New Legislation commencing today

The_Conductor

Guys-

As I imagine a lot of people may not be aware, there is a new Statutory Instrument, governing rental accommodation standards, which comes into force today, the 1st of July, 2017.

Link to the SI here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/si/17/made/en/pdf

Highlights:

1. Bedsits consigned to history- the 2008 amendment is copper fastened, all rental accommodation MUST have self-contained bathroom and kitchen facilities

2. Formal requirement for every dwelling to be equipped with a fire blanket and "suitable self-contained fire detection and alarm system"

3. MUDs (Multi-unit-Dwellings/Developments- i.e. apartments or properties subdivided into flats or other self contained units, or properties comprising part of a development containing more than 1 unit)- must also be equipped with individual, mains-wired fire alarms and fire escape plans.
They must also be provided in common areas of the multi-unit buildings.

4. Specific emergency lighting to be provided and maintained in common areas of multi-unit developments

5. All dwellings to be provided with carbon monoxide alarms. Every room in each dwelling must also have proper ventilation, with specific reference to adequate ventilation systems installed in kitchens and bathrooms to remove water vapour/prevent mold etc. Specific requirement for all ventillation to be inspected 'regularly' and maintained in good working order.

6. Clarification on kitchen and laundry facilities- a multi ring hob with oven and grill, a microwave, a cooker hood or extractor fan, a fridge and freezer, a sink with potable water and enough presses for adequate food storage. In addition a working washing machine or access to communal washing facilities are necessary. If a dwelling does not have specific access to a private yard/garden- there is now a requirement for a clothes dryer or access to clothes dryer facilities.

7. A tenant is entitled to both a formal bathroom with a fixed bath or shower present- and a second, separate, toilet room with a hand basin.

8. Vermin- hitherto it was a tenant's responsibility under the Act to deal with vermin. That responsibility has now moved to the landlord.

9. All windows above 1.4m above the ground (less than 5 feet) must have secure features retrofitted to stop kids from fully opening the windows and/or falling from them.

Etc etc.

Read the SI- it comes into effect today- make sure you are familiar with it- and your rights and obligations under it (both tenants and landlords).

lollsangel

I think no 7 could push more landlords out of the market. If theyre renting a 1 bath house theyre hardly going to fork out for an extention.

Also so if i get rats and mice into the house my landlord has to deal with it? Hilarious

The_Conductor

Few funny bits in it- e.g. any kitchen less than 6.5 square meters- is no longer counted as a habitable room in the dwelling- but once it goes over 6.5m- it is.......... What are they proposing- bunk beds in the kitchen?

caviardreams

lollsangel wrote: »

I think no 7 could push more landlords out of the market. If theyre renting a 1 bath house theyre hardly going to fork out for an extention.

Also so if i get rats and mice into the house my landlord has to deal with it? Hilarious

Did I understand that right - you can't have a combined bathroom & toilet anymore?? I must have misinterpretted that as very few "ordinary" properties (certainly apartments) have separate rooms these days.

The_Conductor

caviardreams wrote: »

Did I understand that right - you can't have a combined bathroom & toilet anymore?? I must have misinterpretted that as very few "ordinary" properties (certainly apartments) have separate rooms these days.

Have a read of the SI- I'm scratching my head over several sections/articles in it.........

No.7 is a bit of a joke for apartments especially. Many, even modern apartments may only have one bathroom unless there ensuites which is not a given. I know one very large complex that has a lot of apartments and all have one bathroom per aprtment.

They really should have relaxed no 1 also. There is no reason that a few bedsita couldn't share a kitchen or bathroom, obviously you don't want people living in crap places but if done right there is no reason it can be a decent place for people to live especially low income single people who are oastvthe house sharing age.

caviardreams

The_Conductor wrote: »

Have a read of the SI- I'm scratching my head over several sections/articles in it.........

Is that section 5.1? I don't think both have to be in separate rooms from my reading, just separate from *other* rooms e.g. the living room etc.

Bushmanpm

8. Vermin
If a tenant has mice/rats/vermin surly that's somewhat indicative of the tenants cleanliness? LL has to clean up after the tenant???

lcwill

I have a different read of no. 7 [Article 5.1] - seems to me that there must be at least one full bathroom with toilet + sink + bath or shower "within the same habitable area of the house".

