@Rui Firmino: majority of small landlords are OAPs. Forcing them to remain landlords doesn’t sound humane but it is obvious many don’t care about them

@keano: not necessarily i was evicted last march from the house i was renting for over 11 years, as of this morning the house is still empty

@Brendan Higgins: blame the government for this with 50% tax on small landlords while their buddies in corporate get just 25% tax maybe you should think its cheaper to have an empty house than one the government makes more than you do on it, after RTB each tenant payment insurance damages house in insurance property maintenance and maybe even a property management fee each year the landlord get very little.
so maybe blame the government for stealing people’s money, not the landlords. cheaper to let a house sit now than get someone that does not pay rent at all to live for free.

@Brendan Higgins: doesn’t belong to you and if the landlord decides to not rent it out because waiting 2 years means they can get market rates it may be very well worth it. People like RPZs but don’t like the outcomes because they didn’t think about them. No point in selling a house on to another landlord as they will not be able to afford the low rent so in effect the policy causes a devaluation of the property. To avoid that issue it is best to leave it vacant. Tenants rights just played themselves

@keano: my family were evicted from their home in 1954, the house is still vacant and has never been occupied since they left. Not much has changed since then

@Ross Mc Gann: wonder how horrible they were as tenants for the landlord to decide that

@Brian Madden: Perhaps said landlord shouldn’t have been so reckless so as to risk the funding of the feeding of their children on a business venture. That is at the crux of this discussion and problem. Those in a position of relative advantage (yes, due to their own hard work in some cases) truly believe that their ‘right’ to have their business investment protected over-rides the basic welfare of their ‘clients’.. even if it means throwing kids out of their homes. As I stated in another comment, this discussion is both futile and it is disgraceful that it is even happening.

But it highlights what needs to change. Housing should not be an investment opportunity. Those brave, superior folk who work so hard and never made a mistake should make their investments elsewhere rather than feeding off the the lowest-risk, highest-impact-on-another-citizen ‘investment’ that is a domestic residence.

@Craic_a_tower: considering they had lived and worked for the previous landlord for decades I’d go ahead and say not at all. New owner bought the property and claimed they were moving family in. It never happened

@Ross Mc Gann: Fair play, Ross, for such a civilised response to such a disgusting supposition.

@Brian Madden: investment funds don’t have families. I was talking about anonymous vulture funds who own whole apartment buildings and have been inflating prices for years while getting all the tax breaks, not small landlords

@Brendan Higgins: probably trying find trades to renovate. Or maybe they didn’t want the hassle anymore – been close. Enough to that myself.

@Ross Mc Gann: in 1954 the landlord followed rules from the 1980s. Yeah I believe that. It still doesn’t make sense. Why would a landlord want to get rid of a good tenant to get nothing instead? The only reason I can think of is it wasn’t worth it which back then would be mostly about the tenant’s behaviour rather than restrictions of law.

@Craic_a_tower: There you go again failing to read properly and making yourself look silly. Instead you’re again making assumptions and casting aspersions on characters you couldn’t possibly know. Nobody mentioned rules and you don’t have a ‘logical’ argument.. (that’s why it’s not making sense). Seems you just can’t control the impulse to insult and disparage people just for not being landlords.

@SolidSid: all free to read and note you were the one throwing insults. No name calling by me. I am actually allowed have an opinion on what happened. The person said they were asked to leave because the landlord want to use it for family. Why would they bother in 1954 to say that when they had no need because no law/rule existed requiring it?

@Craic_a_tower: That you think you are entitled to an ‘opinion’ on an activity that happened almost 70 years ago of which you have no intimate knowledge says a lot about your character. And you still haven’t managed to read properly what was even said. Carry on, trooper.

@Marie B: And because of that attuide even more Landlords will sell up making the situation far worse..

@David Terry: well let them sell up so. But in the meantime let people have shelter until our greedy and self serving government can at least provide that basic human right after paying someone else’s mortgage for years

@Nicola Scott: you never pay somebody else’s mortgage. You pay for a service which includes white goods, heating maintenance, repairs etc… Landlords pay tax on rental income and have to come up with a 20% deposit. A tenant gets what they pay for and most likely in a location they could never get a mortgage for

@TruthMatters: to be fair not every case ends successfully like yours, not everyone that overholds will get housed by the council. Most get transferred to temporary accommodation.

You were very lucky to have an understanding landlord, you still paid your rent, and potentially had no RTB involvement.

