Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group

sophia25

Don't be so ridiculous why on earth would SPARK want to keep rents high?? How would they benefit, most people want to be in a position to be self sufficient. You keep referring to the op that was a little ambiguous. That has since been explained time and time again to you and was corrected to state no reduction in rent ceilings rather than rent in actual press releases. You may disagree with their position,but please stop stating their position to be other than it is. The govt chose a lazy expensive way to deal with those that were priced out ofthe property market and now that the money isn't they are refusing to use their power as the largest buyer of private rental power to lower the rents. They lowered the ceiling and assumed landlords would respond. They aren't and people are being for ed to forfeit deposits and move unrealistic distances from schools and. A lotof people on Ra are also on disability and are being moved away from.their essential services. If the govt used their power appropriately rents should be lowered for everyone, You are criticising SPARK for lobbying for their members interests,well join them and get your voice heard or do what they did and stand up for your own interest.

regress

sophia25 wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous why on earth would SPARK want to keep rents high?? How would they benefit, most people want to be in a position to be self sufficient. You keep referring to the op that was a little ambiguous. That has since been explained time and time again to you and was corrected to state no reduction in rent ceilings rather than rent in actual press releases.

Its the same thing. The rent ceiling sets the rent for an area. The only way for the government to reduce market rent is to reduce the ceiling which is n effect the amount that they pay landlords. And it is the ceiling that it again keeping rents exoirbently high for everyone.

sophia25 wrote: »

they are refusing to use their power as the largest buyer of private rental power to lower the rents. They lowered the ceiling and assumed landlords would respond.

They are using their power. The govt can't tell landlords how much rent to accept. All they can do is offer them a certain amount whcih is the ceiling. If the landlord is not prepared to accept it RA receipitants will just have to move to another property in the area whcih will accept it. Most landlords will have great difficulty finding someone privately who wll pay the RA ceiling .

daltonmd

Gingermagic wrote: »

What a better way to divide people than to create an unequal system. And as always instead of uniting and fighting for a more equal system what I have observed a great deal on this thread is; "why don't they do this....why don't they do that"....much division on a topic that goes accross "classes" for want of a better word.

The only people who stereptyped those on RA are those posters in receipt of it. Nobody here treated them as second rate people, nobody here said they should live in ghettos - this is the card that is played when people don't like the answers they receive. Maybe read the full thread, particulary the first 2 pages and you will see who fired the first shot - and who has continued to fire away, deflecting away from facts.

Gingermagic wrote: »

I say.....why don't you do something. To bemoan and grouch about people who are actually trying to do something, even if you think they are making a balls of it is just nonsensical. I would understand if you were actually fighting a campaign of your own....If you are I apologise, I assume when you ask what are they doing for you, that you are not fighting one but won't mind others doing that for you.

What are "they" trying to do? Because all I hear is:
"The government won't do X"
"The CWO won't do Y"..
"The landlord won't do X or Y"

What are the tenants doing to fight this?

Gingermagic wrote: »

Situations on many fronts are not easy but to be bitter because people have found a way to survive on a benefit system and will fight for their rights which are just as equal as yours even if they are not working is not something you need to be. You seem to find many many faults with SPARK so why don't you contact them and discuss your issue with them and ask them how you can help them to help you fight for you and your children too. Be proactive instead of divisive.....it may change your outlook....

Who is bitter? What is it with this bitter thing? Be proactive? Again I refer you to the tenants.

Gingermagic wrote: »

If you do nothing......you change nothing

Exactly - so the tenants need to be proactive. Instead of digging their heels in and confusing "Rights" with "Standard of life" - they're not the same.

Gingermagic wrote: »

Oh and please don't go into a diatribe on what you may or may not have done in the past or the difficulties you have overcome....Welcome to the club....everyone has a his/herstory be they on benefits or otherwise.....it's harsh but it's a fact....

It's not about being on benefits - it's about accepting the fact that sometimes sacrifices have to be made and if you are unwilling to make them, then you are the problem, not the state or the CWO or the landlord.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

What happens to a family who have had their rent level cut during the rent reviews which are going on at present....they might only be 4 or 5 months into a fixed term lease.....the landlord wont reduce the rent in line with the new limits set by the government. The tenants cant afford to make up difference and are not permitted to do so, so they can no longer afford to stay in the property....yet are tied to a fixed term lease.

Well here's the choices for that family:

They can offer for the landlord to take the outstanding money from their deposit, see out the lease and seek alternative accommadation.

OR - they can pay the difference if they can prove that they have sufficient means, the 30 euro contribution is NOT set in stone it is a MINIMUM contribution not a maximum.
As you said yourself, 60% of those on RA are working.

If a family are so hellbent in staying in a house then they will find a way.

MariMel wrote: »

There is another side to this too....there are plenty of landlords who say that they cant afford to reduce their rents, like the LL of the house I am moving out of in a few days time. They say they cant afford to even take a €50 a month cut. Yet if this house is empty for even one month after I leave, then the reduction I sought for an entire year will be less than the one months rent lost because it is empty. And I might add, this house was empty for 6 months before i moved in. There are a shockingly large amount of LLs not willing to reduce their rents yet are quite happy to leave their properties vacant til the find someone to pay what they are asking. Seems a little foolish to me. Surely a regular rent albeit less than what ideally they would be looking for, surely this is in the long run more beneficial than losing 1, 2, 3 or more months rent.
If you work it out, if someone is looking for eg €100 a month reduction...thats €1200 over an entire year. The rent is €700 a month and the house is empty for just 2 months.....then the landlord is already at a loss.

Yes it is strange Marimel - why any landlord with an ounce of sense would potentially suffer a loss of over 4k (700pm times 6) rather than keep a tenant at a reduced rate - it doesn't make sense, particulary if he has a mortgage to pay - maybe Marimel he's decided to sell, maybe he doesn't have a mortgage on it maybe he simply doesn't want the hassle of renting it out.

But this is his issue, his house and his choice.

MariMel wrote: »

I understand the bitterness a lot of posters have towards people on benefits. They believe the stereotypical image of benefit scroungers, not willing to work and who want to screw the system for all its worth. These people are a tiny minority yet everyone is being tarred with the same brush.

