Yet more debate on Rent Allowance...........

Nomad0209

ricman wrote: »

.
I can think of at least 5 reasons why landlords refuse rent allowance which have nothing to do with tax evasion.

....would you mind elaborating on that ricman? Would be much obliged

n.

The_Conductor

Nomad0209 wrote: »

....would you mind elaborating on that ricman? Would be much obliged

n.

1. The inconvenience of additional paperwork
2. Lots of media reports of landlords in this category not getting paid
3. RA amounts being randomly revised downwards at budget time- without any cognisance of rental agreements (in contradiction of the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act)
4. Refusal on the parts of some RA tenants to sign standard leases
5. CWOs advising RA tenants to demand as standard, conditions or furnishings far beyond those normally provided in rental accommodation
6. Despite what CWOs would have you believe- its *not*normal to pay rent in arrears
7. Well- do you want me to keep going?

snubbleste

smccarrick wrote: »

5. CWOs advising RA tenants to demand as standard, conditions or furnishings far beyond those normally provided in rental accommodation

Can you give an example of this?

Darlughda

Cavehill Red, I am shocked to hear about the poor treatment of your friend.
It is disgraceful that a good long term tenant should be subjected to the possibility of losing the place she was renting, not to mention the effect this would have on her child,just because the landlord refuses to sign a very simple bit of extra paperwork.

Indeed, it is only a very small piece of extra paperwork. As she has been renting for a long time, and the tenancy does not show up on the PRTB website, the likelihood is that the landlord is not registered with PRTB, nor is he tax compliant. This can be the only reason that a landlord refuses to sign the rent supplement fors, especially when he knows the tenant to be a good, reliable longterm tenant.

Unfortunately, regulation is badly needed in the rental area, as a landlord, at present, is still allowed to refuse rent supplement, despite the growing redundancies and unemployment. A brief look at the Daft website will show that despite the glut in the rental housing market, most places refuse Rent Allowance.

She should not hand any notice to quit to her landlord!!!

Instead, she needs to make an appointment to see an advisor in Threshold. The Landlord can only evict her for non payment of rent, after a long and protracted battle with PRTB. However, he cannot bring a case against her unless he is registered with PRTB. She should stick to her guns, get the proper advice from Threshold, and not be bullied in this situation by a rogue landlord.

Darlughda

ricman wrote: »

I can think of at least 5 reasons why landlords refuse rent allowance which have nothing to do with tax evasion.

Nomad0209 wrote: »

....would you mind elaborating on that ricman? Would be much obliged

Indeed, ricman, I would be as keen as Nomad to hear your 5 reasons, at the minimum why a landlord would refuse rent allowance that have nothing to do with tax evasion?

smccarrick wrote: »

1. The inconvenience of additional paperwork?

Absolute nonsense. Its a couple of extra forms to sign.

smccarrick wrote: »

2. Lots of media reports of landlords in this category not getting paid?

Yeah, the usual couple of sensationalist stories that are barely disguised socio-economic discrimination about a few bad eggs. I would bet all the stories of Landlords not getting paid put together would prove that it is not, in fact, usually the tenants in receipt of RA who turn out to be bad tenants.

smccarrick wrote: »

3. RA amounts being randomly revised downwards at budget time- without any cognisance of rental agreements (in contradiction of the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act)?

Yet, especially on this forum, the rant is the Rent Allowance is too high?

smccarrick wrote: »

4. Refusal on the parts of some RA tenants to sign standard leases)?

No wonder, when landlords want tenants to sign the lease before the RA has been approved by the CWO.

smccarrick wrote: »

5. CWOs advising RA tenants to demand as standard, conditions or furnishings far beyond those normally provided in rental accommodation)

More nonsense. CWOs advise tenants to demand the minimum standard regulations laid down in Housing (Standards for Rented Houses)Regulations 1993. Basic stuff like ventilation in the bathroom, kitchen area, hood over the cooker etc. The amount of properties that don't meet these basic standards are shocking.

smccarrick wrote: »

6. Despite what CWOs would have you believe- its *not*normal to pay rent in arrears?

This is only an issue with tenants going on to RA for the first time, who cannot afford to put together the months rent and deposit. If a landlord is going to get a good tenant, with guaranteed rent, why should it be such an issue?

smccarrick wrote: »

7. Well- do you want me to keep going?

.
No. You have already provided quite enough spurious reasons that prove there are no good reasons for a landlord to refuse rent allowance.

