A few basic questions about renting

ECO_Mental

Hi,

I haven't rented in over 20 years but I in the process of selling my current house (closing early Jan 2010) and building a house over the next year (and half...) anyway I am going to have to rent as my family of 4 inc 2 teenagers do not want to live with granny.

One or two questions though. I am planning to build and in the middle of doing up detailed tender drawings and going to tender mid Jan. 2020 but if the tenders come back with crazy prices I might change my mind and just buy a nice 4 bed house instead.

Now if I sign a one year lease but end up to buying a house in 6 months time can I just quit the lease and what are the penalties to me. Would I just loose the deposit? or can they chase me down for the remaining 6 months rent?

Another question I have a dog....big problem apparently when renting I am finding out. Now hes a cute little Cockapoo and does no damage but if I say nothing and sneak him into a house obviously they can kick me out, but is that the biggest risk and loose my deposit again

DubCount

On the term, a 1 year lease is a 1 year commitment. If you terminate before the end of the 1 year, you are still legally committed to the term. Its a contract, so can be altered with the agreement of the LL. If you break the lease, you may not get your deposit back and could be taken to court for the total loss suffered by the LL resulting from your early termination (though I reckon that's unlikely).

The dog is a problem. You think its not going to cause damage or be any problem, but for a LL that does not know you, lots of possible tenants that don't have a dogs will be more attractive. The lease will likely state no pets allowed. You could try to offer a higher deposit to allow for any damage the dog might cause. Its not going to make the search any easier in a market that's already difficult.

Stop moaning ffs

If the dog is that small say nothing. They don’t need to know. And never will.

Browney7

DubCount wrote: »

On the term, a 1 year lease is a 1 year commitment. If you terminate before the end of the 1 year, you are still legally committed to the term. Its a contract, so can be altered with the agreement of the LL. If you break the lease, you may not get your deposit back and could be taken to court for the total loss suffered by the LL resulting from your early termination (though I reckon that's unlikely).

The dog is a problem. You think its not going to cause damage or be any problem, but for a LL that does not know you, lots of possible tenants that don't have a dogs will be more attractive. The lease will likely state no pets allowed. You could try to offer a higher deposit to allow for any damage the dog might cause. Its not going to make the search any easier in a market that's already difficult.

Or the OP finds someone to assign the lease to - if LL refuses the OP can walk away with statutory notice. In this market a LL will never go to court to enforce the lease, people are falling over themselves to get a viewing let alone a property.

terrydel

In this day and age, you are probably doing the landlord a favour leaving early, as given how much demand outstrips supply, they will find another tenant very quickly and can possibly get more than they were charging you.

I rent and have two medium-large dogs. Renting with dogs is a nightmare here.

robo

terrydel wrote: »

In this day and age, you are probably doing the landlord a favour leaving early, as given how much demand outstrips supply, they will find another tenant very quickly and can possibly get more than they were charging you.

Not necessarily true - a LL has more to do and pay for if the lease is broken, yes in some parts of the country there is high demand. But that just means when a LL puts (and pays) for an advert on Daft, they have to filter through a lot of replies or phone calls to find the tenants that they wish to rent to. I doubt that you are doing the LL a favour breaking a one year lease.

Fia11

I once broke a 1 year lease after 9 months. Informed the LL at 6 months that we were moving, lined up other tenants but the LL refused to take anyone on (as was their right). Ended up paying for the full 12 months and losing our deposit. Lesson learned, via a messy process.

cruizer101

I thought if ll refused assignment you could end the tenancy, and that is my reading of this from rtb website.

Assignment can only take place with the consent of the landlord. Where a landlord refuses an assignment of a fixed term tenancy, a tenant can serve a notice of termination on the landlord.

Fia11

cruizer101 wrote: »

I thought if ll refused assignment you could end the tenancy, and that is my reading of this from rtb website.

Assignment can only take place with the consent of the landlord. Where a landlord refuses an assignment of a fixed term tenancy, a tenant can serve a notice of termination on the landlord.

This was about ten years ago, the RTB were involved and still we didn't 'win' so to speak. Perhaps things have changed. The situation at the time was that if the LL agreed to take on the tenant we could leave at 9 months. The LL agreed, we made arrangements, but then the LL changed their mind. The replacement tenants we found were perfect, they were lovely people who lived a few doors down and wanted to rent for the 3 month period while their property was renovated.

We thought we were in the right and so went to the RTB who said we really weren't. An expensive error.

ECO_Mental

Fia11 wrote: »

I once broke a 1 year lease after 9 months. Informed the LL at 6 months that we were moving, lined up other tenants but the LL refused to take anyone on (as was their right). Ended up paying for the full 12 months and losing our deposit. Lesson learned, via a messy process.

Did they take you to the small claims court to get the remaining 3 months rent? or did they threaten to take you if you didn't pay.


just for everybodies information I'm looking to rent in Cork City, crazy like everywhere else I presume. First day and first viewing the agent told me "welcome to hell".... :P

Fia11

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Did they take you to the small claims court to get the remaining 3 months rent? or did they threaten to take you if you didn't pay.


just for everybodies information I'm looking to rent in Cork City, crazy like everywhere else I presume. First day and first viewing the agent told me "welcome to hell".... :P

I'm slightly hazy on the details as some time has passed, but I think it was a Tenancy Tribunal. The RTB had tried mediating on our behalf, but the LL wasn't having it. It was nasty. The LL had multiple solicitors present at the meeting, it was incredibly intimidating. We did not realise it would be so formal.

We just had the nice lady from the RTB with us, who was also seriously intimidated. It has taught me to be a stickler about any sort of contract, and not to expect any sort of reasonable accommodations, because this LL didn't make any.

Edgware

Why do Irish people not accept that a contract is a legally enforceable agreement?

terrydel

Edgware wrote: »

Why do Irish people not accept that a contract is a legally enforceable agreement?

Why do people insist on making sweeping generalisations they can't back up?

Gumbo

terrydel wrote: »

Why do people insist on making sweeping generalisations they can't back up?

In fairness, the OP specifically asks about breaking the lease 9 months into a 12 month contract so I think his/her comment is sufficiently backed up in this case.

sportsfan90

Fia11 wrote: »

I once broke a 1 year lease after 9 months. Informed the LL at 6 months that we were moving, lined up other tenants but the LL refused to take anyone on (as was their right). Ended up paying for the full 12 months and losing our deposit. Lesson learned, via a messy process.

I can understand you having to pay for the full 12 months rent, but what justification was given for not returning your deposit? Or was that for a separate matter?

skallywag

terrydel wrote: »

Why do people insist on making sweeping generalisations they can't back up?

I think that the statement was a completely valid one, and I cannot see where the sweeping generalization is?

I totally agree that Irish people tend to view rental contracts in a different light than they are viewed in countries which have very mature rental markets.

I have rented myself in such countries, and the situation is crystal clear. If I am bound by my contract to stay for 12 months in a rental, and I want to leave beforehand, then, unless there is a notice period defined within that 12 months, I am fully legally obliged to pay the rent for that 12 months. If I leave early, and refuse to pay the rent for the remainder of the contract, then the landlord will rightly pursue me, I will be bought to court (very easily) and be forced to pay. I will also then be hit with hefty legal fees.

If Ireland really wants to mature in the rental market space then the same attitude / enforcement needs to happen, in my book.

Samuel T. Cogley

There is, rightly, a duty to mitigate loss.

terrydel

kceire wrote: »

In fairness, the OP specifically asks about breaking the lease 9 months into a 12 month contract so I think his/her comment is sufficiently backed up in this case.

No it isn't, he said irish people, not some irish people.
The OP is (possibly) one irish person, not the entire population.

terrydel

skallywag wrote: »

I think that the statement was a completely valid one, and I cannot see where the sweeping generalization is?

I totally agree that Irish people tend to view rental contracts in a different light than they are viewed in countries which have very mature rental markets.

I have rented myself in such countries, and the situation is crystal clear. If I am bound by my contract to stay for 12 months in a rental, and I want to leave beforehand, then, unless there is a notice period defined within that 12 months, I am fully legally obliged to pay the rent for that 12 months. If I leave early, and refuse to pay the rent for the remainder of the contract, then the landlord will rightly pursue me, I will be bought to court (very easily) and be forced to pay. I will also then be hit with hefty legal fees.

If Ireland really wants to mature in the rental market space then the same attitude / enforcement needs to happen, in my book.

Unless it can be backed up with facts that show at the very least a majority of irish people don't respect or honour contracts, it's a generalisation, simple as that.

skallywag

terrydel wrote: »

Unless it can be backed up with facts that show at the very least a majority of irish people don't respect or honour contracts, it's a generalisation, simple as that.

I know several Irish people (some of which are friends of mine) who thought nothing of not honouring their rental agreement when it suited them, as they assumed (rightly so in these particular cases) that the landlord just would not be bothering pursuing them.

I have also have had the experience of living abroad, for many years, where I have never seen the same behaviour, because it was a given that if you renenged on the agreement you would be done for it in the courts, and you will most certainly lose.

I cannot give you any links etc. to back this up, I can only tell you what I have experienced myself.

terrydel

skallywag wrote: »

I know several Irish people (some of which are friends of mine) who thought nothing of not honouring their rental agreement when it suited them, as they assumed (rightly so in these particular cases) that the landlord just would not be bothering pursuing them.

I have also have had the experience of living abroad, for many years, where I have never seen the same behaviour, because it was a given that if you renenged on the agreement you would be done for it in the courts, and you will most certainly lose.

I cannot give you any links etc. to back this up, I can only tell you what I have experienced myself.

And I know many people who entirely honour and respect contracts, rental and otherwise, thru my time as a landlord, a tenant and away from that. But it would still be a generalisation for me to say all irish people are like that.

Stop moaning ffs

It’s not really a loss though is it for a landlord?
If someone leaves 9months into a lease of 12, in this market, landlord would have someone new in in no time

So why have to pay the remaining months AND lose deposit?

Seems unfair

skallywag

terrydel wrote: »

But it would still be a generalisation for me to say all irish people are like that.

Ireland is the only place that I have lived in where such carry-on can even be entertained as working out for the tenant. When I have lived in Belgium, France & Germany there is no possible way that the tenant would even possibly think about not honouring their contract. It is just a non-starter.

The attitude in Ireland is definitely different though. 'Ah sure if I leave, she will find another family to move in anyway in a week, etc.'

I really do no think that Irish people, in general, look on rental contracts as something legally binding. As in the way they may look at other legal contracts which they enter into.

skallywag

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s not really a loss though is it for a landlord?
If someone leaves 9months into a lease of 12, in this market, landlord would have someone new in in no time

This post really backs up my own previous post. The whole 'in this market' vibe.

The legal agreement between tenant and landlord is just not taken seriously.

Stop moaning ffs

skallywag wrote: »

This post really backs up my own previous post. The whole 'in this market' vibe.

The legal agreement between tenant and landlord is just not taken seriously.

We have a very different outlook culturally to things like property and tenancy. Colonial hangover maybe. But it isn’t that big a deal.
I’m renting and had a room let on a licensee basis with a guy and month by month basis.
6 months into it he was all apologies and moving in with his fella and that wasn’t a problem at all. Was sorry to see him go but it worked for him and me and subsequent housemates.
Just had to put an ad on daft and screen a few people to find a new housemate. A few hours hassle but that’s all.

I don’t buy it being a huge trauma and loss or the landlord. It really isn’t. It’s a money grab. Especially keeping the deposit even though the total has been paid. Greed
And yes, especially in this market.

terrydel

skallywag wrote: »

Ireland is the only place that I have lived in where such carry-on can even be entertained as working out for the tenant. When I have lived in Belgium, France & Germany there is no possible way that the tenant would even possibly think about not honouring their contract. It is just a non-starter.

The attitude in Ireland is definitely different though. 'Ah sure if I leave, she will find another family to move in anyway in a week, etc.'

I really do no think that Irish people, in general, look on rental contracts as something legally binding. As in the way they may look at other legal contracts which they enter into.

Have you been a landlord or tenant here? I have been both, the former around 12 years and the latter longer, and my experience does not tally with that generalisation at all.

terrydel

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

We have a very different outlook culturally to things like property and tenancy. Colonial hangover maybe. But it isn’t that big a deal.
I’m renting and had a room let on a licensee basis with a guy and month by month basis.
6 months into it he was all apologies and moving in with his fella and that wasn’t a problem at all. Was sorry to see him go but it worked for him and me and subsequent housemates.
Just had to put an ad on daft and screen a few people to find a new housemate. A few hours hassle but that’s all.

I don’t buy it being a huge trauma and loss or the landlord. It really isn’t. It’s a money grab. Especially keeping the deposit even though the total has been paid. Greed
And yes, especially in this market.

