More costs for landlords suggested

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

The reason they don't want to do it is that they will have to push 64 people from one of those houses out. Those 64 people all coming into the market from just one house and then being homeless when they can't get a place, never mind heaps of them from lots of houses. The govt don't want that

I have no doubt up until last night the government felt that way, they are now left with no options.
They are a minority government and the opposition are all over this like a rash.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

Yep. Heap more costs and red tape onto the good landlords and watch the rest of them flee. What will you be left with?

Rental properties that are fit for purpose I would imagine.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no doubt up until last night the government felt that way, they are now left with no options.
They are a minority government and the opposition are all over this like a rash.

Ha ha. Are we talking about the same government here?

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

I really do not see what the problem would be for landlords operating within the law.
A certificate of a rental property being fit for purpose would include certification from the fire service as well I imagine. That alone would do away with the ridiculous carry on we saw last night with fire traps waiting to happen.
No certificate and the fire services could then close the property until it is in compliance..
Similar to health inspectors now regarding food safety.

I doubt that many of the apartment complexes built during the boom could be certified safe. The original fire fighting plan for an apartment fire was to contact the residents and tell them to bunker down, now they get everyone out and that was before Grenfell. So a huge amount of rental property would be removed from the system. While the landlords not complying with current legislation will continue to make money.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Rental properties that are fit for purpose I would imagine.

That's very naive.
I bet before your saw primetime you thought everyone was following the rules too.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

That's very naive.
I bet before your saw primetime you thought everyone was following the rules too.

Not at all. This is Ireland. Nothing is ever done until there is a scandal.
Normally governments just hunker down and wait it out.
This government because of the numbers do not have that luxury though.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Not at all. This is Ireland. Nothing is ever done until there is a scandal.
Normally governments just hunker down and wait it out.
This government because of the numbers do not have that luxury though.

Well good luck with that then.
And good luck with the next government too.

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

I doubt that many of the apartment complexes built during the boom could be certified safe. The original fire fighting plan for an apartment fire was to contact the residents and tell them to bunker down, now they get everyone out and that was before Grenfell. So a huge amount of rental property would be removed from the system. While the landlords not complying with current legislation will continue to make money.

If a rental property does not comply with fire safety regulations than I cannot see why they should not be removed from the system.
Watching last night the Stardust tragedy crossed my mind as and I imagine it did a few politicians with responsibility in that area.

As I said earlier, if a certificate of fit for purpose was a rental requirement, and stiff penalties for any landlord operating without one, then those not complying I would not see surviving long.

wordofwarning

Gatling wrote: »

Seems pretty reasonable ,

Nah, it will be another piece of paper from this nanny state who feels the need to regulate absolutely everything, as plenty of people are incapable of looking after themselves.

If I get a cert saying my property is fit for use. Explain to me what is stopping me sticking 40 beds in a Georgian house? Nothing. Does a piece of paper saying it for fit for purpose a month ago prevent that? No

What people be living in those properties if there was a massive amount of cheap and good quality housing available? No. So is a piece of paper or more housing solve the issue?

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

Well good luck with that then.
And good luck with the next government too.

Ignoring what last night highlighted and hoping nothing will be done is head in the sand stuff imo.
If the landlords complying with regulations want to prevent something similar to a certificate of fit for purpose, then just attacking it is not going to work.
They need to work with regulators to get the cowboys out of the market.

charlie14

wordofwarning wrote: »

Nah, it will be another piece of paper from this nanny state who feels the need to regulate absolutely everything, as plenty of people are incapable of looking after themselves.

If I get a cert saying my property is fit for use. Explain to me what is stopping me sticking 40 beds in a Georgian house? Nothing. Does a piece of paper saying it for fit for purpose a month ago prevent that? No

What people be living in those properties if there was a massive amount of cheap and good quality housing available? No. So is a piece of paper or more housing solve the issue?

Because it would not then be in compliance with the certificate that was issued for property ?

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

If the landlords complying with regulations want to prevent something similar to a certificate of fit for purpose, then just attacking it is not going to work.
They need to work with regulators to get the cowboys out of the market.

So you're saying the landlords that are working within the law should be doing more to catch the cowboys?

Sleeper12

Self regulated certification won't solve much

Sleeper12

elperello wrote:

What about a certificate for renters?

I'd love to see both tbh. There are as many bad landlords as there are bad tenants. Both should be monitored closely. I'd love to be able to see landlords ratings on rtb site as much as id love to see tenant being rated. Full disclosure

The Student

There is enough regulation already. All issues relating to this issue should be directed to those responsible for monitoring it ie the State.

Sleeper12

kceire wrote:

For flats maybe but the fire service have no legislative power to inspect single dwellings (houses).

They do if there are 50 living in a three bed house. Fire officer can inspect any property

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

So you're saying the landlords that are working within the law should be doing more to catch the cowboys?

From this thread I`m assuming that any landlords posting here are operating within the law but they seem to have a problem with a certification of fit for purpose for rental properties.

What I am saying is that at present the only proposal to deal with the cowboys is a certificate of fit for purpose.
If landlords working within the law do not agree with that then they will have to come up with their own proposal, because looking to maintain the status quo is not going to do it.

