Fair Deal changes might actually happen but...

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825008#Comment_118825008

I have no idea how many houses could be rented out. I think the money gained may be immaterial - it may be seen as more hassle than its worth to alot of people.

My uncles house is in no way up to rental standards - its still stuck in the 1950's and would need a huge amount spent on it to get it to standard for renting. I expect alot of the properties of the elderly are not up to rental standards and are dated. The government would have to possibly look aswell at lending money for similar houses to be updated. Perhaps the full rent could be paid to the government as loan repayments and property cant be sold until loan is repaid. Families could gain then by having a better standard property to sell down the line.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825010#Comment_118825010

What you have mentioned here sounds like a better suggestion.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118824935#Comment_118824935

My own County Council will only take on houses on the 10 year/20 year rental scheme if they are in towns. They aren't interested in houses in rural areas. There's a big chunk of those 8,000 houses gone right there. Good luck sticking a Ukranian family in a rural area with no transport and miles away from suitable support services/education etc.

Why Departments you ask? Someone will have to run these schemes? We've seen that we can't outsource social housing to the private sector. That clearly isn't working. The private sector can't effectively manage all aspects of your proposal from start to finish as it's far more complex than you seem to realise. This means that there will be Government Departments needed to run your (as Michael Healy-Rae would say) 'airy fairy' idea.

I'm guessing you mean HAP etc. as being a subsidy to the private sector. If you pull the likes of that, you are correct, the market will settle at it's own level and we will have far fewer rental properties as even more landlords will flee the market. You'll actually make the problem worse.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825029#Comment_118825029

I'm not cutting at you at all - you are looking after your uncle. But I mentioned above about the bachelor farmer I know who was put into a home.

His family refurbished (or organised to be refurbished) his house before it was sold a few months after he went in. There didn't appear to be any concern for his living standards when he was living there himself!!! That is what I thought was a sad reflection.

From the photos on the listing, it looked like everything in the house was new. Counters, doors, floors, kitchen. So whatever had been there before obviously wasn't up to scratch.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825048#Comment_118825048

I'm curious how they managed to do that? Who owned the bachelor farmer's house? If he owned it, he must have given permission for it to be done up and sold. If so, he mustn't have gone into the nursing home under the fair deal scheme.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825047#Comment_118825047

If landlords "flee the market" the number of houses will not vanish. They will sell them and people will buy them and live in them. The government shouldn't be subsidising the market to the extent it is.

"Departments" was in relation to the body/company who could provide the property management services. Those could of course be provided by the private sector rather than a government.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825060#Comment_118825060

I reckon his brother was given power of attorney over his affairs. As I stated above, it would be assumed he didn't go under FD as he owns land.

Land used to be included in the reckoning of the 7.5% but that was removed. However only removed where there is a qualified successor identified.

The man was one of a number of siblings. Actually his parents were not farmers but it was a grandparent's farm. It was originally a very big farm but it was left between him and his siblings and his siblings sold their shares. He was the only one who actually farmed it.

So his nieces and nephews have interest in farming. So the land would presumably come under the 7.5% and I reckon they did a calculation that on the balance of things, it would be better to sell the house and pay up front. I don't know, all I know for certain is the man is on his last legs in a home and his house was sold a few months after he was taken into care.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118824765#Comment_118824765

Irrelevant and assumption on your part. You don't give advice as you show totial ignorance on the subject and just repeat things that you already got explanations to showing your ignorance some more

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825091#Comment_118825091

Even if you've seen a will Ray, that is a living document until death of the testator. It means nothing until that point in time and can be invalidated by the simple act of making a new will.

