Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group
Options
Comments
-
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.
There is very little room for negotiation when how much you can contribute to your Rent is calculated and set for you by SW and you are not allowed to "top it up" without risking losing what Rent Supplement you do receive.
I consider that to be a very different position then someone who is renting privately and paying all the rent from their own income - even if they take a wage cut, they are still in a better position to negotiate.
Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.0 -
Not to attack the group, so fair play to them for trying to do something, I just find their policy statements ill-thought out and their way of communicating them poor.
Anyway probably for another forum - for this forum the RA has put an artificial floor on rental prices and it has to be removed for the benefit of all. There is a mention in policy of single parents being vulnerable to homelessness which is trying to tug at the heartstrings. We don't live in a country (yet) where there are children living on the streets. Families will find somewhere to live within the new limits. It may not be the perfect somewhere but it is somewhere and that's the basic right to shelter they are entitled to covered and I'm happy that we live in a country that provides that.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »There is very little room for negotiation when how much you can contribute to your Rent is calculated and set for you by SW and you are not allowed to "top it up" without risking losing what Rent Supplement you do receive.
I consider that to be a very different position then someone who is renting privately and paying all the rent from their own income - even if they take a wage cut, they are still in a better position to negotiate.
Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.
Sorry Loueze but the OP stated that 60% of single parents claiming are working and I laid out their income in an earlier post. It is misguided to think that working people are in a very different position from those who work and pay rent from our income, as a matter of fact we are in a worse position, more vulnerable, without the fallback of the state to take up the slack.
For example if one of my kids was sick tomorrow I am immediately down 50 euro for a doctors visit (then there's meds on top of that).
The single parents on RA have their medical cards to cover that.
I have also explained here that negotiation is not an option if the LL (as mine is ) is at the pin of his collar and can replace me with a steady stream of income from a RA tenant.
The landlords have the same problem, they cannot meet their mortgage repayments if the reduce the rent - keeping rents subsidised means that I am in direct competition with the state for what I pay in rent.
This group want to protect these landlords incomes ( and the banks) and in the process private tenants like myself are suffering.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »There is very little room for negotiation when how much you can contribute to your Rent is calculated and set for you by SW and you are not allowed to "top it up" without risking losing what Rent Supplement you do receive.
I consider that to be a very different position then someone who is renting privately and paying all the rent from their own income - even if they take a wage cut, they are still in a better position to negotiate.
Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.
OK, so they relucantly move, in the same fashion that a private tenant would have to move in the event of a failed negotiation.
I think you will find that forced migration due to poor economic circumstances is a fact of life and common occurance in the world.
The state can no longer afford to provide the cushion of accomodation subsidy in a fixed location.
Again, beggars cannot be choosers.
No amount of pleading that the children will have to leave their schools and friends is going to change the fact that we cannot afford it.
It is like asking someone for charity and on receipt, saying, not good enough.
Honestly, you couldn't make this sh1t up.0 -
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.
Ehh dear, it is not about helping those in receipt of RA to save money.
It is about saving the state and by extension those of us taxpayers who are carrying the can some money.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.
And as someone else mentioned who the hell negotiates for the private renter who is entirely paying for their own rent ?
Is it ok for them to have to move, but not the ones whose rent is being funded by their taxes ?Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive.
Actually I would beg to differ.
If anything there should be less people trying to rent in rural areas.
And if one is living in a rural area what do they do for transport ?
In most cases motorised transport is necessary if you live in rural area.
Thus is the taxpayer also meant to provide cars to welfare recipients who chsoe to live in rural areas.
After all we must think of the poor kiddies.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.
Again that must mean that you have a car of some sort if you are so far from schools ?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.
Obviously only the children of those in receipt of other taxpayers money. :rolleyes:I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Advertisement
-
First of all, I am a working single parent myself - with a mortgage - so I know very well what the position of working single parents is.
That doesn't mean I can't see beyond that and think what the Government has done here by putting RS tenants in this position between them and landlords, as being fair, or right.
As for CWOs negotiating, or giving leeway on RS?
... amusing.
This is not something that should come down to the personal discretion of any one CWO or Deciding Officer - as anyone who has ever had experience of that system of decision making, knows how inconsistent it can be.0 -
OK, so they relucantly move, in the same fashion that a private tenant would have to move in the event of a failed negotiation.
