Woman doesn't bother paying her rent... wins a court settlement

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 03:19PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Maybe they should award compensation to the landlords and that would send out a signal to all tenants that if you don't pay then there are consequences!

You're not far off the mark there. If you look at the decisions issued by the Private Residential Tenancies Board, (PRTB)

http://www.prtb.ie/disputes.htm

You'll see that there are as many awards against tenants as there are against landlords.

dodgyme · 08-10-2008 03:27PM

stovelid wrote: »

,not put a family on the street.
.

for the length of time the HSE were paying her rent her family is probably grown up at this stage - great system we have.

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 03:28PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

You're not far off the mark there. If you look at the decisions issued by the Private Residential Tenancies Board, (PRTB)

http://www.prtb.ie/disputes.htm

You'll see that there are as many awards against tenants as there are against landlords.

The only thing the landlord has very little chance of actually seeing any of the money awarded and will still be out of pocket from rent and legal fee's.

AARRRGH · 08-10-2008 03:29PM

dodgyme wrote: »

for the length of time the HSE were paying her rent her family is probably grown up at this stage - great system we have.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you would think within 8 years (the length of time the HSE were paying her rent) she could get her **** together and get a job.

emmagean · 08-10-2008 03:33PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think you have to be a certain type of person to be a landlord. To be a landlord, you have to be able to go into a house and put a woman and her kids out onto the street. That's not me thankfully.

excuse me but that is such crap tbh. I rent out a property and use a management company to do so, the main reason being that everything is done correctly and above board. It just happens to be rented to 'professionals' but thats not to say I wouldnt rent it to rent allowance people.

I am not the type of person who would put anyone out onto the street however what right does a person have to live rent free in someone elses accomodation? Sure if thats the case then we should all be renting and not pay the rent for a few months every year.

I've noticed from reading these boards over the years that landlords get slated ALL the time. Maybe its the case that when we were students there were some unscrupulous landlords who rented out places you wouldnt let rats live in but not every landlord is like that. In fact there are rules/laws about how how a rented property should be presented. My property is absolutely spotless, modern, clean and if the tenant has an issue with a repair or whatever, I address it immediately.

If they stopped paying me rent however then I would follow the correct procedure and evict them if they continued to do so. That doesnt make me a bad person.
I wouldnt expect to stay in a hotel and then walk away without paying the bill. Same as I dont expect the ESB to supply me power for free.

Why then should a landlord let a tenant get away without paying rent??

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 03:34PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The only thing the landlord has very little chance of actually seeing any of the money awarded and will still be out of pocket from rent and legal fee's.

You don't need to engage a solicitor so no legal fee's. Like any other business if after doing the figures, you are not happy with the risk, then don't take it on! There will always be people who can't pay bills, the trick in business is to avoid doing business with them.

AARRRGH · 08-10-2008 03:38PM

I'm guessing the landlord chose to take HSE tenants? I would imagine they might be higher risk tenants than professionals...

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 03:45PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

You don't need to engage a solicitor so no legal fee's. Like any other business if after doing the figures, you are not happy with the risk, then don't take it on! There will always be people who can't pay bills, the trick in business is to avoid doing business with them.

True you don't need a solicitor but your still losing €1,000+ a month on rent until the issue is resolved.

You keep talking about this as a business which effectively it is but in business when someone doesn't pay you can stop services with little or no notice so why should this business be any different?

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 03:45PM

emmagean wrote: »

I am not the type of person who would put anyone out onto the street however what right does a person have to live rent free in someone elses accomodation?

emmagean wrote: »

If they stopped paying me rent however then I would follow the correct procedure and evict them if they continued to do so. That doesnt make me a bad person.

These two arguments are in complete conflict with one another. If you were renting to a family and they started missing rent, then one month turned into two and two turned into three, you've said above you would evict them, albeit that you would do so while following the correct procedure.

The ultimate outcome would be that you would be turfing a family out onto street. I simply made the point that I wouldn't be able to carry out such an act. You might be able to sanitise it by delegating the actual task to a property management company who will in turn delegate it to a security company, who will in turn delegate it to some skinhead thug who is unfit for pub door work.

I wouldn't like the suffering of a family to be in any way associated with my business venture, hence this is only one reason why I'm not a property investor. Also, I'm not greedy, I only buy what I need for myself, there is more than enough to go around, if we don't all want for ourselves what could really be enough for five or ten people. I need one house, I own one house. I don't have two or ten houses because I don't need two or ten houses.

pickarooney · 08-10-2008 03:50PM

emmagean wrote: »

Why then should a landlord let a tenant get away without paying rent??