Does anyone know if its legal to rent an unfurnished house in Ireland? And what the definition of unfurnished is in Irish law?

lollsangel

lcwill wrote: »

I have a different read of no. 7 [Article 5.1] - seems to me that there must be at least one full bathroom with toilet + sink + bath or shower "within the same habitable area of the house".

Does anyone know if its legal to rent an unfurnished house in Ireland? And what the definition of unfurnished is in Irish law?

I rent unfurnished. There was a fridge, electric cooker and washing machine here, everything else is my own

dennyk

Don't think there's any legal requirement to provide furniture, only the required kitchen appliances. There may be less demand for unfurnished properties, though, since most places are rented furnished and a lot of tenants aren't going to want to have to buy a bunch of furniture that they'd then have to figure out how to store if the landlord boots them out in a year or two and they can't find another unfurnished place (or one where the landlord is willing to remove their own furnishings from the property).

ED E

When we were a looking last year only one in about forty properties we seriously considered was unfurnished. The Irish market doesnt work that way.

Atlantic Dawn

Putting new standards to limit supply at a time of housing crisis, what a great idea, fooking backward as fook idiots away with the fairies on their €87k salary.

The_Conductor

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Putting new standards to limit supply at a time of housing crisis, what a great idea, fooking backward as fook idiots away with the fairies on their €87k salary.

In all fairness to the civil servants who did the SI- I'd guess about 85% of it is clarification of the 2008 Act- rather than entirely new provisions (or reworkings of previous provisions).

There are a few items of immense stupidity in there though.

Pkiernan

Great that if a filthy dirtbag of a tenant doesn't clean up and rats get in that the landlord is now responsible.
The left must really want to drive homelessness numbers up.

Michael D Not Higgins

Is the landlord responsibility for vermin not fulfilled by providing bin storage and maintaining the structure. I can't see anything else that references pests/vermin or did I miss something?

The_Conductor

Every single habitable room in the dwelling- including the bathroom and showerroom- and the kitchen, if it exceeds 6.5m2 in area, has to have a permanent radiator (or heat emitting device).

Essentially- it sounds to me like any older properties will have to be retrospectively brought up to current building standards. Any owner occupier is obliged to ensure his/her property complies with the building standards in place- when the property was built- not today's standards.

For anything other than a very modern dwelling- the requirements are onerous on a landlord/prospective landlord.

The easiest course of action- in the current market- is for landlords to sell-up.

BryanF

One bathroom with sink,toilet, shower or bath - is my reading of the legislation.

BryanF

BryanF wrote: »

One bathroom with sink,toilet, shower or bath - is my reading of the legislation.

They do use the word "seperate" though?

boardsuser1

out of curiosity, does this apply to council houses?

Is it retrospective for some issues?

I ask on behalf of the O/H's family.

iguana

Number 7 does specifically say a second, separate room with a toilet. Which is just bonkers if that's what's required. Just one bathroom was the norm in many family houses built even up to the late 80s in Ireland. The country is full of properties with just one toilet. Tbh, apart from when I've lived in period properties that have retained their original outside toilet, I've only ever lived in houses or apartments with one toilet and it's not a problem.

dennyk

iguana wrote: »

Number 7 does specifically say a second, separate room with a toilet. Which is just bonkers if that's what's required.

Nah, read it carefully:

5. (1) There shall be provided within the same habitable area of the house,
for the exclusive use of the house:
(a) A water closet, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with
a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply
of hot water, and
(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a
facility for the piped supply of hot water.
(2) The requirements of Regulation 5(1) shall:
...
(v) be provided in a room separated from other rooms by a wall and
a door and containing separate ventilation.

So all of the above requirements (toilet + washbasin and bath/shower) can be provided in the same room, but that room must be a proper separate room with a door and some form of independent ventilation (exhaust fan or its own window). So you can't just jam a toilet in the kitchen or an open alcove somewhere, or put the bathroom sink in the bedroom, or stick a prefab shower in the corner of the living room, or other such tricks that might be used when trying to refurbish old bedsits to be allowable or converting a single family home to as many flats as possible on the cheap.

