More costs for landlords suggested

gctest50

Del2005 wrote: »

What happens if someone wants to rent in the summer, do they sleep on the streets till a person looks at the property and ticks a few boxes?

It'll take a few years to sort it all out

Then - last years "thermal/damp/mold inspection" will do - unless there has been structural etc changes


Less an NCT cert type idea and more like a medical record

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

My friends moved into a lovely renovated cottage. Place was spotless and nice and warm, new floors etc. So if your new quango inspected it it would be good for several years. Within 6 months, winter arrived, they place was black with damp and the kids were sick every few weeks. When they moved out a few months later they had to dump a load of their possessions as they were destroyed with mildew.

So a lovely house in summer turns into a nightmare in a few months. Would my friends be able to get compensation from the quango that told them that the property was OK? Because they would have assumed that if it passed inspection it would be OK for them and their children to live in.

Your friend was very unfortunate.
If that property had a requirement of inspection before it was put on the market then the inspection may have spotted that it was unfit for purpose, or if rising damp, which can be difficult to detect in summer weather, maybe not.
People have bought houses without engineers reports and have been burned with same.
Under what I am proposing if they reported this property, and no consolation to them I know, but that property would have to be certified as fit for purpose before it could again be rented.

Graham

So this proposed property NCT is going to include a full structural survey and engineers report?

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

Your friend was very unfortunate.
If that property had a requirement of inspection before it was put on the market then the inspection may have spotted that it was unfit for purpose, or if rising damp, which can be difficult to detect in summer weather, maybe not.
People have bought houses without engineers reports and have been burned with same.
Under what I am proposing if they reported this property, and no consolation to them I know, but that property would have to be certified as fit for purpose before it could again be rented.

Your really taking he pi55 now. I don’t believe you understand the world of building surveys and how they are carried out.

Do you now want envasive surveys carried out on properties?
Even people buying houses get a VISUAL SURVEY done. Not envasive.

You need to go back to the drawing board I’m afraid.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

Your really taking he pi55 now. I don’t believe you understand the world of building surveys and how they are carried out.

Do you now want envasive surveys carried out on properties?
Even people buying houses get a VISUAL SURVEY done. Not envasive.

You need to go back to the drawing board I’m afraid.

Would you care to point out where in my reply to Del2005`s post I mentioned carrying out invasive inspections on rental properties or even suggested it ?

As to your suggestion I should go back to the drawing board.
Did I happen to mention that I am a qualified civil engineer ?

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

So this proposed property NCT is going to include a full structural survey and engineers report?

See post #275 above.

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

From 2014

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nine-out-of-10-dublin-rented-dwellings-fail-standards-test-1.2015028

That 3 year Intensified Inspection Programme doesn`t seem to have work too well when you consider what was shown by RTE.
In fact from that article of 3 years ago it didn`t appear to have much teeth to back it up.

"In some areas the rate of non-compliance was up to 100 per cent, while high levels of non-compliance remained even after enforcement notices had been issued"

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

That 3 year Intensified Inspection Programme doesn`t seem to have work too well when you consider what was shown by RTE.
In fact from that article of 3 years ago it didn`t appear to have much teeth to back it up.

"In some areas the rate of non-compliance was up to 100 per cent, while high levels of non-compliance remained even after enforcement notices had been issued"

I can’t imagine why:

Some 5,105 units were inspected, by six Dublin City Council EHOs

programme is targeted at parts of the city with high concentrations of what are commonly referred to as “pre-63” properties.

A more recent quote from the same newspaper:

Dublin City Council needs 100 more health inspectors to deal with the overcrowding issue in rental properties, its deputy chief executive has said.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

My NCT payment is for my car for my own private use,not for rental by others.
So you will excuse my skepticism that when it comes to rental properties landlords would not include inspection costs, (similar as I imagine they do nowadays with the Local Property Tax), in calculating their overheads and passing it on to their tenants.

I am especially skeptical that someone who is a fan of just letting the market sorting out the slum landlord situation would believe otherwise.

You appear to be somewhat misinformed in respect of the ability to include overheads. The Govt in their wisdom with the RPZ have limited the increases available so if costs outweigh the increase in rent this results in a decrease profit.

Well then if you want to treat the relationship between a tenant and a landlord as a business transaction then legislate and level the playing field between both. Non payment of rent or damage to property eviction within two months. What other business is forced to continue providing service when not getting paid?

A property unsuitable for habitation then close it down immediately.

