More costs for landlords suggested

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

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?

Hold on a second now.

You are the one saying the present regime is adequate to deal with what is happening, so is it not up to you to get such information of how many slum landlords have been put out of business and what penalties have be imposed to back up your contention?

I am simply proposing a regime that would ensure such slum landlords would not enter the business in the first place, and if they did without certification the penalties that should be imposed.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

You are the one saying the present regime is adequate to deal with what is happening, so is it not up to you to get such information of how many slum landlords have been put out of business and what penalties have be imposed to back up your contention?

I never said that. I said the Regulations are adequate, but the powers that the LA have and indeed the severe shortage of staff to carry out the inspections is inadequate.

charlie14 wrote: »

I am simply proposing a regime that would ensure such slum landlords would not enter the business in the first place, and if they did without certification the penalties that should be imposed.

And indeed a system that ensures slum tenants cannot enter the system and destroy properties on law abiding landlords, yes I would agree with that if it can be implemented in equal states to protect the landlord and the tenant.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

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

Where exactly did I say that. To deal with the matter you increase supply. We have 160k vacant properties in the State. Even if 20% of these were brought into use this would automatically impact on these type of landlords.

I would request you read my posts and not make assumptions. If I want to state something I will do so.

pwurple

The Student wrote: »

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.

And what happens when there is a shortage, and the only roof available is a cesspit for a high price. What happens in this scenario?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Where exactly did I say that. To deal with the matter you increase supply. We have 160k vacant properties in the State. Even if 20% of these were brought into use this would automatically impact on these type of landlords.

I would request you read my posts and not make assumptions. If I want to state something I will do so.

I am not assuming anything.
I simply asked based on your posts if your answer to getting these slum landlords out of the business was to leave it as is because demand is exceeding supply and do nothing other than let the market sort the problem.

I cannot see anything in your post that suggests otherwise.

The Student

pwurple wrote: »

And what happens when there is a shortage, and the only roof available is a cesspit for a high price. What happens in this scenario?

If there are 160k vacant properties and only a portion are brought into use these types of properties will be the first to suffer and loose their tenants to better properties.

pwurple

The Student wrote: »

charlie14 wrote: »

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

Where exactly did I say that. To deal with the matter you increase supply. We have 160k vacant properties in the State. Even if 20% of these were brought into use this would automatically impact on these type of landlords.

I would request you read my posts and not make assumptions. If I want to state something I will do so.

Vacant properties are that way for many reasons.
Off the top of my head:
1) The cost required to modernise is unrecoverable at current rent rates.
2) The uplift in the property prices is so favourable as to make the red-tape and risk involved in renting it out makes no financial sense.
3) The property is in a legal limbo. Unprocessed probate, dispute over ownership. 
4) Planning issues. Property cannot be refurbished due to objections etc
5) Location / attractiveness. No-one wants to live in an unheated Kerry holiday chalet when they work in north Dublin.

charlie14

pwurple wrote: »

And what happens when there is a shortage, and the only roof available is a cesspit for a high price. What happens in this scenario?

You would probably get some attempting to defend it as adequate rental property.:rolleyes:

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

I simply asked based on your posts if your answer to getting these slum landlords out of the business was to leave it as is because demand is exceeding supply and do nothing other than let the market sort the problem.

To combat speeding, we don't reduce the speed limit on the roads. We increase awareness and increase speed checks.

The requirements for rental properties here is quite high and provide a very good standard of property once they are been adhered to.

My solution is to increase awareness and to increase inspections and to do this, the LA need the staff to do so.

The Student

pwurple wrote: »

Vacant properties are that way for many reasons.
Off the top of my head:
1) The cost required to modernise is unrecoverable at current rent rates.
2) The uplift in the property prices is so favourable as to make the red-tape and risk involved in renting it out makes no financial sense.
3) The property is in a legal limbo. Unprocessed probate, dispute over ownership.
4) Planning issues. Property cannot be refurbished due to objections etc
5) Location / attractiveness. No-one wants to live in an unheated Kerry holiday chalet when they work in north Dublin.

The state are offering upfront payments to vacant properties to bring properties up to spec to rent out.

You have hit the nail on the head with point two. The risk involved in renting out makes no financial sense. If being a landlord is so easy then by renting out a property you make rental income while at the same time the property value increases.

Points 3 & 4 I suspect would not account for any significant numbers.

Point 5 regarding location is important if you work, however if I were living in substandard accommodation and was not working I would consider moving elsewhere more suitable.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

I never said that. I said the Regulations are adequate, but the powers that the LA have and indeed the severe shortage of staff to carry out the inspections is inadequate.



And indeed a system that ensures slum tenants cannot enter the system and destroy properties on law abiding landlords, yes I would agree with that if it can be implemented in equal states to protect the landlord and the tenant.

