More costs for landlords suggested

exaisle

I'm aware that local authorities carry out inspections of rental properties. Are tenants who consider their accommodation to be sub-standard free to request that the local authority carry out an inspection of the property??

Certificates of fitness for purpose won't work unless you bring in certificate of fitness of tenants with it, at which point it will be embraced by landlords!

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

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.

That was a lot of the thinking around health and safety in the food industry especially at the outset of the establishment of the Health and Safety Authority.
Not many cowboys left in that area nowadays.

The Student

exaisle wrote: »

I'm aware that local authorities carry out inspections of rental properties. Are tenants who consider their accommodation to be sub-standard free to request that the local authority carry out an inspection of the property??

Certificates of fitness for purpose won't work unless you bring in certificate of fitness of tenants with it, at which point it will be embraced by landlords!

Yes they can. It is inspected by Environmental Health dept.

Completely agree we need certs for tenants as well.

Spanish Eyes

RTB needs to be given more teeth and a bigger budget. Then they could employ their own inspectors alongside improving on the delivery time for judgements in disputes.

Certification is fine. Should work both sides. Data Protection might preclude it but an accessible list of dodgy tenants (lost disputes, scarpered, didn't pay etc.) should be available to registered LLs.

Certification will only be undertaken by compliant LLs. That is the rub right there. If the current rackrenters don't care about 50 to a room, cash only, no regs, no RTB, I doubt they will give a damn about an oul certificate.

charlie14

exaisle wrote: »

I'm aware that local authorities carry out inspections of rental properties. Are tenants who consider their accommodation to be sub-standard free to request that the local authority carry out an inspection of the property??

Certificates of fitness for purpose won't work unless you bring in certificate of fitness of tenants with it, at which point it will be embraced by landlords!

Local authorities are only carrying out 4% inspections here compared to around 20% in Scotland.
Renting is a sellers market right now with rents so high and places so scarce renters are desperate, with some being willing to take whatever they can get regardless.
I wouldn`t look on that as justification for the state to ignore what is going on with some properties.
The certificate of fitness for tenants is a non-runner for so many reasons that it will never happen and I`m afraid if the state legislates for fit for purpose properties, landlords will basically have three choices.
Get out of the business, embrace, or suffer the consequences of flouting.

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

That was a lot of the thinking around health and safety in the food industry especially at the outset of the establishment of the Health and Safety Authority.
Not many cowboys left in that area nowadays.

we’re hardly at the outset of the landlord/tenant industry.

charlie14

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

RTB needs to be given more teeth and a bigger budget. Then they could employ their own inspectors alongside improving on the delivery time for judgements in disputes.

Certification is fine. Should work both sides. Data Protection might preclude it but an accessible list of dodgy tenants (lost disputes, scarpered, didn't pay etc.) should be available to registered LLs.

Certification will only be undertaken by compliant LLs. That is the rub right there. If the current rackrenters don't care about 50 to a room, cash only, no regs, no RTB, I doubt they will give a damn about an oul certificate.

If there are severe penalties for operating without an oul certificate they would start to give a damn pretty quickly.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

we’re hardly at the outset of the landlord/tenant industry.

Probably at the outset of some form of certification on fit for purpose though.
If landlords are going to just shout no no no then chances are what is being floated now will be adopted.

The Student

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

RTB needs to be given more teeth and a bigger budget. Then they could employ their own inspectors alongside improving on the delivery time for judgements in disputes.

Certification is fine. Should work both sides. Data Protection might preclude it but an accessible list of dodgy tenants (lost disputes, scarpered, didn't pay etc.) should be available to registered LLs.

Certification will only be undertaken by compliant LLs. That is the rub right there. If the current rackrenters don't care about 50 to a room, cash only, no regs, no RTB, I doubt they will give a damn about an oul certificate.

If supply of properties increases the market will force the bad landlords out. Simple economics if supply meets or exceeds demand tenants will go to get value for money.

The big question is why are there 160k vacant properties. If being a landlord was so easy why are more of these properties available for rent. The more anti landlord the sector becomes the lower the number of properties for rent there will be.

Spanish Eyes

charlie14 wrote: »

If there are severe penalties for operating without an oul certificate they would start to give a damn pretty quickly.

Are there no penalties for non registration with RTB or operating like the LLs on last night's program? Are they severe enough, are they enforced? Rhetorical questions not aimed at you personally. It's difficult not to be cynical really.

Enforcement of the current laws appear to be non existent, so I wouldn't hold my breath about the enforcement of mandatory certificates.