The Student

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They do if there are 50 living in a three bed house. Fire officer can inspect any property

The councils have the power to inspect privately rented dwellings to ensure they meet min standards. What annoys me about these programmes is the fact they tar all landlords as bad. There are good genuine landlords out there who are never mentioned.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

From this thread I`m assuming that any landlords posting here are operating within the law but they seem to have a problem with a certification of fit for purpose for rental properties.

What I am saying is that at present the only proposal to deal with the cowboys is a certificate of fit for purpose.
If landlords working within the law do not agree with that then they will have to come up with their own proposal, because looking to maintain the status quo is not going to do it.

Why is it up to decent landlords to police the system. Its bad enough we cant compete in a free market now we are expected to police it as well. Why should landlords help the State when all it does is make it almost impossible to be a landlord. If the State treated landlords a bit better maybe we would help.

Sleeper12

The Student wrote:

The councils have the power to inspect privately rented dwellings to ensure they meet min standards. What annoys me about these programmes is the fact they tar all landlords as bad. There are good genuine landlords out there who are never mentioned.

I totally get you. I see slum landlords on a weekly basis as I also see bad tenants.

Id love to see a register of both.

For the most part the standard of accommodation needs approving. I've read on so many threads here that the tenant inspected the property first and agreed to rent it. Just because the tenant has no where else to go doesn't mean that the property is acceptable.

There are great properties out there and tons of bad properties

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Why is it up to decent landlords to police the system. Its bad enough we cant compete in a free market now we are expected to police it as well. Why should landlords help the State when all it does is make it almost impossible to be a landlord. If the State treated landlords a bit better maybe we would help.

It really is no skin off my nose what landlords do or do not do as I`m neither a landlord or a renter, but the only proposal doing the rounds is a certificate of fit for purpose.
Landlord appear not to approve of this proposal, but with it being the only one out there, unless they come up with an alternative then there is every likelihood that is what they will end up with.

The Student

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally get you. I see slum landlords on a weekly basis as I also see bad tenants.

Id love to see a register of both.

For the most part the standard of accommodation needs approving. I've read on so many threads here that the tenant inspected the property first and agreed to rent it. Just because the tenant has no where else to go doesn't mean that the property is acceptable.

There are great properties out there and tons of bad properties

I have no issue with being on a register. I have had the same tenants for the last 8 years and they have followed me when I sold one property and bought another.

Maybe tenants should report good decent landlords to the RTB and let the RTB have a list of approved landlords.

Cuddlesworth

ednwireland wrote: »

i'd love to know how many of the tenants in the prime time inestigation were PRTB registered (my assumption - none)

I haven't seen the show but I'm going to take a guess and say they don't come under the remit of the PRTB. Since its sounds like they didn't even have exclusive use of the bed.

gctest50

The Student wrote: »

There is enough regulation already.............

There isn't if you looked at the videos at all

Houses for rent need an NCT type certificate

A cert that clearly states :

who actually owns it

location

amount of people it's suitable for

The Student

gctest50 wrote: »

There isn't if you looked at the videos at all

Houses for rent need an NCT type cert

A cert that clearly states :

I have looked at the videos. These landlords would never adhere to any regulations no matter what existed. I have tenants on the RAS and the council came to inspect the property and would not pass it until it reached current regs. Part of the inspection was to ensure there was no over crowding. The same council inspectors have the same powers to inspect privately rented properties and can declare property as unfit for either over crowding or it does not meet min requirements as set down in the RTA of 2004 (as amended earlier this year).

gctest50

The Student wrote: »

. These landlords would never adhere to any regulations no matter what existed. .........

Can't allow that to continue, more regulations are needed to give power to the Gardai, council etc to sort it out on the spot

Bit like an NCT disc works.

No NCT disc ? Seize the car

The Student wrote: »

. These landlords would never adhere to any regulations no matter what existed. .........

They will behave more like all the decent landlords out there when they get one of these stuck to the door :

exaisle

Will RTE now do a programme on properties wrecked by bad tenants?

Will they fu€k!

Balanced reporting my arse....

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

From this thread I`m assuming that any landlords posting here are operating within the law but they seem to have a problem with a certification of fit for purpose for rental properties.

What I am saying is that at present the only proposal to deal with the cowboys is a certificate of fit for purpose.
If landlords working within the law do not agree with that then they will have to come up with their own proposal, because looking to maintain the status quo is not going to do it.

I’d be all for something I thought would make a difference.

Introducing new rules in the hope it will influence people that ignore the rules isn’t it.

I guess it would make it ‘look’ like the issue was being tackled, good for the optics I suppose.

The Student

exaisle wrote: »

Will RTE now do a programme on properties wrecked by bad tenants?

Will they fu€k!

Balanced reporting my arse....

Exactly. Good news does not sell papers. This is exactly why landlords are leaving in their droves. And I will be one of them as soon as my current tenants decide to leave. I will be sorry to see them go but I am not willing to take a risk on new ones.

charlie14

gctest50 wrote: »

Can't allow that to continue, more regulations are needed to give power to the Gardai, council etc to sort it out on the spot

Bit like an NCT disc works.

No NCT disc ? Seize the car







They will behave more like all the decent landlords out there when they get one of these stuck to the door :

I would legislate for certification and inspections under Health and Safety with the same powers they have in the food and building sector.
Immediate shut down for non-compliance and stiff penalties for anyone operating without a certificate.
Love them or loath them, they have made a major contribution to food and construction safety.