More costs for landlords suggested

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

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

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

If it is based on the NCT then I would assume the same rules would apply.Not allowed to operate until the premises is certified fit for purpose and operating without a certificate, closed down and prosecuted.

beauf

You just needed to look at the properties in that programme to know all you needed to know about those landlords.

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

If it is based on the NCT then I would assume the same rules would apply.Not allowed to operate until the premises is certified fit for purpose and operating without a certificate, closed down and prosecuted.

How do you know it's not fit for purpose..without inspections..and prosecution requires enforcement...

So your back to square one...

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

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



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

That programme showed they have no interest in enforcing. Even when they received specific complaints.
If resources are going anywhere they should go to a body that is prepared to enforce under legislation that has been shown to be effective similar to the NCT model.

I`m not assuming anything.
Just pointing out that saying no no never without an alternative to the proposal of certification of fit for purpose, just will not work after the public dis-quite from that documentary
The majority of the workforce nowadays require certification in various areas to allow employers to employ them.
For myself as an example, in any 4 year period I have to be certified in 5 different areas.

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

If it is based on the NCT then I would assume the same rules would apply.Not allowed to operate until the premises is certified fit for purpose and operating without a certificate, closed down and prosecuted.

That can be done now with current legislation, if the authorities could be bothered. None of the properties meet current rental requirements yet were all being rented.

If people are willing to accept a substandard rental now that does not comply with current regulations what makes you think that they won't rent a property that doesn't comply with some new regulations?

Using the NCT as an example. It's illegal to use a car on the road without an NCT yet numerous people are buying cars off dealers without an NCT. So the law isn't working for the consumer with vehicles, where there are several thousand Gardai and RSA inspectors with ANPR technology to enforce it , and you think that a system that will have way less people enforcing it will work for people who are already acting illegally?

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

How do you know it's not fit for purpose..without inspections..and prosecution requires enforcement...

So your back to square one...

Not really.

An NCT model would require a fit for purpose certificate before any premised could be rented and operating without one would result in the premises being seized and heavy penalties for the owner upon prosecuted.

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

That can be done now with current legislation, if the authorities could be bothered. None of the properties meet current rental requirements yet were all being rented.

If people are willing to accept a substandard rental now that does not comply with current regulations what makes you think that they won't rent a property that doesn't comply with some new regulations?

Using the NCT as an example. It's illegal to use a car on the road without an NCT yet numerous people are buying cars off dealers without an NCT. So the law isn't working for the consumer with vehicles, where there are several thousand Gardai and RSA inspectors with ANPR technology to enforce it , and you think that a system that will have way less people enforcing it will work for people who are already acting illegally?

Lets use the NCT as an example so.

How many premises operating without certification of fitness for purpose seized and owners prosecuted with heavy fines do you thing it would take to put a stop to the cowboys ?
I`m betting very very few.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Lets use the NCT as an example so.

How many premises operating without certification of fitness for purpose seized and owners prosecuted with heavy fines do you thing it would take to put a stop to the cowboys ?
I`m betting very very few.

Lets examine your NCT model for a moment.

If you want to rent a property let the tenant undertake the checks on the property in a similar fashion as you get a mechanic to check a second hand car before you buy it.

if your not happy then don't rent.

Graham

I just don't see the logic to this approach.

Problem: existing rules are not being enforced.
Solution: make more rules because it looks good.

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

Not really.

An NCT model would require a fit for purpose certificate before any premised could be rented and operating without one would result in the premises being seized and heavy penalties for the owner upon prosecuted.

How do you get one... An inspection.. ?

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

Lets use the NCT as an example so.

How many premises operating without certification of fitness for purpose seized and owners prosecuted with heavy fines do you thing it would take to put a stop to the cowboys ?
I`m betting very very few.

Isn't that the current problem they check very very few.

Same with building standards.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Lets examine your NCT model for a moment.

If you want to rent a property let the tenant undertake the checks on the property in a similar fashion as you get a mechanic to check a second hand car before you buy it.

if your not happy then don't rent.

That I`m afraid is not how the NCT model works.

You can inspect a car, be as happy as Larry with it, buy it, but attempt to operate it without certification that it is fit for purpose and you are running the risk of immediate seizure and prosecution.

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

Isn't that the current problem they check very very few.

Same with building standards.

Seems to be, but with the NCT model inspection and a certificate of the premises being fit for purpose would be required before the premises could be rented.

beauf

You realise people both renters and landlords will just ignore it.

All your suggesting is another layer of paper work that will not be enforced and is just another
meaningless charge

Why not make tenants pay for it. They will anyway through rent. Have tenants pay for an inspection before renting as a requirement of any lease.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

I just don't see the logic to this approach.

Problem: existing rules are not being enforced.
Solution: make more rules because it looks good.

The logic of the approach is that the present regime as highlighted by RTE is not working.
One of the reason of for that is that the local authorities have no interest in making it work, because to do so would only create more problems for them.
For that reason alone it need to be taken away from them, and a model with legislative backing similar to the NCT has being floated and is being considered by the relevant Minister as a more effective way of doing it.

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

The logic of the approach is that the present regime as highlighted by RTE is not working.

So it needs to be fixed. Use the hundreds of inspectors you were planning to do the NCT style checks.

beauf

Just look at the number of threads in motors about people buying cars with nct then having problems.

Ditto renting a neglected property then posting here about the problems.

caff

Let the local authorities keep the fine money. They be motivated

NinetyTwoTeam

There should 100% be vetting for landlords. If the cost of this cert is making life hard for any of them they're hardly fit to pay for any necessary repairs or maintenance to a property which is the only reason they wouldn't want this to come in.

Tenants give a deposit and references to rent, let the LLs put up some money where their mouth is just the same.

LollipopJimmy

Graham wrote: »

I just don't see the logic to this approach.

Problem: existing rules are not being enforced.
Solution: make more rules because it looks good.

That's a bit short sighted. The new rules will aid the enforcement of the current rules. I have had some dreadful experiences with landlords and welcome this news. Including landlords letting themselves in, another who removed our kitchen table and replaced it with cheap garden furniture because he wanted the table for his own house, I have some tales that would frighten many a tenant having spent 10years+ renting in Dublin.

The thing is, a lot of landlords think they can buy property, rent it out and watch the money come in. Being a landlord needs to be a business and run as such, losses as well as profits can be expected. There are landlords out there that couldn't give 2 sh1ts about their tenants and will let people sleep in homes that are nowhere near fit for purpose. In saying that, the landlords who post on here probably aren't like that, the very fact you visit and contribute to a forum is a good indicator that you care about and have an interest in things.

I spent two months working on something for a client and now he won't pay his invoice, ghosting me and our accounts department. My company have no desire to go to the courts for the 8grand he owes us and will write it off as a bad debt if there is no response to solicitors letters. It's part and parcel of being in business unfortunately and comes in every walk of life. Everybody in business gets scammed or let down by debtors at some point, it's just part of it.

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

You realise people both renters and landlords will just ignore it.

All your suggesting is another layer of paper work that will not be enforced and is just another
meaningless charge

Why not make tenants pay for it. They will anyway through rent. Have tenants pay for an inspection before renting as a requirement of any lease.

Landlords could ignore it but would run the risk of their premises being seized and them prosecuted.

There is very little paperwork when a car is seized under the NCT legislation and if same is applied to premises it would hardly be meaningless for the owner.

Many premises have multiple tenants, so why would you require each new tenant to have a premises inspected when what is being proposed is a single inspection that would be valid for 3 years

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

So it needs to be fixed. Use the hundreds of inspectors you were planning to do the NCT style checks.

And work for who, the local authorities who have to date shown no interest ?

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

Just look at the number of threads in motors about people buying cars with nct then having problems.

Ditto renting a neglected property then posting here about the problems.

You seem to have missed the point that under a model similar to the NCT that neglected property would require certification of being fit for purpose before it could be rented.
To do so without certification would, as in the NCT model, run the risk of seizure and prosecution for the owner.

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

...Many premises have multiple tenants, so why would you require each new tenant to have a premises inspected when what is being proposed is a single inspection that would be valid for 3 years

Because it would put the control in the hands of the tenant.

No unusual for things to be removed between tenancies.

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point that under a model similar to the NCT that neglected property would require certification of being fit for purpose before it could be rented.
To do so without certification would, as in the NCT model, run the risk of seizure and prosecution for the owner.

It doesn't work for the actual nct. No reason to believe it will any different for housing considering the apathy the gov't have shown for the.housing crisis

NinetyTwoTeam

beauf wrote: »

Why not make tenants pay for it. They will anyway through rent.

Exactly, and tenants also pay a deposit so the LL has insurance against them being irresponsible, so can you explain why should they pay extra again for insurance against a LL being irresponsible?

Rent is for living in a property, not making sure the person renting isn't a slumlord. It's the fault of LLs that this has to be implemented, same as the rent controls in Dublin.

NinetyTwoTeam

beauf wrote: »

Because it would put the control in the hands of the tenant.

No unusual for things to be removed between tenancies.

Come off it, you're making zero sense.

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

Because it would put the control in the hands of the tenant.

No unusual for things to be removed between tenancies.

An NCT model would ensure that there was no reason to put control in any bodies hands in that it would certify that a premise was fit for purpose.

I would see where there would be a problem with things being removed between tenancies as long as they were not required under the certification in the event of spot checks.

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

It doesn't work for the actual nct. No reason to believe it will any different for housing considering the apathy the gov't have shown for the.housing crisis

If you are ever stopped in a car without a valid NCT certificate I feel you may change your mind as to that statement pretty quickly.

beauf

Well we have the BER and PRTB and rent controls and fire regulations and minimum standards, and rent controls, improved tenant rights....

...and the worst shortage in the history of the state, highest rents, and programme like prime time showing slum landlords....

So I guess it's all working a charm...