Search results

No. But my bad if I worded it badly or incorrectly. Tenants who dont pay Either its because they cant pay (say unemployment) or can pay but wont. If the latter, tenancy agreements should have legal ly enforceable powers to evict. If the former, then eviction serves little purpose other than...

And with respect Firefly, if you were following my posts in this topic you would see that what I am suggesting is increased protections for landlords via legally enforceable tenancy agreements and social welfare protection where there is a genuine financial difficulties resulting from a tenants...

Why do you think it would be 'your' taxes anymore than it would be the taxes of the landlord? You dont appear to understand the concept of taxes. And good luck with trying to get a private insurance company to take up on such a scheme. There are income protection schemes out there but to...

Thats an option alright, but paying for the damage is one thing, how is a landlord compensated where the tenant loses a job for a period - throwing both parties into financial difficulty?

You see, its this type of mindset that makes you wonder how, or why some people get into the business of providing accommodation. Nobody can do anything if both the landlord and the tenants have no regard for the property and/or the welfare of the tenants. I work on the assumption that landlords...

Nope. The State, incapable as it is to provide adequate housing, has outsourced its responsibility to the wonders of the all efficient private sector. In turn it is now, apparently, charging too much tax on rental income. Landlords are, apparently, on a hiding to nothing. They pay so much tax...

Sorry my bad, housing insurance will cover that. I was thinking more about income streams from loss of income.

I dont see how. Im only suggesting that where a tenant is unemployed that a landlord who finds themselves in financial difficulties as a consequence would be entitled, as a PRSI payer, to supports to cushion the loss in income. As with most people, the prospect of a moral hazard will be...

??? That is criminal damage you are talking about. Which, if memory serves me correct, is prosecutable under law using services of the gardai, courts etc all paid by taxpayer. Should this not be the case? If I lose my job, paying PAYE and PRSI the State will cushion the loss of my income...

Im not really sure what you are talking about. If there are conditions in a tenancy agreement that either party are not complying with, resulting in the other party being out of pocket then this may be used by either party as a factor for increasing or decreasing rent in a rent review. If you...

Is this an ideal scenario? I would think not. Best you have it written out in a tenancy agreement to call a locksmith. Even better, provide the contact details of local locksmiths.

There is only so much you can plausibly do. If tenants are taking batteries out of smoke alarms there is not much you can do. All you can do is show that you take reasonable care by servicing the alarms once a year.

If a tenant has the means to pay but wont pay I would support an eviction. If a tenant has no means to pay (say long-term unemployment) I would support state intervention to support the aggrieved party - ie the landlord, until such time as the tenant is in a position to pay again.

Yes, absolutely, the first point of call would be to pursue the tenant for arrears or damages. If the tenant has no means to repay, the taxpayer can step in to compensate the aggrieved party - the landlord. After all, they pay taxes too dont they? Would you be opposed to such a scheme...

Yes, just as if there were more FTB's right? Do we need more FTB's right now adding to demand?

??? They do, of course. They dont, in general, build them. Do FTB's build houses? Generally, no. They compete for existing stock. Builders and developers build new properties. In some instances, landlords and FTB's build their own houses, but overall its a negligible amount to whats required...

Thats the point! It is worth nothing, it is not even a requirement. Im suggesting that written tenancy agreements are a legal requirement and that such agreements contain provisions for landlords to protect their property - including, for instance, where a tenant destroys property but fails to...

Couldn't tell you. Im not convinced we need more landlords in the first instance. They only compete for existing stock, they don't build it. I think, if my understanding of the proposal is correct, that it would go someway to sustaining and stabilising the private rental market.

I don't think there was any mention of a lifetime lease. I would imagine that the suggestion would be based on allowing existing tenants the option of extending a tenancy if they wish. If a landlord is intending to continue using the property for rental then affording the existing tenant first...

I know. Its the ones that will protest against reasonable protections or long-term tenancies that I take issue with. There is already a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters to a newspaper headline that suggested making lifetime rental easier for tenants.