and so the middle classes preferred to buy.

The other change that came in was the move to letting furnished accommodation. This didn't used to be the norm; tenants rented unfurnished accommodation and furnished it themselves. However there was a market for short term lets of furnished accommodation, and accommodation let on that basis was outside the rent control legislation (because the lettings were presumed to be short term). Hence those landlords still in the business started to fill their flats with the hideous cheap chipboard-and-laminate furniture that we all still remember from our squalid student days. Again, this contributed to the perception that if you wanted your home to be nice, you had to buy it.

In short, it was badly-thought out rent control legislation that degraded the rental market in the first place. I think you're right that reversing this requires a cultural change which won't be easy to achieve. But as long as buying or building residential accommodation remains expensive, rents are going to be expensive too; landlords are not going to buy or build accommodation and then let it out for rents which don't provide a good return on their investment.

chopper6

I know the girl personally and her biggest problem is that she bought at the height of the boom somewhere down the country...i think the price was 300k for a house on an estate.

The ex husband lives there but her name is still on the deeds and she is effectively bankrupt with almost no chance of raising another mortage.

With her teeenage son she would need a certain amount of space and the area she has been renting in has become mental in terms of rental prices.

If you're throwing 1,500 Pm at keping a roof over your head it's going to be next to impossible to save for a mortage deposit anyway.

My OH was in a similar position,the landlord ordered her out as "a relative" was moving into the property which has since reapeared on the market for an extra 400 per month.

Landlords are basically allowed to do and charge whatever they feel like as it *is* a private industry with no real controls on pricing etc and in true irish private sector style they will gouge the bejaysus out of it without thinking of either the tenants or the sustainability of these sorts of prices.

Farmer Pudsey

We have a huge issue with both the rental and property market in Ireland. We are in the thros of another property boom that may end in tears. As well we still have wishfull thinkers that assume there is a large well of property in NAMA to be sold that will cause a price drop down the line. My own gut reaction was that in the midle year prices had steadied.

Dublin was always going to be an issue, no major developers around and it economy has lifted a year before the rst of the country. Caoimhe should have seen it coming and tried to buy. However she may have been like other wishfull thinkers failing to watch the way the wind was blowing.

Our rental market is skewed and to make matters worst the government had decided to leave social housing to the private rental sector. But the issue is they subsidize it. I would not be of the opinion thta renting is dead money but in Ireland it is economic susicide.

Let look at those that advacote a rental market what couple that are retored could afford rental prices in Dublin. A single person on a pension would be totall dependant on the state nearly anywhere in Ireland to rent a house. Our biggest issue is people attachment to there family home. However is it any wonder, with nursinh homes bills why trade down and leave the nursing home take all the cash. They can only access 1/3 of the equity in the family home.

We have a huge issue with Dublin considering it is a sprawling city with large area's not build up it leaves us wonder whay we cannot get housing stock being build at a fast pace. It all comes back to over regulation. The cost of doing any major project in Ireland is horrendus. Maybe it is still not economic to build houses in Dublin.Maybe we need prices to rise higher before it is economic tp build there again:(

chopper6

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We have a huge issue with both the rental and property market in Ireland. We are in the thros of another property boom that may end in tears. As well we still have wishfull thinkers that assume there is a large well of property in NAMA to be sold that will cause a price drop down the line. My own gut reaction was that in the midle year prices had steadied.

Dublin was always going to be an issue, no major developers around and it economy has lifted a year before the rst of the country. Caoimhe should have seen it coming and tried to buy. However she may have been like other wishfull thinkers failing to watch the way the wind was blowing.

Our rental market is skewed and to make matters worst the government had decided to leave social housing to the private rental sector. But the issue is they subsidize it. I would not be of the opinion thta renting is dead money but in Ireland it is economic susicide.

Let look at those that advacote a rental market what couple that are retored could afford rental prices in Dublin. A single person on a pension would be totall dependant on the state nearly anywhere in Ireland to rent a house. Our biggest issue is people attachment to there family home. However is it any wonder, with nursinh homes bills why trade down and leave the nursing home take all the cash. They can only access 1/3 of the equity in the family home.

We have a huge issue with Dublin considering it is a sprawling city with large area's not build up it leaves us wonder whay we cannot get housing stock being build at a fast pace. It all comes back to over regulation. The cost of doing any major project in Ireland is horrendus. Maybe it is still not economic to build houses in Dublin.Maybe we need prices to rise higher before it is economic tp build there again:(

See my previous post.

helimachoptor

I posted this on another thread but currently in a 2 year lease, rent at 1400 and lease expires in Jan.

