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

Landlords to be responsible for ASBO tenants

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    The only manner in which this has any fair chance of working- is if there is a mechanism for a landlord to swiftly evict a tenant who behaves in an antisocial manner. The current situation- where regardless of what the landlord does or doesn't do- they are to the blame, and regardless of how bad the situation is- they are forbidden to take any action- is simply untenable.

    It must be noted that antisocial behavior only happens with a tiny minority or tenants- and similarly, the lions share of landlords behave in a fair and business manner towards both their tenants and those who are affected by the their tenants (residents of neighbouring properties etc).

    There are a small but notable cohort of problem tenants for whom there isn't any current answer over what we are supposed to do with them. It is unfair that the landlord is both blamed for their actions and simultaneously told he/she can't do anything- this is the knux of the issue.

    If you want to hold landlords responsible for their tenants- the very least you can do is give them the legislative and supportive base to take action to sort out these type problems as they arise.


  • Options
    #33
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Landlords might as well just sell up to overseas investment, sell the whole lot

    Tenants never stop whining, we want this, get it and then something else

    Let’s see how they get on trying to deal with some lad in Canada or Kuwait who couldn’t give a c**p the tap is leaking.

    For the government what they are trying to do is create as many tyrellstown as possible around Ireland....places that the Garda don’t even bother with anymore

    Funny part on this thread is people thinking this is good, let’s see how you like your neighbourhood when you can’t walk out front door....can’t get Taxi because they won’t go into area, take out? No chance....

    We will see what you say then


  • Options
    #34
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Funny part on this thread is people thinking this is good, let’s see how you like your neighbourhood when you can’t walk out front door....can’t get Taxi because they won’t go into area, take out? No chance....

    We will see what you say then

    Large and increasing areas of West Dublin fall into these type situations- and its only getting worse. Hell- even An Post won't deliver post in 2 estates in Tallaght and on one road in another SDCC administered area.

    People need to be held responsible for their actions. At the moment- they misbehave- precisely because there are no consequences.


  • Options
    #35
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    voluntary wrote: »
    And what a local authority would do with such tenants? Make them homeless? LA is often the last resort, the very bottom of 'the property ladder'.

    Youre right the local authority (or a state body) is going to need a definite policy,
    Decent, ordinary Local authority shouldn't be penalised either, so there's going to need to be sink estates...Not nice, not easy or cheap to run,but you'd have to earn your way in, and earn your way out... And as to where you put those estates...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #36
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Landlords might as well just sell up to overseas investment, sell the whole lot

    Tenants never stop whining, we want this, get it and then something else

    Let’s see how they get on trying to deal with some lad in Canada or Kuwait who couldn’t give a c**p the tap is leaking.

    For the government what they are trying to do is create as many tyrellstown as possible around Ireland....places that the Garda don’t even bother with anymore

    Funny part on this thread is people thinking this is good, let’s see how you like your neighbourhood when you can’t walk out front door....can’t get Taxi because they won’t go into area, take out? No chance....

    We will see what you say then

    How is it not good? It means that if you live next door to a load of lunatics making noise night and day finally someone might be accountable and something might actually happen...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Would be great to see this come in, along with legislation that 1) allows a landlord to skip the notice period and evict immediately, and 2) applies the same responsibility to the Council.

    As a general rule of thumb, the Council will host most of the awkward tenants, as they won't generally get in with a landlord that has any cop on. But the Council's aren't allowed kick them out onto the streets. So they have to re-house them elsewhere. Which can be expensive and time consuming, so the Council's just turn a blind eye.

    I think the Council should have the option of making a family homeless. I was told before by an anti-social behaviour officer, that if a family get reported, and don't get their act together, then they are evicted and considered to be 'voluntarily homeless' by the Council. I love this line of thinking. Unfortunately, I've never seen, nor heard, of it actually working like that in real life. It would be a step in the right direction if it did.


  • Options
    #38
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    How is it not good? It means that if you live next door to a load of lunatics making noise night and day finally someone might be accountable and something might actually happen...

    The landlord though?
    So- you fine the landlord because his tenants are antisocial asshats- but the landlord still can't do anything. So you fine him again. And he still can't do anything. You fine him ad nauseum- and he still can't do anything.

    Until such time as there is a viable mechanism for getting these asshats out of a neighbourhood in a prompt manner- and they are held responsible for their actions- its simply going to continue.

    Using the landlord as a scapegoat (yet again)- when you're not going to give him/her the tools they need to manage the situation- is myopic and misguided. No wonder the numbers of landlords are in freefall.


  • Options
    #39
    dhaughton99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭dhaughton99


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Would be great to see this come in, along with legislation that 1) allows a landlord to skip the notice period and evict immediately, and 2) applies the same responsibility to the Council.

    As a general rule of thumb, the Council will host most of the awkward tenants, as they won't generally get in with a landlord that has any cop on. But the Council's aren't allowed kick them out onto the streets. So they have to re-house them elsewhere. Which can be expensive and time consuming, so the Council's just turn a blind eye.

    I think the Council should have the option of making a family homeless. I was told before by an anti-social behaviour officer, that if a family get reported, and don't get their act together, then they are evicted and considered to be 'voluntarily homeless' by the Council. I love this line of thinking. Unfortunately, I've never seen, nor heard, of it actually working like that in real life. It would be a step in the right direction if it did.


    I’ve seen in here with a family which caused nothing but trouble in this estate for years. What do the council do? Give one of their sons a house in the same estate when he declared “homeless”.


  • Options
    #40
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    The only manner in which this has any fair chance of working- is if there is a mechanism for a landlord to swiftly evict a tenant who behaves in an antisocial manner. The current situation- where regardless of what the landlord does or doesn't do- they are to the blame, and regardless of how bad the situation is- they are forbidden to take any action- is simply untenable.

    It must be noted that antisocial behavior only happens with a tiny minority or tenants- and similarly, the lions share of landlords behave in a fair and business manner towards both their tenants and those who are affected by the their tenants (residents of neighbouring properties etc).

    There are a small but notable cohort of problem tenants for whom there isn't any current answer over what we are supposed to do with them. It is unfair that the landlord is both blamed for their actions and simultaneously told he/she can't do anything- this is the knux of the issue.

    If you want to hold landlords responsible for their tenants- the very least you can do is give them the legislative and supportive base to take action to sort out these type problems as they arise.

    Yes I think the problem here is to request that someone achieves a certain result, without clearly defining what the result should be or giving them the means to achieve it.

    If landlords have to be held responsible for tackling antisocial behaviour it has to be clearly defined what anti-social behaviour is and what a landlord is meant to do to tackle it.

    The way I would look at it is that a state body (possibly the guards after being called in a few times and witnessing it) should on behalf of the state declare that there is a verified occurrence of antisocial behaviour. And then there should be a clear action path for the landlord and tenant to tackle the situation. Fining the landlord for not following that action path would be fair, but fining them if they followed the action path but it didn’t lead to a resolution wouldn’t be fair (rather that a lack of will to tackle the issue on the LL’s side, the failure would likely be more related to the inefficiency of what the law allows the LL to do to tackle the issue).


  • Options
    #41
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    How is it not good? It means that if you live next door to a load of lunatics making noise night and day finally someone might be accountable and something might actually happen...

    what is the landlord going to do about it . tell them now lads be quite. Tenants like that only understand eviction and the landlord has very little powers to evict.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    Has any thought been given to hold the gardai responsible for tenants behaviour. Maybe fines through their wages etc.. Surely this is in the remit of the Gardai. Why else would they be the only ones available to take phone calls in the middle of the night? Surely surely.


  • Options
    #43
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    cursai wrote: »
    Has any thought been given to hold the gardai responsible for tenants behaviour. Maybe fines through their wages etc.. Surely this is in the remit of the Gardai. Why else would they be the only ones available to take phone calls in the middle of the night? Surely surely.

    ?
    You're suggesting fining individual Garda Members- with a wage deduction, if antisocial behaviour is detected in tenants in the functional Divisions under which a Garda is stationed?

    How is that any fairer than fining the landlord?

    How does any of this act as a deterent to the tenant and encourage normal behaviour from them?

    Why am I even responding to this suggestion? Its as nutty as another suggestion in this thread which suggested we incentivise tenants not to act in an antisocial manner........


  • Options
    #44
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    How is it not good? It means that if you live next door to a load of lunatics making noise night and day finally someone might be accountable and something might actually happen...


    As pointed out what can the landlord do if he/she isn't allowed to throw them out?

    They go over, tell them to be quiet, walk out the door and they can do exactly what they want. THe landlord can't move into the house and make sure they are good....


    The worst idea they ever came up with.....and they have come up with some stupid ones.....


  • Options
    #45
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    As pointed out what can the landlord do if he/she isn't allowed to throw them out?

    They go over, tell them to be quiet, walk out the door and they can do exactly what they want. THe landlord can't move into the house and make sure they are good....


    The worst idea they ever came up with.....and they have come up with some stupid ones.....

    Typical Irish attitude. Keep passing on the blame to some one else until nothing happens. Fair enough eviction needs to be tightened up, but until then get references and do proper checks. Most of the time you'll get good tenants. Yes, not always and there are rare exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves, you can usually tell bad people within a minute of meeting them. I'm all for this purely to support people who have to live beside absolute scumbags.


  • Options
    #46
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    ?
    You're suggesting fining individual Garda Members- with a wage deduction, if antisocial behaviour is detected in tenants in the functional Divisions under which a Garda is stationed?

    How is that any fairer than fining the landlord?

    How does any of this act as a deterent to the tenant and encourage normal behaviour from them?

    Why am I even responding to this suggestion? Its as nutty as another suggestion in this thread which suggested we incentivise tenants not to act in an antisocial manner........

    I think the post was not to be taken literally, and is rather meant to outline the issues with the original landlord fines suggestion by extending it to the guards. Just my understanding anyway.


  • Options
    #47
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    Typical Irish attitude. Keep passing on the blame to some one else until nothing happens. Fair enough eviction needs to be tightened up, but until then get references and do proper checks. Most of the time you'll get good tenants. Yes, not always and there are rare exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves, you can usually tell bad people within a minute of meeting them. I'm all for this purely to support people who have to live beside absolute scumbags.




    Who is passing on the blame? if they want to make landlords responsible then at least give the landlord the option of throwing out the tenant.



    Do you rent properties? have you ever rented properties?


  • Options
    #48
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    Typical Irish attitude. Keep passing on the blame to some one else until nothing happens. Fair enough eviction needs to be tightened up, but until then get references and do proper checks. Most of the time you'll get good tenants. Yes, not always and there are rare exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves, you can usually tell bad people within a minute of meeting them. I'm all for this purely to support people who have to live beside absolute scumbags.

    Typical Irish Attitude...Attempt to fine the one person that can do nothing about it.


  • Options
    #49
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    Typical Irish attitude. Keep passing on the blame to some one else until nothing happens. Fair enough eviction needs to be tightened up, but until then get references and do proper checks. Most of the time you'll get good tenants. Yes, not always and there are rare exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves, you can usually tell bad people within a minute of meeting them. I'm all for this purely to support people who have to live beside absolute scumbags.

    But this does nothing to help the neighbours. If the landlord can't evict, or can't evict quickly, then it doesn't matter how much the neighbours complain or how much the landlord is fined, the tenants will continue to act the bollix.

    If faster evictions were possible for anti-social tenants there'd be no need to fine landlords because the tenants would already have been evicted.


  • Options
    #50
    Plebian
    Registered Users Posts: 87 ✭✭Plebian


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    That will never happen in this country. Fine the landlords. Get references and check people out before if you want to avoid fines. I know people who been through hell because some greedy landlord moved in total scumbags beside them. A family I knew of almost had to move out. A hard working family aswell with young kids. Gardai did absolutely nothing and landlord wouldn't return their calls. Took pressure from a whole residents association to get them out in the end. Landlord use to show up in his Merc at night to collect rent and then fly off... Scumbag.

    Which is why we need a more European long term renting model here, with more tenant rights, and rent controls. Our obsession with home ownership is holding us back.


  • Options
    #51
    victor8600
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭victor8600


    Plebian wrote: »
    Which is why we need a more European long term renting model here, with more tenant rights, and rent controls. ....

    In some European countries you will get a visit from the police if you switch on music a bit loud after 9 pm. And the tenant can get in real trouble for the antisocial behavior, not the landlord.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Plebian wrote: »
    Which is why we need a more European long term renting model here, with more tenant rights, and rent controls. Our obsession with home ownership is holding us back.


    Home ownership has nothing to do with it.



    The problem is the current laws are making it more and more difficult to be a landlord. That's why landlord's are selling up to private buyers and doing something else.


    Stupid laws like the one mentioned will drive more out of the business.


  • Options
    #53
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Plebian wrote: »
    Which is why we need a more European long term renting model here, with more tenant rights, and rent controls. Our obsession with home ownership is holding us back.

    Our tenancy lengths are growing rapidly.
    We have strong tenancy rights (and corresponding poor/few/low landlord rights).
    We have rent controls.

    Yes- we have an obsession with home ownership- however, we also have an obsession with furnished rental units- which should be ye 3 bed semi-D with a garden, close by where Nana lives, and ideally that tenants don't have to pay for.

    Our rental system as it currently is regulated- is driving small scale landlords from the sector- in favour to large scale landlords- most of whom have zero interest in individual units scattered around the place with gardens etc.

    The rental sector on the continent- is based on renting unfurnished units- that are let freshly painted- and you can do whatever the hell you want with the unit- so long as you return it exactly as you received it- freshly painted in neutral colours (ditto the kitchen cabinets etc).

    This unfurnished model- works in most other jurisdictions- and helps tenants put their own touch on a property and makes it feel more like home for them. And as the landlord isn't worried about the tenant breaking stuff- there is a better symbiosis- where the landlord is happy that the tenant's home is their home- and not petrified about stuff getting broken, rent going unpaid, an inability to evict antisocial tenants etc etc.

    There has to be give and take on both sides. For the last 15 years the pendelum has swung firmly in tenant's favour- whether they realise it or not. However- if/when you have a sizeable cohort abusing the power they find themselves in- it spoils everything for everyone else.........

    A more continental style approach to letting property would be great for Ireland- however, I suspect that many tenants and landlords would not appreciate the seachange it would herald.


  • Options
    #54
    Jupiter Mulligan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭Jupiter Mulligan


    Shefwedfan wrote: »

    The worst idea they ever came up with.....and they have come up with some stupid ones.....

    In fairness to him, it's exactly the kind of clueless suggestion that I'd expect from a smug, wealthy, middle-class Malahide resident FF TD like Daragh O'Brien.


  • Options
    #55
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,883 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    OldMrBrennan83 wrote:
    Ridiculous idea. Have the law come down on the people causing the issues.


    In fairness most decent landlords already take responsibility for problem tenants. The new law is aimed at landlords who haven’t been bothered up until now.


  • Options
    #56
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    Typical Irish attitude. Keep passing on the blame to some one else until nothing happens. Fair enough eviction needs to be tightened up, but until then get references and do proper checks. Most of the time you'll get good tenants. Yes, not always and there are rare exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves, you can usually tell bad people within a minute of meeting them. I'm all for this purely to support people who have to live beside absolute scumbags.

    Illegal to do this. Cannot ask for work references or do proper checks.

    Also can't evict for any kind of behaviour. So your solution is to be in some way psychic?

    The only tenants I got rid of in an anti-social related issue, was a lovely couple whose relationship started breaking down 2 years into the lease. Not a peep out of them before that. Then they flipped. They screamed and roared at eachother for weeks, loads of neighbour complaints. Threatened to burn the building down, and made complete shlt of the place (furniture bashed through the walls).

    Not sure how I was to anticipate that 2 years previously.


  • Options
    #57
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    How will a court case work out when the landlords legal team argue that it's the legal process of evicting someone thats PREVENTING him/her from resolving the anti social behaviour via eviction.

    A landlord will be looking to show that this is actually a disaster for him or her too and thus its not a matter of them dragging their heels.


  • Options
    #58
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Old diesel wrote: »
    How will a court case work out when the landlords legal team argue that it's the legal process of evicting someone thats PREVENTING him/her from resolving the anti social behaviour via eviction.

    A landlord will be looking to show that this is actually a disaster for him or her too and thus its not a matter of them dragging their heels.

    Very valid question.

    To be honest I’d say this is purely a publicity stunt from some politicians who very well know this proposed fines are completely unfair and unenforceable, but are looking for future votes both from people who dislike landlords (and will like the idea offer landlord fines) and people who think the state is too being lenient with anti-social behaviour (and will like to hear politicians talking about it).

    In theory it is a smart move attempting to kill two birds with one stone (the two groups of people I mentioned are often two distinct parts of the electorate). But in practice I think anyone in those two groups who gives a few thoughts to the proposal will ask themselves the same kind of questions you are asking here, before realising the proposal is pure demagogy and completely unenforceable (both from a moral and a legal point of view).


  • Options
    #59
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Our tenancy lengths are growing rapidly.
    We have strong tenancy rights (and corresponding poor/few/low landlord rights).
    We have rent controls.

    Yes- we have an obsession with home ownership- however, we also have an obsession with furnished rental units- which should be ye 3 bed semi-D with a garden, close by where Nana lives, and ideally that tenants don't have to pay for.

    Our rental system as it currently is regulated- is driving small scale landlords from the sector- in favour to large scale landlords- most of whom have zero interest in individual units scattered around the place with gardens etc.

    The rental sector on the continent- is based on renting unfurnished units- that are let freshly painted- and you can do whatever the hell you want with the unit- so long as you return it exactly as you received it- freshly painted in neutral colours (ditto the kitchen cabinets etc).

    This unfurnished model- works in most other jurisdictions- and helps tenants put their own touch on a property and makes it feel more like home for them. And as the landlord isn't worried about the tenant breaking stuff- there is a better symbiosis- where the landlord is happy that the tenant's home is their home- and not petrified about stuff getting broken, rent going unpaid, an inability to evict antisocial tenants etc etc.

    There has to be give and take on both sides. For the last 15 years the pendelum has swung firmly in tenant's favour- whether they realise it or not. However- if/when you have a sizeable cohort abusing the power they find themselves in- it spoils everything for everyone else.........

    A more continental style approach to letting property would be great for Ireland- however, I suspect that many tenants and landlords would not appreciate the seachange it would herald.

    Why would some ll not like this type of situation. What are the cons to this type of situation?


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    the_syco wrote: »
    And how can the landlord get rid of the scrotes?

    And what to put on the letting notice “no scrotes need apply”. Then one would be labelled a scrotist, and probably fined for being one. There’s far better ways of making money than letting. I have superb Latvian tenants who actually repaint the place (in original colour), and if ever they move out I’m selling up, simple as. A good tenant is a dream to have taking care of your property and I don’t charge the going rate as I’m so pleased to have them. Just returned from a city break in Latvia and learned why my tenants are so fastidious, there is a great culture of pride in the home, cleanliness on the streets, clean public toilets everywhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Why would some ll not like this type of situation. What are the cons to this type of situation?

    There is a perception that there is additional profit to be made in letting furnished units- which quite simply is not the case. Tenants hate the furniture in rented units- it tends to be the cheapest tat that landlords can get hold of. Landlords hate supplying the cheap tat- because inevitably it has a limited span and needs to be replaced. The whole unit is subject to wear and tear- which the landlord is not allowed to enumerate- however, which is mitigated against on the continent. Tenants feel constrained by the landlords choice of colours, their furniture- and their inability to put their own stamp on a unit.........

    Honestly I think that unfurnished units are a win-win for both tenants and landlords- there are very few downsides, other than the fact that tenants will have to factor the cost of their furniture into the equation, and if they are renting a furnished unit they will have to either store or dispose of their pre-existing furniture.

    I think we should do a thorough overhaul of the sector and let everything unfurnished.


Advertisement