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

dodgyme · 09-10-2008 04:06PM

Scootay wrote: »

If you met me you wouldn't be....

...unless you were a rent dodging tenant of course.

no bother rigsby

mountainyman · 09-10-2008 04:07PM

nipplenuts wrote: »

I am not a landlord, nor do I have any particular liking for them, but they are as entitled as anyone else to be fairly treated. Any landlords I ever knew had to pay for their properties - I'm pretty sure none were given to them by the HSE.

scootay didn't pay for his properties.
Most landlords I know did not pay for their properties.

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 04:08PM

dodgyme wrote: »

Capitalism is also about incentive, people have the incentive to work to provide a home for themselves and this is often curtailed by the greedy landlord swallowing chunks of property and creating a bubble which they blame the banks for who lend them the money. Capitalism need to be managed as we now see from the banking scandle not shouldnt just be a free for all either.

Capitalism firstly involves risk. We got into our heads here in Ireland recently, that in terms of investment in property, risk didn't actually apply to us, we had in fact come up with the magic capitalist equation for risk free guaranteed wealth!

Capitalism also involves innovation. There is nothing innovative about listening to your mates in a pub waffling on about their property portfolio, or looking a smug Eddie Hobbs on RTE and you deciding that you'll do the same.

Recently we got it into our heads that capitalism = property investment.

I'm not a socialist or a communist, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in doing the socially correct thing. That means buying what I need to live a comfortable life and no more.

mountainyman · 09-10-2008 04:09PM

nipplenuts wrote: »

OK, the landlady took the wrong approach legally, but consider; she'd have to retain a solicitor, wait months for the issue to get to court and, even if she won she'd still be out the rent and all her costs because Lucy ain't going to pay them.

So, for the property owner it's lose-lose. It was probably less costly to pay €12k damages, I only hope the tennant doesn't get to stay also. TBH it smacks somewhat of the travellers parking up until they have squatters rights!

Lose Lose my ass. The property owner is criminal scum.

dodgyme · 09-10-2008 04:13PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Capitalism firstly involves risk. We got into our heads here in Ireland recently, that in terms of investment in property, risk didn't actually apply to us, we had in fact come up with the magic capitalist equation for risk free guaranteed wealth!

Capitalism also involves innovation. There is nothing innovative about listening to your mates in a pub waffling on about their property portfolio, or looking a smug Eddie Hobbs on RTE and you deciding that you'll do the same.

Recently we got it into our heads that capitalism = property investment.

I'm not a socialist or a communist, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in doing the socially correct thing. That means buying what I need to live a comfortable life and no more.

I do commend your principals. It matters to have them regardless of the vanity which has become part and parcel of our society particularly in relation to property and cars. I always thought of Ireland and a false economy anyhow and the blanket bailout for the banks and a88wipes like eddie hobbs going on rte looking for budget consessions for a woman with a 900 euro a month car and 5 extra properties is exactly what I am talking about.

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 04:13PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

If that's true that's utterly ****ed.

I often wonder am I am fool for trying to be a decent member of society.

its true u can check it out here

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/supplementary-welfare-schemes/rent_supplement

Scootay · 09-10-2008 04:14PM

mountainyman wrote: »

scootay didn't pay for his properties.

Did you miss the bit where I said there was a mortgage on the property? One of the beneficiaries insisted on being paid their share which cost me a fair wedge only some of which came from a bank. I paid for the house I live in and I paid for the house which is rented. I'd sell it tomorrow if I could get a price that would cover what I've spent.

dodgyme · 09-10-2008 04:17PM

NedKelly wrote: »

exactly i agree 110%

well then should there be a massive tax dissentive on people who have more then say 3 properties? Something like that could have been brought in to cool the market yrs ago but ofcourse its capitalism and markets when fatcats are making money and socialism is fine in the form of bailouts to said above when the markets and the properties crash? And we keep bringing up china??

dodgyme · 09-10-2008 04:18PM

Scootay wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where I said there was a mortgage on the property? One of the beneficiaries insisted on being paid their share which cost me a fair wedge only some of which came from a bank. I paid for the house I live in and I paid for the house which is rented. I'd sell it tomorrow if I could get a price that would cover what I've spent.

so you dont want to be a landlord. If so why not?

Scootay · 09-10-2008 04:22PM

Who the hell needs the hassle of a second mortgage in this economic climate? The house is rented now but who can tell what will happen when the lease is up? It's an extra worry I could certainly do without.

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 04:22PM

dodgyme wrote: »

well then should there be a massive tax dissentive on people who have more then say 3 properties? Something like that could have been brought in to cool the market yrs ago but ofcourse its capitalism and markets when fatcats are making money and socialism is fine in the form of bailouts to said above when the markets and the properties crash? And we keep bringing up china??

Ok from a moral perspective i agree with you 100%

but there are too many vested intrests for this to ever happen
i wouldnt say most TDs have just 1 house
i would even say that 50% of them arent even PRTB registered
the fact is that this county got rich by people selling houses to eachother

AARRRGH · 09-10-2008 04:33PM

Why has this topic gone retarded with people talking about politicians owning loads of houses and landlords getting their houses for free and property owners being scumbags?

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 04:40PM

NedKelly wrote: »

Ok from a moral perspective i agree with you 100%

but there are too many vested intrests for this to ever happen
i wouldnt say most TDs have just 1 house
i would even say that 50% of them arent even PRTB registered
the fact is that this county got rich by people selling houses to eachother

This is like the guy who goes to a brothel and pays a prostitute for sex and then goes up to her afterwards when he's done and dusted and asks her what she is doing there in a brothel, how did she end up in such a bad situation and tells her that he wants to help her, he feels that morally it's wrong that she has to sell her body for money and he can help her to lift herself out of her unfortunate situation!

Shows the mentality of landlords, "morally it's wrong, but sure everyone is at it, so fu*k the morality of the situation, Ill ride people while the opportunity is there and when it's no longer there, I'll go back to being morally correct about it."...

Scootay · 09-10-2008 04:42PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Shows the mentality of some landlords.

Fixed that for you.

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 04:50PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

This is like the guy who goes to a brothel and pays a prostitute for sex and then goes up to her afterwards when he's done and dusted and asks her what she is doing there in a brothel, how did she end up in such a bad situation and tells her that he wants to help her, he feels that morally it's wrong that she has to sell her body for money and he can help her to lift herself out of her unfortunate situation!

Shows the mentality of landlords, "morally it's wrong, but sure everyone is at it, so fu*k the morality of the situation, Ill ride people while the opportunity is there and when it's no longer there, I'll go back to being morally correct about it."...

Ah get off the soapbox Darragh29
so you are begrudging me that i got up off my arse and worked and have an investment?????

u are acting like i got the places for free and didnt do a days work to get them? if ur age is in your username then im the same age as you and you could have easy done what i have if u worked as hard as i did

i dont get handouts from anyone i saved for 3 deposits, 3 stamp duties and 3 solicitors fees ?

I will work hard to have a successful future for myself and family
if the state insists on paying (SOME) scroungers the equilivent of 80k not to work why should i not get some of my money back when i get these people to buy 3 house for me ??

and yes to quote u i will ride these scroungers twice as hard as they are riding everone else why shouldnt i ??

ShooterSF · 09-10-2008 04:57PM

There should be risk yes but risk that people will not want to rent from them etc. not break the law and refuse to pay them.

Off topic on the whole bank bail out, what a load of bollox. Did the bank offer to bail out people when they couldnt afford their mortgages. The banks, not landlords are parasites who dont seem to be effected by the "risk" in capitalism. :mad:

Mr. Presentable · 09-10-2008 05:00PM

mountainyman wrote: »

scootay didn't pay for his properties.
Most landlords I know did not pay for their properties.

Please elaborate. Got them in Christmas crackers, did they? KNow a lot of landlords, do you. Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. You come across as a pointless bitter poster who thinks the world owes him something.

I'm surprised, to be honest, you have been allowed to post remarks calling a category of business person scum, parasite etc, and calling for them to be killed.

FX Meister · 09-10-2008 05:05PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The landlord did a foolish thing, he threw someone vulnerable out on to the streets. It is up to the Landlord to make sure a lease agreement is drafted up between himself and the tenant.

If the tenant breached the agreement the landlord should have gone down the legal road and contacted his solicitor. By taking the law into his own hands he is only asking for trouble and deserves what he gets.

You don't have a clue whats involved evicting someone legally. More than likely he saved money by evicting her the way he did.

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 05:12PM

NedKelly wrote: »

Ah get off the soapbox Darragh29
so you are begrudging me that i got up off my arse and worked and have an investment?????

u are acting like i got the places for free and didnt do a days work to get them? if ur age is in your username then im the same age as you and you could have easy done what i have if u worked as hard as i did

i dont get handouts from anyone i saved for 3 deposits, 3 stamp duties and 3 solicitors fees ?

I will work hard to have a successful future for myself and family
if the state insists on paying (SOME) scroungers the equilivent of 80k not to work why should i not get some of my money back when i get these people to buy 3 house for me ??

and yes to quote u i will ride these scroungers twice as hard as they are riding everone else why shouldnt i ??

The last thing I'm doing is begrudging you!!! I could be in the same sorry mess you are in if I ran with the sheep and bought as many houses as the banks would let me borrow for!!! And if you have an investment portfolio standing at probably around a million Euro taking into account your three properties and you are getting a return of a little under 750 Euro a year, as you say you are, then you are somewhere I would not like to be!