Ray Palmer

Darlunga,
You might not seem them as valid reasons but as it is not you who has to do it and it is the LL who does. The basic problem is most LL KNOW that this is a lot of hassle that causes problems and non-payment of rent. Tenants aren't particularly bothered about sending in all the forms on time as it doesn't effect them and generally relinquish responsibility of rent if they aren't actually paying it. That alone is enough of a reason not to accept it.

The landlord's prerogative whether you agree or not. The government should not be able to stipulate who can agree to a private agreement EVER and AFAIK it is against the constitution.

The situation is quite simple the tenant can't pay the rent and the LL doesn't want to take RA tenant has to find a place that will. Part of the free market.

As for your responses. Tenants registered with PRTB still aren't on the site yet been registered for 3 years +, always tax compliant and do accept RA from existing tenants but not from a new tenant. A lot more than 2 forms are required to continue RA and often involves late payment. RA can often be stopped due to something the tenant forgetting to do something. Get's stopped due to "some" mix up and tenant will never pay while it isn't sorted out. I would not advise anybody to take RA from experience I do so knowing the risk and could get more rent if I didn't but do so because the tenant has been there so long and it is their home. If there was large cut I don't think I would and I would be called every name under the sun for it.

smelltheglove

Rent allowance is determined by the area and the amount of people in the family i.e. max for a single parent OR a couple with 2 kids is 1050.

The landlord does not have to accept although it is in his better interests to do so in order to save from finding a new tenant. My advice to your friend would be to apply, move straight away and report the landlord to the ptrb.

The_Conductor

Darlughda wrote: »

Indeed, ricman, I would be as keen as Nomad to hear your 5 reasons, at the minimum why a landlord would refuse rent allowance that have nothing to do with tax evasion?

I quite honestly do not understand what your pre-occupation with tax evasion is. If you suspect a landlord (or anyone else) is evading tax- report them. Even if you don't have proof, the Revenue Commissioners have excellent investigative sections who are only too happy to chase these cases. Similarly- if someone is fiddling social welfare- report them and let Welfare chase them. This country is screwed enough without people getting away with tax evasion or social welfare fraud.

Darlughda wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Its a couple of extra forms to sign.

I'm personally aware of a neighbour who has had to submit almost identical paperwork 4 times- and then was delayed in getting paid for spurious reasons to do with the way the forms were interpreted. When someone needs to pay their mortgage- the not knowing when they're going to get paid their rent- is a massive issue.

Darlughda wrote: »

Yeah, the usual couple of sensationalist stories that are barely disguised socio-economic discrimination about a few bad eggs. I would bet all the stories of Landlords not getting paid put together would prove that it is not, in fact, usually the tenants in receipt of RA who turn out to be bad tenants.

Perhaps the constant stories of tenants not paying their rent is a case of a few bad apples giving other totally respectable tenants a bad name- the fact of the matter is there are an increasing number of these bad apples. Have a look at some of the recent threads here and in PI- yesterday featured one landlord in Enniscorthy who hasn't been paid rent since last August- and whose tenant is offering to vacate the property if the landlord pays them a lump sum of 12 grand........ There are increasing numbers of these stories. Certainly the tenant in Wexford is a gangster of the highest order- however even one bad apple taints the reputation of all the good apples. I had great fun trying to rent a small apartment as a student- because of the reputation students have. Its identical. You might not like it- but the bad actions of even one person- taint people's perception of dealing with similar type tenants.

Darlughda wrote: »

Yet, especially on this forum, the rant is the Rent Allowance is too high?