Landlord came back in jan to say rent was going to 1650, advisd her as per lease terms it was 1400 til jan, after her meltdown where she said it was a gross mistake that she signed a 2 year lease blamed me, her agent etc but not herself even though we have a signed copy she's informed us that the rent will be going to 2k in jan

chopper6

helimachoptor wrote: »

I posted this on another thread but currently in a 2 year lease, rent at 1400 and lease expires in Jan.

Landlord came back in jan to say rent was going to 1650, advisd her as per lease terms it was 1400 til jan, after her meltdown where she said it was a gross mistake that she signed a 2 year lease blamed me, her agent etc but not herself even though we have a signed copy she's informed us that the rent will be going to 2k in jan

She's clearly in breach of contract and you should seek legl advice on teh issue.

These people bought to let thinking it was a licence to print money and they ride roughshod over tenants rights using the threat of eviction to gouge more and more money out of them.

Of course in thier greedy scramble for more and more money they fail to see any long term consequences of thier actions...just like the events of ten years ago.

This thread over in accomadtion forum:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057178791

Wheras the OP doesnt sound like such a bad sort there are people baying for the blood and eviction of the tenants...several posts(some by myself) attempting to speak up for the tenant were deleted and warnings issued.

Farmer Pudsey

There is another issue here that a lot of posters fail to see(by the way this is not an excuse just reality) the greedy landlord may have been suffering a loss of rent over interest and repayments for the last few years. The limiting of loan interest to 75% tax relief and if the landlord( not trying to make an excuse) has been making payments from other income may leave them under pressure.

This is an issue where banks have taken over houses and looking for vacant possession at end of tenancy agreement. Some people here are forgetting that somebody has to pay for the house. By the way the only house I own is the one I live in.

I do believe that we need an overhaul of some of the laws in this area. However people have to understand that nothing is free in this life. For instance if Caoimhe last house mortgage was non recourse then she would be free of same. What actions has she undertaken to release her obligation to the last property, it all very well saying that her ex husband lives there. I know that this is becoming a huge issue where one person moves out and another is left with house and loan.

The real issue is the lack of available housing in Dublin and the continual centralisation of resources and jobs there. We have failed to provide viable alternatives to it as an industrial/technology base.

beauf

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

... It all comes back to over regulation...

You've got to be joking.

There's been an unending flow of scandals due to the lack of "real" regulation.

beauf

chopper6 wrote: »

......true irish private sector style they will gouge the bejaysus out of it without thinking of either the tenants or the sustainability of these sorts of prices.

The Govt is pushing costs up, and reducing supply.

How is that the LL fault?

chopper6

beauf wrote: »

The Govt is pushing costs up, and reducing supply.

How is that the LL fault?

How is it the Govt's fault?

You dont get a letter for Enda kenny to say he's putting the rent up.

Costs are going up for everybody and people don't need 200 per month added onto thier rent by vultures either.

beauf

How is it not?

If the costs are comparable why rent at all?

chopper6

beauf wrote: »

How is it not?

If the costs are comparable why rent at all?

Costs compartable to what?


People rent for all kinds of reasons...it's not an excuse for profiteering by greedy landlords.

beauf

No idea, maybe explain your point about costs going up for everyone and if its at all relevant?
Do you think rents should stay static for ever? Do you think a business should never make a profit?
Do you think the Govt should just ignore the whole thing as it has done?

Farmer Pudsey

chopper6 wrote: »

Costs compartable to what?


People rent for all kinds of reasons...it's not an excuse for profiteering by greedy landlords.

It is a business like any other. If it is not profitable there is no point investing. I always stayed away from it. It was tough. 20 years ago I could have gone and bought a house and rented it. It took me 10 years longer to buy a farm. I often wonder why people invest in property. I know that it require a lower capital entry level but the hassle you have to go through.

On the other hand we have those that advacote it. I hope my kids have enough sence to own there own house.........and only there own homes.....

There is easier ways to make money, mind you not sure if farming is one of them

Frank Lee Midere

beauf wrote: »

No idea, maybe explain your point about costs going up for everyone and if its at all relevant?
Do you think rents should stay static for ever? Do you think a business should never make a profit?
Do you think the Govt should just ignore the whole thing as it has done?

Housing isn't treated as a normal free market activity except as described by the - cough - businessmen engaged in it. Half of them public servants. The government intervenes to keep the poor in social housing and to prop up the housing of the rest of the market via Nama, in a country with one of the biggest housing busts in history with one of the biggest mortgage arrears in history and growing.

