Accidental tenant

zell12

Given the amount of accidental landlords that exist
Why the silence on accidental tenants?

Surely most are 'accidental tenants', yet this phrase is absent in social discourse.
Some people cannot afford/obtain a mortgage and are 'forced to rent' as opposed to 'only renting'.
Why the double standard in the media and society?

Sarn

Hmm, an accidental LL would be one that, for example, bought a 1 bed apartment, got married, had a family and found their accommodation unsuitable. The issue would be that they couldn’t sell the apartment due to being unable to clear the mortgage. In the event that they had to rent a bigger place, I suppose you could call them accidental tenants as well as accidental LLs. In this case they never intended to be a LL.

As much as people don’t like it, renting is considered a normal part of life for most people at some stage of their lives. With very few exceptions, there is nothing accidental about it which is why the term isn’t used. Having your home burn down and finding yourself temporarily renting could at a stretch be considered an accidental tenant.

handlemaster

zell12 wrote: »

Given the amount of accidental landlords that exist
Why the silence on accidental tenants?

Surely most are 'accidental tenants', yet this phrase is absent in social discourse.
Some people cannot afford/obtain a mortgage and are 'forced to rent' as opposed to 'only renting'.
Why the double standard in the media and society?

nice try but that doesn't work. standard is to rent so its not accidental.

Sleeper12

zell12 wrote:

Surely most are 'accidental tenants', yet this phrase is absent in social discourse. Some people cannot afford/obtain a mortgage and are 'forced to rent' as opposed to 'only renting'. Why the double standard in the media and society?

The accidental landlord is a new thing from the last decade or so.

Since the start of time we've had people who want to buy something that they can't afford. I own my own home, Mortgage free, but before the got my mortgage almost 30 years ago I couldn't afford a house. Not being able to afford a house is not a new thing nor is it a unique thing. Almost everyone has been in that situation at some stage.

stinkbomb

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not being able to afford a house is not a new thing nor is it a unique thing. Almost everyone has been in that situation at some stage.

No, but at some times it is much easier to buy a house than others. It's not a static equation.

PhoenixParker

I’d be far more in favor of getting rid of the idiotic term “accidental landlord” then adding a new one for tenants.

noodler

Renting is becoming more normal but it's now where near the norm in this country.

Sleeper12

stinkbomb wrote:

No, but at some times it is much easier to buy a house than others. It's not a static equation.

That doesn't make you an accidental tenant. You do what we have all, always done. Rent till you can afford to buy. I did it 30 years ago and my parents did it 60 odd years ago. They lived in tenements back in the day. I can promise you they weren't there by choice.

stinkbomb

I didn't say it did. And its not a case of "rent until you can afford to buy, as we have all done" for many, it's "rent forever as you will never be able to afford to buy", which was my point. Some people can never afford to buy, but it isn't always just the most obvious people.

Sleeper12

stinkbomb wrote:

I didn't say it did. And its not a case of "rent until you can afford to buy, as we have all done" for many, it's "rent forever as you will never be able to afford to buy", which was my point. Some people can never afford to buy, but it isn't always just the most obvious people.

This has always been the case. Plenty of people my age or my parents age never got to buy a house even though they worked all their lives. It's not a god given right to own a home. Some people do get to buy one & others don't. It's always been like that. It might be harder now but it was worse for most in the 80s. With no job you couldn't get a house. We had higher unemployment in the 80s than we had in the last 10 years. High unemployment lasted much longer then too

stinkbomb

No it hasn't always been as it is now, don't be so silly. Of course some people have never been able to buy, as I said. But at some points it was far far easier to buy than at other points in time. Which part of that are you not understanding?

In the early 70's a family could buy a house in the suburbs of Dublin on one public servant wage. In the mid 90's it wasn't too hard. There isn't a hope in hell of that now. It's not static, the ratios change and the relative purchasing power varies wildly over time.

There are people now who are renting who in most other periods would be homeowners.

Sleeper12

stinkbomb wrote: »

No it hasn't always been as it is now, don't be so silly. Of course some people have never been able to buy, as I said. But at some points it was far far easier to buy than at other points in time. Which part of that are you not understanding?

In the early 70's a family could buy a house in the suburbs of Dublin on one public servant wage. In the mid 90's it wasn't too hard. There isn't a hope in hell of that now. It's not static, the ratios change and the relative purchasing power varies wildly over time.

