Budget 2012 - New Rent Supplement Limits

not even wrong

Badhb wrote: »

Can you imagine what it is like to have an illness and finally after months of searching for a landlord who will accept rent supplement for a place that is not hazardous to health, to suddenly have to tell them you can no longer pay them €529 a month but now only €475, and this is when they want an increase to €540 a month, and you cannot argue it is above market rates, for although it is a bedsit it is not horrible, and will go like a flash due to the student area it is in?

But I am too ill to move out of my place.

My advice is pay the landlord the new €475 rent and stay put, a judge is going to be very reluctant to evict you if moving would indeed endanger your health and you've shown that you're making a good-faith effort to pay all the rent you can afford and the shortfall is due to circumstances outside your control.

snubbleste

not even wrong wrote: »

My advice is pay the landlord the new €475 rent and stay put, a judge is going to be very reluctant to evict you if moving would indeed endanger your health and you've shown that you're making a good-faith effort to pay all the rent you can afford and the shortfall is due to circumstances outside your control.

It does'nt really work that way.

Max Power1

Zamboni wrote: »

I, for one, look forward to seeing these new limits.

Me too. The lowering of the artificial rent floor that rent supplement provides is always good. Its unfair that people can get for free the same amount or more rent per month as I have to pay.

Monife

Badhb wrote: »

Maybe you have no comprehension what the reality of this means for most people. Now, I do not have children, nor do I have a partner but, like most single people, many of us are disabled, terminally ill, carers for those who are, or are going through illness ourselves, even depression, and many more who find themselves in a situation dependent on rent supplement, suddlenly having to find a new place to live.

We are told that this is an opportunity for us to 'negotiate' with our landlords a reduced rent. They are looking to increase our rents due to the rising costs, including the new household charges.
It took me 3 months last year to find a place remotely habitable and a landlord who accepted rent supplement, not I am faced with the reality of nowhere to go. There are thousands more like me.

Can you imagine what it is like to have an illness and finally after months of searching for a landlord who will accept rent supplement for a place that is not hazardous to health, to suddenly have to tell them you can no longer pay them €529 a month but now only €475, and this is when they want an increase to €540 a month, and you cannot argue it is above market rates, for although it is a bedsit it is not horrible, and will go like a flash due to the student area it is in?

But I am too ill to move out of my place. Launch an appeal with PRTB, don't make me laugh, firstly I rely on the goodwill of my landlord, and secondly an old housemate of mine from the time I used to share, did that for that previous landlord withheld his rent. Said landlord was not even registered with PRTB. Landlord got away with it, and if that tenant wanted to appeal, it would have cost him €40.

This is utterly wrong, what is happening, and I am disgusted by some of the posters here.

3 months is nothing. It took me 6 months to find somewhere remotely habitable for the amount of money I could afford. At present, I am already paying over half my wages on rent per month because my husband is unemployed and not entitled to social welfare. We lived in bedsits for 2 years.

I am sure a friendly emotional letter to your landlord might persuade him to keep the rents at the current level (disclosing how inconvenient to your health a move would be) and then you would just have to make up the difference of €64 per month.

not even wrong

Monife wrote: »

I am sure a friendly emotional letter to your landlord might persuade him to keep the rents at the current level (disclosing how inconvenient to your health a move would be) and then you would just have to make up the difference of €64 per month.

This isn't allowed under the rent allowance scheme. The figures given above set a maximum rent and you are not allowed "top it up".

zef

Yes it isn't allowed, but you can't pretend it dosen't happen.
Peoples homes are at the mercy of LLs & sneaky govt policy.
If i was in the situ I would rather pay a tenner 'under the table' than have to move kids schools, away from their/ my friends, not to mention the cost of moving furniture, utilities, deposits etc.

Icepick

Badhb wrote: »

Maybe you have no comprehension what the reality of this means for most people. Now, I do not have children, nor do I have a partner but, like most single people, many of us are disabled, terminally ill, carers for those who are, or are going through illness ourselves, even depression, and many more who find themselves in a situation dependent on rent supplement, suddlenly having to find a new place to live.

We are told that this is an opportunity for us to 'negotiate' with our landlords a reduced rent. They are looking to increase our rents due to the rising costs, including the new household charges.
It took me 3 months last year to find a place remotely habitable and a landlord who accepted rent supplement, not I am faced with the reality of nowhere to go. There are thousands more like me.

Can you imagine what it is like to have an illness and finally after months of searching for a landlord who will accept rent supplement for a place that is not hazardous to health, to suddenly have to tell them you can no longer pay them €529 a month but now only €475, and this is when they want an increase to €540 a month, and you cannot argue it is above market rates, for although it is a bedsit it is not horrible, and will go like a flash due to the student area it is in?

But I am too ill to move out of my place. Launch an appeal with PRTB, don't make me laugh, firstly I rely on the goodwill of my landlord, and secondly an old housemate of mine from the time I used to share, did that for that previous landlord withheld his rent. Said landlord was not even registered with PRTB. Landlord got away with it, and if that tenant wanted to appeal, it would have cost him €40.

This is utterly wrong, what is happening, and I am disgusted by some of the posters here.

Do you realize that without our taxes you would get nothing?

Rasmus

Icepick wrote: »

Do you realize that without our taxes you would get nothing?

'Our taxes'? Do you realize that many people on rent supplement have already worked for years paying taxes supporting the state, as have their parents, and are now taking a helping hand to get back on track?

steddyeddy

Icepick wrote: »

Do you realize that without our taxes you would get nothing?

Everyone pays taxs.

RATM

There is another factor that will effect the availability of RA accomodation, especially in Dublin. I think from sometime in 2013 onwards there is new rules coming in which effectively ban bedsits that don't have their own toilet/bathroom.

In the case of old Georgian houses along somewhere like the North Circular Road many of them have been split up and divided into 10-15 bedsits with shared toilets/showers on the landings. Places like these typically have a good few RA tenants in them. We're already seeing more of these type of houses for sale on the market as landlords are getting out of the market due to the forthcoming rule change. The costs of putting in 10-15 new toilets /bathrooms would be prohibitive and in many cases they would end up loosing space or else it may just not be possible.

It's hard to know how many will sell up over the next couple of years but if prices keep dropping many of these Georgian houses might end up being reconverted back to family homes as has happened in parts of Rathmines & Ranelagh. RA tenants might find that securing a place for the new limits in an area they want to live in has got a whole lot more difficult.

shangri la

shindig-jp wrote: »

For who , the landlord or the tenant ? ?55m in 2012 to disappear out of circulation does not make sense to a business minded person.

-The taxpayer
-People looking to purchase a property
-new working renters

shangri la

I cant see many properties in SCD that have rent in the threshold and accept RA so as far as ghettoising areas I would say 90% of dublin RA claimants are already living northside.

shangri la

Badhb wrote: »

Maybe you have no comprehension what the reality of this means for most people. Now, I do not have children, nor do I have a partner but, like most single people, many of us are disabled, terminally ill, carers for those who are, or are going through illness ourselves, even depression, and many more who find themselves in a situation dependent on rent supplement, suddlenly having to find a new place to live.

We are told that this is an opportunity for us to 'negotiate' with our landlords a reduced rent. They are looking to increase our rents due to the rising costs, including the new household charges.
It took me 3 months last year to find a place remotely habitable and a landlord who accepted rent supplement, not I am faced with the reality of nowhere to go. There are thousands more like me.

Can you imagine what it is like to have an illness and finally after months of searching for a landlord who will accept rent supplement for a place that is not hazardous to health, to suddenly have to tell them you can no longer pay them ?529 a month but now only ?475, and this is when they want an increase to ?540 a month, and you cannot argue it is above market rates, for although it is a bedsit it is not horrible, and will go like a flash due to the student area it is in? But I am too ill to move out of my place. Launch an appeal with PRTB, don't make me laugh, firstly I rely on the goodwill of my landlord, and secondly an old housemate of mine from the time I used to share, did that for that previous landlord withheld his rent. Said landlord was not even registered with PRTB. Landlord got away with it, and if that tenant wanted to appeal, it would have cost him ?40. This is utterly wrong, what is happening, and I am disgusted by some of the posters here.

that situation or something similar would affect less than 1%.

