David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have only a few more points to make. What do I get from a tenant who leaves my house in this condition and owing so much? I get only the deposit of €900. This is not the first time the property has been returned to me wrecked but it is the worst case. As the owner of a pre-63 house, I am saying that for landlords of such properties, the restrictive clauses contained in the legislation will be impossible to satisfy. Even if we invest thousands of euro improving the premises, we are not guaranteed to get market rents in years to come. In other words, there is a significant expenditure for no return.

A woman who recently bought an older pre-63 building which is on the Record of Protected Structures says in a letter to me:

The building is greatly in need of refurbishing as it is unsustainable and unlivable in its present condition. Had I been aware or given advance notice of the introduction of this Bill and its restrictive criteria, I would never have considered purchasing the building. As it stands, my plans to spend a substantial money on refurbishment works are in question as I feel they are very unlikely to meet the proposed criteria. I am faced with an impossible situation, unable to move forward with the improvements and making units available for sufficient rent but also unable to resell as we would not sell for a respectable price...

The provisions in the Bill effectively impose a burden on the building which will attach to its future value. There is clearly an issue here with properties that have the double status of pre-63 building and are on the Record of Protected Structures. As this correspondent notes, "Having considered the refurbishment criteria set out in the Bill, I now realise that despite having had plans to spend in excess of €230,000 on refurbishment works, I would still be unable to satisfy the very restrictive criteria as set out in the Bill."