So we can avoid more AH threads about the homeless and beggars with their shoeless kids in tow.

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 03:54PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

I need one house, I own one house. I don't have two or ten houses because I don't need two or ten houses.

How many televisions do you own?

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 04:12PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

How many televisions do you own?

I've two. One in the sitting room and one in the bedroom. I can't watch them both at the same time, it's not excess or greed, it's just an extra hundred quid for a bit of convenience. Please don't try to draw any kind of association between me having a small TV in my bedroom and the type of parasites I've referred to on here, buying property after property to add to their portfolio, and by doing so, artifically driving up the price of property, and in the process, fu*king up the whole economy...

anthony4335 · 08-10-2008 04:13PM

I am not the biggest fan of the Landlords of this country as I do think that they along with property developers have done serious damage to the country, but that is another argument .
In this case I think while the landlord did go about things incorrectly and should be punished for this , as a landlord they should know there business. But I think awarding the person 12K is wrong, as they managed to get 6 months rent free, the punishment should have been to award that 6 months rent free and possibly given a short amount of time to sort out alternative arrangements.
Also no landlord = rented property = no where to live if you cannot or do not want a home. We need landlords and rented property.

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 04:21PM

anthony4335 wrote: »

Also no landlord = rented property = no where to live if you cannot or do not want a home. We need landlords and rented property.

No parasite landlords = no overheated property market = more affordable quality properties for people who can afford them = less people defaulting on mortgages = a better economy.

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 04:21PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

I've two. One in the sitting room and one in the bedroom. I can't watch them both at the same time, it's not excess or greed, it's just an extra hundred quid for a bit of convenience. Please don't try to draw any kind of association between me having a small TV in my bedroom and the type of parasites I've referred to on here, buying property after property to add to their portfolio, and by doing so, artifically driving up the price of property, and in the process, fu*king up the whole economy...

I wasn't drawing comparisions, it was a tongue in cheek comment.

You still haven't answered my question as to why stopping services in this business for non payment should be different to any other business though.

pickarooney · 08-10-2008 04:26PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

I wasn't drawing comparisions, it was a tongue in cheek comment.

You still haven't answered my question as to why stopping services in this business for non payment should be different to any other business though.

And you're not being tongue-in-cheek/disingenuous with this question?

Making someone homeless, whatever about the rights and wrongs of who owes what, is not something you can take as lightly as dosconnecting their ADSL.

Does anyone have anythign approaching the full story, i.e. why the HSE stopped paying the rent and why the lease wasn't contingent on the HSE acting as guarantor in the event of non-payment? If you choose to rent to someone who demonstrably cannot pay their own way, you must make sure whoever is paying cannot just pull the plug and leave you holding the baby.

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 04:34PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

I wasn't drawing comparisions, it was a tongue in cheek comment.

You still haven't answered my question as to why stopping services in this business for non payment should be different to any other business though.

Here's why...

I've a friend in the motor trade who did an expensive clutch job for a taximan. Invoice came to say 1,200 Euro. Customer knew how much the invoice would be. Job was done, customer arrives to collect car, says to my friend, "Thanks for that, I'll be back next week to pay you". My friend says, "no payment in full, no car, sorry". Customer says, "grand, I'll be back in an hour"...

An hour later, the customer comes back with a Garda, saying his car is being illegally detained by my friend. Garda makes a few phone enquires as to the legality of the situation. It turns out that if the value of the work done is less than 50% of the value of the vehicle, my friend could not legally remain in possession of this car, notwithstanding that fact that he has just spent the entire day fitting parts to the value of around 600 Euro to the car, he now has to give the car back to the customer, in the full knowledge that the customer won't pay simply because he doesn't have the money. My friend still had to pay for parts and still had to pay rent and staff that Friday.

So it goes to court... That's the way businesses work. What he does now is gets every customer to sign a form with small print saying that they agree to their car being used as security for a debt, should payment not be forthcoming, which means that they cannot take their car back legally until they settle their account.

This is the reality of business, there is no shortage of people out there who walk into your business with a plan to screw you. If you haven't got proper business systems to deal with debtors, and if you are missing the discipline to manage debt owed to your business, then you are going to fail. There is no chance of getting paid when you let things go for 6 months and then turn up in a hissy fit and start throwing clothes out the window.

emmagean · 08-10-2008 04:35PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

The ultimate outcome would be that you would be turfing a family out onto street. I simply made the point that I wouldn't be able to carry out such an act. You might be able to sanitise it by delegating the actual task to a property management company who will in turn delegate it to a security company, who will in turn delegate it to some skinhead thug who is unfit for pub door work.

you're full of assumtions here. skinhead thug? what are you on about?

Darragh29 wrote:

I wouldn't like the suffering of a family to be in any way associated with my business venture, hence this is only one reason why I'm not a property investor. Also, I'm not greedy, I only buy what I need for myself, there is more than enough to go around, if we don't all want for ourselves what could really be enough for five or ten people. I need one house, I own one house. I don't have two or ten houses because I don't need two or ten houses.

Firstly not everyone, myself included bought a property to rent out as a business venture. This property was not bought by me for such a purpose and I'm sure the same goes for many other people who happen to find themselves being landlords. That said though I see nothing wrong with buying property as an investment. We live in a democratic capitalist country. Thats life. I'm assuming you're a socialist/communist? Not assuming in any bad way, just that it would explain your point of view and stop me from bothering to post any more on this thread

Have you ever rented a property, either as a student or as a professional?
If so then if there were no landlords or people who rented out property then you along with thousands of students and professionals would have nowhere to live.

As a matter of interest, what business/job are you in? Can you safely say that no one has ever 'suffered' in any way by the industry you are in?

dodgyme · 08-10-2008 04:36PM

Darragh seems to just dislike landlords and I would completely agree with 90% of what he says in a different topic but here the topic is defined. Your one was getting HSE cash and had nothing wrong with her. She managed to get 12k without much effort and get rent free for whatever length of time, again smart sponger she was.

emmagean · 08-10-2008 04:37PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Please don't try to draw any kind of association between me having a small TV in my bedroom and the type of parasites I've referred to on here, buying property after property to add to their portfolio, and by doing so, artifically driving up the price of property, and in the process, fu*king up the whole economy...

parasites? You seem like such a nice person!

lostexpectation · 08-10-2008 04:39PM

what this thread doing in after hours?

should be moved to accomdatio and property

The_Conductor · 08-10-2008 04:40PM

lostexpectation wrote: »

what this thread doing in after hours?

should be moved to accomdatio and property

Mods feel free to move it if you see fit. I'm not sure that the folk in A&P have anything further to add to it though..... S.

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 04:41PM

pickarooney wrote: »

And you're not being tongue-in-cheek/disingenuous with this question?

Making someone homeless, whatever about the rights and wrongs of who owes what, is not something you can take as lightly as dosconnecting their ADSL.

I wasn't trying to be tongue-in-cheek/disingenuous with that question. Darragh29 had emphasised many times that renting your property is a business and that it should be treated as such.

Making someone homeless is not taken lightly by anyone but if your not able to pay your rent then go somewhere you can afford. It's not the landlords fault if you can't afford it and they are not there to provide you with free housing. Because of the tenant not paying the rent the landlord may not not have been able to make they're own mortgage repayments and could have been at risk of having their property re-possessed. Is this a fair outcome for the landlord?

And I would suspect the HSE wouldn't just stop funding they're rent after 8 years unless they were assessed and deemed capable of supporting themselves.

dodgyme · 08-10-2008 04:45PM

emmagean wrote: »

parasites? You seem like such a nice person!

emmagean TBF any LL who queues and buys 10+ properties (and yes it happened) is a parasite when you compare them to the couple who have managed to save a few grand after renting for years from same type LL standing in queue beside them to buy a place in a souless suburb with no schools etc. The chap who ends up with one extra prorperty for whatever reason is not a parasite. However our gov and its policies allowed the parasites to breed with greed. However the parasite LL rarely gets turned over with sh*tty vandal/non paying tenants, usually the chap who has one extra property and is not (relatively to 10+ LL) a greedy sod from my experience.

Policy should have been more driven like the idea Darragh is making (having what you need not greed), people getting a home not a bunch of investment houses.

Either way this is not really on topic now is it?

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 04:55PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Here's why...

I've a friend in the motor trade who did an expensive clutch job for a taximan. Invoice came to say 1,200 Euro. Customer knew how much the invoice would be. Job was done, customer arrives to collect car, says to my friend, "Thanks for that, I'll be back next week to pay you". My friend says, "no payment in full, no car, sorry". Customer says, "grand, I'll be back in an hour"...

An hour later, the customer comes back with a Garda, saying his car is being illegally detained by my friend. Garda makes a few phone enquires as to the legality of the situation. It turns out that if the value of the work done is less than 50% of the value of the vehicle, my friend could not legally remain in possession of this car, notwithstanding that fact that he has just spent the entire day fitting parts to the value of around 600 Euro to the car, he now has to give the car back to the customer, in the full knowledge that the customer won't pay simply because he doesn't have the money. My friend still had to pay for parts and still had to pay rent and staff that Friday.

