The Irish Human Rights Commission

The Good Friday Agreement 1998 conferred an obligation on both the British and Irish Governments to establish a Human Rights Commission in each jurisdiction, This took a couple of years to implement.

Although the UK Human Rights Act was passed in 1998 it did not come into effect until 2nd October 2000 and the ECHR was incorporated into Irish law on 1st January 2004 (ref European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003).

It is interesting to note that whilst Ireland was one of the first states to sign the ECHR in 1953 it was the last state to (partially) incorporate the provisions of the ECHR into domestic law.

The Good Friday Agreement also made provision for the establishment of a Joint Committee comprising members of the NI HR Commission and the HR Commission of the Republic of Ireland. This Committee meets alternately in Dublin and Belfast to discuss issues such as migration and racism.

The first Irish HR Commission served from July 2001 to June 2006. The Irish HR Commission was established by the Human Rights Commission Act 2000 (as amended by the 2001 Act). It has the following main roles:

1) Keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice in Ireland

2) Consulting with relevant national and international bodies

3) Making recommendations to Government

4) Promoting understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights

5) Offering expertise to the Irish courts

6) Conducting enquries into possible abuses in Ireland

7) Taking legal proceedings

8) Providing legal assistance to people taking legal proceedings

The HR Commission is made up of 15 people (at least 7 must be male and 7 female). The current Commission was appointed on 31st August 2006.

The HR Commission is only able to help people take proceedings in a limited range of circumstances. For example the complainant will need to prove that he has made reasonable efforts to get legal assistance elsewhere ie. Criminal or Civil Legal Aid. The Commission is not an adjudicator body – it cannot overturn court or tribunal decisions or award compensation. It’s main remit is to conduct and enquiry to find out whether existing law or practice meets human rights standards.

I read an interesting article recently by Gara LaMarche (Atlantic Philanthropies) entitled “Ireland’s Economic Problems – No Excuse to Send Human Rights into Recession”. The budget for the Irish HR Commission was cut by 24% in 1999. She says that the Irish HR Commission is a small and traditionally underfunded organisation, nonetheless praised consistently as a strong and independent voice for human rights by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and others but that recent budget cuts will seriously undermine its work.

The Investigation Powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission

The Australian Securities and investments commission has extensive powers of investigation and information gathering. These powers are not limited to the exercise of functions under chapter 7 of the corporations act because the Australian securities and investments commission can cooperate with the Australian Stock Exchange in regulation activities.

The body can receive complaints from many informal sources. Of course, complaints may be made to other bodies such as the stock exchange although its responsibilities are limited to VISTA companies and its sanctions are considered to be constrained by their contractual foundation and limited statutory supplements. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is the principal complaints handling body by reason of its statutory responsibilities and powers given to it under part three of the relevant legislation. The exercise of the statutory powers enables the body to gather information which may used to launch criminal, civil or administrative proceedings relief, remedy or other section. As noted, these powers are not limited to their application to the financial market provisions of chapter 7 but applied to the generality of provisions of the act. However, many complaints received by the commission apply to investigations made upon its own intuitive understanding of events and will not normally involve the exercise of formal powers under part three, unless informal investigation indicates a need some more formal enquiry and the exercise of coercive powers granted to the agency under part three.

An investigation conducted under the investigative powers of the agency has significance not to elicit the information of the widgets triggers for the range of may be founded upon the mere fact of the commencement or upon evidence obtained during the. First, where is the result of an investigation it appears to the agency that a person may have committed an offence against the corporations legislation and ought to be prosecuted for defence, the agency may initiate a prosecution. The agency may require a person other than the the the the water were reasonably believes can give information relevant prosecution to provide assistance. Secondly, where, following an investigation examination under part three, it appears to the agency to be in the public interest per person to sue for damages from his conduct committee in connection with the matter to which investigation examination related, or for the recovery of a person’s property, the agency may commence such proceedings in the person’s name.

Thirdly, the fact that investigation has been initiated permits the agency to seek protective orders. The agency may also release the record of an investigation to a lawyer to the proceedings were at the party, if the commencement of an investigation confer standing to seek statutory remedies of wider application. Sixthly, statements made on an examination are admissible against examinees in criminal proceedings, subject to protective provisions relating to self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. The report of the investigation itself is admissible in civil proceedings as privacy evidence and matters disclosed. So the agency does have a quite broad powers to investigate the misconduct of corporations and to gather information about these issues.

How to Save Real Estate Commission

Are you tired of paying outrageous real estate commissions?

It’s a FSBO myth that you can’t sell real estate without a broker. Let me show you Six ways you can save thousands of dollars.

Six for sale by owner options:

1. Sell by owner – pay no co-op to buyer agents.
2. Sell by owner – hire a licensed broker or an attorney to write your contract.
3. Sell by owner – offer buyer agents a co-op fee.
4. List as a FSBO on MLS for a Flat Fee – pay buyer agents a co-op fee.
5. List full service MLS – pay a discounted commission.
6. Sell on eBay – pay their fees.
7. Pay an outrageous 6-7% commission.

You can mix and match to come up with several ways to save commission. Based on twenty plus years of working with For Sale by Owners, I’ll give you pros and cons and make Recommendations.

1. Sell by owner – pay no co-op to buyer agents:

You sell to a buyer who is not represented by a broker. You’re not represented by a broker so there is no commission.

Pros:

o You save commission.
o You maintain complete control.
o You don’t list with a broker.

Cons:

o There could be contract errors.
o You may not have access to State approved forms.
o You are open to legal recourse.
o The contract may not be defensible in a court of law.
o Inspections and deadlines may not be addressed.
o It’s difficult to build trust with the buyer.

Recommendation:

Use plan two.

Hire an attorney or a licensed broker to write your contract. This builds trust between you and your buyer.

2. Sell by owner – hire a licensed broker or an attorney to write the contract:

This is a smart economical choice.

Pros:

o The contract will be on the correct forms.
o Required inspections and deadlines will be addressed.
o Terms are usually defensible.
o Less chance of legal repercussions.
o Less chance of contract failure.
o You can split the cost with the buyer.
o Builds trust between you and the buyer.

Cons:

o It costs more money but it’s worth it.
o You have to find a broker or an attorney who will write the contract for a reasonable fee.

Recommendations:

Do It!

3. Sell by owner – offer buyer agents a co-op fee:

This is a good option; however, agents who have buyers may not know you have a house for sale. Pros:

o You open the market to more qualified buyers.
o A licensed agent will write the contract.
o You may sell quicker.
o It costs less than a law suit.
o You don’t have to list with a broker.
o You save money.
o You maintain control.

Cons:

o It costs more money.
o The buyer is represented by an agent. You are not.

Recommendations:

Use plan two. Hire an attorney or a licensed broker to review the contract. And, if needed, write a counter offer. Now you have someone looking out for your interest.

4. List on MLS for a flat fee – offer buyer agents a co-op:

This is the best of both worlds. You remain a for sale by owner. You remain in control. And you save half of the commission.

Pros:

o Increased buyer exposure.
o 90% of the buyers buy with a broker.
o You pay half the commission you’d pay for full service and you get full MLS exposure.
o You maintain the right to sell by owner.
o Buyer agent contracts will be on the correct forms.
o If you pay for contract assistance, all forms will be correct.
o Agents call you to set showings and to present offers.
o You maintain control.
o You increase the chances of selling.
o You will get a higher price.

Cons:

o It costs you more money
o The buyer is represented by an agent – You are not

Recommendations:

Incorporate with plan two.

Hire an attorney or a licensed broker to review your buyer agent contact and, if needed, write a counter offer. Now you have someone looking out for you. It costs far less than a law suit. You save money and maintain control.

5. Do a full service MLS listing – pay a discounted commission:

This is the great choice. You get representation. Most brokers will negotiate commission. If they won’t… Find one who will.

Pros:

o You have someone to review your offers, write counter offers and monitor the closing.
o You save money, though not as much as with a flat fee FSBO listing.
o Your contracts will be on correct forms.
o Inspections and contract dates will be monitored.
o You’re less likely to have legal repercussions.

Cons:

o It costs you more money.
o You lose some control.

6. Sell on eBay:

I know nothing about selling real estate on eBay; however, I know it is popular. I’ll make some logical assumptions:

Pros: You save commission.

Cons:

o There could be contract errors.
o You may not have access to state approved forms.
o You could be at risk for legal action.

Recommendation:

At this time, I’m not comfortable recommending eBay.

There is one more option; you could:

7. Pay an outrageous 6-7% full service commission:

Pros:

o The broker takes over the sale.
o You get a sign, MLS and various goodies.
o The broker presents offers to you.

Cons:

o You pay too much to sell your home.
o You lose control.
o I could go on and on but I won’t.

Recommendation:

Sell by owner and save thousands of dollars.
Copyright (c) 2007 Wee Dilts
Recommendation:

At this time, I’m not comfortable recommending ebay.

There is one more option; you could:

7. Pay an outrageous 6-7% full service commission:

Pros:

o The broker takes over the sale.
o You get a sign, MLS and various goodies.
o The broker presents offers to you.

Cons:

o You pay too much to sell your home.
o You lose control.
o I could go on and on but I won’t.

Recommendation:

Sell by owner and save thousands of dollars.
Copyright (c) 2007 Wee Dilts