The prevailing attitude here is always 'poor landlord', 'tenants are all out to take advantage' etc.

skallywag

terrydel wrote: »

Have you been a landlord or tenant here? I have been both, the former around 12 years and the latter longer, and my experience does not tally with that generalisation at all.

Both myself as well, in Ireland.

I am not saying that the majority of Irish folk are like that, the majority are decent. But you come across people who think it's fine to behave like that, and many of my own friends also think along the same lines.

While I have lived in mainland Europe, on the other hand, it was unheard of for folk to carry the same mentality.

terrydel

skallywag wrote: »

Both myself as well, in Ireland.

I am not saying that the majority of Irish folk are like that, the majority are decent. But you come across people who think it's fine to behave like that, and many of my own friends also think along the same lines.

While I have lived in mainland Europe, on the other hand, it was unheard of for folk to carry the same mentality.

Exactly, that's my point, to say 'irish people' is to paint all with the same brush, it's a generalisation and you've just said yourself that the majority are not like that.
There are good and bad, my experience is that if anything the vast majority are good and a small percentage are not.

fash

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

We have a very different outlook culturally to things like property and tenancy. Colonial hangover maybe. But it isn’t that big a deal.
I’m renting and had a room let on a licensee basis with a guy and month by month basis.
6 months into it he was all apologies and moving in with his fella and that wasn’t a problem at all. Was sorry to see him go but it worked for him and me and subsequent housemates.
Just had to put an ad on daft and screen a few people to find a new housemate. A few hours hassle but that’s all.

I don’t buy it being a huge trauma and loss or the landlord. It really isn’t. It’s a money grab. Especially keeping the deposit even though the total has been paid. Greed
And yes, especially in this market.

Yes, I don't buy the poster above who said they had a perfectly reasonable tenant lined up - who the landlord refused. The tenant has a legal right to assign or sublet- and that is written into the RTA- and I would be quite surprised if the RTB was unaware of the RTA.
Furthermore, I cannot believe that the RTB forced said poster to pay 3 months rent (i.e. the remaining 3 of a 12 month lease) for renting the place. The landlord has a legal duty to mitigate his losses. Once the tenant left, the landlord can rent again within (say) 3 weeks. In reality the landlord will/should have factored in doing so at month 12 - and the loss is pulling this forward to month 9. So max loss is say 3 weeks rent (or arguably less) plus daft fees.
Arguably though it is said cost divided by 4 since in fact landlord should have factored in spending that at month 12 anyway. Had the landlord to do it at month 0, then the full amount is due, but at it gets closer to 12 months, the loss becomes less- dropping to 0 loss at 12 months. 3 months left/12= 1/4th of this.

Edgware

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s not really a loss though is it for a landlord?
If someone leaves 9months into a lease of 12, in this market, landlord would have someone new in in no time

So why have to pay the remaining months AND lose deposit?

Seems unfair

Life's a bitch.

The Student

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

We have a very different outlook culturally to things like property and tenancy. Colonial hangover maybe. But it isn’t that big a deal.
I’m renting and had a room let on a licensee basis with a guy and month by month basis.
6 months into it he was all apologies and moving in with his fella and that wasn’t a problem at all. Was sorry to see him go but it worked for him and me and subsequent housemates.
Just had to put an ad on daft and screen a few people to find a new housemate. A few hours hassle but that’s all.

I don’t buy it being a huge trauma and loss or the landlord. It really isn’t. It’s a money grab. Especially keeping the deposit even though the total has been paid. Greed
And yes, especially in this market.

We only have a hang up when the market is not in the tenants favour. Look back in the early 2010's when tenants left properties before the end of the lease if they found somewhere they liked better.

We don't have a "market", a market allows the setting of prices by supply and demand.

There is time and effort involved for the landlord that the landlords should not have had to incur just because the tenant decided they wanted to leave early.

terrydel

The Student wrote: »

We only have a hang up when the market is not in the tenants favour. Look back in the early 2010's when tenants left properties before the end of the lease if they found somewhere they liked better.

We don't have a "market", a market allows the setting of prices by supply and demand.

There is time and effort involved for the landlord that the landlords should not have had to incur just because the tenant decided they wanted to leave early.

How do you think the prices got to where they are now?

The Student

terrydel wrote: »

How do you think the prices got to where they are now?