There are people now who are renting who in most other periods would be homeowners.

And at other times it was even harder to buy than it is today. It was harder in the 80s to buy a house for many because we had 20% unemployment. When you did get a job there were three rates of tax. You started around 30% & paid this on almost everything. Very little in tax free allowance back then & the top rare was 65%. When you wanted to buy something you realized that most goods had a 35% VAT rate. Interest rates on your mortgage averaged 13% in the 80s but could shout up to 20%.


The 80s was a lost decade to many


Don't be feeling sorry for yourself thing no one has ever had it as bad as me. Unless you lived in the 80s you haven't a clue how tough things can be

eoghan104

What an utterly pointless thread.

3DataModem

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was harder in the 80s to buy a house for many because we had 20% unemployment.

In the 1970's and early 1980's you had to beg and cajole your bank manager - sometimes over a period of years - to be allowed to submit an application for for a mortgage. This was the case even if you had a civil service or semi-state job. Marriage was a pre-requisite for most applications, and an absolute pre-requisite if you were a woman.

And then the interest rate; when they dropped below 10% for the first time in decades in the early 1990s people thought it was a miracle. 13-15% had been the norm.

There are a lot of people being left behind by the current economy in Dublin and Ireland as a whole, but a lot more people are a lot better off.

Diemos

I think you are being a bit short sighted in shutting down the op's point.

Yes, things were tougher in the 80's. No one would argue that.
But the pool of people affected was much smaller, the unemployed or those working in the black market. I.E. Claiming and working on the side.
Growing up most of the fathers in my estate worked but only 3 would be officially employed.

Yes, interest rates were incredibly high but house prices where incredibly low.

I would also agrue that very very few college graduates in the 80's were unable to buy if they wanted to. You can not say that today.

There are a generation in our cities who have done everything right, worked hard in school, completed their education, got good jobs but find themselves unable to get a foot on the ladder. The demographic today is different from the 80's.
Yes, you can argue about the avocado toast and the latte's and the brand new car on pcp that are also barriers to entry but that's another discussion.

Sleeper12

Diemos wrote:

Yes, things were tougher in the 80's. No one would argue that. But the pool of people affected was much smaller, the unemployed or those working in the black market. I.E. Claiming and working on the side. Growing up most of the fathers in my estate worked but on 3 would be officially employed.

We have a bigger population now so it effects more but the effect lasted longer in the 70s and 80s. The dole was so small you'd never see unemployed in the pub. The state pension was tiny and even children allowance barely bought you a pack of nappies per month. Today pensioners and unemployed people have more disposable income than someone on the average industrial wage in the 70s and 80s. Many took hardship from their 20s right through life into retirement.

I do feel sorry for people renting & trying to save for a mortgage today. My own kids are in their 20s are still living at home and nether one can afford to rent let alone buy. My only point is that this isn't unique to this generation

Diemos

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We have a bigger population now so it effects more but the effect lasted longer in the 70s and 80s. The dole was so small you'd never see unemployed in the pub. The state pension was tiny and even children allowance barely bought you a pack of nappies per month. Today pensioners and unemployed people have more disposable income than someone on the average industrial wage in the 70s and 80s. Many took hardship from their 20s right through life into retirement.

I do feel sorry for people renting & trying to save for a mortgage today. My own kids are in their 20s are still living at home and nether one can afford to rent let alone buy. My only point is that this isn't unique to this generation

The pubs in my village were packed every weekend with dole recipients, but as I said they were also working. It was an open secret. Maybe different parts of the country had it tough though.

Sleeper12

Diemos wrote:

The pubs in my village were packed every weekend with dole recipients, but as I said they were also working. It was an open secret. Maybe different parts of the country had it tough though.

We have a black economy today too. Not a single day goes by without someone asking me not to charge VAT & do a "cash job"

The difference is today you can be on the dole & afford to go to the pub without doing nixers

Thoie

Diemos wrote: »

I think you are being a bit short sighted in shutting down the op's point.

Yes, things were tougher in the 80's. No one would argue that.
But the pool of people affected was much smaller, the unemployed or those working in the black market. I.E. Claiming and working on the side.
Growing up most of the fathers in my estate worked but only 3 would be officially employed.