What you seem to be missing is that you are the scrounger that you refer to above, you are ultimately taking a state handout when the Dept. of Social Welfare is paying for your mortgage.

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 05:14PM

NedKelly wrote: »

i dont get handouts from anyone i saved for 3 deposits, 3 stamp duties and 3 solicitors fees ?

No??? What about that tenant you referred to who had the Dept. of Social Welfare paying your rent mortgage???

AARRRGH · 09-10-2008 05:17PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

No??? What about that tenant you referred to who had the Dept. of Social Welfare paying your rent mortgage???

How is that a handout...?

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 05:20PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

How is that a handout...?

Well Ned is giving out that people are living off the state. If he is getting cheques from the Dept. of Social Welfare every month, then he is living off the state in my eyes.

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 05:21PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

The last thing I'm doing is begrudging you!!! I could be in the same sorry mess you are in if I ran with the sheep and bought as many houses as the banks would let me borrow for!!! And if you have an investment portfolio standing at probably around a million Euro taking into account your three properties and you are getting a return of a little under 750 Euro a year, as you say you are, then you are somewhere I would not like to be!

What you seem to be missing is that you are the scrounger that you refer to above, you are ultimately taking a state handout when the Dept. of Social Welfare is paying for your mortgage.

i really dont see how im in a "sorry mess "
i have had my some of my capital paid off + intrest +expenses all paid for
and i made a profit ????

i do agree with you though about the Dept. of Social Welfare is paying for my mortgage .

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 05:23PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well Ned is giving out that people are living off the state. If he is getting cheques from the Dept. of Social Welfare every month, then he is living off the state in my eyes.

yes living off the state paying 42 % tax
40 k on stamp duty yes im living off the state
:rolleyes:

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 05:26PM

NedKelly wrote: »

yes living off the state paying 42 % tax
40 k on stamp duty yes im living off the state
:rolleyes:

Yeah, but you have the state paying back mortgages probably to the tune of a million Euro...

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 05:27PM

SO ?????

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 05:28PM

i agree with you the system is wrong ...
maybe if the entire country was as moral as you
we wouldnt be in this position today

Darragh29 · 09-10-2008 05:39PM

NedKelly wrote: »

i agree with you the system is wrong ...
maybe if the entire country was as moral as you
we wouldnt be in this position today

Well my tax is paying for your mortgage on 3 properties. Your right, if we had less selfless people in this country instead of opportunistic parasitic property welfare dependants, the people who the state are currently paying you above market rates to house, could probably afford to buy themselves. But unfortunately for the country but luckily for you, we have had a government around here recently that prioritises your right to own 3 properties over a family that should in all normal circumstances, be able to buy their own home.

If you had been kept out of the property market, the chances are that the families that the state are currently paying you to house, would be self dependant.

NedKelly · 09-10-2008 05:47PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

If you had been kept out of the property market, the chances are that the families that the state are currently paying you to house, would be self dependant.

that is the funniest quote i have ever heard
u obvioulsy dont get out of Dublin 4 much.....

u really should preach your moraility to the junkies/pyjama brigade that live free of charge
dont work and have no intention to work EVER
i have met them all trust me ...

do you beilve they really aspire to own property or two and if it wasnt for me they would be living next door to Bono ?

sure they can get a free house if they tick all the boxes

belive me i feel as bitter as you do when i see where my tax goes
housing and providing for these lot when u and i are up for work day in day out
look at the state of the hospitals etc when €1000000s are spent on housing (some) parasites
that have not and will not work

emmagean · 09-10-2008 06:01PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

If it creates a profit (or a loss for that matter), it's a business. The business entity can be a public/private limited company, a sole trader or a partnership.

Welcome to the real world, where cheques get bounced, businesses fold, debts get written off, and life goes on...

are you sure you're in business, cos you're completely wrong here. If it creates profit you declare it in an end of year tax return as a PAYE employee not as a business. There is no Corporation tax of 12.5% because it IS NOT A BUSINESS plain and simple. contact a solicitor if you're still unsure!

Darragh29 wrote:

I don't have a board that I can go running to FREE OF CHARGE, provided at taxpayers expense, to compel that debtor to pay me.

are you saying that landlords do? if you are then again you are completely incorrect. first off a landlord has to pay a fee to the PRTB. Secondly the PRTB are heavily weighted in favour of tenants. Thirdly if by some miracle the PRTB eventually gets their finger out and eventually rules in favour of the landlord the tenant can still stick two fingers up and not pay a penny. The landlord will still have to engage the (expensive) services of a solicitor if they want a chance at getting their money back.

Resentment and jealousy are the two words that come to mind when reading some of the posts on here. But I'm loving the discussion

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

Comments