More costs for landlords suggested

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

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.

Irish Water had tenders out for another 500,000 water meters a month before their mass installation was halted.

Compared with the switch of staff from LA`s to Irish Water,environmental inspectors switching to another authority would be a minor exercise.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Ok then. What would be the difference between the current inspections and the proposed inspection that you want?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

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.

We have already established that the capability to increase rent year on year by 4% greatly outstrips inflation and I doubt you will have many believe any addition costs will be passed on to renters so I do not see where there would be any incresed costs to landlords that would not be recouped.

I didn`t forget your comments on the markets or government responsibility.
I light of your edited belief on same and cigarette smuggling I didn`t see any point.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

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

Appears The Times is wrong so. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/landlords-will-face-prosecution-for-not-meeting-standards-minister-says-1.3284032?mode=amp

But sure why base discussions on facts

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

We have already established that the capability to increase rent year on year by 4% greatly outstrips inflation and I doubt you will have many believe any addition costs will be passed on to renters so I do not see where there would be any incresed costs to landlords that would not be recouped.

I didn`t forget your comments on the markets or government responsibility.
I light of your edited belief on same and cigarette smuggling I didn`t see any point.

You cannot increase rent year on year anymore. 4% cap every 2 years and you have to justify that with examples from the immediate area I believe.

*ill hold my hands up if I’m incorrect on that info though.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

We have already established that the capability to increase rent year on year by 4% greatly outstrips inflation and I doubt you will have many believe any addition costs will be passed on to renters so I do not see where there would be any incresed costs to landlords that would not be recouped.

I didn`t forget your comments on the markets or government responsibility.
I light of your edited belief on same and cigarette smuggling I didn`t see any point.

Humour me.

Gumbo

The Student wrote: »

Appears The Times is wrong so. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/landlords-will-face-prosecution-for-not-meeting-standards-minister-says-1.3284032?mode=amp

But sure why base discussions on facts

But wait, is this what I’ve been posting about all week?
The legislation is in place already, the punishment is severe but the lack of staff means follow ups and follow through make it impossible.

Increase the staff and increase the inspections using he existing legislation and standards will improve where required.

Graham

The Student wrote: »

Appears The Times is wrong so. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/landlords-will-face-prosecution-for-not-meeting-standards-minister-says-1.3284032?mode=amp

But sure why base discussions on facts

from the same article:

Local authorities will be funded to inspect 25 per cent of rental properties a year

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Humour me.

Not in the habit of chasing people down rabbit holes "for the crack like"

Sorry about that

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Not in the habit of chasing people down rabbit holes "for the crack like"

Sorry about that

So you will only cherry pick those topics that you feel will support your stance and ignore those that dont!

The Student

kceire wrote: »

You cannot increase rent year on year anymore. 4% cap every 2 years and you have to justify that with examples from the immediate area I believe.

*ill hold my hands up if I’m incorrect on that info though.

The 4% fig is a yearly fig.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Appears The Times is wrong so. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/landlords-will-face-prosecution-for-not-meeting-standards-minister-says-1.3284032?mode=amp

But sure why base discussions on facts

Shall we explore the facts :

The government are not opposing a NCT type certification system for rental properties brought in.

Failure to provide this certification, failure to register the tenancy or very importantly the provision of an untrue certification will all constitute prosecutable offences.
The RTB will be reformed with a new self certification for rental standards introduced.

The Minister said at present there was little disincentive for unscrupulous landlords who house tenants in poor quality and overcrowded accommodation and who simply discontinue the use of the rental property when discovered.

Not that far away from what I was advocating other than we do not know the level of penalties for none compliance and it is going to be under the auspices of the LA`s.
On the plus side with 25% inspections promised then every property can expect an inspection at least once in 4 years.

On the minus side for landlords what I proposed would have meant the property would have received a three year certificate after inspection, now under this self regulation proposal landlords I imagine would be best advised to get expert advise at their own expense on their premises being compliant as to what they are signing not to run the risk of prosecuted on their first inspection

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

So you will only cherry pick those topics that you feel will support your stance and ignore those that dont!

Not at all, but in light of your edited post of landlords v government point in your comparison with cigarette smugglers v government in your argument in support of the markets being left to alone sort the problem, I felt it was pointless.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

from the same article:

So much for just some charity proposing an NCT type certification in a knee jerk reaction that would never happen.

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

So much for just some charity proposing an NCT type certification in a knee jerk reaction that would never happen.

Because it’s not happening?

It appears what is going to happen is what a few people have been saying could/should.

Increased inspections/enforcement and bigger penalties.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Not at all, but in light of your edited post of landlords v government point in your comparison with cigarette smugglers v government in your argument in support of the markets being left to alone sort the problem, I felt it was pointless.

So thats a no so on my question for your opinion on my other comment.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Shall we explore the facts :

The government are not opposing a NCT type certification system for rental properties brought in.

Failure to provide this certification, failure to register the tenancy or very importantly the provision of an untrue certification will all constitute prosecutable offences.
The RTB will be reformed with a new self certification for rental standards introduced.

The Minister said at present there was little disincentive for unscrupulous landlords who house tenants in poor quality and overcrowded accommodation and who simply discontinue the use of the rental property when discovered.

Not that far away from what I was advocating other than we do not know the level of penalties for none compliance and it is going to be under the auspices of the LA`s.
On the plus side with 25% inspections promised then every property can expect an inspection at least once in 4 years.

