Rent Allowance taboo

Gerry Asstrix

Recently got approved for rent allowance 930 a month, I need my own place as I take care of my child, so it is only option open to me at moment.

But having nightmare finding a place that will take the RA, and I dont understand why?

I know RA has a stigma attached to it and may give a landlord a bad impression thinking the tenant may be of bad character or a sponger or whatever, but in these dark times, you'd think landlords would be happy getting a garunteed 930 a month regardless of where its coming from.

Also alot of places advertise that they accept RA but charge over a thousand, do they not know that the max for RA in particular area is at most 930 and that the RA wont be approved if the tenancy agreement is over 930???

cailinoBAC

I advertised my house as 'no rent allowance' because of some stories I'd heard, but was just considering changing it when I was contacted by a couple on rent allowance who ignored the fact I'd ticked 'no rent allowance'. So I decided to give it a go. They moved in on 21st August. The first rent I received was 30th October. Apart from this long wait for the rent, I guess things are ok.
Would you be able to pay a month's deposit and first month's rent upfront? I mean, I know the fact you are on rent allowance means that this might not be the case, but it might ease some people's worries. If I were you I would send an email to any of the houses you're interested in regardless of whether they say they'll take rent allowance or not and explain your situation. Also if a house is up for a thousand, offer 930 and explain why you're not offering more. Not everybody knows the limits.

convert

The problem is that a large number of people, myself included (as a tenant), have had bad experiences with those in receipt of rent allowance. The individual I shared with was over 6 months behind with their rent, never paid bills, despite being a power junkie, and just upped and left leaving over 350 euro in unpaid bills and 6 months in unpaid rent. This is the reason why a lot of landlords refuse to take those in receipt of rent allowance.

I know it's not fair to the responsible tenants in receipt of rent allowance who pay their rent and bills on time, but unfortunately it is the irresponsible few who get all rent allowance recipients a bad name.

Have you any references from previous landlords which you could provide to prospective landlords?

Cookie_Monster

I'm sure a lot of LL are worried about getting shafted by the budget in respect of this also.
There must be an expectation that this will drop by a big margin as the level its at currently is completely unsustainable

the_syco

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

you'd think landlords would be happy getting a garunteed 930 a month regardless of where its coming from.

Yes and no. The tenant is guaranteed 930 a month, but that doesn't mean the landlord will get it. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the broth.

Victor

You can use this: http://threshold.daft.ie/

mikemac

You are house hunting just a few weeks before the budget.

I don't know what sort of guarantees you have on that 930
A good chance rent allowance will be cut and there is a lot of uncertainty out there.
Or maybe it won't, we just don't know

Not to go offtopic but 930 should be more then enough to get a two bed for a parent and child in any county in Ireland. So there is room for cuts

OP, do some haggling. You're looking at houses for over a thousand. Offer them your rate, someone will take it

mosi

Out of interest, how many landlords reading this would be open to rent allowance (if no RA accepted is on the advertisement) on the basis of meeting the potential tenants?
I can understand that being put on an ad to deter undesirables, but surely with so many people losing their jobs, the stereotype of RA recipients no longer holds?
I'm looking to rent a house at the moment and I have seen one that looks really nice on Daft. However, it says no RA accepted and both myself and my flatmates are in receipt of the payment. Our circumstances are as follows: I am a mature student at uni, and my two friends were employed in the construction industry for years but cannot find work in the current climate. We can also provide excellent LL references.

CrackisWhack

the_syco wrote: »

Yes and no. The tenant is guaranteed 930 a month, but that doesn't mean the landlord will get it. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the broth.

too many cooks spoil the bunch!

Stheno

OP you need to be aware that while the CWO will pay rent allowance of up to 930 per month you have to contribute to it, I think it's 24 a week, or around about 112 a month, you won't get all of your rent covered.

With that in mind you could look at properties in the 1000 range factoring in your contribution.

MistyCheese

People in reciept of Rent Supplement (there's no such thing as Rent Allowance) cannot be trusted with their own State-appointed, means-teated, money, they will obviously spend their Rent Supplement on beer and nappies and not give the required rent to thier landlord as agreed.

Landlords are much better off only having tenants who are in paid employment, because God knows they will never cause you any hassle, never leave you short on rent, never run around and desert you.

the GALL

930 euro off the state to help pay your rent ......

MistyCheese

the GALL wrote: »

930 euro off the state to help pay your rent ......

Where did that figure come from? The maximum Rent Supplemt (for a single person) is €98 a week.

jimmycrackcorm

As a taxpayer funding rent allowances I'd like to know why the Op can't simply move in with his or her parents.

I remember the Sunday World doing a page on a couple in the Midlands who had a family with kids. They were splitting up and complaining to the paper that they were forced to live together because the council wouldn't give them separate accommodation and not only that, it wouldn't provide accommodation where the kids would be able to stay over at alternate weekends with the respective parents.

All because rent allowance is such a right...

LevelSpirit

Surely if the RA was paid directly to the landlords it would help them to get over their fear of not being paid.

MistyCheese

LevelSpirit wrote: »

Surely if the RA was paid directly to the landlords it would help them to get over their fear of not being paid.

Lord knows you can't trust a Rent Supplement recipient with their own money. Best to get their rent paid directly to the landlord, and, if they're also in reciept of Jobseeker's Allowance/Jobseeker's Benefit, best get their grocery money paid directly to Aldi/Lidl, their credit card card debt paid by Direct Debit to the bank , their Credit Union loans paid directly to the Credit Union, their gym fees taken immediately from their allowance and paid directly to the gym. That way no-one has to trust that people found to be 100% deserving of certain payments to pay thier bills on time and in full.

mikemac

MistyCheese wrote: »

Where did that figure come from? The maximum Rent Supplemt (for a single person) is €98 a week.

The OP has a child so they'll be looking for a two bed

Goldfish2010

The reason landlords don't want to take people in receipt of RA is that after 6 months tenancy, the tenant has the right to live there for 3 years and can not be asked to leave unless they are in serious breach of contract (i.e throwing used nappies against walls and crushing beer cans on neighbours heads)

Xiney

Goldfish2010 wrote: »

The reason landlords don't want to take people in receipt of RA is that after 6 months tenancy, the tenant has the right to live there for 3 years and can not be asked to leave unless they are in serious breach of contract (i.e throwing used nappies against walls and crushing beer cans on neighbours heads)

That's the same for anyone - Part 4 tenancy.

The_Conductor

MistyCheese wrote: »

Lord knows you can't trust a Rent Supplement recipient with their own money. Best to get their rent paid directly to the landlord, and, if they're also in reciept of Jobseeker's Allowance/Jobseeker's Benefit, best get their grocery money paid directly to Aldi/Lidl, their credit card card debt paid by Direct Debit to the bank , their Credit Union loans paid directly to the Credit Union, their gym fees taken immediately from their allowance and paid directly to the gym. That way no-one has to trust that people found to be 100% deserving of certain payments to pay thier bills on time and in full.

The fact of the matter MistyCheese- is accommodation differs from the provision of other services in that Aldi/Lidl do not need to go through a legal process that can last up to a year if their customer refuses to pay for their groceries, and they are not obliged to continue supplying said groceries until such time as the issue is resolved, irrespective of the knowledge that they are throwing good money after bad.

A significant number of the cases before the PRTB (and as a proportion of cases, rising and higher than any other category) now relates to non-payment of rent by tenants (the next largest category being the non-refund of deposits by landlords).

It is a simple fact that the state is now directly or indirectly funding 62% of the private rental accommodation in the state- and of the other 38%, the majority of the landlords are terrified of non-payment of rent by their tenants which is why they tend to have a no rent-supplement or IAS policy.

It used to be the case that rent supplement was paid directly to the landlord- however this was seen as an affront to social welfare recipients. When it was paid directly to landlords- the number of landlords who refused to let to social welfare recipients was between 12 and 15% (depending on whose statistics you choose to rely on). Paying RS or IAS directly to landlords- thus has the potential to open another 20% of the market to social welfare recipients- and as this is the segment of the market most appealing to private tenants (there is a much higher proportion of houses with gardens than in the former category)- surely its a win-win situation all round?

The big elephant in the corner is last weeks soundings from the ECB about interest rates rising sooner rather than later, and comments from government ministers about reducing mortgage interest relief to 50% for landlords in the December budget. Regardless of what the market rent is, or how its funded, a significant number of landlords are going to find themselves in trouble financially very very soon.........

The_Conductor

Ps- I do accept that it is a small minority of tenants in receipt of RS who have given the whole category a bad name- however tenants are now only too well aware of how difficult it is to move them, irrespective of whether they pay their rent or not, and an increasing number of them are willing to take their chances...... Its sad that this small minority has caused so much trouble for everyone else- however its an affront to the intelligence of everyone, not to recognise it as an issue that is getting worse by the day. There are a lot of innocent people getting badly hurt by the actions of others.

snubbleste

smccarrick wrote: »

...
It is a simple fact that the state is now directly or indirectly funding 62% of the private rental accommodation in the state- and of the other 38%, the majority of the landlords are terrified of non-payment of rent by their tenants which is why they tend to have a no rent-supplement or IAS policy.
...

Slightly OT, but where is this figure of 62% emerging from?

The_Conductor

snubbleste wrote: »

Slightly OT, but where is this figure of 62% emerging from?

It was quoted as the CSO figure by Threshold on Drivetime last week (during a debate on landlords getting RS paid directly). I'll see if I can find a direct source for it. The other stats from from askaboutmoney and the propertypin (alongside the PRTB).

S.

snubbleste

I think what you mean is that the level of claimants for rent supplement has increased 62% in three years to 96,500.
In June, the minister referred to 95,000 claimants or approx 50% of the private residential market.

The_Conductor

snubbleste wrote: »

I think what you mean is that the level of claimants for rent supplement has increased 62% in three years to 96,500.
In June, the minister referred to 95,000 claimants or approx 50% of the private residential market.

Rent supplement is supporting 50% of the private rental market. Other support mechanisms (still state funded) apparently make up an additional 12.8% of the rental market. The total proportion of the private rental market receiving state subsidies is just under 63%.

The additional 13% is comprised of:

1. Tenants in receipt of Rent Allowance (aka tenants in decontrolled rental situations)
2. Local authority tenants
3. HSE tenants
4. Tenants in accommodation provided by external bodies who have received state subventions to provide such accommodation
5. Tenants of voluntary housing associations where the association provides rent support (exclusive of 3)
6. Tenants in fulltime education who qualify for an exemption under Section 4.2 of the SWA Rent Supplement scheme
7. others

planetX

Ha, I can't believe no-one's mentioned another reason landlords won't 'accept' rent allowance.... they aren't registered, and aren't paying any tax, and there are still plenty of them out there.

930 is a Dublin figure, the amounts vary according to region. A few years ago when I was eligible for it, it was not possible to find a 2 bed for the rent limit where I lived. People have had to pay extra cash to landlords for years and years now. Even now that I don't get RA, I steer clear of any ads stating they don't 'accept' it, just like I steer clear of ads looking for couples, or professionals. Who wants that kind of landlord?

MRBEAVER

As far as I know landlords don't have to be registered or paying tax to receive rent allowance. That used to be the position a few years ago anyway. The difficulty that the OP is having may have to do with the upcoming budget. Landlords currenly receive €510 million a year from the govt. This massive subsidy to landlords was safe as long as their buddies in FF were in control but may be targeted by the IMF. The main losers from the rent allowance scheme are the working poor. Cutting RA which acts as a floor for rent levels would force landlords to take lower rents and help them greatly. RA is part of what's rotten and corrupt about the way this country is being run.

JonJoeDali

A lot of landlords will run a mile from single mothers for numerous reasons. The law as it is is stacked in favour of tenants and a judge will nearly always come down on the side of a single mother against the greedy landlord - the famine has a lingering effect in the Irish psyche.

ricman

Go to centrecare,cathedral st, off o,connell st or focuspoint ,temple bar ,they give out a list each day of homes that are rent that take ra.Theres usually at least 6 homes for rent at least, that take ra.
GO at 11 am , , theres people there to help you find a home.,and give general advice,.
i see lots of landlords who just take in ra tenants .ITS handy for them.A single mother is usually a good tenant, just dont look to get a house in rathmines for 930 euro per month.
IE 930 is a good rent for a landlord ,but who knows ,looks like the imf will bring down welfare rates and probably rent allowance.Perhaps wait till dec 8th ,budget see what happens then.i think focuspoint opens at 11.30 am,centrecare around ten am.

djimi

As a counter point to those tenants who cannot get accomodation because of rent allowance, as a tenant I often dont bother with landlords who do not accept rent allowance as the first thing that pops into my mind when I see "no rent allownace accepted" is that the landlord is not registered and is not operating legitemately. At least if a landlord accepts rent allowance I know they are operating above board in that respect.

Just another side of the coin...

The_Conductor

djimi wrote: »

As a counter point to those tenants who cannot get accomodation because of rent allowance, as a tenant I often dont bother with landlords who do not accept rent allowance as the first thing that pops into my mind when I see "no rent allownace accepted" is that the landlord is not registered and is not operating legitemately. At least if a landlord accepts rent allowance I know they are operating above board in that respect.

Just another side of the coin...

Check out the PRTB website- its not uptodate, but will give you a pretty good indication. The implications of being a landlord and not registering these days are an on-the-spot fine of 3k per incident- which is a sufficient deterrent to most. It used to be the case that there were a significant brigade of unregistered landlords out there who were abusing tenants, and the tax system. Those days are well and truly over though- and the cowboys who are still out there (and there are a few) will get their comeuppance. There is a separate division in the Revenue Commissioners focusing solely on 'cash-in-hand' businesses, with a section dedicated to private residential accommodation.

The pendulum has swung from being massively pro-landlord, to the other extreme. Many tenants may not have copped what their entitlements in law are, but believe you me- the rental sector here bares not semblance to that of 10 years ago.