So it goes to court... That's the way businesses work. What he does now is gets every customer to sign a form with small print saying that they agree to their car being used as security for a debt, should payment not be forthcoming, which means that they cannot take their car back legally until they settle their account.

This is the reality of business, there is no shortage of people out there who walk into your business with a plan to screw you. If you haven't got proper business systems to deal with debtors, and if you are missing the discipline to manage debt owed to your business, then you are going to fail. There is no chance of getting paid when you let things go for 6 months and then turn up in a hissy fit and start throwing clothes out the window.

So your friend got screwed and lost out on €1,200 in revenue till it got to court and he got paid. Would your friend let him in the next month to do the same thing and say come on in, I'll let you run up all the bills you want and sure there's a procedure in place so we'll just sort it in court or would he tell him to f*** off the minute he parked on the forecourt?

EKRIUQ · 08-10-2008 04:59PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm guessing the landlord chose to take HSE tenants? I would imagine they might be higher risk tenants than professionals...

8 years ago the rent was paid directly to the landlord by cheque, then somebody had the great idea of paying the tenants directly, privacy laws, self esteem yada yada, but I'm guessing less paper work for the HSE,

I’ve seem something similar about being cut off when they started getting paid directly into their account and when the landlord complained about receiving no rent to the HSE they cut the tenant her off allowance or I have also seen a person working full time and getting every benefits going and when reported then it was the landlord lost out.

Darragh29 · 08-10-2008 05:00PM

emmagean wrote: »

you're full of assumtions here. skinhead thug? what are you on about?

Well I don't knwo who'll be wrestling any of your tenants out of the front door if they fall behind on rent, but any footage I've seen on the news of people being evicted from a house over the years, the people doing the evicting have been skinheads wearing black bomber jackets, read into that what you will.

emmagean wrote: »

Firstly not everyone, myself included bought a property to rent out as a business venture. This property was not bought by me for such a purpose and I'm sure the same goes for many other people who happen to find themselves being landlords. That said though I see nothing wrong with buying property as an investment. We live in a democratic capitalist country. Thats life. I'm assuming you're a socialist/communist? Not assuming in any bad way, just that it would explain your point of view and stop me from bothering to post any more on this thread

I'm anything but a communist/socialist, I'm a hard working self employed businessman, I make profit and I work extremely hard for it. I had the option of investing in property and making money the lazy way but I don't think you will be successful without working hard and that is another reason why I didn't fall for the property cod. I have one house, that'll do me. I'm not a mean or stingy person, I just believe in living within my means and leaving something for others in society. You seem to have some unique reason specific to yourself for buying more property than you needed. I can't think of any legitimate reason why someone with one family would need anymore than one house...

Wile E. Coyote · 08-10-2008 05:15PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well I don't knwo who'll be wrestling any of your tenants out of the front door if they fall behind on rent, but any footage I've seen on the news of people being evicted from a house over the years, the people doing the evicting have been skinheads wearing black bomber jackets, read into that what you will.

You've been watching far too much telly. I've done repossesions, they're not nice but i've never seen 'skinheads wearing black bomber jackets'. The people who attend are the Gardai, a court appointed sheriff and a locksmith.

AARRRGH · 08-10-2008 05:18PM

Namesco wrote: »

8 years ago the rent was paid directly to the landlord by cheque, then somebody had the great idea of paying the tenants directly, privacy laws, self esteem yada yada, but I'm guessing less paper work for the HSE,

I’ve seem something similar about being cut off when they started getting paid directly into their account and when the landlord complained about receiving no rent to the HSE they cut the tenant her off allowance or I have also seen a person working full time and getting every benefits going and when reported then it was the landlord lost out.

That's utterly retarded, as no doubt the people already have money problems so the temptation to just keep the money must be huge.

There are too many scumbags in this country.

emmagean · 08-10-2008 05:24PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

You seem to have some unique reason specific to yourself for buying more property than you needed. I can't think of any legitimate reason why someone with one family would need anymore than one house...

Not correct. Family circumstances resulted in me becoming the owner of a property and for family reasons I'm not willing to sell it. But as I said earlier I have no problem with people buying property as an investment and fair play to them.

Id still be interested to know what line of business you are in and whether any 'suffering' as you put in has occured to anyone as a result of that line of business.

That said however we have gone waaaaaaay off topic here so I'll stop

Woman doesn't bother paying her rent... wins a court settlement

Comments