Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"Rent Row Mayhem" - Irish Independent Article

Comments

  • #2
    Baby01032012
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Baby01032012


    onform wrote: »
    The Indo article is slight on the details, but seems to be an example of worst case scenario in terms of tenant-landlord relations.

    Interesting to read that the Guards told the owners to give the tenants the new keys...

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rent-row-mayhem-as-violent-standoff-erupts-after-home-blaze-35041205.html

    But we're not told the background to this. Anything can be read into this poorly written tabloid article.


  • #3
    SB_Part2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭SB_Part2


    It's a bit of a strange situation alright. Why would the tenants want to live in a house that's been fire damaged?


  • #4
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    SB_Part2 wrote: »
    It's a bit of a strange situation alright. Why would the tenants want to live in a house that's been fire damaged?

    The house wasn't fire damaged, just the porch


  • #5
    mahoganygas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭mahoganygas


    Barely Hedged wrote:
    I assume the landlord was trying to "encourage" them to pay due rent.


    I didn't pick that up from the article.

    I assumed the tenants were in a row with somebody else who set the fire. And the landlord wants them out because of it.

    Very few details to go on though.


  • #6
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    mahoganygas wrote: »
    I didn't pick that up from the article.

    I assumed the tenants were in a row with somebody else who set the fire. And the landlord wants them out because of it.

    Very few details to go on though.

    Superficial damage, the landlord arrives with a load of his mates and forwards the story to a paper with accompanying photos and video footage.

    Sometimes you need to look beyond the "details"


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    SB_Part2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭SB_Part2


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    The house wasn't fire damaged, just the porch

    The whole house would need to be fumigated. The smoke damage would be present in the inside of the house as well.


  • #8
    SB_Part2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭SB_Part2


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    Superficial damage, the landlord arrives with a load of his mates and forwards the story to a paper with accompanying photos and video footage.

    Sometimes you need to look beyond the "details"

    I think you're looking too much into this. Unless you've got an inside scoop you're just looking for something that's not there.


  • #9
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    SB_Part2 wrote: »
    The whole house would need to be fumigated. The smoke damage would be present in the inside of the house as well.

    How do you work that out if the front door was damaged?


  • #10
    testaccount123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    I assume
    You assume plenty alright


  • #11
    SB_Part2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭SB_Part2


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    How do you work that out if the front door was damaged?

    Are you serious? You don't think that the front door being damaged by fire would mean there'd be smoke in the house?

    My neighbours shed went on fire and her house had to be cleared out because of the smoke that went in her windows.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    SB_Part2 wrote: »
    Are you serious? You don't think that the front door being damaged by fire would mean there'd be smoke in the house?

    My neighbours shed went on fire and her house had to be cleared out because of the smoke that went in her windows.

    Was a shed burnt at this front door of this house and was the burn time the same?


  • #13
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    SB_Part2 wrote: »
    I think you're looking too much into this. Unless you've got an inside scoop you're just looking for something that's not there.

    I'd could counter that you believe everything you read or take a lot of things at face value without looking for context.

    And no, I don't have an inside scoop


  • #14
    SB_Part2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭SB_Part2


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    Was a shed burnt at this front door of this house and was the burn time the same?

    Burnt at his back door.

    And no I don't believe everything I read but from looking at those pictures, there has to be some kind of smoke damage.


  • #15
    Zzippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    I'd could counter that you believe everything you read or take a lot of things at face value without looking for context.

    And no, I don't have an inside scoop

    You assumed a lot in this instance without any evidence to back it up. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord set this fire, yet you implied he did. There was no mention of unpaid rent, yet you assumed the fire was set to "encourage them to pay rent". You assumed the landlord forwarded the footage to the paper. You assumed the house wasn't fire damaged, yet there is no footage of the interior, and the paper mentions two people taken to hospital with smoke inhalation.

    That's a whole lot of assumption there...


  • #16
    Ursus Horribilis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Ursus Horribilis


    Methinks there's an awful lot more to this than meets the eye. It's interesting that the video footage of this confrontation is very good and isn't the usual shaky vertical video stuff you usually see from someone who stumbled across the situation. Who was filming and why?


  • #17
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Mod note: Considering there seems to be a lot more going on, I think we can close this thread. No need for idle speculation on any of it.


  • #18
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Ursus Horribilis wrote: »
    Methinks there's an awful lot more to this than meets the eye. It's interesting that the video footage of this confrontation is very good and isn't the usual shaky vertical video stuff you usually see from someone who stumbled across the situation. Who was filming and why?

    Its also spliced in 2 places- you're not seeing a straight stream- its been edited......


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement