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

Scootay · 10-10-2008 02:16PM

I may have been editorialising somewhat...

The_Conductor · 10-10-2008 02:20PM

mountainyman wrote: »

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.

At the PRTB she was found guilty of not paying rent and ordered to comply within 14 days. She did not and the landlord turfed her (without following the requisite procedures for evicting her). She took legal action against him for an illegal eviction, despite being non-complicate with an order to pay the rent which was due, and won, because he did not follow the correct procedures. Simple as.

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 02:25PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

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

Don't know where you've been getting that notion but you're sadly ill-informed.

If anything landlords get *less* money for properties which they rent to tenants in receipt of a rental allowance payment, as the payments are capped at various limits, more often than not, which are far less than the average going rate for rates in any given area.

Landlords will generally get more rent from better off, working professionals who can afford to pay more, and from students who are often in receipt of grants and often have a tendency to share with more people thus lowering the rent individually per head, but also with the effect that they can pay more in total as a group, as opposed to a family on welfare who are limited in what they canpay as dictated by the HSE.

I also fail to see the reasoning behind your use of quotation marks around the word "services" - Do you not think that a landlord providing shelter, a roof over the head of a family, attending to general maintenance of the property, keeping it well maintained, in good working order, ensuring that any damages/breakages are seen to within a reasonable amount of time is not a service?

You seem to bear an awful grudge against landlords in general, tell me were you ever mistreated by one? Have you had personal dealings with one on an on-going basis, or why the ire and wrath?

Or are you just annoyed because there are some people out there who can afford more property than you?

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 02:54PM

pandamoanium wrote: »

You seem to bear an awful grudge against landlords in general, tell me were you ever mistreated by one? Have you had personal dealings with one on an on-going basis, or why the ire and wrath?

Or are you just annoyed because there are some people out there who can afford more property than you?

Will you go to the bother of reading previous posts here before you start posting nonsense. The only thing stopping me from being a property investor is my sense of wider responsibility. Why should I go and buy a number of houses and by doing so, artifically effect the property market and deprive other people who work as hard as me, of a property to live in??? I know I'm well entitled to do it, but I don't think it's the right thing to do, so I don't.

All this recent crap with people buying houses just to keep up with the Jones's, the whole thing was revolting to look at.

Wile E. Coyote · 10-10-2008 03:01PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just as a comparison:

Your mate buys parts at his expense. Landlord buys house at her expense.
You mate bills customer for time and parts. Landlord charges customer for time in house.
Your mate realises he's not getting paid so keeps parts and undoes work. Landlord realises shes not getting paid, cuts off access to house.
Mate needs to go to court to get money for money owed. Landlord must do same.

What's the difference?

As asked above Darragh, whats the difference in these two situations?

You seem to have some very deluded views of landlords being the cause of all the countries problems be it a person with one house to let or someone who has invested in a couple of houses.

When did you buy your own house as a matter of interest?

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 03:21PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

As asked above Darragh, whats the difference in these two situations?

You seem to have some very deluded views of landlords being the cause of all the countries problems be it a person with one house to let or someone who has invested in a couple of houses.

When did you buy your own house as a matter of interest?

Here are the differences:

(1) My mate charges the same price for the job, regardless of who he is doing it for. It is well known that landlords inflate rents when they are dealing with the HSE/Dept of Social Welfare.

(2) My mate wasn't the cause of the customer being unable to pay for the services he was receiving, thereby needing the state to pay the bill for him. Landlords have caused our property prices to rise far far in excess of what they should be.

What my mate was dealing with was a taxi-man who well had enough money but thought he was the smartest cu*t in town...

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 03:22PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

When did you buy your own house as a matter of interest?

Around 5 years ago...

K-9 · 10-10-2008 03:28PM

gurramok wrote: »

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.

That's about €120 a week per person. Thought it would have been higher to be honest with partners and kids.

I wonder how many claimed it in say 1992 and what numbers.

As regards the tax incentives, we'll see in the budget. Every business can claim loan interest relevant to their activity and Fixtures & Fittings. Can't see why landlords should be different.

Anyway the way things are going, many Landlords will have none or very little income to declare.

lostinnappies · 10-10-2008 03:35PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Did anyone see this clip on RTE news?

It is a fairly sympathetic piece about a woman/family who took their landlord to court (and won 12k) because they were illegally evicted after not paying their rent (they owed 6k).

The landlord was stupid to illegally evict her, but it is wrong to think - as the woman in the piece clearly does - that it is ok to not pay your way in the world.

