Room To Defraud.
I think for starters that the show has not caused much of a stir bar among a few.
It's an entertainment, if somebody cods themselves that because x got a grant then y and they should too in a situation which is so variable and site specific, then maybe they shouldn't be embarking on the grant route.
I could'nt care less where they got their own money from. But as Dermot Bannon said a few weeks ago, this seasons shows are all about the grants. So many people around the country are thinking of upgrading heating or insulation or maybe doing a small renovation or even getting an old cottage or house and doing it up.
The show is not transparent, far from it. I would say it is even murkier than trying to find what Tubs was paid by RTE. A school teacher and a business owner that can afford to blow approx 700k ( between the house cost of 303k and building of the "new-build" as the q.s. called it ) getting an extra 100k of grants in order to build a better Bannon glass box extension is not aging well. And not just that, most people inc neighbours are of the opinion the house was not vacant for the 2 years?
why shouldn't they get the grant, its not means tested nor should it be, to be honest its their taxes being used to fund it, stop being bitter that people did well for themselves
Or an inheritance they may not want to mention or mammy daddy money.
So many reasons the financials are fudged or made up.
My sister is currently in the UAE and if they said it I think we'd have picked up on it.
Personally I think there a hard working young couple and they may have a bit extra than some and that's life.
If they did that of course.
The couples don't edit the show. We have no clue what really goes on in the build.
All we really know from the show is that DB didn't seem to have much of an understanding of the grants, yet despite that, it didn't stop him from factoring the grants in.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. 30 seconds googling would show the couple what the Vacant and Derelict House grant was for. If they lied in order to get grants - and a bigger and fancier glass box extension - that is inexcusable.
What backlash? A load of whingers online moaning and saying "its not fair its not fair". I dont think Bannon will be in front the Oireachtas any time soon.
--
People saying they didnt do this and they didnt do that and its fraud this and fraud that. How do you know? You are aware that this is a TV show and there is a lot of clever editing in place, yeah? Maybe this all was explained but they didnt show it, cos it would be pretty boring for us to see DB explain step by step how to apply for a grant and how to get one. This isnt a youtube tutorial, its a TV show in a prime time slot. These people getting grants are not what stop you getting grants or stopping you from getting on the housing ladder. Thats a government issue. A bit of perspective here folks.
I'll go out on a limb here and say these grants are going to be a feature of every episode from here on in. So if its gonna annoy you, dont watch it.
My missus thought she heard the couple say they had worked abroad in Dubai for a few years and they had saved up money.
Anyone else hear that on the episode ?
If an episode of RTI is making people that angry then those people should take a step back imo.
We haven't a clue about the couples real financial situation.
Some people seem to think that the budget is all that the couple should or do have. It would be very foolish if your budget was indeed all the money you had to play with, with DB around.
There could be inheritances, land to be sold etc. etc. sitting outside of budgets.
I am very fortunate not to have any inheritance yet and I wouldn't dream of spending the money the couple did on their home... but that's their own business. And it's their own business not to disclose if they're sitting on loads of money.
Colm Ó Mongáin is presenting the LiveLine today. He wants to talk about Sunday's RTI lady of the house having a miscarriage! In itself, this is extortionary intrusive into a persons private live.
The cynic in me says it has come from RTE Senior Management, to deflect questions on the Grants issue.
It'll be interesting to see what comes of all this but I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised to see a few of the owners coming out in the near futures to say they didn't get the grants that DB had informed them of / led them to believe they would get.
The way this show is edited can be very different from reality. I know that for certain, as I know of one couple who had an absolute nightmare and a lengthy legal battle coming from one of the episodes.... and you wouldn't have had a clue while watching it.
I would certainly hold off on any anger at either of the couples so far this season. The grant talk is all on the side of DB / RTI. And it seems that some of it was very poor / reckless advice.
This episode seems to be a huge error with the apparent backlash. A principal and a business owner that can afford to blow at least 500k getting an extra 100k of grants is not aging well.
Yeah but a school principal could be trustworthy.
If I was someone who was refused grants under either scheme I would refer the authorities to this episode of RTI and ask them to explain how this house qualified.
So it seems all they had to do to qualify was get an affidavit signed by a solicitor or commissioner of Oath and say on telly that they are not living there!
…….
it wasn’t vacant for 2 years anyway.
Didn't hear the whole promo piece but Liveline is covering something about the show today. Not sure what.
They should investigate this grant and ask them to see the bills. That will prove that someone has been living there and that it was fraud.
I’m an Engineer as well but haven’t worked in housing for a while, Time to go back into it if that’s the case. That is absolutely insane. I’d actually have to see it to believe it to be honest.
any idea what in particular they had questions about?
Do not forget mortgage lending rules : mortgage lenders can step outside the usual rules to assign 15% of mortgages up to 4.5 times the applicant's income. In general though, since January 2023, borrowers can avail of mortgages at four times their salary.
Teachers ( like in the last two episodes ) get increments every year and being a government job it is a very secure career, so they are more suitable than most for the 4.5 times salary rate. Some teachers also suppliment their income through summer jobs, grinds etc.
Another common theme is that they are often teachers - on both programmes this year and on the previous one in Wicklow etc.
My brother got a house built and he said the architect (not Dermot Bannon) charged so much for initial design, then another few % for developed drawings and getting planning, then more for technical design and preparing specifications for builders to tender and then so much for inspecting during the build and ensuring compliance etc. And finally snagging I suppose. You said the architect you heard of charges 12% : I assume that is inc vat, so 9.75% ex vat? As an engineer involved in house building, do you see engineers providing those services for less? I know on Room to Improve Dermots fees are paid by the tv company, but just curious.
I'm an Engineer involved in house building and a client recently told me he was quoted 12 percent of project cost by an architect to cover design, planning and construction stage which included Engineers fee as well.
This was on a 450k build. So 54k..... and they wonder why only a tiny portion of house builders actually use an architect.
That's more or less what I said.
Can you send me RTE link for his fee I don't see it.
If you go on RTI his fee is paid by the production company. If you book him yourself, you pay.
You might want to question the source of your 'good authority'. As has been mentioned the client's get free architectural services from DB.
Whether RTE pays him for fronting the show is a different matter. Having his name publicised every sunday night should be enough I'd imagine.
DB's fees are free for the people who appear on RTI, so the structure is irrelevant.
Most architects will fixed price the work; if costs rack up as the clients want a new en-suite or a bigger extension then its fair enough if the architect looks for more money.
From experience its almost impossible to not go over budget on a house renovation, the estimates included in the tender are for the cheapest fittings and fixtures; e.g. white plasic sockets and if the Home Owners want to upgrade to chrome sockets it costs extra. The quote we received for the splashback in the kitchen was a joke - there were literally no splashbacks for that price.
I'd argue its a very strange fee structure where the architect gets a higher fee because costs of materials increased during the build. That makes no sense. Same design, no changes to drawings, but architect gets more because of something completely outside of his and the clients control.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/761dc761e98b4e4a2ae41c6abf8a928b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/04cbf1b64e8b0e561c543c5b1091ba30.svg)