Just letting ya know

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825048#Comment_118825048

The farmer you mentioned must have had the capacity ( being of sound mind) or being in a position to set up the legal structures to allow the family to refurbish and sell. In many cases ( including my uncle) we are powerless to do anything. Legally we have no authority to make any decisions regarding his property or financial affairs. He cannot give us the legal authority to look after his affairs as he has dementia and is deemed to not understand ( incapacitated) so there is literally nothing we can do on this. Ward of court is an option - but if I go down this route I have no say in how he is cared for which in my view would be cruel. All the courts gave me was authority to sign the fair deal scheme on his behalf - and even this was a complicated process during covid. I am also probably out of pocket myself to the tune of €5K+ since I started. I have to pay for solicitors fees, pay for his medicine, clothes and other needs. I also had to insure his property out of my own pocket as he is unable to do it himself. Trust me when I say Im literally powerless to do anything in relation to his affairs.

Lesson learned is you are better to have no assets when you are elderly- You literally will get the same care if you have nothing.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825065#Comment_118825065

Yes, the houses will be bought by either the councils or the private sector. Currently we have the councils outbidding the private sector for houses in many instances.

But the upshot of your proposal is that there will be less rental properties and this will impact those who can't afford to buy a house or aren't at the top of the social housing list. It's difficult enough now to find a rental property let alone an affordable rental property. What would it be like if supply and funding for such was reduced?

Your idea about removing supports etc. would also mean less private sector investment in building as if rents are brought down, it won't be worth building.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118824918#Comment_118824918

Has to be better than something like other investments which are generally around 10% or better.

There are no Service Contracts like you are suggesting that take on the risks, involved with Rentals in Ireland. They don't exist. Its a figment of your imagination. Even if there where the properties aren't at the required standard, and most of the time you don't have the legal authority to sign up to these contracts on behalf of the owner.

if it was as easy as you imagine everyone would be getting into it, not out of it.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825114#Comment_118825114

The mans siblings are all highly qualified professionals. The assumption is that they would have been on the ball and as I mentioned above, it is assumed that a brother was given power of attorney over his affairs.

It is not the case that you are better off with no assets, more so that you are no worse off with none

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825065#Comment_118825065

LOL. Privately occupied property has a lower occupancy rate than rented. So for every rental property sold less people are housed. We actually have an occupancy issue more so than a housing one as is.

The government aren't subsidizing the market they are using it because they don't have any stock. They made it illegal to refuse government rent assistance because landlords don't want it

No matter who provide the service and manages the property the government HAVE TO administrate it. The private sector cannot do it. They already can't manage what they have so why would they be able to manage more?

Again just nonsense showing complete ignorance on so many aspects of reality

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825124#Comment_118825124

There are many components which add up to the cost of providing housing. One of which is land prices. There is no inherent reason why development land prices need to be so high. They are only that high because developers bid them up to that point. They only do that because they know that they can, in turn, squeeze even more out of the end buyer.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825101#Comment_118825101

Again irrelevant and assumption on your part. You should probably stop with the petty digs you are really bad at them

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825131#Comment_118825131

Again just nonsense showing complete ignorance on so many aspects of reality

Let me remind you of the first sentence of your post. Way back at the start of the paragraph

Privately occupied property has a lower occupancy rate than rented.

If it's not occupied then it contributes a unit of 0 towards the rate. If it is occupied, then it contributes a unit of 1 to the number of occupied. Your sentence is gibberish.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825143#Comment_118825143

It's called fact Ray. Nothing I said in that post was incorrect. You may or may not like to be told said facts but that is wholly subjective.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825048#Comment_118825048

He probably wouldn't let them touch a thing. Older people do not embrace change easily if at all.

What sad is not knowing the situation, you assume the worst. Nice.

Even if you had no direct experience of this, which is obvious. There enough TV shows showing intervention's, to have grasp some insight into this.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825142#Comment_118825142

Inherent reason is scarcity. Not every field can be developed on. You now seem to have a complete lack of understanding on basic supply and demand.

You really are getting very silly now.The cost of materials is sky rocketing so house's aren't getting any cheaper anytime soon.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825156#Comment_118825156

Are you really going to try such a stupid argument. Context is king. You were talking all sales of rentals with landlords leaving the market not un occupied properties. Try harder

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825177#Comment_118825177

Learn some basics Ray. There are huge swathes of land which are already zoned for building but not being built on. If there is one thing that Ireland does not lack it is space. There is no shortage of building land. And your grasp of basic economics is actually a little concerning. I'd advise you to get financial advice before making any big decisions. It is good advice for people in general.

There is no inherent reason for development land to be so highly valued. It is an artificial construct of bad policy

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825172#Comment_118825172

Ray Palmer

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825173#Comment_118825173

What sad is not knowing the situation, you assume the worst

Says the poster who doesn't even know the first name of the person to whom I am referring 🤣

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825172#Comment_118825172

Irrelevant and again you are making assumptions about my situation. As I said an attempt of a petty dig. Do you think you are really fooling anyone? So no not fact

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825224#Comment_118825224

You are taking things very personally Ray. I am not meaning any personal offence and there is nothing in that post that could be reasonably be construed as such

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825205#Comment_118825205

No. Zoning ain't the same as permission to build. It is also in use in many case never ever sold to a developer. Ireland does lack space when it comes to sustainable housing . So supply and demand remain along with all the other restrictions and delays

There is an inherent reason for development land to be so expensive. We can simply disagree on that point but you are still talking nonsense because the price remains what people are willing to pay so trumps your view of value. Now of course you could be smarter than all of these companies investing money but all signs point to you not being smart let alone smarter

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825240#Comment_118825240

Oh you clearly are to me and others

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825214#Comment_118825214

I suspect they are as imaginary as everything else you've posted. Based on how much stuff you've got wrong thus far.

Beatty69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118822563#Comment_118822563

Can I ask why you don't go down the power of attorney route now? You can do that if she doesn't have capacity anymore.

whippet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825462#Comment_118825462

You can't ... the person needs mental capacity to give POA to someone .. once she was diagnosed with dementia that became impossible as a doctor needs to sign off on her ability to consent to the process

Beatty69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118823124#Comment_118823124

Ah so there is another option, you just don't like it. That's not what you were saying earlier in the thread.

Beatty69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118823177#Comment_118823177

Ah but you've already admitted it is possible, it's just not an option you like?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825377#Comment_118825377

It's not my fault if you can't understand things dude. The fact you can't get your head around a concept does not mean it is impossible

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825657#Comment_118825657

Like I said imaginary concept...not real. Lots of things are not impossible but will never happen all the same.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825687#Comment_118825687

If it makes you fell better dude then believe whatever you want.

You are free to believe that there was never a person whose house was sold after they went into a home if you want.

Flinty997

Despite all that's been said. You still don't know how Fair Deal works.

whippet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825616#Comment_118825616

No ... when you go the ward of court route the decision is not yours .. it is the courts and they will decide what the best option is .... you can ask but the court will decide and Fair Deal is the best option in almost all cases

believe me .. I've been down this route and to suggest to me after 3 years of heartache and stress that if there was a better / more suitable way I'd have found it ?

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825657#Comment_118825657

Oh we got to the "dude" level of argument. Of course you don't mean anything personal right? How you aren't banned for this thread alone is amazing. I am done once and for all as your pleasure is not my game

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118826763#Comment_118826763

Ray, Ray, Ray. there is no need to be so triggered. My suggestion was merely a suggestion that the FD scheme be reworked so that the lien was a smaller percentage but that there be an additional component calculated on the market value of the rent, with the additional feature that the additional 80% clawback be removed entirely. Thereby adding an incentive that the house be used rather than being left vacant, potentially for years with all the associated issues such as invalidating insurance and damp etc.

Everyone would win if they wanted to. It would not be compulsory and the owner or their representative could instead decide to leave the property and eat the additional calculated amount.

No need to be getting yourself so worked up

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825870#Comment_118825870

No offence, but why should the decision be anyone's other than the owner of the property? If they are incapable, and have not seen fit to delegate someone with the authority to make such decisions in their stead, the authority should of course fall to the court.

I'm not trying to be harsh towards you - you are stuck where you are stuck. But it might help someone else who might find themselves in that situation eventually. They can make a choice as to who might represent their interests should they become incapacitated. Should it be the Court or do they want little Jimmy or Mary to do it for them. Let them be aware now and make that decision in advance. It doesn't help you but it might help someone else from ending in that same scenario.

Flinty997

Anyone who thinks this is not an emotive subjective has obviously had no experience of it. Not that wasn't obvious from all the factually wrong comments.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118826838#Comment_118826838

I agree. Could you maybe try not making them?

As pointed out many times, if people do not like the FD scheme, they don't have to enter it. If you are really against it, you can petition for it to be ended if you want. Then people can just sell their properties up front and pay for their own care out of that. I wouldn't be in favour of that but you can be if you want.

My suggestion is simply to modify it to provide an incentive to allow the house not to lie vacant. Currently there is effectively a disincentive to do that. That is not a good system

Flinty997

Your simplistic proposals do not fix the problems. Because you don't understand them. Even when they've been explained to you. You just keep repeating the same dogma.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118826918#Comment_118826918

Of course I understand my proposals. They are, indeed, my proposals. Are you going to tell me that you understand my proposals better than me? I'm not making anything compulsory. Me posting on a message board has no effect on any policy or legislative decisions so there is no need for you to take it personally.

There are plenty of houses that would be able to be rented out tomorrow whose owners have gone into care. The reason they are not is usually that there is no financial incentive to do so. Many of these unique exceptional situations where it is impossible to rent out that property might be found to be suddenly cured over night if, hypothetically, the government removed the 80% clawback and instead said that all rental income was to be tax free while the owner was in care and was to go directly to their bank account.

You can alternatively tell us under what general conditions you would be willing to support a scheme where someone in care could elect to voluntarily rent out their home

Let us first establish the principles. Can we assume that you would not support a scheme whereby 101% of the rent was capitalised onto the lien? Now, can we further assume that you would support a scheme where the owner of the house received a million Euro a year for their house? If so, we have at least established the concept in principle. Now what remains is to find the point at which you go from negative to positive.

whippet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118826794#Comment_118826794

What in the name of jaysus are you talking about ?

of course when someone is incapable it is up to the courts to make decisions for them unless Enduring Power of Attorney has been arranged ... I've never said that it should be any other way.

what I am and what people are explaining to you is that your proposals and understanding of the issues and subject matter is next to nothing .. you obviously did a bit of furious googling yesterday to try back up some of your posts.

and putting 'no offence' at the start of a nonsense post does not excuse it being offensive.

you and you alone brought up the notion of children looking to spend incapacitated parents money on BMWs ... you are the one trying to advocate for forcing incapacitated people in to renting out their assets even if they are paying for their own nursing home care.

you haven't a clue

Flinty997

He thinks it's all driven solely by money. So can't grasp why people leave properties empty or sell them, instead of renting. His dogma and blinkered focus prevents him from understanding the bigger picture.

Theories are all very well. But to test them you have to put them into practice. If someone is not willing to do this. That tells you all you need to know about their theories.

So a Govt telling people to do something they won't do themselves should be all the warning people need.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827240#Comment_118827240

You are the one who could do with some googling. The only time I did a google was to pull up a link for someone to educate them on something which I said but they disputed. Nothing I have posted was factually incorrect. It is human nature for people to stick their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you" when being told something which they don't like, but I can't help them on that.

People are not paying for their own care costs. Giving a contribution towards it is not the same as paying for it. I already said that I think it is a good system. But saying you are paying towards it is somewhat analagous to the extreme case of a person in a council house, who puts has to give 10 Euro "rent" a week, saying that they pay for their own housing. I am only using an extreme case to illustrate the concept.

You were apparently complaining about it not being "your choice" to make decisions for a family member if they were made a ward of court. I was merely pointing out that there was no reason why it would automatically fall to any specific relative unless the person had made provision for it. It was a simple concept.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827501#Comment_118827501

You avoided the question Flinty boy.

Would ya be happy for the place to be rented if the government paid 1m a year for it?

Let's establish the principles first. After that we can figure out a price at which you would still be happy.