[PR] New rent supplement limits outlined following rent limit review

Victor

New rates included in attached file.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2010/Pages/pr100610.aspx

Rent supplement rent limits to reflect real prices and promote fair rent – Ó Cuív

New rent supplement limits outlined following rent limit review

“The Department of Social Protection funds approximately 50% of the private rented accommodation in the country and with that level of influence on rents, it is essential that the maximum rent limits for rent supplement reflect real prices so that landlords are charging a fair rent and the State pays a fair price,” Minister Ó Cuív stated today (10th June 2010).

“Our priority is to ensure that the 95,000 households supported by rent supplement can secure quality accommodation at a fair rent and that landlords are not charging artificially high rents. Reducing the rent supplement rent limits to reflect real prices will assist us to do that and will promote a fair rent.

“The cost of rented accommodation has fallen since its peak in 2007. Rental prices were last reviewed in June 2009 and have fallen since then. The current regulations that set the maximum rent limits for rent supplement have served us well but they have now served their time. The new rent limits which I am outlining today will reflect real prices in each county and Community Welfare Officers will continue to have flexibility to take account of the reality in their own localities.”

Minister Ó Cuív continued: “The new maximum rent limits for the rent supplement scheme will apply firstly to new claims for rent supplement and will then apply to existing claims as they come to be reviewed.”

The new rent limits follow a review undertaken by the Minister’s Department over the last 12 months. The maximum rent limit refers to the maximum rent which can be charged on a property where rent supplement is payable. In 2009 the Department paid over €500m in rent supplement.

The Minister added: “The State also needs to ensure that the person in private rented accommodation and not receiving rent supplement is not paying an artificially high rent. It is essential that State support for rents are kept under review, reflect current market conditions and do not distort the market in any way.”

The proposed new limits will ensure that different categories of eligible households can continue to secure and retain suitable rented accommodation, having regard to the different rental market conditions that exist in various parts of the country.

This most recent rents review undertaken by the Department of Social Protection used publicly available data to ascertain both market trends and the current rent asking prices for one, two and three bedroom properties throughout Ireland on a county by county basis. Information from the Private Residential Property Board databases; the CSO Rental Indices, in addition to the various rental market reports was utilised. Consultation with certain local Superintendent Community Welfare Officers also took place as part of the review.

As part of the consultative process, the views of various bodies were sought. The overwhelming view from the consultation process was concerns over the rent limit for single people. These views were supported by the analysis. Accordingly it is not proposed to reduce single rates for people living on their own for the majority of counties.

Dublin is generally unaffected under the proposals as average asking prices from the review’s analysis are still broadly in line with the current rent limits. Rent supplement limits specific to the Fingal Local Authority are being introduced to reflect the different levels of rent in the area.

EDITOR’S NOTE

New Limits

Current Single Person Rent Supplement Monthly Rate (in non-shared accommodation): Range €368 - €529; this rate is to remain largely unaltered.

Current Couple / One Parent Family Rent Supplement Monthly Rate (OFP) with 1 Child Rate: Previous Range €568 to €930; New Range €400 to €930.

Current Couple / OPF with 3 Children Rent Supplement Monthly Rate: Previous Range €663 - €1,110. New Range €500 - €1,100.

The purpose of rent supplement is to provide short-term support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation, whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. The amount of rent supplement a person can receive from the State depends on where they live in the country, their personal circumstances and what type of accommodation they have.

Since the Department’s last rent review in June 2009, rental values have fallen on average by 9.5% (CSO data). Other data sources indicate rental price drops of over 16% in the nine months to December 2009.

The new limits announced today will yield a minimum of €20m in savings for the Exchequer in 2010.

Examples whereby rent supplement limits are too high compared to what is available for private market rent are as follows:

County Roscommon: The current rent supplement limit for a couple with three children or one parent family with three children is €780 per month. However, the average rental value for a 3 bedroom property in Co. Roscommon is €500 per month.

County Mayo: The current rent supplement limit for a couple or a one parent family with 3 children is €780 per month. However the average rent for a 3 bedroom property in Co. Mayo is €600 per month.

County Wexford: The current rent supplement limit for a couple or a one parent family with 3 children is €685 per month. However the average rent for a 3 bedroom property in County Wexford is €650 per month.


ENDS

Graces7

Victor wrote: »

New rates included in attached file.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2010/Pages/pr100610.aspx

Reading the file... are they implying that people are claiming more than the rent actually is? ie false claims?

gurramok

Yes they seem to be.

At least we know that the govt control 50% of the private rental market now. Crazy situation.
And they did not touch Dublin rents :mad:

Zamboni

It is shocking that a family can avail of property at the prices listed there.
We as a nation cannot afford that. And as Gurramok pointed out Government control of half the rental market is well, it's socialist is what it is.
People who need assistance should be placed in the most economical property i.e. the cheapest.

We pump money into the Revenue Commissioners whilst the Dept of Social Protection pumps it back out to folks living in better accomodation than us.
What happens when the state dependants eventually outnumber the tax payers to the point that this madness is no longer sustainable?

Zamboni

The purpose of rent supplement is to provide short-term support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation, whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source.

Does anybody know what the maximum length of time that a person/couple/family can avail of this short term support is?

I am searching the page below but cannot find it.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx#Rules2

ricman

With nama the government owns 1000s of homes, maybe they might rent out a few to people on rent allowance.The council s are not building enough 2bed or 3bed houses so theres 1000s of single mothers living in 3 bed house s on rent allowance.
i know a single mother she GOT 80k in rent allowance over 8 years be4 she got a new 2bed flat.

IS 8 YEARS short term support,its like saying heroin could be bad for your health.

gurramok

Zamboni wrote: »

Does anybody know what the maximum length of time that a person/couple/family can avail of this short term support is?

I am searching the page below but cannot find it.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx#Rules2

There is none despite them saying 'short-term'. You are put on the housing list while receiving RS and they cannot kick you out onto the street if you are waiting 20 years for that house.

Of course as rent levels are so high which means a huge subsidy, it ain't worthwhile working for some people in the cities unless they landed a well paid job.

Zamboni

gurramok wrote: »

There is none despite them saying 'short-term'. You are put on the housing list while receiving RS and they cannot kick you out onto the street if you are waiting 20 years for that house.

Why am I not surprised. Unlimited dole, unlimited rent.
Might give my notice and just stay in bed.

The tax payers of this country should go on strike. Not from their jobs but from paying taxes - there should be a payroll operator boycott of submitting P30's and payments across the country and start making some serious cutback demands in government expenditure.
I can dream...

shoegirl

Graces7 wrote: »

Reading the file... are they implying that people are claiming more than the rent actually is? ie false claims?

No; they are suggesting that landlords are inflating rents to "match" the max available payable by rent allowance. Basically that rent subsidies are providing an artificial baseline to market rents. Which I think is true. However it is not the social welfare tenant that is "overpaying", its his/her neighbour with a job that is more likely to be overpaying.

shoegirl

Zamboni wrote: »

It is shocking that a family can avail of property at the prices listed there.
We as a nation cannot afford that. And as Gurramok pointed out Government control of half the rental market is well, it's socialist is what it is.
People who need assistance should be placed in the most economical property i.e. the cheapest.

Well yes, but the cheapest ought to be social housing not "market housing."

In fairness, most welfare recipients getting rent subsidies live in the most horrific slumlike properties you can imagine. Most of the area I live in (off Wellington Rd in Cork) is taken up by RA tenants - its like a 1950s tenenment town. Some of the houses have no locks on the front door, evictions are regular. Entire houses of 6-10 flats are entirely taken up by non-working tenants. The landlords are creaming it off the state but the conditions are shocking. Flats where there is one storage heater trying to heat the whole flat that can't get the temperature over 12c at best - where only 25% of the flat has natural light and where you have to listen to daily goings on of your neighbours above and below, including lots of things you really don't want to know about.

Some places I lived I was the only person in the house with a job out of maybe 6 or 8. A lot are very long term welfare sorts and come with all kinds of problems. One guy for example kicked in the doors to his own place, the next door neighbour and tried to break into every single other flat in the house.

The only real benficiaries of the rent supplement system are landlords who are enabled to charge much higher rents and are rarely bothered by tenants who often don't feel they've a right to complain because they are only contributing 26 euro a week. These places are total slums and the parasites who rent them out are slumlords.

Graces7

What is most "shocking" to me is the attitudes expressed here.

zamboni; "unlimted"?

As pensioners, on a very small pension, we really have no choice. The RA ceiling here is E85 a week, so we have had house after house that is way below par. Like the one we are in now.

The one before was so badly built etc that water started pouring in through the floor.

And health suffers now.

It is no fault of ours that we are old; and as there has been illness much of our lives also.

What, lest I am misunderstanding you, are you saying?

That we go back to old and poor in workhouses? Or dying in ditches?

Try living on these allowances a year or three? Then write as you do?

We have to watch every cent; and in winter, often stay in bed just to keep warm

Saddened by attitudes here

Graces7

shoegirl wrote: »

No; they are suggesting that landlords are inflating rents to "match" the max available payable by rent allowance. Basically that rent subsidies are providing an artificial baseline to market rents. Which I think is true. However it is not the social welfare tenant that is "overpaying", its his/her neighbour with a job that is more likely to be overpaying.