As for the other stuff in the act, most of it does sound like clarification of the old acts. All the appliance requirements, etc. are the same, I think, and none are unreasonable. The fixed heating appliance requirement for bathrooms can easily be met with an electric towel heater or similar for not much money, if a bathroom doesn't currently have such an item. Similarly, there are plenty of cheap window restrictors that can be easily retrofitted to any existing window.

The fire safety requirements seem reasonable as well. Smoke alarms and fire blankets are not onerous requirements, and requiring smoke alarms and emergency lighting for common areas in multi-unit buildings is fair enough. One can't make the argument that saving the landlord a little money is more important than the lives of their tenants.

Small kitchens being exempt from being a "habitable room" is to exempt them from the natural light and fixed heating appliance requirements in later sections, presumably so as not to make a lot of older flats and houses with tiny interior kitchens or galley-style kitchens illegal. (Obviously there are still ventilation requirements, as they are still kitchens, so an extractor fan would be necessary, though...)

GGTrek

dennyk wrote: »

iguana wrote: »

Number 7 does specifically say a second, separate room with a toilet. Which is just bonkers if that's what's required.

Nah, read it carefully:

5. (1) There shall be provided within the same habitable area of the house,
for the exclusive use of the house:
(a) A water closet, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with
a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply
of hot water, and
(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a
facility for the piped supply of hot water.
(2) The requirements of Regulation 5(1) shall:
...
(v) be provided in a room separated from other rooms by a wall and
a door and containing separate ventilation.

So all of the above requirements (toilet + washbasin and bath/shower) can be provided in the same room, but that room must be a proper separate room with a door and some form of independent ventilation (exhaust fan or its own window). So you can't just jam a toilet in the kitchen or an open alcove somewhere, or put the bathroom sink in the bedroom, or stick a prefab shower in the corner of the living room, or other such tricks that might be used when trying to refurbish old bedsits to be allowable or converting a single family home to as many flats as possible on the cheap.

As for the other stuff in the act, most of it does sound like clarification of the old acts. All the appliance requirements, etc. are the same, I think, and none are unreasonable. The fixed heating appliance requirement for bathrooms can easily be met with an electric towel heater or similar for not much money, if a bathroom doesn't currently have such an item. Similarly, there are plenty of cheap window restrictors that can be easily retrofitted to any existing window.

The fire safety requirements seem reasonable as well. Smoke alarms and fire blankets are not onerous requirements, and requiring smoke alarms and emergency lighting for common areas in multi-unit buildings is fair enough. One can't make the argument that saving the landlord a little money is more important than the lives of their tenants.

Small kitchens being exempt from being a "habitable room" is to exempt them from the natural light and fixed heating appliance requirements in later sections, presumably so as not to make a lot of older flats and houses with tiny interior kitchens or galley-style kitchens illegal. (Obviously there are still ventilation requirements, as they are still kitchens, so an extractor fan would be necessary, though...)

When Coveney and pals in their legislative fervour decided to issue this new piece of legislation in Feb/March this year, I created a thread with a lot of interesting comments from other posts:
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057711986
Your arguments about being cheap on landlords (or homeowners in MUD to be honest) are very faulty and if you read the old thread you will see why. You are grossly oversimplifying things like all people with no skin in the game do. Please read the old thread and you will see how many shortcomings the new legislation has: as usual when Coveney just wants to produce showcase/good for media legislation without careful consideration and consultation with all the real parties, not just some penpushers in his department. Read especially well my answer to BsBox at the time and to Kceire and Mrs O Bumble comments on carbon monoxide: why asking for carbon monoxide detector when there is no gas installation in the dwelling?
We need people with skin in the housing/landlordling business (and I am not talking about the dysfunctional organization called Threshold) to be consulted and their opinions reflected before any other legislation is passed by the jokers at the Oireachtas. Bettes still a moratory of two years from further legislation about rentals and housing from these TDs to provide certainty that no more c..p is issued by penpushers without thinking. Irish govvie has to focus on facilitating building, investing or providing residential housing, they are doing the exact opposite every time in my opinion. This piece of legislation is another shining example.

dennyk

GGTrek wrote: »

Read especially well my answer to BsBox at the time and to Kceire and Mrs O Bumble comments on carbon monoxide: why asking for carbon monoxide detector when there is no gas installation in the dwelling?

Are you sure it does? The current act reads:

(6) Each house shall contain, where necessary, suitably located devices for
the detection and alarm of carbon monoxide.

Seems it would not be considered necessary if the house contains nothing that would create carbon monoxide. However, keep in mind that fireplaces and wood-burning or solid fuel stoves are also a carbon monoxide hazard, and in a semi-d, terrace house, or MUD, CO can intrude from adjacent units, so I'd say it would be necessary if any of the connected neighbors had gas service or fuel-burning stoves/fireplaces even if the unit in question does not. If none of the houses in the connected block have any CO-producing items installed, though, it would likely not be necessary. Even where it is required, it's a €25 device that you can install yourself and you'd just need to change the battery in it periodically during your regular inspections.

Also, griping about the expense of CO detectors and fire safety equipment is poor form. You've an obligation to your tenants to ensure that your property is safe to occupy and that their life isn't in danger due to substandard (or nonexistent) fire protection systems that may fail to work properly in the event of a fire. Yes, the inspectors will want proof that the fire alarm system was properly installed, because if it wasn't, people may die. Hardly an unreasonable position on their part, I'd say.

As for bathrooms, honestly, proper mold remediation is going to cost you as much or more as putting in a heater and/or vent, so you're doing yourself a favor there by ensuring your place is up to standards, even setting aside the impact to the health of your tenants from toxic mold growing in an unventilated unheated bathroom.

I agree that the situation for landlords is a bit dire at the moment, but there are other factors that should be looked at (e.g. taxes) to improve things rather than allowing ****ty slumlords to skimp on basic housing and safety standards.

Bushmanpm

@ GGTrek
I've just read that old thread, thank you.
I supply electricians and know a bit about the materials and installation.
The carbon monoxide detectors need to be MAINS WIRED. One of the best on the market and around 90% of our sales are the Aico EI261, with the vat around £50. (Aico are one of Ireland's best exporters!)
BsBox (rather apt name) doesn't seem to get the mains wired bit as that E18 is almost definitely a standalone battery only unit. I've had non electrician customers stunned/appalled when explained the costs of getting mains power in/through/on a wall, they just didn't allow for it and they just don't get it!
Would I be correct in thinking "...where necessary" for the carbon detectors would preclude them from MUD units with no gas or flame sources? I can get them installed if required but it seems pointless in MUD units.

The_Conductor

dennyk wrote: »

Even where it is required, it's a €25 device that you can install yourself and you'd just need to change the battery in it periodically during your regular inspections.

Its not in the reg- but it is on the inspection checklist- the likes of the 25 quid Kidde detector you'd buy in Woodies are not acceptable. It has to be the commercial detector with a 10 year battery.

dennyk wrote: »

Also, griping about the expense of CO detectors and fire safety equipment is poor form. You've an obligation to your tenants to ensure that your property is safe to occupy and that their life isn't in danger due to substandard (or nonexistent) fire protection systems that may fail to work properly in the event of a fire. Yes, the inspectors will want proof that the fire alarm system was properly installed, because if it wasn't, people may die. Hardly an unreasonable position on their part, I'd say.

If there is a new requirement for upgraded safety equipment- as seems to be the case- allied to the new reg- why not hold a public procurement competition for equipment up to spec- and flog it to landlords/tenants (and owner-occupiers) at cost. Several large scale contracts out there- on which this could be based- no need to reinvent the wheel.

dennyk wrote: »

As for bathrooms, honestly, proper mold remediation is going to cost you as much or more as putting in a heater and/or vent, so you're doing yourself a favor there by ensuring your place is up to standards, even setting aside the impact to the health of your tenants from toxic mold growing in an unventilated unheated bathroom.

This is allied to new requirements for ventilation in, well pretty much in every room. Some tenants- particularly those in older properties- may notice improbable heating bills. There are some downsides to extra ventillation for older properties.......... Of course you can point at BER ratings- and pay heed to them- however, at the moment- with the dearth of available offerings- people take what they can get. There is an element of the law of unintended consequences at play here........

dennyk wrote: »

I agree that the situation for landlords is a bit dire at the moment, but there are other factors that should be looked at (e.g. taxes) to improve things rather than allowing ****ty slumlords to skimp on basic housing and safety standards.