There is no bitterness, only from you Marimel. You have thrown this "stereotypical" card from page 2.

MariMel wrote: »

As some of our most vocal posters here against those on benefits having any rights are also the ones saying they themselves are a week or a month from being on benefits, surely they can acknowledge that should the worst happen to them, that they genuinely believe that eventhough the worked for years, that they too should lose every right once they walk into a social welfare office?

As this is directed to me, could you please point out where I said you lose your "rights"? Again, as I have said, you are confusing "standard of living" and rights.


In your situation Marimel I would have said to the landlord take the difference from my deposit - or I would have said to the CWO I can pay the 12 euro a week myself.
If the CWO and the landlord said - nope you can't do that then I would say, "fair enough let the landlord evict me" - because this is what is needed.

Now, before you start with the "I can't afford it" - sure can't you afford broadband? Or is this a right too?


The first person responsible for you and your child - is you. Not the state, not the CWO and not the landlord.

daltonmd

Gingermagic wrote: »

It is legitmate and and questions should always be asked, but ask the right people....If people have a question about SPARK ask them, email them they have a website I presume.....You be suprised at what changes can occur when you take control of stuff yourself and not believe media hype on those on benefits, or becuase one may see a friend who seems better off than you and on benefits......

You have either not read the entire thread of you have missed the crux of the discussion.

Gingermagic wrote: »

I have known people to on benefits trawl charity shops for clothes for them and their family and you would never know. I know of people again on benefit and off benefits who earn a good wage work out which days the local supermarkets have the best knock down prices because they are at their sell by date. Second hand furniture restored and glammed up so you would never guess it came from a skip....Many of the folks I know on benefits are mend and make do....and many of my working friends are finding that they too are having to do the same even though they are employed full time.....they will not throw much of anything away.....

Absolutely agree with this.

Gingermagic wrote: »

and thankfully my friends who work their arses don't begrudge them that.

But disagree here - you are insinuating that some here begrudge people on benefits - please read the thread carefully - you won't see that at all.

Gingermagic wrote: »

those of you who believe that if your not working then it's not a problem to be shoved into the Ghetto's....crazy..... and if you think Ireland doesn't have ghetto's, you are very very mistaken. You do feel very differently when it is you and your children, Lone parents should fight to give their children a better life.....again on benefits or other wise.

Again this straw argument designed firstly by the OP and followed fatefully by those who would rather make this the issue, and deflect away from the real discussion.

Gingermagic wrote: »

Those of you that think benefit should be a punishment and that they deserve less than others for their prediciment....it is sad to see such a decrease in humanity!

Can you point out where anyone said people should be punished? Really strange post.

Gingermagic wrote: »

The country appears as if it is going to the wall....and people are afraid. Fear causes anger, and as usual anger is directed at the easy targets and not those whose fault it really is.

Gingermagic wrote: »

A group of us where we live got scared and angry, so we decided to take on a couple of allotments....Grow our own food, I do hope that the begrudgers don't get fecked off about people on benefits having allotments too And seriously it doesn't matter

That's what I call proactive - that's what I call looking after yourself first and foremost. Why would anyone begrudge proactive people who DO.

Gingermagic wrote: »

if you are on benefits or working all the hours that the gods send....if you are a single parent life can be very very difficult for many many reasons. It is just a shame that you can't unite and fight....

That's what people here have been saying - the "divide" is when people want everyone to fight their fight - sometimes you have to stand up and fight the right fights - not the easiest ones.

Gingermagic wrote: »

People don't know other peoples stories, not really, we are very good at hiding that which we may feel embarrassed about. Venting anger is one thing....but some of the previous posts and the venom in them is

But it's taken as an absolute given that people on SW have it tougher these days and anyone elses stories are "diatribe"?

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

Off now to watch the rugby......being that I am a benefit scrounger that should be on the 50inch tv we all have, living in my house in the best area close to an award winning school. (just to find in with the stereotype)
But alas I dont have a tv....cant afford the licence....so I shall spend my afternoon enjoying the rugby with my family in my parents house and not in the house that has been next to impossible to heat all winter.

Here we go again nobody said any of the above - that's how you "THINK" people view you.

You have given YOUR personal situation - this is NOT relective of the majority.

Many landlords have reduced their rents, many tenants can pay a little more and are happy to do so.

Yet you believe that the whole system is wrong, the CWO is against you the landlord and the State - if you refuse to bend Marimel then you break. It's as simple as that.

MariMel

daltonmd wrote: »

In your situation Marimel I would have said to the landlord take the difference from my deposit - or I would have said to the CWO I can pay the 12 euro a week myself.
If the CWO and the landlord said - nope you can't do that then I would say, "fair enough let the landlord evict me" - because this is what is needed.

Now, before you start with the "I can't afford it" - sure can't you afford broadband? Or is this a right too?


The first person responsible for you and your child - is you. Not the state, not the CWO and not the landlord.

The €50 a month reduction I sought was all i thought i would be able to get...not the actual €160 a month reduction I needed to seek.
But that's neither here nor there.
As for broadband....i find it rather handy for doing my online fas courses AND facilitating a charity's online group I do some voluntary work for.
My responsibility is for me and my child and in doing so I dont intend being on benefits long term. I do however believe in supporting people to enable them to have a pathway to achieve this.

sophia25

Daltonmd i was shocked at how callous you have appeared but the last couple of posts explain it. You are factually mistaken as are perhaps a lot of general public. The miniimum rent contribution is not set in stone as you rightly stated, but is means tested. Some people maybe paying €700 per month and receiving RA of €150, in fact i heard recently of someone being awarded €1.22 per week,which they declined. Rent ceilings are however set in stone. If you are in receipt of Ra you cannot rent a property that is €1 over the ceiling. Landlords seem to think they can reach a compromise with the teñant that if they reduce rent a bit then tenant will make up difference if they really wànt to stay in property, but they can't. If you are in a property that is 1 euro over the ceiling you are inbreach of rules and no longer qualify for any RA. This is where the lack of choice is. For some tenants they would prefer to pay extra money to landlord and sacifice in some other area but they have no option if rent is not reduced to rent ceiling they must move. If a lone parent is forced into an area where work schools and childcare are all geographically apàrt, it may no longer be possible for them to work, thus costing the state more in the longterm. The only option would be to make under the table páyments to landlords but that makes them complicit in tax evasion añd also at risk of losing their entire rent allowance. I think the govt. Should inform landlords that tenants are not in a position to deviate from rent ceilings. The govt have names and addresses of all landlords in receipt of rent allowance and a letter explaining that no tenant on rent allowance would be able to pay them anymore, could have gone a long way in alleviating this problem and overall reducing rents for the benefit of all tenants.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

The €50 a month reduction I sought was all i thought i would be able to get...not the actual €160 a month reduction I needed to seek.
But that's neither here nor there.

