Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 8.45pm
IRISH WATER HAS come out water guns blazing today after a front page story in the Sunday Business Post revealed a “secret deal” to automatically fill vacancies among council staff working for Irish Water.
The newspaper report said minutes from a secret meeting show union leaders forced the government into this deal to fill vacancies once workers retire. It also said this would make it difficult for the new semi-State body to achieve its cost-cutting targets.
A spokesperson for Irish Water issued a statement this afternoon vehemently denying suggestions that staffing in local authorities would not be reduced. He said today’s story “flies in the face of known facts”.
“Irish Water will enter 2015 with 10% fewer staff in local authorities than were deemed to be required to maintain Ireland’s water services just one year ago – demonstrating that the agreements made with Local Authorities are delivering the changes required,” he explained.
Between now and the end of 2016 Irish Water will reduce its operating costs by 14%. 7% of this reduction will take place in 2015, with a further 7% in 2016. By 2021 Irish Water will have reduced expenditure by approximately €1.1 billion. This will involve reductions in all business costs including staff numbers.
The spokesperson also brushed off implications that there had been anything secret about this issue as it forms part of the service level agreements with local authorities – a framework that has been in the public domain for 18 months.
“Our cost reduction plans, which we believe are unprecedented in scale for a public utility in Ireland, are being devised and implemented in consultation and agreement with 31 local authorities and unions representing their staff, with whom we have a very good working relationship.,” he added.
I dont see the problem, the landlords own the property, the tenants sign a contract, break the contract and you risk being evicted.
Idiot tenants breaching their leases by subletting.
You’re right – they did break the law so they should face consequences.
Still maybe the legislation needs changing. As long as the property is maintained and the landlord gets his rent what’s the problem. I know it’s a real struggle for many in SF to pay the sky high rentals.
Also it would provide real value to tourists arriving in SF.
At least the landlords stateside can actually do something about their tenants flouting the terms of the lease … Here they would have to deal with the ridiculous PRTB … Wait months to get a hearing and more than likely receive no rent in the meantime …. And the the PRTB finding in favour of the tenant as the land lord forgot to cross a ‘t’ on one of the forms.
I don’t see why landlords should have a problem with this as long as their rent is being paid and no damage is being done to the property.
Tenants have no right to sub-let and thereby profit from a service that is not theres to provide.
Because a landlord presumably is happy with the tenants they let to. They have no control over who the tenant sub lets to.
Extra wear and tear
That could all be added in as terms and conditions. Wear and tear, insuring the room etc. let the landlord get his piece of the pie – after all it’s all about the money – it’s not some morality.
A friend lives in San Fran with his missus, 2 years ago he rented another 1 bed just so he could let it out on AirBnb.
He charges $125 a night and is fully booked 365 nights a year, it’s like a full time job for him, he even hires a cleaner.
I know in Dublin there are hundreds of people sub letting illegally on AirBnb, why the hell not if it helps pays the scandalous rent, AirBnb cover damages for guests so landlords should have no problem.
I assume that your friend is making considerably more from AirBnB than he pays in rent for the apartment. You don’t mention whether the landlord is aware, but judging by you opinion of illegal subletting in Dublin, I’m guessing they’re not.
I think scandalously high rents are greedy and unethical, but if the landlord is charging close to the going rate and is fair and decent towards the tenant then it is equally unethical to sublet illegally. Typically the landlord has made a significant financial investment in buying the property and decorating and furnishing it to a reasonable standard. They need the rent to recoup their costs and then make enough profit to make the venture worth their effort. If there is a way of making more profit from their property then that is their opportunity to take advantage of, not their tenant’s.
I don’t know a lot about business but in my layman’s opinion if the landlord has any financial sense they should “evict” your friend (their tenant) and make it available on AirBnB themselves. If they don’t want to do the work of dealing with new AirBnB tenants every day they should demand a considerable percentage profit from your friend or employ him to manage it.
Well said donal…. exactly my toughts…
I read that in an Ali G voice….reconize!
Lol!
I don’t see the problem here at all. If you don’t own the property, you have no business putting rooms in said property up for rent. If I did that, and was caught out by the landlord, I’d fully expect to be evicted.
My tenant should be thankful that at least I gave her 3 weeks to vacate my property after I found out she was hosting people from Airbnb. Thankfully, my neighbor called me and told me that on numerous occasions, people were staying at my house. In fact, on one weekend, there was a wedding. My daughter found my house listed on Airbnb and I took action. How dare she rent my house without my permission. I work hard for that house and it will be my retirement home in a few years. I want to know, am I entitled to the profits she made off of MY home? Oh, and she thinks she is getting her security deposit back which I am looking into.
have your say