The article simply reports the facts of the case but it sounds like a hole.
The comments from the judge/senior counsel (not obvious which) that he didn’t want another Priory Hall seemed to be somewhat out of touch, simply conflating 2 very different scenarios.
Personally it sickens me to see well off middle aged men from suburban areas renting out hovels like this to the most vulnerable in society with no regards for the consequences. These guys roll up to the courts, representing themselves and making out like they are somehow are the victims. Cry me a river. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If, God forbid, there was a fire they should be personally liable.
Joseph Simpson, Tara Green, Ballymoney, Co Wexford
Frank Chatham from Arch Villas, Greystones, Co Wicklow
My understanding is that certain tenants have refused to vacate up to now against the landlords wishes to comply with orders and despite the landlords not taking rent from anybody since March. Now alternative accomodation has been offered by DCC they will hopefully vacate so that the works can be done.
That was the landlord’s view and I don’t necessarily doubt it being true. It explains the delay which has now necessitated the order. It does not explain why the original order had to be granted. The owners had no problem renting it out in that state.
I would like to hear the landlord’s side about why there were so many fire incidents before the march order. How did these fires start and what were they extinguished with? Why did the court hear there was no engagement by the landlords when they maintain they did engage. Who was responsible for the vandalism that made holes in walls that made fire spread more likely.
Also i think you writing out the landlord’s names and addresses in your post is a bit premature and a teeny bit sinister. If they are guilty of something let them be prosecuted for it first?
I know i read the articles too but you didn’t have to put them separated out at the bottom of your post unless you wanted to somehow shame them or suggest they were already guilty of something.
It’s not clear from that article who is “guilty”. The article states that some tenants may not have been paying rent for months. It could be that the landlords may have lost control of the building leading to possible overcrowding and perhaps the fires and the dangerous conditions may have been because of actions of the tenants. Or maybe the landlords didn’t care enough about overcrowding and fire hazards, I don’t think we can tell from that report without some inside details.
I didn’t think you were being subtle either. Just prejudiced against ‘middle class men’ who ‘represent themselves in court’. How do three fires start in a building if some of the tenants aren’t doing something dangerous, endangering all the other tenants? How is it all the landlord’s fault if some tenants don’t allow access for works and for fire safety officers to inspect? Fair play to the DCC for coming up with alternative accomodation for the tenants. Hopefully they will vacate now and the building can be put right.
Howitzer, these landlords didn’t put a gun to the tenants head and insist they firstly move in and secondly stay put even after they stopped paying rent.
I’m sure the landlords priced the rent accordingly and these people choose to live there.
Your idiotic attitude is what’s wrong with the system in Ireland. People can take responsibility for themselves.
Pictures are disgraceful, and the attitude of the tennant is disappionting, nobody wants to be homeless, but id Dublin City Council can get you an alternative why not take it?
It could be dcc’s offer wasn’t a permanent house / flat for the residents. Maybe it was only an assurance of temporary b&b style accomodation. Usually you have to be actually homeless before the dcc sort out emergency accomodation for you. DCC may not want to encourage other people to hold them to ransom by letting these people jump the queue for permanent housing. It’s a total mess.
