Families face eviction so homes can be used for social housing

RobYourBuilder

FIFTEEN FAMILIES LIVING in a Dublin housing estate face eviction before Christmas because receivers are selling their rented homes to be used for social housing.

The landlor of the houses in the Red Arches estate in Baldoyle has gone into receivership and families late las month were issued with letters terminating their tenancies.

Mother of three Helen McDonald told TheJournal.ie she “cried for five days” when she received the news that her family would have to leave the house by 15 December. She has been living in the house since 2012 with her husband Steve, her two boys aged six and four, and her 16-month-old daughter.

Since receiving the letter, she said they have tried to find a new house in the area to move into but they are now priced out of the market. Their two sons attend the local school so they want to remain in Baldoyle.

“We went to a house last Thursday and the lady told us we were high on the list to get it but there were 55 people in to look at the house,” she said. “One of the girls [whose tenancy has also been terminated] told me she went to see a house and someone had six months’ rent up front – we’ll never be in a position to do that.”

Disrupting family life

They have lodged a complaint with the Private Residential Tenancies Board and McDonald said they plan to fight for as long as possible to remain in their home.

It has been a particularly difficult year for the family, as their baby girl suffered a head injury in a freak accident at a very young age. A golf ball that was stuck in an electric mower at the local park shot out of the blades and struck her on the head. She has epilepsy as a result and has regular seizures.

“We don’t want to disrupt our family life,” the mother of three commented. “Because the baby has epilepsy, she needs to be in her own environment and her own routine.”

We’ve had a pretty rough year already and this has just tipped it over.

Social housing

A spokesperson for National Asset Management Agency (Nama) told TheJournal.iethat these properties are being sold to the local authority and an approved body for social housing.

The agency stressed that its role in all of this was as the owner of the loans and it is the receiver who is actually selling the houses.

As a secured lender, NAMA actively encourages all receivers to work with the prospective purchasers of properties being made available for social housing and the existing tenants to find appropriate solutions.

“It is NAMA’s policy that where assets securing the Agency’s loans are being sold, existing contractual rental obligations are honoured in so far as is legally possible by the sellers of that property.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/baldoyle-eviction-social-housing-1769701-Nov2014/

I'm not a very intelligent man, so can someone explain how this makes a lick of sense? Evicting 15 families who pay their own rent, to make way for people on the housing register.

Christmas is a very stressful time for young families. These people were given less than two months notice. Considering the Dublin rental market at present, that's very little time. They will have to find a suitable and affordable alternative, pony up the dough for a large deposit on a new place, find alternative schooling arrangements and all before Christmas.

No wonder we are a nation of propert buyers and not renters.

0byme75341jo28

Awful for the families in fairness.

BoJack Horseman

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

I'm not a very intelligent man

Don't be hard on yourself buddy.

crockholm

lousy decision on the face of it

BoJack Horseman

crockholm wrote: »

lousy decision on the face of it

Not easy for another private landlord to come in and purchase 15 houses though.

Perhaps they should have waited to sell to landlords in smaller lots?

SEPT 23 1989

I thought the local authoritys were near bankrupt owing billions between the lot of them?

the_syco

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

I'm not a very intelligent man, so can someone explain how this makes a lick of sense? Evicting 15 families who pay their own rent, to make way for people on the housing register.

How do you know they all pay their rent?

Gatling

There private tenants sooner or later they most likely would have moved on anyway .

It's sad to hear but there's worse off out there not every case manages to make a a few paragraphs in a rag

crockholm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Not easy for another private landlord to come in and purchase 15 houses though.

Perhaps they should have waited to sell to landlords in smaller lots?

Indeed,but would it really have been so difficult to continue with the status quo until such a buyer/buyers were found.

NAMA are still beholden to the Irish people-hopefully this decision can be reversed.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

At least families will be housed as a result and it goes towards reducing the social housing shortage. Those renting are able to rent so they can rent elsewhere. No rental can be taken as long term as properties can be sold or occupied by the owners at any time. If the owners were in receivership then it was necessary to realise the value of the properies. Sounds insensitive I know but that's the reality of things when you rent.

BoJack Horseman

crockholm wrote: »

NAMA are still beholden to the Irish people-hopefully this decision can be reversed.

NAMAs role is to make our money back.
Not mould social housing policy.

I don't want NAMA acting as government landlords..... thats the role already done by local authorities, & DSP.

crockholm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

NAMAs role is to make our money back.
Not mould social housing policy.

I don't want NAMA acting as government landlords..... thats the role already done by local authorities, & DSP.

Yeah,you're right there, in fairness.

Just feel a bit bad for the families involved.

hfallada

crockholm wrote: »

Indeed,but would it really have been so difficult to continue with the status quo until such a buyer/buyers were found.

NAMA are still beholden to the Irish people-hopefully this decision can be reversed.

NAMAs job is to get as much for their assets for the tax payer. They arent a charity. Its up to local authorities to provide social housing and not an asset management agency.