Actually it is very relevant Marimel - your reduction was 160, you asked the LL for a 50 euro deduction, meaning you could pay the 110 and yet you refuse to give up a luxury like broadband that could have meant you stayed in the home?

MariMel wrote: »

As for broadband....i find it rather handy for doing my online fas courses AND facilitating a charity's online group I do some voluntary work for.
My responsibility is for me and my child and in doing so I dont intend being on benefits long term. I do however believe in supporting people to enable them to have a pathway to achieve this.

So you chose to keep this luxury rather than keep the home around you Marimel - you are well supported, sadly it's not enough for you and it seems for some people it will never be enough.

You want to live in the house/area/community of your choice. You want your rent paid you want to further your education to enable you to come off benefits - but don't want to cross the door to do it.

I also believe in supporting people Marimel - but sometimes people have to get up off their backsides and do something for themselves.

daltonmd

sophia25 wrote: »

Daltonmd i was shocked at how callous you have appeared but the last couple of posts explain it.

I don't understand where the shock comes from Sophia. This country simply cannot afford the level of SW payments that are being made. The rent review was carried out and it was found that the allowance was too much for certain areas.

sophia25 wrote: »

You are factually mistaken as are perhaps a lot of general public. The miniimum rent contribution is not set in stone as you rightly stated, but is means tested.

Where am I factually mistaken? The rent contribution is not set in stone - Fact.

Your income is means tested and has been pointed out on this thread, 60% of RA recipients work. If you have more income then you can pay more towards your rent.

sophia25 wrote: »

Some people maybe paying €700 per month and receiving RA of €150, in fact i heard recently of someone being awarded €1.22 per week,which they declined. Rent ceilings are however set in stone. If you are in receipt of Ra you cannot rent a property that is €1 over the ceiling.

Then they are earning money where they can pay more.

sophia25 wrote: »

Landlords seem to think they can reach a compromise with the teñant that if they reduce rent a bit then tenant will make up difference if they really wànt to stay in property, but they can't. If you are in a property that is 1 euro over the ceiling you are inbreach of rules and no longer qualify for any RA.

"5. Revised Maximum Rent Limits
5.1. From 1 January 2012, maximum rent limits have been reduced by an average of 13%.
5.2. All rent limits are prescribed on a calendar monthly basis.
5.3. These limits should be applied to all new applications for Rent Supplement on and from 1 January 2012.
5.4. Existing Rent Supplement recipients moving to new accommodation or whose claim is subject to a review of entitlement on and from 1 January 2012 will be subject to the new rent limits."

If a ceiling has been set in an area then this means that there are properties being rented out OR available for rent within this guide - the fact that a landlord won't reduce his rent isn't the issue. It's what can the state afford and what's available.
Staying in a house that is now too expensive for the govt, when there is other, cheaper property in the same area is simply not an option anymore.

sophia25 wrote: »

This is where the lack of choice is. For some tenants they would prefer to pay extra money to landlord and sacifice in some other area but they have no option if rent is not reduced to rent ceiling they must move. If a lone parent is forced into an area where work schools and childcare are all geographically apàrt, it may no longer be possible for them to work, thus costing the state more in the longterm.

This won't happen Sophia. Nobody will be forced to leave their town. They may have to move to another part of town - but I seriously doubt that many will be put into this situation. Or let me put it this way, I doubt many people will allow themselves to be put into this situation. They wuill do everything to avoid this outcome.

sophia25 wrote: »

The only option would be to make under the table páyments to landlords but that makes them complicit in tax evasion añd also at risk of losing their entire rent allowance.

But many do this now Sophia and that is the reason that some landlords are now demanding this. Many people moved into properties that were set too high for the allowance in the first place - they made an agreement with the LL instead of looking for a less expensive home.

sophia25 wrote: »

I think the govt. Should inform landlords that tenants are not in a position to deviate from rent ceilings. The govt have names and addresses of all landlords in receipt of rent allowance and a letter explaining that no tenant on rent allowance would be able to pay them anymore, could have gone a long way in alleviating this problem and overall reducing rents for the benefit of all tenants.

I don't think the government will or should get involved - I think the PRTB should,but they need the tenants to stand up -not the government.
For example - if the rental review in Kildare showed the average property renting for 700 and a landlord is charging 900 and tries to kick someone out then maybe the PRTB can query the rate the LL has set and why.

Let's say a single parent on RA goes back to work in 12 months - they will then be in a position to rent at a LOWER price - this price will have been driven down by this action.
Nobody wants to see anyone homeless - and that won't happen.

riclad

Theres many landlords bought houses for 150 k plus, in the boom ,ie they never made a profit ,the rent never covered the mortgage unless they were on interest only loans.Theres many 2bed apartments owned by nama or banks empty which were
never rented out or lived in .IF these were rented out ,rent s would go down due to market forces.
And theres a big difference between dublin and country ,
ie average rent in dublin is 900 per month for a house.500 per month in longford as 1 example.
The government think we,ll reduce ra limits and rents will go down.
IN the long term nama should give 1000 s of apartments to housing charitys ,or local authority ,reduce housing list ,reduce ra bill
but it will not happen.
BANKS builders dont want this because it may
reduce value of the apartments which are accupied or sold.
ANY investor that bought a new build unity after 2004 is in negative equity.