I was unemployed for 6 months but never once did it cross my mind that I shouldn't have to pay rent or was entitled to not pay rent - I made sure I had that money every month.

I don't know if the woman is stupid or what - nobody deserves special treatment - she should have to pay her way like everyone else.

Does anyone agree with me?!

PS I don't care that the woman is an immigrant. Let's not make this about immigration.

This is how the knackers do it. They come and take over property that is not theirs, dont pay, dont move, then when they are kicked out its a lawsuit all around and guess who wins cos they have enough money from begging and benefits they get from the government, that they can afford a private lawer. (have you ever seen a tinkers wedding ... i know i couldnt afford a limo for mine)

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 03:35PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Will you go to the bother of reading previous posts here before you start posting nonsense. The only thing stopping me from being a property investor is my sense of wider responsibility. Why should I go and buy a number of houses and by doing so, artifically effect the property market and deprive other people who work as hard as me, of a property to live in??? I know I'm well entitled to do it, but I don't think it's the right thing to do, so I don't.

All this recent crap with people buying houses just to keep up with the Jones's, the whole thing was revolting to look at.

I agree wholehartedly with the keeping up with the Jones's mentality, Ireland got far too materialistic when the so-called Celtic Tiger was roaring, however that's neither here nor there.

So, basically you're telling us that you see yourself as some martyr in society by purposely staying out of the property market, even though you have the funds, see it as a viable business, and the know how to run it, but you'd feel responsible for seeing starving families on the street if you were to engage it, is this right? Because that's what it sounds like..

So tell me, if the so-called greedy landlords weren't snapping up everything in sight with the view to make a healthy profit everyone would be sitting comfortablly now in their own house?

You seem to think that this is the case, and the only reason there are any renters in the market is because the landlords pushed up the price of property so they couldn't get a foot on the ladder.

What about those on social welfare? They could never ever buy their own house, regardless of whethr or not house prices spiralled as a result of investors. Why? Because for the simple fact they cannot get a mortgage. No bank will ever give a mortgage to a person on social welfare.

Therefore, those on the dole, disability benefit, single mothers allowance etc etc.. they will always have to rent. Without landlords where would they live?

They can't afford to buy their own house. It takes years and years before you can get a council house, so in the meantime what will they do, where will they live?

In a cardboard box because there are no landlords out there to rent from?

You seem to think that homeless families are the result of landlords and their properties, ever think that perhaps it's the other way round? There'd be a heck of a lot more homeless families out there if they didn't have a home to rent in the first place from, guess who, surprise surprise, a landlord!

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

As asked above Darragh, whats the difference in these two situations?

You seem to have some very deluded views of landlords being the cause of all the countries problems be it a person with one house to let or someone who has invested in a couple of houses.

When did you buy your own house as a matter of interest?

Anyone else notice that Darragh has selective vision when it comes to which points he chooses to answer.. :rolleyes:

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 03:37PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Here are the differences:

(1) My mate charges the same price for the job, regardless of who he is doing it for. It is well known that landlords inflate rents when they are dealing with the HSE/Dept of Social Welfare.
.

I'd still love to know where you get your information from... :rolleyes:

The_Conductor · 10-10-2008 03:42PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Here are the differences:

(1) My mate charges the same price for the job, regardless of who he is doing it for. It is well known that landlords inflate rents when they are dealing with the HSE/Dept of Social Welfare.

Really?
Do you have any proof of this (other than anecdotes from friends?)

Wile E. Coyote · 10-10-2008 03:44PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Here are the differences:

(1) My mate charges the same price for the job, regardless of who he is doing it for. It is well known that landlords inflate rents when they are dealing with the HSE/Dept of Social Welfare.

(2) My mate wasn't the cause of the customer being unable to pay for the services he was receiving, thereby needing the state to pay the bill for him. Landlords have caused our property prices to rise far far in excess of what they should be.

What my mate was dealing with was a taxi-man who well had enough money but thought he was the smartest cu*t in town...

Your view's are so deluded and hypocritical it's nearly funny.

(1) Your mate is a mechanic, one of the biggest rip-off merchants out there. You accept his right to take back the service he has provided but slate a landlord for doing the exact same thing. And there's nothing in the story to say the rent was inflated cause she was dealing with the HSE. Fact is the HSE were paying, stopped and the tenant didn't bother paying the rent.

(2) The landlord in this case isn't the reason this woman couldn't pay her rent. The reason she couldn't pay was because she wouldn't get off her lazy ass to find a job like the rest of us had to. In the video it doesn't look like she had any major disability that would prevent her from working but yet she lived off state handouts for 8 years after arriving in the country.

