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
-
I don't have a child, but I think everyone needs to take into consideration (that which some posters mentioned) that all of this is at the discretion of each CWO, and is NOT consistent across the board. I got a letter in the post today to tell me I have to negotiate my rent with my landlord, as I am... wait for it... two euro per week over the limit. As a single person on BTEA, I either have to get my landlord to reduce my rent by a tenner a month (I'm paying 400) or I lose my rent allowance in 3 weeks. Dundalk does not have one-bedroom flats for 390E per month floating around willy-nilly. The limit for a single parent (with one child) here is now 133 per week, or around 550 per month. Very, very easy to find suitable and acceptable (even posh) accommodation at that price. At 390 per month, I might as well give up.
I long for the day next year when I walk out of college and can get myself on the job line, so that I can stop living in utter fear of what the CWO will do to me next. I should also point out that I was refused assistance with the deposit, despite having to fork out all of my savings to pay for my father's funeral (pay for, lol, I mean attempt to put a dent in). They don't hand that out willy-nilly either.
At the end of the day, these new rent limits might not affect people at all, and in other places they are destroying things for others. Since the rent limit for the area quoted by SW does not have to be the rent limit CWO go for, they can decide it should be lower again. Since the last time I saw somewhere to live in Dundalk town for under 400 per month was 5 months ago, I imagine they are hoping that all us claimers will use our excellent powers of negotiation to reduce our rent so that rent will eventually decrease.0 -
Astounded that people are not realising that the €500 million+ rent allowance subsidy is the reason that rents are so high in Ireland. Property prices are down more than 60%, mass immigration and yet rents stay ridicilously high. it were abolished rents would be significantly less for everyone.0
-
ShaShaBear wrote: »As a single person on BTEA, I either have to get my landlord to reduce my rent by a tenner a month (I'm paying 400) or I lose my rent allowance in 3 weeks. Dundalk does not have one-bedroom flats for 390E per month floating around willy-nilly.
There are loads of houseshares in Dundalk for well under that limit, including luxury double ensuites. Many many single working people cannot afford a one bedroom apartment.0 -
StillWaters wrote: »There are loads of houseshares in Dundalk for well under that limit, including luxury double ensuites. Many many single working people cannot afford a one bedroom apartment.
Do you expect a RA tenant to settle for a houseshare. Unlike the working poor these people have standards and expectations
That's why any reduction to the €500,000,000 + rent allowance subsidy would be so unfair. You can't expect them to live in same conditions as workers. .0 -
ShaShaBear wrote: »I got a letter in the post today to tell me I have to negotiate my rent with my landlord, as I am... wait for it... two euro per week over the limit. As a single person on BTEA, I either have to get my landlord to reduce my rent by a tenner a month (I'm paying 400) or I lose my rent allowance in 3 weeks. Dundalk does not have one-bedroom flats for 390E per month floating around willy-nilly.
The bit in bold. You don't.ShaShaBear wrote: »I long for the day next year when I walk out of college and can get myself on the job line, so that I can stop living in utter fear of what the CWO will do to me next. I should also point out that I was refused assistance with the deposit, despite having to fork out all of my savings to pay for my father's funeral (pay for, lol, I mean attempt to put a dent in). They don't hand that out willy-nilly either.
At the end of the day, these new rent limits might not affect people at all, and in other places they are destroying things for others. Since the rent limit for the area quoted by SW does not have to be the rent limit CWO go for, they can decide it should be lower again. Since the last time I saw somewhere to live in Dundalk town for under 400 per month was 5 months ago, I imagine they are hoping that all us claimers will use our excellent powers of negotiation to reduce our rent so that rent will eventually decrease.
Shock horror. Stuff doesn't come for free. :eek:
I worked two jobs when I was in college to pay for my rent in a houseshare and you are complaining because you have to ask the landlord for a tenner off for your own one bedroom place?
