Shed to let out back garden!!

First of the are plenty of people forced to rent subpar properties through financial circumstances. From a health and safety perspective this needs to be addressed as do the landlords who are exploiting their situations the prtb deals with cases of that nature regularly;
Secondly I fail to see what a joke regarding prostitution has to do with the argument, highly offensive and divisive in my opinion.
If Joking about further exploitation seems to be your best argument then you have already lost

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Nobody has to rent it if they don't want to.

What's the purpose of this thread? To get likes and groupthink outrage?

Op, what reaction are you looking for? It reminds me of that old joke about the guy who asks a woman of he'd sleep with her for a million, she says yes, then he asks her if she's do the same for one hundred.

She's outraged and asks him what does think she is, to wit he replies, we already know, we're just haggling.

If you put that "shed" out in the middle of some nice scenery, no one would complain about the price of rent.

Yet, if you put it in a commutable distance for a city, convenient to work, it becomes an abomination.

My guess... Op loves outrage

DraftDodger wrote: »

What a thick to advertise it online. This sort of rental you just do by word of mouth. That's the going rate for a log cabin/small garden dwelling in Dublin per month at the moment anyway in fact i know of a neighbour of mine who has a slightly larger than this one in Mount Merrion renting for 1250 per month to a couple.

Whatever about Donaghmede there is no excuse for it in Mount Merrion, the suburb which refused a halting site.

DraftDodger wrote: »

What a thick to advertise it online. This sort of rental you just do by word of mouth. That's the going rate for a log cabin/small garden dwelling in Dublin per month at the moment anyway in fact i know of a neighbour of mine who has a slightly larger than this one in Mount Merrion renting for 1250 per month to a couple.

If you can get someone in that way , wouldn't say it's that easy unless you know them . What's stopping the tenant who rents out the property not reporting it to Dublin city council?

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I don't care about your political leanings.
People eat the same food no matter how many are in a household. More rings do not mean greater quantities are produced but a greater variety is possible. A person who lives alone should not be obliged to live as if they were on a permanent camping trip.

if you think that's the biggest problem with that place then you should view some properties, plenty in a significantly worse condition. If youre so outraged, what are you doing about the housing crisis? anything constructive? or just give out. Its fairly poor that it has come to sheds as living spaces, but when you think about it, the councils signed off a raft of poorly constructed so called habitable living spaces, priory hall being one, Id be inclined to think following up complaints or refusing permission to have log cabins as living spaces is hypocritical, imo they shouldnt exist, but maybe allowable as temporary structures for adult children until theres an improvement in housing, otherwise where are people to live?? ubfortunately temporary things seem to have a habit of becoming Permanant in this country.

1874 wrote: »

if you think that's the biggest problem with that place then you should view some properties, plenty in a significantly worse condition. If youre so outraged, what are you doing about the housing crisis? anything constructive? or just give out. Its fairly poor that it has come to sheds as living spaces, but when you think about it, the councils signed off a raft of poorly constructed so called habitable living spaces, priory hall being one, Id be inclined to think following up complaints or refusing permission to have log cabins as living spaces is hypocritical, imo they shouldnt exist, but maybe allowable as temporary structures for adult children until theres an improvement in housing, otherwise where are people to live?? ubfortunately temporary things seem to have a habit of becoming Permanant in this country.

If I think? Deal with reality please. If there is a serious problem then you shouldn't be getting your knickers in a twist about the regulation mandating a 4 ring hob. The council did not sign off on Priory Hall. Priory Hall was built under the self-certification system which removed councils from their role of supervising building. Since the 1870s attempts have been made to improve the housing stock and allowing this kind of substandard rubbish to proliferate no matter what the excuse, is undoing all of that work. People shouldn't be having children if they have to accommodate them in sheds in their back gardens.

cnocbui wrote: »

Much better to have someone living in a cardboard box on the street and get on the social housing list than have someone not adhere to planning laws. This kind of thing needs to be stamped out quickly, otherwise who knows where it could end.

Probably would lead to lower rent prices with more supply. Sure have some basic standards but a lot of them are ridiculous and a lot of homeowners wouldn't pass them.

Take for example the legal inability to put a proper socket in a bathroom here. Standard practice in the rest of Europe and with proper wiring it's a non issue in terms of health and safety.

On the hob issue, I've lived with a two hob set up and even Christmas Dinner was fine with a bit of juggling and utilising the oven.

Laura2021 wrote: »

If you can get someone in that way , wouldn't say it's that easy unless you know them . What's stopping the tenant who rents out the property not reporting it to Dublin city council?

Why would they report it to Dublin City Council? It is in Dun Laoghaire. Dublin City Council have nothing to do with it.

1874 wrote: »

with all your excuses you are making on behalf of councils, Im beginning to think you work for one.
Self sign off was permitted by a council, how can housing stock be improved when they allowed that and many other new building projects use self sign off??
and then saying, deal with realit but expect people put their life on hold and not have children because the state may have so badly prepared or mismanaged resources that there might not be somewhere for them tk live in 18-25 years, are you listening to yourself, you sound like an apologist, let them eat cake attitude.

The councils are a part of the problem and share the blame for these situations existing, because if adequete and appropriate housing stock existed, this wouldnt exist, at least not to the extent it sounds like it's going on now.
you sound like an idealist apologist, unless we live in a utopia, dont have kids? great, but then do have kids, beause we need them to pay our pensions. I get the feeling some vocal opinions are from people who are comfortable, in a state job and doing sweet f all about fixing the problems, champagne socialist types, do as I say, not as I do types.