Yes, interest rates were incredibly high but house prices where incredibly low.

House prices seem low when looking at the numbers from today's perspective. Salaries were also an awful lot lower at that time, and a single salary was the norm - things were only starting to trend towards dual incomes in Ireland at that stage. It wasn't that long before that the marriage ban had been lifted. As dual incomes became more common, but the majority of families still earned a single income, this put pressure on house prices too - house prices started to rise beyond the means of a single income in a very short space of time.

Diemos wrote: »

I would also agrue that very very few college graduates in the 80's were unable to buy if they wanted to. You can not say that today.

Not in Ireland - a huge portion of them had to emigrate, because there were no jobs. And emigration was harder pre-internet, pre-cheap flights. Contact with home was mostly confined to writing and posting letters. Not every house had a phone at the time, so you couldn't even phone home on a regular basis, even if you could afford the cost of the call. People going to the UK and Germany (popular destinations) might at least make it home by boat from time to time. People going to America didn't "pop home" very often, if at all.

Diemos wrote: »

There are a generation in our cities who have done everything right, worked hard in school, completed their education, got good jobs but find themselves unable to get a foot on the ladder. The demographic today is different from the 80's.
Yes, you can argue about the avocado toast and the latte's and the brand new car on pcp that are also barriers to entry but that's another discussion.

Take a look at the CSO piece on Purchasing Power (the rest of that is interesting too)

Sleeper12

Thoie wrote: »

House prices seem low when looking at the numbers from today's perspective. Salaries were also an awful lot lower at that time, and a single salary was the norm - things were only starting to trend towards dual incomes in Ireland at that stage. It wasn't that long before that the marriage ban had been lifted. As dual incomes became more common, but the majority of families still earned a single income, this put pressure on house prices too - house prices started to rise beyond the means of a single income in a very short space of time.


Not in Ireland - a huge portion of them had to emigrate, because there were no jobs. And emigration was harder pre-internet, pre-cheap flights. Contact with home was mostly confined to writing and posting letters. Not every house had a phone at the time, so you couldn't even phone home on a regular basis, even if you could afford the cost of the call. People going to the UK and Germany (popular destinations) might at least make it home by boat from time to time. People going to America didn't "pop home" very often, if at all.



Take a look at the CSO piece on Purchasing Power (the rest of that is interesting too)

Totally agree.

On third level graduates don't forget there wern't that many. There was no free collage in the 80s. little or no grants for collage. If your parents didn't hav ethe cash to send you to collage then you didn't go. There were little or no part time jobs to support yourself while studding

JDD

Obviously this is anecdotal, but, I do believe it is much harder for middle-income earners to become home owners now than it was in 80's.

My parents bought a four bed do-er upper in the Dublin suburbs in 1982. We were a single income family, three kids, and my Dad was a mid-level public servant, paying the astronomical taxes that were in place at the time. I am now working in the same public service entity in nearly the exact same job he was doing (I know, weird). I am the same age he was when he bought the house, with three kids. However, we are a double income family, with my husband earning more than I do. In order for us to buy a similar house in the same area, we would need to double our combined income. That essentially means we now need to have four times the income my Dad had to have to buy the same house.

So yes, there was more unemployment in the 80's, and lower pay. But when it comes to property, a much larger proportion of the population was able to afford to own their own house.

PhoenixParker

JDD wrote: »

Obviously this is anecdotal, but, I do believe it is much harder for middle-income earners to become home owners now than it was in 80's.

My parents bought a four bed do-er upper in the Dublin suburbs in 1982. We were a single income family, three kids, and my Dad was a mid-level public servant, paying the astronomical taxes that were in place at the time. I am now working in the same public service entity in nearly the exact same job he was doing (I know, weird). I am the same age he was when he bought the house, with three kids. However, we are a double income family, with my husband earning more than I do. In order for us to buy a similar house in the same area, we would need to double our combined income. That essentially means we now need to have four times the income my Dad had to have to buy the same house.

So yes, there was more unemployment in the 80's, and lower pay. But when it comes to property, a much larger proportion of the population was able to afford to own their own house.

One thing when making a comparison like this is to consider the area your parents bought in, as it was when they bought it. The area around that similar house has changed beyond recognition.

Thinking of my own parents, they bought in D15, new build in 1981 - Laurel Lodge. Laurel Lodge then is probably what Ongar or Dunboyne or further afield are now. There was no 100,000 jobs around the corner in Ballycoolin, shopping involved the city centre, groceries were a mile away in Roselawn, the school hadnt been built etc.

Your parents bought in a city of well under a million, in a backward poor country on the periphery of Europe. Dublin then is probably more comparable to Belfast now.

BrokenArrows

Thread title is a bit stupid but the conversation on the thread is accurate.

There was a time when someone with an average-good job could afford to get a mortgage, pay for his wife to stay at home and pay for his 4 kids.

I would consider that I currently have a very good job and pays far more than the average salary, but the only way I was able to be granted my mortgage was for my wife's salary to be taken into account. I could easily have afforded the monthly repayments by myself but that's not enough for the banks.

Apart from the mortgage I might be able to allow my wife to not work if I really needed to. But there is no way I could afford to support her and and one child nevermind 4.

Thoie

JDD wrote: »

Obviously this is anecdotal, but, I do believe it is much harder for middle-income earners to become home owners now than it was in 80's.

My parents bought a four bed do-er upper in the Dublin suburbs in 1982. We were a single income family, three kids, and my Dad was a mid-level public servant, paying the astronomical taxes that were in place at the time. I am now working in the same public service entity in nearly the exact same job he was doing (I know, weird). I am the same age he was when he bought the house, with three kids. However, we are a double income family, with my husband earning more than I do. In order for us to buy a similar house in the same area, we would need to double our combined income. That essentially means we now need to have four times the income my Dad had to have to buy the same house.

So yes, there was more unemployment in the 80's, and lower pay. But when it comes to property, a much larger proportion of the population was able to afford to own their own house.

As Phoenix pointed out, you're not necessarily comparing like with like in terms of the houses being bought.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Thread title is a bit stupid but the conversation on the thread is accurate.

There was a time when someone with an average-good job could afford to get a mortgage, pay for his wife to stay at home and pay for his 4 kids.

I would consider that I currently have a very good job and pays far more than the average salary, but the only way I was able to be granted my mortgage was for my wife's salary to be taken into account. I could easily have afforded the monthly repayments by myself but that's not enough for the banks.

Apart from the mortgage I might be able to allow my wife to not work if I really needed to. But there is no way I could afford to support her and and one child nevermind 4.

As far as I can see, the difference from the 80s is the prevalence now of dual incomes. The marriage bar was lifted in 1973 in Ireland, but it was probably the very late 80s, early 90s when two incomes became the norm. Many women who had to stop work when they married are now in their 70s, and never returned to the workforce - I'd guess that was the majority, but have no figures on that.

Once two incomes in a mortgage application became the norm, house prices went up in tandem, to the point that you now more or less need two incomes for a mortgage. This doesn't take into account the cost of childcare, etc, so many families now find themselves in the position of one salary more or less being entirely spent on childcare while both parents work.

With hindsight, it would have been better if the banks had only ever allowed a single income on a mortgage application. It would have slowed the rapid rise of house prices, and give families the option for one parent to stay at home if they wanted. The reduced pressure on childcare places would have helped moderate the cost of childcare for those people who wanted/needed it. It would also level the playing field for people who are single, few of whom can compete against dual incomes.

However, I suspect it's too late now - trying to switch to that "rule" at this stage would cause havoc.

JDD

One thing when making a comparison like this is to consider the area your
parents bought in, as it was when they bought it. The area around that similar
house has changed beyond recognition.

It was Ballsbridge. It was posh then, it's posh now. There really isn't a difference in jobs or facilities. Now, it was a wreck when they bought it, but there's absolutely NO WAY we would be able to afford to buy that house if it went on the market now in the state it was in when they bought it, and that's taking into account that prices have gone up to reflect the availability of two incomes, as we would have two incomes available to buy it.

No only would we not be able to afford that house, but we wouldn't be able to afford a similar house within the surrounding five or six suburbs. Like it or not, even with the crippling taxes of the early eighties, house prices were lower and more middle income families could afford to get on the "ladder". Why is that? Well, the price of new houses would set a marker I suppose. It was cheaper to build a house, as labour was cheaper. I wouldn't say that building regulations have added much to the cost, as the houses built in 1970's and 80's were well built and well proportioned. It was only when massive profits were to be made in the late 90's and early 00's that the standard of new builds fell and regulations became a necessity.