mushymoo

i am in bray where rent allowance ceiling was 850 for a single parent 1 child. the new level from jan 1st was 625. there have been no 2beds less than 800 since jan, i have served out my notice from my landlord when i did the required negotiations. she is renovating and gutting the house due to the abd electircs and plumbing which i have had to put up with since i moved in, as i had nowhere else to rent in the town less than the rent celing which at the time was 950. the 2 beds are all 800 or more, the news recently was that as bray's rents are so high they reassessed it up from 625 to 725 as so many rent allowance tenants were going to have nowhere to live shortly. the council has no housing anywhere. there are no landlords willing to go on RAS long-term rented accomodation via the council. i did a search again today, as i do daily, for 2 beds (i am female my son is male) anywhere between 700-800 and as you can see below, both available ones are 800, above the rent ceiling of 725. you are not allowed apply for the RA on the basis of 725 and top up yourself. so in effect, as the 1bed bedsits of 700 are not accepting children (i tried before and they said they would not in all conscience take children as they are above shops or in bad areas, have no toliet facilities and often beside loud pubs), there are no options. the next town greystones and the one after that delgany also had to be reassessed for the new level from 625 up to 725 as their rents are also high. i do not own nor can i run a car. my son is in school in a special school in bray, the ones ion arklow and wicklow town refused to take his application. can you advise me how i and any other single parents in similar circumstances can proceed? as i think genuinely people assume the council, RAS or landlords are going to accept rent allowance and that there is an option re moving. afraid not.

Newaglish

mushymoo wrote: »

i am in bray where rent allowance ceiling was 850 for a single parent 1 child. the new level from jan 1st was 625. there have been no 2beds less than 800 since jan, i have served out my notice from my landlord when i did the required negotiations. she is renovating and gutting the house due to the abd electircs and plumbing which i have had to put up with since i moved in, as i had nowhere else to rent in the town less than the rent celing which at the time was 950. the 2 beds are all 800 or more, the news recently was that as bray's rents are so high they reassessed it up from 625 to 725 as so many rent allowance tenants were going to have nowhere to live shortly. the council has no housing anywhere. there are no landlords willing to go on RAS long-term rented accomodation via the council. i did a search again today, as i do daily, for 2 beds (i am female my son is male) anywhere between 700-800 and as you can see below, both available ones are 800, above the rent ceiling of 725. you are not allowed apply for the RA on the basis of 725 and top up yourself. so in effect, as the 1bed bedsits of 700 are not accepting children (i tried before and they said they would not in all conscience take children as they are above shops or in bad areas, have no toliet facilities and often beside loud pubs), there are no options. the next town greystones and the one after that delgany also had to be reassessed for the new level from 625 up to 725 as their rents are also high. i do not own nor can i run a car. my son is in school in a special school in bray, the ones ion arklow and wicklow town refused to take his application. can you advise me how i and any other single parents in similar circumstances can proceed? as i think genuinely people assume the council, RAS or landlords are going to accept rent allowance and that there is an option re moving. afraid not.

Have you tried negotiating with any of the landlords? My apartment was listed for €1,200 per month, I agreed to rent it for €1,100. When my lease was up after the first year, I negotiated it down to €1,000. I did this because I'm paying the rent myself, so I have an interest in the cost of the property. People don't often pay the listed price on Daft anymore, it's expected that some haggling will take place.

daltonmd

mushymoo wrote: »

i am in bray where rent allowance ceiling was 850 for a single parent 1 child. the new level from jan 1st was 625. there have been no 2beds less than 800 since jan, i have served out my notice from my landlord when i did the required negotiations. she is renovating and gutting the house due to the abd electircs and plumbing which i have had to put up with since i moved in, as i had nowhere else to rent in the town less than the rent celing which at the time was 950.

Mushymoo - you have actually shown that the previous reductions in RA has worked.
Even at the higher rate of 950 you had difficulty getting decent accommadation - I am sure you looked for 2 beds then?

The 2 beds that were asking over 950 last year are now asking 800pm.

As Newenglish has said - try to negotiate.

daltonmd

sophia25 wrote: »

They lowered the ceiling and assumed landlords would respond. They aren't and people are being for ed to forfeit deposits and move unrealistic distances from schools and. A lotof people on Ra are also on disability and are being moved away from.their essential services. If the govt used their power appropriately rents should be lowered for everyone, You are criticising SPARK for lobbying for their members interests,well join them and get your voice heard or do what they did and stand up for your own interest.

This is rubbish and scaremongering - again I refer you to the circular which states VERY CLEARLY:

" However, Rent Supplement may be paid in cases where the rent is above the relevant limit in the following circumstances:
(i) Where there are special housing needs related to exceptional circumstances (in particular, for example, disabled persons in specially-adapted accommodation or homeless persons whose housing needs cannot be met within the standard terms of the Rent Supplement scheme etc.).

RE: Tenants forfeiting deposits - again this is rubbish - as I said in another post - tenants can ask the landlords to make up the difference at teh end of the lease using the deposit - they can then get help off the government for their next property.

Tenants in receipt of RA shoudn't be hiding behind the disabled, nor should they be hiding behind children - they should be doing their bit as well.

sophia25

Daltonmd you are factually incorrect on many counts,

1. You said people could pay more to stay in your property, not true. Even if you are getting €150 per month towards rent only you are not allowed live in a property higher than the prescribed amount.

2. If people have signed a lease the landlord can (and most do) keep the deposit and can actually pursue the tenant for any loss they have for the unexpired portion of the lease.

3. A tenant can only get a deposit once. If they lose now, they won't be given a 2nd deposit.

4. People on disability are being affected and carers. Disability does not just mean physical impairment. It includes people with psychiatric issues, intellectual disability, diabetes etc.

5. Children are being seriously hurt. One true case, a young boy with SN has finally got 2 hours schooling in a specialised school afterbeing stuck at home. He will have to move home and as his mother can't get him to school now,he will forfeit his place. Children from brken homes will be forced to move again and maybe leave football clubs which is storing up long term social problems.
e

mushymoo

Mushymoo - you have actually shown that the previous reductions in RA has worked.
Even at the higher rate of 950 you had difficulty getting decent accommadation - I am sure you looked for 2 beds then?

The 2 beds that were asking over 950 last year are now asking 800pm.