The state owned banks are keeping people economically incapable of paying for their houses by taxing a rental class which could pay for those houses - at even her last rent she should be able to afford properly priced housing in SCD if the government let prices fall to normal levels.

Everybody should cut their cloth to suit their measure, so turf the mortgage non-payees out.

everdead.ie

chopper6 wrote: »

She's clearly in breach of contract and you should seek legl advice on teh issue.

These people bought to let thinking it was a licence to print money and they ride roughshod over tenants rights using the threat of eviction to gouge more and more money out of them.

Of course in thier greedy scramble for more and more money they fail to see any long term consequences of thier actions...just like the events of ten years ago.

This thread over in accomadtion forum:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057178791

Wheras the OP doesnt sound like such a bad sort there are people baying for the blood and eviction of the tenants...several posts(some by myself) attempting to speak up for the tenant were deleted and warnings issued.

I think you are misreading it I read it as Landlord came to increase rent in Jan 2014 was obviously disconnected and hadn't realised she'd let them have a 2 year lease then informed them rent was going to 2k in Jan 2015 (a punitive rate ) probably to claw back the increase she missed out in Jan 2014.

Nothing illegale but Landlord is just an idiot.

Also to above poster mortgage arrears have in the most recent quater fallen.

chopper6

beauf wrote: »

No idea, maybe explain your point about costs going up for everyone and if its at all relevant?
Do you think rents should stay static for ever? Do you think a business should never make a profit?
Do you think the Govt should just ignore the whole thing as it has done?

There's a difference between between making a profit and increasing rents by 20-40% per year.

Remember also that letting property means you're dealing with human beings and thier lives rather than selling commodities or grazing cattle.

If people can't see the difference they shouldnt be involved in the "industry" at all.

3DataModem

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair points.

I'm not saying that in Germany there is no transient population of students, etc, who rent a place not expecting to stay there very long. But they're a comparatively small sector of the market. It's not uncommon for middle-class families to live in rented accommodation long-term.

And this used to be the case in Ireland, too. A hundred years ago, it was in fact usual for middle-class families to rent their houses. Even those who owned houses quite often let them out, and lived in other houses, which they rented because they wanted to live in a different neighbourhood, or close to work (practically nobody had cars) or close to other family members. They had less emotional connection with the houses they lived in and also - I think this is quite a big factor - they had less stuff. Packing up your stuff and moving it to another house was a much simpler operation then than it would be now. So moving house was not the big deal it is for us.

It was (among other things) stringent rent control laws (later struck down as unconstitutional) which put an end to this. At a time of galloping inflation during and in the years after the Great War, rent controls were introduced to protect tenants from large rent increases. The result was to devalue significantly the ownership of tenanted property; landlords couldn't get adequate returns from investment in property, so they stopped investing, and the rental property stock degraded over time. This led to the perception that you couldn't get decent rented accommodation, and so the middle classes preferred to buy.

The other change that came in was the move to letting furnished accommodation. This didn't used to be the norm; tenants rented unfurnished accommodation and furnished it themselves. However there was a market for short term lets of furnished accommodation, and accommodation let on that basis was outside the rent control legislation (because the lettings were presumed to be short term). Hence those landlords still in the business started to fill their flats with the hideous cheap chipboard-and-laminate furniture that we all still remember from our squalid student days. Again, this contributed to the perception that if you wanted your home to be nice, you had to buy it.

In short, it was badly-thought out rent control legislation that degraded the rental market in the first place. I think you're right that reversing this requires a cultural change which won't be easy to achieve. But as long as buying or building residential accommodation remains expensive, rents are going to be expensive too; landlords are not going to buy or build accommodation and then let it out for rents which don't provide a good return on their investment.

Excellent post. I wish it was a blog, so I could link to it...

COYW

chopper6 wrote: »

There's a difference between between making a profit and increasing rents by 20-40% per year.

Remember also that letting property means you're dealing with human beings and thier lives rather than selling commodities or grazing cattle.

If people can't see the difference they shouldnt be involved in the "industry" at all.

What a load of old tosh. Those landlords are in the rental business to make money, not to provide a service for the betterment of society. I am not in the property business myself and I am completely baffled by the attraction that Irish people have for property but rental properties are a commodity.

The property market is starting to get crazy again in some parts of the country. My parents live in North Kildare and there is one estate in their town where there was a ballot for the right to purchase a house off the plans, not so long ago. The house prices were increased by 10% from the previous phase. People were falling over each other to try and get one of these houses.

On the original article, I would like to live in a multi-million pound mansion overlooking the sea but I cannot afford one, so I don't live there. The person in the article cannot afford the cost of renting in her desired area. So, she needs to move out to a cheaper location in Dublin or move to a commuter county and use public transport to get in and out of the city like countless other people. Some of the language used in the articles is completely OTT.

chopper6

COYW wrote: »

What a load of old tosh. Those landlords are in the rental business to make money, not to provide a service for the betterment of society..

They ARE there to rovide a service and as such should at least have a reasonable duty of care to thier clients.

Would it be okay for pubs to add 20% to teh price of a pint overnight? What about a shop charging 2 euro for a pint of milk? i mean sure somebody would pay it but would people continue to shop there??

COYW

chopper6 wrote: »

They ARE there to rovide a service and as such should at least have a reasonable duty of care to thier clients.

They have a duty of care i.e. to make sure that the product (property) they provide is clean, safe, everything is in working order etc but they have no duty of care in relation to price. As I said, that property is worth whatever a person is willing to pay for it in terms of rent.

I agree that that the prices are a joke but if people are willing to pay them ....... I used to live in Ballsbridge and the rental prices have gone from €1,000 per month for a one bed apartment, only a few years ago, to €500 per week. I wouldn't pay that, even though I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it.

sarumite

chopper6 wrote: »

They ARE there to rovide a service and as such should at least have a reasonable duty of care to thier clients.

Would it be okay for pubs to add 20% to teh price of a pint overnight? What about a shop charging 2 euro for a pint of milk? i mean sure somebody would pay it but would people continue to shop there??

No they wouldn't. Which is why shops do not do it.

If there was a shortage of tenants in an area, do you think landlords would keep their rental prices high?

beauf

chopper6 wrote: »

They ARE there to rovide a service and as such should at least have a reasonable duty of care to thier clients.

Would it be okay for pubs to add 20% to teh price of a pint overnight? What about a shop charging 2 euro for a pint of milk? i mean sure somebody would pay it but would people continue to shop there??

What has duty of care got to do with price?

As for the others prices do vary enormously.
http://www.thestar.ie/star/the-star-reveals-irelands-cheapest-pubs-35818/

Prices of consumables like milk do vary

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=171932

beauf

Since you don't answer any questions asked of you, I doubt you'll answer these either...

chopper6 wrote: »

There's a difference between between making a profit and increasing rents by 20-40% per year.

Remember also that letting property means you're dealing with human beings and thier lives rather than selling commodities or grazing cattle.

If people can't see the difference they shouldn't be involved in the "industry" at all.

Nice idea. Unfortunately the tax man, the bank, tradesmen, and building suppliers don't see it that way. LL pays the same as everyone else. The profits you make are not only to cover the good times. but to cover the bad times, when the LL has to pay for thousands in repairs, or lost rent if they get a bad tenant. That's assuming the LL is in profit. Many will be making a loss.

There are controls. You can only increase the rent once a year, you can't exceed the market rate. The accommodation has to be off a certain standard, and a LL has to follow set rules to evict tenants or recover monies owed. Many of which are pointless, but all at the LL expense.

If you're not happy with any of this, you need to look at what successive govts done to create this situation, and regulate and enforce regulations, and create the current rental market conditions.

murphaph

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Nevertheless most european countries have such laws and good rental housing.

Hmmm, not sure I'd agree there Frank. It's very regional here in Germany at least. Plenty of really crappy old flats in Berlin with COAL OVENS, yes coal fired ovens to heat the place and provide hot water and shower cubicles in kitchens and other crap in 2014.

I broadly favour rent control for existing tenants (so landlord is free to increase to whatever he likes for a new letting) but tenants should be under no illusion that this will mean less investment by landlords in their properties and an expectation that tenants will pick up the slack.

gaius c

COYW wrote: »

On the original article, I would like to live in a multi-million pound mansion overlooking the sea but I cannot afford one, so I don't live there. The person in the article cannot afford the cost of renting in her desired area. So, she needs to move out to a cheaper location in Dublin or move to a commuter county and use public transport to get in and out of the city like countless other people. Some of the language used in the articles is completely OTT.

Great idea but it seems to only apply to renters.

Some of the posts in this thread are an excellent illustration of just how differently folk struggling to pay rent are treated to those who are struggling to pay their mortgage in "the national conversation".

beauf

Not entirely sure what your point is. The advantage of renting is you have flexibility in moving around. Which you don't have with a mortgage.

Devilman40k

beauf wrote: »

Not entirely sure what your point is. The advantage of renting is you have flexibility in moving around. Which you don't have with a mortgage.

That's not entirely true. A portion of renters could have children of school going age that in itself limits the flexibility that that cohort have.

sarumite

Devilman40k wrote: »

That's not entirely true. A portion of renters could have children of school going age that in itself limits the flexibility that that cohort have.