I think you will find that forced migration due to poor economic circumstances is a fact of life and common occurance in the world.
The state can no longer afford to provide the cushion of accomodation subsidy in a fixed location.
Again, beggars cannot be choosers.
No amount of pleading that the children will have to leave their schools and friends is going to change the fact that we cannot afford it.
It is like asking someone for charity and on receipt, saying, not good enough.
Honestly, you couldn't make this sh1t up.
I am really of the opinion that a lot of people in this group on RA are not actually vulnerable (of course some are), they can't seem to distinguish "cuts" from "not kept in the way they were kept during the boom" .0 -
Again, beggars cannot be choosers.It is like asking someone for charity and on receipt, saying, not good enough.
Honestly, you couldn't make this sh1t up.
And I find your posts highly offensive.
Social Welfare recipients are not beggars, or seeking charity.
Many of the people you are insulting, contributed for many, many years.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »First of all, I am a working single parent myself - with a mortgage - so I know very well what the position of working single parents is.
Really? So you understand a single working mother with a mortgage, a single mother on RA - yet seem to think that a single working mother in private rental accommodation is "different"? You have no idea yet you immediately take the side of those who have the privilege of having a very generous safety net under them over someone who doesn't - interesting alright.Deleted User wrote: »That doesn't mean I can't see beyond that and think what the Government has done here by putting RS tenants in this position between them and landlords, as being fair, or right.
Did you read the posts? It's exactly what I have been saying - if you read the first post you will see that the group are protesting against the rent cuts. That's the gripe.Deleted User wrote: »As for CWOs negotiating, or giving leeway on RS? ... amusing.
Yep - as amusing as my landlord negotiating or giving me leeway.Deleted User wrote: »This is not something that should come down to the personal discretion of any one CWO or Deciding Officer - as anyone who has ever had experience of that system of decision making, knows how inconsistent it can be.
Who said it should? It's not the issue, the state is more than generous and people on RA don't want anything to upset their lives and are willing to force me and my family into decisions that they object to making. I am being asked to sacrifice more than they feel willing to. It's obscene.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »And I find your posts highly offensive.
Social Welfare recipients are not beggars, or seeking charity.
Many of the people you are insulting, contributed for many, many years.
Ah, you're offended.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cLuZ_TuRQj8/Trr3DCe5MjI/AAAAAAAACYQ/5ZyPChGsQmI/s1600/Im+offended.jpg
I am not insulting anybody.
I am merely saying that if one is in need and seeks support, one cannot dictate the level of support provided.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »And I find your posts highly offensive.
Social Welfare recipients are not beggars, or seeking charity.
Actually I would agree that there is a large cohort of social welfare recipients who are far from beggars.
They have a sense of entitlement that is more demanding than begging.Deleted User wrote: »Many of the people you are insulting, contributed for many, many years.
And many of the ones in receipt of social welfare, including I would reckon a sizable majority of those getting single parent allowances, were on welfare long before the bubble burst and the recession hit in.
We may according to figures have had full employment in 2002-2006, but there were approximately 90,000 to 100,000 on the live register.
How many of those are now the single parent families that spark speaks for ?
I would also bet any of those that have emigrated since 2007 were not the ones who have made welfare their career choice and were not on welfare prior to 2007.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Really? So you understand a single working mother with a mortgage, a single mother on RA - yet seem to think that a single working mother in private rental accommodation is "different"? You have no idea yet you immediately take the side of those who have the privilege of having a very generous safety net under them over someone who doesn't - interesting alright.
Why does that surprise you? I have a wide range of friends and am capable of thinking (and relating) to others outside of my own sphere of reference.
And yes, I also think an employed single working parent (lets keep this gender neutral?) in private rental accommodation is different, as I already explained - they would have more scope to negotiate terms with their landlord, then someone on Rent Supplement whose contribution is fixed by SW and they are not allowed go over that.
As for CWOs, I can tell you with confidence that inconsistency on how rules and "guidelines" are applied is a major issue.The state is more than generous and people on RA don't want anything to upset their lives and are willing to force me and my family into decisions that they object to making. I am being asked to sacrifice more than they feel willing to. It's obscene.
And likewise, I find the manner in which the issues being faced by families on SW are trivialised here, as equally obscene.
