Who speaks for the taxpayer?

[TheBigShort]

I work fulltime and so if I was unemployed there's lots more I could do around the house.

As long as it didnt cost anything or too much, right? Like paint, paint brushes, lawnmower, petrol for lawnmower, garden tools, window panes.
Can be a bit tricky sometimes on low-income or unemployment benefits.

 

[Purple]

Lucky you, the point is about landlords not fixing or replacing things

The point is that both parties need to engage.

 

[Purple]

As long as it didnt cost anything or too much, right? Like paint, paint brushes, lawnmower, petrol for lawnmower, garden tools, window panes.
Can be a bit tricky sometimes on low-income or unemployment benefits.

Do you really think that the landlord should provide the petrol for the lawnmower?!!

Brushed as cheap. Paint can be expensive but generally the landlord should pay for materials used in the house. I don't see why the tenant can't spend a bit of time looking after their own home though.

Can be a bit tricky sometimes on low-income or unemployment benefits.

That's what the Vinnie DePaul are for.

 

[TheBigShort]

The point is that both parties need to engage.

Exactly, given the list of problems, some of them being quite chronic it would appear, and given the fact that the tenants had to go all the way to the EU for a judgement.
It would suggest that there was little, or inadequate engagement by the landlords for the issues to go all that way.

 

[The Horseman]

Like I said, if some are able to pay rent but choose not to, then invoke an eviction (taking into account also the legitimate refusal to pay rent due to dire need of renovation).
If they are not able to pay rent, then reasons as to why they cant and all the other circumstances of family, schooling, employment prospects, re-housing or relocation options (hostel or hotel even?), would have to be factored before any decision could be made here.
Just to point out, if there are prospective tenants out there who are 'only too happy to pay' then I assume you are talking about people who already have accommodation with the means to pay, and not people who are housed in hostels or hotels without the means to pay?
In such circumstances, evicting a person or family for others who already have accommodation will only exacerbate the homeless crisis.

My response was solely in respect of LA tenants. If their circumstances have changed and they have informed the LA then their rent would be changed accordingly. In respect of those who are willing to pay I am referring to those in hotels or hostels who are in a position to pay the differential rate.

To avoid any misunderstanding I am referring specifically to those LA tenants who are on a differential rate who refuse to either pay the rent or make up the outstanding arrears.

 

[Sarenco]

Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...but that may not stop some tenants taking it upon themselves to refuse to pay.

Sorry BS but you still seem to be missing the point.

If a tenant does not pay their rent, their landlord has a valid ground to terminate their tenancy and ultimately evict them from the property. The fact that renovations may be required to the property is quite beside the point.

You are obviously entitled to your own personal opinions (however ridiculous I might find them) but you are not entitled to your own personal facts. The fact that renovations may be required to a property is not a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent. That's the law.

 

[TheBigShort]

To avoid any misunderstanding I am referring specifically to those LA tenants who are on a differential rate who refuse to either pay the rent or make up the outstanding arrears.

Yes, and as I said.

that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict.

Why do you want to go around in circles?

 

[Purple]

Why do you want to go around in circles?

Who's worse; the fella going around in circles or us fools following him?

 

[Purple]

Exactly, given the list of problems, some of them being quite chronic it would appear, and given the fact that the tenants had to go all the way to the EU for a judgement.
It would suggest that there was little, or inadequate engagement by the landlords for the issues to go all that way.

Absolutely, there are some really bad landlords out there who don't fulfill their legal requirements. They should be fined and/or imprisoned if they are putting lives are risk.
There are also some really bad tenants out there who should be evicted. If they have kids they should of course not be left on the street, they can be taken into care.

 

[TheBigShort]

If a tenant does not pay their rent, their landlord has a valid ground to terminate their tenancy and ultimately evict them from the property. The fact that renovations may be required to the property is quite beside the point.

You are obviously entitled to your own personal opinions (however ridiculous I might find them) but you are not entitled to your own personal facts. The fact that renovations may be required to a property is not a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent. That's the law.

Yeh, thanks for all that (again), but perhaps take your head out of the legal text for a moment and open your eyes to some realities.

Tenants of a LA housing estates are experiencing a bad dose of 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould'. The contact the LA for help and assistance but whatever efforts are made, the problems persist.
As a form of protest, they refuse to pay their rent to the LA.
In your world, this is a straightforward case of eviction as per the law - I dont disagree, thus allowing the property to be let to tenants "only too happy to pay"! as suggested earlier.
But for the umpteenth time, matters are a little more complex than that. Because back in the real world, by evicting people from this home you are exacerbating the homeless problem - where will they go? How much will that cost?

On the other hand, if there is another homeless family "only too happy to pay" we have a straight swap - neutral effect on the homeless count.
However, even getting homeless families to occupy substandard accommodation is not as straightforward as you all would like to make out.
Because even homeless families can aspire to hold a modicum of dignity and not allow their children to endure a life of living with rat infestations and water contamination, cant they?

 

[Sarenco]

Tenants of a LA housing estates are experiencing a bad dose of 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould'.

None of which constitute a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent. Your suggested "form of protest" leaves the tenants in question liable to be evicted.

Incidentally, evictions for non-payment of rent do not exacerbate homelessness as you have suggested - they simply free up housing units for other tenants that are willing and able to pay their rent.

