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

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

Its a logical fallacy. While no doubt there is discrimination. Its not logical that so many would refuse RA on discrimination alone, if there was money in it.

Ok. BB, why don't you imagine you are a person reliant, for whatever reason. on RA.

Then look through daft. Bear in mind people who are facing homelessness, are desperate, and are in difficult circumstances do not have time on their side to negotiate, nor are they able to accept somewhere above the rent allowance limits for that area.

Do it for a few days. Let us know how you get on.

BostonB

I know of two people on RA. They went to an agent, and struck a deal on a place, negotiated the rent down. I don't think they used daft. Though I don't know how they found the agent in the first place.

CrystalLettuce

It's amusing but sad when people try to turn a general lack of understanding for someone less fortunate than them's situation into a "viewpoint".

Ray Palmer

Darlughda wrote: »

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

That never happened you just choose not to believe them as valid reasons. You never provided any proof in fact all you do is deny them as valid reason. You do so with out any experience and when confronted people talking about their experience you ignore it. It basically boils down to you not knowing what you are talking about. Then you are spending your time giving out about the results and making up reason for why it is not listening to the real reasons.

If you are trying to help people and you can't give a balanced view you may end up hindering them more than helping. Feeding anger rather than getting on with what needs to be done is not helping anybody.

There is a very limited stock of places for individuals as a whole no surprise of that stock few are available on RA.

Set-up a group that will guarantee none of the issues people mentioned will happen and take liablility for them if they do and see how long it will last. According to you there is no risk. AFAIK there are groups that help people get places to accept RA for the marginalized minority who use RA.

It still isn't discrimination no matter what you claim as it not based on anything that is classed as discrimination. You are claiming ability not to afford is discrimination which would mean I am discriminated from owning a Rolls Royce.

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

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.

But they do. Period and fact. One LL we approached had it all worked out; they would accept RA IF we made the rent up on the sly.

We finally had to make a major move.

It might not be logical, but several of the posts here are not logical either.

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

I know of two people on RA. They went to an agent, and struck a deal on a place, negotiated the rent down. I don't think they used daft. Though I don't know how they found the agent in the first place.

That is basically what we did here last year. But we got the name of the agent from daft. We were interested in another property on his books and he found us this one; we negotiated the rent down to accommodate RA and that was fine.

But by then we were running out of options because so many LLs refuse RA.

smelltheglove

As a previous RA recipient, it is a nightmare! There is more paprework, the tenants are bound by when the cheque comes as to when they can pay, tough luck if it is due a week beforehand thats the day you get it and that is it.

The paperwork side of things had my heart broken, my husband had been laid off, as previous homeowners we were completely new to this whole thing and with being self employed everything was a fight. We had to fill in paperwork for JSB, often requiring signature by the landlord, medical card applications need up to date letters from the landlord, rent allowance was constantly under review as I am self employed, all to be signed by the landlord and in order to receive RA we had to be on the housing list, yet again paperwork for the landlord.

The amount of times I was delayed with paperwork waiting for the landlord to sign was unreal, I kept thinking its only a signature how long can it take but I can appreciate it can be head wrecking for a landlord too, paperwork and hassle they do not need.

Rent allowance levels seem to be holding the market, the asking prices tend to be in or around the max ra, above if RA tenants are not wanted, a drop in RA would most likely see a drop in rents nationwide, at the end of the day a substantial amount of the rental market relies on rent allowance.

As to those who dismiss RA recipients, don't be so quick, you do not realise how easy it is to fall into it, redundancy isnt asked for, the majority of people want to pay their own way but in our economic times there are plenty of professional hard working people that end up unemployed sitting in the chairs of various government offices begging for any entitlements they can get, its hard enough to cope with without worrying about the sterotype people are going to attach to you. All I can say is I hope to God I never have to sit in another one of those waiting rooms again.

On the other hand, if I was a landlord, accepting rent allowance would guarnatee regular rent and the possibility of getting onto one of the social housing schemes such as RAS which would give a guaranteed 5 yrs rent, in todays times saying no is almost like turning down a gift horse!

BostonB

Graces7 wrote: »

But they do. Period and fact. One LL we approached had it all worked out; they would accept RA IF we made the rent up on the sly.

We finally had to make a major move.

It might not be logical, but several of the posts here are not logical either.

I don't think you get my point Grace. I'm not saying there isn't discrimination. I'm saying its logical fallacy to say all LL who refuse RA, do so the sole basis of discrimination. Look at this way, with so many in negative equity and desperate to pay their mortgages, you would think financial pressure would overcome any discrimination. Also if they took a RA tenant and had a good experience, then they'd be happy to take another. So eventually LL who take RA would increase. But going by the comments here, it seems the opposite is happening.

As your point about topping up the RA to meet the rent. I thought, the RA doesn't cover the full rent only a % of it. I've heard mention of agents advising LL to take the RA and ignore the shortfall of the full rent. I don't know but I didn't think this was allowed. In effect the RA would paying all the rent in that case. I'm open to correction. I've not direct experience of from either side.

smelltheglove

BostonB wrote: »

As your point about topping up the RA to meet the rent. I thought, the RA doesn't cover the full rent only a % of it. I've heard mention of agents advising LL to take the RA and ignore the shortfall of the full rent. I don't know but I didn't think this was allowed. In effect the RA would paying all the rent in that case. I'm open to correction. I've not direct experience of from either side.

Rent allowance recipients are always required to put something towards the rent even if it is only €20 a week. I have never heard of a landlord ignoring the shortfall, in fact I have heard of requests of the landlord asking for above the rent allowance limit but to sign saying the rent paid is within the limits in order to accept rent allowance which in my book is greed!

Darlughda

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That never happened you just choose not to believe them as valid reasons. .

What? What?! Have you even read this thread?
Where 'valid' reasons have been proved to be spurious?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You never provided any proof in fact all you do is deny them as valid reason.

Please do read the thread again, what is wrong with you?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You do so with out any experience and when confronted people talking about their experience you ignore it.
It basically boils down to you not knowing what you are talking about. Then you are spending your time giving out about the results and making up reason for why it is not listening to the real reasons.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What nonsense. You are quite the laugh, I must say. I have already stated sympathy for decent landlords who have bad experience with bad tenants, but I suspect you do not like your nasty prejudices hitting you in the face.

I have edited out the rest of your post rpalmer, because it is nonsense, just more hollow back up to the bollíx claim that there is no discrimination against RA tenants.

It shocks me that there is supposed to be fairness in moderation on this forum when the cards are so heavily stacked against somebody pointing out this ridicolous prejudice,against rent aloowance tenants, especially from the moderators here, don't bother telling me to go to the help desk forum, I know better than to try take on the david-goliath struggle there.

Ray Palmer, if you have had bad experiences with tenants, maybe that's all about you as a landlord, rather than your tenants, even if they were/are RA or not.

Darlughda

Nomad0209 wrote: »

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

n.

Ok, Lets start from the start again folks.

Are there any valid reasons for a landlord to either advertise Rent Allowance not accepted, or for them to refuse RA?

SmcCarrick has been the only one to attempt arguments regarding this, all have been proved pathetic and spurious by myself.

So, anyone else willing to back up their prejudice against RA tenants?

I would love to hear your 'valid' reasons.

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

I don't think you get my point Grace. I'm not saying there isn't discrimination. I'm saying its logical fallacy to say all LL who refuse RA, do so the sole basis of discrimination. Look at this way, with so many in negative equity and desperate to pay their mortgages, you would think financial pressure would overcome any discrimination. Also if they took a RA tenant and had a good experience, then they'd be happy to take another. So eventually LL who take RA would increase. But going by the comments here, it seems the opposite is happening.

As your point about topping up the RA to meet the rent. I thought, the RA doesn't cover the full rent only a % of it. I've heard mention of agents advising LL to take the RA and ignore the shortfall of the full rent. I don't know but I didn't think this was allowed. In effect the RA would paying all the rent in that case. I'm open to correction. I've not direct experience of from either side.

The opposite is happening because it means declaring rent to the taxman. Ome LL admitted that to us. So they would in fact get less money than by renting and not declaring.

You miss my point re 'topping up" of course we pay some, but what is happening is that th LL is advocating putting a lower rent on the forms, hence less tax of course, to allow RA and having a separate private agreement with the tenant to pay more than the stated rent. Backhander style.

Direct experience what you need; your theories are way off mark.

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

The opposite is happening because it means declaring rent to the taxman. Ome LL admitted that to us. So they would in fact get less money than by renting and not declaring.

You miss my point re 'topping up" of course we pay some, but what is happening is that th LL is advocating putting a lower rent on the forms, hence less tax of course, to allow RA and having a separate private agreement with the tenant to pay more than the stated rent. Backhander style.

Direct experience what you need; your theories are way off mark.

Graces7- if this is the case- report his or her sorry ass to the Revenue Commissioners. They have a section specifically dealing with cases like this- and will be only too happy to talk to you.

Ray Palmer

Darlughda wrote: »

What? What?! Have you even read this thread?
Where 'valid' reasons have been proved to be spurious?

Please do read the thread again, what is wrong with you?

I think you should look up the words "proof" "spurious" and then read the thread again yourself. You have no proof against the claims which are people explaining their experiences. It includes people on RA. So claims like it is only two form has been said to be not true from people's experience.

Darlughda wrote: »

I have edited out the rest of your post rpalmer, because it is nonsense, just more hollow back up to the bollíx claim that there is no discrimination against RA tenants.

Edit all you like, a reasonable person would see who is giving sensible debate. Obvious to anybody that you avoided a possible solution and notes on how you are not going to fix or help the issue instead make it worse. Not particularly impressive avoidance more like hiding your head in the sand.

According to you it nonsense for you to try and do something about the problem even though you apparently are in the area of helping people. Feel happy just being angry all you want.

Bad experiences with tenants is like bad experiences with customers in a shop it is just par for the course. Ultimately I have my property rented and your attitude doesn't really effect me where my experience and other LL experiences ultimately effects you. Stay angry all you like about it but you won't achieve anything. I would doubt you could keep your contempt in checking talking to a LL and any person with a bit of life experience would decide not to rent to you. I can only imagine how you would react to a LL if something like a washing machine broke down. I doubt you would be calm and reasonable judging you manner of debate here. Nobody really wants to deal with somebody like that and will avoid it if they can.

the_syco

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I can only imagine how you would react to a LL if something like a washing machine broke down. I doubt you would be calm and reasonable judging you manner of debate here. Nobody really wants to deal with somebody like that and will avoid it if they can.

I had to lol at this. If the user is anything like they are online, they would probably put the landlord off renting to RA tenants for life.

Graces7

smccarrick wrote: »

Graces7- if this is the case- report his or her sorry ass to the Revenue Commissioners. They have a section specifically dealing with cases like this- and will be only too happy to talk to you.

Really? That was in rural Donegal way back and the house was unsuitable so we did not pursue it. She had been doing it for years apparently. It sounded as if she was trying to be helfpul!

Ah well; no such anomalies here in warmer West Cork.... Thankfully ...

BostonB

Graces7 wrote: »

The opposite is happening because it means declaring rent to the taxman. Ome LL admitted that to us. So they would in fact get less money than by renting and not declaring.

You miss my point re 'topping up" of course we pay some, but what is happening is that th LL is advocating putting a lower rent on the forms, hence less tax of course, to allow RA and having a separate private agreement with the tenant to pay more than the stated rent. Backhander style.

Grace, that's another variation, perhaps it is the most common, I don't know I would be guessing. But its not the only way it happening. I know the other situations also exist, having encountered them.

Another way of looking at it, the LL is enabling RA tenants to rent places they wouldn't be able to as they wouldn't meet the criteria of the limits. Dropping the rent won't help the tenant as they still only get the same % AFAIK. Theres other downsides though. It keeps rent high, though it suggests the LL can get it from non RA tenants if they won't drop the rent. It also pushes the RA tenant into paying perhaps more than they can afford. Which ultimately may push the tenant into bigger arrears later on. I've seen this happen with tenants. There's also the tax avoidance angle.

Graces7 wrote: »

Direct experience what you need; your theories are way off mark.

You misunderstand me. I have no experience of ignoring the shortfall is what meant. I have experience. I'm just not going to post anecdotal stories, as its not useful. People get bogged down in them. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the process and the logic. Its not opinions or view. Where its a view I've said so. (I think)

I've already posted about the the problems for both sides, tenants and landlords. I don't think the system works for either side. However some people with no experience of being a LL seem to have difficulty seeing the business aspect to this, in the same way some LL have difficulty seeing from the tenants point of view. Thats a general comment not aimed at anyone personally.

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

Grace, that's another variation, perhaps it is the most common, I don't know I would be guessing. But its not the only way it happening. I know the other situations also exist, having encountered them.

Another way of looking at it, the LL is enabling RA tenants to rent places they wouldn't be able to as they wouldn't meet the criteria of the limits. Dropping the rent won't help the tenant as they still only get the same % AFAIK. Theres other downsides though. It keeps rent high, though it suggests the LL can get it from non RA tenants if they won't drop the rent. It also pushes the RA tenant into paying perhaps more than they can afford. Which ultimately may push the tenant into bigger arrears later on. I've seen this happen with tenants. There's also the tax avoidance angle.



You misunderstand me. I have no experience of ignoring the shortfall is what meant. I have experience. I'm just not going to post anecdotal stories, as its not useful. People get bogged down in them. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the process and the logic. Its not opinions or view. Where its a view I've said so. (I think)

I've already posted about the the problems for both sides, tenants and landlords. I don't think the system works for either side. However some people with no experience of being a LL seem to have difficulty seeing the business aspect to this, in the same way some LL have difficulty seeing from the tenants point of view. Thats a general comment not aimed at anyone personally.

Wrong; the system works fine; here we are with a roof over our heads, legisalation that protects our rights and enough to live on when disability or age strikes. Landlord is getting paid. that is what the system is about - period.. No idea what your issue is... Over and out

Victor

Darlughda wrote: »

all have been proved pathetic and spurious by myself.

You might tone it down a bit. Belittling people isn't acceptable.

the_syco wrote: »

I had to lol at this. If the user is anything like they are online, they would probably put the landlord off renting to RA tenants for life.

Lets not personalise this.

planetX

I'd have thought topping up RA was ubiquitous back in the boom years. Certainly when I was looking I never found a single property in my area that was within the rent allowance limits, because I had one child - if I had two the limits would have been enough. I could name at least 3 single parent friends who were topping up too, and suffering badly for losing that money - but there was no other option. RA limits with one child have never been right, the difference in price between a 2 and 3 bed in my area are negligable, in fact 2 beds usually are dearer, being new.

Darlughda

I want to quit this thread, so other people can put forward their experiences, if they wish, of their experiences of Rent Allowance, particularly from the tenants' point of view.

There is already a very clear, unpleasant and aggressive bias on this forum towards tenants who are reliant on rent allowance.
Especially as no good reasons have put forward, that have not already been quashed.
There is another thread on this forum about a RA tenant who is taking the píss, so I am glad to see some of the vitriol redirected there.

the_syco wrote: »

I had to lol at this. If the user is anything like they are online, they would probably put the landlord off renting to RA tenants for life.

That'll be why I have excellent references from my previous landlords, both of whom shared a pint with me, and told me that if there was absolutely anything they could do to help me out in the future, they were only to willing to help.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I can only imagine how you would react to a LL if something like a washing machine broke down. .

Funnily enough, this happened a few months ago. The landlord was very relieved and grateful to me that I had figured out what the problem was, and saved him a fortune in plumber's fees.

I have learnt to choose my landlords carefully.
Unfortunately, other types seem to be insulted or surprised if you ask them for a BER cert, let alone a reference from previous tenants.

But a good landlord does know a good tenant, and vice versa.

BostonB

“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.

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

Daft is a very dubious source of stats.

Darlughda

I wonder if those stats have changed, BB?

Nonetheless, remember the little challenge I set you?:D
By the way, bully for yer mates who managed to get through the system. Unfortunately, this is too rare.

Really, it is no joke trying to find decent accomodation with a decent landlord if you are reliant on Rent Allowance, and this does include people who are elderly, sick and disabled.

Darlughda

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.



Now, Victor that image is belittling someone,
Partcilarly someone with unpoplular point of view in such a forum,]#

After this, you have the audacity to ask me to 'tone' it down, when nothing I have replied to has been without the true spiritof the orginal message or allegation made about me.

Instead there were reams of insults made about me. but no you choode to ignore them all.
the ignorant bias shownby by both sccarrmick and yourself on this forum is just astoudning,
I think we need th eCmods in

BostonB

Theres no point its completely flawed. All that daft indicates is that lots of LL preference is not RA, or it means they haven't filled in the ad properly. Its only the online ads. Most of the LL and agents I know don't use it. They have their own sites, or just don't need to put it on the web. As the DSP indicate, despite so many advertising they don't take RA, a lot of them do, regardless of their ads.

It a big like job hunting, lots of people only search on the web. Which is completely flawed as many places don't use job sites at all. Many of the jobs descriptions are not accurate, you can't rely on it at all. Many car sites search by say under 1k you get a bunch of new cars. Why, because they don't put in a price. That doesn't mean they are selling new cars at under 1k, just because it came up in a search.

Darlughda

Victor wrote: »

You might tone it down a bit. Belittling people isn't acceptable.
Lets not personalise this.

Oh the hypocrisy staright out this is hilarious. The whole thread people had been trying to belittle me, and quite frankly terar me apart for not agreeing with their mob, So, i said enough and took matters in my wown hands.Seeing as therre were no nuetral mods who could actually behave in a moderate way.


So Victor posts this image, and then has the audacity to upbraide me on belitting people
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.

The_Conductor

Darlughda- if you wish to continue posting in this forum- please read the forum charter (as suggested previously).

Also contrary to what you think- no one has a personal vendetta against you. If you have an issue with a post someone makes- use the report post function (like everyone else does). Going on a personal attack is *not* acceptable- irrespective of your point of view.

Further- if you disagree with how I or Victor moderate this forum- use the facilities at your disposal (there is a set procedure) for complaining. Muttering about moderators, calling other posters sycophants and generally throwing temper tantrums with anyone who disagrees with you- is hardly going to constructively help with any debate.

We do actually have quite reasonable debates in this forum- featuring experiences and comments from people representing all sides of most equations- which are very educational for us all. Its when you start personalising your posts and going on the offensive when you see anything you disagree with- instead of disputing it factually- that we all get mired down in recriminations that do no-one any good whatsoever.

I'm closing this thread, as quite honestly I do not believe it has any hope of distributing useful information or debate to anyone.

If you wish to contribute to any of the other threads in this forum concerning RA/RS/RAS or other support schemes- thats fine with me- but please do so in a factual manner- instead of using them as an opportunity to derail the thread as happened with the thread from which this was split off.

Regards,

SMcCarrick