More costs for landlords suggested

TheChizler

A landlord certificate would cover non-subjective things like facilities present, fire safety compliance, etc. What would a tenant certificate mean? A more official reference? Proof of previous payments? Would new renters be able to get one? Proof of a job?

The landlord one would seem to be about physical checkbox items following an inspection to the property used to say whether a landlord is currently compliant with the law.

A tenant one would seem to be used to infer or predict whether they are likely to be able to pay or not be trouble in future.

The two would be vastly different and I don't see why it's part of the same conversation. The only relation between them seems to be from an eye for an eye mentality; if landlords should suffer the process of getting a certificate then tenants should too, which I don't think is a good basis for making law.

They two are seperate issues and should be introduced on their own merits, not because of some strange idea of fairness or us vs them.

The Student

Johngoose wrote: »

Before all the landlords here jump down my throat, some rental properties are substandard and need upgrading.Some sort of quality control is needed, especially now with rents at an all time high.You are bound to get shady characters who will take advantage in the current climate.

All Landlords are being shown as bad which is why the decent landlords are sick of the bad name they are being given because nobody ever reports on the good landlords. Yes there are bad landlords but there are also bad tenants.

A bit of balance with the topic would help both sides rather than a them and us.

Gumbo

The Student wrote: »

All Landlords are being shown as bad which is why the decent landlords are sick of the bad name they are being given because nobody ever reports on the good landlords. Yes there are bad landlords but there are also bad tenants.

A bit of balance with the topic would help both sides rather than a them and us.

5 years ago it was the Public Sector V Private Sector.
This is just the current division tactics by government or the media to put it more correctly.

Gumbo

smurgen wrote: »

Well you can blame landlords for that so.the more landlords forced out of business and selling up the better.push house prices down.

Yep I completely agree that the tenant is to blame. I don’t think that will happen though.

Graham

smurgen wrote: »

Well you can blame landlords for that so.the more landlords forced out of business and selling up the better.push house prices down.

Hmmm, no.

What will happen is rental property will trickle into the owner-occupied market but in nothing like the volumes necessary to drive prices down.

Demand for the remaining rental units will increase, not a good thing for renters.

The Student

Graham wrote: »

Hmmm, no.

What will happen is rental property will trickle into the owner-occupied market but in nothing like the volumes necessary to drive prices down.

Demand for the remaining rental units will increase, not a good thing for renters.

Exactly properties currently housing two couples will be bought by one couple thereby decreasing available bed spaces by two.

handlemaster

Johngoose wrote: »

Before all the landlords here jump down my throat, some rental properties are substandard and need upgrading.Some sort of quality control is needed, especially now with rents at an all time high.You are bound to get shady characters who will take advantage in the current climate.

And what are you suggesting for the bad tenants who can stay instiu for years paying nothing. With very little recourse for the landlord to persue the debt

smurgen

The biasness of the landlords here is breath taking!

The Student

smurgen wrote: »

The biasness of the landlords here is breath taking!

Put yourself in a landlords shoes for a moment. You have a tenant who stops paying rent, you still have to make your mortgage payments.

You go through the correct process to get your tenant out while not receiving any rent while the process is ongoing. You are still paying your mortgage as its the right thing to do and you are honoring your commitments.

How would you feel?

Can you identify any other business where you are forced to continue providing a service while not getting paid?

handlemaster

Its even worse when the tenant is on social welfare. The paying body welfare will not talk to landlords. In fact if a landlord says the tenant is not handing over the rent welfare stop paying making the situation worse. Before anyone says it rent can be paid to the landlord directly from welfare which is of the tenants discression this can stop at any time

VonBeanie

smurgen wrote: »

the more landlords forced out of business and selling up the better.push house prices down.

Buying property is not the answer for everyone. Not everyone has thousands of Euro for a deposit, or an income to support a mortgage.

If you want/need to be a tenant, you will need a landlord. We already don't have enough landlords. Policies to drive out existing landlords, or discourage new landlords are not good news for tenants or want-to-be tenants.

Why is it that the government, the media, the homeless charities etc. have a blind spot to the fact that if Ireland wants/needs rental property, Ireland has to have landlords (especially when the state does not want to act as the landlord themselves). Less landlords, means less rental property, and more homeless people. I don't think that's something to celebrate.

the_pen_turner

smurgen wrote: »

The biasness of the landlords here is breath taking!

the bias from tennents is breath taking.
only someone that doesn't see the landlords side would say something like this.
the whole system is skewed towards the tenant.
the land lord is always seen as the bad guy and to blame when they seldom are

charlie14

What landlords appear to be forgetting here is that the RTE programme highlighted the behaviour of some very dodgy members of their profession, and that the current regulations are for whatever reason, not adequate or are not being enforced by the relevant bodies responsible.
That has lead to the present idea being floated of a certification system similar to the NCT.

There is general public dis-quite over what was shown in that programme,and which has been reflected in the pressure being exerted on the present minority government by the opposition which now has the Minister for Housing looking into introducing a certificate of fit for purpose similar to the NCT.
Landlords, going by this thread are opposed to this, but being opposed to it on the basis of "just enforce the present regulations", "we are making no money as landlords" or "what is going to be done about bad tenants" are not going to get much public or political support.

There is no believe out there that in the present regulations or enforcement bodies are fit for purpose, that with rents going through the roof that resulted in rent controls being introduced that landlords are not making a profit, and the bad tenants argument after that programme highlighting bad landlords was lost before it began.

Landlords may have genuine reasons for opposing the introduction of a fit for purpose certification, but to the public in general using such arguments gives the perception that they are determined to protect these dodgy individuals within their ranks, and when it comes to political decisions, especially with a minority government and a general election around the corner, public perception becomes the reality.

I cannot see the present situation continuing as is without legislative changes and landlords just shouting no is not going to change that.
Landlords need to come up with alternatives to what is being proposed, and with those proposals, highlight the problems REIT`s legislation is causing them which I feel would get them public support on, and could be used on a quid pro quo basis on changes.

rossmores

TheChizler wrote: »

A landlord certificate would cover non-subjective things like facilities present, fire safety compliance, etc. What would a tenant certificate mean? A more official reference? Proof of previous payments? Would new renters be able to get one? Proof of a job?

The landlord one would seem to be about physical checkbox items following an inspection to the property used to say whether a landlord is currently compliant with the law.

A tenant one would seem to be used to infer or predict whether they are likely to be able to pay or not be trouble in future.

The two would be vastly different and I don't see why it's part of the same conversation. The only relation between them seems to be from an eye for an eye mentality; if landlords should suffer the process of getting a certificate then tenants should too, which I don't think is a good basis for making law.

They two are seperate issues and should be introduced on their own merits, not because of some strange idea of fairness or us vs them.

Please note a property inspection is a liability only to the LL i have had a couple of failed inspections in the past none of my doing (1) tenant removed smoke detectors (2) a fan in bathroom stopped working because tenant disconnect (i think to save money on electric)

TheChizler

rossmores wrote: »

Please note a property inspection is a liability only to the LL i have had a couple of failed inspections in the past none of my doing (1) tenant removed smoke detectors (2) a fan in bathroom stopped working because tenant disconnect (i think to save money on electric)

Sure. I'm not advocating for or against just saying introducing a landlord cert should have nothing to do with introducing a tenant cert and vice versa.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

What landlords appear to be forgetting here is that the RTE programme highlighted the behaviour of some very dodgy members of their profession, and that the current regulations are for whatever reason, not adequate or are not being enforced by the relevant bodies responsible.
That has lead to the present idea being floated of a certification system similar to the NCT.

There is general public dis-quite over what was shown in that programme,and which has been reflected in the pressure being exerted on the present minority government by the opposition which now has the Minister for Housing looking into introducing a certificate of fit for purpose similar to the NCT.
Landlords, going by this thread are opposed to this, but being opposed to it on the basis of "just enforce the present regulations", "we are making no money as landlords" or "what is going to be done about bad tenants" are not going to get much public or political support.

There is no believe out there that in the present regulations or enforcement bodies are fit for purpose, that with rents going through the roof that resulted in rent controls being introduced that landlords are not making a profit, and the bad tenants argument after that programme highlighting bad landlords was lost before it began.

Landlords may have genuine reasons for opposing the introduction of a fit for purpose certification, but to the public in general using such arguments gives the perception that they are determined to protect these dodgy individuals within their ranks, and when it comes to political decisions, especially with a minority government and a general election around the corner, public perception becomes the reality.

I cannot see the present situation continuing as is without legislative changes and landlords just shouting no is not going to change that.
Landlords need to come up with alternatives to what is being proposed, and with those proposals, highlight the problems REIT`s legislation is causing them which I feel would get them public support on, and could be used on a quid pro quo basis on changes.

Legislation already exists Priory Hall was closed due a breach of fire regulations. Bedsits where banned due to shared bathroom facilites.

Enforce existing regs.

lawred2

kceire wrote: »

That’s they are fit to pay and fit to look after the property to a reasonable standard. Pretty much the same as the landlords requirements except reveresed to ensure adequate tenants get adequate properties.

It’s a two way street.

Are those references and bank statements not enough?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Legislation already exists Priory Hall was closed due a breach of fire regulations. Bedsits where banned due to shared bathroom facilites.

Enforce existing regs.

After the RTE documentary it is obvious that existing regulations are not being enforced by DCC. Even when complaints were made, and showed that the only body that did respond to such complaints, the fire services, have their hands tied by having to go through the courts attempting to get anything done.
Landlords need to start realising that simply calling for existing regulation enforcement is just not going to cut the mustard versus the present call for a certification, similar to that of the NCT off fit for purpose, being currently examined by the Housing Minister.
They are burying their heads in the sand if they believe otherwise and are only creating the public impression in general by doing so, that they are condoning the type of cowboy activity highlighted by that documentary.

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

Landlords need to start realising that simply calling for existing regulation enforcement is just not going to cut the mustard versus the present call for a certification, similar to that of the NCT off fit for purpose, being currently examined by the Housing Minister.

Why?

If the existing legislation were enforced most of the slum landlords would be shut down in days. No need to wait months/years for some new legislation to be enacted.

crossmolinalad

kceire wrote: »

I know landlords that gave glowing references to tenants just to get them on their way and move out. A reference is not worth the paper it’s wrote on in my experience.

My landlord didn't want a reference , only thing he wanted to see was the rent book so could see I was on time with the rent and to see for how long I did rent the last property

yes I know a guy who was a tenant from hell and the guy did get his deposit back and a nice reference from the landlord if he moved out within 4 weeks
Two weeks later he was gone being a devil in the next house

crossmolinalad

lawred2 wrote: »

Are those references and bank statements not enough?

Bankstatements No way Its not your business to see them as a landlord
You have no rights to see them (privacy laws)

DubCount

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Bankstatements No way Its not your business to see them as a landlord
You have no rights to see them (privacy laws)

When a landlord is handing over an asset worth hundreds of thousands of Euro to a stranger, the financial well being of that stranger is definitely his/her business. What "privacy law" prevents a landlord from asking for bank statements? If it was your asset, you might prefer to let it to someone that could demonstrate a steady income as well as regular and on-time previous rent payments.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

Why?

If the existing legislation were enforced most of the slum landlords would be shut down in days. No need to wait months/years for some new legislation to be enacted.

Simple enough.
From that documentary it was obvious that the DCC have no real interest in enforcement and the fire services, the only authority that responded to complaints have their hands tied when it comes to shutting down potential death traps

What is it that landlords do not get that the public have no faith in what is going on at present changing under the current regulations regarding enforcement by the local authorities ?
Do they not realise that by opposing fit for purpose certification, with no alternative proposal other than calling for the more of the same old same old that has been shown as not working, that they just look as if they are protecting the cowboyswith in their ranks

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

Simple enough.
From that documentary it was obvious that the DCC have no real interest in enforcement and the fire services, the only authority that responded to complaints have their hands tied when it comes to shutting down potential death traps

So they should be made to take an interest and given the resources to do so.

charlie14 wrote: »

What is it that landlords do not get that the public have no faith in what is going on at present changing under the current regulations regarding enforcement by the local authorities ?

It would be unwise to assume everyone that disagrees with you is a landlord.

TheChizler

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Bankstatements No way Its not your business to see them as a landlord
You have no rights to see them (privacy laws)

There's no explicit right to see them, and nobody can force you, but there's nothing preventing them from asking. And there's definitely nothing preventing a landlord making showing bank statements a condition of the rental. Up to the potential tenant whether they will show them or not.

bluedex

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.

No, compliant landlords don't have to come with any proposals, they will just sell up and leave the market. How is this not obvious?

__..__

DubCount wrote: »

When a landlord is handing over an asset worth hundreds of thousands of Euro to a stranger, the financial well being of that stranger is definitely his/her business. What "privacy law" prevents a landlord from asking for bank statements? If it was your asset, you might prefer to let it to someone that could demonstrate a steady income as well as regular and on-time previous rent payments.

I think the main reason some people look for bank statements is to see if the tenant is someone you can chase for damages in future should something go wrong. No point chasing someone without a job .

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

After the RTE documentary it is obvious that existing regulations are not being enforced by DCC. Even when complaints were made, and showed that the only body that did respond to such complaints, the fire services, have their hands tied by having to go through the courts attempting to get anything done.
Landlords need to start realising that simply calling for existing regulation enforcement is just not going to cut the mustard versus the present call for a certification, similar to that of the NCT off fit for purpose, being currently examined by the Housing Minister.
They are burying their heads in the sand if they believe otherwise and are only creating the public impression in general by doing so, that they are condoning the type of cowboy activity highlighted by that documentary.

... the LLs in that programme will ignore this new nct..

Will that then require a Nct 2 then 3 etc...

charlie14

bluedex wrote: »

No, compliant landlords don't have to come with any proposals, they will just sell up and leave the market. How is this not obvious?

That would be up to them if there is new legislation introduced that they do not wish to comply with. Same as any other business.

Gumbo

lawred2 wrote: »

Are those references and bank statements not enough?

If a landlord gave you a reference to say he was a good landlord and showed you his bank accounts, would the people be happy with that?