And quit the moaning about how landlords pushed up the house prices and are the cause of all societies problems, it's getting old. Everyone in this country who purchased a house between 1990-2006 has contributed to the ridiculous rise in house prices. But the fact remains that that housing boom is the sole reason this country became so rich. The fact that our government has squandered the proceeds is not the landlords fault.

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 03:54PM

pandamoanium wrote: »

I agree wholehartedly with the keeping up with the Jones's mentality, Ireland got far too materialistic when the so-called Celtic Tiger was roaring, however that's neither here nor there.

It is very much here and there. This mentality that came to surface in recent years is what has us in the very sorry mess we are now in.

pandamoanium wrote: »

So, basically you're telling us that you see yourself as some martyr in society by purposely staying out of the property market, even though you have the funds, see it as a viable business, and the know how to run it, but you'd feel responsible for seeing starving families on the street if you were to engage it, is this right? Because that's what it sounds like..

Firstly, I didn't see property as a viable business. Some poster on here a few pages back is clear testament to that, with 1 million Euro tied up in 3 properties and a return of just under 750 Euro last year after tax to show for his investment. I invested 2% of what he invested in his 3 houses, in myself a year ago and have aproximately 30 times the return that he got from his 1 million Euro investment, so the figures speak for themselves.

pandamoanium wrote: »

So tell me, if the so-called greedy landlords weren't snapping up everything in sight with the view to make a healthy profit everyone would be sitting comfortablly now in their own house?

You seem to think that this is the case, and the only reason there are any renters in the market is because the landlords pushed up the price of property so they couldn't get a foot on the ladder.

I'm not saying there would be no people renting property, but people who were earning a decent wage, in recent years still couldn't buy because these parasites were outbidding them. You might not see this as being selfish, that's grand, maybe you are one of these parasites, I see it as being selfish
and greedy and that's my opinion. Propery isn't a luxury that you can choose to live in or choose not to live in. Anyone who isn't homeless accepts that one of the hygiene factors in life is a roof over your head.

Such an essential requirement for human living should not have been allowed become a device through which certain people were allowed hijack an entire economy for the purposes of satisfying their own rampant greed.

NedKelly · 10-10-2008 04:06PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't see property as a viable business. Some poster on here a few pages back is clear testament to that, with 1 million Euro tied up in 3 properties and a return of just under 750 Euro last year after tax to show for his investment. I invested 2% of what he invested in his 3 houses, in myself a year ago and have aproximately 30 times the return that he got from his 1 million Euro investment, so the figures speak for themselves.

.

i have made 10 times your return in equity in the past 7 years
the 750 was was just an additional bonus
last year i had to do major improvements to 2 of the houses
kitchen ,heating etc which again all came off my profit

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 04:07PM

Do you honestly think that landlords are the sole reason property prices soared?

What about the price of land in the first place? Before a house is even built you have to factor in the price of the land. Where I live, up until a year ago to get a 0.5 acre in a rural area, with no scenic views or any other particularly appealing attributes which could perhaps justify a large price tag, you'd be looking at around 250k - that's just for the land alone!

Add to this builders costs, the price of furnishing the place, landscaping etc.. you can see how the price of a house could spiral.

These properties, nice houses in rural areas which were going for in excells of half a million - landlords weren't buying these. There was no market for them. The majority of renters want a house in a town/city where they have short commute times to work, are near facilities, shops, schools etc..

Would you still say that landlords increased the price of these houses in the country side given that landlords would not even be bidding on these houses??

Ireland became a much richer country, wages increased, inflation and interest rates were low, it became much easier to get a mortgage, everyone want bigger and better things hence the massive scale of building, people wanted bigger and better houses and now more than any other time could afford to trade up.

Yes, they overshot the mark and as a result reached unsustainable highs. Yes, I'm sure landlords played a part in this, but so did farmers with the prices they wanted for sites, builders with their prices for labour, electricians, plumbers - they could all charge what they wanted for a while, this all contributed to the high prices we have now become accustomed to.

And let's not forget the part the banks played in all of this either, handing out mortgages willy nilly to people who realistically could not afford them if interest rates rose, which invariably they did.

Do you still think now that landlords are the sole reason the housing market got to the state it was in now?

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 04:10PM

pandamoanium wrote: »

Do you honestly think that landlords are the sole reason property prices soared?

What about the price of land in the first place? Before a house is even built you have to factor in the price of the land. Where I live, up until a year ago to get a 0.5 acre in a rural area, with no scenic views or any other particularly appealing attributes which could perhaps justify a large price tag, you'd be looking at around 250k - that's just for the land alone!

Add to this builders costs, the price of furnishing the place, landscaping etc.. you can see how the price of a house could spiral.

These properties, nice houses in rural areas which were going for in excells of half a million - landlords weren't buying these. There was no market for them. The majority of renters want a house in a town/city where they have short commute times to work, are near facilities, shops, schools etc..

Would you still say that landlords increased the price of these houses in the country side given that landlords would not even be bidding on these houses??

Ireland became a much richer country, wages increased, inflation and interest rates were low, it became much easier to get a mortgage, everyone want bigger and better things hence the massive scale of building, people wanted bigger and better houses and now more than any other time could afford to trade up.

Yes, they overshot the mark and as a result reached unsustainable highs. Yes, I'm sure landlords played a part in this, but so did farmers with the prices they wanted for sites, builders with their prices for labour, electricians, plumbers - they could all charge what they wanted for a while, this all contributed to the high prices we have now become accustomed to.

And let's not forget the part the banks played in all of this either, handing out mortgages willy nilly to people who realistically could not afford them if interest rates rose, which invariably they did.

Do you still think now that landlords are the sole reason the housing market got to the state it was in now?

Your obviously not reading my posts. I didn't say they are the sole reason, I said they were the main reason.

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 04:13PM

Anyway back on topic;

I wonder will RTE ever re-visit the case and see if the tenant ever did repay any of the E6,300 that she owes the landlord?

It will be interesting to keep an eye on this case to see if the landlord will in turn sue the tenant for the monies owed, now that she knows that the tenant is now financially in a position to pay the rental arrears.

Now that the tenant has over 12k in the bank, will she still continue to claim social welfare, if she declares it would she be cut off/have her payment reduced or how would it work in a case like this?

Would she be allowed keep this as savings and still collect the money she has for the past 8 years, or would welfare take the view that she can now maintain herself and her family out of the money for the next while and stop her payments?

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 04:15PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Your obviously not reading my posts. I didn't say they are the sole reason, I said they were the main reason.

Have you got any facts or figures to back up this?

Also, I'm still waiting to hear where you got your information that landlords charge HSE tenants a higher rate of rent than they do to privately paying individuals?

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 05:17PM

NedKelly wrote: »

i have made 10 times your return in equity in the past 7 years
the 750 was was just an additional bonus
last year i had to do major improvements to 2 of the houses
kitchen ,heating etc which again all came off my profit

Wait now Ned, yesterday you were putting on the beal bocht on this thread saying that you only made just under 750 Euro profit after tax on your outlay. In business, capital appreciation and profit are two entirely different things!

This is what has caused the problem with our economy. Houses are for living in, not for people who don't know anything about enterprise to use as a means of generating wealth for themselves. You haven't made any profit on your investment, you've made absolutely zilch on your investment.

You have made equity. Your bank let you use this equity to borrow for more property, which has let you make more equity. Now with property prices going down faster than a $10 Texan brasser, your losing your equity every day and you're still not making any profit.

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 05:31PM

pandamoanium wrote: »

Have you got any facts or figures to back up this?

Also, I'm still waiting to hear where you got your information that landlords charge HSE tenants a higher rate of rent than they do to privately paying individuals?

What I'm stating here is my opinion. I know one lad who is renting 2 houses to the Dept. of Social Welfare and not only is he screwing them on rent, they decorated/refurbished his 2 houses for him, in one case they even fitted double glazing windows, paid for relaying a lawn in the back garden and I became aware of this when he was down in the pub bragging about it!

pandamoanium · 10-10-2008 09:52PM

Sooooo... what you're saying is you heard this from a guy bragging down the pub.

Well, that explains a lot!

Darragh29 · 10-10-2008 10:11PM

pandamoanium wrote: »

Sooooo... what you're saying is you heard this from a guy bragging down the pub.

Well, that explains a lot!

Regardless of where I heard it, I heard it from someone who is doing it. I don't know what rock you've been in hibernation under, but this has been going on for years and is a well known practice.

Wile E. Coyote · 10-10-2008 10:17PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Regardless of where I heard it, I heard it from someone who is doing it.

So you've heard it from one person who's doing it and you take that to mean that every landlord out there is doing it?

Yasmine · 24-10-2008 02:10PM

yeh dat wasnt fair at all i dont understand y the landlord ended up avin 2 fork out 12k wen she wasnt the 1 who didnt bother 2 pay their rent!!:mad:

HollyB · 03-11-2008 11:05PM

pandamoanium wrote: »

Anyway back on topic;

pandamoanium wrote: »

I wonder will RTE ever re-visit the case and see if the tenant ever did repay any of the E6,300 that she owes the landlord?

