Seanad Elections - Dublin University area

CoyleJames

Hi

The Seanad elections are coming up fast. Anyone out there got a vote in the
Dublin University area?

dermot_sheehan

Yes,

but i've sort of decided on who my No. 1 is going to

later12

Since you are both Seanad candidates, why not have some sort of political exchange whereby posters might discern any differences in your respective policies which might be of immediate interest? For example, the abolition of the seanad, or, given the field in which you are both canvassing, emigration, unemployment, and the imposition of a graduate tax? Just an idea, but it is interesting to see competing candidates on here.

StupidLikeAFox

Well ill ask the pair of ye, whats the point of the Seanad? Dermot you reckon that it will be the last ever so whats the point? What do you hope to achieve in there?

_blank_

moving this to politics - slight thread title change

@ politics mods, this is the thread I meant to move earlier :0

dermot_sheehan

1. Reform of elections to the Dail (which is now off the agenda since the election is over). We lack national civic institutions (such as policy think thanks or politicians thinking long term) that have led to a ridiculous degree of parochialism in irish politics. Policies were adopted (such as decentralisation) that people knew at the time to be bad policies but which no one could stop in the populist heave to win certain seats in the next election.

2. Campaign for banking regulation and deposit insurance to be made a European competence: Since the current crisis shows a fundamental failure in the single market. In a free market with free movement of capital and a single currency, deposits and capital floods in crises to the banking system guaranteed by stronger sovereign.

The problems of the irish funding crisis where deposits flee our banking system to those in stronger countries, followed by our banks failing a stress test, followed by a lack of confidence, followed by even more deposits fleeing, will repeat itself again and again in the banking systems of other small eurozone countries.

In the u.s. since the great depression, banking regulation and deposit insurance have been federal responsibilities. If deposits flee the banks in vermont for example, depositors will have the same confidence as if their deposits were in new york state.

It is also a sacrificial lamb we can offer up to the german electorate, the german electorate do not want to punish us, they just want to make sure this never happens again. We let the ECB regulate our insured retail banks and guarantee the deposits (paid for by deposit insurance levied across the eurozone), and the tax payers of a small state will not be called upon again to guarantee banks that lent out money that flooded across the single market into the state during the boom years.

3. Have derelict sites act apply to vacant premises in urban centres. Urban centres are suffering from self inflicted urban blight due to upwards only rents agreed foolishly by tenants during the boom years. If a landlord ejects an otherwise profitable tenant due to inability to pay a high rent, society suffers from having a vacant site in an urban centre, in loss of rates, employment and amenity. The derelict sites act levy being applicable to such sites after a certain period of time (e.g. 6 months) would compensate society and discourage landlord from ejecting otherwise profitable tenants.

StupidLikeAFox

Thats sounds good, and just HOW are you going to do this via the Seanad?

dermot_sheehan

Simple, I'm not going to.

It's highly unlikely I'll be elected.

By running though I can annoy the establishment with these proposals.

And if on the off chance I get in, the only purpose to Seanad can perform being under the control of the government, is as a pulpit in which to spread new ideas.

StupidLikeAFox

Ok then, at least your honest, but I genuinely hope you dont get in.

CoyleJames

I've just pledged to take a half cut in Salary if I'm elected to the Seanad. Would Dermot back me up on this pledge.

StupidLikeAFox

Good man, so you are going to get ~€35,000 a year for what exactly? Why do YOU want to get elected?

murphaph

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

3. Have derelict sites act apply to vacant premises in urban centres. Urban centres are suffering from self inflicted urban blight due to upwards only rents agreed foolishly by tenants during the boom years. If a landlord ejects an otherwise profitable tenant due to inability to pay a high rent, society suffers from having a vacant site in an urban centre, in loss of rates, employment and amenity. The derelict sites act levy being applicable to such sites after a certain period of time (e.g. 6 months) would compensate society and discourage landlord from ejecting otherwise profitable tenants.

I think you need to do more homework. Rates continue to be levied by local authorities regardless of whether a commercial unit is tenanted or not. Landlords must prove that they have attempted to find tenants (at market rates) in order to claim their rates back. There is no "waiver". Rates MUST be paid, then you can try to claim back.

What would you propose to do for landlords left with rates arrears of 20, 30, 40k by tenants who haven't been paying their rates? You do know that the council levies these arrears on the follow on tenant? (and in case of vacancy, on the landlord!). So, what tenant is going to take a lease on a property with 30k of rates owing on it? The whole rates system is a joke. Rates payable in 2011 based on property valuations in 2005 at the height of the boom. Ratepayers paying for nothing in many cases-we have rateable property, we require no waste collection service and our water is metered. We are paying thousands in rates every year for what exactly? To pay the wages of horribly inefficient local authorities basically.