I imagine the existing tenants were aware the houses they were living in were going up for sale. They should have found alternative housing in the mean time.

drumswan

Joanna Chilly Hall wrote: »

At least families will be housed as a result and it goes towards reducing the social housing shortage. Those renting are able to rent so they can rent elsewhere. No rental can be taken as long term as properties can be sold or occupied by the owners at any time. If the owners were in receivership then it was necessary to realise the value of the properies. Sounds insensitive I know but that's the reality of things when you rent.

Theres so much wrong with this I dont know where to begin.

Throwing families out of their family homes to make way for people who cant afford to live there.
Local rents have skyrocketed in the period since the families signed their lease, meaning the have to move elsewhere (e.g. less desirable areas) to find rent they can afford, while the social housing families who cant afford it get to move in.
Total disregard for the security of tenure enshrined in our tenancy legislation simply because the original owners went bankrupt.

The whole system is set up to punish those who are least responsible for the disaster that is our housing sector.

RobYourBuilder

hfallada wrote: »

I imagine the existing tenants were aware the houses they were living in were going up for sale. They should have found alternative housing in the mean time.

They were given a whole 57 days notice. Not a lot of time considering the Dublin property market at present and the fact that they will have to find alternative schooling arrangements etc.

crockholm

hfallada wrote: »

NAMAs job is to get as much for their assets for the tax payer. They arent a charity. Its up to local authorities to provide social housing and not an asset management agency.

I imagine the existing tenants were aware the houses they were living in were going up for sale. They should have found alternative housing in the mean time.

I get what you are saying H, but,as they would be paying rent-and presumeably not at a discounted rate-there would be no Charity about it,the tennants would be paying their rents and NAMA would be making the profit(as is their goal)

anncoates

Hard on the families but private tenants have to move on all the time. The only reason this is seen as news - or thread - worthy, is the sly welfare bashing angle.

By the way, there's nothing to say that the private tenants may not be in receipt of rent allowance or that the incoming tenants will not all be working and paying rent to the local authority, as is the case with the majority of council tenants.

Frank Lee Midere

anncoates wrote: »

Hard on the families but private tenants have to move on all the time. The only reason this is seen as news - or thread - worthy, is the sly welfare bashing angle.

By the way, there's nothing to say that the private tenants may be in receipt of rent allowance or that the incoming tenants will not all get working and paying rent to the local authority, as is the case with the majority of council tenants.

I don't think you are really that concerned with the welfare recipients, just hostile to renters.

Renters in this country should really be up in arms. Compare the timid reaction to the massive increases in rent to the tiny water charges.

Frank Lee Midere

drumswan wrote: »

The whole system is set up to punish those who are least responsible for the disaster that is our housing sector.

So true.

anncoates

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I don't think you are really that concerned with the welfare recipients, just hostile to renters.

Renters in this country should really be up in arms. Compare the timid reaction to the massive increases in rent to the tiny water charges.

From what I read on boards, renters love the market when they are able to lowball landlords but the minute it's the other way around, they suddenly think the market is evil and needs to be regulated

drumswan

anncoates wrote: »

Hard on the families but private tenants have to move on all the time. The only reason this is seen as news - or thread - worthy, is the sly welfare bashing angle.

Tenants dont have to 'move on all the time', the only way a fixed term tenancy can be rode roughshod over is when the property goes into recievership. This needs to be fixed in legislation ASAP.

The only people this government cares about are people who cant pay - social welfare recipients who cant afford to house themselves and gob****es who loaded themselves with unbelievable levels of debt.

The rest of us get to carry the can. The more prudent you were the more you get to carry.

anncoates

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

So true.

You can't buy that house in D6 for 100k like you thought you would. Deal with it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

drumswan wrote: »

Tenants dont have to 'move on all the time', the only way a fixed term tenancy can be rode roughshod over is when the property goes into recievership. This needs to be fixed in legislation ASAP.

The only people this government cares about are people who cant pay - social welfare recipients who cant afford to house themselves and gob****es who loaded themselves with unbelievable levels of debt.

The rest of us get to carry the can. The more prudent you were the more you get to carry.

Fixed term tenancy can be terminated if the landlord or immediate family want to live in the house. There are usually break clauses included as well. But that is moot in this case anyway.

anncoates

Boards economics: where people want the market to be unfettered and 'find its own level ' when they're looking to buy a house but want the market to be strictly regulated for the period in which they are renting.

In other words the economic panacea they prescribe for society is essentially geared toward their specific optimum benefit at any given time.

Frank Lee Midere

anncoates wrote: »

You can't buy that house in D6 for 100k like you thought you would. Deal with it.

But I could easily afford that Ann. And much more. But I'll be buying in the UK unless prices fall. What annoys me about you is that you continuously whine about the "entitlement" of the private sector renter who is paying taxes to subsidise the parisites who are not paying their mortgages, including 30,000 BTL mortgage holders.

One law for the renter, another for the Gombeens. At least be consistent. If you believe that economic actors who can't afford a house shouldn't be living where they are then let's kick the mortgage owners in arrears out.

Frank Lee Midere

anncoates wrote: »

Boards economics: where people want the market to be unfettered and 'find its own level ' when they're looking to buy a house but want the market to be strictly regulated for the period in which they are renting.