Self sign off was not permitted by the councils. The councils had no choice in the matter. Self regulation was imposed by central government. You should get out in the world more.

DraftDodger wrote: »

True which is why word of mouth is best. I know this is a professional couple and are doing it for a couple of years so they can scrape together enough for the mortgage deposit. Cash payments at the start of the month etc..

Yeah I cant see people reporting them as would have to leave and pay much higher rent. I have seen tenants on boards complaining about there landlord wants cash payments though .

What would happen if they stopped paying rent ? As it is a logcabin would be big difference on other rental propertys

Gumbo wrote: »

Local Authorities do not permit Self Certification, the Self Certification process was brought in by The Government.

The Department of Environment to be exact.

Im not going to argue with you about it, Ive no doubt thats the official line, it was a cost saving measure and the Councils have responsibility for housing and planning, the overall policy was among state organisations to have zero regulation, and it seems zero responsibility.
I dont care how they explain this one away, because one dept authorised and then supposedly, another ineffectively chased it up.
Its a sham/scam whatever way you look at it.

Gumbo wrote: »

No point arguing because your totally mixed up on how you think local authorities operate. Your blame lies with central government and the law makers. The council only enforce the regulations as created by central government.

The same way the Garda does you for speeding. He doesn’t decide that a particular road is 60 or 40 or 80.

I disagree, if I am wrong, I'll hold my hands up, although I think it's reasonable to say I'd like to see something that shows what you are saying is correct rather than just accept it at face value.
If going on the basis that its correct, it really shines a spotlight on neo-liberal policies of light touch (little to None) regulation and allowing vested interest regulate themselves can be seen to be completely wrong, the outcomes are never good,
light touch in regard to housing, which the Local Authorities ARE responsible for housing in their areas, and they have failed to deliver (granted, I have read somewhere that central funding was cut, but then the Councils need to highlight the problems or they will never be rectified).


Other examples are banking and also as mentioned construction, now it seems to me, that its counter intuitive for a local authority who deals with planning in their council area to have no insight into the buildings being constructed in that area, its astonishing, but appalling, Id say it is 3rd world levels of Bureaucracy, but that might be an insult to 3rd world countries. I reading up on some comments by an Engineer who highlighted problems re self regulation, and as with everything, if you are the person/business that does the job right, you are at a significant disadvantage from the start if someone can and will cut corners and costs, over doing the job right.


You say there is a seperation between Central Government and The Councils, but if it is blatantly wrong and potentially unsafe practices that could lead to unsafe situations (there was talk at some point priory hall might be pulled down). The cost in that is significant, not to mention the ongoing problems.
imo the Council still had a right or responsibility to intervene, to bring attention to it.
It seems in many arms/organs of the state, positions are political appointments and I think if that wasn't the case of people either who dont know or are in a cosy arrangement and dont care or want to rock the boat would be less likely to be in those positions, Civil and public service jobs, shouldnt mean a job for life, it should be essential that staff meet performance targets related to their area and if making decisions, to do so but they should be accountable and potentially sackable for those decisions. I think we'd have better people in those roles and that they'd be more likely to step forward and highlight/try put a stop to problems before they occur.


On the one hand while I dont agree with the construction as a reasonable structure for habitation, we got here because different arms/organs of the state werent capable of dealing with very basic stuff, there has to be a reason for this. Either people in positions of authority aren't fit to do the job (incompetent) or they are too cosy and unwilling to rock the boat.
You cant be in a position of power/authority/leadership and not exercise that appropriately and effectively. We Politicians in positions of leadership who wont or cant lead, and it seems based on problems related to housing, it seems we have civil and public servants not fit to be payed to do jobs in certain areas if they cant or wont make the right decisions.


The reason properties as above exist is because of light touch regulation, I think there might even be a place for temporary structures that meet certain set standards, but it is hypocritical for councils to come along and pontificate over possible breaches in stuff like this when it would be impossible for them to have not known what was being missed in large constructions in their area. You say it's central Govt, but the Councils were awash with money as much as they ever were around that time just before the crash.
The Councils themselves have had imo a very foolish policy of selling off housing stock to the private market for a very small short term gain since the 90's, basically shirking their responsibility and foisting it elsewhere, councils have since been buying back smaller quantities of property at significant multiples of what they sold their other stock for.
Where they do have property they cant even manage it, it seems to be a light touch on making some people pay a marginal amount, if those houses had their occupants evicted for non payment, that would free up spaces so people wouldnt have to need to avail of sheds for rent.


I think the Councils are still responsible, maybe its in a different way that I originally thought, but they cant shirk their responsibility or shift the blame, they are as much involved as Central Govt. That seems to be the intent of neo liberal policy, its to cut cost but where a vested interest hoovers up all the profits, it is not passed on, and quality and safety seems to have been given very little consideration.

It does even seem in fact that the councils (DCC) holds up development for other reasons in Dublin city too, because its not within keeping or the character of an area, many of which are in a dilapidated and decrepit state. None of them seem fit for purpose imo.

gctest50 wrote: »

Amazing the way people look for potential things to whimper about

Just have a hot tank and pumped shower there

Added benefit : the person renting won't have to listen to a cr@p noisy electric shower every morning

Its amazing that people think its ok to live in a shed.
Noisy shower or not.:eek: