More costs for landlords suggested

handlemaster

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/calls-for-rental-properties-to-be-certified-fit-for-purpose-before-being-let-36285971.html

The short of it threshold have had an brain storm and come up with a idea how landlords can pay extra fees. They want landlords to pay to have a certificate before renting a property.

Would like to see what their suggestion for non paying tenants should be. I will hold my breath

Gatling

Seems pretty reasonable ,

elperello

What about a certificate for renters?

GGTrek

handlemaster wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/calls-for-rental-properties-to-be-certified-fit-for-purpose-before-being-let-36285971.html

The short of it threshold have had an brain storm and come up with a idea how landlords can pay extra fees. They want landlords to pay to have a certificate before renting a property.

Would like to see what their suggestion for non paying tenants should be. I will hold my breath

Let's all guess what this half brained idea coming from the smart .... at Threshold will cause.

Wait! Maybe a further reduction of available accommodation for rent and the cost of the certification passed onto the tenants. Such great ideas always coming from the best of places!

ednwireland

i'd love to know how many of the tenants in the prime time inestigation were PRTB registered (my assumption - none) hence they would just carry on without a certificate and honest landlords would be lumbered with another cost and more decent landlords will get out.

love they way ireland thinks new rules fixes everything, enforce the existing rules and you would solve a lot of problems

+1 on where are thresholds suggestions on non paying tenants

Gumbo

Gatling wrote: »

Seems pretty reasonable ,

It will also be reasonable that any renters turning up at my door with a certificate also.

BS suggestion by threshold who have openly told tenants to real the law in the past.

TooObvious

Surely anybody letting a property is ensuring that it already meets the legislative standard (July 2017) for residential lettings before they allow a new tenant to enter? Thus being fit for purpose.

I'm pretty sure that any such certificates would still only be obtained by the good landlords while the likes of those on Prime Time continue to take advantage of the vulnerable.

Gatling

kceire wrote: »

It will also be reasonable that any renters turning up at my door with a certificate also.

BS suggestion by threshold who have openly told tenants to real the law in the past.

Certificate of what exactly

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

kceire wrote: »

It will also be reasonable that any renters turning up at my door with a certificate also.

BS suggestion by threshold who have openly told tenants to real the law in the past.

elperello wrote: »

What about a certificate for renters?

In a way there already is. The "2/3/4 references" required, payment history and all the other hoops tenants have to jump through.

That being said, I do think this certificate is completely useless. It's an attempt to get the misbehaving landlords to mend their way but ffs, they're not doing it now so why would a compulsory certificate suddenly get them to start

Perhaps what should be done is to do random spot checks on landlords to make sure their properties are up to scratch and if not severely punish them.

TooObvious

Funnily enough, I actually had the dubious pleasure of dealing with 2 of the individuals mentioned on the show. One of them told me that he had, if memory serves me correct, about 40 properties where he was sub-letting to foreign nationals. He felt he was providing a service...

Gumbo

Gatling wrote: »

Certificate of what exactly

That’s they are fit to pay and fit to look after the property to a reasonable standard. Pretty much the same as the landlords requirements except reveresed to ensure adequate tenants get adequate properties.

It’s a two way street.

Del2005

Since the BER certificate for energy is already a farce of an inspection which the landlord already has to pay I can see this being another money making scam.

How many of the tenants renting in the program asked for the BER certificate? If they don't know about that, or the other legislation for rentals, how will they know that they need another certificate?

As said another idea to penalise the honest landlord, while continuing to ignore the cowboys who will still be letting slums.

charlie14

I really do not see what the problem would be for landlords operating within the law.
A certificate of a rental property being fit for purpose would include certification from the fire service as well I imagine. That alone would do away with the ridiculous carry on we saw last night with fire traps waiting to happen.
No certificate and the fire services could then close the property until it is in compliance..
Similar to health inspectors now regarding food safety.

Gumbo

For flats maybe but the fire service have no legislative power to inspect single dwellings (houses).

charlie14

Daxton Lively Sky wrote: »

In a way there already is. The "2/3/4 references" required, payment history and all the other hoops tenants have to jump through.

That being said, I do think this certificate is completely useless. It's an attempt to get the misbehaving landlords to mend their way but ffs, they're not doing it now so why would a compulsory certificate suddenly get them to start

Perhaps what should be done is to do random spot checks on landlords to make sure their properties are up to scratch and if not severely punish them.

From last nights program other than the fire brigade the local authority didn`t appear to be either to bothered, or didn`t have the resources to do random spot checks with only 4% of properties being inspected.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

From last nights program other than the fire brigade the local authority didn`t appear to be either to bothered, or didn`t have the resources to do random spot checks with only 4% of properties being inspected.

+1

As I said in another thread, the council in dublin only have at most 10 inspectors for this section. And they also inspect noise, dust and dumping complaints. They need more resources.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

For flats maybe but the fire service have no legislative power to inspect single dwellings (houses).

If a certificate of a property being fit for purpose was required for rental purposes, then I imagine fire safety compliance would be a requirement, and legislation drafted to cover that.

__..__

GGTrek wrote: »

Let's all guess what this half brained idea coming from the smart .... at Threshold will cause.

Wait! Maybe a further reduction of available accommodation for rent and the cost of the certification passed onto the tenants. Such great ideas always coming from the best of places!

How would you pass the cost onto the tenant with rent controls?
Just another hand in the pocket of the landlord.

Gumbo

charlie14 wrote: »

If a certificate of a property being fit for purpose was required for rental purposes, then I imagine fire safety compliance would be a requirement, and legislation drafted to cover that.

DFB are so back logged at present that fire safety certs are being delayed by months on some projects. They are severely under staffed also. They wouldn’t have the resources to start vetting private residential dwellings with legislative change and staff recruited.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

+1

As I said in another thread, the council in dublin only have at most 10 inspectors for this section. And they also inspect noise, dust and dumping complaints. They need more resources.

Either that or have fit for purpose certification operated by Health and Safety.
That afair was the major growth sector this year and with how the food and construction sector are inspected up the yazoo, there doesn`t seem to be a shortage

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

How would you pass the cost onto the tenant with rent controls?
Just another hand in the pocket of the landlord.

Isn`t there a rent review every 12 months with a maximum 4% allowed in controlled areas ?
A certificate of compliance every 3 years could be factored into that could it not ?

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Isn`t there a rent review every 12 months with a maximum 4% allowed in controlled areas ?
A certificate of compliance every 3 years could be factored into that could it not ?

4% won't cover all increasing costs never mind new charges not yet even thought of. Sure most landlords are losing money already. And then there is the huge risk of a tenant just stopping paying rent. It's impossible to make property investment pay now as it is.

charlie14

kceire wrote: »

DFB are so back logged at present that fire safety certs are being delayed by months on some projects. They are severely under staffed also. They wouldn’t have the resources to start vetting private residential dwellings with legislative change and staff recruited.

They possibly are, but from what we saw last night they were the only service to respond to requests, and even then had to go through the courts in an effort to get compliance.
Legislating for a fit to purpose certificate would at least stop that waste of their time.
Because of Health and Safety legislation they can close down a food outlet instantly until there is compliance without going to court

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

They possibly are, but from what we saw last night they were the only service to respond to requests, and even then had to go through the courts in an effort to get compliance.
Legislating for a fit to purpose certificate would at least stop that waste of their time.
Because of Health and Safety legislation they can close down a food outlet instantly until there is compliance without going to court

I could easily locate and inspect 10 of those places a day by myself. They are quite easy to find if you look in rhe right places and talk to the right people.
There is no excuse for not finding them shutting then down. There is no need for certificates. DCC should just do its job.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

4% won't cover all increasing costs never mind new charges not yet even thought of. Sure most landlords are losing money already. And then there is the huge risk of a tenant just stopping paying rent. It's impossible to make property investment pay now as it is.

With a chronic shortage of rental properties and with rents going through the roof requiring the state to impose rent controls,with property prices rising by multiples of inflation, as an argument against a certificate fit for purpose I`m afraid that may be a bit of a hard sell.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

With a chronic shortage of rental properties and with rents going through the roof requiring the state to impose rent controls,with property prices rising by multiples of inflation, as an argument against a certificate fit for purpose I`m afraid that may be a bit of a hard sell.

Well that's why landlords are getting out of the business now. And make no mistake they are getting out and these guys are going to be what you are left with. Along with fewer properties to rent .