See above.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Why does that surprise you? I have a wide range of friends and am capable of thinking (and relating) to others outside of my own sphere of reference.
Because as a full time working single mother I have explained to you that "we" are no different than single parents claiming rent allowance.Deleted User wrote: »Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.
This is interesting and maybe you could shed some light on this. In order to get Rent supplement the landlord has to be registered with the PRTB, correct?
The rent must fall under a certain amount. Correct?
The lease must be brought to the CWO, signed by both the landlord and the tenant for X amount. Correct?
Please explain to me how a landlord can demand a "topping up " payment and why doesn't the tenant report it? Because they would be doing us all a favour. But you see here's the nub of that issue - far from going hungry - they can afford the payment. Harsh I know but it's the truth and the reality is that this is what the rent reviews are aiming at.Deleted User wrote: »And yes, I also think an employed single working parent (lets keep this gender neutral?) in private rental accommodation is different, as I already explained - they would have more scope to negotiate terms with their landlord, then someone on Rent Supplement whose contribution is fixed by SW and they are not allowed go over that.
And as one of those I am telling you that I have no more scope than someone in receipt of RA - do you think the landlords problems are different? Or are you saying that again it's ok for ME to pay more because you wrongly think I have more money than someone who works, gets OPFP, FIS, Medical Card back to school allowance - I can tell you I don't.Deleted User wrote: »As for CWOs, I can tell you with confidence that inconsistency on how rules and "guidelines" are applied is a major issue.
It's not the issue.Deleted User wrote: »And likewise, I find the manner in which the issues being faced by families on SW are trivialised here, as equally obscene.
See above.
Well you trivialised me and my issues when you stated that I am in a different (read better) situation out working my ass off and providing form my family without the net.0 -
SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated? The state is the largest consumer of private rental property and has the power to negotiate rent decreases that would benefit all consumers. However they have failed to do this and instead expect the deals to be done on an individual basis. Landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on ra anyway so this will compound it.
Rent allowance is a huge burdeñ on state coffers. However,the lack of regulation in the financial institutions which led to a property bubble pushed accomodation costs too high for many people, not just lone parents. During the boom the state decided to use ra as a way of dealing with social housing. This was poor poicy and planning. It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities. Children will have to change schools andfor what? For a cat and mouse game between the govt and landlords. The private rental market relies on ra and will.eventually have to accept rent limit imposed by the state which will benefit all tenants. The point Spark wants to make is that it is unfair to use tenants in this manner. The govt have all the power as both the largest customer and also as legislstor to reduce rent. Poor govt policy led to overuse of rental allowance and now that we can't afford it, there are better ways to deal with the problem than using families.as pawns in a chess game,0 -
It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities.
No it is not inherently wrong. Economic migration is a fact of life.
It has been and is a commonplace occurance in the world.
Post Celtic Tiger Ireland is no exception to this occurance.
Because you are part of a generation that grew up in a war free welfare state you have built up unrealistic impression of rights and wrongs.0 -
SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated? The state is the largest consumer of private rental property and has the power to negotiate rent decreases that would benefit all consumers. However they have failed to do this and instead expect the deals to be done on an individual basis. Landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on ra anyway so this will compound it.
Rent allowance is a huge burdeñ on state coffers. However,the lack of regulation in the financial institutions which led to a property bubble pushed accomodation costs too high for many people, not just lone parents. During the boom the state decided to use ra as a way of dealing with social housing. This was poor poicy and planning. It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities. Children will have to change schools andfor what? For a cat and mouse game between the govt and landlords. The private rental market relies on ra and will.eventually have to accept rent limit imposed by the state which will benefit all tenants. The point Spark wants to make is that it is unfair to use tenants in this manner. The govt have all the power as both the largest customer and also as legislstor to reduce rent. Poor govt policy led to overuse of rental allowance and now that we can't afford it, there are better ways to deal with the problem than using families.as pawns in a chess game,
How do you suggest this is dealt with then? You imply that the government as a legislator has some sort of ability to control rents - are you saying that they should legislate for fixed rents? How would this work in different areas, for different types of accommodation? I'm not even sure if the EU would allow such an anti-free market measure to be introduced.
If SPARK so desperately want rents to be reduced, then reducing RA is the most effective way of correcting this issue in the economy and it will actually help those single mothers who are not on RA also.0 -
SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated?