So far for whatever the reasons the LA regulations have been proven to be inadequate.

I wouldn`t see any reason to trust them with extra staff to continue doing as they have, especially in light of their own admission that when given specific address`s by RTE they didn`t bother their collective a*ses doing anything.

The responsibility should be given too an authority that are not caught between the two stools off if they close down a rental premises than they have to find accommodation for those in that premises.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

I am not assuming anything.
I simply asked based on your posts if your answer to getting these slum landlords out of the business was to leave it as is because demand is exceeding supply and do nothing other than let the market sort the problem.

I cannot see anything in your post that suggests otherwise.

I and a number of posters have already suggested how to deal with this situation.

I will summarise it to save you the bother of going back to them

1. Increase the number of inspections by the LA.
2. Employ more Inspectors where necessary to handle the increased workload.
3. Close down those locations that fail the inspections. The Fire Officer has this power if the property is a fire hazard, the EHO has this power if there is any environmental issues.
4. Increase supply to provide more choice to tenants

I don't accept that law abiding landlords should be shouldered with further costs.

Importantly ensure that there is balance to all involved and don't tar all landlords and tenants the same. There are good and bad in both and I suspect the number of goods in both categories way out number the number of bad.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

So far for whatever the reasons the LA regulations have been proven to be inadequate.

I wouldn`t see any reason to trust them with extra staff to continue doing as they have, especially in light of their own admission that when given specific address`s by RTE they didn`t bother their collective a*ses doing anything.

The responsibility should be given too an authority that are not caught between the two stools off if they close down a rental premises than they have to find accommodation for those in that premises.

The LA don't have or make the Regulations. They are Regulations set out by Central Government, the LA can only enforce them, which they do, every day. RTE has exposed the slums, but not all are slums.

As long as this new Authority that you want will ensure that slum tenants are enforced and removed from properties where required also, it should be a winner. Equal rights to both the landlord and the tenant.

This new authority will then make X number of people homeless over night, where do these people go? Who looks after them? Who pays this cost?

pwurple

The Student wrote: »

pwurple wrote: »

Vacant properties are that way for many reasons.
Off the top of my head:
1) The cost required to modernise is unrecoverable at current rent rates.
2) The uplift in the property prices is so favourable as to make the red-tape and risk involved in renting it out makes no financial sense.
3) The property is in a legal limbo. Unprocessed probate, dispute over ownership.
4) Planning issues. Property cannot be refurbished due to objections etc
5) Location / attractiveness. No-one wants to live in an unheated Kerry holiday chalet when they work in north Dublin.

The state are offering upfront payments to vacant properties to bring properties up to spec to rent out.

You have hit the nail on the head with point two. The risk involved in renting out makes no financial sense. If being a landlord is so easy then by renting out a property you make rental income while at the same time the property value increases.

Points 3 & 4 I suspect would not account for any significant numbers.

Point 5 regarding location is important if you work, however if I were living in substandard accommodation and was not working I would consider moving elsewhere more suitable.

The refurbishment grant is on condition you lease for social housing for a minimum of 10 years. Not being funny, but who in their right mind would sign up for this? 
Yes, a poor tenant will damage your property, devalue your property, and you can't get them out or any recourse. If the property increases in value just by letting it sit there, then there's no incentive to rent it out.
You would be surprised how many properties are in a legal limbo. How many property owners are in nursing homes, or have died? Probate in my experience can take 6 months to a year minimum, considerably longer if there is any dispute or a lack of a will. And even then, the property doesn't go on the market as a rental unit. Take the number of property owners who died in the last year, or who are in nursing homes. There's a sizable chunk of your vacant property pool.
Planning affects redevelopment of ghost estates, conversion of commercial or office space units into residential etc. 

And on point 5. Very few people who are not working picture themselves living on social welfare for the rest of their lives. And if they do, due to disability or health issues, then they will need to be close to their family for support. So either way, it doesn't fly.

I think 20% of vacant property coming back into use is achievable. There will always be a stock of unusable property, or property in flux. Same as there is always a qty of unemployable people, or people between jobs. The vacant housing stock is at ~9%.

Take instead the CSO figures on housing stock change. 
1996 - 2002  16.5% increase in housing stock
2002-2006 21.2 %
2006-2011 - 12.7%
2011-2016 - 0.4%
See that last one? That's effectively zero housing being added to the stock since 2011, despite population growth continuing.

Looking at the figures, 2006-2011 was 225,232 houses added to the stock.
We probably need that x2 to occur in the next 5 years to catch up to a normal functioning market where we don't have 36 people crammed into a 3-bed semi.  So ~450,000 units.

20% of the vacant ones (completely unachievable in my opinion) would be 32000 units. It's f-all. 7% of what's needed. Concentrate on the easy wins instead of these pissy expensive projects on the fringes. Zoning for high rise, getting the builders and developers back going, and avoid making it worse... ie try to stem the landlord exodus.

The Student

pwurple wrote: »

The refurbishment grant is on condition you lease for social housing for a minimum of 10 years. Not being funny, but who in their right mind would sign up for this?
Yes, a poor tenant will damage your property, devalue your property, and you can't get them out or any recourse. If the property increases in value just by letting it sit there, then there's no incentive to rent it out.
You would be surprised how many properties are in a legal limbo. How many property owners are in nursing homes, or have died? Probate in my experience can take 6 months to a year minimum, considerably longer if there is any dispute or a lack of a will. And even then, the property doesn't go on the market as a rental unit. Take the number of property owners who died in the last year, or who are in nursing homes. There's a sizable chunk of your vacant property pool.
Planning affects redevelopment of ghost estates, conversion of commercial or office space units into residential etc.

And on point 5. Very few people who are not working picture themselves living on social welfare for the rest of their lives. And if they do, due to disability or health issues, then they will need to be close to their family for support. So either way, it doesn't fly.

I think 20% of vacant property coming back into use is achievable. There will always be a stock of unusable property, or property in flux. Same as there is always a qty of unemployable people, or people between jobs. The vacant housing stock is at ~9%.

Take instead the CSO figures on housing stock change.
1996 - 2002 16.5% increase in housing stock
2002-2006 21.2 %
2006-2011 - 12.7%
2011-2016 - 0.4%
See that last one? That's effectively zero housing being added to the stock since 2011, despite population growth continuing.

Looking at the figures, 2006-2011 was 225,232 houses added to the stock.
We probably need that x2 to occur in the next 5 years to catch up to a normal functioning market where we don't have 36 people crammed into a 3-bed semi. So ~450,000 units.

20% of the vacant ones (completely unachievable in my opinion) would be 32000 units. It's f-all. 7% of what's needed. Concentrate on the easy wins instead of these pissy expensive projects on the fringes. Zoning for high rise, getting the builders and developers back going, and avoid making it worse... ie try to stem the landlord exodus.

I completely agree with you, increase supply and stem the landlord exodus. I would prefer to compete in an open market rather than being controlled by the state.

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

I and a number of posters have already suggested how to deal with this situation.

I will summarise it to save you the bother of going back to them

1. Increase the number of inspections by the LA.
2. Employ more Inspectors where necessary to handle the increased workload.
3. Close down those locations that fail the inspections. The Fire Officer has this power if the property is a fire hazard, the EHO has this power if there is any environmental issues.
4. Increase supply to provide more choice to tenants

I don't accept that law abiding landlords should be shouldered with further costs.

Importantly ensure that there is balance to all involved and don't tar all landlords and tenants the same. There are good and bad in both and I suspect the number of goods in both categories way out number the number of bad.

Please!
The world and it`s mother knows that tenants will be paying for further costs for inspections one way or another at the end of the day

So moving forward from that, why would anybody have faith or thrust in the LA`s from their record to date to carry out what you have listed in points 1. 2 & 3.

It is not going to cost any extra too the State to have a specific dedicated authority carry out all those points and have it backed by legislation in a fashion similar to both the NCT and CAB.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

The LA don't have or make the Regulations. They are Regulations set out by Central Government, the LA can only enforce them, which they do, every day. RTE has exposed the slums, but not all are slums.

As long as this new Authority that you want will ensure that slum tenants are enforced and removed from properties where required also, it should be a winner. Equal rights to both the landlord and the tenant.

This new authority will then make X number of people homeless over night, where do these people go? Who looks after them? Who pays this cost?

You may want to think about that in the context of what we saw in that RTE documentary and the DCC failure in the area of slum landlords operating premises unfit for purpose where, by their own admission even when they were given specific address`s.

As in follow the dots of your own question highlighted.:)

beauf

charlie14 wrote: »

...It is not going to cost any extra too the State to have a specific dedicated authority carry out all those points and have it backed by legislation in a fashion similar to both the NCT and CAB.

You seem to be forgetting that its the state that allowed this poor regulation to happen across many sectors, not just housing. They are also responsible for the dismal response to the housing crisis.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

Please!
The world and it`s mother knows that tenants will be paying for further costs for inspections one way or another at the end of the day

So moving forward from that, why would anybody have faith or thrust in the LA`s from their record to date to carry out what you have listed in points 1. 2 & 3.

It is not going to cost any extra too the State to have a specific dedicated authority carry out all those points and have it backed by legislation in a fashion similar to both the NCT and CAB.

Who pays the cost for NCT inspections. I dont know about you but any time I go for my car NCT I am charged. Do you have some arrangement that you dont have to pay for your NCT test!

beauf

From 2014

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nine-out-of-10-dublin-rented-dwellings-fail-standards-test-1.2015028

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

You may want to think about that in the context of what we saw in that RTE documentary and the DCC failure in the area of slum landlords operating premises unfit for purpose where, by their own admission even when they were given specific address`s.

As in follow the dots of your own question highlighted.:)

So you want this new housing agency to shut down bad properties.
And you now want the councils to pay for the housing of the people evicted from these properties?

You can’t have it both ways.

If the tenants causes the problems, evict them on the spot.
If the landlord doesn’t maintain the Propety, force them to carry out repairs.

handlemaster

crossmolinalad wrote: »

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)

Have you ever rented outside of our tiny little island ?

Del2005

pwurple wrote: »

And what happens when there is a shortage, and the only roof available is a cesspit for a high price. What happens in this scenario?

If we had a functioning rental market then people would be investing in property to increase the supply so the slums would not be an option or they'd have to improve. Instead at a time of record rents we have landlords selling up and others choosing to leave their property vacant.

The current government policy has led to this and any NCT type inspection will make it worse not better. HAP inspectors are making landlords bring properties to standards higher than required, a building has to confirm to standards when it was built not current standards*, so I can see this new quango just creating more problems and reducing supply even more.


*Of course a landlord can improve the property and it should be encouraged but since they can't get any return on the investment if in an RPZ they won't. So HAP are expecting a 40 year old property to confirm with current regulations while offering zero protection to the landlord as the new quango will do.

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

The responsibility should be given too an authority that are not caught between the two stools off if they close down a rental premises than they have to find accommodation for those in that premises.

My friends moved into a lovely renovated cottage. Place was spotless and nice and warm, new floors etc. So if your new quango inspected it it would be good for several years. Within 6 months, winter arrived, they place was black with damp and the kids were sick every few weeks. When they moved out a few months later they had to dump a load of their possessions as they were destroyed with mildew.

So a lovely house in summer turns into a nightmare in a few months. Would my friends be able to get compensation from the quango that told them that the property was OK? Because they would have assumed that if it passed inspection it would be OK for them and their children to live in.

lotusm

not being smart but was there a BER rating or did they ask...

pwurple

lotusm wrote: »

not being smart but was there a BER rating or did they ask...

A BER rating. Lol. The people who count the light bulbs is it?

BER would be nice if it was in any way scientific... maybe measure the heat retention over time, set up a device to check for airtightness. That would be cool right? Somewhat useful?

But no. They count energy saving lightbulbs, and ask about whether the glass is doubleglazed or not. Nevermind if the window sealant is faulty, and double or triple glazing makes no earthly difference in that case. Ho hum, not on the checklist.

It’s a farce.

gctest50

Del2005 wrote: »

My friends moved into a lovely renovated cottage. Place was spotless and nice and warm, new floors etc. So if your new quango inspected it it would be good for several years. Within 6 months, winter arrived, they place was black with damp and the kids were sick every few weeks. When they moved out a few months later they had to dump a load of their possessions as they were destroyed with mildew.

So a lovely house in summer turns into a nightmare in a few months. Would my friends be able to get compensation from the quango that told them that the property was OK? Because they would have assumed that if it passed inspection it would be OK for them and their children to live in.

Del2005 wrote: »

So a lovely house in summer turns into a nightmare in a few months. ..........

Excellent idea there : do inspections in winter especially

Del2005

gctest50 wrote: »

Excellent idea there : do inspections in winter especially

What happens if someone wants to rent in the summer, do they sleep on the streets till a person looks at the property and ticks a few boxes?

charlie14

The Student wrote: »

Who pays the cost for NCT inspections. I dont know about you but any time I go for my car NCT I am charged. Do you have some arrangement that you dont have to pay for your NCT test!

My NCT payment is for my car for my own private use,not for rental by others.
So you will excuse my skepticism that when it comes to rental properties landlords would not include inspection costs, (similar as I imagine they do nowadays with the Local Property Tax), in calculating their overheads and passing it on to their tenants.

I am especially skeptical that someone who is a fan of just letting the market sorting out the slum landlord situation would believe otherwise.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

So you want this new housing agency to shut down bad properties.
And you now want the councils to pay for the housing of the people evicted from these properties?

You can’t have it both ways.

If the tenants causes the problems, evict them on the spot.
If the landlord doesn’t maintain the Propety, force them to carry out repairs.

I did mention you should attempt to follow the dots.

You are proposing that inspections should continue to be carried out by LA`s.
Do you not see from your own post where there is a conflict of interest?
I don`t think you are that naive that you do not see it would not really be in the LA`s interest to close down rental properties unfit for purpose when it would result in them having to house those renters.

Have an independent authority inspect properties prior to them being allowed onto the market.
If they are deemed unfit for purpose they would not be allowed onto the market until they were brought up to standard.
Thus no tenants evicted having to be housed.