Rented house and poor BER

BostonB · 04-12-2012 5:42pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...
Chances are I have been on more building sites and seen more builds than you. The BER would have mentioned said holes too. ....

While I worked for many years on building sites, it was the family business, I'd have to concede there's many people who been on far more sites, builds than me. Looking at the standard of many of them, I'd have to say a lot of them probably shouldn't be let near lego never mind construction work. The standard of building, and for that matter tradesmen has been in general abysmal for many years. You'd struggle to find a straight line in many houses of the boom.

Ray Palmer · 04-12-2012 5:53pm

BostonB wrote: »

How is my direct experience a premise???

Also I wasn't talking of the OP experience, I was talking of my own. How can you get those two things mixed up???

Build to modern spec/reg is a meaningless sound bite. Its pretty clear that the building industry is in broad terms not regulated.

Imagine mixing up another story with the main topic. It still stands that such property would not be regulation builds.
90s building still cover by the building bye law department in the councils. The self regulation was and is a terrible idea. Priory Hall is a direct result of a badly conceived idea which left people in trouble. Not in the 90s I think it was 98 when things changed but I am open to correction.

sydthebeat · 04-12-2012 6:41pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Imagine mixing up another story with the main topic. It still stands that such property would not be regulation builds.
90s building still cover by the building bye law department in the councils. The self regulation was and is a terrible idea. Priory Hall is a direct result of a badly conceived idea which left people in trouble. Not in the 90s I think it was 98 when things changed but I am open to correction.

building regs have been in place since 1992.

There has been alterations to "insulation" regulations in
1997, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011

Hailhail1967 · 04-12-2012 7:19pm

BostonB wrote: »

I thought it was simply a heating device in each room. ?

You could well be right. I read that somewhere but with everything I read I may have picked it up wrong and can't find it now. So I'd accept that may well be the case.
@Ray you did not just give another point of view. You were insinuating that a landlord should not have to do anything if he can't afford too.

I can guarantee you this. If I take temp measurements no one will bat an eye lid as regards the landlords duty.

The house is not just cold as you keep stating. It is freezing and cannot be heated with what's supplied to heat the place. Never mind the cost. It just does not warm up.

BostonB · 04-12-2012 7:29pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

... It still stands that such property would not be regulation builds.....

You're kinda going full circles...

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Guys you have it all messed up in your head. The house was built to modern specs. The request to have it above that standard is basically unreasonable.....

I think its its a poor LL that hides behind a façade of regulations, regulations which are largely not enforced, and thus not implemented in the majority of housing. The end result which probably leaves the tenant in very sub standard accommodation, at high expense. Its the LL obligation to keep their business and property maintained to reasonable condition.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The point is what is the LL going to do about it? No obligation to do anything and it is costly. I wouldn't do it if I hadn't the money. The tenant isn't going to want to stay while the work is done either.
New windows and doors can easily cost 5 k and then there is redecoration. Do you really see the LL forking out the money?

You did.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...I personally upgraded all my properties but they are all 30+ years....

Ray Palmer · 04-12-2012 8:28pm

BostonB wrote: »

You're kinda going full circles...

I think its its a poor LL that hides behind a façade of regulations, regulations which are largely not enforced, and thus not implemented in the majority of housing. The end result which probably leaves the tenant in very sub standard accommodation, at high expense. Its the LL obligation to keep their business and property maintained to reasonable condition.

You did.

The regulations are what you have to cover nothing more. Tenants are always going on about the regulations. You can't have it both ways

While I upgraded much older property I would not expect to have to do so on more recent property. I could do so because the mortgage was gone. Not every LL is in such property.

@Hail
I never insinuated the LL shouldn't do anything just he doesn't have to and may still not. 13C is about the temperature you can see your breath BTW.

Hailhail1967 · 04-12-2012 8:29pm

Just on the previous point Boston

"Article 7
All habitable rooms must contain a fixed appliance capable of providing effective heating and the tenant must be able to control the operation of such an appliance"

This particular article of the regulations does not officially come into effect until 2013 though.