Then why are they protesting to maintain these rents?
From the first post:
SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the governmentThe state is the largest consumer of private rental property and has the power to negotiate rent decreases that would benefit all consumers. However they have failed to do this and instead expect the deals to be done on an individual basis. Landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on ra anyway so this will compound it.
Again, why are they protesting against these cuts which will, as you say, benefit everyone?Rent allowance is a huge burdeñ on state coffers. However,the lack of regulation in the financial institutions which led to a property bubble pushed accomodation costs too high for many people, not just lone parents. During the boom the state decided to use ra as a way of dealing with social housing. This was poor poicy and planning.
Exactly - but for the last 3 years it has been the private renters who have suffered because of the high rent allowance. It was a case of "I'm ok Jack" for these people for years, now, when they are being targeted they are protesting against the cuts - astonishing hypocrisy.It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities. Children will have to change schools andfor what? For a cat and mouse game between the govt and landlords.
What you mean is "it is inherently wrong and unjust to expect families on RA to move from their homes and communities". Really? What about private renters who have had to always do this if they could no longer afford the rent? What about people who have had to relocate to find work - is that ok? What about families forced to leave the country fgs - this is how it is when you are NOT on RA.
This is the real world, not a bubble where you think that people who benefit from the system should feel that they can demand a standard of living that is denied to other sectors of society.The private rental market relies on ra and will.eventually have to accept rent limit imposed by the state which will benefit all tenants. The point Spark wants to make is that it is unfair to use tenants in this manner. The govt have all the power as both the largest customer and also as legislstor to reduce rent. Poor govt policy led to overuse of rental allowance and now that we can't afford it, there are better ways to deal with the problem than using families.as pawns in a chess game,
Yes indeed RA has subsidised the high rents that those on RA DID NOT/DO NOT have to pay - as long as they weren't affected shure that was no problem.
As a private renter I have been a pawn for long enough and resent any group which singles out a section of society for better treatment, simply because they are receiving state benefit - how many safety nets do they want?0 -
This is interesting and maybe you could shed some light on this. In order to get Rent supplement the landlord has to be registered with the PRTB, correct? The rent must fall under a certain amount. Correct? The lease must be brought to the CWO, signed by both the landlord and the tenant for X amount. Correct?
They are some of the conditions of qualifying for rent supplement, yes.Please explain to me how a landlord can demand a "topping up " payment and why doesn't the tenant report it? Because they would be doing us all a favour.
The landlord agrees to put a lower amount down on the forms, and the balance is paid in cash. Have you really never heard of this? The tenant doesn't report it because (a) finding landlords who will accept rent allowance are becoming fewer and fewer as it is. (b) if they do report them the landlord won't renew leases at the end of the year - which means trying to find a new place and having to go through the whole process again and (c) if they report them to the CWO, the CWO will cut off rent supplement for infringement of the terms of the payment. Either way, its the tenant who will be left stuck and looking for somewhere to live.But you see here's the nub of that issue - far from going hungry - they can afford the payment. Harsh I know but it's the truth and the reality is that this is what the rent reviews are aiming at.
No, thats your perception of the truth. The truth is there are many going without basics such as adequate heating, or cutting back on other basics such as food, so they can make those ends meet. Ask St Vincent De Paul or Barnardos if you don't believe this is true.And as one of those I am telling you that I have no more scope than someone in receipt of RA - do you think the landlords problems are different?
Yes I think the landlord problems are different. Finding one who will rent to you in the first place, is definitely more challenging.Or are you saying that again it's ok for ME to pay more because you wrongly think I have more money than someone who works, gets OPFP, FIS, Medical Card back to school allowance - I can tell you I don't.
I don't think its okay for you to pay more - but I definitely think private renters DO have more scope! Private renters are the equivalent of "cash buyers" and usually a landlord's first preference, as tenants. That gives them an advantage over RS tenants. Private renters such as yourself, may not have more money, but you are not bound by the restrictions that come with depending on Rent Supplement either. You have more control over decisions such as where you live and how much you are willing to pay - a Rent Supplement tenant does not have the same options, or shall we say, "haggling power" that you do. For a rent supplement tenant, the control ultimately lies with a CWO or Deciding Officer.
You only have to look at the amount of ads which state "rent allowance not accepted" to know that the majority of landlords will prefer to take a private renter, over a rent supplement tenant, - and this automatically gives the private renter an advantage - especially in terms of access to decent rentals.
Finally, I read the SWA circular posted last night and the terms for "leeway" as described are very specific, very limited, and ultimately, timebound. Eventually, if the Rent Supplement tenant cannot get their landlord to lower the rent to within RS limits, they will have to move. But I don't know where the Dept expect all these cheaper rental units they want rent supplement tenants to move to, are going to come from.0 -
One point that I think people need to realise is that not everybody is entitled to the standard of living that they desire. My family was poor when we were younger in the 80s and 90s - this means that we didn't always have the things that we wanted. We weren't in new suits and tacky dresses at our communions, we didn't always get the newest gadgets for birthdays and at Christmas and we didn't always live in ideal accommodation either.
If you are a single mother who is unemployed, odds are that you are going to be poor. Sometimes, just sometimes, your life is not going to be perfect and this is what is called reality. There are people living in accommodation that is too expensive for them to afford and are horrified at the thought of having to move somewhere more affordable. That's life I'm afraid. You might have to live in a crappy area that isn't near to the perfect school and is further out of town or you can live somewhere that is closer to town but the accommodation is not up to the standard that you are used to. It's an unfortunate fact but that's how the economy works.
At the moment the rent allowance is too high, both from the perspective of the government being able to afford it and for the market value of the properties themselves. The floor for rents is just too high and has been forced there by high RA, which distorts the entire market.
The purpose of government welfare is to ensure that people are entitled to a basic standard of living and to prevent deprivation. It is not there to prevent people from having to face situations which are less than ideal and that includes economic migration.0 -
Then the Government should have stepped in and introduced rent control legislation, instead of using Rent Supplement tenants as their pawns to try and force rental prices down.0
-
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Then the Government should have stepped in and introduced rent control legislation, instead of using Rent Supplement tenants as their pawns to try and force rental prices down.
How would "rent control legislation" work? Would the EU allow the government to do this?0 -
Well if they can bring in legislation to tax property, based on its the location / value of a property, I'm sure it would be too much of a leap to presume they could also set a max amount that could be charged as rent for the use of that property, based on the same data? (and not tied to the mortgage the owner has on the property).
I personally believe a big part of what is keeping rental prices high, is landlords who bought second properties in the boom to rent out, trying to charge enough to cover the mortgage repayments.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »They are some of the conditions of qualifying for rent supplement, yes.
The landlord agrees to put a lower amount down on the forms, and the balance is paid in cash. Have you really never heard of this? The tenant doesn't report it because (a) finding landlords who will accept rent allowance are becoming fewer and fewer as it is. (b) if they do report them the landlord won't renew leases at the end of the year - which means trying to find a new place and having to go through the whole process again and (c) if they report them to the CWO, the CWO will cut off rent supplement for infringement of the terms of the payment. Either way, its the tenant who will be left stuck and looking for somewhere to live.
Firstly, then a fraud is being committed by both landlords and tenants - if RA is based on income then why have they got this extra cash?
Ask yourself this - why do tenants not want RA tenants? Could it be that many of them were stung by them. Left with unpaid bills, rent arrears (which by the way is yet another fraud as the rent allowance is obviously going somewhere else) left with huge cleaning bills? Could that be it? So when the landlords finally get rid to the tenants he foots the bill and guess what - the CWO dishes out a deposit for that tenant to go and do the same thing again.
It is a fact that when people don't have to pay for something they abuse it. So you need you look at the "why" won't the LL 's accept RA and not blame them because they don't.
Also, when a tenant and landlord sign a fixed lease then the RA tenant has the same rights as a private tenant, how come not one of them have reported this to the PRTB? To the CWO? I'll tell you will I - the same reason that a lot of them don't declare their "unofficial " top ups from the other parent of their kids.
I'll tell you another reason why RA tenants are "happy" to give top ups - it's because they will not entertain the thought or suggestion that they may have to move to another area and they are willing, obviously because they don't report, to pay to stay. A landlord cannot evict any tenant who is obligating the terms of a lease - including paying the stated amount.Deleted User wrote: »No, thats your perception of the truth. The truth is there are many going without basics such as adequate heating, or cutting back on other basics such as food, so they can make those ends meet. Ask St Vincent De Paul or Barnardos if you don't believe this is true.
What and there's no private renters doing the same thing?Deleted User wrote: »I don't think its okay for you to pay more - but I definitely think private renters DO have more scope! Private renters are the equivalent of "cash buyers" and usually a landlord's first preference, as tenants. That gives them an advantage over RS tenants.
See above for the reasons - because we pay for that privilege so we don't abuse or wreck their homes because we are responsible for the damage -We can't stick our hand out to the CWO for the next deposit.
But the point is that our rents are still based on the rent allowance for that area.Deleted User wrote: »Private renters such as yourself, may not have more money, but you are not bound by the restrictions that come with depending on Rent Supplement either. You have more control over decisions such as where you live and how much you are willing to pay - a Rent Supplement tenant does not have the same options, or shall we say, "haggling power" that you do. For a rent supplement tenant, the control ultimately lies with a CWO or Deciding Officer.
Would you please look at what you are saying. I repeat -it is not the tenants that have the restrictions - it is the landlords because a lot of them cannot reduce their rents to meet their mortgages. I don't have an infinite amount of money - I have a budget and it is dwindling every year - if my landlord won't reduce the rent then I have to leave, the same as RA tenants.
I do not have control on what rent I pay - that is dictated by rent allowance.Deleted User wrote: »You only have to look at the amount of ads which state "rent allowance not accepted" to know that the majority of landlords will prefer to take a private renter, over a rent supplement tenant, - and this automatically gives the private renter an advantage - especially in terms of access to decent rentals.
Again - ask yourself why> Why do landlords turn down a reliable steady stream of income?Deleted User wrote: »Finally, I read the SWA circular posted last night and the terms for "leeway" as described are very specific, very limited, and ultimately, timebound. Eventually, if the Rent Supplement tenant cannot get their landlord to lower the rent to within RS limits, they will have to move. But I don't know where the Dept expect all these cheaper rental units they want rent supplement tenants to move to, are going to come from.
And it's the same for me, but I have no leeway whatsoever - I don't get ANY time to look around - if my landlord doesn't reduce the rent or raises it then I am out, I have to relocate/downgrade - that's the way it goes.
Edit to Add:
Please see the most recent discussion on this issue.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/01/00011.asp
There is help for those who have to leave their accommodation - again, this help is not available to those of us who pay rent from our wages.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Then the Government should have stepped in and introduced rent control legislation, instead of using Rent Supplement tenants as their pawns to try and force rental prices down.
They should transfer RA tenants to the RAS scheme - RA was only supposed to be short term, RAS was supposed to take over from it. They should not control rents - they are doing that now and this is the problem.
They should also pay landlords directly, they should also make their tenant liable for damage, if they cannot handle the RA then they cannot accrue arrears. If they damage property then it should be taken from their RA/PT Job on an installment basis.
There's a lot wrong with the system - the whole system, not just landlords.0 -
Firstly, then a fraud is being committed by both landlords and tenants - if RA is based on income then why have they got this extra cash?
Rent allowance limits per county are set by the D/Social Protection - and a recipient who is working, has their rent allowance reduced euro for euro - its not like a differential rent scheme where your contribution is based on your income? Where are you getting the notion that RA is based on income from? And they don't have "extra cash". They pay from what income they do have, and cut corners elsewhere.Ask yourself this - why do tenants not want RA tenants? Could it be that many of them were stung by them. Left with unpaid bills, rent arrears (which by the way is yet another fraud as the rent allowance is obviously going somewhere else) left with huge cleaning bills? Could that be it? So when the landlords finally get rid to the tenants he foots the bill and guess what - the CWO dishes out a deposit for that tenant to go and do the same thing again.It is a fact that when people don't have to pay for something they abuse it. So you need you look at the "why" won't the LL 's accept RA and not blame them because they don't.
Oh and private renters have never stung landlords, or done damage to properties? BIASED much? I think you also need to actually read up on the rules of Rent Supplement, the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme, because CWOs DO NOT "dish out" deposits. And certainly not over, and over and over again, as you are implying.Also, when a tenant and landlord sign a fixed lease then the RA tenant has the same rights as a private tenant, how come not one of them have reported this to the PRTB? To the CWO? I'll tell you will I - the same reason that a lot of them don't declare their "unofficial " top ups from the other parent of their kids.
