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.
Sinn Féin will probably achieve that ok. 10% renting and 10% homeless.
They must understand the stupidity of their proposals?
I'd agree with a 3rd Party holding deposits; would want to be better managed than RTB however.want the RTB holding deposits
I'd agree with a 3rd Party holding deposits; would want to be better managed than RTB however.
Its done in lots of other jurisdictions; can't be that hard to do if there was a willingness to do it.The bureaucracy and the disputes would be shocking.
It’s just an escrow account with a bank.Its done in lots of other jurisdictions
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.I'd agree with a 3rd Party holding deposits; would want to be better managed than RTB however.
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.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.
1. They need to get elected first, which isn't looking great for them at the momentSinn Féin says it will introduce NCT-style inspection system for landlords if in government
https://jrnl.ie/6464835
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.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.
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.SF forgetting that there are already inspections.
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.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.
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.unregistered properties are not inspected
Two (or even 3) things:tenant claims their renters' tax credit
The RTB database as currently constituted is in such a mess that this is currently impossible.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?