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

I could easily locate and inspect 10 of those places a day by myself. They are quite easy to find if you look in rhe right places and talk to the right people.
There is no excuse for not finding them shutting then down. There is no need for certificates. DCC should just do its job.

Quite possibly, but from what we saw last night DCC do not seem to have the will or the resources to do so, or the fire services the power to shut them down without going to the courts.
In which case imo their should either be a certificate of fit for purpose where lack of such would result in them being shut down instantly, or inspections under Health and Safety where the same rules as the food industry or building apply. Shut down instantly until their is compliance to the satisfaction of the inspector.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

Well that's why landlords are getting out of the business now. And make no mistake they are getting out and these guys are going to be what you are left with. Along with fewer properties to rent .

If they require a certificate of fit for purpose for any property they are hoping to rent and stiff penalties for operating without one, then I don`t see how they would be left to operate for long.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Quite possibly, but from what we saw last night DCC do not seem to have the will or the resources to do so, or the fire services the power to shut them down without going to the courts.
In which case imo their should either be a certificate of fit for purpose where lack of such would result in them being shut down instantly, or inspections under Health and Safety where the same rules as the food industry or building apply. Shut down instantly until their is compliance to the satisfaction of the inspector.

The reason they don't want to do it is that they will have to push 64 people from one of those houses out. Those 64 people all coming into the market from just one house and then being homeless when they can't get a place, never mind heaps of them from lots of houses. The govt don't want that

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

If they require a certificate of fit for purpose for any property they are hoping to rent and stiff penalties for operating without one, then I don`t see how they would be left to operate for long.

Yep. Heap more costs and red tape onto the good landlords and watch the rest of them flee. What will you be left with?

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

The reason they don't want to do it is that they will have to push 64 people from one of those houses out. Those 64 people all coming into the market from just one house and then being homeless when they can't get a place, never mind heaps of them from lots of houses. The govt don't want that

I have no doubt up until last night the government felt that way, they are now left with no options.
They are a minority government and the opposition are all over this like a rash.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

Yep. Heap more costs and red tape onto the good landlords and watch the rest of them flee. What will you be left with?

Rental properties that are fit for purpose I would imagine.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no doubt up until last night the government felt that way, they are now left with no options.
They are a minority government and the opposition are all over this like a rash.

Ha ha. Are we talking about the same government here?

Del2005

charlie14 wrote: »

I really do not see what the problem would be for landlords operating within the law.
A certificate of a rental property being fit for purpose would include certification from the fire service as well I imagine. That alone would do away with the ridiculous carry on we saw last night with fire traps waiting to happen.
No certificate and the fire services could then close the property until it is in compliance..
Similar to health inspectors now regarding food safety.

I doubt that many of the apartment complexes built during the boom could be certified safe. The original fire fighting plan for an apartment fire was to contact the residents and tell them to bunker down, now they get everyone out and that was before Grenfell. So a huge amount of rental property would be removed from the system. While the landlords not complying with current legislation will continue to make money.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Rental properties that are fit for purpose I would imagine.

That's very naive.
I bet before your saw primetime you thought everyone was following the rules too.

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

That's very naive.
I bet before your saw primetime you thought everyone was following the rules too.

Not at all. This is Ireland. Nothing is ever done until there is a scandal.
Normally governments just hunker down and wait it out.
This government because of the numbers do not have that luxury though.

__..__

charlie14 wrote: »

Not at all. This is Ireland. Nothing is ever done until there is a scandal.
Normally governments just hunker down and wait it out.
This government because of the numbers do not have that luxury though.

Well good luck with that then.
And good luck with the next government too.

charlie14

Del2005 wrote: »

I doubt that many of the apartment complexes built during the boom could be certified safe. The original fire fighting plan for an apartment fire was to contact the residents and tell them to bunker down, now they get everyone out and that was before Grenfell. So a huge amount of rental property would be removed from the system. While the landlords not complying with current legislation will continue to make money.

If a rental property does not comply with fire safety regulations than I cannot see why they should not be removed from the system.
Watching last night the Stardust tragedy crossed my mind as and I imagine it did a few politicians with responsibility in that area.

As I said earlier, if a certificate of fit for purpose was a rental requirement, and stiff penalties for any landlord operating without one, then those not complying I would not see surviving long.

wordofwarning

Gatling wrote: »

Seems pretty reasonable ,

Nah, it will be another piece of paper from this nanny state who feels the need to regulate absolutely everything, as plenty of people are incapable of looking after themselves.

If I get a cert saying my property is fit for use. Explain to me what is stopping me sticking 40 beds in a Georgian house? Nothing. Does a piece of paper saying it for fit for purpose a month ago prevent that? No

What people be living in those properties if there was a massive amount of cheap and good quality housing available? No. So is a piece of paper or more housing solve the issue?

charlie14

__..__ wrote: »

Well good luck with that then.
And good luck with the next government too.

Ignoring what last night highlighted and hoping nothing will be done is head in the sand stuff imo.
If the landlords complying with regulations want to prevent something similar to a certificate of fit for purpose, then just attacking it is not going to work.
They need to work with regulators to get the cowboys out of the market.

charlie14

wordofwarning wrote: »

Nah, it will be another piece of paper from this nanny state who feels the need to regulate absolutely everything, as plenty of people are incapable of looking after themselves.

If I get a cert saying my property is fit for use. Explain to me what is stopping me sticking 40 beds in a Georgian house? Nothing. Does a piece of paper saying it for fit for purpose a month ago prevent that? No

What people be living in those properties if there was a massive amount of cheap and good quality housing available? No. So is a piece of paper or more housing solve the issue?

Because it would not then be in compliance with the certificate that was issued for property ?

Graham

charlie14 wrote: »

If the landlords complying with regulations want to prevent something similar to a certificate of fit for purpose, then just attacking it is not going to work.
They need to work with regulators to get the cowboys out of the market.

So you're saying the landlords that are working within the law should be doing more to catch the cowboys?

Sleeper12

Self regulated certification won't solve much

Sleeper12

elperello wrote:

What about a certificate for renters?

I'd love to see both tbh. There are as many bad landlords as there are bad tenants. Both should be monitored closely. I'd love to be able to see landlords ratings on rtb site as much as id love to see tenant being rated. Full disclosure

The Student

There is enough regulation already. All issues relating to this issue should be directed to those responsible for monitoring it ie the State.

Sleeper12

kceire wrote:

For flats maybe but the fire service have no legislative power to inspect single dwellings (houses).

They do if there are 50 living in a three bed house. Fire officer can inspect any property

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

So you're saying the landlords that are working within the law should be doing more to catch the cowboys?

From this thread I`m assuming that any landlords posting here are operating within the law but they seem to have a problem with a certification of fit for purpose for rental properties.

What I am saying is that at present the only proposal to deal with the cowboys is a certificate of fit for purpose.
If landlords working within the law do not agree with that then they will have to come up with their own proposal, because looking to maintain the status quo is not going to do it.

The Student

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They do if there are 50 living in a three bed house. Fire officer can inspect any property

The councils have the power to inspect privately rented dwellings to ensure they meet min standards. What annoys me about these programmes is the fact they tar all landlords as bad. There are good genuine landlords out there who are never mentioned.

The Student

charlie14 wrote: »

From this thread I`m assuming that any landlords posting here are operating within the law but they seem to have a problem with a certification of fit for purpose for rental properties.

What I am saying is that at present the only proposal to deal with the cowboys is a certificate of fit for purpose.
If landlords working within the law do not agree with that then they will have to come up with their own proposal, because looking to maintain the status quo is not going to do it.

Why is it up to decent landlords to police the system. Its bad enough we cant compete in a free market now we are expected to police it as well. Why should landlords help the State when all it does is make it almost impossible to be a landlord. If the State treated landlords a bit better maybe we would help.

Sleeper12

The Student wrote:

The councils have the power to inspect privately rented dwellings to ensure they meet min standards. What annoys me about these programmes is the fact they tar all landlords as bad. There are good genuine landlords out there who are never mentioned.

I totally get you. I see slum landlords on a weekly basis as I also see bad tenants.

Id love to see a register of both.

For the most part the standard of accommodation needs approving. I've read on so many threads here that the tenant inspected the property first and agreed to rent it. Just because the tenant has no where else to go doesn't mean that the property is acceptable.

There are great properties out there and tons of bad properties