A very annoying law.

Discussion in 'The Watercooler' started by A dad, Jan 23, 2016.

  1. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    So in my country and hear me you can not kick out someone out of the house if he has his ID your address. You can of course sue them but since the process is long it can take years. So wanna kick out someone well in a couple of years.
    Wanna kick your lazy disrespectful child out like my brother wants well you can not and you can not change the lock and keep him out because it is illegal because you said he lives there and agreed that he lives there.
    By the way you can not have a ID without a address so you basically agreed that the person lives with you until his ID expires since you agreed that that is the place he lives.
     
  2. InsaneCdn

    InsaneCdn Well-Known Member

    Whoa. So, somebody can use your address on their ID, then claim to live there, and you'd have to let them?
     
  3. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    Not that bad the owner must go with a copy of the deeds of the house and agree that the person can have your address in its ID.
     
  4. New Leaf

    New Leaf Well-Known Member

    That is not only annoying, it is ridiculous. No rights in your own home. Not good. Sorry for this A dad. It is not just.
     
  5. InsaneCdn

    InsaneCdn Well-Known Member

    There needs to be some way to revoke that. Other than just a civil court case.
     
  6. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    Well not only civil court case there penal court case but its even longer especially for such small things in the eyes of the law. They just do not investigate so the case goes nowhere. One takes a lot of money and the other one well goes nowhere.
    Our justice system has very very big flaws. We are far from the anglo-saxon world justice system.
    There are of course other ways but there kinda illegal of course because of the flaws in the justice system you will get away with it most of the time but its still illegal.
     
  7. donna723

    donna723 Well-Known Member

    In some ways this can happen here too. They probably couldn't just give your address as their own to get ID. But if someone stays in your home for a certain period of time with your permission, you cannot just make them leave. If they refuse you have to go through legal proceedings to have them evicted, just like a tenant who refused to pay rent. It could be an undesirable houseguest or an unruly adult "child" who lives in your home. It costs you money and it takes time. A friend of my son's is finding that out the hard way. His now-ex refused to leave HIS home even though the divorce decree said she had to and gave her a deadline, while he had to stay elsewhere. She still refused to leave so he had to go through formal eviction proceedings. The deadline for that has now passed and he's waiting for the deputies to come and forcibly remove her so he can move back in to his own house! There was a case in the news where a couple's live in nanny quit her job but then refused to leave their home. This went on for weeks and even though they finally filed to evict her, they almost didn't get rid of her!
     
  8. InsaneCdn

    InsaneCdn Well-Known Member

    The nanny situation can be avoided by having proper, formal agreements signed at the commencement of employment, including a condition that resignation from the position is also resignation from use of the home.

    Family members are a bit harder.
     
  9. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    Well my country is strange for example we are required by law to take care of our parents when they can not take care of themselves I am not kidding you can go to jail if you do not do that. You either have to put the money or the time or both in taking care of them or you go to jail.
    Its a great law in my opinion. Also its focused a lot on this kinds of things. In my opinion this is so the state does not have to take the burden of supporting certain individuals.
     
  10. witzend

    witzend Well-Known Member

    What country are you in, and how old is your brother's child?
     
  11. Copabanana

    Copabanana Well-Known Member

    That is horrible!!!! What part of the world do you live in, if you do not mind me asking?

    COPA
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  12. InsaneCdn

    InsaneCdn Well-Known Member

    As this is an anonymous site, you do not need to reveal your country. But sometimes it's useful to have some general idea of what part of the planet you are in... For example, there's a big difference between "Scandinavia" and "Australia"
     
  13. witzend

    witzend Well-Known Member

    Yes, I ask what country you are in because it would help to give advice as to what legal remedies your brother may have. If nothing else, he could move and not take the "child" (9 years old? 29 years old?) with him. We had a neighbor who sold her home and moved to a retirement community. Her 40 year old drunken couch potato son had to find a new place to go. I thought she was brilliant!

    Your brother could move the child (?) to the garage, but if you are in an area where there are no garages, that's not an option. If this is an adult child, lock up the food, don't make the internet password key available, sell any furniture and appliances they did not buy for themselves, keep fun things like the tv and computer in your room and put locks on the doors, cut off the phones and keep the cell phones away from them. Make their lives less pleasant. But options depend upon circumstances that may be dictated by the type of housing available to him.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  14. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    I live in one of the countries from the Balkans.
     
  15. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    To add more this law is annoying if you are owner but you certainly you can not get trown out by the police they will say we can not do a thing.
    So if you are thick skinned jerk you basically have a home for free. You see in my country most rent are made without a contract because the owners do not wanna pay taxes for the extra income so basically if you rent your house to a jerk he can not pay you a dime and you have to go trough a civil process that can take years minimum of 2 years in some cases 8 years. Now this happens if you are stupid enough to agree for him to make the address for his ID your house. If not you can accuse him of breaking in your home and call the police to evacuate him.
    If you have a rental contract you can call the police if they break the terms and they can kick them out. But if you take them without one you can not kick them one without a years long process.
    Our law cares more about having less people on the street then of property law. Basically this means you do not even own the house.
    I know a case where a women bought a house from someone and he refused to get out and the police did nothing because the law says you need a judge to give a evacuation order. It took 2 years until the process was over and the judge finally gave the evacuation order. For 2 years the person had to stay in rent somewhere and not in her own apartment that was bought with hard earned money.
    Most people are not that big of a jerks but in the small chance you meet such people well you will know frustration.
     
  16. InsaneCdn

    InsaneCdn Well-Known Member

    Two trains of thought on this.

    Obviously, property rights are not well developed in your country, and history plays a big role in that. Without strong property rights, the foundations for building personal wealth are always at risk. Not a nice feeling.

    And then, the whole "tax avoidance" vs "contractual protections" argument. I'd be awful tempted to make my kids sign contracts in order to obtain ID such as a driver's license - so that they can be kicked out if they start causing major problems. If property rights are so weak, how can people afford to NOT have contracts, even if it means paying more taxes? History probably plays a role here, too. The whole relationship between citizens and government determines a lot of behavior.
     
  17. A dad

    A dad Active Member

    Well we had powerful property right about 60 years ago but a certain regime change made us basically share every property we had with the state. We gave everything to the state by force and we where all renters. We did not have the concept of property of a house for decades and decades.
    Imagine then trying to kick your adult kid out of your house well you can not as its not your house is the states and you have to share its not in the spirit of what the state stands for.
    The good part that state forced the adult kid to work or he will be sent to jail the bad side is nobody could force him to work at the job because well you do not have the manpower with thousands to enforce what tens of millions do.
    We are really selfish about giving anything to the state after we gave them everything we had for decades.
     
  18. InsaneCdn

    InsaneCdn Well-Known Member

    It's different here (I'm in a Commonwealth country, not the US), where property rights have been defended and supported from the beginning. We didn't have that "gap" that so much of eastern Europe went through. Changing those regimes was a good thing, but you can't replace the damage done with a change of regime. How people think, how law gets interpreted, which loop-holes need to be fixed, democratic traditions... when the flow gets interrupted, where do you even start?
     
Loading...