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.
Have you a link there that the building isn't up to code?
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 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.
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.
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
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
EVENT GUIDE - HIGHLIGHT |
Stand-up Comedy Club: Cork's Primetime Comedy Show The Roundy, Castle St. 15th Jun 2024 @ 8:30 pm More info.. |
Coughlan's, Tomorrow @ 8pm