As Newenglish has said - try to negotiate.

the house was advertised at 1000 3yrs ago, all 2beds were 1100 or 1050, the place i was in was accessible and pleasant byut going up to 1300 but OF COURSE i started at 1000 but negotiations, yes i got it at 950 as it was in bad condition and area and noone else wanted it. negotiating from a weak viewpoint does not work though. in this case in 2009, her first time being a landlord, i got it for 950, not because of a RA reducation but indeed i tried to negotiate with her as far as she'd go. that much is true.

when it reduced to 880, she was reluctant until she advertised and noone showed interest. she agreed to 880 down from 950 as again, she knew noone else would live there. anything was better than nothing. bear with me.

when it went to 850, she refused negotiations (in may that year) and i had to continue paying 880 or leave, kept getting rent allowance based on 850 and started looking again for somewhere cheaper for 2beds but nothing except bedsits (see my experience there below). in effect i did do "topping up" that i know and CWOs know is rampant across the country. because i had nowhere to live. i paid each month and my savings reduced slowly, until xmas 2010. i paid the last 850 i had in savings for dec 2010, during the snow my CWO cut off RA as i'd done PT work and got paid monthly but hadn't submitted a payslip as not paid till 30 jan 2011. when reassessed for RA in jan 2011, she HAD to accept 850 as was on the new forms, that is what the letter said. again, not a negotiation.

she knew i had used all my savings to keep paying to rent under her roof as it was late coming into her a/c jan,so no agreeing or "negotiating".

she gave notice in may 2011, only my mother pleaded with her that she could not chuck me and my son on the street,due to my dad and her health cud not move home, she had people viewing it in june and nooone ook it so in july she had no desire to have me stay and told me to start looking, which i sTILL was doing. still no options with the council, as before, any RAS or RA elsewhere but the homeless hostel many miles away and no car or school nearby, and unsuitable for children.

i know the RA ceiling would be radically reduced again at xmas again this year 2011, i rang EVERY landlord with a suitable 2bed in the town EVERY day/week since last May 2011 and tried this "negotiating" that you suggest, even offering to fix landlord's windows etc. to see if it may work. it didn't. it still doesn't as of last week.

most landlords say "no rent allowance accepted" on the ad right off. if you don't mention RA and get to viewing and accepted, then they say no to taking RA cos of form filling or whatever reasons (e.g. stigma, non-tax compliance etc). if they accept RA, as i found VERY rarely (3 times), then i did rent negotiations down and they refused to lower the price or took a few weeks to think, and took a working tenant not on RA in the meantime.

i have done this since last may, it is now march the following yr. if anything, due to the reductions, landlords are LESS likely to negotiate now they see how low the rent ceiling for RA tenants is been set and how high rents are around the town (some ads may have reduced from 850 to 800 yes as they are on for many months but these are ALL still well above 725). they are also likely to refuse RA as in 2013 the RA ceilings will reduce again. only landlords completely desperate to get a RA tenant at 725 (none so far with 2beds in bray) will do this and accept a further cut, and the 700 ones are hovels and 1bed flats/bedsits which i already viewed in 2008 and all said then they would not take a young child in.

tenants will again move in 2013 but there is nowhere lower than the bedsits now so what then? i know the argument is that all tenants should be able to source accommodation - in reality, there is more stigma to RA tenants thus reducing their pool, reductions also lowered the standard of place available last yr and this yr the "standard" is a joke - only 1 2bedplace today (22/07/12) at 800 and it says "no rent allowance accepted" anyhow! where is the leeway to negotiate on that? and by the way, i was down viewing these houses already. i am living in sub-standard accommodation since 2009 which noone else will take. she is quite willing to take it off the market at long last, after squeezing every penny from me and the RA scheme (who never inspected it, i had nowhere to go so reporting it to environmental health would have meant i was homeless). it was her elderly parents' house and no mortgage, so she can take her time without rent till its repaired up to standard and get in a working/non RA tenant instead. she sad she doesn't want RA anymore as there was "too much reductions". my negotiating was one sided, as my mum begging her in the past meant it was clear in the landlord-tenant relationship, when you're a single mum on rent allowance with no car or no ability financially to "top up" infinitely, who has the upper hand? the landlord, obviously.

landlords can call the bluff when faced with desperate RA tenants who have little options or choices and are running out of time. and serve notice on those who cannot keep paying the rent at the higher rate. tas i have no alternative accommodation and 4 weeks left, that's the story here.

daltonmd

sophia25 wrote: »

Daltonmd you are factually incorrect on many counts,

sophia25 wrote: »

1. You said people could pay more to stay in your property, not true. Even if you are getting €150 per month towards rent only you are not allowed live in a property higher than the prescribed amount.

I have no ideal what you are talking about?

sophia25 wrote: »

2. If people have signed a lease the landlord can (and most do) keep the deposit and can actually pursue the tenant for any loss they have for the unexpired portion of the lease.

Every case is dealt with on an individual basis.

sophia25 wrote: »

3. A tenant can only get a deposit once. If they lose now, they won't be given a 2nd deposit.

That's the very issue then that SPARK and people on RA SHOULD BE PROTESTING AGAINST.

sophia25 wrote: »

4. People on disability are being affected and carers. Disability does not just mean physical impairment. It includes people with psychiatric issues, intellectual disability, diabetes etc.

Oh goodness! If people are on disability then they are on disability - you have a very poor understanding of things.

sophia25 wrote: »

5. Children are being seriously hurt. One true case, a young boy with SN has finally got 2 hours schooling in a specialised school afterbeing stuck at home. He will have to move home and as his mother can't get him to school now,he will forfeit his place. Children from brken homes will be forced to move again and maybe leave football clubs which is storing up long term social problems.
e

As I said - stop hiding behind the disabled and the kids will you.

daltonmd

@ mushymoo
So reducing the allowance worked? That is the point. Of course sourcing accommadation, the stigma attached to RA tenants and all of the other issues you have raised are completely valid - and again I say that these are the issues that SPARK and RA tenants SHOULD have been protesting against - YEARS AGO.



None of these issues are new. But the reduction in rent allowance from the state has nothing to do with them.

