No it does not. There is a difference between having a fight and presenting yourself as homeless claiming you can no longer live with someone, and presenting yourself with a black-eye, broken nose because your drunken partner beat you up and threatened to kill the kids.
But the State is not allowing the market find its equilibrium. By pandering to the demands of those who want to live somewhere they can't afford is fuelling the rental prices.In the main, and on an individual basis I agree with you. But the issue is not deciding what one person or other can or cannot afford etc. The issue is that in general, there have been an increasing number of people who are either homeless, or adding to the waiting list for a suitable home. Now if we were talking about the latest product from Apple, or whatever, no problem. But we are talking about housing which is a social necessity for development of civilised societies to develop and prosper.
So the reasons why there is increasing numbers of homeless needs to be investigated. One of the reasons is, that given the level of housing stock, relative to the incomes of those on housing lists, houses have become unaffordable to them. Digging deeper, even those who can afford to pay rent, have been finding it increasingly difficult to save, let alone save enough for a deposit on their own home.
This may be very detrimental to the overall well-being and fabric of our society. Couples with basic human behavioural tendencies to start families may delay doing so. Those that do start a family, may only be a pay cheque or two away from State dependency. Imagine if one was ill, unable to work and the partner gave up work to look after the healthcare? Suffering the ignominy of being labelled as someone in receipt of a 'free house', with the audacity to choose a colour scheme for furnishings. God forbid, the children have a home with wallpaper!
So it is not that person A or person B cannot afford, or choose to pay, high rents, it is that increasing numbers of people cannot pay the rent or afford a home of their own. When that is occuring, there is an structural deficit within the economy - a housing market failure, and that needs to be addressed.
That's a tiny fraction of the bigger picture, vastly outweighed by those finishing full-time education and going on the housing lists. The former head of the housing agency got a lot of headlines a couple of years back when he spoke of the levels of gaming he saw going on in the system as he was preparing to hand on the baton.
"All landlords" should have had this protection, and if they had, more would have stayed in the game.
While I have sympathies for much of what you are saying it's a bit glib to say that the State is pandering to the demands of those who want to live somewhere they can't afford. I think that in most cases they are more "pandering" to the needs of people who want to live somewhere. That doesn't mean there isn't fast abuses of the system by tenants.But the State is not allowing the market find its equilibrium. By pandering to the demands of those who want to live somewhere they can't afford is fuelling the rental prices.
Have you ever considered who benefits the most from the rental market? Its actually the State. They receive in most instances 50% of the rent, they don't have the hassle of dealing with the tenant. They don't have the risk of non payment of rent and to top it all they make it virtually impossible to evict an errand tenant.
Then we have people saying the rental market is dysfunctional. Ever wondered why? Maybe the State needs to treat tenants as adults rather than treating them with kid gloves and let them face the harsh realities of life.
The reality is that if the Tenant just refuses to move out there is little the landlord can do other than bring them to court. that will be a lengthy process where the tenant will get lots of support from agencies like Threshold (paid for using the RTB charge the landlord made) and the landlord will get nothing. It will take years and tens of thousands to get them out.
The reality is that if the Tenant just refuses to move out there is little the landlord can do other than bring them to court
Could and will are two different things. In theory could end up sleeping with Emma Stone but will it happen?This is from the Threshold website
"If you have been given a valid notice and do not dispute it then you should leave upon the expiry date unless you and the landlord mutually agree otherwise. If you do not leave your landlord cannot remove you or your belongings from the property. They have to refer a dispute to the RTB and the RTB can order you to vacate and you could face having to pay damages to the landlord for not leaving."
Could and will are two different things.
The mechanic can refuse to deal with the car repairs, the barman can refuse to deal with the drunk. Answer me this does the car mechanic continue to fix a persons car even though they did not get paid for the last time they fixed it? Does the barman serve the drunk the next time he enters the barTrue, but the point is, there are options there. Anyone thinking of becoming a landlord should be aware of potential pitfalls, particularly when it comes to the issue of housing. As stated numerous times, housing is clearly not just another commodity to be bought and sold for profit. So when I hear people complaining of the "hassle of dealing with the tenant", I have to wonder what did they expect?
The mechanic complaining about the hassle of dealing with car repairs, the barman complaining about dealing with drunken customers, doctors complaining about dealing with sick people, to me, it all sounds like people not suited or out of their depth. But unlike the car mechanic or the barman, the Sate has a social duty and obligation to serve the ill, and many, many good doctors would continue to abide by that ethos during a health crisis even if it meant loss of income. Many working excessive hours to the point of near exhaustion.
There was a surge of new landlords during Celtic Tiger times, it is clear that many were just jumping on the bandwagon without knowing what they were getting in to, riding off the back of an era with abundant cash with few issues relating to non-payment of rent. But they didnt look at the bigger picture. Its good, in the long-term, that these landlords are being flushed out.
The mechanic can refuse to deal with the car repairs, the barman can refuse to deal with the drunk. Answer me this does the car mechanic continue to fix a persons car even though they did not get paid for the last time they fixed it? Does the barman serve the drunk the next time he enters the bar
This basic right is not afforded to the landlord.
You hit the nail on the head it's the States responsibility to house those who can't be house themselves. But the State should be doing this with the States assets not the landlords assets.
Everything is a commodity. The only difference is who and how it is provided.You have missed the point. The point is, a landlord who treats housing like any other commodity like car repairs, or serving beer, should not be a landlord in the first place. They are out of their depth.
Everything is a commodity.
A commodity is anything that is consumed. Where did I say people should not be housed. What I did say is that why should those who have something that others don't be treated less favourable than those who don't have something.Housing is a human right, not a commodity. It is not comparable to commodities such as cars or beer. Anyone who holds them as comparable is not fit to be a landlord.
Types of houses, size, location, furnishings etc are commodities, but housing itself is not.
Just on that specific point, doctors are absolutely coining it at the moment.They get €30 for every Covid phone call that they receive (or they say they receive) and now get €25 for every non-Covid phone call they get from a medical card patient.many good doctors would continue to abide by that ethos during a health crisis even if it meant loss of income.
In fairness he actually made a very good point.You have missed the point.
Just on that specific point, doctors are absolutely coining it at the moment.They get €30 for every Covid phone call that they receive (or they say they receive) and now get €25 for every non-Covid phone call they get from a medical card patient.
I think it's more their self aggrandising nonsense is being seen for what it is. Doctors are no more or less greedy or ethical than plumbers or taxi drivers.The ethos that pervades that profession is slowly being ebbed away in this country
If you feel so passionate about housing then maybe you should supply same rather than expecting others too!
Whatever about people 'gaming' the system, it is not as simple as 'oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore'.