Anyway that would surely only lead to lengthy legal arguments until there is a precedent for what is "effective" heating.

I would certainly say my heating is not effective. My gf is home all day today. Heating now on for 7 1/2 hours, she is wearing a snuggy and her nose and ears are glowing from the cold. My nose is running and I am only back in the door.

Hailhail1967 · 04-12-2012 8:35pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

While I upgraded much older property I would not expect to have to do so on more recent property. I could do so because the mortgage was gone. Not every LL is in such property.

@Hail
I never insinuated the LL shouldn't do anything just he doesn't have to and may still not. 13C is about the temperature you can see your breath BTW.

According to the seai site the average rating of a house built in the same period as this one is c3. So you would be right to assume you would not have to do work, but in this case you would be wrong. My energy rating is more in line with a pre-1978 property.

That's interesting about the breath thing, I didn't know that, the heating was on for maybe 4 hours today and you could still see your breath. I will attempt to get a reasonably accurate thermometer to see anyway.

BostonB · 04-12-2012 10:37pm

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

...This particular article of the regulations does not officially come into effect until 2013 though....

I was referring to the current regulations. I didn't know they were due to change.

BostonB · 04-12-2012 11:00pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The regulations are what you have to cover nothing more. Tenants are always going on about the regulations. You can't have it both ways

While I upgraded much older property I would not expect to have to do so on more recent property. I could do so because the mortgage was gone. Not every LL is in such property.....

I think its bad business to put in minimum effort. You want a content tenant who stays as long as possible pays the rent and keeps the property in good condition. All properties, especially houses need constant maintenance. Again putting in minimum effort usually end up costing more in the long run.

Hailhail1967 · 04-12-2012 11:39pm

BostonB wrote: »

I was referring to the current regulations. I didn't know they were due to change.

Its the 2008 regulation, but article 6, 7 & 8 do not come into effect until february 2013.

StillWaters · 04-12-2012 11:41pm

BostonB wrote: »

I think its bad business to put in minimum effort. You want a content tenant who stays as long as possible pays the rent and keeps the property in good condition. All properties, especially houses need constant maintenance. Again putting in minimum effort usually end up costing more in the long run.

Retro fitting is very expensive. The reality is that a LL will get the same price more or less for a D rated house that he will for a C rating. Until there is more supply in the rental sector, or until tenants refuse to rent lower BER rated properties or at least negotiate a discount for same, I can't see a huge amount of LLs investing in retrofitting.

Hailhail1967 · 04-12-2012 11:46pm

StillWaters wrote: »

Retro fitting is very expensive. The reality is that a LL will get the same price more or less for a D rated house that he will for a C rating. Until there is more supply in the rental sector, or until tenants refuse to rent lower BER rated properties or at least negotiate a discount for same, I can't see a huge amount of LLs investing in retrofitting.

Very true. If I was LL I would be trying to keep good tenants in though. I would rather that than looking for new tennant every year.

xper · 05-12-2012 12:39am

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

If LL's have to have a BER they should have to advertise the houses with it attached or at least the actual rating there to be seen. That's for another day though.

The regulations are being altered so that this in fact will be a requirement by this time next month.
(S.I. No. 243 of 2012, Part 3, Section 12)
Of course, if the regulations are enforced as poorly as the current ones to simply have a BER available to prospective renters/buyers then it is pretty moot.

Rasmus wrote: »

This is true - if there is no BER, technically your lease isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

No, the situation is nowhere near as clear cut as that. Repeated suggestions that it is so have been tossed around various Irish property forums for the last few months ever since it came to light that the Law Society issued a guidance document to solicitors back in 2008 on the implications of the BER cert regulations. The oft quoted section said to render leases null and void if a BER cert was not produced before signing is as follows:

Can there be retrospective compliance with the Regulations?
It is the view of the committee that failure to provide a BER certificate before a contract/letting agreement is signed cannot be remedied by a subsequent provision of such certificate unless the purchaser is simultaneously given the opportunity to back out of the contract....

