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

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

gaius c

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.

Personal attack and ignore the substantive issues raised. Pretty typical of this thread.

Maybe folks' mindsets have been warped by the septic tiger but €60k is actually a lot of money and you'd have a pretty decent lifestyle on it in most of the EU.

beauf

gaius c wrote: »

...Maybe folks' mindsets have been warped by the septic tiger but €60k is actually a lot of money and you'd have a pretty decent lifestyle on it in most of the EU.

You can in Ireland. Just not in D4. And not when you've a 300k mortgage somewhere else aswell.

everdead.ie

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

What program and radio station was that on

Marian Finucan, I only heard a small amount of it I had to go out.
The only issue I had with what I heard is she wanted the government to provide affordable rent controlled accommodation which in my opinion would only exacerbate the problem to those not able to get government accommodation as it would only take more housing supply out of the market.

touts

gaius c wrote: »

Personal attack and ignore the substantive issues raised. Pretty typical of this thread.

Maybe folks' mindsets have been warped by the septic tiger but €60k is actually a lot of money and you'd have a pretty decent lifestyle on it in most of the EU.

She in the one who has made it personal. She arguing about lifestyle issues and a right to be maintained in a lifestyle whic she believes she deserves. it is hard to argue on a macro economic level when the initiator of the debate frames it in terms of living within walking distance to mammy.

Sheldons Brain

touts wrote: »

She in the one who has made it personal. She arguing about lifestyle issues and a right to be maintained in a lifestyle whic she believes she deserves. it is hard to argue on a macro economic level when the initiator of the debate frames it in terms of living within walking distance to mammy.

There is a broader point here. This lady goes out to work and so has some childcare issues as people who work do, hence the desire to avail of her mother's assistance. Although pretty well paid the market isn't working for her. Plenty of people do not work and avail for government provided accommodation, contributing little towards it. This woman might avail of government provided/regulated accommodation, but would pay for it.

The rental market in Ireland is made up of amateur landlords, there needs to be more corporate landlords with an interest in long term reliable tenants.

matthy1993

Hi i am wondering do any of ye no where tourist information boards come from? whos pays for them and who makes them etc?

touts

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is a broader point here. This lady goes out to work and so has some childcare issues as people who work do, hence the desire to avail of her mother's assistance. Although pretty well paid the market isn't working for her. Plenty of people do not work and avail for government provided accommodation, contributing little towards it. This woman might avail of government provided/regulated accommodation, but would pay for it.

The rental market in Ireland is made up of amateur landlords, there needs to be more corporate landlords with an interest in long term reliable tenants.

I fully agree that the taxpayer gets exceptionally poorly treated in this country. The attitude in the health system where taxpayers with private health insurance are denied access to public beds is the best example of this. In the case of housing provision a similar inequality also exists. But the problem is this woman can easily afford to pay for decent accomodation in most areas of Dublin and the country in general. Her issue is she believes she has a right to live in a posh area and believes the taxpayer should help her. My argument would be that the taxpayer's responsibility ends at basic accomodation. If you want taxpayer help you'll go where we are willing to pay for you to go. If that means a flat in Ballymun then take it or sort yourself out. She considers that sort of approach "ignorant" and believes she should be housed where she wants.

BarryBrack1

touts wrote: »

I fully agree that the taxpayer gets exceptionally poorly treated in this country. The attitude in the health system where taxpayers with private health insurance are denied access to public beds is the best example of this. In the case of housing provision a similar inequality also exists. But the problem is this woman can easily afford to pay for decent accomodation in most areas of Dublin and the country in general. Her issue is she believes she has a right to live in a posh area and believes the taxpayer should help her. My argument would be that the taxpayer's responsibility ends at basic accomodation. If you want taxpayer help you'll go where we are willing to pay for you to go. If that means a flat in Ballymun then take it or sort yourself out. She considers that sort of approach "ignorant" and believes she should be housed where she wants.

I joined boards to stick up 4 her a bit. I know her. And cant believe this stuff being said.

Shes not making up that theres a housing crisis! Thats the point she's making. In fact, she's admiting she earns a good living and can't even afford place alone. Me and gf have a two-bed for 1400 on combined salary of 79k. After tax, health etc, we nothing left to save for house. How is single person with kid on 20k less supposed to manage?

She never once said in interview she expected to be housed in a terenure. Where did u hear that? She said she needed to be somewhere in proximity to her family 4 minding. Her kids in primary still. Is she supposed to leave him alone in a flat in blessington when she's at work til 11pm? Where the kid nos no one?

None of it is relevant anyway. Theres a bloody rental crisis. Caoimhe didn't make it up. Its there. Just cos shes a posh voice and a job doesnt make her spoilt entitled brat.

I'm bias. I know her. But I think ur all so wrong.

touts

BarryBrack1 wrote: »

I joined boards to stick up 4 her a bit. I know her. And cant believe this stuff being said.

Shes not making up that theres a housing crisis! Thats the point she's making. In fact, she's admiting she earns a good living and can't even afford place alone. Me and gf have a two-bed for 1400 on combined salary of 79k. After tax, health etc, we nothing left to save for house. How is single person with kid on 20k less supposed to manage?

She never once said in interview she expected to be housed in a terenure. Where did u hear that? She said she needed to be somewhere in proximity to her family 4 minding. Her kids in primary still. Is she supposed to leave him alone in a flat in blessington when she's at work til 11pm? Where the kid nos no one?

None of it is relevant anyway. Theres a bloody rental crisis. Caoimhe didn't make it up. Its there. Just cos shes a posh voice and a job doesnt make her spoilt entitled brat.

I'm bias. I know her. But I think ur all so wrong.

Well perhaps we are all wrong but she came across terribly on the radio yesterday. For example when Marian pointed out that people live very well in cheaper areas she dismissed that as an ignorant suggestion. She may not be a spoint entitled brat but that is how she sounds to a lot of people.

My experience is I have to commute 75min each way to work. I cant afford to live closer. I have a nice house in a nice area just not close to work or not close to my parents. Therefore like you I probably am biased but in my case it is because I'm doing exactly what she says is impossible. I'm biased also because my brother, his wife and their kids recently moved to Australia and it has broken the hearts of our parents who wish their son and grandkids were in the same country nevermind the same post code. And it irritates me because all I hear on the radio is people constantly saying I as a taxpayer need to do more to help them. And now I hear a woman earning €10k a year more than I do basically saying I need to do more to help her. Well sorry but she needs to review her expectations in life just as we all have had to do in depression hit Ireland.

I wish her the best but really she needs to stop going on the radio complaining about how hard she has it to people who have it far far harder.

Frank Lee Midere

touts wrote: »

She in the one who has made it personal. She arguing about lifestyle issues and a right to be maintained in a lifestyle whic she believes she deserves. it is hard to argue on a macro economic level when the initiator of the debate frames it in terms of living within walking distance to mammy.

No. She has a kid in a certain school. She wants to stay in that area.

All if this right wing claptrap about kicking people out of houses they rent wouldn't boil my piss so much if those of us in the rental sector weren't paying to keep the 200,000 non mortgage payers in their house.

This same story, this same problem with a mortgage repossession and there would be a mob stopping her eviction.

And if the 200k I and she are subsidising were kicked out of their houses 60k would buy a mansion in SCD.