Rhumsaa

More people need to stand at elections to give people a better choice and chance of getting the best commissioners possible

Well it would be at an additional cost to the town because it would require more officer time to investigate, write up recommendations and execute these orders. But ultimately if you read Section 24 the only power the LA has with regards to a property that it deems is "ruinous, dilapidated or neglected condition or unfinished state detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood" if an owner refuses or is unable to carry out the work is to require the owner to demolish the property. This seems an extreme next step as I have already said. Twice. There is also a risk that if a building is found to fall foul of section 22 and the owner refuses or is unable to make the remedial work themselves then the Local Authority is put in a position of carrying out the work themselves and passing the debt on to the owner, this may or may not be paid and is a lengthy process involving lawyers and will realistically just cost the LA more. There is also the matter of subjectivity when it comes to what is classed as a "ruinous property" and I think that leads into a dangerous area where an overly officious or invasive local authority could start creating a town where people are forced to leave property due to a cashflow issue based on the high subjective standards of some people. Hence why I believe there needs to be a middle ground to the legislation which allows authorities to do more than simply ask without having the only ultimate sanction being demolition.

Yes Derek, I know I stand by my previous statement

The commissioners are in regular contact with a number of property owners in town but as I've said (and linked to the legislation) the only powers invested are to put forward a building is in dangerous condition and demand the owner make repairs or demolish the building. This is a pretty ultimate sanction and not one to take lightly. I'd love there to be some powers in the middle where there can be more than a toothless request but doesn't result in court orders demanding demolition or forcing the LA to do the work and try and recoup the costs later.

http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1991/1991-0021/BuildingControlAct1991_1.pdf Section 22 to 24

Any local authority can only act on the powers in the Building Control Act which are sadly toothless or nuclear

yeah so that's the offence but the question remains - how can it be policed?

there's pros and cons for sure

complete state control and playing fast and loose with working conditions? yeah they're right up there with my old buddy Kim

that was something I wondered about

Perhaps this is a ridiculous demarcation to have but Commissioner Juan McGuinness is pretty available to whoever wants him online or offline and on Manx Forums this is Rhumsaa the light hearted banterino I deliberately try to avoid any subject that involves a serious debate that brings the two together and for the most part in recent years just lurk I'm more than happy to discuss the Courthouse pros and cons over a coffee or a beer or a walk in the park...... well for the next few weeks anyways as the next election is in April and I might not be a commissioner after that

lol I mean..... even the guy that's not me doesn't work there anymore

I don't talk serious on ManxForums I've got a very public facebook page an email address - drop me a line and we can have a coffee sometime to discuss

not sure how you could attract UK or Irish visitors by price due to travel costs