That's the craziest suggestion you've come up with. You want the taxpayer to pay landlrods if their tenant's destroy the place.
You really haven't a clue. What's in your lease as regards cleaning windows or chimneys and keys?
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 reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.
.
Oh, just in case some landlords ever complain about getting phonecalls from drunken tenants at 3am who have lost their keys - put the responsibility and charges of key and lock replacement on the keyholder, ie the tenant.
Don't you mean the Taxpayer ? What ever happened to personal responsibility?
No, but such matters, any others, can be reflected in a justified increase in rents (obviously, by itself, battery replacement would be negligible).
.
Would you support a criminal conviction in this case?
I was more worried about the tenants than the cost of the battery.
How do newspapers get away with printing such stuff. There is no way I believe DCC can build houses for that if you factor in all costs. And it's a rather neat figure too. With your 199, not going over the 200, like it was Dunnes stores.Yet one of the few local authority housing developments completed in Dublin in recent years delivered units that cost almost twice that excluding land costs. I'd love to know where they got that €199k figure from, I can only guess it has no basis in the reality of an actual development.
But I thought you said this would be sorted in your magical written lease ! You know the one I told you was a waste of time in Ireland.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.
How do newspapers get away with printing such stuff. There is no way I believe DCC can build houses for that if you factor in all costs. And it's a rather neat figure too. With your 199, not going over the 200, like it was Dunnes stores.
This happened to my mother. But she was more than an hour away, she told the tenant to just break in. Then she fixed the lock afterwards. I told her not to answer her phone in the middle of the night.
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.
But I thought you said this would be sorted in your magical written lease !
According to you if she had a written lease there would have been no problem. She could have provided the phone number of the locksmith in the lease too. Why not. You can be sure that particular tenant would have of course phoned a locksmith whose number was in the written lease inside the locked apartment.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.
.
If you agreed to a chimney sweep once a year, which I think is reasonable if you are interested in protecting your property, but you fail to so and the tenant, being concerned about their own welfare and the welfare of their children, ends up paying for a chimney sweep, then this may act as a factor in reducing rent.
Would you hold the same view if the same person threw a brick through the front window of their local Tesco?
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.
Moral hazard alert
Wow!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 reimburse that the State can be held liable for the cost of repairs.
So the taxpayer will fully underwrite the landlord's investment!If a landlord can show that they have been put of pocket by a non-paying tenant, and the tenant has no means to pay then the State becomes a liable party
So the taxpayer will meet the cost of any damage caused to a property by a rogue tenant. And the best part of this cunning plan is that it won't even require an Act of the Oireachtas - parties can agree to this privately!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?