Personally, I think that the tenant should have been ordered to pay the rent she owed, in full, out of the settlement she was awarded.

I agree that the landlord should not have evicted them illegally, since it left her vulnerable from a legal perspective but she also should not have been put in a position where she had to choose between allowing the family to reside on her property long-term when she was not being paid the rent she was owed or putting herself in the wrong by evicting them. Once the tenant knew that she would no longer qualify for rent allowance and would not be able to pay her rent without it, it was up to her to find more affordable accommodation for herself and for her children, even if it meant moving into a smaller place, one in a less desirable location or both. She certainly had no possible right to expect the landlord to provide her with a home, rent-free, ad infinitum.

I think that the system needs a serious overhaul in order to make it fairer for landlords. Protecting tenants is admirable but, at the same time, they shouldn't forget that the landlords also have rights, and they shouldn't protect one group’s rights at the expense of the other. If a tenant fails to meet his or her obligation to pay the rent, then the landlord should be able to arrange a legal eviction, without the case dragging on for months, or even years. The property in question belongs to them and they certainly should not be put in a position where a non-paying tenant can keep up residence there.

I would say that after three months of unpaid rent, there should be a system available where the landlord can file a complaint, stating the periods where rent was not paid, along with the rent being charged and the changes made to rent since the tenant first moved in (so that the person examining the complaint can decide if the rent in question is reasonable, along with any increases). If the person examining the complaint is satisfied that the rent is reasonable, then they send an official letter to the tenant, informing them of the complaint made against them.

After that, it is for the tenant (assuming that he or she cannot furnish proof that the rent was paid and that the complaint is groundless, in which case there should be some kind of sanction for landlords making groundless claims) to either vacate the premises within the next 30 days or, in the same period, to pay off all overdue rent or to come to an arrangement with the landlord for repayment of arrears - ie., the next month, the tenant pays their usual rent, plus a set amount to be paid off each month until the arrears are paid in full. If the landlord is willing to forgive the arrears, then that can be taken into account and the tenant continues to pay rent as set.

If, at the end of the 30 day period, the tenant has neither vacated the property, brought their rent payments up to date nor made suitable arrangements to do so, an eviction order is issued against them.

After three months of non-payment, in cases where electricity, water, heat, phone, television and other utilities are included in the rent, I would not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to cut off those services.

Putting a family onto the street is something that few people would be able to consider lightly but a family that does not pay its rent does not have the right to expect their landlord to provide a roof over their heads, free of charge, anymore than they would have the right to go into a grocery store and fill the trolley, or into a clothes store to help themselves and then refuse to pay, since the owner of the stores in question are not responsible for feeding them and clothing them.

Mr. Presentable · 03-11-2008 11:16PM

HollyB wrote: »

[COLOR=blackI would say that after three months of unpaid rent, there should be a system available where the landlord can file a complaint, stating the periods where rent was not paid, along with the rent being charged and the changes made to rent since the tenant first moved in (so that the person examining the complaint can decide if the rent in question is reasonable, along with any increases). If the person examining the complaint is satisfied that the rent is reasonable, then they send an official letter to the tenant, informing them of the complaint made against them.[/COLOR]

-
.[/COLOR]

There was and is. It found in favour of the landlord, but the tennant chose to ignore it.

HollyB · 03-11-2008 11:36PM

nipplenuts wrote: »

There was and is. It found in favour of the landlord, but the tennant chose to ignore it.

What recourse did the landlord have then? Why wasn't an eviction order processed against the tenant when she failed to respond?

daveharnett · 03-11-2008 11:52PM

Yasmine wrote: »

yeh dat wasnt fair at all i dont understand y the landlord ended up avin 2 fork out 12k wen she wasnt the 1 who didnt bother 2 pay their rent!!:mad:

I've been reconsidering my opinion on this issue since I found myself agreeing with this post:rolleyes:

arse..biscuits · 04-11-2008 12:40AM

Darragh29 wrote: »

Your obviously not reading my posts. I didn't say they are the sole reason, I said they were the main reason.

I've just read this entire thread and found it very interesting.
Darragh, you seem like an angry man with an axe to grind, you make statements based on nothing or label thousands of people based on one person's actions. With every post your getting funnier, it really is entertaining to read your warped views.
Anyway I don't want to get sucked into an endless argument, so peace.

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

Comments