You have some neck.0 -
Advertisement
-
The bit in bold. You don't.
Shock horror. Stuff doesn't come for free. :eek:
I worked two jobs when I was in college to pay for my rent in a houseshare and you are complaining because you have to ask the landlord for a tenner off for your own one bedroom place?
You have some neck.
Firstly, I house-shared all of last year, had to move when I came down with pneumonia from the terrible conditions I was in, paying 75 quid a week. Which, by the way, is too high to receive rent allowance. I also paid the 400 per month in this flat from May 26th of last year right up to January, and that was when I could no longer afford it with the massive ESB bills required to run two storage heaters to keep me from freezing. How dare you lecture me on taking the state for a ride, I have done everything in my power to manage on my own. Where the hell do you think I would get one job, let alone two?!?!?!
Also, to the poster above you, if you saw the conditions I had to settle for in this flat, you wouldn't be laughing. Every cent I get goes on putting me through college, so that I can increase my chances of getting off SW. I will not be put down by self-righteous asses like you.0 -
ShaShaBear wrote: »I don't have a child, but I think everyone needs to take into consideration (that which some posters mentioned) that all of this is at the discretion of each CWO, and is NOT consistent across the board. I got a letter in the post today to tell me I have to negotiate my rent with my landlord, as I am... wait for it... two euro per week over the limit. As a single person on BTEA, I either have to get my landlord to reduce my rent by a tenner a month (I'm paying 400) or I lose my rent allowance in 3 weeks. Dundalk does not have one-bedroom flats for 390E per month floating around willy-nilly. The limit for a single parent (with one child) here is now 133 per week, or around 550 per month. Very, very easy to find suitable and acceptable (even posh) accommodation at that price. At 390 per month, I might as well give up.
You should check out daft.ie, there are plenty of places under €400 in Dundalk.0 -
You should check out daft.ie, there are plenty of places under €400 in Dundalk.
I did check out Daft.ie mate, all the places under 400 a month are student houseshares, and the limits for those with rent allowance are 50 per week. Ive already looked into going back into house-share, but since I am in contract here until May, I can't move. Regardless of which, most of those houseshares are over the weekly limit allowed for rent allowance. I get email alerts from every single rental company in this area, I know what's available.0 -
ShaShaBear wrote: »I either have to get my landlord to reduce my rent by a tenner a month or I lose my rent allowance in 3 weeks.
Have you actually asked the landlord yet?0 -
I have actually, he laughed in my face and said I was bullpooping, no way could a tenner a month affect my payment. Showed him papers and he said "Good luck with that". Landlords either don't want to or cant afford to reduce their rent to accommodate. In my case, it's measly, I know some mothers who are expected to reduce their rent by 100 a month or more, and they're not living the upscale high-life people seem to think they are.0
-
Advertisement
-
I honestly believe some here do not understand how RA works.
The Rent Allowance ceiling for a single person in shared accommodation in County Louth is €230 per month.
That means the property must be available to rent at €230 per month, or lower. If its for rent at €231 - the property is ineligible for rent allowance tenants.
The tenant is also required to pay a minimum of €30 per week of the rent themselves, so effectively the maximum they will receive in rent allowance, is actually €110 per month.
Now go look at DAFT.ie again and see what you can find under the limits of €230 per month that accepts rent allowance.
I found ONE property.0 -
And there are over 230 properties available in Dundalk.0
-
Righteous indignation fair enough, name calling isn't welcome.ShaShaBear wrote: »I will not be put down by self-righteous asses like you.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »I honestly believe some here do not understand how RA works.
The Rent Allowance ceiling for a single person in shared accommodation in County Louth is €230 per month.
That means the property must be available to rent at €230 per month, or lower. If its for rent at €231 - the property is ineligible for rent allowance tenants.
The tenant is also required to pay a minimum of €30 per week of the rent themselves, so effectively the maximum they will receive in rent allowance, is actually €110 per month.