In other words the economic panacea they prescribe for society is essentially geared toward their specific optimum benefit at any given time.

Lol. You need to look in a mirror. It's basically you who delights in renters getting kicked out of their houses because they expect too much while also expecting no free market in the housing sector. Instead subsidised banks are repossessing nothing at the expense of the rental classes. A red bloodied free market for renters, a socialist paradise for the "owners" of property.

RobYourBuilder

anncoates wrote: »

The only reason this is seen as news - or thread - worthy, is the sly welfare bashing angle.

renters love the market when they are able to lowball landlords but the minute it's the other way around, they suddenly think the market is evil and needs to be regulated

You can't buy that house in D6 for 100k like you thought you would.

Are you clairvoyant? You seem to be be able to read peoples minds and find out what they are thinking.

anncoates

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

But I could easily afford that Ann. And much more. But I'll be buying in the UK unless prices fall. What annoys me about you is that you continuously whine about the "entitlement" of the private sector

Actually I'd like to see more regulation in the rental sector myself especially for families (although you're never going to stop people having to move from private rentals), I'm just pointing out that a lot of people here tend to measure the amount of 'market meddling' they want based on their specific situation at any given time.

anncoates

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Are you clairvoyant? You seem to be be able to read peoples minds and find out what they are thinking.

I just read the forum.

drumswan

Joanna Chilly Hall wrote: »

Fixed term tenancy can be terminated if the landlord or immediate family want to live in the house. There are usually break clauses included as well.

No it cant, and no there arent.

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

ted1

It's a pitfall of renting, if they want security then they should buy their own place

ted1

drumswan wrote: »

No it cant, and no there arent.

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

Yes they can

This is from the page you linked.

A landlord may terminate a Part 4 tenancy, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, where any of the circumstances set out in Section 34 of the Act arise. For instance a landlord, may terminate a tenancy, in circumstances where he or she wants to live in the dwelling concerned.

drumswan

ted1 wrote: »

Yes they can

This is from the page you linked.

A landlord may terminate a Part 4 tenancy, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, where any of the circumstances set out in Section 34 of the Act arise. For instance a landlord, may terminate a tenancy, in circumstances where he or she wants to live in the dwelling concerned.

A fixed term tenancy is not a Part 4 tenancy.

Ave Sodalis

drumswan wrote: »

The only people this government cares about are people who cant pay - social welfare recipients who cant afford to house themselves and gob****es who loaded themselves with unbelievable levels of debt.

The rest of us get to carry the can. The more prudent you were the more you get to carry.

No, just no.

drumswan

ted1 wrote: »

It's a pitfall of renting, if they want security then they should buy their own place

Or we could legislate for proper security of tenure, like elsewhere in Europe.

The fact that ownership is required for security of tenure is what fuelled the last bubble. The bubble that the rental classes get to merrily pay for while those or cant or wont pay their mortgages get to stay put.

Pwindedd

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There really does need to be an a market in between renting and owning. Long term leases in unfurnished houses. Not everyone is wiling or able to buy a property - this doesn't mean they should have to move every couple of years. It's quite common in Europe to rent for years and years. There's absolutely no chance of a council house for your average family with a steady income, so the only other option is to buy a house if you want relative stability. I like renting for the most part. Roof over my head with none of the grief of maintenance and repairs.

It's sad for these renters though. Especially at this time of year. If only we had loads of empty properties in Ireland we could house everyone...oh wait!

anncoates

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Lol. You need to look in a mirror. It's basically you who delights in renters getting kicked out of their houses because they expect too much while also expecting no free market in the housing sector. Instead subsidised banks are repossessing nothing at the expense of the rental classes. A red bloodied free market for renters, a socialist paradise for the "owners" of property.

Not really. I think my views are broadly similar over both sectors. I wouldn't be in favour of investors taking the piss on arrears but I have some sympathy for people in financial straits with a family home as I do for people at the mercy of landlords in a unregulated rental sector. So I don't want to see the former being completely market led so I can get a cheaper house while wanting the latter protected from the market.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

drumswan wrote: »

No it cant, and no there arent.

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/terminating-a-fixed-term-tenancy

Read the piece you linked to plus the relevant legislation. Yes it can and yes there are.

P_1

Bad business decision by NAMA I have to say. They'd make more money by keeping the current tenants in situ and allowing the leases to expire organically and then moving in the RA tenants than by terminating all the current leases before moving the RA tenants in. I thought NAMA were supposed to be maximising the returns on their investments for the taxpayer. Not quite sure how this is meant to be doing that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

P_1 wrote: »

Bad business decision by NAMA I have to say. They'd make more money by keeping the current tenants in situ and allowing the leases to expire organically and then moving in the RA tenants than by terminating all the current leases before moving the RA tenants in. I thought NAMA were supposed to be maximising the returns on their investments for the taxpayer. Not quite sure how this is meant to be doing that.

It is not in the terms of reference for NAMA to become landlords. They must dispose of all property with the am of dissolving the organisation. They cannot become long term landlords. You also have no idea how the rental income compares to the realisable sale value of the property.