Sorry I don't understand what you're saying. Rent Allowance tenants- are renting private accommodation- the same as any other tenant. The 2004 Residential Tenancies Act allows for an annual rent review to be conducted, with any change in rent to mirror prevailing market rates for any given area. My point was the government running roughshod over this Act- by unilaterally reducing Rent-Allowance across the board at budget time- irrespective of people's legal rights under the Residential Tenancies Act. It really is the case that people want the rights that accrue to them under the act- but not the obligations- and the government are deliberately pushing people into breaking the law. I genuinely do not understand what you mean about rants on this forum about rent-allowance being too high? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate- the level of rent-allowance is a wholly separate issue in my mind (and to be honest- the level of rent-allowance is almost single handedly supporting the entire rental sector).

Darlughda wrote: »

No wonder, when landlords want tenants to sign the lease before the RA has been approved by the CWO.

The fact that a CWO is dragging their heels in approving rent-allowance is a reason for tenants to refuse to sign leases? Really? A rent-allowance tenant is renting private accommodation that belongs to someone else. More often than not this is their sole property- the picture you have of ye olde landlord with their string of properties- is every bit as much a fallacy as the picture of rent-allowance tenant being out to screw their landlord for whatever they're worth. It is standard practice to sign a lease when you are renting a property. It is not standard practice to offer to rent a property- and expect the landlord to hold the property on the off-chance that you will be approved for rent-allowance (or any other allowance). A tenant should determine this in advance.

CWOs also seem to be advising tenants not to sign leases- on the basis that they then are party to a legally binding agreement- the CWOs big issue being the nature of fixed term leases. If you want an open ended lease- you have to accept that you will pay a significantly higher monthly rent for it- in reflection of the landlord not knowing when you're going to vacate the property. This is nothing whatsoever to do with rent-allowance tenants- its the same for any tenant.

Darlughda wrote: »

More nonsense. CWOs advise tenants to demand the minimum standard regulations laid down in Housing (Standards for Rented Houses)Regulations 1993. Basic stuff like ventilation in the bathroom, kitchen area, hood over the cooker etc. The amount of properties that don't meet these basic standards are shocking.

If the property does not meet the standards laid out in the 1993- report them to the local environmental health officer and/or housing officer in the appropriate council area. Under the 2010 amendment- the penalties for non-compliance are severe- and can include up to 6 months imprisonment for a landlord.

It is not in order for a CWO to instruct a landlord to replace beds and/or other furnishings that are in a satisfactory condition. These types of furnishings have a defined lifespan (by the Revenue Commissioners) and in cases of wear and tear over and above this defined lifespan- should be deducted from a person's deposit.

Darlughda wrote: »

This is only an issue with tenants going on to RA for the first time, who cannot afford to put together the months rent and deposit. If a landlord is going to get a good tenant, with guaranteed rent, why should it be such an issue?

The average landlord has a single property. They have to pay their mortgage- the same as anyone else. You are asking them to subsidise a stranger by accepting rent in arrears- when their bank are not willing to accept their mortgage payments in arrears (note the 240 repossessions of non-PPR property year to-date). The landlord has no idea whether they are getting a good tenant or not- they do not know the person from Adam. The rent is not in fact guaranteed (as evidenced from the numerous recent PRTB cases). The rent can also be unilaterally revised downwards at the whim of the government- however the person's mortgage is only going up. Why should a landlord subsidise their potential tenant as you are suggesting? In any area where there is sufficient private demand to let a property to other than social welfare recipients/RA/RS tenants- landlords run a mile- and understandably so. The government seems to have it in mind that landlords should bear any risk associated with letting property to social welfare/RA/RS/RW tenants- without there being any risk cost associated with the transaction. Is it any wonder landlords prefer to let privately where possible?
.

Darlughda wrote: »

No. You have already provided quite enough spurious reasons that prove there are no good reasons for a landlord to refuse rent allowance.

Spurious reasons? You reckon? I am certain there are hundreds or even thousands of RA/RS/RW tenants who are in substandard accommodation, having problems with their landlords and very often other issues also. The inverse of this- is there are also hundreds or even thousands of tenants (not the same tenants)- abusing the system mercilessly, in the knowledge that any PRTB action to have them evicted can take up to 2 years.

You have a bee in your bonnet and consider landlords evil incarnate- and tenants automatically the wronged party. There are two sides to every coin- and there are tenants out there- more numerous in number than you care to admit- whose primary aim is to abuse the system where possible.

You cannot automatically assume that landlords are out to abuse tenants- or tenants are out to rip off their landlords- both happen- and both are wrong.

convert

rustyregan wrote: »

I think this is a very badly moderated thread.

Probably a good idea to PM the mod and chat with them about it rather than complain on the thread (which not only is rude, but pretty much against every forum charter)

The OP asked some simple technical questions and was insulted (told he was spiteful amongst other things) and the thread has devolved into a nonsenscial set of rants about the rights and wrongs of rent allowance.

The OP or anyone should be allowed to make queries and people who have problems with the nature of those queries should be respectful. If they want to discuss certain issues they should open their own threads for this purpose rather than ruin what was a perfectly reasonable query.

From what I can gather, the OP started the thread asking why landlords are inclined to refuse rent allowance, and that's what's being discussed.

As somebody who has house shared with a number of tenants in receipt of RA over the years, there is no way, as a landlord, I would accept an RA tenant as those I shared with never paid their rent (despite receiving practically their entire monthly rent) or their bills. That experience alone would be a big enough reason for a landlord to refuse an RA tenant.

Is this fair to RA tenants who are good and conscientious tenants who always pay their rent and bills on time? No, of course not, but unfortunately, as smccarrick's post re. students and their problems finding accommodation (which still exists) shows, it's the small minority of bad tenants (and/or landlords) who get the majority a bad reputation.

It's a topic that can be discussed ad infinitum, in many shapes and forms, as is happening in this thread, so to say that people are hijacking this thread to put forward their own agenda is a little harsh when threads are there for people to debate and pursue a given topic, this one being why a landlord would refuse an RA tenant.

The_Conductor

I'm going to try to tidy up this thread tomorrow- my internet access is flakey as hell this evening for some reason, and I keep getting knocked off.

Rustyregan- no offence taken- however if you have a problem with any posts- the easiest way to get it sorted is by using the 'report post' function (the little exclamation mark in a red triangle to the bottom left of posts)- as an e-mail is automatically sent to all the moderators with the information you provide.

Cheers,

SMcCarrick

Graces7

Speaking as a tenant on RA.. I have never been behind with the rent. Never made unreasonable demands of CWO or landlord. Always honest etc; see thread on State benefits re my own experience re RA.

In all the years of renting, any problems have come from the landlord eg getting repairs etc done. In the last house, the toilet remained unattachd to the floor.. Got weary of asking...

If someone you know has been abused etc, then by all means get that sorted, but without abusing decent honest folk eg pensioners and the disabled who have enough to contend with without finding it hard to get decent accommodation within RA limits.

You `cannot label all because some are bad. That borders on the irrational and I am sure you are not that?

At last we have a decent landlord; no issue re RA and he only had one form to fill in... and repairs are done within hours. After some initial issues, and he is now also registered with the PTRB. ..

But this is set against six previous bad landlords. And yes, they were dealt with by the correct channels and without personal animosity on our part.

Thankful for the PTRB indeed. And for the laws that protect tenants.

With this landlord, who had not rented the house out for some years, he did not know re registration or the tenancy laws etc so we simply made sure via the agent that this was explained.

He is happy with us and we with him.

BostonB

LL only see problems with tenants and Tenants only see problems with LL. Because usually they've only experience from one side. Thus these discussions go nowhere most of the time.

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

LL only see problems with tenants and Tenants only see problems with LL. Because usually they've only experience from one side. Thus these discussions go nowhere most of the time.

This is one of those generalisations that mean little. As I have said, it is more than possible for tenant and landlord to live at peace with each other, as we are doing here now.

The real problems arise when one or several bad experiences are assumd to mean that ALL eg tenants/landlords are bad etc.

We are happy now with the landlord situation here as all is dealt with properly. So no generalisations are valid for us.

BostonB

I'm not seeing where you've posted about the problem of RA from the LL side. Which kinda illustrates my point.

Darlughda

Errr. moderator land, and please dont tell me to go to pm.

What happened to Cavehill red's original thread??

My post no. 4 on this thread is in direct response to his query and makes no sense on this split thread where the original thread is nowhere to be found??

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

where the original thread is nowhere to be found??

Did you look hard? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72020381

This thread was split of probably as it makes more sense having the debate here, rather than derailing Cavehill Reds' thread.

Darlughda

the_syco wrote: »

Did you look hard? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72020381

This thread was split of probably as it makes more sense having the debate here, rather than derailing Cavehill Reds' thread.

Don't try it sycophant.

Darlughda

smccarrick wrote: »

I quite honestly do not understand what your pre-occupation with tax evasion is. .

Err, no pre-occupation. The question of the original OP was regarding this question and the original thread has now disappeared, so golly, how can I answer this in relation to the OP.

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm personally aware of a neighbour who has had to submit almost identical paperwork 4 times- and then was delayed in getting paid for spurious reasons to do with the way the forms were interpreted. ..

LOL! Have you never had to apply for the jobs that require you to submit at least3-4 copes of your original 9 page application. No, I guess not. You are obviously not experienced with the reality of being unemployed.

smccarrick wrote: »

I genuinely do not understand what you mean about rants on this forum about rent-allowance being too high? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate- the level of rent-allowance is a wholly separate issue in my mind (and to be honest- the level of rent-allowance is almost single handedly supporting the entire rental sector). ..

Indeed. a seperate issue. As you you yourself have stated rent allowance is too 'generous'. Don't even try me. I am sick of the prevailing attitude on this forum that rent allowance is keeping the rental market overly buoyant when there are sweet fa rental properties on the market in the midst of the so called glut, that accept rent allowance within the limits of the max allowances for rent allowance. I quoted a figure direct from daft last night on the thread in AH, 18 out of nearly or over 1250!!!

smccarrick wrote: »

The fact that a CWO is dragging their heels in approving rent-allowance is a reason for tenants to refuse to sign leases? Really? Yep, would you sign a lease when your guarantor of ability to pay (in this case the CWO) has not approved the rent asllowance app.
..

smccarrick wrote: »

If the property does not meet the standards laid out in the 1993- report them to the local environmental health officer and/or housing officer in the appropriate council area. Under the 2010 amendment- the penalties for non-compliance are severe- and can include up to 6 months imprisonment for a landlord. ..

When have you last looked at the places on Daft? As I mentioned if only 18 out of 2500",are willing to accept RA within the max limits of course they are going to be slums...wtf are desperate people supposed to do??

smccarrick wrote: »

It is not in order for a CWO to instruct a landlord to replace beds and/or other furnishings that are in a satisfactory condition. These types of furnishings have a defined lifespan (by the Revenue Commissioners) and in cases of wear and tear over and above this defined lifespan- should be deducted from a person's deposit. ..

Oh LOL. See above. the slums that people are being forced to take and then plead with the CWO its ok.....do you not have any conception what is going on here???


I just cannot continue with this discussion with you anymore shane, as I am someone who is on rent allowance due to a long term illness and works voluntarily with vulnerable people in need of accomadation, especially those for whom English is not there first language.

It is plain from these threads, you have not an iota of the reality of the harshness and discrimination out there facing people because of the prejudice of landlords.

And no, I don't believe Landlords are evil incarnate, I just think too many are stupid greedy fools.

Ray Palmer

Darlughda wrote: »

It is plain from these threads, you have not an iota of the reality of the harshness and discrimination out there facing people because of the prejudice of landlords.

And no, I don't believe Landlords are evil incarnate, I just think too many are stupid greedy fools.

You seemed to have missed where I explained real experiences I have had with dealing with RA. It isn't prejudice it is EXPERIENCE and advice from people with experience that will stop most LLs taking rent allowance.