The prices now are only applicable to new supply what about the existing supply at under market prices?

terrydel

The Student wrote: »

The prices now are only applicable to new supply what about the existing supply at under market prices?

Tough ****e, the alternative is massive increases in homelessness and destruction of people's lives thru in ability to afford a roof over their heads. If that discommodes a few landlords I know which I prefer.

tuisginideach

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

If the dog is that small say nothing. They don’t need to know. And never will.

Really????? I'd know the second I walked into the house.

The Student

terrydel wrote: »

Tough ****e, the alternative is massive increases in homelessness and destruction of people's lives thru in ability to afford a roof over their heads. If that discommodes a few landlords I know which I prefer.

Typical response, those who have tried to better themselves and take risk must subsidise everyone else, but if it fails for those who take the risk they are on their own.

Edgware

Letting accommodation is a business. Revenue, PRTB dont cut the landlord any slack.
Landlords let a property for a year and then get on with their life. They have more to do than waiting around to facilitate some tenant that wants to break the lease after nine months.
The tenant wll be quick enough to insist that the landlord abide by the lease if the landlord said he wanted the tenant gone after nine months

terrydel

The Student wrote: »

Typical response, those who have tried to better themselves and take risk must subsidise everyone else, but if it fails for those who take the risk they are on their own.

Ahahahaha. Where to even start with that.
So people who arent landlords and are at the mercy of rents and property price inflation have never tried to better themselves or took risks?
You are clearly of the capitalist persuasion, and yet you want to have it both ways, make profit and when your investment fails to be bailed out?
Hahahahahaha. How are you subsidizing anyone?

lawred2

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

If the dog is that small say nothing. They don’t need to know. And never will.

Hard to get rid of dog smell. An owner's nose is oblivious to it. But one quick call round from a landlord and they'll smell it.

The Student

terrydel wrote: »

Ahahahaha. Where to even start with that.
So people who arent landlords and are at the mercy of rents and property price inflation have never tried to better themselves or took risks?
You are clearly of the capitalist persuasion, and yet you want to have it both ways, make profit and when your investment fails to be bailed out?
Hahahahahaha. How are you subsidizing anyone?

Where did I say those who are renting did not take risks?

If you want a functioning market then let it function like any other market, simple law of economics when supply equals demand you get equilibrium.

You appear to be on the left, let everybody else pay for it.

Again where did I say I wanted to be bailed out? I am more than happy to let the free market decide, thats exactly what happens in every business. You do want a more professional and business like model in the rental sector don't you? Well you can't have it both ways, you either want a professional and business model for the rental sector or you don't. So what do you want?

Subsiding happens when you are restricted from acheiving market price for goods or services. Although I will give you credit you already know that and are just trolling.

Fian

Edgware wrote: »

Why do Irish people not accept that a contract is a legally enforceable agreement?

Because sometimes they aren't enforceable on their terms. Contractual agreements can be and are amended by law. The Unfair terms in consumer contracts directive and the Residential property acts are both good examples of where this occurs.

Relevant to this instance is the provision that provides that notwithstanding the terms of the lease a tenant can serve a notice of termination where a landlord refuses to agree to an assignment.

This only applies after part IV rights acquired (so after 6 months) and the relevant notice period must be given.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment/

terrydel

The Student wrote: »

Where did I say those who are renting did not take risks?

If you want a functioning market then let it function like any other market, simple law of economics when supply equals demand you get equilibrium.

You appear to be on the left, let everybody else pay for it.

Again where did I say I wanted to be bailed out? I am more than happy to let the free market decide, thats exactly what happens in every business. You do want a more professional and business like model in the rental sector don't you? Well you can't have it both ways, you either want a professional and business model for the rental sector or you don't. So what do you want?

Subsiding happens when you are restricted from acheiving market price for goods or services. Although I will give you credit you already know that and are just trolling.

But its blatantly not functioning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You view of people on the left is simplistic and laughable and the very epitome of trolling.
The free market has had total control of our housing sector for years and is solely responsible for where it is now, which is completely unfit for purpose.
You seem to want to continue that.
Answer the question. Without rent controls we'd have 100% had massive increases in homelessness. Is that what you want? Because your argument would appear to say you do.

Stop moaning ffs

lawred2 wrote: »

Hard to get rid of dog smell. An owner's nose is oblivious to it. But one quick call round from a landlord and they'll smell it.

Never thought of that

The Student

terrydel wrote: »

But its blatantly not functioning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You view of people on the left is simplistic and laughable and the very epitome of trolling.
The free market has had total control of our housing sector for years and is solely responsible for where it is now, which is completely unfit for purpose.
You seem to want to continue that.
Answer the question. Without rent controls we'd have 100% had massive increases in homelessness. Is that what you want? Because your argument would appear to say you do.

it is not functioning because of govt interference. The free market has not had control of the market, look at HAP which put a floor on rents, look at RPZ's, they don't work, this has been proven in other housing sectors in other countries.

Explain to me how you would have increases in homelessness if rent controls where not in place? do you think landlords would leave properties empty rather than not renting them? That does not make business sense.

Logic would say a landlord would set the rent at what he could get this is the basic concept of a functioning market.

terrydel

The Student wrote: »

it is not functioning because of govt interference. The free market has not had control of the market, look at HAP which put a floor on rents, look at RPZ's, they don't work, this has been proven in other housing sectors in other countries.

Explain to me how you would have increases in homelessness if rent controls where not in place? do you think landlords would leave properties empty rather than not renting them? That does not make business sense.

Logic would say a landlord would set the rent at what he could get this is the basic concept of a functioning market.

Those schemes only exist because the free market led us to the most dysfunctional housing market in the developed world, they are a symptom not the cause.
Only the most myopic of neolibs would even dare suggest that we are in this position for any other reason than the policies they espouse.
The vast majority of people entering homelessness are coming from the rental sector, fact, so even a complete idiot could see that further increases would exacerbate that. And without controls we would have seen increases, because the demand was and is there to keep driving them.

rightmove

terrydel wrote: »

Those schemes only exist because the free market led us to the most dysfunctional housing market in the developed world, they are a symptom not the cause.
Only the most myopic of neolibs would even dare suggest that we are in this position for any other reason than the policies they espouse.
The vast majority of people entering homelessness are coming from the rental sector, fact, so even a complete idiot could see that further increases would exacerbate that. And without controls we would have seen increases, because the demand was and is there to keep driving them.

Rpz and rtb meant LL selling up huge numbers of properties which were then vacant for long periods in the middle of the so called housing crisis. A lot of investors would not buy these properties as locked in below market rate ...do I need to cont?

The Student

terrydel wrote: »

Those schemes only exist because the free market led us to the most dysfunctional housing market in the developed world, they are a symptom not the cause.
Only the most myopic of neolibs would even dare suggest that we are in this position for any other reason than the policies they espouse.
The vast majority of people entering homelessness are coming from the rental sector, fact, so even a complete idiot could see that further increases would exacerbate that. And without controls we would have seen increases, because the demand was and is there to keep driving them.

You refuse to accept the fundamental laws of economics of supply v demand. Why do you think those people entering homelessness are coming from the rental sector?

ECO_Mental

lawred2 wrote: »

Hard to get rid of dog smell. An owner's nose is oblivious to it. But one quick call round from a landlord and they'll smell it.

I think I am going to have to take the risk with the dog...its either that or I'm homeless. The first agency I went to I said I had a dog and his email back to me "are you planning on keeping the dog....:eek:" yes I am keeping our family pet of 6 years :mad:


Hes a non shedding samll non destructive dog its a risk Im going to roll with. It would be a different story if it was an Alsatian or a couple or golden retrievers

terrydel

rightmove wrote: »

Rpz and rtb meant LL selling up huge numbers of properties which were then vacant for long periods in the middle of the so called housing crisis. A lot of investors would not buy these properties as locked in below market rate ...do I need to cont?

You lost me at 'so called housing crisis'

terrydel

The Student wrote: »

You refuse to accept the fundamental laws of economics of supply v demand. Why do you think those people entering homelessness are coming from the rental sector?

You refuse to except that your ideology is the cause of the problem and a continuation of it would have caused more, which you seem perfectly ok with.
Its not my fault you are an uncaring me feiner. All on you that.
They are entering it because theyve been priced out thanks to the private market having total control of our housing sector, and had no controls been put in place more of them would have entered it. Simple as that. Deny it all you want but its just making you look severely lacking in intelligence.

Mod Note

Attack the post, not the poster.
Consider this an on thread warning.