Any RA tenant I have heard from here ALL say the same things and these have been going on FOR YEARS.

If these problems were there when the highest rate of RA was being paid - then no - one can blame the reductions on causing these problems.

mushymoo

it is hard to accept continued rent allowance ceiling reductions year after year, and yes, i agree the RA bill is massive and not value for money. i accept that fact. i also accept that there is little council housing and RAS is not being rolled out around the country. i wrote to minister burton about this when she came into office last year. i ALSO wrote about the impact the RA situation has on the ground for tenants and landlords and how important it is to plan ahead for low income families and invest in RAS or council housing/better planning. i emailed the housing and planning minister and local government minister but both read the words "RA" and passed the buck to minister burton, ignoring my suggestions re social housing and RAS schemes. noone listened.

so the RA continued to drop, more sharply now the country is broke. we have plenty of hundreds of millions for Mahon tribunals and lawyers and banks to be propped up, but not enough for the 20 million needed last year for SNAs in schools for children like my son who was denied one due to cutbacks, or assistance for lone parents (as this is true i fail to see how it is "hiding" behind children/the disabled when it is a fact). and negotiating fails for lone parents that have no alternative housing available and the stigma continues even if ireland claims not to be as influenced by roman catholic teaching as before, the label and stertype is there, it exists in my own family and in many other lone parents' experiences.

when one becomes close to homeless with a special needs child needing stability, as i am, one feels it is morally questionable that rent ceiling reductions are put in place with no regard for the most vulnerable to financial attack, the RA tenant. although i agree a slow reduction in rents is most welcome for non RA dependant tenants, and well done for them, it will also contribute to my worsening situation, i can be forgiven surely for feeling desperate and unsure of which is worse - the stigma, the lack of change or hope due to economic realities of having no financial security, no housing and the barriers out there. my son is dependent on my care at present, till that changes i am fulltime working caring for him and so am broke. the rent allowance ceilings being lowered certainly help the low income workers in jobs, i agree. they don't help RA recipients. and WE are still grateful for any assistance given, but it still doesn't change our reality.

ANALOGY: if you were drowning in a sea of black oil that pulls you down as you struggle (living on welfare with child dependant on you for specialised care) and the lifeboat you were crawling into was so tiny you must fight others just as desperate as you to get in(RA and limited council housing), you then were hit by a torpedo (rent allowance ceiling reduction) what would you say is the worst thing happening at that exact moment? the torpedo blows a massive hole in the boat, and so you are again drowning and close to dying after this attack. tell me, would you feel it was bloody bad timing for a torpedo to add to the emergency/crisis situation, yet still accept that others got into a boat and other boats nearby so they are okay, and yet you are drowning you must be glad that they are safe at least. would you feel as generous and mangnanimous if it was you?

which killed you, the black oil that choked you or the torpedo hitting your lifeboat? both. would you argue about which was worse or do you accept that, either way, you drowned? the torpedo to the boat certainly didn't HELP your situation, did it? nor the small size of the lifeboat............and yes, i agree, we should have protested YEARS ago about social housing/lack of it, standard of rented accommodation and the stigma against RA tenants. but everyone topped up or managed in better times. we were ignored as only a small number who are already stigmatised and marginalised.

everyone else was doing fine sitting on their island sunning themselves. surrounded by water, they were okay till the oil spill. not everyone is in the black oil but some have a sturdy lifeboat available to help, and its not being torpedoed either, so they have less chance of drowning, do you get it now?

StillWaters

mushymoo wrote: »

...or assistance for lone parents (as this is true i fail to see how it is "hiding" behind children/the disabled when it is a fact). and negotiating fails for lone parents that have no alternative housing available and the stigma continues even if ireland claims not to be as influenced by roman catholic teaching as before, the label and stereotype are there?

Off topic, but some of the stereotyping being used here is infuriating. I am a single parent, and have never ever felt stigmatised or victimised because of it, nor is my child from a 'broken home', another emotive and insulting term used upthread.

mushymoo

I am glad and happy to hear that is your own experience, StillWater. perhaps you were one of the lucky few? The numbers do not bare out your case. Read all the threads on Boards.ie for examples of others.

I agree about "broken homes" being insulting.

It is refreshing that you have not experienced any stigma due to your status parenting your child/children on your own. It is good that you are strong and able and do not experience victimisation. You have not had my personal experience either: affected by the "you made your bed lie in it" messages that i heard from my parents and brothers over the years, and another woman from my school heard from her (also religious) mother. i experienced the indignation of my parents accusing me of not knowing the father when they heard a paternity test was produced when i had to go to court for maintenance, this was the solicitor ensuring there was no doubt for my son's father or escape, yet he still does not pay to support his son. you had not the accusations from my son's other grandmother that i "tempted" her son and "led him astray as an older woman" (i am 14 months older than him).

three quarters of the lone parents i have met over the past year, and not all at single parents groups, some work in places i have been in. it is not all from a group supporting one another's experiences. it is from short conversations and meeting that one finds out you are not the only one.

the use of "i am a lone parent to XXXX looking for a 2bed" versus "i am a part-time teacher looking to rent......room for me and my son...." in sourcing accommodation over 18months has been enlightening. when i led with my LP status i got nowhere. when i mentioned at viewings that i would use the 2nd room for a son they ask where is his father or they ask do i have a bf. when i steer conversation off that then i get somewhere. but being on rent allowance at all no matter the reason is the main issue, i agree, not being a LP only. the letting agent refused to consider RA or RAS no matter what, said she wanted "professionals only" despite the fact i have a postgrad i clearly was not considered and told to get out.

so stigma existed when trying to find somewhere to live or asked at interviews "how will you deal with childcare when your child is sick?" or like one poor lad laughed at in the playground (i only heard of this once so it is not maybe rampant but that child felt terrible and in my book that is victimisation because his mtoehr is a lone parent). it is maybe not your personal experience, just as my personal experience is my own. but out of many lone parents in ireland i have met, the MAJORITY were poorer, not getting maintenance (including seperated parents), at the mercy of landlords in rented accommodation and scared stiff how they will manage if they cannot "top up" to landlords now, as they cannot get anywhere else, especially on a bus route to the school or their part-time work and several of them have no cars. It might be emotive because it is the truth?

daltonmd

mushymoo wrote: »

it is hard to accept continued rent allowance ceiling reductions year after year, and yes, i agree the RA bill is massive and not value for money. i accept that fact. i also accept that there is little council housing and RAS is not being rolled out around the country. i wrote to minister burton about this when she came into office last year. i ALSO wrote about the impact the RA situation has on the ground for tenants and landlords and how important it is to plan ahead for low income families and invest in RAS or council housing/better planning. i emailed the housing and planning minister and local government minister but both read the words "RA" and passed the buck to minister burton, ignoring my suggestions re social housing and RAS schemes. noone listened.

Agree with you here and it is a massive failing on the part of not only this goernment, but previous administrations - FF were in power for the majority of the last 20 odd years - they simply threw money at the problem instead of dealing with the issues.

mushymoo wrote: »

so the RA continued to drop, more sharply now the country is broke. we have plenty of hundreds of millions for Mahon tribunals and lawyers and banks to be propped up, but not enough for the 20 million needed last year for SNAs in schools for children like my son who was denied one due to cutbacks, or assistance for lone parents (as this is true i fail to see how it is "hiding" behind children/the disabled when it is a fact). and negotiating fails for lone parents that have no alternative housing available and the stigma continues even if ireland claims not to be as influenced by roman catholic teaching as before, the label and stertype is there, it exists in my own family and in many other lone parents' experiences.

As a single parent with a SN child, I completely agree with you and understand the frustration of the situation. However, when I say "hiding behind the disabled" for example I mean scaremongering and stating things that are blatantly untrue - disabled people will not be forced to move, I have posted the circular and the relevant paragraph which deals specifically with this.
In regards to children - not every person on RA has a SN's child. What people are missing here is that the issue was never about those on RA V those not - this issue was made by the OP - she was the one who turned the discussion about the reduction in RA to one about those on RA.

It is simply not true to say that anyone here wants to see children suffering, disabled people displaced and those on RA homeless.

What has been said again and again is that Social Welfare needs to help those who need it most - and that includes the vulnerable, the disabled and those with children who cannot get certain resources elswhere.

But this is not the case for a large number of people on RA - 60% work, receive medical cards, FIS and other benefits that support them.

mushymoo wrote: »

when one becomes close to homeless with a special needs child needing stability, as i am, one feels it is morally questionable that rent ceiling reductions are put in place with no regard for the most vulnerable to financial attack, the RA tenant. although i agree a slow reduction in rents is most welcome for non RA dependant tenants, and well done for them, it will also contribute to my worsening situation, i can be forgiven surely for feeling desperate and unsure of which is worse - the stigma, the lack of change or hope due to economic realities of having no financial security, no housing and the barriers out there. my son is dependent on my care at present, till that changes i am fulltime working caring for him and so am broke. the rent allowance ceilings being lowered certainly help the low income workers in jobs, i agree. they don't help RA recipients. and WE are still grateful for any assistance given, but it still doesn't change our reality.

You see the real problem is having people who need government assistance in private rental accomadation - now before anyone starts with straw man arguments, what I simply mean is that a law was brought in some years ago which stated that a percentage of all new estates had to be for those on SW.
This initiative was to do away with what had been done for years - and that was basically shoving everyone on SW into "ghettos" (not my words another posters). We only have to look around certain parts of any county to see the results of this.
But what happened? Well instead of the developers doing this - they made cash payments to the respective councils to avoid it. Why "give" away houses to councils to accommadate those in need of housing when there were queues for these houses.

These issues however do not mean that the state should pay over the odds for rent, which is based for the most part, on landlords mortgages.

mushymoo wrote: »

which killed you, the black oil that choked you or the torpedo hitting your lifeboat? both. would you argue about which was worse or do you accept that, either way, you drowned? the torpedo to the boat certainly didn't HELP your situation, did it? nor the small size of the lifeboat............and yes, i agree, we should have protested YEARS ago about social housing/lack of it, standard of rented accommodation and the stigma against RA tenants. but everyone topped up or managed in better times. we were ignored as only a small number who are already stigmatised and marginalised.
everyone else was doing fine sitting on their island sunning themselves. surrounded by water, they were okay till the oil spill. not everyone is in the black oil but some have a sturdy lifeboat available to help, and its not being torpedoed either, so they have less chance of drowning, do you get it now?

But you weren't ignored. The funding was put in to meet the rent increases. Now the money isn't there, landlords are totally dependant on it to repay mortgages and it's distorting the entire rental market.

The problem is the system, the problem is the lack of social housing, the problem is landlords who are in NE and barely meeting their repayments, the problem is RA tenants who simply refuse to bend and who use disabled people and children as a reason why THEY shouldn't try to work with the changes coming into play, when it is clear that we are trying to move towards a more efficient Social Welfare system - one that helps the vulnerable but doesn't make is hard for people to come off it.

This isn;t about targeting the vulnerable, this isn't about forcing those with genuine needs to move - there won't be anyone left homeless through these measures.

Do you get it now?

mushymoo

I get that the RA bill needs to be reduced. The Minister acknowledged my suggestion that rent allowance needs to be looked at urgently also.

I get that the system re local authorities and grants and social housing quotas was inadequate and inefficient. We see that FF had the country under its rule 15 years and bad planning and political favours re housing and planning were rampant, such as in the Mahon tribunal and the FF policies that contributed hugely to the property bubble that burst in 08.

I get that people are not in this unique position. And noone wants to see us on the street, thank God. The RAS and council and CWO have been sympathetic but also said they can do nothing. Unless I highlighted this, I would be asking the CWO for an ugent rethink on extending our RA, which will costs more and will be extremely difficult to deal with for all involved. Perhaps they would do it for another 8 weeks. And maybe a solution that was not available in the last 18 months will appear in 8 weeks. That is the issue. When I said nothing for 5 years, didn't send letters or write posts online or join with other like-minded people, there were no alternatives available. Now that many are on RA due to job losses and circumstances, there are more going to need exceptional housing needs met, which due to the urgency could costs more in the longterm.