At least you are admitting you have prejudice about LL. Issues with the RA are not to do with the people but more to do with the experience with the system. Considering you have never dealt with RA as a LL nor dealt with the majority of LL you really are assuming a lot.

ztoical

Darlughda wrote: »

Err, no pre-occupation. The question of the original OP was regarding this question and the original thread has now disappeared, so golly, how can I answer this in relation to the OP..

It hasn't 'disappeared'. This discussion had gone way off topic to the OP's first post and the OP hasn't been back for a number of days so the mods seperated the posts out to stop it being such a train wreck. Someone already gave you a link to the original thread if you wished to add something more to it so stop carrying on like it's some sort of conspiracy.

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

Oh LOL. See above. the slums that people are being forced to take and then plead with the CWO its ok.....do you not have any conception what is going on here???

Darlughda wrote: »

Of these, only 18 accept rent allowance and are within the max rent allowance limits for a single person living alone.

I acknowledge that some of the places out there are slums, but if they were upgraded to better standards, the landlords would increase the price to cover the costs. Therefore these slums may be then taken out of the price range of the people whom you help.

Hrm. Gonna read the "Shíte flats" thread as it seems interesting & informative.

Victor

Can we discuss the topic at hand and not smipe at each other?

Darlughda wrote: »

Don't try it sycophant.

Stop using words that I have to look up! Indeed, you might need to revise your knowledge of it yourself.

While the text below is wrong, the image comes to mind.

gurramok

Darlughda wrote: »

When have you last looked at the places on Daft? As I mentioned if only 18 out of 2500",are willing to accept RA within the max limits of course they are going to be slums...wtf are desperate people supposed to do??

You are quoting Daft which is just a snapshot of real time adverts. I suspect alot of RA tenants are long term which explains the official govt release that RA controls 50% of the private rental market, it is not 50% of current adverts on Daft.ie. There's your explanation.

Darlughda

Victor wrote: »

Stop using words that I have to look up! Indeed, you might need to revise your knowledge of it yourself.

Its ok Victor, the below image explains the word perfectly and describes so many on this thread.(Gosh, ain't that funny, smmcarrick removed his thanks from your last post with your old meme image.Ha!)

ztoical

Darlughda wrote: »

Its ok Victor, the below image explains the word perfectly and describes so many on this thread.

Why? Because people have pointed out the reality of the situation? No one has said it's right or wrong for LL to refuse to take RA only presented some of the reasons LL give for not wanting to take RA. A few bad apples are making a mess of it for everyone. Just look at the handful of threads on here of LL trying to remove tenants who haven't paid rent in months. Just one threads this week stated 7 months to have a tenant evicted. Said tenant was getting RA. Does this mean all RA tenants will act like this? Hell no, same as not all students trash house they rent but there's enough second hand stories out there to put people off and if you were LL and saw posts like this would it have you jumping to take RA tenants? Of course you'll answer that yes of course you would but you've already made it clear you hold a biased view point and couldn't imagine someone at the other end of the stick whose renting out what was their family home due to the current economic climate. These are not greedy property developers, they are people who have been raised in a country that pushes people to buy rather then rent as the view in Ireland is your aim in life should be be to buy and not rent long term like they do in North America and mainland Europe.

Like smccarrick answers or not they are the reasons people give for not wanting to deal with RA and moaning about it isn't going to alter that. Also there's no point in bringing Daft figures in as the majority of people getting RA are people who are in accomadation and now can't afford to cover the rent and apply for RA. They are not people who are homeless trying to get housing, that is a different area and there is a different system in place to help people who need emergancy housing.

Darlughda

I have absolutely nothing better to do tonight, so I will humour you ztoical with bothering respond.

ztoical wrote: »

Why? Because people have pointed out the reality of the situation? .

Yawn. The usual gang bang of RA haters on this forum havin' a go.

ztoical wrote: »

No one has said it's right or wrong for LL to refuse to take RA only presented some of the reasons LL give for not wanting to take RA. .

Actually all spurious arguments why a LL will advertise NO RENT ALLOWANCE accepted have been proved to be bollíx.

ztoical wrote: »

A few bad apples are making a mess of it for everyone.

I couldn't agree more. On both the LL and tenant side

ztoical wrote: »

Just look at the handful of threads on here of LL trying to remove tenants who haven't paid rent in months. Just one threads this week stated 7 months to have a tenant evicted. Said tenant was getting RA. Does this mean all RA tenants will act like this? Hell no,

Indeed not. But you would swear from a forum like this that all RA tenants are the scum of the earth. Like BB said in the thread on AH, when guards trashed the house his mate, who was the landlord, just put it down to young lads havin' fun. Different story of course if they were RA tenants.

ztoical wrote: »

you've already made it clear you hold a biased view point

Bollíx. That was decided for me by smcarrick and the rest of you when I had stated clearly that I was talking about SOME not all.

ztoical wrote: »

Also there's no point in bringing Daft figures in as the majority of people getting RA are people who are in accomadation and now can't afford to cover the rent and apply for RA.

There is every point of bring Daft figures into this, as this highlights the prejudice and difficulty going on!

ztoical wrote: »

They are not people who are homeless trying to get housing, that is a different area and there is a different system in place to help people who need emergancy housing.

Oh this should be good.
Considering I work voluntarily in this area, would you care to enlighten me, ztoical about this different system?

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...Yawn. The usual gang bang of RA haters on this forum havin' a go.

Actually all spurious arguments why a LL will advertise NO RENT ALLOWANCE accepted have been proved to be bollíx....

Well its proved that you don't listen just repeat dogma regardless of whats said. For example...

Darlughda wrote: »

... But you would swear from a forum like this that all RA tenants are the scum of the earth. Like BB said in the thread on AH, when guards trashed the house his mate, who was the landlord, just put it down to young lads havin' fun. Different story of course if they were RA tenants....

Actually I said the exact opposite. I said he wouldn't rent to single lads again.

Darlughda

Originally Posted by Darlughda
"...Yawn. The usual gang bang of RA haters on this forum havin' a go."

Actually all spurious arguments why a LL will advertise NO RENT ALLOWANCE accepted have been proved to be bollíx....

BostonB wrote: »

"Well its proved that you don't listen just repeat dogma regardless of whats said. For example...".

Originally Posted by Darlughda
"... But you would swear from a forum like this that all RA tenants are the scum of the earth. Like BB said in the thread on AH, when guards trashed the house his mate, who was the landlord, just put it down to young lads havin' fun. Different story of course if they were RA tenants...." [/B]

[B]"What? how exactly is that 'dogma' of whom/ what? I am pointing out that all spurious arguments attempted to be made for why a LL does not accept RA are complete bollíx. And none of you like this-so you will continue to attack me? Why?

[/B]" Do you even know what dogma means? Let me enlighten you 'Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers '

BostonB wrote: »

"Actually I said the exact opposite. I said he wouldn't rent to single lads again.

Exactly. Duh. Had, they not been guards, but RA, it would have been yet more anecdotal evidence against RA tenants, not 'single lads'.
Why, oh why do I have to keep repeating myself here on this forum and state the bleedin' obvious over and over again?

BostonB

I can't read that its all over the place. The example had nothing to do with RA, in the same way no pets, no smokers, no kids, no families, no students, has nothing to do with RA. But you make every thing about RA, or discrimination even when it isn't. Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds...http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

I can't read that its all over the place. The example had nothing to do with RA, in the same way no pets, no smokers, no kids, no families, no students, has nothing to do with RA. But you make every thing about RA, or discrimination even when it isn't. Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds...http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

I did my best to make it clear.But, you are determined not to see the blatant facts in front of you.

Again, I will repeat this, there is serious discrimination against tenants who are in need of rent supplement.
The evidence from daft proves this.

Whether or not, this discrimination comes from anecdotal evidence of people who are genuinely good and decent landlords is irrelevant, as it does not take into account the varying situations that a tenant may need to seek rent allowance nor be an indicator of their character.

BostonB

Its a logical fallacy. While no doubt there is discrimination. (I've not claimed there isn't) Its not logical that so many would refuse RA on discrimination alone, if there was money in it.