Now go look at DAFT.ie again and see what you can find under the limits of €230 per month that accepts rent allowance.
I found ONE property.
Weird, because ShaShaBear said she's getting €390? Or is that because it's not shared accommodation?0 -
Weird, because ShaShaBear said she's getting €390? Or is that because it's not shared accommodation?
That's not what I said. 390 is the ceiling limit per month for a single person not sharing now. I am ten euro over the limit and no longer eligible for rent allowance. That's what I said. People suggested that there were plenty of "luxury" accommodation under 390 per month, and Loueze was pointing out that sharing a house has an even lower limit, and there are no places available in that regard either.0 -
So what are you saying should be done? Should rent allowance be higher in your opinion?0
-
So what are you saying should be done? Should rent allowance be higher in your opinion?
No, I'm aware that cuts need to be made and I will be the first to say that there are people out there living the lap of luxury because of rent allowance. But it's really obvious in my area that the CWOs have not looked at the rental market, or else they would see that there is very little available for the limits they have put. Landlords have mortgages to pay and if anything, are charging more than usual to try and cover themselves. CWOs think that if they reduce rent allowance, these landlords will reduce rent to accommodate for all tenants. But they can't. And as a result, us people in ineligible accommodation have to look for somewhere else to live, of which there is very little and even no choice.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I honestly believe some here do not understand how RA works.
The Rent Allowance ceiling for a single person in shared accommodation in County Louth is €230 per month.
That means the property must be available to rent at €230 per month, or lower. If its for rent at €231 - the property is ineligible for rent allowance tenants.
The tenant is also required to pay a minimum of €30 per week of the rent themselves, so effectively the maximum they will receive in rent allowance, is actually €110 per month.
Now go look at DAFT.ie again and see what you can find under the limits of €230 per month that accepts rent allowance.
I found ONE property.
And I honestly believe that there are some people here who do not understand how the rental market works - the advertised prices are "asking" prices, not actual rent prices - when you are out working for your money you negotiate - when it's been given to you then you don't.
Re: Ceiling - this is not a "target" it is a maximum payment.
Those on rent allowance are now going to have to haggle and negotiate. Pretty much how it's always been for private renters....
@shashabear - the rent review received their information from the PRTB - it's been said here already that RA tenants are "topping up " their rents in a private agreement with the landlord, before any complaints are lodged about CWO's and the cuts - then issues like these have to be handled.0 -
I started this thread with a view to bringing up a topic whereby the government were putting I felt the unfair onus onto tenants to implement their new policy regarding the reduction on rental limits.
As I have said before I have no problem with them trying to save money.
I do however feel that as all landlords who have RS tenants are listed with the CWOs, that maybe the landlords could have been written to as well as or instead of the tenants.
I understand that there are landlords with mortgages to pay and they would not want to reduce the rent.
In my own case my landlord refused to reduce the rent. If this house is empty for even one month after i leave then that would be the equivalent to the entire years reduction I was seeking. (the house was also empty for 6 months before i moved in) But so be it. That is the landlords prerogative to choose potentially losing way more because they will not reduce the rent from what they feel it is worth.
What I did not start this thread for was to cause a backlash or attack on those who are in receipt from help from the state.
Within every section of the community there are good and bad and seemingly on here people want to focus on the negative stereotypes of people living the high life on benefits. All it takes is a handful of bad eggs to tar and feather every other individual with the same brush.0 -
Advertisement
-
I started this thread with a view to bringing up a topic whereby the government were putting I felt the unfair onus onto tenants to implement their new policy regarding the reduction on rental limits.
As I have said before I have no problem with them trying to save money.
I do however feel that as all landlords who have RS tenants are listed with the CWOs, that maybe the landlords could have been written to as well as or instead of the tenants.
I understand that there are landlords with mortgages to pay and they would not want to reduce the rent.