Should taxpayers continue to prop up prices and pay higher mortgages for the tiny percentage of people in your situation?

Badhb

shangri la wrote: »

that situation or something similar would affect less than 1%.

Should taxpayers continue to prop up prices and pay higher mortgages for the tiny percentage of people in your situation?

Can you specify where you get your figures from?

Also, I would love rents to be reduced. But what do ill and disabled people and those caring for them do when they are told to 'negotiate' with their landlord to reduce their rent. OR else? What is going to happen now?

I asked my landlord to reduce rent from €525 pm to €475. He has an increase to €540pm. Tell me please, what do I do now?

Cuddlesworth

Badhb wrote: »

Can you specify where you get your figures from?

Also, I would love rents to be reduced. But what do ill and disabled people and those caring for them do when they are told to 'negotiate' with their landlord to reduce their rent. OR else? What is going to happen now?

I asked my landlord to reduce rent from €525 pm to €475. He has an increase to €540pm. Tell me please, what do I do now?

You do the same thing that those of us paying rent privately do. Move.

Rasmus

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You do the same thing that those of us paying rent privately do. Move.

That may work when renewing a lease with a private landlord. However, many people on RA are now mid-lease. In private rental agreements, raising the rent mid-lease is not allowed and would be reported immediately to the PRTB. Yet in the case of RA recipients, this is deemed ok.

SupaDupaFly

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Badhb wrote: »

Can you specify where you get your figures from?

Also, I would love rents to be reduced. But what do ill and disabled people and those caring for them do when they are told to 'negotiate' with their landlord to reduce their rent. OR else? What is going to happen now?

I asked my landlord to reduce rent from €525 pm to €475. He has an increase to €540pm. Tell me please, what do I do now?

You do the same thing that those of us paying rent privately do. Move.

People are so ignorant on this thread its unbelievable! I really hope none of you are stuck in a situation you can't get out of.

To people receiving rent allowance, don't waste your time arguing with anyone on here. It won't achieve anything, just gives people with too much time on their hands an opportunity to take their frustrations out the easiest way. Online. Good luck to all out there looking for rent reductions or new homes.

Badhb

SupaDupaFly wrote: »

People are so ignorant on this thread its unbelievable! I really hope none of you are stuck in a situation you can't get out of.

To people receiving rent allowance, don't waste your time arguing with anyone on here. It won't achieve anything, just gives people with too much time on their hands an opportunity to take their frustrations out the easiest way. Online. Good luck to all out there looking for rent reductions or new homes.

Yes, I think you are right.
Thank you for your post.
Who are these horrible people?

Actually, I don't want to know. I have already laid out in detail how difficult it was to find a half decent place and as I am now too ill to move, let alone afford the costs.
My only hope is the landlord will accept the difference, under the table so to speak.
Oh god. If I am found out the SW could just completely cut me off, anyway, I need that money for the bills. But yes, you are right, the people here have not a clue what it is like.

Zamboni

Badhb wrote: »

Yes, I think you are right.
Thank you for your post.
Who are these horrible people?

Actually, I don't want to know. I have already laid out in detail how difficult it was to find a half decent place and as I am now too ill to move, let alone afford the costs.
My only hope is the landlord will accept the difference, under the table so to speak.
Oh god. If I am found out the SW could just completely cut me off, anyway, I need that money for the bills. But yes, you are right, the people here have not a clue what it is like.

Do try and get a better perspective.
This isn't about private renters running individual RA tenants down.
This is about the consequences of living in a very poor country with a budget deficit that can no longer afford to assist in housing dependent people to the previous level they had.
As a private renter and PAYE employee I am expecting income tax rises in the next budget which could possibly result in me having to negotiate a lower rent or move.

StillWaters

Those like Badhb, ought not be in the private rented sector, and should be in social housing instead. Having said that macro economic housing policy cannot be decided by the small minority who are too ill to move. The vast majority on RA are physically and mentally well capable of moving.

adomino

Monife wrote: »

If my husband and I (no kids) were on the dole and in receipt of rent allowance, we could easily afford a nice 2 bedroom apartment in the area we live in. Alas, we are not and therefore can only afford a 1 bedroom apartment.

meh no you couldn't. do your sums you will have to downgrade there to "a modest 1 bedroom apartment/bedsit not house"

though... you could decide to have a child and upgrade :rolleyes:

adomino

not even wrong wrote: »

This isn't allowed under the rent allowance scheme. The figures given above set a maximum rent and you are not allowed "top it up".

it's not allowed, but it's going to happen, it will and it is until such time the tenant can find alternative accomodation beyond this 3 month max limit they've put in place to find another place.

it's only january still, what will it be like in 3 months is anyones guess.

CanonballZ

I've been let go from my job and am currently paying €400 a month to share a house with a friend in a lease with 6 months left on it.
Does this mean I won't be able to claim any rent supplement during this lease?

Strikes me as a bad way to run the system, I get the idea behind it that I shouldn't be able to rent an expensive place and have the government pay for it, but would it not be a better system if instead of saying I get nothing because my rent is over 300 that I should only get an allowance for the first 300 of my rent and anything over that is up to myself to cover??

daltonmd

I think it's really important to sperate some of the issues that are arising in this thread.

First though, it#s important to look at what Rent Allowance was in it's original form -

"1.1 Purpose of Rent supplement
The purpose of Rent Supplement is to provide short term income support to assist with reasonable accommodation costs of eligible people living in private rented accommodation who are unable to provide for their accommodation costs from their own resources and who do not have accommodation available to them from another source."

It was never designed for long term use, the RAS was supposed to be the child of this.

What we have now is a system that puts working people in direct competition in the private rental market with a heavily subsidised government aid programme.

It would be in everyone's interests if all RA recipients who are being put in a situation whereby they have to renegotiate with a private landlord to reply to their CWO's and state the following _

Dear Sir/Madam. I am on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay more than YOUR maximum amount, I would be obliged if you take up YOUR issue directly with my landlord.
I am paying the set amount, given by you when I first became eligible for RA, my situation has not changed and due to cutbacks in YOUR department I feel that the onus is on you to sort out this issue.

Regards

RA recipient.

snubbleste

That would not work.
The rental agreement is between the landlord and the tenant. The DSP only deals with the tenant.

Rent supplement is in effect a government subsidy to landlords to prop up rental prices across the entire sector.

daltonmd

snubbleste wrote: »

That would not work.
The rental agreement is between the landlord and the tenant. The DSP only deals with the tenant.

Rent supplement is in effect a government subsidy to landlords to prop up rental prices across the entire sector.

As I said, Rent allowance was supposed to be short term and the RAS scheme was supposed to be up and running to avoid a scenario where a tenant and landlord are at odds.

This is not the tenants fault and it is not the landlords fault.
What should happen in this case is that the landlord should be invited onto the scheme for a set amount of time (5 years) at a set rate - no tenant in receipt of this allowance should be in this situation.

If a tenant does not have the money and a landlord cannot reduce the rent - then it absolutely has to be bounced back to the person/department where the problem originated.

If they don't respect the lease, then why should the tenant?

Why should people continue to clean up this governments mess?

Crazy.....

pejay

gurramok wrote: »

This time last year, it was the rural areas that were hit the most in reductions and they hardly touched the limits for the cities which was scandalous. Hopefully this time, there will be some reductions especially for 1bed apts which still command huge rates disproportionally to their size.

Rural has been hit again this year to :mad: