More costs for landlords suggested

charlie14

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 .

So what is your proposal.

That rental premises such as that RTE documentary highlighted should be allowed to operate until such time as there is sufficient accommodation

The Student

steddyeddy wrote: »

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?

During the downturn rents decreased. Tenants could pick up properties easy and cheaper than now.

Did the state subsidize the landlords at that point, no they did not.

You have a market that is controlled by the state with the rent pressure zones. Landlords wont improve their properties because they cant get a return on the investment.

Interesting article in todays indo stating the average cost to maintain a home was €14k.

So for a landlord to cover these costs he needs to have a net rent after deductions of €28k and then pay tax at 50% or so. To earn a net rent of this fig you would need to be earning a gross fig of at least €30k or €2.5k a month.

So just to cover his costs the landlord needs the above figs. So assume you have an over holding tenant that takes you a year to get out (it cost a colleague of mine €30k between lost rent, property damage and legal fees to get this person out).

You know want to increase a landlords costs against which he has no control over what the tenant does.

If you want better accommodation increase supply and the market will automatically weed out rogue landlords who are providing substandard accommodation.

If the state and its people are not happy with the rental accommodation on offer then increase the supply of social housing and let the state house those who cant house themselves.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Yes they do have an interest. Just not enough staff to have an interest in them all.

Do you seriously believe this.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

Yes they do have an interest. Just not enough staff to have an interest in them all.

Do you seriously believe this.

Yeah, it was glaringly obvious from the RTE documentary how interested they are !.
How many such landlords have DCC put out of business to date ?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

During the downturn rents decreased. Tenants could pick up properties easy and cheaper than now.

Did the state subsidize the landlords at that point, no they did not.

You have a market that is controlled by the state with the rent pressure zones. Landlords wont improve their properties because they cant get a return on the investment.

Interesting article in todays indo stating the average cost to maintain a home was €14k.

So for a landlord to cover these costs he needs to have a net rent after deductions of €28k and then pay tax at 50% or so. To earn a net rent of this fig you would need to be earning a gross fig of at least €30k or €2.5k a month.

So just to cover his costs the landlord needs the above figs. So assume you have an over holding tenant that takes you a year to get out (it cost a colleague of mine €30k between lost rent, property damage and legal fees to get this person out).

You know want to increase a landlords costs against which he has no control over what the tenant does.

If you want better accommodation increase supply and the market will automatically weed out rogue landlords who are providing substandard accommodation.

If the state and its people are not happy with the rental accommodation on offer then increase the supply of social housing and let the state house those who cant house themselves.

So what are you actually suggesting.
That such rental accommodation and cowboy landlords as highlight should be tolerated until such time as there is more houses built ?

Btw, do you really believe that there is anyone who believes that any costs there may be under this new proposed inspections will not be passed on to renters ?

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

Yeah, it was glaringly obvious from the RTE documentary how interested they are !.
How many such landlords have DCC put out of business to date ?

DCC cannot put a landlord out of business. They or no other local authority have the power to put anyone out of business. They enforce regulations that are laid out by government.

Yes the RTÉ show highlighted crap, I didn’t watch it tbh as I see it everyday. But what you don’t see is the work that is being done and the units that have been brought up to standard. But hat wouldn’t see a good tv show.

Give the LA’s more power to stop this and more staff to enforce the power. We don’t need another NCT service.

pwurple

charlie14 wrote: »

So what are you actually suggesting.
That such rental accommodation and cowboy landlords as highlight should be tolerated until such time as there is more houses built ?

Btw, do you really believe that there is anyone who believes that any costs there may be under this new proposed inspections will not be passed on to renters ?

Good grief, why are those criminals even being called landlords. In what other black market are the criminals referred to by the same name as the legally compliant service?

Are drug dealers the same as pharmacists? Should we slap loads of regulations on the local chemists because of the heroin problem?

Are bootleg DVD sales equal to cinema? Do thieves who hawk stolen goods mean we have to crack down on shop retailers?


These are two completely separate groups of people.


The only effects i can see from slapping more regulation on actual landlords, is for them to either say feck it and join the black market, or feck it and convert to commercial / redevelop as something else / take it off the market.

The market lift at the moment in property means that it makes more financial sense to hold a property for a year and sell it, than it does to rent it out and take the risk of non-payment with no recourse.

Spanish Eyes

Regulation of this market should be taken out of the hands of the LAs

There is talk of another, yes another quango (national) to look at accommodation, that's where inspections/regulation should be placed, properly resourced and all of course.

BTW there are inspections carried out by the LA if you wish to sign up for RAS. Not sure about HAP and I know RAS is being replaced I think, with what I can't remember now.

They were thorough. Fix this, do that, paint that, replace this, etc. etc. Sounded to me like a box ticking exercise, but anyway. I was with a friend (LL) in his place when this happened.

You would imagine that if a LL is providing accommodation for those on the list that the LA would assist in making the place meet their standards, given the rent is less than market rate. NO chance. I know it is the decision of the LL to go for it or not, but still. All risks to LL, none to LA who have effectively washed their hands of it.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

DCC cannot put a landlord out of business. They or no other local authority have the power to put anyone out of business. They enforce regulations that are laid out by government.

Yes the RTÉ show highlighted crap, I didn’t watch it tbh as I see it everyday. But what you don’t see is the work that is being done and the units that have been brought up to standard. But hat wouldn’t see a good tv show.

Give the LA’s more power to stop this and more staff to enforce the power. We don’t need another NCT service.

No the do not have the power to put these cowboys out of business and therein lies the problem.

Legislate for a body that has the power, from which a certificate of fitness for purpose for rental premises to operate is a requirement, with seizure of premises that operate without one plus severe penalties.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

No the do not have the power to put these cowboys out of business and therein lies the problem.

Legislate for a body that has the power, from which a certificate of fitness for purpose for rental premises to operate is a requirement, with seizure of premises that operate without one plus severe penalties.

Amend the legislation to allow the LA to have stricter penalties.
You need to lobby the government.

No need for a certificate for the tenant or for the landlord. Maybe only when the Boise is 4 years old. Then I’ll leave €50 in the ash tray and I’m sorted.

Cannot seize properties. Some landlords might actually be happy with this option

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

Amend the legislation to allow the LA to have stricter penalties.
You need to lobby the government.

No need for a certificate for the tenant or for the landlord. Maybe only when the Boise is 4 years old. Then I’ll leave €50 in the ash tray and I’m sorted.

Cannot seize properties. Some landlords might actually be happy with this option

That would be the LA`s that have been shown not to be enforcing the regulations that are there already even when they were contact and address`s given too them.
Your in airy fairy land if you think that will be acceptable to the general public, let alone opposition parties.
The government would not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting that through.

No need for a certificate for landlords or tenants.
Just a certificate to show a property is fit for purpose before it can be rented.

Aren`t motor vehicles property and they have been seized under legislation backing the NCT.
So what is to prevent a government from legislating the same for rental properties that operate without certification ?

__..__

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?

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.

I posted this in another thread but it probably fits better here.



I just heard from someone I know who let a 1 bed property to 2 Brazilian students last year and then a few months ago he gave them their notice because he found out there were now 8 of them living in it. He only found out because he stopped by to drop something in one day and the front door was open and when he walked in there were air mattresses with people asleep on them all over the place. The door was left open for ventilation because it was so stuffy inside.

Guess what happened when he asked them to vacate?
He was taken to the rtb and that is still ongoing.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

That would be the LA`s that have been shown not to be enforcing the regulations that are there already even when they were contact and address`s given too them.

They are enforcing the legislation, they just cant get to every slum with current staff resources. I wonder what the ratio of these slums to compliant properties are.

Then compare that to your wonder example of the NCT compliant cars, see what the figures are.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

That would be the LA`s that have been shown not to be enforcing the regulations that are there already even when they were contact and address`s given too them.
Your in airy fairy land if you think that will be acceptable to the general public, let alone opposition parties.
The government would not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting that through.

No need for a certificate for landlords or tenants.
Just a certificate to show a property is fit for purpose before it can be rented.

Aren`t motor vehicles property and they have been seized under legislation backing the NCT.
So what is to prevent a government from legislating the same for rental properties that operate without certification ?

Rental properties are private properties (remember the majority of landlords are individuals not corporations etc). The Govt will not legislate to seize private property. I guarantee you if this is tried a Constitutional case will be taken. The Constitution protects the right property ownership.

No political party will try this as this has the potential to impact on all private property owners both principle private residents and also properties owned by individual landlords (not corporations).

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Rental properties are private properties (remember the majority of landlords are individuals not corporations etc). The Govt will not legislate to seize private property. I guarantee you if this is tried a Constitutional case will be taken. The Constitution protects the right property ownership.

No political party will try this as this has the potential to impact on all private property owners both principle private residents and also properties owned by individual landlords (not corporations).

Vehicles as I have already pointed out are private property and they have been seized under legislation covering the NCT, and there is nothing to prevent a government legislating to do the same where these tpe of landlords are concerned.
Under the legislation backing the Criminal Assets Bureau private property has been seized and this legislation has been tested through the courts, the latest afaik by John Gilligan who lost his case.

There is nothing preventing a government from legislating to seize private property under specific legislation.
It has already done so under legislation covering the NCT and CAB.

Gumbo

What ever comes out of this, there needs to be equal balance between landlords and tenants. Real powers to sort out slums and real powers to sort out tenants that overhold, do not maintain places, and damage properties.

Del2005

gctest50 wrote: »

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

So is the EHO doing this? I thought that it wasn't their job.

How will they know that the correct material has been used and how will they know what the correct material should be? Who is going to pay to return the property to its original state after the inspection, since the property has to be in good condition before it can be rented and the inspection has now damaged it?

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

They are enforcing the legislation, they just cant get to every slum with current staff resources. I wonder what the ratio of these slums to compliant properties are.

Then compare that to your wonder example of the NCT compliant cars, see what the figures are.

You are not really comparing like with like as the NCT inspection is attempting to prevent vehicles not fit for purpose being used, whereas in the case of these premises there is no such inspection.

Under the NCT vehicles have been seized and court penalties have been imposed so if you are looking for a comparison on a like for like basis how many of these premises have the local authorities shut down/seized as unfit for purpose, and what penalties have the courts imposed on these slum landlords ?

Gumbo

Del2005 wrote: »

So is the EHO doing this? I thought that it wasn't their job.

How will they know that the correct material has been used and how will they know what the correct material should be? Who is going to pay to return the property to its original state after the inspection, since the property has to be in good condition before it can be rented and the inspection has now damaged it?

EHO job is not to inspect building regulations and prove compliance with same. Some of these properties were built years ago, even 20 year old properties need not comply with current building regulations, nor can they and nor should they.

charlie14 wrote: »

how many of these premises have the local authorities shut down/seized as unfit for purpose, and what penalties have the courts imposed on these slum landlords ?

That's the question I am asking you, as you state that the LA are not doing their job of inspections, when they are. If you state they don't inspect, you are obliged to provide the proof.

I have direct experience of been in these properties during an LA inspection alongside the Gardaí and DFB and ive seen first hand what its like, not just through a TV screen and what RTE want to show/tell you. I can see many properties vacated and currently been renovated because of LA inspections.
Howth Road, Phibsborough, NCR to name but a few.

charlie14

That's the question I am asking you, as you state that the LA are not doing their job of inspections, when they are. If you state they don't inspect, you are obliged to provide the proof.

I have direct experience of been in these properties during an LA inspection alongside the Gardaí and DFB and ive seen first hand what its like, not just through a TV screen and what RTE want to show/tell you. I can see many properties vacated and currently been renovated because of LA inspections.
Howth Road, Phibsborough, NCR to name but a few.[/QUOTE]

You were looking for a comparison between NCT inspections and the local authority inspections from my reading of your post.
What you are now talking about are two totally different systems.

In simple terms one is an inspection of a horse in a stable.
The other is attempting to find a horse and inspect it after the horse has bolted into the great blue yonder.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

You were looking for a comparison between NCT inspections and the local authority inspections from my reading of your post.
What you are now talking about are two totally different systems.

In simple terms one is an inspection of a horse in a stable.
The other is attempting to find a horse and inspect it after the horse has bolted into the great blue yonder.

I only mention the NCT inspection because you keep mentioning it, its a useless comparison in my opinion, I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

Now you want to inspect horses??? I'm getting confused by your posts even more now...............

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

You are not really comparing like with like as the NCT inspection is attempting to prevent vehicles not fit for purpose being used, whereas in the case of these premises there is no such inspection.

Under the NCT vehicles have been seized and court penalties have been imposed so if you are looking for a comparison on a like for like basis how many of these premises have the local authorities shut down/seized as unfit for purpose, and what penalties have the courts imposed on these slum landlords ?

I can guarantee you that if you walk through any car park there will be numerous cars without an NCT, or tax. These are both easily identified yet people continue to use them on the road, so we have a system to keep dangerous vehicles off the road which isn't being enforced. Not forgetting the other problem with the NCT in that the vehicle can become dangerously defective driving out of the test centre but still has a valid NCT.

So if an easily enforced certificate of road worthiness is routinely ignored what makes you think that people who are currently ignoring the rental legislation will be affected by new legislation that will not be enforced?

The Student

The LA are obliged by law to inspect privately rented properties in conjunction with the local Fire Brigade to ensure the properties are fit for purpose. The Fire Officer has the power to get a property prohibited from use as a rental property for breach of fire regs by obtaining a Court order. This is merely a formality and is normally completed quite quickly.

Interestingly there was a part of one of the shows on RTE 1 radio this morning where Dublin City Council accepted they did not act on the information about the rogue landlords shown in the RTE documentary but they did however state that there are over 80000 landlords in the Dublin area the majority of which are decent landlords.

Dublin City Council have now set up an email address to deal with "tip offs" about rogue landlords. What sanctions are there for tenants who decide to cause trouble for landlords by reporting them when there are no issues.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

So what are you actually suggesting.
That such rental accommodation and cowboy landlords as highlight should be tolerated until such time as there is more houses built ?

Btw, do you really believe that there is anyone who believes that any costs there may be under this new proposed inspections will not be passed on to renters ?

Where in my post did I suggest rogue landlords should be allowed continue in business.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

I only mention the NCT inspection because you keep mentioning it, its a useless comparison in my opinion, I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

Now you want to inspect horses??? I'm getting confused by your posts even more now...............

I have a feeling you are far from confused.:)

After all you were the one that was looking for the comparison between how NCT type inspections and the present LA`s system.

But in case you are genuinely confused.
An NCT type system would inspect a premises to ensure it was fit for purpose, and certified as such before it could be rented. The LA`s on the other hand, no such inspection or certification.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Where in my post did I suggest rogue landlords should be allowed continue in business.

My proposal is to attempt to ensure they never get into business in the first place.

So how are you proposing to put them out of business ?

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

My proposal is to attempt to ensure they never get into business in the first place.

So how are you proposing to put them out of business ?

If supply meets or exceeds demand tenants will automatically choose those properties which gives them the best value for money. if two properties are offered for rent at the same price and one is better than the other common sense will dictate the tenant will pick the better one.

The market will force the other landlord to improve his property if he wants to compete.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

The LA are obliged by law to inspect privately rented properties in conjunction with the local Fire Brigade to ensure the properties are fit for purpose. The Fire Officer has the power to get a property prohibited from use as a rental property for breach of fire regs by obtaining a Court order. This is merely a formality and is normally completed quite quickly.

Interestingly there was a part of one of the shows on RTE 1 radio this morning where Dublin City Council accepted they did not act on the information about the rogue landlords shown in the RTE documentary but they did however state that there are over 80000 landlords in the Dublin area the majority of which are decent landlords.

Dublin City Council have now set up an email address to deal with "tip offs" about rogue landlords. What sanctions are there for tenants who decide to cause trouble for landlords by reporting them when there are no issues.

If a premises passes the Fire Brigade inspection, but is otherwise unfit for purpose as rental accommodation have the LA`s the power to prevent the landlord renting a premises ?
I do not know what the 80,000 reference is supposed to justify.
It`s not as if DCC had to go looking for these particular premises among that 800,000.
They were given the address`s and still did nothing by their own admission.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

After all you were the one that was looking for the comparison between how NCT type inspections and the present LA`s system.

Again, YOU are the one comparing to the NCT tests. I merely played your game and asked for proof to support your wild claims that no inspections take place.

You still haven't provided this info btw.

If you feel that strongly about it, you can freely request this info from DCC through an FOI request. Straight forward, simple process....unless you just want to post on here about it?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

If supply meets or exceeds demand tenants will automatically choose those properties which gives them the best value for money. if two properties are offered for rent at the same price and one is better than the other common sense will dictate the tenant will pick the better one.

The market will force the other landlord to improve his property if he wants to compete.

So what are you actually saying here ?
That because demand exceeds supply the type of shoddy practice we saw in that RTE documentary should be allowed to continue and let the market sort it out.

Genuinely confused here as to what your solution is to the question I asked