I already addressed this in my last post. It is because they are scared of having the Rent Allowance withdrawn. leaving them with no where to live, and no way to pay for a place to live.
Homelessness -v- grassing up the landlord. Which would you pick?I'll tell you another reason why RA tenants are "happy" to give top ups - it's because they will not entertain the thought or suggestion that they may have to move to another area and they are willing, obviously because they don't report, to pay to stay. A landlord cannot evict any tenant who is obligating the terms of a lease - including paying the stated amount.
Or maybe they pay to stay because that is where their support networks are, or where their children are in school, or where their extended families live. But I'm sure you'd be happier to see them all herded together in ghettos?See above for the reasons - because we pay for that privilege so we don't abuse or wreck their homes because we are responsible for the damage -We can't stick our hand out to the CWO for the next deposit.
But the point is that our rents are still based on the rent allowance for that area.
Again, you need to check your facts about deposits, and about the administration of Rent Allowance in general. And I'm sure if you google you'll find plenty of accounts of private renters destroying property.Would you please look at what you are saying. I repeat -it is not the tenants that have the restrictions - it is the landlords because a lot of them cannot reduce their rents to meet their mortgages. I don't have an infinite amount of money - I have a budget and it is dwindling every year - if my landlord won't reduce the rent then I have to leave, the same as RA tenants.
I do not have control on what rent I pay - that is dictated by rent allowance.
Again - ask yourself why> Why do landlords turn down a reliable steady stream of income?
And it's the same for me, but I have no leeway whatsoever - I don't get ANY time to look around - if my landlord doesn't reduce the rent or raises it then I am out, I have to relocate/downgrade - that's the way it goes.
I could say the same for you. Look at what you're saying. You are pointing your wrath at the wrong people! You obviously lack any insight into what life is like for those who are reliant on benefits, and your comments aimed at single mothers not declaring maintenance or RS tenants destroying property reveals your biased - you obviously buy into stereotypes.
Maybe you should go and volunteer for SVdP or for Barnardos - it might open your eyes a little to those less fortunate then yourself to be in secure employment and able to provide for your family from your own means.
Finally, (as I see this just going in circles now) I genuinely hope your secure employment status stays that way for you and your family.
Because you're in for a major shock if it ever changes - and next thing you know someone on Boards.ie will be portraying you and your family, as the scumbags who have no respect for property or the single mother who defrauds by not declaring maintenance, who should just shut up and be grateful to accept the crumbs from the table.
Edited to add:
Cross posted but saw this:They should transfer RA tenants to the RAS scheme - RA was only supposed to be short term, RAS was supposed to take over from it. They should not control rents - they are doing that now and this is the problem.
And again, this is outside of the control of tenants on Rent Supplement - it is between Landlords who are refusing to sign up to the scheme, and the State, because the they want to pay substantially below what PRIVATE renters will pay for the properties. Squeezing RS tenants OUT.0 -
Can you think of any reason why landlords don't want RA tenants?Deleted User wrote: »Have you really never heard of this? The tenant doesn't report it because (a) finding landlords who will accept rent allowance are becoming fewer and fewer as it is.0 -
SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated?
The benefit of keeping rents high through rent allowance is that it maintains profits for landlords who must be delighted that SPARKS is so concerned about their income. It has no real benefit for those on welfare and forces the working poor in to the worst quality accomadation and makes us uncompetetive.0 -
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.
how much is her rent? those figures do not sound legitimate0 -
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.
then ask your landlord to reduce the rent as RA claimants have to, you really are missing the point, recipients are being asked to ask their landlords to reduce the rent often by as much as €300 per month, many landlords cannot afford to do that, it is not the RA recipient's fault, and certainly not their fault if your landlord keeps the rent high, what the protesting is about is the huge difference in the ceiling price, where landlords cannot afford to drop rents, thus forcing people to move, and in many areas the ceiling price is not on balance with the rental market , not even close enough for landlords to reduce rents for new tenants, it is very unrealistic, i think you are just enjoying having a pop and passing the blame due to old fashioned stereotyping,0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
they DO NOT OWN their own homes, their lenders do!! it is still state funding when interest supplement is paid, i like the way it is chosen to be irrelevant when it does not fit the stereotype!!0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement