Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group

chemini77

Fittle wrote: »

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.

1-not an organisation but a campaign
2-they are there to support all lone parents who need it

Fittle

chemini77 wrote: »

1-not an organisation but a campaign
2-they are there to support all lone parents who need it

Excuse me for using the wrong terminology so, but they are made up of a group of people who 'support' lone parents, is not not an organisation? If it's a 'campaign', it's very badly run and organised and I hear little support for the campaign and alot of negativity about it (like this thread for example).

The only support I've seen them talk about is for single parents in receipt of some form of support from the State, be it LPA or RA or similar.

chemini77

t.

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.


that is exactly the point, with the RA ceiling being reduced so much, he will not get the RA tenant!!

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I don't know what this relates to? If a tenant signs a contract stating the rent is X, while knowingly, on the side, agrees to a higher rent then this means that they would not qualify for that property - receiving RA on this basis is fraud. Instead of looking for a property within the guidelines they choose to enter into this arrangement. And according to you this has been going on for years - before the cuts came in. Again, people are unwilling to make the sacrifices that we all have to make.

And what do private renters pay from? Do you not think we have to cut corners?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

How many tenants do you think would be able to find new properties without a reference - and if private tenants are so bad then why, again according to you, are we the more preferable option? If private tenants do damage then they lose their deposit.
Are you saying the the CWO does NOT pay deposits? You need to look it up again - because they do.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

But they have the protection of a signed lease and the PRTB. Why aren't they supported and advised to use these instead of entering into illegal contracts?

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Oh please - herded into ghettos. Very grown up and in very poor taste I have to say. The very reasons you outline above apply to all of us - not just to RA recipients. We'd all like the choice but if you cannot support yourself then you have to make sacrifices. I'm sorry but that is simply reality.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You need to check out RA yourself - you can work up to 30 hours per week, earn 130 Euro without it affecting you OPFP, the first 75 euro of your income over your allowance is disregarded and then 25% of income after that, if you earn less than 506 per week you qualify for a FIS payment along with medical card and back to school allowance.

If you are saying that everyone in receipt of such an income is living in poverty then so is everybody earning 30k per year that rents or pays a mortgage - with or without children. Is that your claim - if it is then it blows your "private tenants who work are better off than those on RA" out of the water. So which is it?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

As do you -
"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."
"and this automatically gives the private renter an advantage - especially in terms of access to decent rentals."
"I also think an employed single working parent (lets keep this gender neutral?) in private rental accommodation is different."

So none of those on RA receive any help from the absent parent? 98% of women claim this payment because they are not being supported.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Less fortunate? - part time workers account for 60% of those claiming RA are taking in the equivalent of over 30k a year. Less fortunate - are you having a laugh?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You don't know me or my background and that's fine - but for the record, the year before last I had a serious accident and ran out of sick leave in work and ended up on SW.

I received:
147pw Rent allowance
247 Illness benefit.

I received back to school allowance for my kids and a temporary medical card.

That's almost 400 euro per week and I managed fine on it. I got rid of SKY/House phone, cut my outgoings to the bare minimum, my landlord reduced the rent by 200 euro pm to meet the criteria - I did not pay him any extra, I did not top up, both myself and the LL played by the rules.
Because I was home with family around me I had no childcare costs.

I am in for NO shock dear, because I was there and most of US private renters are a paycheck or an illness away from social welfare.


You should aim your wrath in the right place - mine is squarely focused in the right direction. I know plenty of single mums, working and not working who receive RA, OPFP, FIS. They aren't living in poverty I can tell you.

Of course in all sectors of society there are people in trouble, unemployed single parents are more prone and it really depends on their background - however this does not mean that the system we have is not generous, it does not mean that the system is not being abused.

If this group wasn't so caught up in protecting standards that belong in another era it might see that their aim is wrong.

Instead of protesting against the cuts, they should be advocating cuts.
I have repeatedly said (not that you other to take it on board) that the current situation where tenants and landlords are battling it out is wrong, but how is it that when tenants make "unofficial payments" with no protest that they protest against official raises in payments?


If every one knows that "topping up" is going on then why hasn't any group come out in protest? Why have they never stood up before?

They should also:

Sort out the payments so that the landlord is paid directly.
Take more landlords onto the RAS scheme or prohibit them from taking a RA tenant.
Advise RA recipients of their rights if the LL tries to force them to top up and put into place a law that makes this illegal and punishable.
Have every property checked before RA is allocated/or force the landlord to provide an independent report - at shared cost to make sure properties are to a certain standard.
Make RA tenants responsible for damages.
Limit the amount of deposits paid.

As I said, there is plenty wrong with the system - but it's not only the Landlords at fault here.

Edit to add, I'll go even further here to say I know two single parents on who gave up work and the other who begged her boss for part time - the reason? They couldn't continue paying for cars, childcare - it was too much. They opted for SW/RA.

daltonmd

chemini77 wrote: »

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!!

Oh please.:rolleyes:

Bullseye1

MariMel wrote: »

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.

So its the governments fault for pushing single parents into private rental accommodation because not enough social housing has been built?:rolleyes:

Is social housing not also a burden on the rest of us? When are people going to take responsibility for themselves.

Bullseye1

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.

This is a fair point. But if the government is not going to tackle rates businesses have to pay do you really expect them to tackle rent in any meaningful way. The argument being used is that NAMA is sitting on a big property portfolio and they are keeping prices inflated. Rates are the bigger issue for this country.

chemini77

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you think of any reason why landlords don't want RA tenants?

yes, defrauding the state by not declaring rent as income, it happens a lot, FACT

daltonmd

chemini77 wrote: »

yes, defrauding the state by not declaring rent as income, it happens a lot, FACT

While that's a great point, private renters don't pay cash - or at least very few of them do. Before I rented this house I was asked by a couple of landlords to pay under the table - I said no, the properties were a long time on the market and eventually sold. Can't see the benefit to a private tenant to be honest, it's direct debit for records all the way.

chemini77

why is back to school allowance cropping up all the time, a one off payment anually of €200 which does not even cover the whole uniform for my child's school is hardly something to shout about,

chemini77

daltonmd wrote: »

While that's a great point, private renters don't pay cash - or at least very few of them do. Before I rented this house I was asked by a couple of landlords to pay under the table - I said no, the properties were a long time on the market and eventually sold. Can't see the benefit to a private tenant to be honest, it's direct debit for records all the way.

he would probably accept rent allowance, it is not landlords such as that i was talking about,

chemini77

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So its the governments fault for pushing single parents into private rental accommodation because not enough social housing has been built?:rolleyes:

Is social housing not also a burden on the rest of us? When are people going to take responsibility for themselves.

such as?? i am climbing the walls here to get into fulltime work, and be completely free of the restraints from relying the state, the work is not there, id clean toilets if it meant freedom from all this judgement and stereotyping, why do people out of this situation think it is all so simple? what do you suggest then? id like to hear your sensible logical solution

daltonmd

chemini77 wrote: »

why is back to school allowance cropping up all the time, a one off payment anually of €200 which does not even cover the whole uniform for my child's school is hardly something to shout about,

Are you in receipt of it? I can tell you that when you have this huge expense (for more than on child) at a time of year - if someone handed it to you, you;d be snapping the hand off them or at the very least grateful.

I don't know where your child goes to school but my kids uniforms/PE gear and book scheme were covered.

Oh and I was very grateful.


Edit: My payment was more than that per child.

Monty Burnz

chemini77 wrote: »

yes, defrauding the state by not declaring rent as income, it happens a lot, FACT

Don't RA tenants have to declare to anyone whose property they are renting? ANOTHER easily closed loophole?

daltonmd

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Don't RA tenants have to declare to anyone whose property they are renting? ANOTHER easily closed loophole?

Yes - they have to get some paperwork from the landlord (forget what these are now). I think the poster means that this is the reason a lot of tenants won't accept RA because they have to be registered with the PRTB and I think then the revenue get that information.

Atlantis50

Rent allowance should be abolished altogether. What other country practically pays peoples rent for them?

chemini77

yes i am in receipt of it and very grateful, all the shools in my area are very "specific" about uniform, my child however is in gaelsciol and her cardigan alone is only available from one supplier at over €60,, that is without the specific pinifore made especially for the school , shirts ,shoes, tie,tights etc, and the school tracksuit which is another €65, then there is the rest, books bag stationary etc, it is now all "free" handouts and easy living, id happily not take a penny from the state but unfortunately it is not always possible

daltonmd

chemini77 wrote: »

yes i am in receipt of it and very grateful, all the shools in my area are very "specific" about uniform, my child however is in gaelsciol and her cardigan alone is only available from one supplier at over €60,, that is without the specific pinifore made especially for the school , shirts ,shoes, tie,tights etc, and the school tracksuit which is another €65, then there is the rest, books bag stationary etc, it is now all "free" handouts and easy living, id happily not take a penny from the state but unfortunately it is not always possible