First, though I am no lawyer, I can read and it simply says that if the landlord/seller and his/her agent wants to avoid prosecution for not producing a BER Cert, producing it after the lease is signed is not good enough, they would also have go back to square one so to speak by agreeing with the tenant to tear up the existing lease (and entering into a new one they may agree on). On the other hand, the landlord could choose to enforce the existing lease but in doing so would be leaving him/herself open to prosecution. Prosecution does not benefit the tenant in any way. The action is taken by the regulator, not the tenant, and does not affect the lease.
Such as situation may give the tenant some leverage, however, in the same way that the absence of a PTRB registration also leaves a landlord open to prosecution and acts as an incentive to a landlord to settle a dispute on the tenants terms without heading off to the PTRB.

Secondly, if you read the rest of the document, you might note that it is directed at solicitors involved in property conveyance with regard to their responsibilities and tends to err on the side of caution. In other words, they're covering their arses and helping their own members to avoid prosecution. It is not giving legal opinion or advice to landlords or tenants.

Lastly, as has been said already, the document content is an opinion only. Now it is by the Law Society so you would hope it is pretty good interpretation but there has not been any case that has come to the attention of this or other forums where a tenant has gone through the legal process and has successfully gotten a lease declared null and void. Its probably just not worth the effort. There may well be lots of cases where the tenant has just walked out adn the landlord has not pursued them but there has always been such scenarios so it would be hard to attribute this to the BER Cert factor alone.

BostonB · 05-12-2012 2:03am

StillWaters wrote: »

Retro fitting is very expensive. The reality is that a LL will get the same price more or less for a D rated house that he will for a C rating. Until there is more supply in the rental sector, or until tenants refuse to rent lower BER rated properties or at least negotiate a discount for same, I can't see a huge amount of LLs investing in retrofitting.

You're talking about chasing for a paper BER rating that tenants aren't asking for, and they most likely you can't achieve in a older house anyway. The BER Certificate and the ‘real’ energy performance of a specific building maybe quite different.

I'm talking about something far simpler. If you have a building that can't be heated, and the tenants can't afford to heat it properly, its only a matter of time before the damp and condensation start causing problems that cost money to fix.

sethasaurus · 05-12-2012 4:18am

Glad to hear your landlord is doing the right thing! Hopefully it all gets resolved for you.
In the end, if you have to move for the sake of your health, they surely aren't going to fight you are they?

We saw many flats in our area empty for 6 months or more. The average place was about 700-800 per month, so the landlords are down around 4.5k anyway. It does pay for them to keep the place comfortable.

Our place looked great but when winter came, I realised a few things and was shaking my head in disbelief. It's disgraceful to rent such a property!

The rating here is a few points off a G. As soon as you turn off the heat, everything goes cold.
They spent thousands about 5 years ago, putting in double-glazing but the kitchen and bathroom are like meatlockers as there is no insulation in the ceiling/walls.

Add to that, the ridiculous big holes ("vents") in the walls in every room (now plugged) that you could see the sky through. We would be better off in a nice warm tent in the garden (same as previous place, minus the rising damp and mould).

We've learned to heat just the room we are in and run the central heat for 2 half-hour slots every day to keep some hot water flowing.
Those gas-fired fake fireplaces are a killer! They just eat your money away.
And the cheap wood you can buy here just doesn't burn as it's always damp. Burning turf is evil, btw!
I never had to use firelighters before, but here you have (and need) huge ones to burn the damp wood!

Anyone says the standards alone are sufficient? Come on..

runawaybishop · 05-12-2012 10:47am

You blocked your vents and you have a fire going?

youcancallmeal · 05-12-2012 11:26am

sethasaurus wrote: »

Burning turf is evil, btw!

