Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group

MariMel

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.


SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports.

SPARK accepts that rent allowance is a huge burden, however believe that it is the result of a failure of government policy which placed many people out of the private property market and which was compounded by failure to provide social housing during boom times.

The recently introduced rent limits is an attempt by the government to reduce rent in the private market, however, they have abdicated their responsibility and expect individuals to negotiate rent reductions but if they fail to do this people will be forced to move out of their homes and children away from schools.

We are calling on all people affected by these new limits to submit an application to the PRTB for a rent review.
It costs twenty five euro for an application but people can remain in their home until their case is heard.
Secondly it will be too much for PRTB to manage and intervention will be necessary.
Thirdly, and importantly one govt. body will be forced to determine whether the Dept.of Protection had set fair current market values.

We believe that we can use state mechanisms to expose the devastating effect poor social policy is having on ordinary citizens and if we stand together we can win the right for people to remain.in their homes and communities.

https://www.facebook.com/irishsingleparentsfightback

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.


SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports.

SPARK accepts that rent allowance is a huge burden, however believe that it is the result of a failure of government policy which placed many people out of the private property market and which was compounded by failure to provide social housing during boom times.

The recently introduced rent limits is an attempt by the government to reduce rent in the private market, however, they have abdicated their responsibility and expect individuals to negotiate rent reductions but if they fail to do this people will be forced to move out of their homes and children away from schools.

We are calling on all people affected by these new limits to submit an application to the PRTB for a rent review.
It costs twenty five euro for an application but people can remain in their home until their case is heard.
Secondly it will be too much for PRTB to manage and intervention will be necessary.
Thirdly, and importantly one govt. body will be forced to determine whether the Dept.of Protection had set fair current market values.

We believe that we can use state mechanisms to expose the devastating effect poor social policy is having on ordinary citizens and if we stand together we can win the right for people to remain.in their homes and communities.

While I see the need for intervention from the PRTB to intervene in this matter, I think that the group is misled when it also wants to protest against the rent reductions.

While they fight for single parents in receipt of rent allowance, who fights for those (like myself) not in receipt?
The harder they fight to maintain rents, the harder my life as a working single parent is to pay my rent, which is dictated by the rate of RA in my area.
I spoke to my landlord re a reduction, he said he couldn't (a very nice landlord I might add) he has said that if I leave he will get a SW tenant and not lose a penny, so we have agreed that I will have to look for new accomadation.

I'm an ordinary citizen and if this group succeed then what happens to me and my children?

Should I be forced to give up work?

Edit to add.

Here is a circular giving all the information regarding the rent review. They received the information from the PRTB (landlords with tenants in receipt of RA must be registered).
http://www.focusireland.ie/files/swa%20circular%2021-2011%20-%20maximum%20rent%20limits.pdf

In it you will see that there are exceptions for those who are up for a review with the CWO but still in a lease.

MariMel

This is just one of many issues that SPARK are dealing with. Another is the misconception that lone parents dont work when 60% of them do.
Of these 60% some get rent supplement too. Its not just those that dont work.

I believe that this group do believe that rents are too high but that the onus has been put onto each individual to obtain a rent reduction and like the situation you find yourself in whereby you feel you have to move. In so doing, having parents bargaining with the security of their children in the process and like you risk having to move their children out of schools and away from support networks.

Many landlords do not also realise what the new rent supplement limits that came into effect from january 1st are and your landlord might very well be surprised if he checked into it.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

This is just one of many issues that SPARK are dealing with. Another is the misconception that lone parents dont work when 60% of them do.
Of these 60% some get rent supplement too. Its not just those that dont work.

I believe that this group do believe that rents are too high but that the onus has been put onto each individual to obtain a rent reduction and like the situation you find yourself in whereby you feel you have to move. In so doing, having parents bargaining with the security of their children in the process and like you risk having to move their children out of schools and away from support networks.

Many landlords do not also realise what the new rent supplement limits that came into effect from january 1st are and your landlord might very well be surprised if he checked into it.

It's not a misconception that lone parents do not work, many do, but they work part time and can earn up to 130 euro per week without their OPFP being affected, of the income over that, 50% is disregarded and if a working lone parent with one child earns under 506pw then they qualify for FIS.

You will not get Rent Supplement if you are in full time employment.


While the onus has been put on tenants (and I agree that this is morally wrong) then the group should fight that aspect, not to keep rents artificially high therefore affecting people like myself.


I have a friend (anecdotal I know) who is a single mother with one child - this is her income and she evens tells me I' crazy working full time - my disposable income is lower than hers, and I have a good job.

OPFP 212.80 (deduction from money over 130)
Part-time job 160
Rent supplement 130pw
FIS- 45pw

447.80pw Because she is in receipt of RA this is disregarded so she also gets
a medical card for her and her child and the back to school allowance.


The changes to the rent supplement limits make no difference to my landlord as I am 2/3rds into my lease.


I have no problem with my friend - I do not blame her for availing of her rights - but SW should target the needy - and the needy section of this society is increasingly becoming those of us who work full time and qualify for nothing.
This group should protest, but only about being put in the middle of this fight between landlords and the government - not to keep rents artificially high and protecting the "vulnerable" while inflicting the very things that they don't want to happen to them, that is having to move children from their schools, onto people like me.

Monty Burnz

daltonmd wrote: »

The harder they fight to maintain rents, the harder my life as a working single parent is to pay my rent, which is dictated by the rate of RA in my area.

Great point. I wish people would engage their brains before launching on another 'victimhood' campaign. Rent allowance is jacking up rents for everybody and making the country more expensive to live in, less competitive, and therefore is harmful to employment.

Victor

MariMel, is that a quote from somewhere?

Zamboni

MariMel wrote: »

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.


SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports.

It is not an interesting point.
It is a cheap attempt to use children as the heart pulling string to undermine a required reduction in state expenditure.

MariMel

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Great point. I wish people would engage their brains before launching on another 'victimhood' campaign. Rent allowance is jacking up rents for everybody and making the country more expensive to live in, less competitive, and therefore is harmful to employment.

I dont for one second believe any tenant RA or otherwise wants to keep rents as high as they are, nor do those who are in receipt of RA want to be as you imply, be harmful to employment.

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.
Should the prtb agree that the new rental limits are indeed what market value should reflect then surely this will go for all rental property, not just for those that accept RA.

stargazer 68

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Rent allowance is jacking up rents for everybody and making the country more expensive to live in, less competitive, and therefore is harmful to employment.

Dont know how you figure that one out. Since the new rent allowance limits the amount of properties now stating 'no rent allowance accepted' has dramatically increased.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

I dont for one second believe any tenant RA or otherwise wants to keep rents as high as they are, nor do those who are in receipt of RA want to be as you imply, be harmful to employment.

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.
Should the prtb agree that the new rental limits are indeed what market value should reflect then surely this will go for all rental property, not just for those that accept RA.

Then why are they protesting against them?
"SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government. "


if they had any bloody sense they'd be protesting for lower rents. If they actually wrote to the minister and asked her for protection against landlords who will not comply instead of fighting the reductions.

They should ask why landlords not reducing their rents are not given the option of entering the Rental Accommodation Scheme? If they do not then the tenant should be offered alternative accommodation.

With respect to people in receipt of rent supplement - if you can not afford to house yourself then sacrifices must be made. All local authorities try to rehouse people to their specifications - we'd all like the perfect house in the perfect location - this doesn't mean we're entitled to it.

I choose to live where I live because I work full time. If you need help then you need to learn to sacrifice.

Monty Burnz

Dovies wrote: »

Dont know how you figure that one out. Since the new rent allowance limits the amount of properties now stating 'no rent allowance accepted' has dramatically increased.

How I figure what out? How lowering the floor in the market will reduce rents for everyone?

daltonmd

Dovies wrote: »

Dont know how you figure that one out. Since the new rent allowance limits the amount of properties now stating 'no rent allowance accepted' has dramatically increased.

I've pointed this out on another thread - that is a meaningless fact because those properties are not rented out - this relates to existing rent supplement recipients.

Monty Burnz

MariMel wrote: »

I dont for one second believe any tenant RA or otherwise wants to keep rents as high as they are, nor do those who are in receipt of RA want to be as you imply, be harmful to employment.

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.

I can see why they are opposed to it then - no gain for them, only a gain for the taxpayer who is paying for their home...

daltonmd

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can see why they are opposed to it then - no gain for them, only a gain for the taxpayer who is paying for their home...

Good spot - actually makes the protest irrelevant to everyone including those protesting.

Zamboni

I can the headline tomorrow

IPOA supports SPARK

MariMel

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can see why they are opposed to it then - no gain for them, only a gain for the taxpayer who is paying for their home...

The point I have taken from it is not that they are opposed to reductions in rent.
WHat I believe they are opposed to is how many families will be uprooted by the tenant being made responsible for obtaining a government lead saving.
Tenants are being asked to negotiate a voluntary reduction in their rents. If this is not forthcoming then it is leaving many many families in great difficulty.

I know some think that families should be uprooted and move to cheaper accommodation in other areas and out of these 'perfect' homes.
However, each person is assessed as having a need within that specific region and obtains RA based on that. Its not automatically transferable to other areas.
Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive. If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Monty Burnz

MariMel wrote: »

Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive.

Why in the name of all that is holy would it be expensive? Probably the overwhelming majority of demand is from RA tenants - this is exactly the problem.

MariMel wrote: »

If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where not a single property is available for miles around - this is the land of empty rural estates. In an extreme case, I can see an argument for an exception being made.

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Without wanting to sound cruel (and entering more debatable waters), it might do no harm for children to associate unemployment with insecurity - you can be damn sure they will try hard to find work when they have grown up. Better for them and better for society.

Zamboni

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Then, their parents should have thought about that before they decided to abdicate their responsibility for the childs accomodation to the state.

The irony of this entire premise if laughable.

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

Then, their parents should have thought about that before they decided to abdicate their responsibility for the childs accomodation to the state.

Before coming out with such biased statements, you should remember that not only one parent families can claim a rent supplement payment.

Or do you also believe that families where either one or both adults lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are now in receipt of Rent Supplement, have also "abdicated their responsiblity" for their children's accommodation?

Would you also say the same for all those now claiming Mortgage Interest Supplement?

MariMel

Zamboni wrote: »

Then, their parents should have thought about that before they decided to abdicate their responsibility for the childs accomodation to the state.

The irony of this entire premise if laughable.

That is a whole other thing.........but I am glad you are working full time in a safe secure job, fully able to support yourself and your children, immune to ever finding yourself in a position where you are single parent, unemployed after working for years, trying and trying to find future employment and in meanwhile being in danger of losing the roof over the head of your children.

Zamboni

Deleted User wrote: »

Before coming out with such biased statements, you should remember that not only one parent families can claim a rent supplement payment.

The topic is about SPARK, not a general conversation about rent supplement tenants.

Deleted User wrote: »

Or do you also believe that families where either one or both adults lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are now in receipt of Rent Supplement, have also "abdicated their responsiblity" for their children's accommodation?

I believe that beggars can't be choosers.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you also say the same for all those now claiming Mortgage Interest Supplement?

Really not relevant to this thread.

Zamboni

MariMel wrote: »

That is a whole other thing.........but I am glad you are working full time in a safe secure job, fully able to support yourself and your children, immune to ever finding yourself in a position where you are single parent, unemployed after working for years, trying and trying to find future employment and in meanwhile being in danger of losing the roof over the head of your children.

Contingency planning. Google it.

MariMel

Zamboni wrote: »

The topic is about SPARK, not a general conversation about rent supplement tenants.
.

I started this thread.......as a conversation about RA after reading a post by SPARK.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

The point I have taken from it is not that they are opposed to reductions in rent.
WHat I believe they are opposed to is how many families will be uprooted by the tenant being made responsible for obtaining a government lead saving.
Tenants are being asked to negotiate a voluntary reduction in their rents. If this is not forthcoming then it is leaving many many families in great difficulty.

How can you take that point when they clearly said they were protesting about the reductions? I think you have taken up this cause with good intentions but haven't really looked into the issue.

MariMel wrote: »

I know some think that families should be uprooted and move to cheaper accommodation in other areas and out of these 'perfect' homes.

Nobody is saying that at all. What I am saying is that this group should protest about being piggy in the middle between the landlords and the state. If they demand protection from landlords who do not enter RAS or reduce their rent.

MariMel wrote: »

However, each person is assessed as having a need within that specific region and obtains RA based on that. Its not automatically transferable to other areas.

Nobody is saying that they have to move from the area that they are in. Outside of Dublin particularly, there is a huge amount of houses for rent, there may be the few that will find it difficult, but not impossible, to relocate within the area, if this happens then they will have to make sacrifices.

MariMel wrote: »

Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive. If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

Living in a rural location is a choice and these choices are restricted when you are not paying your own rent. On that point, if these people are living in rural locations I bet they have cars? I can't afford to run a car yet people on RS can? Something wrong there.

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

And this group excludes my children - or do they not count for anything?

I have heard it all now.
PS V Private
Workers V unemployed
Families V pensioners

and now children V children .

By god we can blame the Germans, the French and the EU/ECB/IMF for a lot - but nobody is crueler to the Irish people than the Irish themselves.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

That is a whole other thing.........but I am glad you are working full time in a safe secure job, fully able to support yourself and your children, immune to ever finding yourself in a position where you are single parent, unemployed after working for years, trying and trying to find future employment and in meanwhile being in danger of losing the roof over the head of your children.

Are you serious here MariMel? I am in a full-time secure job and yet I still fear for the roof over my head and MY children's head, mainly because I am being squeezed by paying a huge portion of my income for rent.
This rent is fast becoming unaffordable and people like you support groups who are protesting against the very thing that I need to survive.
You are very shortsighted I have to say.

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

The topic is about SPARK, not a general conversation about rent supplement tenants.

The OP clearly started the topic to discuss Rent Supplement.

Zamboni wrote: »

I believe that beggars can't be choosers.

Nice.

Zamboni wrote: »

Really not relevant to this thread.

I beg to differ. Whether by Rent Supplement or Mortgage Interest Supplement, its still the State subsidising accommodation costs for families on low income.

Tomayto / Tomato.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP clearly started the topic to discuss Rent Supplement.
Nice.
I beg to differ. Whether by Rent Supplement or Mortgage Interest Supplement, its still the State subsidising accommodation costs for families on low income.

Tomayto / Tomato.

Rent supplement - Paid to people in the PRIVATE RENTAL SECTOR
Mortgage Interest Supplement - Paid to people who OWN THEIR OWN HOMES.


Absolutely irrelevant to this issue.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, as I see no difference in the State paying someone's mortage, then paying someone's rent. It all filters back to the banks.

Either way, what the purpose of the OPs post was is that the State is putting Rent Supplement recipients in the crossfire between them and the Landlords and putting the onus on the tenant to re-negotiate the rent, and telling them they will have to move and find alternative accommodation if the landlord does not agree.

This leaves the tenant caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone has reasons for choosing to live where they live - it may be based on work, others may have chosen because they have family supports there (which would enable them to work if jobs were available) or children in schools - or they may just be part of communities that have been years in the making.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, as I see no difference in the State paying someone's mortage, then paying someone's rent. It all filters back to the banks.

Oh I agree with the underlined part - but you are wrong to throw MIS into the mix in this discussion for many reasons, the main ones being that the landlord issue doesn't arise, their repayments are not dictated by a landlord or the state and it as no bearing on the rental market.

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way, what the purpose of the OPs post was is that the State is putting Rent Supplement recipients in the crossfire between them and the Landlords and putting the onus on the tenant to re-negotiate the rent, and telling them they will have to move and find alternative accommodation if the landlord does not agree.

No, the initial purpose, as I pointed out was that the group were going to protest against the reductions. I have posted a circular that was given to all CWO's in relation to this, in the circular it is clear that there will be help and leeway given to those who find themselves caught in the crossfire.
If they do have to move then the CWO helps them with their deposit, they still are in need of housing.

Deleted User wrote: »

This leaves the tenant caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone has reasons for choosing to live where they live - it may be based on work, others may have chosen because they have family supports there (which would enable them to work if jobs were available) or children in schools - or they may just be part of communities that have been years in the making.

If you cannot pay your rent and are dependent on state aid then you have to accept that you lose the right to demand those "choices".

The main aim for RS is to house people, not to house people exactly where they "choose" near the people they "choose" and near the schools that they"choose".

I would love to live in a house by the sea in Dalkey - that would be my "choice", however my income dictates otherwise.
The old saying, " champagne tastes and a beer wallet" comes to mind.

We all have to cut our cloth to fit.

Zamboni

Deleted User wrote: »

This leaves the tenant caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone has reasons for choosing to live where they live - it may be based on work, others may have chosen because they have family supports there (which would enable them to work if jobs were available) or children in schools - or they may just be part of communities that have been years in the making.

If a private tenant(s) take a job loss or wage reduction and cannot afford their rent, they either negotiate a cheaper rent or move to accomodation with lower rental.

Yet tenant(s) reliant in some way on a subsidy from the state feel they are above this.

Fittle

My problem with spark is that they only to speak out about the 'sterotypical' single parent i.e. those in receipt of FIS or LPA or any state benefits and as another poster rightly pointed out, there are many of us who work f/t with no support from the State.

That..and all the typo's on their website:rolleyes: which is never a good sign for any organisation.