combat14 wrote: » From another boards thread - looks like some tenants are stopping rent payments - wonder how long it will be till this is widespread? bound to have a downward affect on rents if this crisis continues which it appears to be the case.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058074447 ---- Tenant refusing to pay Hi, I am a landlord with a 2-bed apartment in North-West Dublin. I bought the apartment in 2018 (at age 28, with all my savings and a parental loan too!). Late last year I decided to go travelling with my girlfriend and move to Australia for a year or potentially two, and rented out the apartment. The rent is 1,700 Euro per month. The tenant advised that their work has been stopped temporarily due to Covid-19, and is refusing to pay anything. They say when they get the rent supplement, they will give me that (a maximum of 900 Euro). However, they are refusing to contribute a single cent themselves. I've tried to open negotiations to a fair compromised rate during the pandemic but he refuses. He only submitted the rent supplement form this week, despite claiming he lost his work 5 weeks ago. I was also conscious of renting for the first time and before signing the agreement had unofficial conversations with them asking about their savings etc., as I didn't want to have to evict a couple with a child. He promised he had savings. I explicitly asked about if he lost his job would he be OK for 3-6 months, and he promised he would be. I appreciate this isn't legally binding but I feel it shows that he is using this situation to take advantage of me. Does anyone have any advice as to how I should proceed? I feel I've been fair with my assessment, but the next month's rent is due today and he has paid nothing. My parents suggested contacting a solicitor but they said they wouldn't get involved (I assume they don't want their name attached to any potential issues down the line). All the guidance from the government advises that tenants still have to pay their rent but all those messages are just being ignored. I appreciate that there is little sympathy for landlords. However, I put all my savings into buying this apartment, and don't think I should be treated the same as some person who has 5 properties etc. I'm now working in Australia paying living costs, rent and bills for myself and my girlfriend, who is unable to get a job as over 800,000 Australians have been let go and the working holiday visa is quite restrictive for employers. This is on top of my mortgage/management fees etc. for the apartment at home. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you
schmittel wrote: » Encouraging downsizing is one thing but a tax is more of a carrot than a stick stick than carrot. A fairly significant obstacle to the elderly downsizing is the uncertainty of the buying/selling chain if they don't have the funds to buy the smaller property in the meantime. i.e all good and well to sell the big empty 4 bed, but there would be no appetite to rent in the the interim if they get caught in limbo. I think an obvious incentive solution is to provide bridging finance for downsizers - provide max 3 year interest only finance to max 60% equity of the existing home. Government can borrow the money from ECB at low rates, they could even make a profit on it. Have often thought there must be a problem with this idea that I am missing, or else surely they would have done it by now rather than talking about house sharing for old folks.
Hoffmans wrote: » What's propping up house prices and rents seeing gdp is way down markets crashed is it a false house market ?
GreeBo wrote: » Have you planned your savings, investments, pension around paying rent until the day you die? If not, then you need to buy a house.
cnocbui wrote: » Tax is punitive, therefore it's a stick.
Villa05 wrote: » The bedroom tax tax is normalised in the UK now and I know of several elderly relations and there friends who have taken it positively. Downsizing has improved their lives an increased their disposable incomes
Hoffmans wrote: » markets crashed
JohnnyChimpo wrote: » Sure, but if lending volume is down 90% from its peak in 2005, you're only correct in the most technical sense
Villa05 wrote: » Housing is a strategic asset, it should be managed in a way that delivers for the collective benefit not sectoral interest
combat14 wrote: » I dont think any one is happy to pay a 12 year old interest rate .. when there are opportunities to switch and get better value over a decade down the road .. but unfortunately due to negative equity this is not possible - she cant revalue her house to get a better rate as the house value is still under water 12 years later!!!! Some people seem to have forgotten the last boom and bust cycle and how ridiculous house prices were back in 2008 - in some (not all) parts of the country prices are almost back to where they were before the last crash. there is no harm buying a property or even in some people's world substantially over paying for assets .. but there are real world affects even if stay in the house for ever or a long period of time
Mad_maxx wrote: the elderly have always been uber prioritised in this country, often at the expense of the youth
schmittel wrote: hasn't stopped some people suggesting forcing the elderly out of their homes to make way for the young which is utter madness.
GreeBo wrote: » You will be paying the interest rate that you were happy to pay when your house was worth when you bought it. You can't retrospectively look at that and decide its costing you more than it otherwise could.
Maitguel wrote: » She should talk to MABS if her debts are greater than her assets she is insolvent. No harm in them having a look at her circumstances and seeing if they can get a rate reduction with her current bank.
combat14 wrote: » up to a point.. when you are paying a higher interest rate than you need to 12-13+ years later because your house is still in negative equity it has some bearing there is always some economic cost
The_Conductor wrote: » People's needs evolve as they enter various stages in their lifes. Eventually, we will all have to accept that however much we love our surroundings- that perhaps a setting where we have access to the services, facilities and amenities that better match the stage in life we find ourselves in- might be preferable. No-one should be forced to move though, if they don't want to. They should however have alternate options available to them, and be made aware of what those options are. By all means incentivise them to move, if they want to, but you can't force them to.
The_Conductor wrote: » People's needs evolve as they enter various stages in their lifes. Eventually, we will all have to accept that however much we love our surroundings- that perhaps a setting where we have access to the services, facilities and amenities that better match the stage in life we find ourselves in- might be preferable. No-one should be forced to move though, if they don't want to. They should however have alternate options available to them, and be made aware of what those options are. By all means incentivize them to move, if they want to, but you can't force them to.
Mad_maxx wrote: » the elderly have always been uber prioritised in this country, often at the expense of the youth
schmittel wrote: » hasn't stopped some people suggesting forcing the elderly out of their homes to make way for the young which is utter madness.