Bit of a rip-off with the uniforms isn't it? I know it's not easy for people, it's not easy when you're working either - this is the point I'm trying to get across. I'd rather be out working though - for my sanity if nothing else. I think though that you have to acknowledge that you actually wouldn't clean toilets for minimum wage in fairness - you'd lose everything and I think that's the problem with the SW system - it's when you have absolutely nothing that it kicks in - instead of helping you back into the workforce and workers when they are to the pin of their collar.

Fittle

chemini77 wrote: »

yes i am in receipt of it and very grateful, all the shools in my area are very "specific" about uniform, my child however is in gaelsciol and her cardigan alone is only available from one supplier at over €60,, that is without the specific pinifore made especially for the school , shirts ,shoes, tie,tights etc, and the school tracksuit which is another €65, then there is the rest, books bag stationary etc, it is now all "free" handouts and easy living, id happily not take a penny from the state but unfortunately it is not always possible

I don't believe for one second that your childs school is charging 60e for a cardigan. The 200e back to school allowance well covers the cost of a child's uniform in primary school. It might not cover the full booklist, but unless your child's cardigan is made from mohair, they can't be charging 60e for it.

regress

chemini77 wrote: »

yes i am in receipt of it and very grateful, all the shools in my area are very "specific" about uniform, my child however is in gaelsciol and her cardigan alone is only available from one supplier at over €60,, that is without the specific pinifore made especially for the school , shirts ,shoes, tie,tights etc, and the school tracksuit which is another €65,

An example of all that is wrong about welfare culture. It is not about enough about getting enough to have an adequate lifestyle. People "need" enough for conspicuous consumption.
What would the neighbours think if the govt didn't give you enough for a€60 cardigan for your daughter. Imagine the shame if she had to wear a €10 cardigan from Dunnes instead. That snobbery is fine if you are paying yourself bit you expect us to pay for you And of course you
Need rent allowance to be high to enable you to live in a "good"" area with the best schools while those working can only afford to live in cheaper areas because of higher rents due to RA.

snubbleste

Stephen Faughnan, Chairman of the IPOA speaks in relation to rent supplement changes:

“Landlords will in future be very cautious when renting property. We have to pay the €200 Non Principal Property Tax, €100 household charge, €90 PRTB Registration, absorb 25% reduction in mortgage interest relief and now take up to a 25% reduction in rental income. Vulnerable tenants who depend on the state to house them are being forced to negotiate these unfair reductions, it is a mean way of developing rent control.”

source: IPOA Call on Minister ipoa.ie 16/01/2012

amacachi

regress wrote: »

An example of all that is wrong about welfare culture. It is not about enough about getting enough to have an adequate lifestyle. People "need" enough for conspicuous consumption.
What would the neighbours think if the govt didn't give you enough for a€60 cardigan for your daughter. Imagine the shame if she had to wear a €10 cardigan from Dunnes instead. That snobbery is fine if you are paying yourself bit you expect us to pay for you And of course you
Need rent allowance to be high to enable you to live in a "good"" area with the best schools while those working can only afford to live in cheaper areas because of higher rents due to RA.

Did you read the post or have any experience in such things? There's loads of schools that only allow one supplier's clothes to be worn in school. Loads don't allow jumpers/fleeces with the crest sewn on, they have to be bought from the school's chosen shop. PE tracksuits the same. There's plenty of teachers who are more than petty enough to put a kid out of class for not having the "correct" uniform.

daltonmd

snubbleste wrote: »

Stephen Faughnan, Chairman of the IPOA speaks in relation to rent supplement changes:

source: IPOA Call on Minister ipoa.ie 16/01/2012

Was that before or after they said: "The Irish Property Owners’ Association announced today not only will it be passing on the tax to tenants, it’s also planning to charge an additional €200 to cover the NPPR ‘second home’ charge.

The IPOA is advising landlords to bill tenants €300 a year upfront, or in €25 installments."

They were forced to retract later.

It's funny that Rent Allowance at it's peak wasn't a form of rent control, but with the reductions it is.....
Edit - It was after :-) The above statement was Dec.2011

regress

snubbleste wrote: »

Stephen Faughnan, Chairman of the IPOA speaks in relation to rent supplement changes:

source: IPOA Call on Minister ipoa.ie 16/01/2012

Of course property owners will be opposed to any reduction in the "landlords dole" it means less money in their pockets. But are they going to evict tenants and leave properties empty if the govt cuts the €500 million that it gives to them every uear.

daltonmd

regress wrote: »

Of course property owners will be opposed to any reduction in the "landlords dole" it means less money in their pockets. But are they going to evict tenants and leave properties empty if the govt cuts the €500 million that it gives to them every uear.

They're under the illusion (and not the only ones I might add) that there is a never ending queue of private renters waiting with wads of cash - ready to take up the slack.

regress

amacachi wrote: »

Did you read the post or have any experience in such things? .

I do. School in my area realises that many are struggling and do not insist on top of the range designer gear. Of course school and area would not be "good enough" for poster above. Those on RA have higher standards and expectations.

Bullseye1

chemini77 wrote: »

such as?? i am climbing the walls here to get into fulltime work, and be completely free of the restraints from relying the state, the work is not there, id clean toilets if it meant freedom from all this judgement and stereotyping, why do people out of this situation think it is all so simple? what do you suggest then? id like to hear your sensible logical solution

Its tough not just for those out of work but also those still fortunate to be working. I'm sorry to read of your circumstances but its not easy being self employed with no safety net at all.

With regards to suggestions. Why would a parent for example with one child need a 4 bedroom detached house? I've seen this happen numerous occassion's. There needs to be more done to place families in house sizes applicable to family sizes. Paying a landlord excessive money for a 4 bed when a two bed would be sufficient is a waste of state money and the tenants money.

If a single parents partner decides to move in (which I have no problem with) they should be responsible for paying some rent and reduce the states bill.

Dead beat parents who have abandoned their respective partners should be pursued for payment and contributions, but only if they are given legal rights to their child.

Local Authorites were given huge monies in the boom time through levies, lands in substitution of housing, housing (1 in 5 in many cases) from developers. It was revealed that Bray Town Council is sitting on millions in the bank. Why? Why does a LA have a surplus in the bank when people are looking for homes promised by the Department.

Elliego

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Rent allowance should be abolished altogether. What other country practically pays peoples rent for them?

Your right many other countries have a much better welfare system, and for the record I am not a lone parent nor am I on rent allowance, I am not in receipt of any welfare payments I work and pay taxes...I just don't begrudge those that are not as fortunate as I.

chemini77

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Don't RA tenants have to declare to anyone whose property they are renting? ANOTHER easily closed loophole?

of course, which is why some landlords refuse to accept RA,

chemini77

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its tough not just for those out of work but also those still fortunate to be working. I'm sorry to read of your circumstances but its not easy being self employed with no safety net at all.

With regards to suggestions. Why would a parent for example with one child need a 4 bedroom detached house? I've seen this happen numerous occassion's. There needs to be more done to place families in house sizes applicable to family sizes. Paying a landlord excessive money for a 4 bed when a two bed would be sufficient is a waste of state money and the tenants money.

If a single parents partner decides to move in (which I have no problem with) they should be responsible for paying some rent and reduce the states bill.

Dead beat parents who have abandoned their respective partners should be pursued for payment and contributions, but only if they are given legal rights to their child.

Local Authorites were given huge monies in the boom time through levies, lands in substitution of housing, housing (1 in 5 in many cases) from developers. It was revealed that Bray Town Council is sitting on millions in the bank. Why? Why does a LA have a surplus in the bank when people are looking for homes promised by the Department.

we all pretty much agree with all this, but what you said first was "take responsibility for THEMSELVES" which, to be fair, all but a tiny few lone parents want more than anything, people seem to be under some illusion we have a "free" ride, that really is not the case, i live within my means, dont smoke or have a social life , not had new shoes (and just everyday ones i mean not gucci or anything) in 2 years , no weekends away or nights out or even day trips for the child, she cant even learn to swim, we just merely exist, which i accept is the only way until i can get us free from the state financial control , but options are slim, and not just for me, but for so many, and yes i understand self employed people get a raw deal also, my father is self employed, im not playing tit for tat ," ive got it harder than you so get out your violins for me, " but trying to clarify that the stigma attached to lone parents is very unjust