I agree- no-one should be skimping on housing or safety standards. However, piling on new requirements- without a commensurate quid-pro-quo through a reform of the taxes imposed on landlords- is simply unreasonable and unrealistic.

A lot of smaller landlords may have inherited property and not have the benefit of mortgages to shelter a lump of their rental income from penal taxes. However- a small landlord- who is not a PAYE employee- and is in the top tax bracket- pays a marginal rate, including PRSI and USC, of 54% on rental income.

The manner in which rental income is viewed as 'unearned income' (akin to share dividends etc)- has no cognisance whatsoever that even for a small scale landlord- it is a business- and should be treated as such by Revenue- without requiring the landlord who only have one or two properties- go register themselves as formal businesses. According to the RTB- 68% of all registered tenancies- are from landlords who own two or fewer units.

No-one should skimp on housing standards- or safety. However, if you are going to impose business like requirements on small scale landlords- you need to treat them in an identical manner to small scale businesses- and not this 'unearned income' crap.

GGTrek

dennyk wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Read especially well my answer to BsBox at the time and to Kceire and Mrs O Bumble comments on carbon monoxide: why asking for carbon monoxide detector when there is no gas installation in the dwelling?

Are you sure it does? The current act reads:

(6) Each house shall contain, where necessary, suitably located devices for
the detection and alarm of carbon monoxide.

Seems it would not be considered necessary if the house contains nothing that would create carbon monoxide. However, keep in mind that fireplaces and wood-burning or solid fuel stoves are also a carbon monoxide hazard, and in a semi-d, terrace house, or MUD, CO can intrude from adjacent units, so I'd say it would be necessary if any of the connected neighbors had gas service or fuel-burning stoves/fireplaces even if the unit in question does not. If none of the houses in the connected block have any CO-producing items installed, though, it would likely not be necessary. Even where it is required, it's a €25 device that you can install yourself and you'd just need to change the battery in it periodically during your regular inspections.

Also, griping about the expense of CO detectors and fire safety equipment is poor form. You've an obligation to your tenants to ensure that your property is safe to occupy and that their life isn't danger due to substandard (or nonexistent) fire protection systems that may fail to work properly in the event of a fire. Yes, the inspectors will want proof that the fire alarm system was properly installed, because if it wasn't, people may die. Hardly an unreasonable position on their part, I'd say.  

As for bathrooms, honestly, proper mold remediation is going to cost you as much or more as putting in a heater and/or vent, so you're doing yourself a favor there by ensuring your place is up to standards, even setting aside the impact to the health of your tenants from toxic mold growing in an unventilated unheated bathroom.

I agree that the situation for landlords is a bit dire at the moment, but there are other factors that should be looked at (e.g. taxes) to improve things rather than allowing ****ty slumlords to skimp on basic housing and safety standards.

Vents are already there (Regs 2008), heat detectors and smoke detectors are already there (Regs 2008), "when necessary" will be decided by other penpushers sent by the councils to inspect (I bet you never met one of these penpushers) whose zeal is only stopped by appropriate strong threat of legal action (usually a strongly worded letter from a solicitor is good enough, since they fear risking their cushy jobs), you are obviously oblivious to the practicalities like the penpushers who have issued this piece of legislation and you obviously have no skin in the game. It seems to me that appropriate lobbying was performed by fire "safety" vendors and maybe other interested bodies in selling electrical and building materials.


The advantage of carbon monoxide alarms is tiny in view of the other detectors that are already installed, the advantage of a heating vent is tiny on humidity given the fact that extraction vent is already there, etc, etc, etc.

You are obviously very idealistic with good intentions but cemeteries are full of good intentions. Please read again the old thread carefully this time, get down from your principled pedestal and consider how much this piece of legislation is going to cost to the landlords with RENTS CAPPED and what effects it is going to have on the availablity of rented accommodation in the middle of a housing crisis!!!

Consider the whole rental legislative framework where this new piece of leglislation has been dropped in and its necessity in view of this. Maybe you will lessen your high principles once you consider the effects.

People may die for much more common issues like faulty electrical installations or furniture falling down on them, ... what the govvie needs to do is performing a proper comparative study if given the already onerous fire and safety standards in place or ventilation standards in place, what is the marginal impact of the new piece of legislation with respect to the negative impact on the housing crisis. Where is this study? Oh, wait, Coveney and pals just hurried up botched legislation as usual!

As I said previously in this forum I am not running a popularity context here and whenever I encounter principled posts like yours (yours at least is in good faith) with no roots in practicality a proper (maybe unpopular) counter-argument has to be presented, because these principles or ideologies are highly damaging to the current Irish rental market (my tenants suffer as well when their tenancies are terminated due to this type of legislation) and need to be stopped sooner or (more likely) later.

There is another thread strictly related to this one about vacant houses, please read it as well, it is very informative about the effects of your principles.:D

pauldavis123

If they push the second WC one rent are going to go thru the roof due to sell ups.

I rang my mate who is a landlord and he says it's the best news he has had all year. The last set of regs made him and absolute fortune.

Bushmanpm

So if landlords pay PRSI on rent income, can the property claim the dole when its unoccupied?
A daft question I know but does it not highlight the daft taxes charged to landlords?
Sorry for deviation of the thread!

The_Conductor

Bushmanpm wrote: »

So if landlords pay PRSI on rent income, can the property claim the dole when its unoccupied?
A daft question I know but does it not highlight the daft taxes charged to landlords?
Sorry for deviation of the thread!

Does a property which is occuppied by a tenant who has decided to stop paying rent- count as 'unemployed'?

Yes- PRSI is a bit nuts- its simply another tax, yet arguably, these days- it also means as good as nothing for a PAYE employee either.

stateofflux

This is exactly what Ireland needs in the middle of a massive supply shortage

The_Conductor

stateofflux wrote: »

This is exactly what Ireland needs in the middle of a massive supply shortage

Perhaps Mr. Coveney thought that getting a few tens of thousands of units out of the rental market and onto the second hand market would moderate price rises for second hand property? Don't know- perhaps I'm giving him too much credit.............

One way or the other- tightening regulation of the market- is not a good way to try and increase supply.......

ED E

Successive ministers burying their head in the sand as to the supply issues.

BryanF

pauldavis123 wrote: »

If they push the second WC one rent are going to go thru the roof due to sell ups.

I rang my mate who is a landlord and he says it's the best news he has had all year. The last set of regs made him and absolute fortune.

Can we put this to bed. 1 bathroom with toilet,sink bath/shower, in a 'separate' room.

pauldavis123

BryanF wrote: »

Can we put this to bed. 1 bathroom with toilet,sink bath/shower, in a 'separate' room.

OK fair enough, the post above does not say that thought!

7. A tenant is entitled to both a formal bathroom with a fixed bath or shower present- and a second, separate, toilet room with a hand basin.

Samuel T. Cogley

Conductor and Denny especially - but also a general thanks. I'm willing to admit I'm one LL who gets kept up to date by the efforts of people in this forum.

Fire blankets - pretty sure that was already a requirement, I remember putting one in a couple of years back. Must service the extinguisher!

LionelNashe

GGTrek wrote: »

........

We need people with skin in the housing/landlordling business (and I am not talking about the dysfunctional organization called Threshold) to be consulted and their opinions reflected before any other legislation is passed by the jokers at the Oireachtas............

A lot of TDs are landlords. The story below is from this year, but it has been reported in the press in previous years also.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fine-gael-heads-the-landlord-list-as-tds-cash-in-with-property-cwn5j9sv3

"One in four TDs is a landlord, the latest Dail register of interests has revealed. Of 158 deputies, 42 (26.5%) have declared themselves as landlords, with Fine Gael having the highest proportion — 18 of its 50 TDs (36%) have an income from renting out property or land."

mel123

Realistically how will this be enforced? It would be up to the tenant to report the LL is my guess? And at the moment with the crisis we are in I doubt many will

I'm not a LL myself, but my god who would want to be at the moment. I'm all for safety and all that but it's just one knock after another for LL's

If we seriously want to move to a rental economy, the renting of unfurnished accommodation must be encouraged. This legislation seems to do the opposite.
Long term renters are better off in unfurnished acommodation as they can use their own fiurniture and have no hassles if it gets damaged or if they want to change it etc. This is the norm in other juristictions and also suits the landlords too, and should lead to lower rents. They don't have to bother with minor things like wear and tear of appliances or toasters burning out etc.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

If we seriously want to move to a rental economy, the renting of unfurnished accommodation must be encouraged. This legislation seems to do the opposite.
Long term renters are better off in unfurnished acommodation as they can use their own fiurniture and have no hassles if it gets damaged or if they want to change it etc. This is the norm in other juristictions and also suits the landlords too, and should lead to lower rents. They don't have to bother with minor things like wear and tear of appliances or toasters burning out etc.

+1

It also encourages a flourishing trade in second hand furniture- most small villages in Rural France/Spain/Portugal have show rooms of second hand furniture- some lovely stuff there.

lcwill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Conductor and Denny especially - but also a general thanks. I'm willing to admit I'm one LL who gets kept up to date by the efforts of people in this forum.

Fire blankets - pretty sure that was already a requirement, I remember putting one in a couple of years back. Must service the extinguisher!

I'll second the general thanks! I have been worried about the fire issues and recently asked my agent to organise a check up of my apartments to make sure they are all in line with the requirements.

I would actually be wiling to pay someone to do an annual or biennial check up of my apartments to confirm I am in line with all regulations. I am a long distance landlord so its hard to do myself and I would like ask a third party to do it rather than my agent. If someone can sort out the liability insurance required to sign off on something like that it could be a handy business. Unless Government starts offering to do it for me

GGTrek

LionelNashe wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

........

We need people with skin in the housing/landlordling business (and I am not talking about the dysfunctional organization called Threshold) to be consulted and their opinions reflected before any other legislation is passed by the jokers at the Oireachtas............

A lot of TDs are landlords. The story below is from this year, but it has been reported in the press in previous years also.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fine-gael-heads-the-landlord-list-as-tds-cash-in-with-property-cwn5j9sv3

"One in four TDs is a landlord, the latest Dail register of interests has revealed. Of 158 deputies, 42 (26.5%) have declared themselves as landlords, with Fine Gael having the highest proportion — 18 of its 50 TDs (36%) have an income from renting out property or land."

Just add the word hypocrites in front of jokers then.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Have a read of the SI- I'm scratching my head over several sections/articles in it.........

Under no circumstances could reg 5 be read as meaning the toilet and bath/shower had to be in separate rooms to each other. 5(2) makes it clear that the facilities of a toilet and bath/shower Must be in a room separated from the other rooms by a wall etc. If anything it presupposes that they are in a single room rather than separate rooms.

pauldavis123

Actual wording:

Sanitary Facilities

5. (1) There shall be provided within the same habitable area of the house,
for the exclusive use of the house:

(a) A water closet, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with
a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply
of hot water, and
(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a
facility for the piped supply of hot water.

(2) The requirements of Regulation 5(1) shall:

(i) be maintained in a safe condition and good working order,
(ii) have safe and effective means of drainage,
(iii) be properly insulated,
(iv) have minimum capacity requirements for hot and cold water storage
facilities, and
(v) be provided in a room separated from other rooms by a wall and
a door and containing separate ventilation.

The_Conductor

Ok- what the hell is the difference between a WC, a bathroom, a toilet, lavatory facilities, closet etc..........

Anywhere I've lived (Germany/France/Spain/Portugal) a WC explicitly meant toilet facilities and 100% definitely no bath/tub or shower. A bathroom- on the other hand- has a bath/tub or shower- and normally, but not always, toilet facilities.

I think someone was trying to be too smart with their use of terminology here.

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ok- what the hell is the difference between a WC, a bathroom, a toilet, lavatory facilities, closet etc..........

Anywhere I've lived (Germany/France/Spain/Portugal) a WC explicitly meant toilet facilities and 100% definitely no bath/tub or shower. A bathroom- on the other hand- has a bath/tub or shower- and normally, but not always, toilet facilities.

I think someone was trying to be too smart with their use of terminology here.

Agreed it's ambiguous (I think water closet in this instance just means the toilet itself otherwise you'd have to read it as the sink being beside the room containing the toilet), but reading 5.1 and 5.2 together shows it can be in the same room.

Bushmanpm

The_Conductor wrote:

I think someone was trying to be too smart with their use of terminology here.

Are they pulling our chain?


*get coat ;-)