@Craic_a_tower: lol it’s the whole problem with housing mindset atm. It is not a commodity it’s a necessity. Do you really think people are renting out choice?
If things were right tenants should qualify for mortgages based on the extortionate rents they pay but we all know it doesn’t work that way.
And what do you mean they are not paying the mortgage of landlords? Unless the landlord is mortgage free that’s exactly the case.
But I do agree landlords are paying too much tax. The vulture funds need to be paying a lot more but of course we know the arrangement there too.

@Vic’s Burd:

I don’t know what happens in most cause and neither do you.

However, if you are over-holding, you NEED to make sure that your landlord has done a Notice of Eviction property AND submitted it to the RTB. You can then submit to the Council, who put you on the Homeless List, meaning you become a priority for rehousing, or for Homeless HAPs (not relevant for me as I would have had to give up work to get HAPs).

My landlord wasn’t RTB registered, and I therefore really didn’t want to involve the RTB, as a courtesy, but the council kept telling me I had to, and in the end, it was the only way. But it doesn’t appear that there were RTB consequences for the landlord and we’re all good.

I hope this is useful information for anyone who needs to over-hold. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share it Vic’s Burd ;-)

@TruthMatters:

Correctly a typo:

your landlord needs to a a Notice of Eviction PROPERLY…

@TruthMatters: Nobody shared false information. Just because YOUR landlord behaved decently doesn’t mean all do.

@TruthMatters: Ah so you had your landlord over a barrel because they weren’t registered… more fool them and fair play to you.

I work for a charity supporting vulnerable people – housing issues affect our clients too – I’ve listened to housing charity workers warn our clients of the consequences of overholding. So yes I DO know what can and does happen.

@Nicola Scott: it is, has been and always be a commodity. No tenant ever pays a landlords mortgage. You just like to say that because it suits your view. The tenant does not take the risk of lower prices. When the councils offered a great deal on buying a home what happened when the prices crashed? Rent was cheaper than the mortgage they were paying so they abandoned them and left the debt to the councils. Tenants moved out and rents broke leases and demanded cheaper rent. Where were you then? Did you ask the government to help landlords? What the government actually did was raise charges on landlords. Many stayed in negative equity for over a decade. The rent didn’t cover the costs including the mortgage so how can you say the tenant paid the mortgage?

@Craic_a_tower: No, you don’t like to accept that because it doesn’t sit with your view of being high-and-mighty and doing everything by yourself. Of course the tenants provide the funding to pay off the mortgage.. it is of course indirectly because their name isn’t on the mortgage but you can play semantics by yourself.

@SolidSid: they do not pay the mortgage to say so is a lie. That is all

@Craic_a_tower: They use the rent paid by the tenant(s) to pay the mortgage. As we know, rent generally outstrips mortgage and certainly will over the long term. To avoid that truth is dishonest.. but we’ve seen your levels of personal integrity displayed clearly on this page.

@SolidSid: you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. It is normal for rent to not cover the mortgage for a long time. There is tax on the rent at 52% for most landlords. So for rent to to just pay a mortgage €1000 rent needs to be about €2100. That is just the mortgage not other costs. A tenant pays for a service and gets it. How it is financed by the landlord is none of the business of the tenant. You dislike personal questions so weird how you think others personal details are your concern. It seems hypocritical to me as views expressed here coming from you. Strangely the law doesn’t support such a silly view and using deluded speech is the problem with the person saying it

@Craic_a_tower: Yes, and as I said numbnuts over the long term it is certainly covered… that’s the whole point. You are again playing semantics because you can’t handle the truth. Although I do find it amusing for you to say how it’s not my business when you insisted on me providing a character reference just to post a comment. You seem to have missed that I didn’t make the initial comment, and in each comment I made I specifically mentioned indirect payment as opposed to ‘tenant paying mortgage’.. so as to pre-empt your semantical retort.. but you carry on being you.

@SolidSid: yes I notice you changed the goal post and are playing semantics. I have pointed it out. No tenant pays the landlords mortgage not matter how you try to change it around to make it seem like it is. I have never said otherwise

@Craic_a_tower: You’re not very good at this are you.. Firstly comparing my completely non-personal, logical statement to a directly personal question that you put to me. Now we’re down to 4-year-old level where you simply repeat what I said back to me, because you have no other nonsense answers to give.