OK.. so some here - not you - think that you can rent somewhere livable at e85 a week?

Graces7

Zamboni wrote: »

It is shocking that a family can avail of property at the prices listed there.
We as a nation cannot afford that. And as Gurramok pointed out Government control of half the rental market is well, it's socialist is what it is.
People who need assistance should be placed in the most economical property i.e. the cheapest.

We pump money into the Revenue Commissioners whilst the Dept of Social Protection pumps it back out to folks living in better accomodation than us.
What happens when the state dependants eventually outnumber the tax payers to the point that this madness is no longer sustainable?

Why? ( to your first comment highlighted) Are we who are old or sick or without work some kind of second class citizen?
This is clear discrimination... as bad as racism.

Point 2; please come up here and say that...

juleserino

Zamboni wrote: »

People who need assistance should be placed in the most economical property i.e. the cheapest.

Classic Irish rhetoric. The victimization of the poor and disenfranchised in this country is a national sport. Zomboni is nothing more than your garden variety Irish elitist.

Zamboni

Graces7 wrote: »

Why? ( to your first comment highlighted) Are we who are old or sick or without work some kind of second class citizen?
This is clear discrimination... as bad as racism.

Point 2; please come up here and say that...

My apologies that you have taken this into specific groups I was jsut ranting in a general sense.
I am against people who are able bodied being given assistance who have not contributed to society.
I hold no gripe against folks who have contributed to society being helped out as to fit their needs and that would include retired PAYE workers or the recently unemployed.

Zamboni

juleserino wrote: »

Classic Irish rhetoric. The victimization of the poor and disenfranchised in this country is a national sport. Zomboni is nothing more than your garden variety Irish elitist.

Thanks for the edit, I was hoping for further clarity.

Make a distinction between the poor who have done f*ck all in the country and the poor who are actually genuinely poor due to circumstance and we may be able to have a conversation.

I can assure you as there is nothing elitist about me.
I just prefer people who contribute to society than the people who take.

juleserino

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the edit, I was hoping for further clarity.

Make a distinction between the poor who have done f*ck all in the country and the poor who are actually genuinely poor due to circumstance and we may be able to have a conversation.

I can assure you as there is nothing elitist about me.
I just prefer people who contribute to society than the people who take.

How does one possibly differentiate between the two? We live in a country that currently finds itself unable to provide it's population with the opportunity to contribute. One requires a job to facilitate this process. Can you provide any evidence of fiscal stimulus that might serve to achieve this end?

Strange really how a nation can sit back and watch a government sink billions into rescuing the wealthy, whilst the rest of the show goes to hell?

Graces7

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the edit, I was hoping for further clarity.

Make a distinction between the poor who have done f*ck all in the country and the poor who are actually genuinely poor due to circumstance and we may be able to have a conversation.

I can assure you as there is nothing elitist about me.
I just prefer people who contribute to society than the people who take.

You are digging an even bigger hole for yourself now... And making huge judgements also....

That in itself is eltisim/ " I have because I can work...."

Graces7

Zamboni wrote: »

My apologies that you have taken this into specific groups I was jsut ranting in a general sense.
I am against people who are able bodied being given assistance who have not contributed to society.
I hold no gripe against folks who have contributed to society being helped out as to fit their needs and that would include retired PAYE workers or the recently unemployed.

It gets worser and worser.....What about the long term disabled?

And yes to your first sentence as each is different.

And, as I asked before; have you tried living on social welfare? Do you begrudge others who are ill an/or unemployed, what you have?

Zamboni

juleserino wrote: »

How does one possibly differentiate between the two?

Have a look at the total historical PAYE/PRSI records for the individual would be a start.

My point and back on topic is that it is hard to believe that rent supplements are available to a maximum price of €1,110 for Dublin when there are actual taxpayers in this country living in accomodation that could nowhere near afford a price tag in that region.
Am I the only person who thinks its ironic that the taxpayer is is providing this level of comfort?

Grumpypants

Zamboni wrote: »

Have a look at the total historical PAYE/PRSI records for the individual would be a start.

My point and back on topic is that it is hard to believe that rent supplements are available to a maximum price of €1,110 for Dublin when there are actual taxpayers in this country living in accomodation that could nowhere near afford a price tag in that region.
Am I the only person who thinks its ironic that the taxpayer is is providing this level of comfort?

No your not ! I worked my ass off to get a small little house for my self saved up 40% of the cost and got a mortgage for the rest. Lost my job a year ago and i dont get 1 single cent towards it. My mortgage is 600 a month i get 790 a month on the dole. so that leaves me 190 euro a month to pay all my bills which come to about 200 when you take in Gas, Esb, bins, TV licence etc etc.

Whcih leaves me -10 euro to buy food and petrol. I applied for mortgage interest help and got turn down because my interest payments are too small !!

so to see someone that just didnt bother working a day in there life getting 1,100 a month on top of the 1000 dole while i go bankrupt is bloody annoying.

Graces7

Grumpypants wrote: »

No your not ! I worked my ass off to get a small little house for my self saved up 40% of the cost and got a mortgage for the rest. Lost my job a year ago and i dont get 1 single cent towards it. My mortgage is 600 a month i get 790 a month on the dole. so that leaves me 190 euro a month to pay all my bills which come to about 200 when you take in Gas, Esb, bins, TV licence etc etc.

Whcih leaves me -10 euro to buy food and petrol. I applied for mortgage interest help and got turn down because my interest payments are too small !!

so to see someone that just didnt bother working a day in there life getting 1,100 a month on top of the 1000 dole while i go bankrupt is bloody annoying.

A very hard situation.

There must be some help available?

But it is phrases like "this level of comfort" that are so...... What does zamboni think should be the case? Bread and water? He seems to assume that the vast majority are living like kings.

Zamboni

Graces7 wrote: »

But it is phrases like "this level of comfort" that are so...... What does zamboni think should be the case? Bread and water? He seems to assume that the vast majority are living like kings.

And you are still missing the point, so I will spell it out.
There are people on rent supplement who live in more expensive accomodation than actual taxpayers.
This is my problem. This is wrong.

I never said vast majority, oaps, disabled etc.

Graces7

Zamboni wrote: »

And you are still missing the point, so I will spell it out.
There are people on rent supplement who live in more expensive accomodation than actual taxpayers.
This is my problem. This is wrong.

I never said vast majority, oaps, disabled etc.

Why is it "wrong"?

It is like my objecting to tax payers living in better accommodation than I do..I don't as there is far more to quality of life than accommodation etc.

So why does it bug you so much?

And this is the first post that defines this also..

OMD

Graces7 wrote: »

Why is it "wrong"?

It is like my objecting to tax payers living in better accommodation than I do..I don't as there is far more to quality of life than accommodation etc.

So why does it bug you so much?

And this is the first post that defines this also..

Well, if you can get a better place by not working than by working why work?

Zamboni

Graces7 wrote: »

Why is it "wrong"?

If you do not think that it is wrong then we have very obvious different political and social perspectives and I am happy to agree to disagree.

juleserino

There are loads out there who share your perspective. Most of them can be found munching on €5000 a month worth of tea and biscuits compliments of the taxpayer. I mean come on dude. They are gainfully employed, however one of those individuals by being so gainfully employed cost the taxpayer more in travel expenses a month than 5 families in receipt of rent supplements at the top rate.

You might want to alter your perspective to account for and include those individuals in your assault, then we can agree to disagree.

"Off topic" my arse

K-9

Seems to be a fair reduction considering the fall in rents.

I'm amazed that only 190,000 households rent, I take it far more own property.

Zamboni

juleserino wrote: »

There are loads out there who share your perspective. Most of them can be found munching on €5000 a month worth of tea and biscuits compliments of the taxpayer. I mean come on dude. They are gainfully employed, however one of those individuals by being so gainfully employed cost the taxpayer more in travel expenses a month than 5 families in receipt of rent supplements at the top rate.

You might want to alter your perspective to account for and include those individuals in your assault, then we can agree to disagree.

"Off topic" my arse

You're actually off topic again.
This thread is about rent supplement and you're going on about over paid TDs with obscene expense claims.
So I'll just go back to...
There are people on rent supplement who live in more expensive accomodation than actual taxpayers.
This is my problem. This is wrong.

juleserino

Zamboni wrote: »

You're actually off topic again.
This thread is about rent supplement and you're going on about over paid TDs with obscene expense claims.
So I'll just go back to...
There are people on rent supplement who live in more expensive accomodation than actual taxpayers.
This is my problem. This is wrong.

Yes, you have made that point and little else besides.

The narrow and restrictive limitation you impose upon this discussion with the "off topic" argument renders any further discussion on the topic a waste of time.

Sad really.

Graces7

OMD wrote: »

Well, if you can get a better place by not working than by working why work?

If you don;t know that then no one can teach it to you.....

I work hard for fundraising for abandoned babies; earn nothing and am more deeply fulfilled than at any time in life.

As for that "better place"? Not in my long experience.. Read shoegirl's post.