I don't have an issue with the closing down of properties that are not suitable, I do however have an issue with constant interference in the market where the State has abdicated its responsibility to house those who need it and then at the stroke of a pen impose laws which impact on the running of a business. The State runs the risk of making it more difficult for renters going forward but sure hey lets have a go at all landlords because all landlords are bad and all tenants are good!

If the State does not like how the rental market is operating then build its own houses and let the landlords compete for the remaining business between themselves.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

Would you care to point out where in my reply to Del2005`s post I mentioned carrying out invasive inspections on rental properties or even suggested it ?

As to your suggestion I should go back to the drawing board.
Did I happen to mention that I am a qualified civil engineer ?

You are talking about rising Damp, structural inspections and fire safety inspections. How do you invisage these be carried out without invasive or destructive works?

Civil Engineer you say, you may have been on my class
Although I went with the structural option and post grad in Fire

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

You appear to be somewhat misinformed in respect of the ability to include overheads. The Govt in their wisdom with the RPZ have limited the increases available so if costs outweigh the increase in rent this results in a decrease profit.

Well then if you want to treat the relationship between a tenant and a landlord as a business transaction then legislate and level the playing field between both. Non payment of rent or damage to property eviction within two months. What other business is forced to continue providing service when not getting paid?

A property unsuitable for habitation then close it down immediately.

I don't have an issue with the closing down of properties that are not suitable, I do however have an issue with constant interference in the market where the State has abdicated its responsibility to house those who need it and then at the stroke of a pen impose laws which impact on the running of a business. The State runs the risk of making it more difficult for renters going forward but sure hey lets have a go at all landlords because all landlords are bad and all tenants are good!

If the State does not like how the rental market is operating then build its own houses and let the landlords compete for the remaining business between themselves.

I find it difficult to understand what you are saying here.

Are you saying I am misinformed that in rent controlled area that there is the capability to raise rent year on year by up to 4% ?
The proposal for a certification of fit for purpose is that it would be on a three year cycle.
That would result in a compound interest of close enough to 13% as makes no difference over that 3 year period.
That is well ahead of any predictions for inflation over that same period.

I would have no problem with eviction of tenants within two months for non payment of rent or damage to property if you are suggesting that as a trade off for certification of property as fit for purpose being required prior to renting if that is what you are saying ?

You again appear to believe the market should be allowed to sort this all out without any interference from the state.
I know of no situation where the markets are allowed to perform unregulated.
I do know of a few examples where the markets have been allowed to operate with wishy washy regulation to disastrous consequence.
The Irish banking sector being a prime example.

Just an aside to your mention of the state abdicating its responsibilities.
The State has been doing this to motor vehicle drivers for generations. wh By State law you are required under penalty to hold a valid insurance policy, yet to do so you are left to the mercies of private insurance companies.

The State is supposed to have a duty of care to all its citizens.
I would view a certification of a property as fit for purpose as doing that in the case of people renting and I really do not see what the good landlords have to fear from that as opposed to the bad landlords.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

You are talking about rising Damp, structural inspections and fire safety inspections. How do you invisage these be carried out without invasive or destructive works?

Civil Engineer you say, you may have been on my class
Although I went with the structural option and post grad in Fire

You may again wish to read my post.
I never mentioned invasive, or as you put it, destructive inspection.
I clearly stated that if it was a case of rising damp that inspection may or may not highlight it, as in Summer weather it can be difficult to detect.
I would have thought that anyone with a structural degree would have known I was referring a visual survey.

As to the fire safety inspection, that would be carried out by the fire services as part of the certification of a premises being fit for purpose.
Same as it is for hotels before they are licensed to operate.

Possibly.
What years and which college ?

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand what you are saying here.

Are you saying I am misinformed that in rent controlled area that there is the capability to raise rent year on year by up to 4% ?
The proposal for a certification of fit for purpose is that it would be on a three year cycle.
That would result in a compound interest of close enough to 13% as makes no difference over that 3 year period.
That is well ahead of any predictions for inflation over that same period.

I would have no problem with eviction of tenants within two months for non payment of rent or damage to property if you are suggesting that as a trade off for certification of property as fit for purpose being required prior to renting if that is what you are saying ?

You again appear to believe the market should be allowed to sort this all out without any interference from the state.
I know of no situation where the markets are allowed to perform unregulated.
I do know of a few examples where the markets have been allowed to operate with wishy washy regulation to disastrous consequence.
The Irish banking sector being a prime example.

Just an aside to your mention of the state abdicating its responsibilities.
The State has been doing this to motor vehicle drivers for generations. wh By State law you are required under penalty to hold a valid insurance policy, yet to do so you are left to the mercies of private insurance companies.

The State is supposed to have a duty of care to all its citizens.
I would view a certification of a property as fit for purpose as doing that in the case of people renting and I really do not see what the good landlords have to fear from that as opposed to the bad landlords.

You want to increase costs to landlords while imposing a cap on rent increases. Prices do not increase in line with inflation, inflation is calculated as I am sure you aware on a basket of goods. if goods and services increased by just the rate of inflation then that would be better.

I am not suggesting eviction of tenants as a trade off for inspection. I will repeat again the LA and the Fire Brigade already have powers of inspection and can close properties that are not habitable or poses a risk to health and safety. I do not have any problem with increasing these powers and increasing the number of inspectors.

Increased supply will force out these type of landlords. if you want to improve conditions then increase supply in the market. This will automatically force out the bad landlords. I find it ironic that in any market if Supernormal profits are being earned it attracts new entrants to the market thereby forcing down the Supernormal profits to normal profits as supply has increased to meet demand. In a normal functioning market this would happen, you have to ask yourself why the market is not flooded with new entrants to get a share of these Supernormal profits?

You give an example of insurance on cars as the state abdicating its responsibilities on motorists. Are you suggesting some sort of state insurance scheme for motorists. We already have prime examples of situations where the State has provided services and has been unable to operate efficiently/effectively. Social housing is a prime example where you have tenants in arrears for more than three months despite being on differential rates.

The State does have a duty of care to all its citizens including landlords as the majority of them are citizens and not corporations. Tax landlords the same as corporations and maybe there might be some incentives to work together.

Tenants when they view a property are not forced to take it, if they think the property is unsafe then don't take it.

Landlords who run substandard accommodation only do so because people rent these places.

DubCount

charlie14 wrote: »

I would have no problem with eviction of tenants within two months for non payment of rent or damage to property if you are suggesting that as a trade off for certification of property as fit for purpose being required prior to renting if that is what you are saying ?

This is perhaps the greatest irony of the housing market. The single biggest thing the government could do to address the housing crises is fix how long it takes to evict a rogue tenant. If you surveyed 100 Landlords, you would find this is top of the list in reasons for pulling out of the rental market or not investing more. Overnight, you could improve the chances of securing a long term rental for a reasonable price, in somewhere that is not a fire hazzard. And nobody in the media or the government will even mention it.

This goes back to the government (and local government in particular) not wanting responsibility for social housing. They dont want to enforce standards, as that would mean more social housing requirements landing on their door step. They dont want a housing NCT, as that would mean more social housing requirements landing on their door step. They dont want a LL to be able to evict rogue tenants efficiently, as that would mean more social housing requirements landing on their door step.

This is managable. In the UK, 3 months rent arrears is automatic grounds for an eviction notice. No defense, no bureaucracy, no messing about. 3 months arrears, and you are out with the responsibility to find housing for the evicted tenants falling on the Local Authority.

I would happily agree to a Housing NCT if the eviction process was reasonable, but neither will be addressed by government - and both for the same reason !!

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

You may again wish to read my post.
I never mentioned invasive, or as you put it, destructive inspection.
I clearly stated that if it was a case of rising damp that inspection may or may not highlight it, as in Summer weather it can be difficult to detect.
I would have thought that anyone with a structural degree would have known I was referring a visual survey.

So, can you clarify exactly what type of inspections you want to see carried out and by who?

You mention a new Authority, but then mention the Fire Services, so do all these departments now have to come together to carry out an inspection?

you say that you didn't mention invasive or destructive works, but how then do you inspect fire safety of the structure and assess the structure for any rising damp issues? Truth be told, you can not.

charlie14 wrote: »

As to the fire safety inspection, that would be carried out by the fire services as part of the certification of a premises being fit for purpose.
Same as it is for hotels before they are licensed to operate.

You are mixing up Fire Safety Certs here, the Fire Service do not inspect hotels or anything like that prior to opening. They make a decision based on what is lodged as part of a Fire Safety Certificate application and they rule that if the building is constructed in accordance with the design and particulars as submitted, will comply with TGD Part B (which is prescribed compliance with our Fire Safety Regulations).

People with no experience with Building Regulations or Building Surveys, also think that you can just click a button and magical legislation can be drafted to cover what they want to happen. In the real world, this cant be done.

So, to clarify, what exactly do you want?

You want one new authority that inspects these properties before they go to rent. You want them to check for fire safety and damp issues. You don't want invasive, so it will be simply a visual survey.

This is what we already have in legislation but not enough inspectors to inspect every property.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

So, can you clarify exactly what type of inspections you want to see carried out and by who?

You mention a new Authority, but then mention the Fire Services, so do all these departments now have to come together to carry out an inspection?

you say that you didn't mention invasive or destructive works, but how then do you inspect fire safety of the structure and assess the structure for any rising damp issues? Truth be told, you can not.



You are mixing up Fire Safety Certs here, the Fire Service do not inspect hotels or anything like that prior to opening. They make a decision based on what is lodged as part of a Fire Safety Certificate application and they rule that if the building is constructed in accordance with the design and particulars as submitted, will comply with TGD Part B (which is prescribed compliance with our Fire Safety Regulations).

People with no experience with Building Regulations or Building Surveys, also think that you can just click a button and magical legislation can be drafted to cover what they want to happen. In the real world, this cant be done.

So, to clarify, what exactly do you want?

You want one new authority that inspects these properties before they go to rent. You want them to check for fire safety and damp issues. You don't want invasive, so it will be simply a visual survey.

This is what we already have in legislation but not enough inspectors to inspect every property.

What we have had to date has been highlighted by RTE and further shown by beauf`s post here.
From 2014 there has supposedly been a 3 year Intensified Inspection Programme where even after enforcement notices were issued high levels of non-compliance remained.
In simple terms what we have had to date is not working and LA`s as I mentioned, ans you conveniently ignored, have a conflict of interest in the area of inspections.

What I` and others are proposing, and which is being considered by the Minister is certification of a fitness for purpose of rental properties before it can be offered for rental by an independent authority, that would be valid for three years with severe penalties for any landlord operating without one or breaking the terms.

In conjunction with that independent authority I would propose that the fire services would inspect the premises to ensure there were adequate avenues of escape in the event of fire, with a clearly defined assembly point. That there were sufficient, appropriate and up to date fire extinguisher, be that foam, dry powder, ( I would prefer Monnex if the landlord was feeling generous. Best knock down dry powder on the market imo) co2, fire blankets, and where necessary fire hose reels in working order.

Just to reiterate, seeing as you appear to be having difficulty grasping it, none of the inspections I am proposing are invasive.
In the area of the fire services they are basically the inspection they performed when forwarded the address provided by RTE to DCC.
The authority you wish to leave in charge who by their own admission didn`t get off their behinds to inspect visually or otherwise.

Graham

As a connected aside to this entire line of thought.

Is anyone in government showing the remotest signs that this type of property NCT is being considered. By anyone, I mean anyone with the power to make it happen?

I've certainly seen nothing to suggest this is anything other than a knee-jerk response by somebody working for a charity.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

You want to increase costs to landlords while imposing a cap on rent increases. Prices do not increase in line with inflation, inflation is calculated as I am sure you aware on a basket of goods. if goods and services increased by just the rate of inflation then that would be better.

I am not suggesting eviction of tenants as a trade off for inspection. I will repeat again the LA and the Fire Brigade already have powers of inspection and can close properties that are not habitable or poses a risk to health and safety. I do not have any problem with increasing these powers and increasing the number of inspectors.

Increased supply will force out these type of landlords. if you want to improve conditions then increase supply in the market. This will automatically force out the bad landlords. I find it ironic that in any market if Supernormal profits are being earned it attracts new entrants to the market thereby forcing down the Supernormal profits to normal profits as supply has increased to meet demand. In a normal functioning market this would happen, you have to ask yourself why the market is not flooded with new entrants to get a share of these Supernormal profits?

You give an example of insurance on cars as the state abdicating its responsibilities on motorists. Are you suggesting some sort of state insurance scheme for motorists. We already have prime examples of situations where the State has provided services and has been unable to operate efficiently/effectively. Social housing is a prime example where you have tenants in arrears for more than three months despite being on differential rates.

The State does have a duty of care to all its citizens including landlords as the majority of them are citizens and not corporations. Tax landlords the same as corporations and maybe there might be some incentives to work together.

Tenants when they view a property are not forced to take it, if they think the property is unsafe then don't take it.

Landlords who run substandard accommodation only do so because people rent these places.

I am increasingly confused by what you appear to be saying.

Inflation is calculated using the Consumer Price Index.
Inflation in Ireland for the three years December to December 2013 to 2015 inclusive have been +0.17%. -0.31%, +0.1%.
This year the latest figures September to September are +0.2%.
Compound interest over a three year period is less that 1%
There is the capability in rent controlled areas to increase rent over a three year period to a compounded interest rate of 13%
Are you advocating that this capability should be withdrawn in favour of inflationary increases ?

You can repeat as often as you like that LA`s and fire services can close properties that are uninhabitable or pose risks to health and safety while ignoring that until such properties are located and inspected they are uninhabitable and posing risks to health and safety until they are found.
A certificate of fit for purpose required before they are allowed on the market would ensure they were neither.

For someone that states they have now problem with increased powers and inspections I really do not see your problem with that.

Landlords that run sub-standard accommodation are doing so because there is nothing to stop them renting such at present.

As to the rest of your post on markets, government responsibility etc. Before you edited I believe you were somehow attempting to combine your belief that the government should have no interference in the rental market with cigarette smuggling.
As in let the market sort that problem as well.

Nough said on that I believe!

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

What we have had to date has been highlighted by RTE and further shown by beauf`s post here.
From 2014 there has supposedly been a 3 year Intensified Inspection Programme where even after enforcement notices were issued high levels of non-compliance remained.
In simple terms what we have had to date is not working and LA`s as I mentioned, ans you conveniently ignored, have a conflict of interest in the area of inspections.

What I` and others are proposing, and which is being considered by the Minister is certification of a fitness for purpose of rental properties before it can be offered for rental by an independent authority, that would be valid for three years with severe penalties for any landlord operating without one or breaking the terms.

In conjunction with that independent authority I would propose that the fire services would inspect the premises to ensure there were adequate avenues of escape in the event of fire, with a clearly defined assembly point. That there were sufficient, appropriate and up to date fire extinguisher, be that foam, dry powder, ( I would prefer Monnex if the landlord was feeling generous. Best knock down dry powder on the market imo) co2, fire blankets, and where necessary fire hose reels in working order.

Just to reiterate, seeing as you appear to be having difficulty grasping it, none of the inspections I am proposing are invasive.
In the area of the fire services they are basically the inspection they performed when forwarded the address provided by RTE to DCC.
The authority you wish to leave in charge who by their own admission didn`t get off their behinds to inspect visually or otherwise.

You keep changing your tune every time you are questioned.
So you want visual inspections.
Will you provide additional staff now to the fire service?
Currently there is a 6 month waiting list for fire safety certs. The statutory period for a decision is 8 weeks but due to severe shortages of council staff the fire certs have to be delayed.
How will you provide the staffing to continue assessing fire certs and this new service to inspect every rental property in the country?

Fire extinguishers are already a part of legislation. But anybody that works in this area will tell a tennant not to even think about using them.

GET OUT, GET THE FIRE BRIGADE OUT AND STAY OUT.

Don’t be a have a go hero.

You say you are an engineer, what field do you work in, if any?
Have you any involvement in construction works, Building Regulations, Building surveys or inspections under the Fire Services Act, ease of escape regulations or fire safety for management companies?

It sounds to me that you are not grasping at what’s involved in the inspections you wish to happen and what can actually happen.

You wanted fire safety inspections and said maybe that rising Damo could have been prevented if your inspection NCT was in place. Just read back through your own posts there and follow the dots.

And another question that you haven’t answered.

After his new Authority declares a unit unfit (which we know there are many of out there), what do you propose we do with the tenants in place. Where will they be housed and who pays for this?

Gumbo

Graham wrote: »

As a connected aside to this entire line of thought.

Is anyone in government showing the remotest signs that this type of property NCT is being considered. By anyone, I mean anyone with the power to make it happen?

I've certainly seen nothing to suggest this is anything other than a knee-jerk response by somebody working for a charity.

Nobody I believe. Just Sinn Fein shouting a out it at present and I’ve questioned them about it on FB/Twitter but they ignore you once you pose a question.

Once the equal status of landlords and tenants are respected I’ve no problem with standards been inspected as it won’t affect me. But what does annoy me is he constant tenant sob storey.

There are bad tenants and there are bad landlords out there.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

As a connected aside to this entire line of thought.

Is anyone in government showing the remotest signs that this type of property NCT is being considered. By anyone, I mean anyone with the power to make it happen?

I've certainly seen nothing to suggest this is anything other than a knee-jerk response by somebody working for a charity.

The Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government Eoghan Murphy T.D. has said he is considering the proposal which hasn`t just been proposed by a charity, it has also been proposed by the main opposition party Fianna Fail.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

Nobody I believe. Just Sinn Fein shouting a out it at present and I’ve questioned them about it on FB/Twitter but they ignore you once you pose a question.

Once the equal status of landlords and tenants are respected I’ve no problem with standards been inspected as it won’t affect me. But what does annoy me is he constant tenant sob storey.

There are bad tenants and there are bad landlords out there.

Barry Cowen Fainna Fail spokesperson on Housing Planning and Local Government has also called for the same has he not ?

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

Barry Cowen Fainna Fail spokesperson on Housing Planning and Local Government has also called for the same has he not ?

The local council have already started looking for environmental officers so I doubt they would get the go ahead for this if hey plan to take the inspections away from them.

Seen it on their website today.

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

The Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government Eoghan Murphy T.D. has said he is considering the proposal which hasn`t just been proposed by a charity, it has also been proposed by the main opposition party Fianna Fail.

Never going to see the light of day then.

Considering the proposal roughly translating to "I'm not going to say no in case it's unpopular'.
Proposed by the opposition roughly translating to "let's lob this one at the f**&&rs and see what they do with it ha ha ha"

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

You keep changing your tune every time you are questioned.
So you want visual inspections.
Will you provide additional staff now to the fire service?
Currently there is a 6 month waiting list for fire safety certs. The statutory period for a decision is 8 weeks but due to severe shortages of council staff the fire certs have to be delayed.
How will you provide the staffing to continue assessing fire certs and this new service to inspect every rental property in the country?

Fire extinguishers are already a part of legislation. But anybody that works in this area will tell a tennant not to even think about using them.

GET OUT, GET THE FIRE BRIGADE OUT AND STAY OUT.

Don’t be a have a go hero.

You say you are an engineer, what field do you work in, if any?
Have you any involvement in construction works, Building Regulations, Building surveys or inspections under the Fire Services Act, ease of escape regulations or fire safety for management companies?

It sounds to me that you are not grasping at what’s involved in the inspections you wish to happen and what can actually happen.

You wanted fire safety inspections and said maybe that rising Damo could have been prevented if your inspection NCT was in place. Just read back through your own posts there and follow the dots.

And another question that you haven’t answered.

After his new Authority declares a unit unfit (which we know there are many of out there), what do you propose we do with the tenants in place. Where will they be housed and who pays for this?

You, for whatever your reasons appear determined to persist with this notion you have that I have ever advocated invasive, or as you put it destructive inspections.
Perhaps you could either show where I have advocated either, or desist with your efforts to deflect.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

I am increasingly confused by what you appear to be saying.

Inflation is calculated using the Consumer Price Index.
Inflation in Ireland for the three years December to December 2013 to 2015 inclusive have been +0.17%. -0.31%, +0.1%.
This year the latest figures September to September are +0.2%.
Compound interest over a three year period is less that 1%
There is the capability in rent controlled areas to increase rent over a three year period to a compounded interest rate of 13%
Are you advocating that this capability should be withdrawn in favour of inflationary increases ?

You can repeat as often as you like that LA`s and fire services can close properties that are uninhabitable or pose risks to health and safety while ignoring that until such properties are located and inspected they are uninhabitable and posing risks to health and safety until they are found.
A certificate of fit for purpose required before they are allowed on the market would ensure they were neither.

For someone that states they have now problem with increased powers and inspections I really do not see your problem with that.

Landlords that run sub-standard accommodation are doing so because there is nothing to stop them renting such at present.

As to the rest of your post on markets, government responsibility etc. Before you edited I believe you were somehow attempting to combine your belief that the government should have no interference in the rental market with cigarette smuggling.
As in let the market sort that problem as well.

Nough said on that I believe!

The problem I have is increased costs to the landlord. I have repeatedly said I do not have an issue with increased inspections I do have an issue with increased costs.

I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that you forgot to comment on my mention of super normal profits perhaps you might share you views on same.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

The Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government Eoghan Murphy T.D. has said he is considering the proposal which hasn`t just been proposed by a charity, it has also been proposed by the main opposition party Fianna Fail.

I think you will find he is considering a self certification model.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

Never going to see the light of day then.

Considering the proposal roughly translating to "I'm not going to say no in case it's unpopular'.
Proposed by the opposition roughly translating to "let's lob this one at the f**&&rs and see what they do with it ha ha ha"

The same was more or less said on water charges.
I suppose time will tell.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Barry Cowen Fainna Fail spokesperson on Housing Planning and Local Government has also called for the same has he not ?

This is just for show. What politician in their right mind would not support this knowing full well its not going to happen.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

I think you will find he is considering a self certification model.

I think you will find he favoured a NCT type ststem.