If the wording makes you feel good about yourself then that’s ok with me.. the fundamentals behind it won’t change no matter what you or I say. Maybe landlords have toasted rent sandwiches for breakfast..

@TruthMatters: Very well said

@SolidSid: Not your property,not your mortgage and your name isn’t on the deeds.You were happy enough to sign up to the system that has been in place for decades in this country. Suck it up or buy your own home.

@Liz O’Neill: Which specific property are you talking about? I didn’t claim any ownership of any property, mortgage or deeds. I didn’t sign up for any system either. Do you actually have anything of note to add or is this just your daily/nightly unload?

@SolidSid: You know darn well it’s a rhetorical response to your constant bleating about renters paying the landlord’s mortgage.

@Liz O’Neill: So you can’t back up your first contribution, that was ‘rhetorical’.. Perhaps you’ll have the decency to back up this latest claim that I am constantly bleating about renters paying the landlord’s mortgage.

I made a few contributions on this one thread, in every one of them I made it clear that the landlord owned the mortgage. Bluffers like yourself would have us believe the rent evaporates and you cover the entire mortgage.. can’t handle the truth.

@SolidSid: yes you interjected yourself into a discussion to make a different argument to the one being discussed. Tenants do not pay a landlord’s mortgage, period! They pay for a service which they get. If any business gets a loan to start up and paying that off you would claim their customers are contributing to paying off that loan. That is nonsense. Others want to be given ownership rights or discounts based on this thinking which is also nonsense. You really aren’t adding anything but for some reason want to harp on about your irrelevant point.

@Craic_a_tower: I interjected to reinforce the same point.. when I stripped away your semantics you said I ‘moved the goalposts’.. get over yourself. But I see now why you’re so sensitive to it.. because allegedly ‘others want to be given ownership rights or discounts based on this thinking’.. at least now we’re getting more comfortable with the truth.

You carry on believing that somehow the rent is ring-fenced for something totally, definitely not going to be paying the mortgage.. you’re paying all of that yourself. Your analogy is just as useless.. of course the income from the customers goes towards paying off the initial start-up loan.. then the business will eventually stand on it’s own feet if it has a successful operating model. The word that was left out in previous discussion is ‘partly’.. I’ll add it in now because I have no problem with the truth. But I’ll watch you dance around that too because to acknowledge even that would likely crack your ego beyond repair.

@SolidSid: sorry you can’t understand because it shows that certain people are beyond logic.

@Craic_a_tower: I understand perfectly what you are saying… it’s just nonsense. Any business venture is based on money in, money out, and you hopefully end up with a profit. You can of course consider them separate, multi-coloured streams if you like but it all comes together once again at the ‘bottom line’. You know that as well as I do, but the likes of you and Liz don’t want to admit it because it bruises your ego.

@SolidSid: nothing you have said has any effect on my personal feelings. I haven’t passed out insults but you have. I feel sorry for your understanding of the world because education has failed you.

@Craic_a_tower: More pointless warbling with no substance.. and as predicted you danced around the facts when presented. You have insulted several people but you haven’t the good manners to even see it.

So are your feelings not affected at all by anything I said, or do you ‘feel sorry’ for my failed education because of what I’ve said? Another contradiction/untruth from you. Think it’s you that needs more schooling codger.

@M Bowe: I’ve been paying every time I want a pint of Guinness for years, and the prices have been pretty exorbitant in my view. Am I now a shareholder in Diageo and do you fancy my chances at a board position? Just because you have paid market rates for a service which you requested does not mean you can suddenly claim ownership of the property of the service provider, and if you’re so willing to gift the property of others you should be willing to gift your own property too. Is your fridge stocked up for me, the kids, and a few of the lads down the pub?

@Billy Pilgrim: so now you equate a persons home, with the stability, well being and comfort that that provides to your personal choice to have a pint of the commodity of Guinness. Therein lies the FFG philosophy which has created this shambles in housing in the first place..

@M Bowe: no, I’m equating someone’s private property with someone else’s private property. And your silly little appeals to emotion do not change the fact you’re just trying to justify theft. Now, what’s your address and is your fridge stocked? I have other things to do today other than leech off other people’s property as I thought you would understand.

@Billy Pilgrim:

You don’t understand over-holding. It doesn’t mean staying into the landlord’s home, it means staying in the property they’ve already been renting to you, at a monthly price they’ve previously found acceptable aka staying in YOUR home, until you can find an affordable new home.

@Billy Pilgrim:

My landlord’s kids had a home and a big inheritance coming.

My kids would have had to move into homeless services. It’s the difference between a minor inconvenience for a landlord and a major disruption to childhood.

I’m a tax payer with excellent references dating back decades, including from the landlord I over-held with. I could have bought outright already had a started out with a deposit.

This is a systemic failure, not a personal one. Understand that.

@Billy Pilgrim: hardly the same thing is it? Tenants have been paying the mortgage of private landlords for years. So now they deserve just to be kicked out on the street is it? People who have nowhere to go need to insist on their basic human right to shelter. Meanwhile let the government build decent public housing which these people should have had access to all these years instead of paying someone else’s mortgage only to be thrown out when they’re no longer useful.

@Billy Pilgrim: lol so our teachers, doctors and nurses are failures at life because they don’t own their own home? Because those people are being thrown out along with everyone else. People don’t own their own homes because of government policy and the short sightedness of the impact which is now happening.
No one forced anyone to make a business out of renting. But as with all businesses there is always the risk of loss.
If your business is in housing then you also have the moral obligation to your tenants. It is an inconvenient truth which some don’t want to face up to.

@Nicola Scott:

Well said. @Billy Pilgrim has lost touch with reality. His own right wing politics are a contradiction here.
I’m a single parent. For me to move to another private rental I would have had to give up work – and that’s assuming I could find a landlord to take HAPs.
You can’t squeeze people from every angle.
Over-holding was the most advantageous outcome for all involved in my case.

@Billy Pilgrim:

Yet I know a teacher in a country area where you can buy a house for 200k yet she can’t get a mortgage because she’s a single parent with two kids who’s paying 1500 a month in rent.

You’re out of touch with people’s reality Billy.

@TruthMatters: the teacher you know cannot get a mortgage because she made poor life choices. It is only right that she should suffer the consequences of her poor life choices, and it is not right that people who made good choices in life should suffer the consequences for her. You have a gross sense of entitlement. Just because your landlord’s kids are doing well in life you decide they were obliged to provide for you until such time as you could successfully leech off society as a collective to provide you with a home through the council. At no point has it ever occurred to you that it is your responsibility to provide for you and your child yourself?

@TruthMatters: weird I don’t remember getting her pregnant so I wonder why I would have to pay for her decisions? Why isn’t the father paying? Who is actually responsible for this situation?

@Billy Pilgrim: ok with that argument then no one is entitled to profit by exploiting someone’s human rights either. I know which side I’m on this argument. Best of luck with yours

@Billy Pilgrim: ok with that argument then no one is entitled to profit by exploiting someone’s human rights either. I know which side I’m on this argument. Best of luck with yours

@Nicola Scott: having a house in a nice area is not a human right. Landlords do not have a moral responsibility to house you. These are things you are making up to justify your lecherous behaviour, but it is not justifiable. You have a right to shelter – you can get this in a homeless hostel. You feel entitled to more, because you think you’re too special to live in a homeless shelter, so you just steal from others and bizarrely think you have a moral high ground while doing so.

@Nicola Scott: are you bothered by other peoples rights? It seems you are very selective about who gets them. What human right says you should be able to take somebody else’s property or steal a service. You mistake the right to a home with the right for somebody else to pay for it which is not the right. If somebody is stealing from somebody else who is being exploited?

@Billy Pilgrim:

Right, so according to your logic a teacher who is a single parent isn’t entitled to secure housing because of her poor life choices.

But a landlord but made a bad investment should get their second property rights protected by the state.

That’s some really confused thinking.

@Craic_a_tower:

I’ve never driven on a road in Donegal. But the taxes I pay will still help maintain roads that I personally don’t drive on.

That’s how cohesive societies work.

And why do you resent support for a working single parent but not an accidental landlord with terrible business sense?

@TruthMatters: who said landlords made bad investments? And if their investment does turn sour they should, and do, take the hit themselves. When you say their property rights should be protected by the state do you mean that people like you shouldn’t be allowed to steal their property because you feel entitled to it? Yes, I do think the state should protect citizens’ rights not to be stolen from, and I never thought this a controversial view.

Single parents, same as everyone else, are entitled to what they can afford. If they can’t get a mortgage they can rent a room in shared accommodation. Why you think everyone else should care whether you’re satisfied with your accommodation would confuse me if you hadn’t already aired your gross sense of entitlement in your other comments.

@TruthMatters: nonsense

@Billy Pilgrim: This mess has been created by this inadequate government. If you read what I said, continue to pay rent but stay in their home until accommodation can be sought or provided else where. I’m not saying landlords should be out of profit.

@Billy Pilgrim: such a disgusting and untrue statement to make. People lose their homes for all sorts of reasons. Illness, death, disability, violence or separation and divorce. People lose their jobs. Any number of tragedies can occur in life. Very little to do with choice.
If you haven’t been affected by this well then you’re a very lucky person but you’ve no right to judge others.
But surely not helped by the systemic and damaging choices our government have made not only to not build houses but to sell our state owned land which we all collectively own to external investment funds.
They have no interest in anything but profit. If you don’t believe housing is a necessity for the greater good of society then there is no helping you.

@Craic_a_tower: how is someone paying for the roof over their head stealing. Cop yourself on would you

@TruthMatters: you misunderstand the difference between the government supporting people and making another individual pay for a stranger. All the stuff about making a landlord offer a service or sell at discount is making an individual subsidise another individual. Nobody is really a single parent the father is meant to pay for them even when the state helps. People do break up but I have seen many a co-parents claim to be a single parent. If somebody else is helping financially and taking the children regularly you aren’t a single parent.

@Nicola Scott: I never said it was. Your overly emotional responses are clouding your ability to be objective and lead what is said. You keep claiming it is exploitation to charge rent. So how is it exploitation to pay for a service you receive? Your thoughts only go one way where the landlord is bad and only tenants should have rights

@Craic_a_tower: never once did I dispute tenants paying for rent. You assumed that. I said everyone has a basic human right to shelter. Very different things

@Nicola Scott: you have repeatedly said rent is exploitation, tenant pays landlord’s mortgages which I think is nonsense. If people don’t pay rent they are stealing a service. I never said you said it was ok, if you think I did I am terribly sorry it was not my meaning. Overholding is forcing somebody into a situation they don’t want and takes time to resolve. Time=money, steal time=steal money. If I am misrepresenting your views let me know but I haven’t misrepresented mine or said you were exploiting somebody.

@Aine O Connor: agreed it is the government not landlords who are responsible. The idea of CGT being removed to sell to a tenant or council is great as that is the government taking the hit not some private citizen.

@SolidSid: what make one a perfect tenant? No reference to you now. I never questioned your integrity but asked for you to define a claim you made about yourself. I don’t doubt you thought yourself a “perfect” tenant but I will not assume we are talking about the same thing on trust if I don’t know your definition. You suggested your view changed and how now clarified your view. You got personal not me

@Craic_a_tower: You’re apparently a relatively smart guy.. imagine what a perfect tenant is and then you’ll be close. You seem to think you can stomp around here asking personal questions and demanding evidence as if you’re some kind of moderator. I didn’t ask any ‘landlord’ to provide evidence of their investment or their hardship, I have no interest in their personal business.

My point is a logical one but you’re hung up on me proving that I was as good a tenant as I said I was. That’s a pathetic approach to take but you’ve clearly shown already your contempt for tenants in general.

I didn’t suggest a change of view either nor did I clarify.. I said from the outset that the blame lies fully with this and previous governments. Maybe if you slow down and stop pontificating to people, you’d see what is actually being posted instead of beating the landlord bandwagon with ear plugs in.

@SolidSid: you put out a claim about yourself. I asked you to define it not a personal question. You have shown obvious bias against landlords. So I have an actual reason to question what your definition is. You are making personal comments while I am just trying to see what you mean. I don’t trust people who are intentionally misleading such as changing a statement from “tenants pay landlords mortgages”to “of course tenants contribute to mortgages being paid” Easy to see that is disingenuous and moving the goal posts.

@Craic_a_tower: You spout a lot of nonsense but you clearly don’t have the credentials to back it up..

“you put out a claim about yourself. I asked you to define it not a personal question.” Asking me to explain personal history or characteristics is precisely a personal question sunshine.

In my first post here (my very first on this site) I couldn’t have been more fair to landlords.. so your angle that you’re responding to my ‘bias’ holds no water, but in fact it proves you a liar. Now you’re again falsely blabbering on about me changing approach which is demonstrably untrue if you read again (again, I suggest you slow down a little..you’ll make less mistakes).

Talking in circles might work on others but not me.. you’re just continuing to prove yourself dishonest and lacking in basic decency.