It's about the fair and efficient allocation of scarce resources.

 

[Purple]

Tenants of a LA housing estates are experiencing a bad dose of 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould'. The contact the LA for help and assistance but whatever efforts are made, the problems persist.
As a form of protest, they refuse to pay their rent to the LA.

Are you suggesting that 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould' is the reason why 15% of rents are not paid by LA tenants?

 

[TheBigShort]

Your suggested "form of protest" leaves the tenants in question liable to be evicted.

I didn't suggest that they should protest by not paying their rent, I implied that reasons beyond your simplistic black and white world of legal text may be cause for the non-payment of rent. For instance, a dispute with a landlord may give cause for a tenant to refuse to pay rent - regardless of the legal implications.
Considering the findings of the EU Committee on Social Justice with regard to Irelands social housing stock, and the obvious determination of the tenants to fight that case. It is hardly beyond the realms of your understanding to factor in a possible rent protest, is it?
Certainly if I lived in LA with rats and water contamination, without any resolution in the offing, I would certainly consider that an option.

Incidentally, evictions for non-payment of rent do not exacerbate homelessness as you have suggested - they simply free up housing units for other tenants that are willing and able to pay their rent.

Where do the evicted tenants go?

 

[TheBigShort]

Are you suggesting that 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould' is the reason why 15% of rents are not paid by LA tenants?

No.

 

[Sarenco]

BS

It really is black and white - if you don't pay your rent you are liable to be evicted.

Where do the evicted tenants go?

Wherever they can afford. That may well be similar accommodation to wherever their replacement tenants came from.

Unless the property is razed, an eviction doesn't result in a loss of a housing unit. It simply results in the replacement of a non-paying tenant with a tenant that is willing and able to pay the rent. Allocation of a scarce resource according to willingness and ability to pay.

I know law and economics aren't your strong suits but this is really very basic stuff.

 

[TheBigShort]

It really is black and white - if you don't pay your rent you are liable to be evicted.

Where have I said otherwise

Wherever they can afford. That may well be similar accommodation to wherever their replacement tenants came from.

Theoretically you are correct, but realistically we are talking about LA tenants. Typically they are low-income families (hence their accommodation in LA housing in the first instance).
Why on earth would they refuse to pay, only to be evicted and subsequently placed on LA waiting list again, when all along they were able to pay?
Think about it awhile, see if anything stirs

an eviction doesn't result in a loss of a housing unit

I never said it did

Clutching at straws, certainly a strength of yours.

It simply results in the replacement of a non-paying tenant with a tenant that is willing and able to pay the rent

Where do non-paying LA tenants go to live when evicted???
Wake up to the real world!

 

[Sarenco]

Sorry BS but I really have zero interest in dropping into one of your ridiculous rabbit holes.

As you well know, the rent charged to LA authority tenants is adjusted according to their means. Any non-paying LA tenant is, by definition, in the "won't pay", rather than the "can't pay" category.

So if they won't pay their (means-adjusted) rent, then give somebody that will pay the rent an opportunity to live in that home. God knows the waiting lists are long enough - where do you think the people on the housing lists are living?

Again, evicting non-paying LA tenants will not exacerbate the housing crisis. It would neither create nor destroy any housing units - the insufficiency of which is at the core of the problem.

 

[TheBigShort]

Sarenco, stop with the jibberish and stop pretending all is black and white, just because you read it in a school text book.

If, by your definition, a rent adjusted LA tenant is automatically "wont pay", I have already stated that an eviction should be invoked in such circumstances. Let me know if you can understand this much;

I will say that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict.

If you get past that, then perhaps you can join reality for a while. Because what you are saying is that a LA tenant who "wont pay" will face eviction, possibly homelessness if they have nowhere else to go, and go back on the waiting list for a...LA house!!!

How many of the 15% LA tenants in arrears are we talking about here - 1, maybe 2? Is this how you envisage the housing crisis might be resolved?

On the other hand, despite the rent differential applicable, is it possible that substandard, unrepaired properties, unresolved landlord/tenant disputes are contributing to the arrears?
Perhaps there are households with young families but daddy (or mammy) has taken to the drink or has wracked up gambling debts, that has put that household in arrears? Perhaps LA's take real life complications such as that into account before evicting anyone as that may only cement the poverty trap for the children?
Perhaps you could take time to wonder why 50% of homeless families in Cork refuse accommodation? Drug-dealing in the chosen area is apparently a regularly cited deterrent to taking up accommodation.
Perhaps you could take time to read BB new thread on a RTE report citing homeless families refusing to take accommodation?

Why you keep bleating on about housing units being destroyed or erased is beyond me.

 

[Sarenco]

BS

As I already said, I have zero interest in dropping into one of your ridiculous rabbit holes, where logic never sees the light of day.

All the best.

 

[TheBigShort]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/irela...ers-turned-down-in-past-two-years-450651.html

Imagine, homeless families refusing accommodation over seemingly innocuous reasons as interior decoration.
What hope getting them into rat infested, water contaminated houses?
What would be the point in evicting someone from such dire properties over arrears? You would clearly have trouble trying to get others to take up the accommodation. Instead, you would end up with another family to rehouse.