Rates need serious looking at or we'll not see any new businesses wanting to start up.

dermot_sheehan

murphaph wrote: »

I think you need to do more homework. Rates continue to be levied by local authorities regardless of whether a commercial unit is tenanted or not. Landlords must prove that they have attempted to find tenants (at market rates) in order to claim their rates back. There is no "waiver". Rates MUST be paid, then you can try to claim back.

What would you propose to do for landlords left with rates arrears of 20, 30, 40k by tenants who haven't been paying their rates? You do know that the council levies these arrears on the follow on tenant? (and in case of vacancy, on the landlord!). So, what tenant is going to take a lease on a property with 30k of rates owing on it? The whole rates system is a joke. Rates payable in 2011 based on property valuations in 2005 at the height of the boom. Ratepayers paying for nothing in many cases-we have rateable property, we require no waste collection service and our water is metered. We are paying thousands in rates every year for what exactly? To pay the wages of horribly inefficient local authorities basically.

Rates need serious looking at or we'll not see any new businesses wanting to start up.

With respect, I know my stuff when it comes to rates.

The test is whether

the owner is bona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant therefore

In which case the landlord is entitled to a rebate of the rates due (s. 14 Local Government Act 1946)

dermot_sheehan

ColHol wrote: »

Ok then, at least your honest, but I genuinely hope you dont get in.

Why out of interest?

Opposition to national list or abolishment of the seanad or find me personally dis-likable?

StupidLikeAFox

Because you're not taking it seriously. You reckon its highly unlikely you'll get in, if you get in you'll be happy enough to "annoy the establishment" (which I highly doubt you will) and although you have some fairly well thought out opinions, you dont have any clear plan for doing anything. We all have opinions.

You just come across as a bit of a chancer. Its nothing personal

dermot_sheehan

To be honest, I think being able to honestly and frankly assess my chances and the likely impact or non impact my campaign will have is taking it more serious then most.

I have no delusions about the odds I'm up against.

murphaph

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

With respect, I know my stuff when it comes to rates.

The test is whether


In which case the landlord is entitled to a rebate of the rates due (s. 14 Local Government Act 1946)

You totally ignored my most pertinent question. What do you propose to do about rates arrears by ex tenants? Should these arrears be passed on to the new tenants (or in the case of vacancy) to the landlord?

Also, if a landlord has a highly rated property and must first pay the rates before being allowed to make an application for a rebate, where is the landlord supposed to get that money (could be tens of thousands of euro)? Why not allow landlords to apply for a waiver of rates due based on the above, rather than make it a rebate scheme?

You, like so many others, think landlords have money coming out their arses mate and think "that's where we'll get the dosh from to dig us out of this self inflicted hole". Rates will need to be adjusted downwards if we are to see any significant business activity from domestic companies and/or individuals. That much I promise you.

dermot_sheehan

Again,

you appear not to have read s.14 of the local government act which I quoted which allows landlords a rebate of rates when the premises are vacant. These rates are not passed on. I'll post it in full here:

14.—(1) Where a hereditament which is situated in a county but not in an urban area and which is not a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), is unoccupied at the making of the county rate, such rate shall be made upon the person (in this section referred to as the owner) who is for the time being entitled to occupy the hereditament and, upon such rate being paid by the owner, he shall be entitled to claim and receive from the council of the county a refund of one-twelfth of such rate in respect of every completed month (reckoned from any day of one month to the corresponding day of the next month) during which the hereditament is unoccupied either for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations or repairs thereto or because the owner is bona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant therefor, in the case of a hereditament to which the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946 (No. 4 of 1946), for the time being applies, at the maximum rent for the time being permitted under that Act or, in the case of any other hereditament, at a reasonable rent.

(2) Where—

(a) a rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament, and

(b) the hereditament is subsequently let by or on behalf of the owner, and

(c) the rate or any part thereof is in arrear and unpaid,

the rate collector by whom the rate is collectible may, in addition to and without prejudice to any other remedy for the recovery of the amount of the rate so in arrear and unpaid, serve either personally or by post on the occupier of the hereditament a notice stating the said amount so in arrear and unpaid and requiring the occupier to pay to the rate collector or his successor in office all rent then due or thereafter to become due by him in respect of the hereditament until the said amount is by such payment or otherwise discharged, and thereupon the rate collector or his successor in office shall have the exclusive right to recover, receive and give a good discharge for all rent required by the notice to be paid to him.