The types of LLs on last night's show will always be with us. Tenants afraid to open their mouths or be homeless. Same old, same old.

Graham

+1

Enforcement of the existing laws would appear to be the obvious first choice.

The Student

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

RTB needs to be given more teeth and a bigger budget. Then they could employ their own inspectors alongside improving on the delivery time for judgements in disputes.

Certification is fine. Should work both sides. Data Protection might preclude it but an accessible list of dodgy tenants (lost disputes, scarpered, didn't pay etc.) should be available to registered

Exactly what other business is forced to continue providing a service while not getting paid. RTB should have legal powers to evict non paying tenants without the need to go to court.

charlie14

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Are there no penalties for non registration with RTB or operating like the LLs on last night's program? Are they severe enough, are they enforced? Rhetorical questions not aimed at you personally. It's difficult not to be cynical really.

Enforcement of the current laws appear to be non existent, so I wouldn't hold my breath about the enforcement of mandatory certificates.

The types of LLs on last night's show will always be with us. Tenants afraid to open their mouths or be homeless. Same old, same old.

It is obvious the present system isn`t working in either inspections or enforcement.
If there is certification of fitness for purpose with the same type penalties covering the food sector, immediate shut down on inspection for non-compliance, and severe penalties for operating without one, then it will have nothing to do with tenants being afraid to open their mouths.
Other than perhaps one reporting when they move on.

Gumbo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

First hand experience tells me they have to back down on single houses.
The single houses fall under a smaller piece of legislation under the environmental health act which dictates the volume of space a person has to have to Marian minimum standards.

I’ve posted on these forums before about raids on properties with the Garda and DFB. DFB Perdue the multi units and back down on the single houses.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

It is obvious the present system isn`t working in either inspections or enforcement.
If there is certification of fitness for purpose with the same type penalties covering the food sector, immediate shut down on inspection for non-compliance, and severe penalties for operating without one, then it will have nothing to do with tenants being afraid to open their mouths.
Other than perhaps one reporting when they move on.

What’s the % of inspections for the food inspector and how many inspectors do they have carrying out this specific task?

People screamed for public service cuts 7 years ago. Now the same people want more public servants carrying out more inspections.

Spanish Eyes

The Student wrote: »

If supply of properties increases the market will force the bad landlords out. Simple economics if supply meets or exceeds demand tenants will go to get value for money.

The big question is why are there 160k vacant properties. If being a landlord was so easy why are more of these properties available for rent. The more anti landlord the sector becomes the lower the number of properties for rent there will be.

Supply is not going to increase for a long while yet.

Many LLs are bailing out every day and selling on. It is just too onerous and costly sometimes, unless you are under the radar. Then it's fine, overhold? get the heavies in. Didn't pay the rent? ditto. They know they are dealing with tenants who are not clued into the drill of RTB, LL/Tenant legislation etc. They choose their tenants wisely it would seem.

I dunno, scratches head.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

What’s the % of inspections for the food inspector and how many inspectors do they have carrying out this specific task?

People screamed for public service cuts 7 years ago. Now the same people want more public servants carrying out more inspections.

I don`t know how many food inspectors there are, but from friends involved in all areas of the food sector none have ever had less than at least one inspection yearly.

I`m also not aware of any Health and Safety inspectors laid off 7 years ago, but there was fairly recent media reports of them being the largest growth sector in the public sector this year.
As I said before, love them or loath them, but with given the proper legislative backing they have been very effective in raising food sector standards

The Student

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Supply is not going to increase for a long while yet.

Many LLs are bailing out every day and selling on. It is just too onerous and costly sometimes, unless you are under the radar. Then it's fine, overhold? get the heavies in. Didn't pay the rent? ditto. They know they are dealing with tenants who are not clued into the drill of RTB, LL/Tenant legislation etc. They choose their tenants wisely it would seem.

I dunno, scratches head.

I would expect the infrastructure is already there for the majority of these properties. Renovation is quicker than new build so why are these properties not been put out for rental? Is it the anti landlord culture?

Spanish Eyes

The Student wrote: »

I would expect the infrastructure is already there for the majority of these properties. Renovation is quicker than new build so why are these properties not been put out for rental? Is it the anti landlord culture?

Maybe they are not suitable for renting, i.e. not being in areas of high demand.

Maybe the owner couldn't be bothered with renovating, maybe they are in the process of repossession.

Many unoccupied houses are the result of the owner going into full time care under the Fair Deal. Too much hassle to let them out, and often families are not bothered. Just keep it dry and maintained. There will be tax returns to make, and all the associated LL stuff. Can't blame them.

There are very few rewards for accidental or one or two propertied LLs now. Very few. I'm talking about the compliant LLs here for clarity. All seems to be stacked up for the REITS and the totally non compliant.

Until that changes demand will continue to outstrip supply.

The Student

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Maybe they are not suitable for renting, i.e. not being in areas of high demand.

Maybe the owner couldn't be bothered with renovating, maybe they are in the process of repossession.

Many unoccupied houses are the result of the owner going into full time care under the Fair Deal. Too much hassle to let them out, and often families are not bothered. Just keep it dry and maintained. There will be tax returns to make, and all the associated LL stuff. Can't blame them.

There are very few rewards for accidental or one or two propertied LLs now. Very few. I'm talking about the compliant LLs here for clarity. All seems to be stacked up for the REITS and the totally non compliant.

Until that changes demand will continue to outstrip supply.

Maybe if the govt treated the small landlords like the REITS then they would not be leaving the sector.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

I don`t know how many food inspectors there are, but from friends involved in all areas of the food sector none have ever had less than at least one inspection yearly.

I`m also not aware of any Health and Safety inspectors laid off 7 years ago, but there was fairly recent media reports of them being the largest growth sector in the public sector this year.
As I said before, love them or loath them, but with given the proper legislative backing they have been very effective in raising food sector standards

That’s my point though. The HSA didn’t loose staff. They gained staff. The LA did loose staff and they haven’t been replaced. They need more staff and they need the legal powers to be able to stop this.

But here’s the big problem, if the council go in and declare the place not for, the council have to house the tenants and pay that costs. This all comes out of the public purse too.

Sleeper12

The Student wrote:

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

I'd love rtb if post findings are against both tenants and landlords

Spanish Eyes

The Student wrote: »

Maybe if the govt treated the small landlords like the REITS then they would not be leaving the sector.

Not going to happen anytime soon. Seems to me they want REITS to run the rental market fully. Possibly because they think it will be more professional and less chance of rackrenters and gougers.

In the meantime, demand will continue to exceed supply, and for a good number of years yet by the looks of it.

And this is the Government that want all the fancy jobs from London to end up in Dublin after Brexit? Good on them for their ambition, but where will these people live!

The Student

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Not going to happen anytime soon. Seems to me they want REITS to run the rental market fully. Possibly because they think it will be more professional and less chance of rackrenters and gougers.

In the meantime, demand will continue to exceed supply, and for a good number of years yet by the looks of it.

And this is the Government that want all the fancy jobs from London to end up in Dublin after Brexit? Good on them for their ambition, but where will these people live!

If the REITS run the market they will then have power over the Govt and they will dictate to the Govt what they want. I feel sorry for renters out there at the moment. Home ownership will be out of reach for so many. REITS lack the personal touch with tenants. Tenants are just a number to them. They wont show any latitude if the tenants needs help.

Gumbo

The Student wrote: »

If the REITS run the market they will then have power over the Govt and they will dictate to the Govt what they want. I feel sorry for renters out there at the moment. Home ownership will be out of reach for so many. REITS lack the personal touch with tenants. Tenants are just a number to them. They wont show any latitude if the tenants needs help.

+1
The little things like minor inspections around Christmas times just as an excuse to drop a bottle of wine in and a tub of celebrations for the kids. I consider myself a good landlord but it’s not pretty where people want the rental market to go in my opinion. They will drive out the small landlord that does have that small hands on approach.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

That’s my point though. The HSA didn’t loose staff. They gained staff. The LA did loose staff and they haven’t been replaced. They need more staff and they need the legal powers to be able to stop this.

But here’s the big problem, if the council go in and declare the place not for, the council have to house the tenants and pay that costs. This all comes out of the public purse too.

So essentially the council have no interest in enforcing, whereas the HSA would care less about the councils problems and appear to have the staff and a proven record on enforcement.
Give them the job backed up by legislation similar to the powers they have in dealing with the food industry.
Immediate shut down of those in non-compliance and stiff penalties for those operating without certification.

The Student

kceire wrote: »

+1
The little things like minor inspections around Christmas times just as an excuse to drop a bottle of wine in and a tub of celebrations for the kids. I consider myself a good landlord but it’s not pretty where people want the rental market to go in my opinion. They will drive out the small landlord that does have that small hands on approach.

Completely agree. I too consider myself a good landlord and treat tenants the way I would like to be treated if roles were reversed.

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Using your logic there will be no rental properties left in the centre of Dublin, and most of our cities. The apartment complexes built during the boom cannot be certified fire safe so none could be rented and if they can't get a certified for rental then a mortgage will be impossible. So where are the thousands of tenants and owners currently living in apartments going to live in your utopia?

The issues highlighted in the RTE show are already against the law and don't comply with rental regulations. What makes anyone think that the type of person who will rent a property that bad now will change. One of the properties had been repeatedly reported to DCC, so if the current laws are being ignored by both cowboy landlords and the authorities what makes anyone think that new legislation will be enforced.

I recall several years ago when the government made a big deal about changing the law of it being an offence to be intoxicated in public with a law making it illegal to be intoxicated in public a late night radio show was interviewing a senior Garda in Templebar. The Garda was going on about how good the new law was till the reporter asked where they going to arrest any of the intoxicated people walking past, the Garda started mumbling. Our politicians are great at making laws but they are not good at enforcement.

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

Using your logic there will be no rental properties left in the centre of Dublin, and most of our cities. The apartment complexes built during the boom cannot be certified fire safe so none could be rented and if they can't get a certified for rental then a mortgage will be impossible. So where are the thousands of tenants and owners currently living in apartments going to live in your utopia?

The issues highlighted in the RTE show are already against the law and don't comply with rental regulations. What makes anyone think that the type of person who will rent a property that bad now will change. One of the properties had been repeatedly reported to DCC, so if the current laws are being ignored by both cowboy landlords and the authorities what makes anyone think that new legislation will be enforced.

I recall several years ago when the government made a big deal about changing the law of it being an offence to be intoxicated in public with a law making it illegal to be intoxicated in public a late night radio show was interviewing a senior Garda in Templebar. The Garda was going on about how good the new law was till the reporter asked where they going to arrest any of the intoxicated people walking past, the Garda started mumbling. Our politicians are great at making laws but they are not good at enforcement.

Using my logic you would have rental properties fit for purpose and the cowboys gone.

I really cannot get what relevance apartment complexes built during the boom that cannot be certified fire safe have unless you are saying these properties are being rented without a fire safety certificate, or you feel they should be allowed to be used as rental properties without fire safe certification.

It has nothing to do with the type of person who will rent properties that bad. It has to do with the people who rent out properties that bad and getting them out off the market. Similar to how the NCT test got shot of cowboy dealers trading in clapped out cars.
DCC as another poster pointed out have no interest in enforcing regulations (something that was very clear from the RTE program) for their own reasons.
So give responsibility for enforcement to the HSA, with legislation similar to that in the food industry, where the HSA have a proven record on compliance

The Garda Siochana not enforcing the law on intoxication in public places I would not blame the government on.
No more than I would blame them on the million and a half (and rising) fake breathalyzer tests.
Both are down to the Garda Siochana simply swinging the lead.

VonBeanie

charlie14 wrote: »

Using my logic you would have rental properties fit for purpose and the cowboys gone.

I really cannot get what relevance apartment complexes built during the boom that cannot be certified fire safe have unless you are saying these properties are being rented without a fire safety certificate, or you feel they should be allowed to be used as rental properties without fire safe certification.

It has nothing to do with the type of person who will rent properties that bad. It has to do with the people who rent out properties that bad and getting them out off the market. Similar to how the NCT test got shot of cowboy dealers trading in clapped out cars.
DCC as another poster pointed out have no interest in enforcing regulations (something that was very clear from the RTE program) for their own reasons.
So give responsibility for enforcement to the HSA, with legislation similar to that in the food industry, where the HSA have a proven record on compliance

The Garda Siochana not enforcing the law on intoxication in public places I would not blame the government on.
No more than I would blame them on the million and a half (and rising) fake breathalyzer tests.
Both are down to the Garda Siochana simply swinging the lead.

I just cant agree with you.

We already have the legislation, the rules and the regulations to close down the cowboys. Official Ireland are just not enforcing the rules. Whether that's because of under resourcing or just not wanting the hastle of confronting the problem or whatever.

Why does anyone think new rules will do anything to improve things? Why should the new rules work any better than the old ones? The NCT for cars works because the Guards enforce it.

All extra red tape will do is add another reason for potential landlords to say this is just too much hard work and money to enter the market. It will add extra cost and effort to legitimate Landlords that are already wondering it there are easier ways to make money. The cowboys will just ignore new regulations.

For those that think that "big fines" will ensure enforcement. Why not just levy those fines on those breaking the existing laws? As a law abiding landlord, I'm already hoping to get out of the business soon because of existing legislation. I don't need more incentive to leave, such as additional cost, additional hastle, and more potential costs of I unintentionally fall below whatever new benchmark people think I should reach.