Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches needed


Clearly you aren’t paying attention , why exactly will she be made homeless after the eviction , is everyone who rents who gets evicted automatically classed as homeless now ? That will have your friends in the homeless industry very excited .

What they do after they are lawfully evicted is no concern of his , the same as any other landlord when a tenant leaves .

Why can’t they rent somewhere else ? Why should the council be responsible for finding her somewhere to live , it’s staggering .

And that creep Boyd Barrett is encouraging this carry on.


Ok, one more time for the slow learners.

In a situation where a tenant is paying the market rent, is not in arrears, has not breached the terms of the lease agreement etc, but the landlord issues notice to vacate, and the tenant is unable to secure similar suitable accommodation at the market rent, then the landlord should be obliged to either 1) assist in providing that accommodation, or 2) delay the notice to vacate until suitable accommodation is secured. This would be a simple measure to avoid families falling into homelessness and it would not be necessary except in a dysfunctional housing market like Ireland.

I know you guys are really having difficulty with this one. I feel your pain. It must seem like an assault on your understanding of reality; the view that the ownership of property must take precedence over all human and civil rights. It trumps Mary, mother of God!. It puts the our Lord Jesus in the stable with the donkeys! Hold your deeds with their burdens and their easements close to your chest for comfort! Raise the rent and praise the Lord! Strike down this evil sinner who would blaspheme against your property rights!


Perhaps your own view of reality needs to be assessed.

Why should any individual be forced to house somebody else?

Perhaps the state should be obliged to buy the house offer it to the family in your hypothecical example.


It’s actually part of the tenancy agreement? The tenant comes to an arrangement with the owner of the property (‘the landlord’) and they agree an amount of money in return for the use of the property.


The level of debate on this site has reached a whole new level in the last 24 hours! It’s either trolling or flat earthism.


What’s really needed to solve the housing crisis is for all builders and tradesmen to be required to devote one day a week to building social housing for free. Anyone who objects is clearly a heartless Thatcherite. I haven’t served an apprenticeship but I am fairly handy at assembling IKEA flatpack furniture


Yes, both parties entered an agreement. However it was not one of indifferenate duration i.e. both parties are able to end the lease after serving the appropriate notice.

Again why should an individual be forced to house somebody else?


I wouldn’t agree with the how of Coles arguments here, though I’d agree with the What I think he’d like us to get to… this situation just wouldn’t come up in the vast majority of EU countries, where tenant rights are far stronger and the landlord can’t evict just cos they want to.

It seems to be an Anglo-influenced view of property owner’s rights (UK, US, Aus, NZ and unfortunately Ireland).


And as a society we choose that our laws reflect our morality.

If the housing crisis has reached the stage where a family who have their tenancy terminated through no fault of their own will inevitably become homeless, then it’s clear that a far lesser wrong is committed by them remaining in the property until alternative suitable accommodation is found. I’m sure we can all agree on that, right?

I know you can’t get your heads around the concept that a regulation such as this could apply on tenancy agreement but it’s actually not unusual. There’s already a raft of regulation already in place and this would actually be a very minor addition. Take for instance Part 4 tenancy rules and the periods of notice. Imagine the sweat and bullshit that you chaps would have been posted up when those rules were first mooted! But it happened and the world was better for it.

A simple regulation such as this would ensure that families couldn’t be evicted into homelessness through no fault of their own.


“Outrageous! Ridiculous! SJW! Marxist! Social Democrat! Shinner! Feminazi! Blah blah…bullshit bullshit…”


Well if they are paying their rent without issue, they are a lot higher up the chain than David Hall’s strategic defaulter brigade. Who remain untouchable. I’d give you that.


Indeed. But setting aside the strategic defaulter there is quite a contrast between the mortgage holder who can’t pay their debts but “must be kept in their home at all costs” and the tenant family who can by made homeless at the whim of some parasitic rentier despite never missing a payment. Is that what we want as a society?


Ah right, I misunderstood the context.

I don’t think the moral argument about homeless families and vulture rentiers is required.

Tenancies ought not to be terminated just because the underlying asset is traded. When I buy shares in a company I don’t get the right to invalidate the contracts of its customers. The law was designed to support the peculiar wants of small Irish landlords, not funds.


It is not a bad idea, with limits.

Tenancies can be terminated at relatively short notice by landlords in Ireland. You could be served notice on the first day of a three-week holiday and come back with only three weeks before you have to vacate.

Tenants could be entitled to a one-time extension of their tenancy providing they are fully paid up, live in a rent pressure zone, and make a statutory declaration of need.

This would be a useful tool for occasional hard cases. It would probably not do too much from preventing landlords from entering the market.


They only noticed it now?
TDs have been advising tenants for years to avoid homelessness, and costing the State more, by overholding


Q. The cost of the use of hotels and guest houses for emergency accommodation in each of the years 2009 to 2017?
A. … 2-14a.1972

So, taxpayers spent €90m + 10% more = minimum €100m on B&Bs and Hotels last year.
All that money going to hoteliers.


If they really are paying market rent how can it be that 18 months later they can’t find alternative accommodation,

As to the rest of the nonsense you are posting I fundamentally disagree


So, say an employee on secondment for a year who rents out his home cannot get his property back after the fixed term is up? You have to be really obtuse and or thick not to see the consequences of this. Falling into homelessness, FFS Kitty Holland eat your bleeding heart out


You’d need to be really thick AND obtuse not to figure out a way to give sucurity of tenure to tenants but also to protect landlords who want to make a property available for a short fixed duration.

There won’t be any solution to the housing crisis while so many people are enriching themselves from it.


Are you actively renting a property at the moment ? There’s very little enriching about it