Their inflexibility is related to having kids and is not a property of their rental situation. Renting still affords them flexibility even if other aspects of their life deem that flexibility moot.

beauf

Exactly. Its not renting that's limiting them, its other issues like school places.

Frank Lee Midere

sarumite wrote: »

Their inflexibility is related to having kids and is not a property of their rental situation. Renting still affords them flexibility even if other aspects of their life deem that flexibility moot.

Nonsense. Flexibility is a red herring when it comes to the difference with regards to how renters and mortgage holders are discussed. And a lot of renters are in that position because they can't afford to buy houses, houses they could afford were the non-mortgage payers cutting their cloth to suit their measure. A phrase never used for the poor dears with mortgages.

Frank Lee Midere

beauf wrote: »

Exactly. Its not renting that's limiting them, its other issues like school places.

Families who rent are obviously hopeful of staying in the same area. But again, not the point. the pseudo boom in SCD is happening because of non- repossessions, otherwise thousands of properties would be repossessed. If they were repossessed and the economic failures who live their were to cut their cloth to suit their measure the rental classes would move in and get stabity they desire and the repossessed get flexibility.

beauf

What caused the shortage is vast drop in new houses. Has the level of repossession changed? Chopper suggested here that the person being discussed is both a "mortgage payer" and a renter. I'm not really seeing why you think people should be able buy or rent in SCD. The most expensive part of the city, the country even. Good luck arguing with a bank that someone with a 300k mortgage should be treated the same as someone without one.

Farmer Pudsey

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Nonsense. Flexibility is a red herring when it comes to the difference with regards to how renters and mortgage holders are discussed. And a lot of renters are in that position because they can't afford to buy houses, houses they could afford were the non-mortgage payers cutting their cloth to suit their measure. A phrase never used for the poor dears with mortgages.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Families who rent are obviously hopeful of staying in the same area. But again, not the point. the pseudo boom in SCD is happening because of non- repossessions, otherwise thousands of properties would be repossessed. If they were repossessed and the economic failures who live their were to cut their cloth to suit their measure the rental classes would move in and get stabity they desire and the repossessed get flexibility.

Frankly my dear I think you like a lot of others think that massive repsooions will allow cheap housing to become available to those on lower incomes. IMO it will not. If Nama and the banks decided to dump what what houses it own's and reposses the sudden fall in houses prices woulf favour landlords and those that have access to ready cash whether through having the money ready or else being able to get a loan fast.

It would not help the OP. The reality is that about 80% of houses sold at auction are bought by investors. I have gone for a look and few first time buyers were purchassers were buyers. The percentage would increase in the case of a contrived fall in prices that would be shortterm as these investors would see that a big return would be possible over the short to medium term. There inability to access loans or money would not change. The other thing a contrived crash in prices would not solve the issue longterm.

This issue with rents inflating in Dublin is mostly to do with supply and only a increase in supply will control house/rent prices.

beauf

Nama/Govt appears to controlling the release of property to the market to prevent this exact thing.

carpejugulum

Government intervention is largely responsible for the messed up rental market, but her problems are unreasonable wants and expectations.

touts

Heard this one being interviewed yesterday. Her whole problem seems to be that she wants to live in posh areas of Dublin and can't afford to on just 60k so she wants the government to sort it for her. Any text that criticised her was aggressively dismissed as "ignorant".

One interesting thing she said was that she was going to pay 1200 a month to her mother in rent which her mother agreed to pay back to her after two years. It's clear from that that her mother doesn't trust her with money and is basically taking control of her savings for two years.

The woman has an attitude problem and I suspect if she wasn't friends with lots of journalists in RTE she would be ignored. This might even be a publicity stunt to boost her career. This one has had her 15 minutes of fame and it's time for someone to tell her to cop on.

Farmer Pudsey

touts wrote: »

Heard this one being interviewed yesterday. Her whole problem seems to be that she wants to live in posh areas of Dublin and can't afford to on just 60k so she wants the government to sort it for her. Any text that criticised her was aggressively dismissed as "ignorant".

One interesting thing she said was that she was going to pay 1200 a month to her mother in rent which her mother agreed to pay back to her after two years. It's clear from that that her mother doesn't trust her with money and is basically taking control of her savings for two years.

The woman has an attitude problem and I suspect if she wasn't friends with lots of journalists in RTE she would be ignored. This might even be a publicity stunt to boost her career. This one has had her 15 minutes of fame and it's time for someone to tell her to cop on.

What program and radio station was that on