Sinn Féin says it will introduce NCT-style inspection system for landlords

Privately rented homes currently make up about 20% of Ireland’s housing stock, but it’s Sinn Féin’s position that this should drop to about 10% in a fully functioning housing system.
Click to expand...

Sinn Féin will probably achieve that ok. 10% renting and 10% homeless.

They must understand the stupidity of their proposals?
 
That’s me out. Just gone through an RTB house inspection, tenant taped over a vent and put furniture around the boiler, inspector looks at me and I go WTF, it’s the tenant you need to direct that comment to.
Reckon it will be electrical certification next
 
SF also want the RTB holding deposits! That will be fun for tennents. The RTB record keeping needs a lot to be desired!
I can see 'Electrical PIR's as per the UK becoming a requirement. More costs to pass on to tenants, and what happened if a full rewire is required...
 
DannyBoyD said:
I'd agree with a 3rd Party holding deposits; would want to be better managed than RTB however.
Click to expand...

Brilliant idea in theory.

In practice, it would be very expensive to administer. The bureaucracy and the disputes would be shocking.

It would employ about 500 people administering it.

Brendan
 
DannyBoyD said:
I'd agree with a 3rd Party holding deposits; would want to be better managed than RTB however.
Click to expand...
We have had tennents stay for over 40 years, once the scheme is in place it will have to be staffed and money managed forever.
 
Towger said:
We have had tennents stay for over 40 years, once the scheme is in place it will have to be staffed and money managed forever.
Click to expand...
All the more reason a tenant deposit scheme is needed - an awful lot of tenants had great difficulty in getting their deposits back after being evicted by new owners after repossessions because the original owner had not passed on the deposit (for obvious reasons). It needs a certain amount of record keeping, but I would agree that RTB's competency leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps a separate agency to do nothing else except manage that fund and keep records? Would make it easier too if there was a change in landlord due to the property being sold to another landlord or inherited by family member in the event of a landlord's death.
 
Knuttell said:
Sinn Féin says it will introduce NCT-style inspection system for landlords if in government

https://jrnl.ie/6464835
Click to expand...
1. They need to get elected first, which isn't looking great for them at the moment
2. There's already an inspection scheme in place
3. What would failing the NCT scheme constitute? At present with existing scheme landlords are just directed to fix the failing point but it is not prescriptive. Remember that the NCT is a long list of specific standards. The more subjective nature of housing means that you cannot be prescriptive in the same way as you are if for example, a vehicle has higher emissions that accepted for that vehicle type
4. The NCT has different sets of vehicles for every single vehicle based on model, age and type of fuel. There is no such equivalent for homes as every house and apartment is built to its own design. You cannot standardise to the same standard
5. If they did pursue a harder standard (which is what I assume they mean by an "NCT-style system" what would happen if the landlord could not remediate the issue? Would that effectively mean SF would introduce a system that created mandatory evictions for tenants in properties in poor condition? So much for SF ending homelessness!

To put this in context, last year I had a 12 year old car that failed the NCT on emissions. I went back to the mechanic & discussed with him. He suggested it might be the head gasket & it could cost up to 1900 euro, but even then if the gasket had already blown there would be other damage which could mean replacing the engine as well. So I traded in the car. NCT works because cars are a depreciating asset that eventually is worth close to nothing at which point most owners will trade it in and scrap it. We do not scrap homes. This is a terrible idea, but entirely surprising coming from the so-called "brains" of SF, who don't have any better solutions than recent governments have had.
 
lff12 said:
1. They need to get elected first, which isn't looking great for them at the moment
2. There's already an inspection scheme in place
3. What would failing the NCT scheme constitute? At present with existing scheme landlords are just directed to fix the failing point but it is not prescriptive. Remember that the NCT is a long list of specific standards. The more subjective nature of housing means that you cannot be prescriptive in the same way as you are if for example, a vehicle has higher emissions that accepted for that vehicle type
4. The NCT has different sets of vehicles for every single vehicle based on model, age and type of fuel. There is no such equivalent for homes as every house and apartment is built to its own design. You cannot standardise to the same standard
5. If they did pursue a harder standard (which is what I assume they mean by an "NCT-style system" what would happen if the landlord could not remediate the issue? Would that effectively mean SF would introduce a system that created mandatory evictions for tenants in properties in poor condition? So much for SF ending homelessness!

To put this in context, last year I had a 12 year old car that failed the NCT on emissions. I went back to the mechanic & discussed with him. He suggested it might be the head gasket & it could cost up to 1900 euro, but even then if the gasket had already blown there would be other damage which could mean replacing the engine as well. So I traded in the car. NCT works because cars are a depreciating asset that eventually is worth close to nothing at which point most owners will trade it in and scrap it. We do not scrap homes. This is a terrible idea, but entirely surprising coming from the so-called "brains" of SF, who don't have any better solutions than recent governments have had.
Click to expand...
Analysis here is 100% correct. Private cars and houses/apartments in the PRS are completely different beasts. And as you say, if your car fails the NCT you just decide whether it is worth repairing it or whether the time has come to get a new car and off you go. Not as straightforward at all in the PRS.

This idea has been doing the round for years, I think it originated with Threshold.
 
tomdublin said:
Problem is that even the most squalid properties generally aren't closed down because there's nowhere for the occupants to move to. Landlords know this.
Click to expand...
I think that the another issue here is that the inspections only pick up properties registered with the RTB. The RTB provides the Council with the list of registered properties in the area and the Council proceeds from there. These mightn't be in tip top condition, but they won't be squalid. It is very unlikely that a landlord with a squalid property would go to the bother of RTB registration.

An NCT won't solve this issue at all - unregistered properties are not inspected so the really squalid ones aren't being picked up.

I had an inspection recently. I failed because of a small weed growing in the gutter, a wrongly positioned CO2 monitor (new rules on where to position them, the two I had in place complied with the old rules) and I should for some reason have had a charcoal as opposed to a carbon filter in the kitchen extractor fan. All minor stuff, but per the SF NCT proposal the place is unrentable!
 
Last edited:
Can we have an nct style tenant list as well?
Automatically blame the landlord for up keep and not how the tenant looks after the house. I had a tenant where black mold appeared in the kitchen and bedroom. Never had it before with previous tenants. Reason, no windows opened daily to air the house or while cooking or using the dryer. Heating on full blast and all vents blocked with socks. They blamed the house not their life style. Once left had to clean with house with mold remover air and repaint the house. Fairly new house but tenant to blame. If the council went in them would blame the landlord! New tenants went in and no issues.
 
Greenbook said:
unregistered properties are not inspected
Click to expand...
Hard to understand how some landlords get away with not registering. If a tenant claims their renters' tax credit, their address should be (is?) automatically cross-checked with the RTB data base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
tomdublin said:
tenant claims their renters' tax credit
Click to expand...
Two (or even 3) things:
Tenants need to be a) in receipt of earned income on which they are paying tax and b) in good standing with Revenue.

RT number is requested to claim credit; my understanding it was not mandatory to provide this, but I'm not sure how widely that is known.
 
tomdublin said:
Hard to understand how some landlords get away with not registering. If a tenant claims their renters' tax credit, their address should be (is?) automatically cross-checked with the RTB data base.
Click to expand...
The RTB database as currently constituted is in such a mess that this is currently impossible.

But it's funny how it's always landlords who are painted as rogues, and not the people well paid to provide a service that literally doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top