(3) A rate made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament shall not be invalidated by any error or defect in the statement of the name of the owner or by the use of the description “the owner” without any name or addition, and the rate shall be recoverable from the owner notwithstanding any such error or defect or the use of any such description.

There are costs associated with being a landlord, coming up with rates money that will be rebated seems minor in fairness.

StupidLikeAFox

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

There are costs associated with being a landlord, coming up with rates money that will be rebated seems minor in fairness.

This shows that you are severely out of touch, just because you are a landlord doesnt mean you have stacks of money lying around, even if you are going to get it back eventually

murphaph

ColHol wrote: »

This shows that you are severely out of touch, just because you are a landlord doesnt mean you have stacks of money lying around, even if you are going to get it back eventually

Indeed. The candidate seems to think all landlords are mega-corporations with piles of money on reserve to hand over to the council like tithes and then to beg for their return.

The truth is that many landlords, like myself, are small time who did not seek out a life as a landlord. My father died younger than he should have (GP said it was heavily stress influenced) in the middle of a court process to remove a non-paying, overholding tenant as it goes, a process we had to restart from scratch, a process that has cost us 30k in lost rent and 15k in legal fees, so you can see your pathetic comment about "there being costs associated with being a landlord" is known only to well to myself and my brother.

Why don't you people spouting on about landlords actually talk to some before making your pronouncements about what we can and can't afford. My father bought his small property (to run his own business from at the time) in the depths of 1980's recession. He was advised by his accountant that he was crazy to be putting 37k (punts) into it. He was not some fcuking NAMA'd speculator who gambled with other people's money in some get rich quick scheme.

He worked hard to get things going and a lot of his hard work was wiped out by one prick of a tenant. Perhaps you should look into the law (not just quote paragraphs of it to people who've read it more times than they care to mention) concerning non-paying and overholding tenants and make some suggestions as to how landlords can remove such leeches without bankrupting themselves and making members of the legal profession even richer in the process. You strike me as someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about Dermot.

AND AGAIN....you failed to even answer my question so here it it again:
Is it fair that a tenant in situ AND LIABLE for rates can walk away from a property and the rates arrears are then attached to the new tenant (what potential tenant in their right mind would accept someone else's rates arrears liability???) or the landlord? The rates are due by THE OCCUPIER so why should this liability be transferable to someone else?

This scam is used by local authorities for unpaid waste collection charges in the domestic sector as well. I know Fingal have refused to collect refuse from renting families because of waste collection charge arrears racked up by previous tenants. How in the name of God can this be fair? Only local authorities seem to do this.

dermot_sheehan

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed. The candidate seems to think all landlords are mega-corporations with piles of money on reserve to hand over to the council like tithes and then to beg for their return.

Landlords own freeholds which they lease for regular payments to the parts of the economy (small businesses) that actually employ people. They have assets (if nothing else their reversionary free hold) that they exercised a form of ransom price over tenants who needed city centre leases during the boom years. Again, the requirement to pay the rates and seek a rebate I don't, (nor would any reasonable person consider) a onerous burden for engaging in this business.

The truth is that many landlords, like myself, are small time who did not seek out a life as a landlord. My father died younger than he should have (GP said it was heavily stress influenced) in the middle of a court process to remove a non-paying, overholding tenant as it goes, a process we had to restart from scratch, a process that has cost us 30k in lost rent and 15k in legal fees, so you can see your pathetic comment about "there being costs associated with being a landlord" is known only to well to myself and my brother.

Why don't you people spouting on about landlords actually talk to some before making your pronouncements about what we can and can't afford. My father bought his small property (to run his own business from at the time) in the depths of 1980's recession. He was advised by his accountant that he was crazy to be putting 37k (punts) into it. He was not some fcuking NAMA'd speculator who gambled with other people's money in some get rich quick scheme.

He worked hard to get things going and a lot of his hard work was wiped out by one prick of a tenant. Perhaps you should look into the law (not just quote paragraphs of it to people who've read it more times than they care to mention) concerning non-paying and overholding tenants and make some suggestions as to how landlords can remove such leeches without bankrupting themselves and making members of the legal profession even richer in the process. You strike me as someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about Dermot.

I know the law quite well have acted acted many times in the past in Circuit court ejectment proceedings. Your need to attack the poster shows the weakness in your argument.

I have no real interest in your personal circumstances, I however feel landlords pleading hard luck stories when they more then employees and business owners through upwards only rent reviews and personal guarantees have insulated themselves against the effect of the recession to be ridiculous.

I suggest you seek better advise if you've had this much difficulty in evicting a tenant as relief against forfeiture is not available if the rent arrears have not been discharged at the date of hearing and you should be able to get a motion for summary judgement heard on foot of an ejectment civil bill within 2 months in the dublin circuit at the moment.


I feel that landlords and tenants getting into a dispute over the rent payments and the tenant eventually being ejected has a cost that's bourn by the rest of society. A vacant premises in an urban area damages the social amenity of the area (a previous poster jumped on my comment about the loss of rates revenue to the local authority, incorrectly stating that the landlord was still liable for the rates as occupier, until I pointed out that a landlord can claim a rebate of the rates in circumstances where they can't find a tenant).


Landlords chose to enter or remain in the business of leasing property for regular rent. They chose to pay the costs associated with such a business activity. Society is entitled to regulate the exercise of this business activity for the common good (such as urban areas being inflicted with vacant premises, blight and lack of employment).

Society is entitled to attempt to recover the costs associated with vacant lots in urban areas by levying the derelict sites levy on such lots.

AND AGAIN....you failed to even answer my question so here it it again:
Is it fair that a tenant in situ AND LIABLE for rates can walk away from a property and the rates arrears are then attached to the new tenant (what potential tenant in their right mind would accept someone else's rates arrears liability???) or the landlord? The rates are due by THE OCCUPIER so why should this liability be transferable to someone else?

This scam is used by local authorities for unpaid waste collection charges in the domestic sector as well. I know Fingal have refused to collect refuse from renting families because of waste collection charge arrears racked up by previous tenants. How in the name of God can this be fair? Only local authorities seem to do this.

I do think the system of rates as a manner of local authority taxation is outdated and needs several reforms.

I suspect the reason the poor law ireland act and related legislation makes a successive occupier liable for the extent rates for up to two years after the rate was set is to deal with a situation where multiple occupiers occupy (or are alleged to have occupied as a defence to proceedings to collect the rates) a premises successively throughout the year. The local authority does not have the resources or manpower (or at least didn't in the 19th century) to monitor who the occupiers of varies properties in the county were more than once a year. Making a successor occupier liable outsources the rates collection to any new occupier who would seek an indemnity from a previous occupier as to the liability for the rates.

Landlords can of course have insulated themselves from this risk by having a guarantee in place with a reputable guarantor when executing the original lease. The fact they failed to do so is a poor business decision on their part and they bear the risk of a tenant going insolvent with an extent rates liability.

RDM_83 again

At the minute dermot_sheehan you've probably got my vote due to this thread. I am wondering what your views on NAMA are, considering how tied up this entity is to property etc in Ireland.

murphaph

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

Landlords own freeholds which they lease for regular payments to the parts of the economy (small businesses) that actually employ people. They have assets (if nothing else their reversionary free hold) that they exercised a form of ransom price over tenants who needed city centre leases during the boom years. Again, the requirement to pay the rates and seek a rebate I don't, (nor would any reasonable person consider) a onerous burden for engaging in this business.

We're not in the city centre, nor have we ever held anyone to ransom. Any advice we ever took almost always included a comment (from a solicitor or barrister) to the effect that we "could have charged a lot more for that". I suggest you look a bit closer at your own greedy profession before accusing others of holding people to ransom. Which profession benefited most from all the property changing hands during the boom?

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I know the law quite well have acted acted many times in the past in Circuit court ejectment proceedings. Your need to attack the poster shows the weakness in your argument.

Does it? My argument stands or falls on what it contains. It doesn't fall down because I add something else as an aside that you dislike.

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I have no real interest in your personal circumstances, I however feel landlords pleading hard luck stories when they more then employees and business owners through upwards only rent reviews and personal guarantees have insulated themselves against the effect of the recession to be ridiculous.

My father never got any personal guarantees from anyone. He was a man of honour, unlike the people he was dealing with and certainly never bled anyone dry, the opposite being true in fact. So you don't care about people's personal circumstances, but feel free to make pronouncements on what these people can afford. Unreal.

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I suggest you seek better advise if you've had this much difficulty in evicting a tenant as relief against forfeiture is not available if the rent arrears have not been discharged at the date of hearing and you should be able to get a motion for summary judgement heard on foot of an ejectment civil bill within 2 months in the dublin circuit at the moment.

As I said, the proceedings were interrupted by the untimely death of my father, the proceedings needed to be started again in our names for various reasons, mostly incompetence of a previous solicitor of my father and the word "incompetent" was used by the barrister who represented us in the final ejectment proceeding, and anyone in the legal game knows that it's rare for these characters to openly criticise a fellow "colleague". Easy for you to say "seek better advice" but the current system of solicitors regulating themselves (The Law Society) does not serve the customer one bit. People only find out they have received "bad advice" after parting with thousands of Euro and wasting precious months. You claim 2 months, don't know how on earth you get that figure. We applied for our circuit court date in March and it was finally heard in December 2010!

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I feel that landlords and tenants getting into a dispute over the rent payments and the tenant eventually being ejected has a cost that's bourn by the rest of society. A vacant premises in an urban area damages the social amenity of the area (a previous poster jumped on my comment about the loss of rates revenue to the local authority, incorrectly stating that the landlord was still liable for the rates as occupier, until I pointed out that a landlord can claim a rebate of the rates in circumstances where they can't find a tenant).

I have other stories about the council refusing planning permission on derelict property and then seeking rates payments on same property. Talk about tying one arm behind the landlord's back. Landlord tries to improve property (and in the process create the opportunity of a number of jobs being created by the tenant) and has tenant in place who will sign long lease, based on PP for (minor) change of use and local authority refuses same permission, then comes knocking around for its rates nonetheless.

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

Landlords chose to enter or remain in the business of leasing property for regular rent. They chose to pay the costs associated with such a business activity. Society is entitled to regulate the exercise of this business activity for the common good (such as urban areas being inflicted with vacant premises, blight and lack of employment).

I suggest society would benefit from proper regulation and a total overhaul of the legal profession before it would benefit from your new proposed tax. Idiot landlords living in 2005 will realise sooner rather than later that rents have to be reasonable to attract and keep businesses. We have antiquated systems in place across the legal spectrum, beginning with our continued use of the adversarial English common law which should have been dumped when we became independent. No price regulation (like here in Germany were solicitors prices are regulated by law), wildly varying standards of professional competence (are all the angry people on ratemysolicitor deluded? I think not) and downright lies from some solicitors. The whole thing in Ireland is set up to benefit the legal machine itself and not the citizenry.

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

Society is entitled to attempt to recover the costs associated with vacant lots in urban areas by levying the derelict sites levy on such lots.

How about society makes it easier to convert premises in urban areas to other business uses instead of making people jump through (expensive) planning hoops only to be denied the change of use in the end? Why not focus your energy on the dead hand of (local) government instead of trying to somehow magic away these vacant properties.

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I do think the system of rates as a manner of local authority taxation is outdated and needs several reforms.

I suspect the reason the poor law ireland act and related legislation makes a successive occupier liable for the extent rates for up to two years after the rate was set is to deal with a situation where multiple occupiers occupy (or are alleged to have occupied as a defence to proceedings to collect the rates) a premises successively throughout the year. The local authority does not have the resources or manpower (or at least didn't in the 19th century) to monitor who the occupiers of varies properties in the county were more than once a year. Making a successor occupier liable outsources the rates collection to any new occupier who would seek an indemnity from a previous occupier as to the liability for the rates.

As I stated above, our outdated and agonisingly slow legal system is still applying law made a century and a half ago in London to dealings in modern Ireland. In Britain itself a lot of this old garbage has already been removed from the books. Why not focus your energies on things the Seanad can directly affect, rather than on taxing people more in some dodgy scheme designed to force them to do something with their private property which they may not want to do. Should there be a tax on people who don't maintain their private dwellings too? Urban blight it urban blight, what difference is it whether or not it's a commercial premises or a private dwelling that's falling down?

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

Landlords can of course have insulated themselves from this risk by having a guarantee in place with a reputable guarantor when executing the original lease. The fact they failed to do so is a poor business decision on their part and they bear the risk of a tenant going insolvent with an extent rates liability.

In the case of my father at least, the overholding tenant gave no such guarante, nor was one asked of him. My father relied entirely on a "reputable" firm of solicitors to advise him and indeed they drew up the lease and never once advised my father to seek a personal guarantee from the directors. These solicitors were paid handsomely for this incompetence and for the record, the tenant's company was perfectly solvent, he just didn't want to pay rent anymore. We have a judgement against the company for 30k but the company was liquidated to avoid paying this debt and the owners started a phoenix from the flames job a week later. Once again, the failings of our legal system are evident-poor legal advice (or complete lack thereof) in the drawing up of the original lease created the opportunity for these people.

So, you on the one hand criticise landlords for "bleeding people dry" and "holding them to ransom" and yet on the other claim it's bad business NOT to get a personal guarantee. You can't have it both ways. I am however well used to the legal profession speaking out of both sides of its mouth. If tenants are legally able to skip town with a massive rates liability being passed on to the landlord, then the landlord is naturally going to seek to prevent this from happening. In the case of my old man, he was just too much of a gentleman for this world and so never did.

_JOE_

Dermot, you would have had my number 1 vote had I not been in the NUI (UCD) constituency...

I wish you all the best in this forthcoming election.

gurramok

Dermot, will you be campaigning to open the Seaned vote to the vast majority of the population which do not have a voice hence lack of interest in it?

dermot_sheehan

RDM_83 again wrote: »

At the minute dermot_sheehan you've probably got my vote due to this thread. I am wondering what your views on NAMA are, considering how tied up this entity is to property etc in Ireland.

In a sense NAMA is a done deal, it's been established, the property folios have been transferred to it and asset values ascribed to them. One can not unmake the sausage and reconstruct the pig at this stage.

The first problem with NAMA was that it would over value bank assets and pay to much of tax payers money for assets that were worthless.

Since the banks have taken such a hit (and indeed have therefore required state support), everyone assumes that NAMA did not get screwed by the banks on the true long term value of the assets in question.

This assumption may be incorrect, and NAMA may end up realising less then it what it paid for many assets, meaning the State takes a hit not only for recapitalising the banks but also over the long term as NAMA is wound down.

On the other hand, the assumption may be correct, and indeed the State may profit over the long term with the assets acquired by NAMA and this could be used to make some headway into the costs for recapitalising the banks

The fact is nobody knows as no one can predict the future.

The second issue with NAMA is that as its run over the years, it will not be as efficient or profitable as private property owners managing their portfolios.

If/when Ireland recovers, there will be many property transactions that NAMA as part of its portfolio be engaged with.

The fear will be that due to the fact the public servants running NAMA will be very risk adverse, it will lose out on opportunities to realise profits on its land holdings. Indeed I can see in the future, NAMA disposing of an asset to a private sector developer who shortly afterwards disposes of the same asset for an enormous profit.

Another issue that links into this, is that because of NAMA's enormous ownership and power, there will be a fear of corruption, both at the moment and into the future. At the moment NAMA can basically make or break some of Ireland's biggest developers by exercising its discretion to engage in a business scheme with them, or alternatively to call in the loans and petition to make them bankrupt.

In future NAMA will have ownership of possibly ireland's largest property portfolio with a risk adverse mindset controlling it. It will be unimaginative at making profits with its ownership. Due to either this mindset or possibly corruption, millions will be made by upstart developers then.

We've been here before with the Telecom Eireann land scandal,
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2002/nov/03/smyth-desmond-row-over-telecom-scandal/

imagine that times 1,000 and you have some idea of the risks that NAMA faces in having the profits from its land holdings acrue to private developers rather than the public purse.

If you're wondering what impact I can have in the Seanad on this? the answer is not much except raising it in the public domain (which can be done outside the Seanad but with less coverage).

Nama is a done deal, and the difficulties with ensuring proper oversight over its operation will fall to the government of the day. All that one can do is point out these risks in public and seek that they be appropriately managed.

dermot_sheehan

murphaph wrote: »

We're not in the city centre, nor have we ever held anyone to ransom. Any advice we ever took almost always included a comment (from a solicitor or barrister) to the effect that we "could have charged a lot more for that". I suggest you look a bit closer at your own greedy profession before accusing others of holding people to ransom. Which profession benefited most from all the property changing hands during the boom?

What I meant by ransom price is not necessary that you threatened or put a gun to the head of a potential tenant. There was a limited amount of business premises that could have been let out to potential businesses in urban areas during the boom years. A tenant effectively had a very limited selection in what he could rent out as a shop and therefore could be made sign an upwards only rent review/personal guarantee etc.

Also I'm a barrister not a solicitor and therefore was not and am not involved in any conveyancing.

Does it? My argument stands or falls on what it contains. It doesn't fall down because I add something else as an aside that you dislike.


My father never got any personal guarantees from anyone. He was a man of honour, unlike the people he was dealing with and certainly never bled anyone dry, the opposite being true in fact. So you don't care about people's personal circumstances, but feel free to make pronouncements on what these people can afford. Unreal.

I do not know all the facts of your personal circumstances and am not making a judgement on them. I was just stating this so my comment that I have less sympathy for the economic circumstances of landlords rather then employees or small businesses in this current recession is meant as a general statement rather then a personal jibe at yourself.

As I said, the proceedings were interrupted by the untimely death of my father, the proceedings needed to be started again in our names for various reasons, mostly incompetence of a previous solicitor of my father and the word "incompetent" was used by the barrister who represented us in the final ejectment proceeding, and anyone in the legal game knows that it's rare for these characters to openly criticise a fellow "colleague". Easy for you to say "seek better advice" but the current system of solicitors regulating themselves (The Law Society) does not serve the customer one bit. People only find out they have received "bad advice" after parting with thousands of Euro and wasting precious months. You claim 2 months, don't know how on earth you get that figure. We applied for our circuit court date in March and it was finally heard in December 2010!

I don't have full details of the inns and outs of your case, but the death of your father (the plaintiff) would delay proceedings for a couple of months until a grant of probate was extracted so that proceedings are re-constituted in your name.

The couple of months it takes for the grant can be due to delays in the probate office as well as or instead of delays with the solicitors.

If the tenant had no defence to the claim for possession, I know at the moment Dublin Circuit Court office gives out dates for hearing motions for summary judgement about 6 weeks after issuing the motion. Giving two weeks for service of the Civil Bill this means you can have a claim for possession heard within 2 months. This is quite an efficient system by international standards.

I have other stories about the council refusing planning permission on derelict property and then seeking rates payments on same property. Talk about tying one arm behind the landlord's back. Landlord tries to improve property (and in the process create the opportunity of a number of jobs being created by the tenant) and has tenant in place who will sign long lease, based on PP for (minor) change of use and local authority refuses same permission, then comes knocking around for its rates nonetheless.

the fact a property is derelict does not mean you would automatically get permission for something, the council can only grant permission having regard to the proper planning and development of the area. As I stated previously, there is provision for a rebate of the rates if you can not find a tenant.

I suggest society would benefit from proper regulation and a total overhaul of the legal profession before it would benefit from your new proposed tax. Idiot landlords living in 2005 will realise sooner rather than later that rents have to be reasonable to attract and keep businesses. We have antiquated systems in place across the legal spectrum, beginning with our continued use of the adversarial English common law which should have been dumped when we became independent. No price regulation (like here in Germany were solicitors prices are regulated by law), wildly varying standards of professional competence (are all the angry people on ratemysolicitor deluded? I think not) and downright lies from some solicitors. The whole thing in Ireland is set up to benefit the legal machine itself and not the citizenry.

The derelict sites act levy already exists, I just want to extend the definition of derelict sites.

I would agree with you here that there is a wide vary of standards of competence the legal professions that should be maintained. I think the new minister for justice is going to push through some changes, some might be for the better, some might make things much worse. We have to see what he's planning

How about society makes it easier to convert premises in urban areas to other business uses instead of making people jump through (expensive) planning hoops only to be denied the change of use in the end? Why not focus your energy on the dead hand of (local) government instead of trying to somehow magic away these vacant properties.

The planning regulations already make as exempt development many changes in business uses. I agree that some local authority planning and environmental departments have a very anti business attitude. I would agree with expanding the categories of change of use under the planning regulations that constitute exempted development.

I don't know how to change the ethos in some local authorities that I agree makes it difficult to do business. In the public sector in ireland (both central and local authority) there is a strong bias against allowing any change.

The problem is the public servant who agrees with changing the status quo ante sticks his neck out on the line while if nothing is done or the status quo is maintained, it is a general dysfunctionality in the system that's ascribed as the problem and no individual public servant risks any blame.

As I stated above, our outdated and agonisingly slow legal system is still applying law made a century and a half ago in London to dealings in modern Ireland. In Britain itself a lot of this old garbage has already been removed from the books. Why not focus your energies on things the Seanad can directly affect, rather than on taxing people more in some dodgy scheme designed to force them to do something with their private property which they may not want to do. Should there be a tax on people who don't maintain their private dwellings too? Urban blight it urban blight, what difference is it whether or not it's a commercial premises or a private dwelling that's falling down?

As I said previously, I agree with reforming the rates system. Most legal systems in general world wide or quite slow since the theory is that ensuring both litigants have the right and ability to argue and make their case is nearly almost more pressing then expediency.


And the derelict sites act doe apply to private dwellings, look at this recent judgement of Mr. Justice Hedigan in Egan v. An Bord Pleanala
http://bit.ly/e2sDsj

In the case of my father at least, the overholding tenant gave no such guarante, nor was one asked of him. My father relied entirely on a "reputable" firm of solicitors to advise him and indeed they drew up the lease and never once advised my father to seek a personal guarantee from the directors. These solicitors were paid handsomely for this incompetence and for the record, the tenant's company was perfectly solvent, he just didn't want to pay rent anymore. We have a judgement against the company for 30k but the company was liquidated to avoid paying this debt and the owners started a phoenix from the flames job a week later. Once again, the failings of our legal system are evident-poor legal advice (or complete lack thereof) in the drawing up of the original lease created the opportunity for these people.

So, you on the one hand criticise landlords for "bleeding people dry" and "holding them to ransom" and yet on the other claim it's bad business NOT to get a personal guarantee. You can't have it both ways. I am however well used to the legal profession speaking out of both sides of its mouth. If tenants are legally able to skip town with a massive rates liability being passed on to the landlord, then the landlord is naturally going to seek to prevent this from happening. In the case of my old man, he was just too much of a gentleman for this world and so never did.

I don't know the ins and out of your case and assume you've sought advice regarding the making of an application under s.140 of the Companies Act 1990 to have the new company pay the debts of the "related" old company.


I never criticized landlords, I just stated that those who have empty premises in urban centres ought to pay a derelict sites levy since these empty premises are killing our city and town centres. I further stated when you gave a history of your personal circumstances as a landlord that I have less sympathy for landlords than employees or small businesses in this recession due to them having a greater ability to insulate them

dermot_sheehan

gurramok wrote: »

Dermot, will you be campaigning to open the Seaned vote to the vast majority of the population which do not have a voice hence lack of interest in it?

I'm actually campaigning for the abolishment of the Seanad and the introduction of a national list for the Dail (like the New Zealand electoral system, details are on my website).

My view is that it's better to have one functional house of parliament that genuinely holds the government to account and diligently legislates than to have two houses that do neither.

The Seanad detracts from the authority of parliament due to its undemocratic make up and has never to any significant degree checked the ruling government of the day.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

I have other stories about the council refusing planning permission on derelict property and then seeking rates payments on same property. Talk about tying one arm behind the landlord's back. Landlord tries to improve property (and in the process create the opportunity of a number of jobs being created by the tenant) and has tenant in place who will sign long lease, based on PP for (minor) change of use and local authority refuses same permission, then comes knocking around for its rates nonetheless.



How about society makes it easier to convert premises in urban areas to other business uses instead of making people jump through (expensive) planning hoops only to be denied the change of use in the end? Why not focus your energy on the dead hand of (local) government instead of trying to somehow magic away these vacant properties.


.

I have a problem with this. One man's easy change ofn use is another man's licencse to introduce adult stores, bookmakers, pubs and burger joints to an area not suitable for such. The council is charged with proper planning for all and while I acknowledge there are mistakes and corruption, that is a job they have to do.

If someone is refused permission for a change in use, so be it. Use the premises for the original permission or pay the derelict levy. Businesses should not decide how the city should change, the people through their elected politicians and paid council employees should decide. Like it or not, warts or not, that is democracy.

XPS

Marc Coleman (Presenter with NewsTalk and columnist with Sunday Independent and former Economics Editor of The Irish Times) is also running in the Dublin University panel.

His website is www.marcoleman.ie and he has a very interesting YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbtsAL0JreI

dermot_sheehan

Is Marc Coleman on boards.ie and willing to debate:
1. How he can champion reform when he engaged in the cheer leading during the boom
http://www.daft.ie/report/marc-coleman

2. If he can be a senator independent of his employer, Denis O'Brien

3. If he considers it acceptable to compare public servants to the IRA

rees

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I suspect the reason the poor law ireland act and related legislation makes a successive occupier liable for the extent rates for up to two years after the rate was set is to deal with a situation where multiple occupiers occupy (or are alleged to have occupied as a defence to proceedings to collect the rates) a premises successively throughout the year.


Dermot - would you be able to tell me where in the legislation I can find reference to the 'two years of liability' that you mentioned above. I have read through the relevant sections in the Poor Relief Ireland Act 1838 but I can't find any sign. I'm wondering if it might be in some later legislation. i have heard many people refer to it, but I can't seem to find anything in writing to support it. I'm being harassed by the local authority for a previous tenant's unpaid rates, so if I could get access to this 2 year information it would be a great help. Thanks