BostonB · 05-12-2012 12:02pm

sethasaurus wrote: »

....Add to that, the ridiculous big holes ("vents") in the walls in every room (now plugged) that you could see the sky through. .....

The vents are critical in a room/house with a gas fire. You should also have a Carbon monoxide detector, especially if you are using an open fire.

Ray Palmer · 05-12-2012 12:22pm

I think people are being nieve and unrealistic to say you shouldn't rent if you can't upgrade. It is a major upgrade not maintenance.
Take a standard 3 bed house.
New windows 6k
New central heating 4k
External insulation 10k
Redecoration 2k
Just rough figures could easily be higher not likely to be lower.

29% buy to let are in arrears.
Reluctant LL renting to keep the property.
Pensioners who bought as a pension.

These groups make up the LL in this country. The portion of the property rented is a slice of the market. Reflecting the actual housing stock. That means all the range of BER that people live in and own.

Now there currently isn't a BER minimum for rental. Be assured this will come in but no government would be crazy enough to suddenly restrict the supply of rental overnight. Rents would sky rocket and at the moment that

It is going to change just slowly and in a controlled manner.

The real thing that will effect it which I assume the government hope is that consumers will make the decision. The insistence of BER in ads should help this along.

djimi · 05-12-2012 1:01pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think people are being nieve and unrealistic to say you shouldn't rent if you can't upgrade. It is a major upgrade not maintenance.

If the tenant is forced to wear multiple layers of clothing, wooly hats, duvets and hot water bottles even when the heat is on full blast for house on end then the house is not fit for human habitation and should not be rented. What do you find so hard to understand about that concept? If your house is a 19th century tenament and you cannot afford to bring it up to reasonable living standards then you dont rent it out; its quite simple.

runawaybishop · 05-12-2012 1:06pm

I'm pretty sure there are enforceable minimum standards for rental properties, one of them being each habitable room must have a heat source capable of providing effective heat. It could be argued that with the issues the OP outlined no source of heat would be effective.

edit: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,19428,en.pdf

Possibly relevant sections

Requirement under Article 5 of the Regulations:
• That the house shall be maintained in a proper state of structural
repair. A proper state of structural repair is defined as sound,
internally and externally, with roof, roofing tiles and slates, windows,
floors, ceilings, walls, stairs, doors, skirting boards, fascia, tiles on any
floor, ceiling and wall, gutters, down pipes, fittings, furnishings,
gardens and common areas maintained in good condition and repair
and not defective due to dampness or otherwise.

Windows & doors
4. The windows are in a proper state of repair and are properly maintained.
5. The doors in any part of the house are not defective and are in good repair and
condition.
6. There is no evidence of dampness or water penetration through the windows or
doors.

There is no evidence of dampness or water penetration through the floors,
ceilings, or walls.

Requirement under article 7 of the Regulations:
• Every room used, or intended for use, by the tenant of the house as a
habitable room shall contain
(a) a permanently fixed appliance or appliances capable of
providing effective heating,

BostonB · 05-12-2012 1:09pm

The current standard states only

"Provide heating appliances for every room lived in"

Nothing about effective heat.

Hailhail1967 · 05-12-2012 1:10pm

I don't really have any sympathy for any LL who bought to let and is in arrears.

I have no sympathy for anyone who thought they would make their fortunes off property and didn't, tough titty (that's for another day/thread).

Basically all that has came from this is that I am correct in my concerns, the law is only changing to allow for this so there is little I can actually do. I am hoping it gets fully resolved this week or I will change my approach.

The landlord asked me to leave the heating on full blast until the house got warm yesterday. I left it on for over 10 hours straight, thermostat on high until I went to bed.

Did the house get warmer? Yes of course it did (I couldn't see my breath),

Did I still watch the tv last night with a hoody and hat on, yes i had to.

Did my girlfriend feel warmer? Well she still had to have a hot water bottle beside her under a blanket in the sitting room all evening (women are cold anyway though)

Were my bedroom windows still saturated in water this morning when I woke up? Yes they were, it was running down them

Could I see my breath when I woke up? Yes absolutely.

So ten straight hours of the gas heating on full resulted in a slightly more live-able house, I could survive lets say. It certainly was not warm by any means and I still struggled to warm my hands without sitting on them.

This is hardly acceptable is it? heating on full for a minimum of 10 hours a day and still house is barely and I emphasize barely live able.

runawaybishop · 05-12-2012 1:11pm

BostonB wrote: »

The current standard states only

Nothing about effective heat.

no?

Requirement under article 7 of the Regulations:
• Every room used, or intended for use, by the tenant of the house as a
habitable room shall contain
(a) a permanently fixed appliance or appliances capable of
providing effective heating,

Hailhail1967 · 05-12-2012 1:12pm

^^^ If you read all the posts you would have seen that article does not come into effect until february of 2013, despite being a 2008 regulation.

runawaybishop · 05-12-2012 1:13pm

Sucks to be me

Thanks Hailhail1967

BostonB · 05-12-2012 1:15pm

I stand corrected.
http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,19142,en.pdf

For some reason I was looking at the older standard which applies to existing tenancies. Of which the OP isn't one.

A 4-year phasing-in period for existing tenancies was allowed for some of the standards in the Regulations, including standards for sanitary facilities, heating facilities, food preparation, storage and laundry. 'Existing tenancies' means property that had been let for rent at any time between 1 September 2004 and 31 January 2009.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/repairs_maintenance_and_minimum_physical_standards.html

Ray Palmer · 05-12-2012 3:07pm

djimi wrote: »

If the tenant is forced to wear multiple layers of clothing, wooly hats, duvets and hot water bottles even when the heat is on full blast for house on end then the house is not fit for human habitation and should not be rented. What do you find so hard to understand about that concept? If your house is a 19th century tenament and you cannot afford to bring it up to reasonable living standards then you dont rent it out; its quite simple.

You know what I understand and I agree to the extent that nobody should have to wear layers etc. The fact is no matter what you say about not being fit for human habitation it is within the law. You can say what you like about that and my opinion probably won't differ much but that is that.
Effective heat will use a calculation based on heat output and room size. This will not address the op issue unless the radiators are too small. Haven't done the calcs in years but you can go look.

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

I don't really have any sympathy for any LL who bought to let and is in arrears.

I have no sympathy for anyone who thought they would make their fortunes off property and didn't, tough titty (that's for another day/thread).

Basically all that has came from this is that I am correct in my concerns, the law is only changing to allow for this so there is little I can actually do. I am hoping it gets fully resolved this week or I will change my approach.

Were my bedroom windows still saturated in water this morning when I woke up? Yes they were, it was running down them
.

You see if your landlord had the same attitude as you have expressed about BTLs he could tell you tuff titty.
Not every BTL thought they'd make a fortune but you stick with that view it is nice and balanced.
Just buy some thermometers and get some hard data. Don't put the by the window as it won't be accurate. There are lots of factors at play. Do you have curtains, carpet, radiator under the window etc...
Condensation doesn't really indicate poor heating it is the opposite. Warm air meets cold. It also indicates few draughts in the house
I don't know what they are going to do in a week that will make that much difference. Unless the attic has no insulation but I would have expected you to mention that.

Hailhail1967 · 05-12-2012 4:26pm

The attic insulation was also one of the things listed on the BER, he is improving that today.

How is someone who is doing something to make money any thing whatsoever related to me paying money to have a home? If you bought a house to let, it was to make money, if that's not working out for you then that's tough, no other way about it. Thats business, you took a chance and lost. .

My business has struggled, I don't go to the landlord and tell him I can't pay rent. I would be out on my ear, but I am to have sympathy for him because he can't make any money or is loosing money?

Rented house and poor BER

Comments