And there's no avoiding it, we have to talk about the expectations of construction company owners. Those who owned building companies didn't expect to make millions in the 1980's. They were well off in comparison to the rest of the population for sure but they didn't own hotels in the Bahamas or keep a helicopter in the back garden. The Celtic Tiger has ensured that there is a current mindset amongst construction company owners that they must claw back what they lost during the Recession and return to the millions in the bank they once had. That's definitely feeding the price of new builds now.

I'm in my 40's and I will be the first generation who will be less well off than my parents. I don't expect a house in Ballsbridge, but it's taken me 15 years longer than they did to be in a position to buy a house. So all of this "what are you whining about, the 1980's were much worse" irks me to be honest. Yes, you're take home pay was lower, but you had security, whether that be regarding a roof over your head or in your job itself. Those things are way more important than whether you can afford to buy gadgets or go on holidays. On balance we are much worse off now.

And for those who say "times have changed, nobody is guaranteed a house anymore, no other country expects the high levels of home ownership that we Irish do, everybody rents, get over it", I say that absolutely fine if this country would ever set itself to protect security of tenure for renters like every other country who has a high rental proportion.

pwurple

Well, you know what... I couldn't buy a place in NYC when I lived there, and I couldn't buy a place in switzerland when I lived there, and I couldn't buy a place in Ireland until I saved up, worked my ass off and combined my income with another person. This is the way it was 20 years ago, it's the way it was 40 years ago, it's the way it is now.

On areas, they get more popular, they get gentrified, and the population increases, supply decreases, so there is more competition.
Again, the way it has always been, in every city I've ever lived in.

TBH, I didn't want to buy anyway. Was there for a few years, then move on. Don't get the buying obsession myself, unless you're at the stage when you know you're there for the long term.


What is really different now...

1) Standards. Houses are more expensive to build and renovate. They are far better insulated now, more expensive materials, and more gizmos in them. Underfloor heating, heat exchangers, all that craic. Builders get a higher wage (less tax evasion going on there). People are getting paid a decent wage to produce higher quality stock. Which is as it should be. And this higher quality, above board work has to be paid for by someone = more expensive.

2) Number of people in a housing unit. I've never ever lived alone. From the moment I left home, I house shared, then when we bought, we rented out rooms again. We had lodgers for years, until the mortgage was paid off. The amount of people I know who live in 3 bedroom houses, using one bedroom. The expectation of how much space you should have is so much higher than before. Solo living? New fangled notion that also reduces stock.

Claw Hammer

pwurple wrote: »

What is really different now...

1) Standards. Houses are more expensive to build and renovate. They are far better insulated now, more expensive materials, and more gizmos in them. Underfloor heating, heat exchangers, all that craic. Builders get a higher wage (less tax evasion going on there). People are getting paid a decent wage to produce higher quality stock. Which is as it should be. And this higher quality, above board work has to be paid for by someone = more expensive.

2) Number of people in a housing unit. I've never ever lived alone. From the moment I left home, I house shared, then when we bought, we rented out rooms again. We had lodgers for years, until the mortgage was paid off. The amount of people I know who live in 3 bedroom houses, using one bedroom. The expectation of how much space you should have is so much higher than before. Solo living? New fangled notion that also reduces stock.

Victorian houses were built to much higher standards than nowadays. The fireplaces and plaster work and detailing of brickwork, the quality of the roof slate is far superior to the junk that is put in houses nowadays.
The Victorians filled their houses. look at the 1901 census. plenty of multigenerational living and very few single occupant households.


What is different now is that there is so much moaning about the cost of housing and rent.

JDD

I don't know anyone living alone in a three bed house. I don't know anyone living alone in a two bed house.

In fact, out of all my single friends and family, only one owns their own apartment on their own, bought during the whole affordable housing scheme thing in 2004/2005. They rent out the second bedroom. Anyone else has bought with a brother or sister, and nobody has a spare room.

