Mass Eviction at Cork Apartments

[Smaug]

Have you a link there that the building isn't up to code?

Every year the building would be checked by the Fire Marshal, it should be up to code if there are people living in it.

 

[deckie]

Have you a link there that the building isn't up to code?

Never said it wasn't up to code, I have no fawking idea, however fire regulations from 20 years ago are different and they did state that they are installing fire doors etc. My point is that if there was anything like this and there were deficiencies found in the building that the landlords would be heavily criticised also. My main point was that it is a business and as such if you don't own the property then you don't have the same rights as a property owner, simple.

 

[slick fingers]

Never said it wasn't up to code, I have no fawking idea, however fire regulations from 20 years ago are different and they did state that they are installing fire doors etc.

They said they were installing new fire doors, in other words, replacing the existing fire doors with new ones imo. This is a building that was completed in 2000 and was issued a fire cert by a fire officer.

My main point was that it is a business and as such if you don't own the property then you don't have the same rights as a property owner, simple.

my point is that a landlord shouldn't be allowed to evict a tenant so in order to enable the landlord to re-let the apartment at the current rental value, all to suit buy to let investors. This eviction notice is bull imo.

Tbh I believe landlords and tenants have equal rights

 

[TopicGrinder]

I think even this Government see that housing isn't a free market economy - that's why they introduced some rules - albeit cackhanded ones.

I think perspective in this whole debate is coloured by whether or not you think security of tenure in having a roof over your head should or should not be a right.

Some think it shouldn't be, and think neither should access to food or water be. Survival of the richest and let the devil take the hindmost.

I think people need to ask are we a society, or are we an economy.

Your last line is actually very poignant. Landlords are businesses and like all businesses they suffer from changes in incomes and outgoings. If costs needs recouping should they be forced not to recoup for the good of society? A supermarket sells a product and their costs are increased, who pays? I am trying not to be harsh in the tenants but there are risks attached to renting and these are well known as there are risks for the landlord.

 

[One]

They said they were installing new fire doors, in other words, replacing the existing fire doors with new ones imo. This is a building that was completed in 2000 and was issued a fire cert by a fire officer.



my point is that a landlord shouldn't be allowed to evict a tenant so in order to enable the landlord to re-let the apartment at the current rental value, all to suit buy to let investors. This eviction notice is bull imo.

Tbh I believe landlords and tenants have equal rights

Idle speculation m8.

The only care owed to the tenant is to serve them with adequate notice based on the length of their staying in the building which was done according to the law.


More horseshit from that populist clown Mick Barry and you swallowe dit whole.

 

[Drucker]

From the brochure used to promote the sale of the building:

"Strong potential to increase annual rental
income through refurbishment and active
asset management"


I would suggest that the purpose of the eviction notices is to refurbish the building and therefore be in a position to increase the annual rental income. I believe using words like "fire certificate" is a strategy to imply that the building may be a fire risk. I believe that if they actually were a fire risk the building would have been evacuated by now, as has happened elsewhere, when the competent authorities deem an inhabited building to be a fire risk.
I suggest that the reason behind the actions of the current owners is to exploit the opportunity to "actively manage the asset," or in other words to increase the return from the asset.

And this is all perfectly legal, but whether or not it is moral or ethical is a totally different question. I would tend to think that there are better ways to "sweat assets" without causing upset to people who are now unsure about where they will be able to live.

http://www.sherryfitz.ie/files/SAM//37081/WWW/Leeside Brochure - 17CORINV00468_1.pdf

 

[SoundMan]

From the brochure used to promote the sale of the building:

"Strong potential to increase annual rental
income through refurbishment and active
asset management"


I would suggest that the purpose of the eviction notices is to refurbish the building and therefore be in a position to increase the annual rental income. I believe using words like "fire certificate" is a strategy to imply that the building may be a fire risk. I believe that if they actually were a fire risk the building would have been evacuated by now, as has happened elsewhere, when the competent authorities deem an inhabited building to be a fire risk.
I suggest that the reason behind the actions of the current owners is to exploit the opportunity to "actively manage the asset," or in other words to increase the return from the asset.

http://www.sherryfitz.ie/files/SAM//37081/WWW/Leeside Brochure - 17CORINV00468_1.pdf

Good point. And it looks like you're dead right on the thinly veiled reason for refurbishment given their own brochure.

Of course the landlords should have rights, and bad tenants screw things up for the many, but there does need to be a more robust security of tenure imho

 

[Drucker]

Good point. And it looks like you're dead right on the thinly veiled reason for refurbishment given their own brochure.

Of course the landlords should have rights, and bad tenants screw things up for the many, but there does need to be a more robust security of tenure imho

The building cost €7.7 Million.

It is currently producing €676,000 rental per annum.

That is a return of about 9%


How much is enough?

 

[Perry_Mace_On]

You'd swear landlord outfits are charities.

 

[Drucker]

Anyway, according to the new owners, (and the sales brochure upon which they based their decision to buy the building) there are a number of refurbished vacant apartments currently in the building.

Therefore, why not do the refurbishment on a phased basis? Move the affected tenants into the vacant refurbished apartments while they complete the refurbishment, until all the work is complete.

As for the pictures of the refurbished apartments:

This is a non refurbished apartment:

And this is a refurbished apartment:

The above images are from the sales brochure produced by Lisney when they were promoting this "Asset Management Opportunity."

Now, I'm a simple man, but repainting a bedroom and moving the furniture around does not involve "refurbishment" to me.

It certainly would not require the mass evacuation of the entire building to complete.

So, the plan must be to embark on major structural refurbishment of the building. If that is the case, they may need to get planning permission from the local authority.

If they do not require planning, then the refurbishment must be relatively minor.

In that case I presume the residents can stay in situ during the refurbishment.

If however there is a real and present fire safety risk requiring the replacement of fire doors then the building should be evacuated immediately.

Or to put it another way: the purchasers should really consider engaging a different PR company to issue their statements.

But, as I said, I am a simple man, and I too believe that everyone should be free to make a profit: but there are standards in place to protect consumers and in this case I think the standards could be a bit more stringent to offer better consumer protection.

For example, if a car manufacturer could save more money and run it's business more efficiently by eliminating important safety features than I think that it should be punished.

It's not a simple "it's their building and they can do what they like with it," it's much more complex than that.

Just like a hotel cannot use the excuse of "we can do what we like" when justifying the leakage of carbon monoxide into bedrooms.