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

Tar.Aldarion · 10-10-2008 02:27AM

Recession at it again.
Instead of loans we now have settlements.

gurramok · 10-10-2008 08:58AM

Seanies32 wrote: »

Again we have had the lowest ever amount of people claiming rent allowance in the last few years. Rents will fall in the next few years.

Just to pick up on this, the Rent Allowance bill is topping €500m for about 80,000+ people and has been the highest ever on record.

One reason is the lack of social housing in the last 7 yrs.

Another point, landlords will be crucified when the govt reverses the tax incentive scheme for them. You know that one where landlords can write off mortgage interest and fixture & fittings expenses against tax.

This will happen eventually to help the govt balance the books as its costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Dinter · 10-10-2008 09:29AM

Darragh29 wrote: »

The reason the price of property went up to stupid levels was due to the number of people who were buying to invest. If investors were kept out of the market, we'd now have more people owning their own properties, working to achieve this and less people needing the state to pay their stupidly high monthly rent bill for them.

Ah Darragh, you’re up posting late on a school night. Ok, I know it seems like chanting property parasite, property parasite, over and over again makes a valid and cutting point but it doesn’t really. It’s not going to cut it in the Christmas Exams is it?

Now I’ll try to explain this and break it into manageable chunks that you can mull over when you’re having the cheese sambos your mammy made, and then see if you can make a valid or interesting rejoinder when you get home from school. I’ll underline the terms you should concentrate on and if you need help with definitions ask your teacher. While it’s admirable that you’ve taken it upon yourself to read ahead of the class you are in danger of getting lost.

To cut through the more technical terms and parts you mightn’t get anyway, the reason the price of property went up is due to a well known phenomenon called “Supply and Demand”. As there is more “Demand” for a certain item the amount or “Supply” of that available item begins to shrink. This of course increases the price and it goes back and forth like that until either “Supply” jumps again leading to a consequent drop in “Demand” or the “Supply” prices itself out of tenable reach with the same result. This will lead to a drop in price.

To give you an example. Daddy has a sweet that he’s selling for 1 cent. However you and your sister both want it and both of you have 1 cent. Now how are you going to ensure that you get it and not your sister? You decide to go to Mammy and ask her will she lend you an extra 1 cent so that you now have 2 cent. Mammy agrees but say’s she’ll mind the sweet and will give it to you when you pay her back. Your sister has only 1 cent so you’ve got to win. Now as you’re looking for Daddy to pay him your sister thinks the same thing but she borrows 2 cent off Mammy with the same conditions. You go back to Mammy and this goes on and on until eventually you get the sweet for 5 cent as Mammy doesn’t trust your sister to pay that amount back. Suddenly Daddy comes back and in his hand he’s got a dozen sweets so suddenly your sweet is not worth what it was. However you’ve still got to pay Mammy back 5 cent and so you’re now in “Negative Equity”.

Now even if your sister had 5 sweets already before all this and had still wanted another one if she didn’t force you to go to Mammy to borrow more money how is that her fault? Is it not Mammy’s fault for loaning you money for a sweet that wasn’t worth what you borrowed? Or is it your fault for being greedy and trying to get a sweet you didn’t really need at that particular time?

In fact if there was someone else in the family like, weird Uncle Paul, would've allowed you to have a sweet and have a quick taste of it on an ongoing basis for 2000 licks a cent would that not have made better financial sense for you? Of course if you think that that’s all a bit gross because other people might have had a taste of the same sweet it’s your short sightedness, snobbery and greed that made you buy a sweet all of your own at a price you knew was untenable.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Funny to see the property parasites coming out of the woodwork now attempting to point the finger at builders, mechanics, insurance companies, everyone but themselves.

No, really, there’s no reason to thank me for clearing this up for you, Best of luck in the Junior Cert. I’d say you’ll definitely get a question on this so keep studying.

ShooterSF · 10-10-2008 09:37AM

On another issue why the hell should the landlord only get paid for the 6 months if the hse pays it? Surely the tennant now €12k better off can afford it herself and gthe court admits she owes it :rolleyes:

10-10-2008 10:06AM

I haven't read all the replies but HOLY SH*T how the hell can someone get away with paying 6k worth of rent and then end up getting 12k in compensation???? that is disgusting. Ok so the landlady may have acted irrationally and lets be honest about this, do we really think she "threw the stuff out the windows" more likely she put it out in the garden. That poor woman had a mortgage to pay and because someone suddenly couldn't afford to pay the rent she doesn't bother paying it at all???? What would have happened if the woman stopped paying the mortgage as she could no longer afford it?

I love my country but god does it drive me crazy sometimes

:mad: :mad: :mad:

not yet · 10-10-2008 10:06AM

WTF did these people do 20 years ago, I'll tell you stay the f*ck at home or rent, my sister moved out 20 years ago (with a baby) and rented a room for 30 pounds a week. fast forward 20 years and any single mother can now look forward to a nice 2 bed apartment paid for by the HSE. Now all you bleeding heart liberals going to post here about social awareness etc etc can f*ck right off, I pay my bills, mortgage etc and if i lost my job i'd lose my home end off, and I'd get f*ck all of the state.

how can the government justify paying 500m a year in rent allowance.

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 10:13AM

Dinter wrote: »

Ah Darragh, you’re up posting late on a school night. Ok, I know it seems like chanting property parasite, property parasite, over and over again makes a valid and cutting point but it doesn’t really. It’s not going to cut it in the Christmas Exams is it?

Now I’ll try to explain this and break it into manageable chunks that you can mull over when you’re having the cheese sambos your mammy made, and then see if you can make a valid or interesting rejoinder when you get home from school. I’ll underline the terms you should concentrate on and if you need help with definitions ask your teacher. While it’s admirable that you’ve taken it upon yourself to read ahead of the class you are in danger of getting lost.

To cut through the more technical terms and parts you mightn’t get anyway, the reason the price of property went up is due to a well known phenomenon called “Supply and Demand”. As there is more “Demand” for a certain item the amount or “Supply” of that available item begins to shrink. This of course increases the price and it goes back and forth like that until either “Supply” jumps again leading to a consequent drop in “Demand” or the “Supply” prices itself out of tenable reach with the same result. This will lead to a drop in price.

To give you an example. Daddy has a sweet that he’s selling for 1 cent. However you and your sister both want it and both of you have 1 cent. Now how are you going to ensure that you get it and not your sister? You decide to go to Mammy and ask her will she lend you an extra 1 cent so that you now have 2 cent. Mammy agrees but say’s she’ll mind the sweet and will give it to you when you pay her back. Your sister has only 1 cent so you’ve got to win. Now as you’re looking for Daddy to pay him your sister thinks the same thing but she borrows 2 cent off Mammy with the same conditions. You go back to Mammy and this goes on and on until eventually you get the sweet for 5 cent as Mammy doesn’t trust your sister to pay that amount back. Suddenly Daddy comes back and in his hand he’s got a dozen sweets so suddenly your sweet is not worth what it was. However you’ve still got to pay Mammy back 5 cent and so you’re now in “Negative Equity”.

Now even if your sister had 5 sweets already before all this and had still wanted another one if she didn’t force you to go to Mammy to borrow more money how is that her fault? Is it not Mammy’s fault for loaning you money for a sweet that wasn’t worth what you borrowed? Or is it your fault for being greedy and trying to get a sweet you didn’t really need at that particular time?

In fact if there was someone else in the family like, weird Uncle Paul, would've allowed you to have a sweet and have a quick taste of it on an ongoing basis for 2000 licks a cent would that not have made better financial sense for you? Of course if you think that that’s all a bit gross because other people might have had a taste of the same sweet it’s your short sightedness, snobbery and greed that made you buy a sweet all of your own at a price you knew was untenable.

Obviously I've hit a nerve with 12 houses Dinter! You must have been on the sauce when you sent this, you've illustrated the very point I was making here...

Dinter · 10-10-2008 10:19AM

That anyone who bought a house they couldn't afford made a mistake and should stop whining and trying to find someone to blame?

Great, we're in agreement so.

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 10:27AM

Dinter wrote: »

That anyone who bought a house they couldn't afford made a mistake and should stop whining and trying to find someone to blame?

Great, we're in agreement so.

No, that it is unaffordable because to many other people out there were greedy. Obviously your another upstanding patriot who is having their 12 houses paid for by the HSE...

Dinter · 10-10-2008 10:33AM

Darragh29 wrote: »

No, that it is unaffordable because to many other people out there were greedy. Obviously your another upstanding patriot who is having their 12 houses paid for by the HSE...

Rather than let people live on the street?

Also you have heard of affordable housing right?

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 10:41AM

Tony Broke wrote: »

Exactly, No one is entitled to anything.

This sense of entitlement we have sickens me.

A growing number of people are wanting something for nothing

Yeah landlords.
Now the scvm want us to pay their mortgages.
People who are concerned with the petty thefts and dodges of the poor are idiots. The thefts and dodges of the rich are on a much geater scale.
MM

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 10:58AM

Dinter wrote: »

Rather than let people live on the street?

Also you have heard of affordable housing right?

Dinter I loved the parable but it doesn't have much to do with landlordism.
Darragh yourself and Dinter are substantially in agreement.

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 11:22AM

Double Mail

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 11:24AM

Dinter wrote: »

Oh gimme a break? Tbh you're still not understanding the contribution that stamp duty made to the exchequer during the property bubble. Buying a normal 2 bed apartment probably contributed more to the economy than your tax returns would in a year or two. Do you understand about supply and demand? The more properties for rent the less time rent can remain artificially inflated. Does that not make sense?

Come on! we should have been paying proper rates of tax all along.

We thought we were rich but we were only ****** rich.

Dinter · 10-10-2008 11:25AM

mountainyman wrote: »

Dinter I loved the parable but it doesn't have much to do with landlordism.

In the same way that landlords have little to do with the housing boom and bust.

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license.” P.J. O'Rourke

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 11:27AM

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

If i was evicted (legally or illegally) for not paying rent id just accept it and move on as i would know i was in the wrong. If the tenent has no money then how did they hire a lawyer to handle the case? Free legal aid im guessing, so you and i as taxpayers have picked up the tab for this

You are a good victim.
If you were evicted illegally you would just accept it?
No wonder the English were able to rule this country for 800 years.

Scootay · 10-10-2008 11:53AM

mountainyman wrote: »

Yeah landlords.
Now the scvm want us to pay their mortgages.

Utter garbage. Landlords who are getting paid by the HSE (one of which I am not) are not looking for money for nothing but are being paid to provide a service that the state couldn't be bothered providing. Where's all the social housing that was supposed to be built? What happened the money the builders paid county councils instead of building affordable housing? Surely with the property market collapsing the county councils could use this money to buy properties (thus condemning themselves to being criminal scum deserving death according to some) so why don't they?

AARRRGH · 10-10-2008 12:26PM

Scootay wrote: »

Utter garbage.

He's trying to troll, but failing badly. Just ignore him.

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 12:47PM

Scootay wrote: »

Utter garbage. Landlords who are getting paid by the HSE (one of which I am not) are not looking for money for nothing but are being paid to provide a service that the state couldn't be bothered providing. Where's all the social housing that was supposed to be built? What happened the money the builders paid county councils instead of building affordable housing? Surely with the property market collapsing the county councils could use this money to buy properties (thus condemning themselves to being criminal scum deserving death according to some) so why don't they?

what?
where is all the housing that was supposed to be built?

so now criminal scum like the landlady in the case in the original mail are good samaritans? I wasn't talking about private tenants and the HSE I was talking about the coming attempt to reflate the property bubble.

A tax ons econd properties is coming there will be no way to save the property ladder. If you have a mortgage on a second home your buggered.

listen the court's verdict was clear.
Tenant in the right
Landlady in the wrong

Aaaargh do you even know what trolling is?
It is expousing a point of view which you do not hold to get a rise out of people.

I believe that landlords are scum. I am sorry not everyone agrees with your tedious and ill informed orginal complaint that a criminal had been punished. You felt the victim was to blame.
Blame the victim of a crime. Nice guy.

MM

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 12:48PM

not yet wrote: »

how can the government justify paying 500m a year in rent allowance.

How can the government justify paying 500b to the banks?

AARRRGH · 10-10-2008 12:58PM

mountainyman wrote: »

Aaaargh do you even know what trolling is?
It is expousing a point of view which you do not hold to get a rise out of people.

Yes. I do not believe you really believe the things you are typing here.

I am all on for different point of views, but there is a fine line between being a maverick and insanity.

not yet · 10-10-2008 12:59PM

mountainyman wrote: »

How can the government justify paying 500b to the banks?

cop the f*ck on.........this thread is not about banks, people seem to think in this country they are entitled to free f*cking everything.

Scootay · 10-10-2008 01:10PM

mountainyman wrote: »

what?
where is all the housing that was supposed to be built?

Yes, that was my question. Rezoning and planning permission was granted on the condition that affordable housing be built. Where is it?

mountainyman wrote: »

so now criminal scum like the landlady in the case in the original mail are good samaritans?

Did I say that? Wallow in your frustration and denial as you like, landlords provide a service and if there was no demand for it there would be no service. Labelling them criminals and scum may make you feel better but it won't change anything and certainly won't make it true.

mountainyman wrote: »

listen the court's verdict was clear.
Tenant in the right
Landlady in the wrong

Yes it was and there's no denying that she went about evicting the freeloading scum the wrong way but that doesn't excuse RTÉ's incredibly biased reporting of the case.

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 01:17PM

Scootay wrote: »

Did I say that? Wallow in your frustration and denial as you like, landlords provide a service and if there was no demand for it there would be no service. Labelling them criminals and scum may make you feel better but it won't change anything and certainly won't make it true.

One question for you. Why are landlords charging the HSE more than a private tenant for their "services"??? You are missing the whole point here, landlords are to blame for the fact that people cannot to pay (A) Mortgages on a property which pushes so many people into the rental market and (B) People in the rental market not being able to pay artifically high rent, which means the HSE have to pay it for them. All the above problems can be traced back to artifically high property prices and greedy speculators/investors have been the cause of that.

Scootay wrote: »

Yes it was and there's no denying that she went about evicting the freeloading scum the wrong way but that doesn't excuse RTÉ's incredibly biased reporting of the case.

RTE reported the facts of the case. Fact's were the landlady was criminal in her bahaviour.

AARRRGH · 10-10-2008 01:18PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

RTE reported the facts of the case. Fact's were the landlady was criminal in her bahaviour.

Will you at least acknowledge the woman was a scumbag to -

1. Not pay her rent
2. Not think there was anything wrong with not paying her rent

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 01:27PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Will you at least acknowledge the woman was a scumbag to -

1. Not pay her rent
2. Not think there was anything wrong with not paying her rent

She's not a scumbag. I don't personally know of her circumstances, but I'm fairly sure that most people just want to have a secure job, be on top of their bills, whether they be primarily mortgage or rent bills, and live in peace.

Nobody wants to be owed money and nobody wants to be owing money. Obviously this woman was depending on the HSE for a roof over her head and recently that support was taken from her. The fact that she was in arrears is not satisfactory, I accept that.

Even though she was clearly in arrears, a landlady throwing her and her possessions out onto the street, is unforgiveable in my eyes, she should have been fu*ked into Mountjoy for a few weeks to teach her.

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 01:48PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Will you at least acknowledge the woman was a scumbag to -

1. Not pay her rent
2. Not think there was anything wrong with not paying her rent

Not for those reasons. I would accept that in our society both of those things are closely correlated with being a scumbag.

A court found that the landlady and her goons were scumbags though.

Scootay · 10-10-2008 02:04PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

One question for you. Why are landlords charging the HSE more than a private tenant for their "services"???

I wasn't aware that they were but I have heard that the rent allowance is only a percentage of the rent so to get the rent that a private tenant would pay for the same property it may be that some landlords increase the rent accordingly but only collect the HSE payment. That's pure speculation though and based on information about the HSE payment that I do not know to be true.

Darragh29 wrote: »

RTE reported the facts of the case. Fact's were the landlady was criminal in her bahaviour.

Watch the report again. They report the facts while interviewing one side of the case and portraying her in a sympathetic light. No questions are asked about the missing rent nor is the story given as an example of a trend in landlord/tenant relations. It's purely a story about the poor rent dodging freeloading scum who was illegally evicted by the evil landlord.

Scootay · 10-10-2008 02:06PM

mountainyman wrote: »

A court found that the landlady and her goons were scumbags though.

What goons? The court found that the landlady acted illegally. I've seen no reports that the judge announced that she was a scumbag.

mountainyman · 10-10-2008 02:10PM

Scootay wrote: »

Watch the report again. They report the facts while interviewing one side of the case and portraying her in a sympathetic light. No questions are asked about the missing rent nor is the story given as an example of a trend in landlord/tenant relations. It's purely a story about the poor rent dodging freeloading scum who was illegally evicted by the evil landlord.

Did they call the woman freeloading scum? what was she found guilty of?

Oh wait this must be in the scootay universe, it is extremely similar to this universe except that landlords are good guys in that other universe. Now scootay as you have the ability to create universes will ypu please create a universe where I am married to an 18 year old Jenny Powell.

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

Comments