On the minus side for landlords what I proposed would have meant the property would have received a three year certificate after inspection, now under this self regulation proposal landlords I imagine would be best advised to get expert advise at their own expense on their premises being compliant as to what they are signing not to run the risk of prosecuted on their first inspection

So we are at the situation a number of posters have been saying all along. More inspections by LA to enforce existing legislation and increased penalties for non adherence to existing standards.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

Because it’s not happening?

It appears what is going to happen is what a few people have been saying could/should.

Increased inspections/enforcement and bigger penalties.

Eeh no.

It is going to be an NCT type certification where the landlord has to self certify yearly :
"that the property in question is compliant with regulations in relation to standards for rental accommodation, overcrowding and fire safety.Failure to provide this certification, failure to register the tenancy, or very importantly the provision of an untrue certification will constitute offences prosecutable by the RTB. "

The Minister also stated that at the moment there was little disincentive for unscrupulous landlords who housed tenants in poor quality and overcrowded accommodation and simply discontinued the use of the rental property if they were discovered.

As well as all that, with self certification with the promise of 25% inspections landlords can expect an inspection at least once every four years where if the inspector does not agree with their interpretation of the regulations they signed off on the face the risk of prosecution.

I would see it as having been better for the landlord to have gone with the NCT type registration I favoured.
Inspection before the property entered the market would have ensure it would fulfill the standards criteria without the possibility of prosecution and would have been certified for three years.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

So we are at the situation a number of posters have been saying all along. More inspections by LA to enforce existing legislation and increased penalties for non adherence to existing standards.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
See above.

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

Eeh no.

It is going to be an NCT type certification where the landlord has to self certify yearly

So not at all like an NCT?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

So thats a no so on my question for your opinion on my other comment.

Tat is my opinion that your ramblings on the markets V government had no relevance to the topic.
Especially considering your opinion on same and cigarette smugglers which you edited out after you realises the mask had slipped.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

So not at all like an NCT?

Mr Murphy was speaking in response to a Sinn Fein Private Members motion calling for an NCT type certification for rental properties to be brought in, which the government did not oppose.

If you have a problem with what an NCT type certification is then I suggest you bring it up with Sinn Fein and the government.

Personally I`ll go with the old "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck ............."

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Mr Murphy was speaking in response to a Sinn Fein Private Members motion calling for an NCT type certification for rental properties to be brought in, which the government did not oppose.

If you have a problem with what an NCT type certification is then I suggest you bring it up with Sinn Fein and the government.

Personally I`ll go with the old "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck ............."

So can I self certify my car and if the Garda stop me I can say you said self certification and nct are the same. As if it walks like a duck....

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Tat is my opinion that your ramblings on the markets V government had no relevance to the topic.
Especially considering your opinion on same and cigarette smugglers which you edited out after you realises the mask had slipped.

So thats still a no so!

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

So thats still a no so!

Irrelevancy and attempts to side-track in do not get involved in.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

So can I self certify my car and if the Garda stop me I can say you said self certification and nct are the same. As if it walks like a duck....

AS opposed to your proposals to deal with the problem.

The now dead duck.

Gumbo

Should have just listened to me Charlie
I was told last week this was happening. I posted it from the start this was going to happen.

It’s the only way it can be done, legally and practably.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

Should have just listened to me Charlie
I was told last week this was happening. I posted it from the start this was going to happen.

It’s the only way it can be done, legally and practably.

Should have listened to me kceire when I told you from the outset it should be a NCT type certification of fitness for purpose in relation to standards of accommodation, overcrowding and fire safety.

At least my way of doing it would have left landlords on surer ground.
A certification before being allowed to rent would have been valid for three years, and would have ensured by the time they rented out the property it fulfilled all the required criteria.

Now to be on the safe side a landlord would be best advised to get expert opinion (which will have to be paid for) on having fulfilled all the criteria before signing a certificate each year, yet could still find that on inspection (at the least every fourth year), they could still be liable for prosecution.

A loss loss in my opinion for the good landlords in comparison to what I was proposing.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

Should have listened to me kceire when I told you from the outset it should be a NCT type certification of fitness for purpose in relation to standards of accommodation, overcrowding and fire safety.

At least my way of doing it would have left landlords on surer ground.
A certification before being allowed to rent would have been valid for three years, and would have ensured by the time they rented out the property it fulfilled all the required criteria.

Now to be on the safe side a landlord would be best advised to get expert opinion (which will have to be paid for) on having fulfilled all the criteria before signing a certificate each year, yet could still find that on inspection (at the least every fourth year), they could still be liable for prosecution.

A loss loss in my opinion for the good landlords in comparison to what I was proposing.

No expert opinion required. If you can’t maintain minimum standards in your rental property then you should have someone engaged to do so anyway under current legislation.

The EHO is the LA are very approachable and offer advice on a daily
Basis. They have many leaflets that set out the standards in clear and basis English for those that require it.

We don’t have the resources to assign our fire services to look at rental properties. It would take years to get through the current stock before they could be rented out.

Our rental standards are very high in this country and once maintained all is well.

We just need to sort out the slum landlords and also the slum tenants that ruin it for the rest.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

So can I self certify my car and if the Garda stop me I can say you said self certification and nct are the same.

That is entirely your prerogative, but if you are going to do that, then at least have the decency to say what I actually said, and not what you would like to imagine I said.
I have consistently said I favoured an NCT type certification of rental accommodation being fit for purpose which according to your own post, #305, is exactly what is being brought in.

"Mr Murphy was speaking in response to a Sinn Fein Private Members` motion tabled by Eoin O Broin on Tuesday night calling for an NCT type certification system for rental properties to be brought in, which the Government did not oppose"

Alternatively you could also attempt to justify your self certifying of your car, if the Garda stop you, by misquoting the Minister as well as me and see how that works out for you.