In my own case my landlord refused to reduce the rent. If this house is empty for even one month after i leave then that would be the equivalent to the entire years reduction I was seeking. (the house was also empty for 6 months before i moved in) But so be it. That is the landlords prerogative to choose potentially losing way more because they will not reduce the rent from what they feel it is worth.
What I did not start this thread for was to cause a backlash or attack on those who are in receipt from help from the state.
Within every section of the community there are good and bad and seemingly on here people want to focus on the negative stereotypes of people living the high life on benefits. All it takes is a handful of bad eggs to tar and feather every other individual with the same brush.
To be honest your inital post seems to be calling for a policy of obstruction by RA recipients to block the change affecting them. That makes you a bad egg in my book. If you can't afford the new limits, you should be forced to move somewhere else. Somewhere cheaper. Eventually, what should happen is landlords will have to drop their prices to accomodate the new situation, but until then, yes, you should move. I don't care that people have built up communities etc where they are. A lot of people have built up communities and now have left the country because there is no work. A lot more moved to Dublin or wherever there was employment.
I don't think the majority of people are living the high life on benefits, but again, I don't care. I care that rents are too high, the government is sustaining high rents, and while you make be a victim in the attempt to set this to rights in the short term, in the long term everyone apart from landlords will benefit from sensible renting fees.
Oh, and posting press releases often doesn't get the hoped for reaction on the internet.0 -
I started this thread with a view to bringing up a topic whereby the government were putting I felt the unfair onus onto tenants to implement their new policy regarding the reduction on rental limits.
That is your opinion as a receiver of state benefit.
My opinion as a tax payer, is that it is a small ask by the state to get the tenant who is in receipt of rental supplement to assist in the process of lowering the artifical floor in the rental market.0 -
I started this thread with a view to bringing up a topic whereby the government were putting I felt the unfair onus onto tenants to implement their new policy regarding the reduction on rental limits.
As I have said before I have no problem with them trying to save money.
I do however feel that as all landlords who have RS tenants are listed with the CWOs, that maybe the landlords could have been written to as well as or instead of the tenants.
I understand that there are landlords with mortgages to pay and they would not want to reduce the rent.
In my own case my landlord refused to reduce the rent. If this house is empty for even one month after i leave then that would be the equivalent to the entire years reduction I was seeking. (the house was also empty for 6 months before i moved in) But so be it. That is the landlords prerogative to choose potentially losing way more because they will not reduce the rent from what they feel it is worth.
What I did not start this thread for was to cause a backlash or attack on those who are in receipt from help from the state.
Within every section of the community there are good and bad and seemingly on here people want to focus on the negative stereotypes of people living the high life on benefits. All it takes is a handful of bad eggs to tar and feather every other individual with the same brush.
You started this thread with a post that barely touched on that issue - the main issue was a protest against the rent reductions and to "protect" RA tenants from being forced to move away from their communities.
It's everyone else fault and every one else's responsibility.
You want the landlord to reduce the rent - you want the government to stop the cuts, you want the CWO to write to the landlords - you don't want to be inconvenienced in any way shape or form and you don't care about the ramifications for private tenants, particularly single parents like myself.
Why should you have a level of protection that I don't? I have had to move, particularly during the boom when rents sky rocketed and I couldn't afford to pay.
I have had to move when, again, during the boom, the landlord sold up making a massive profit.
Even in this post it's clear that you just don't get what the real issue is - and that is - if rents were lower then we would all benefit.
You and your group don't mention protesting against landlords demanding top up payments - you didn't protest when rents were going through the roof.
The sense of entitlement is astonishing, not an entitlement to the payment, you are entitled to that. It's not even a sense of entitlement to a certain standard of living - nobody wants RA tenants in ghettos and in poverty, but the sense of entitlement to have choices, like where you live that working people in this country don't have.
How many RA tenants negotiated rents in the past?
How many RA tenant ever found a property that didn't hit the ceiling?
Now it's time to enter the real world and negotiate or move - like the rest of us.0 -
And I honestly believe that there are some people here who do not understand how the rental market works - the advertised prices are "asking" prices, not actual rent prices - when you are out working for your money you negotiate - when it's been given to you then you don't.
Re: Ceiling - this is not a "target" it is a maximum payment.
Those on rent allowance are now going to have to haggle and negotiate. Pretty much how it's always been for private renters.....
Yes they are ceilings. And what SPARK was protesting against (though it could have been worded better) is that in many areas, the ceilings have been set unrealistically low, and will result in those with no meaningful powers of negotiation out of their homes because ultimately, the final decision rests with the CWO of how much rent supplement they will receive, and how much they can pay. Yet they want the tenants to do their dirty work with the landlords, for them.
Do you get it now ?!?!
As for negotiating - funny you should be the one saying that! I thought you told me earlier that as a private renter you had no more leeway to negotiate then a RA tenant? Yet now you say haggling and negotating is "pretty much" how its always been?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 do not have control on what rent I pay - that is dictated by rent allowance.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.
So - make up your mind! which is it? negotiate or no negotiation? Landlords keeping rents high to meet their mortgages (as I mentioned myself said earlier! ) or rent allowance keeping rates high?
Either way, you seem happy to put the blame for high rent "asking prices" on RA tenants. Why don't private renters also refuse to pay the "asking rate" then?
Because the landlord will refuse to rent to them - thats why!0 -
Why should you have a level of protection that I don't? I have had to move, particularly during the boom when rents sky rocketed and I couldn't afford to pay..
Yet you posted earlier, when you were ill, you received Rent Allowance yourself..... 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....
If you lost your job, or became ill again, or your income falls below SWA rates - you could make a claim for Rent Allowance.
Not so accurate then, that you have "no level of protection".0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Yet you posted earlier, when you were ill, you received Rent Allowance yourself.
If you lost your job, or became ill again, or your income falls below SWA rates - you could make a claim for Rent Allowance.
Not so accurate then, that you have "no level of protection".
I think his point was that as a private renter, he sometimes had to move for economic reasons despite the fact that as an RA tenant, you (appear to) feel that you should be allowed to remain where you are.0 -
I am not an RA tenant. I have already stated on thread that I have a mortgage. I am a single parent also, and I bought where I knew I had the extended support network of my family.
I bought my house with both my budget AND my supports in mind, and I think renters (both private and in receipt of benefits) should be able to do the same.
Having that support network close by is what allowed me to continue working, and pay for my mortgage, whereas if I'd had to move away, I would have had to give up work!
I too would have loved to live in Dalkey or near the beach, but it would have been damn awkward for my Mam when she was picking up my daughter from school !0 -
Snakeblood wrote: »To be honest your inital post seems to be calling for a policy of obstruction by RA recipients to block the change affecting them. That makes you a bad egg in my book. If you can't afford the new limits, you should be forced to move somewhere else. Somewhere cheaper. Eventually, what should happen is landlords will have to drop their prices to accomodate the new situation, but until then, yes, you should move. I don't care that people have built up communities etc where they are. A lot of people have built up communities and now have left the country because there is no work. A lot more moved to Dublin or wherever there was employment.
Ok a quick point to make.....and yes i am well aware the example I am making is a personal one.
Due to illness my child went to live with family members. Forward to now and I have been looking for cheaper accommodation as mentioned in previous posts. As you suggest I should move to where I can find somewhere within the new limits.
I understand you dont care if i have to move out of this area or indeed out of this county since there is NOTHING suitable for my situation in the region under the new limits.
But.....tell that to the social worker who looks after my childs case.....tell them that they are wrong to say i MUST live within the rural area my child is at school. That it is condition of my having my child back on a full time basis that I live close to my support network. Tell them as a tax payer that you not them, should insist that I move away from my child, tell them you as someone who doesnt get RS, that you can force me to give up ever being a full time parent because as some who does receive RS, that I cannot make any choices with regards to my child.
I am on Job seekers BENEFIT after having worked for years.....not long term allowance. I started very actively looking for employment once I was cleared by my support workers and medical team to do so.
Is being on JSB and RS a long term goal for me?? .....eh no!!!!
Is choosing where to live me saying I want to live in a great area and wont accept any less that the best???......eh no again!!!!
Is being forced into choosing between being a parent or being homeless something I want???? no yet again.....
but this is what.....for me....the new rental rates could be forcing upon me.
Life is not black and white......0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Yes they are ceilings. And what SPARK was protesting against (though it could have been worded better) is that in many areas, the ceilings have been set unrealistically low, and will result in those with no meaningful powers of negotiation out of their homes because ultimately, the final decision rests with the CWO of how much rent supplement they will receive, and how much they can pay. Yet they want the tenants to do their dirty work with the landlords, for them.
Do you get it now ?!?!
Jeez - it's not me that doesn't get it. When my rent was being raised during the boom who did my dirty work - I either had to pay OR move - what part of that are you having a problem with? If this is what private renters have to do then why do you think a RA tenant should have anyone doing their dirty work for them? Again, you're missing the point - if the rents were set to a rate more appropriate to the climate we are in then we would all benefit.Deleted User wrote: »As for negotiating - funny you should be the one saying that! I thought you told me earlier that as a private renter you had no more leeway to negotiate then a RA tenant? Yet now you say haggling and negotating is "pretty much" how its always been?
So - make up your mind! which is it? negotiate or no negotiation? Landlords keeping rents high to meet their mortgages (as I mentioned myself said earlier! ) or rent allowance keeping rates high?
Listen - let me repeat - if a landlord raises the rent then you try to negotiate - if you fail then you move if you succeed then you stay. That's what negotiating means - but we have NO more leeway than a RA tenant if the landlord won't reduce his rent.
Again - the point jumps out at me and again you miss it - you want the CWO to negotiate for RA tenants when private renters have to do it themselves.
When you are getting money from the state then you don't negotiate - when you earn it you have to.Deleted User wrote: »Either way, you seem happy to put the blame for high rent "asking prices" on RA tenants. Why don't private renters also refuse to pay the "asking rate" then?
Because the landlord will refuse to rent to them - thats why!
Nobody is blaming the RA tenants - it's the sense of entitlement and the failure of them to fight the right fight that's the problem. Rents are being subsidised by the government and this is dictating market rents - SPARK wants to protest against the cuts insuring that the rents stay the same.Deleted User wrote: »Yet you posted earlier, when you were ill, you received Rent Allowance yourself.Deleted User wrote: »If you lost your job, or became ill again, or your income falls below SWA rates - you could make a claim for Rent Allowance.
Not so accurate then, that you have "no level of protection".
Again, I repeat, when I claimed for RA my landlord reduced the rent (because I NEGOTIATED with him) so I could qualify - had he refused then I would have had to move, just like I had to move when I wasn't on it.
I didn't ask or expect the CWO to write to him - this is something I had to do myself.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »I am not an RA tenant. I have already stated on thread that I have a mortgage. I am a single parent also, and I bought where I knew I had the extended support network of my family.
I bought my house with both my budget AND my supports in mind, and I think renters (both private and in receipt of benefits) should be able to do the same.
Having that support network close by is what allowed me to continue working, and pay for my mortgage, whereas if I'd had to move away, I would have had to give up work!
I too would have loved to live in Dalkey or near the beach, but it would have been damn awkward for my Mam when she was picking up my daughter from school !
But you are a homeowner Loueze, you can live where you want - if you can't support yourself then sacrifices have to be made.
The point about Dalkey was that it's a "choice" and if you can afford it then it's your business where you live - when the state is paying you really don't have that choice and shouldn't feel that you do.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement