More costs for landlords suggested

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

The odds seem pretty slim. It's not like you can believe any statistics on it either...considering recent scandals...

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

The odds seem pretty slim. It's not like you can believe any statistics on it either...considering recent scandals...

If a system similar to the NCT is introduced, then like drivers landlords can play the odds on getting caught without being certified if they wish.

But when you put the value of a seized car and penalties against a seized premises and penalties, the variation in monetary value would make it perhaps somewhat more relevant for anyone thinking of playing the odds would it not ?

gctest50

Houses don't move so it'd be easy to compare a list of certs with a list of places for rent

charlie14

gctest50 wrote: »

Houses don't move so it'd be easy to compare a list of certs with a list of places for rent

Good point.

VonBeanie

charlie14 wrote: »

If a system similar to the NCT is introduced, then like drivers landlords can play the odds on getting caught without being certified if they wish.

But when you put the value of a seized car and penalties against a seized premises and penalties, the variation in monetary value would make it perhaps somewhat more relevant for anyone thinking of playing the odds would it not ?

Thats assuming there is no constitutional problem with seizing the property in the first place.

What happens to the bank that holds a mortgage on a seized property, especially one in negative equity?

If there is a risk of a property being seized for any issue with its "NCT", you'll travel a long way to find anyone prepared to be a landlord.

Spanish Eyes

Think this through. OK LL gets inspection, place gets a certificate. What is to stop him putting 30 etc. people in the place after the certificate is issued?

If the price is right certain tenants won't care. But I suppose the only upside is that LL will be on the radar for Revenue. Never stopped anyone with a mind to, to underdeclare income either. I doubt Revenue will be out checking every rented property for cash payments now will they.

So can you see how ridiculous this is really. We have RTB registration, that means the LL knows s/he has to return income and abide by the rules. Many do not register and flout the law. Who chases after them at the moment?

I call Bullsh!t on this really.

Only way it will work if inspections are carried out very regularly on properties that LOOK like they may turn into tenant factories. But they should be doing that right now anyway.

lawred2

crossmolinalad wrote: »

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

well it turns out that it has become the norm for landlords and agents to ask for these... in Dublin anyway

lawred2

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?

My mate is renting an ok three bed down the road for 2600 a month - those landlords are going nowhere soon..

lawred2

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.

all is well now - DCC are setting up an email address for whistleblowers and are launching a public awareness campaign.

That'll sort it all out...

Graham

lawred2 wrote: »

all is well now - DCC are setting up an email address for whistleblowers and are launching a public awareness campaign.

That'll sort it all out...

I'll believe it when we start to see more enforcement activity.

steddyeddy

In other words they want to make sure a place is fit to live. Tenants make up the vast bulk of the population relative to landlords. Why should legislation not benefit the majority? It's a landlord's market and people should be able to make a profit from it.

charlie14

VonBeanie wrote: »

Thats assuming there is no constitutional problem with seizing the property in the first place.

What happens to the bank that holds a mortgage on a seized property, especially one in negative equity?

If there is a risk of a property being seized for any issue with its "NCT", you'll travel a long way to find anyone prepared to be a landlord.

There doesn`t appear to be any constitutional problem with seizing cars so seizing other property as long as it`s not the family home I cannot see where there would be a problem.

I dont see why there would be any difference in a property being in negative equity being seized no more than a vehicle seized with a loan outstanding.

We are talking here about a certificate for premises being fit for purpose.
If a landlords property is certified as such, I do not see what he/she has to fear, no more than a driver whose vehicle is NCT certified.

charlie14

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Think this through. OK LL gets inspection, place gets a certificate. What is to stop him putting 30 etc. people in the place after the certificate is issued?.

Because the certificate would specify the maximum number of renter for a particular premise, and a spot check either random or due to a complaint would show the owner in violation.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

I'll believe it when we start to see more enforcement activity.

From what we have seen that is not going to happen under local authorities.

Del2005

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.

Who is going to do the inspection? The NCT was setup as an independent operation that only tested vehicles so there could be no corruption, and we see how well that worked. Our DOE which was done by registered garages was only found to be totally corrupt when the VOSA got the UK government to tell the Irish government that all our HFVs were death traps.

So is the local council who are currently responsible for the inspection of rented properties supposed to issue the certificate and how will they be able to issue a fire safety certificate?

Gumbo

lawred2 wrote: »

all is well now - DCC are setting up an email address for whistleblowers and are launching a public awareness campaign.

That'll sort it all out...

Graham wrote: »

I'll believe it when we start to see more enforcement activity.

They have also asked the government to enforce stricter laws as the council can only act within the current legislation. They have also asked for permisssion to engage more inspectors.

housetypeb

charlie14 wrote: »

Because the certificate would specify the maximum number of renter for a particular premise, and a spot check either random or due to a complaint would show the owner in violation.

Would it be the owner that is in violation if one ,or even several, of the tenants moves their girl/boyfriend in without the owners knowledge ?

gctest50

Del2005 wrote: »

Who is going to do the inspection? ........

An inspector obviously

When conducting the inspection, the inspector will be assessing the unit to determine if it complies with HUD’s Housing Quality Standards.

These standards are set forth to make sure the property is safe for the Section 8 (subsidised) tenant. The Housing Quality Standards include 13 areas that the inspector must examine. These areas are known as performance requirements.

They include:

• Sanitary Facilities
• Food Preparation and Refuse Disposal
• Space and Security
  
• Thermal Environment
• Illumination and Electricity
• Structure and Materials
• Interior Air Quality
• Water Supply
• Lead-Based Paint
• Access
• Site and Neighborhood
• Sanitary Conditions and
• Smoke Detectors

bmm

Less landlords = less competition

In Michael O'Leary style all costs ultimately get passed to the punter/tenant.

And the Landlord will add on a bit extra for himself/herself .

More accommodation is the answer not more bureaucracy .

gctest50

Form for same :

Del2005

kceire wrote: »

They have also asked the government to enforce stricter laws as the council can only act within the current legislation. They have also asked for permisssion to engage more inspectors.

What qualifications will these new inspectors have to be able to tell if a building is fire safe? Are they going to remove plaster boards and climb around the attic of every property being rented. How will they inspect an apartment building? We've already had Priory Hall and the building in Sandyford with fire safety issues.

If proper inspections are done we will have a bigger crisis to deal with and if they don't do proper inspections then the certificate will be a farce, just like the BER, to make it look like something has been done when people are still living at risk.

Del2005

gctest50 wrote: »

An inspector obviously

What qualifications will the inspector have and how will they be able to inspect "the structure and materials" without damaging the materials to see the structure?

Gumbo

Del2005 wrote: »

What qualifications will these new inspectors have to be able to tell if a building is fire safe? Are they going to remove plaster boards and climb around the attic of every property being rented. How will they inspect an apartment building? We've already had Priory Hall and the building in Sandyford with fire safety issues.

If proper inspections are done we will have a bigger crisis to deal with and if they don't do proper inspections then the certificate will be a farce, just like the BER, to make it look like something has been done when people are still living at risk.

Environmental health section of he Council do not inspect for the larger fire safety issues such as compartmentation etc
They check for smoke detectors and location of same.

They inspect for the minimum standards as set down by law. The issues you talk about are Building Regulations and the Environmental Health Section have no power to enforce those.

Gumbo

Del2005 wrote: »

What qualifications will the inspector have and how will they be able to inspect "the structure and materials" without damaging the materials to see the structure?

EHO is not a structural Engineer and thus there is no requirement to inspect the structure. It’s like the NCT checking the sub frame for surface rust, they don’t check the structural integrity of the actual frame.

beauf

lawred2 wrote: »

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?

My mate is renting an ok three bed down the road for 2600 a month - those landlords are going nowhere soon..

The stats suggest otherwise...

Anyway that's not the issue. The issue is they don't do enough inspections or enforcement.

Has it improved since the issues with pirory hall and similar.

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

Who is going to do the inspection? The NCT was setup as an independent operation that only tested vehicles so there could be no corruption, and we see how well that worked. Our DOE which was done by registered garages was only found to be totally corrupt when the VOSA got the UK government to tell the Irish government that all our HFVs were death traps.

So is the local council who are currently responsible for the inspection of rented properties supposed to issue the certificate and how will they be able to issue a fire safety certificate?

How is continuing on with the same system that has shown itself unfit for purpose change any of that ?

What is being floated now, and what the Minister appears to be considering, is an inspection body independent of the local authorities with legislative backing.
Any premises being certified fit for rental purposes I would imagine similar to hotels, would require fire safety clearance.

Del2005

kceire wrote: »

EHO is not a structural Engineer and thus there is no requirement to inspect the structure. It’s like the NCT checking the sub frame for surface rust, they don’t check the structural integrity of the actual frame.

If the NCT see rust they poke with screwdrivers and will not let the car out if it's bad.

So we'll have an inspection that doesn't actually do anything apart from what the current system is supposed to do while ignoring the elephant in the room!

gctest50

Del2005 wrote: »

If the NCT see rust they poke with screwdrivers and will not let the car out if it's bad.

So we'll have an inspection that doesn't actually do anything apart from what the current system is supposed to do while ignoring the elephant in the room!

It's a house, not a Bugatti Type 41 so :


Bit of Flir :

https://www.amazon.com/FLIR-TG165-Spot-Thermal-Camera/dp/B00NXJDQV0/ref=pd_sim_469_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=QKKK6N4R7WNQSWZ7BT95


Borescope :

https://www.amazon.com/RIDGID-CA-25-Hand-Held-Inspection-Borescope/dp/B008H1EAOQ


Drill :

https://www.amazon.com/Bosch-RH328VC36KRT-Lithium-Ion-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B071G52LBM/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1510000649&sr=1-3&keywords=bosch+drill+36v

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

The stats suggest otherwise...

Anyway that's not the issue. The issue is they don't do enough inspections or enforcement.

Has it improved since the issues with pirory hall and similar.

Do you seriously believe that local authorities have any interest in rental conditions regardless of how many inspectors they have ?

They are more than happy to operate on the out of sight out of mind principle.
Doing otherwise is only going to provide them with other headaches.

steddyeddy

bmm wrote: »

Less landlords = less competition

In Michael O'Leary style all costs ultimately get passed to the punter/tenant.

And the Landlord will add on a bit extra for himself/herself .

More accommodation is the answer not more bureaucracy .

Have landlords traditionally passed on reduced costs and increased income to the punter? During the boom there was increased competition. Did that result in a decrease in prices?