Yes, everyone has to save to buy a house. That is of course, a given. And I agree with you that I wouldn't buy somewhere if I wasn't sure that this was the place I was happy to settle down in. If I lived in Paris or Rotterdam or Munich, I'd be happy to rent with my family indefinitely. Because I'd be sure that when I put my child into the local school, I wouldn't have to take them out two years later and make them start somewhere new, because my landlord has decided to sell, or "renovate" so that they can increase the rent. This country is not set up for long term rental. It is as simple as that. So that's where the house buying obsession comes from. You have a family, you don't want to be moving around. You want stability. And in Ireland, you can only get that if you buy a house.

Population of course is the issue. While there might have been 10,000 people that could afford to buy and live in Sandymount in the 1980's, there's now 100,000 with the equivalent income. A lot of people have had to rejig their expectations, and that's just a fact of life when there is population growth.

I can't make sweeping statements about whether the population have a better quality of life now or in the 1980's. I can only give my own experience. And I suppose that I am in a rather unusual position of working in nearly exactly the same job as my Dad did, with the same size family, in the same city, 35 years apart. Financially speaking, and by that I mean ability to buy assets and available pension plans, I'm definitely worse off now than I would have been if I had been working in the same job in the 1980's. Not that I would like to go back - socially we live in a much more progressive age. But for some sections of the population, we've definitely gone backwards financially.

pwurple

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Victorian houses were built to much higher standards than nowadays. The fireplaces and plaster work and detailing of brickwork, the quality of the roof slate is far superior to the junk that is put in houses nowadays.
The Victorians filled their houses. look at the 1901 census. plenty of multigenerational living and very few single occupant households.


What is different now is that there is so much moaning about the cost of housing and rent.

Sorry Claw, I'm not talking about decorative finish. I meant the actual structure of a building. I've lived in victorian and edwardian houses, and they were both in bits. We had to underpin because the victorian one had no foundation and the walls were sagging.

You can't convince me that either tiles or slate is better than today's standard of waterproof tanking.


And I think you're agreeing with me, loads of people lived in houses up to very recently altogether.

Sleeper12

Thoie wrote:

As far as I can see, the difference from the 80s is the prevalence now of dual incomes. The marriage bar was lifted in 1973 in Ireland, but it was probably the very late 80s, early 90s when two incomes became the norm. Many women who had to stop work when they married are now in their 70s, and never returned to the workforce - I'd guess that was the majority, but have no figures on that.

It def was well into the 90s bef double incomes became the norm. With 20 percent unemployment in the late 80s there just wasn't enough work for everyone. This obviously was the start of pushing house prices forever north.

Wabbit Ears

I think accidental tenant is a real thing but its not that clear cut in the sense that, for something to be accidental, you cant have planned for it to happen. In fact, you had planned to NOT rent and had taken clear steps towards that goal.

Having your own house and find yourself having to rent because you got an unexpected job offer on the other side of the country is an accidental tenant.

Losing a job and having to sell your house or having it and end up renting is an accidental tenant.


Buying a house you could never afford the repayments on and defaulting on the mortgage cannot reasonably be considered accidental.

Just having to rent before you buy or when you move out and still cant afford to buy or you don't meet borrowing rules etc etc etc all do not fall into what I would consider accidental renting.

Claw Hammer

pwurple wrote: »

Sorry Claw, I'm not talking about decorative finish. I meant the actual structure of a building. I've lived in victorian and edwardian houses, and they were both in bits. We had to underpin because the victorian one had no foundation and the walls were sagging.

You can't convince me that either tiles or slate is better than today's standard of waterproof tanking.


And I think you're agreeing with me, loads of people lived in houses up to very recently altogether.

Two house, which are 100+ years old. many well maintained Victorian houses are of a far superior structure than the current modern houses. What wil the current house be ike in 100 years? When the cube and skylights are leaking and the PVC is degrading we will see how good they are.

handlemaster

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I think accidental tenant is a real thing but its not that clear cut in the sense that, for something to be accidental, you cant have planned for it to happen. In fact, you had planned to NOT rent and had taken clear steps towards that goal.

Having your own house and find yourself having to rent because you got an unexpected job offer on the other side of the country is an accidental tenant.

Losing a job and having to sell your house or having it and end up renting is an accidental tenant.


Buying a house you could never afford the repayments on and defaulting on the mortgage cannot reasonably be considered accidental.

Just having to rent before you buy or when you move out and still cant afford to buy or you don't meet borrowing rules etc etc etc all do not fall into what I would consider accidental renting.

I had planned to never work but have to, I am an accidental worker