Some on RA have their own personal story. Some are working part-time, some are on RA but not single parents, some have no special needs etc. I agree there. I guess I am speaking about my story as I'm the one worried.

The majority of SPARK are single parenting women, but it includes single fathers, seperated parents, parents of teenagers and/or schoolgoing children, a few with SN children, some stay-at-home mothers and others working FT or PT. The issue here that SPARK (as a diverse and countrywide umbrella group of parents) wanted to highlight was that the RA system is broken as it stands, it will tighten the strings on landlords and those who can afford to "top up" or can move further afield having transport and appropriate schools. fixing it and social housing will also at the same time cos the Department of Social Protection must less. It will channel housing costs into the town and county council instead. It may save the State millions that presently often goes into landlord's mortgages.

But quite a few from SPARK are struggling with the broken system and I think their aim here, although worded badly as "rent allowance reductions", was to highlight the "effects" the RA system, which needs reform and that reform WILL benefit everyone renting, will have on a sizeable proportion of their members? And SPARK I think were looking at uniting with other groups to see if they can highlight and address the emotive issue of families with very unpleasant options left to them?

I get it. There is no social housing. RAS is not rolled out countrywide. Some counties have no suitable rented accommodation. RA is only a short term solution that costs millions. Some people, not many but enough to speak up like through SPARK (am I the only one with a computer who is willing to speak up? it DID take me 5 years admittedly to face up to the challenge) are facing in the coming weeks going into a hostel for the homeless, building an extension with grandparents or "topping up" by so much that they have to cut fuel, electricity and bills. When noone takes RAS, and no council housing is available, new landlords won't accept RA and present landlords won't accept the drop, what else do you think happens? Even though I accept noone here wants to see it happen.

I also take issue with the OP wording originally posted but I think that was an error that the OP has since amended? Its the situation/impact on diverse not the actual RA recductions they had an issue on, I imagine?

daltonmd

mushymoo wrote: »

I get that the RA bill needs to be reduced. The Minister acknowledged my suggestion that rent allowance needs to be looked at urgently also.

RA was initially introduced to aid and assist people in the short term. RAS should have been rolled out for those on long term benefits. RA works - but not in the long term.

mushymoo wrote: »

I get that the system re local authorities and grants and social housing quotas was inadequate and inefficient. We see that FF had the country under its rule 15 years and bad planning and political favours re housing and planning were rampant, such as in the Mahon tribunal and the FF policies that contributed hugely to the property bubble that burst in 08.

Absolutely and this is part of the price that we have to pay.

mushymoo wrote: »

I get that people are not in this unique position. And noone wants to see us on the street, thank God. The RAS and council and CWO have been sympathetic but also said they can do nothing. Unless I highlighted this, I would be asking the CWO for an ugent rethink on extending our RA, which will costs more and will be extremely difficult to deal with for all involved. Perhaps they would do it for another 8 weeks. And maybe a solution that was not available in the last 18 months will appear in 8 weeks. That is the issue. When I said nothing for 5 years, didn't send letters or write posts online or join with other like-minded people, there were no alternatives available. Now that many are on RA due to job losses and circumstances, there are more going to need exceptional housing needs met, which due to the urgency could costs more in the longterm.

I agree with you - but on the other hand why should a certain element of landlords who cannot meet their mortgage repayments dictate the rental market and dictate what payments should be made? Why should one landlord in a specific area receive higher payments than others?

mushymoo wrote: »

Some on RA have their own personal story. Some are working part-time, some are on RA but not single parents, some have no special needs etc. I agree there. I guess I am speaking about my story as I'm the one worried.

I call this the 80/20 rule - and it applies everywhere - when any changes are brought in 80% of people are ok and 20% are not. Those within the 20% should be looked after - but not if it means paying over the odds for a basic property in an area where it's been proved that rents are lower.

mushymoo wrote: »

But quite a few from SPARK are struggling with the broken system and I think their aim here, although worded badly as "rent allowance reductions", was to highlight the "effects" the RA system, which needs reform and that reform WILL benefit everyone renting, will have on a sizeable proportion of their members? And SPARK I think were looking at uniting with other groups to see if they can highlight and address the emotive issue of families with very unpleasant options left to them?

As I have said before - these unpleasant options are the same for non RA recipients. If my landlord raises the rent or I take yet another paycut then I can't afford to stay in the house or the area of my choice. The argument put here is that because I work and pay my rent privately that I have an endless supply of money to absorb increases - I don't.

In regards to the top ups - this seems to be a major issue, it's nothing to do with rent reductions, it's to do with people giving incorrect information to the CWO in order to secure a property that they were never eligable for. Why should anyone be able to live in an area/house of their choice if they cannot/will not pay for it. I know this seems harsh and I'm not suggesting that RA recipients should have to move counties - but they may have to accept that they may have to move to a smaller house, a little further from the schools in order to fall within the guidelines - I live where I can afford to live.

mushymoo wrote: »

I get it. There is no social housing. RAS is not rolled out countrywide. Some counties have no suitable rented accommodation. RA is only a short term solution that costs millions. Some people, not many but enough to speak up like through SPARK (am I the only one with a computer who is willing to speak up? it DID take me 5 years admittedly to face up to the challenge) are facing in the coming weeks going into a hostel for the homeless, building an extension with grandparents or "topping up" by so much that they have to cut fuel, electricity and bills. When noone takes RAS, and no council housing is available, new landlords won't accept RA and present landlords won't accept the drop, what else do you think happens? Even though I accept noone here wants to see it happen.

I would hate to see anyone in that position and would advise anyone in that position to stay put - regardless of what the CWO say and regardless of what their landlords say - if you cannot afford to pay the extra then let the LL proceed with the eviction, take it to the PRTB and let them make a call on it.

mushymoo wrote: »

I also take issue with the OP wording originally posted but I think that was an error that the OP has since amended? Its the situation/impact on diverse not the actual RA recductions they had an issue on, I imagine?

The OP accused people of having an issue with people on SW - that is not true. I repeatedly said that the purpose of RA was to house people, not to house people to their exact criteria - again that may sound harsh, but the OP moved out of a property rather than give up her internet. In her shoes I would give up anything rather than move - if it was so important to me.

We have to distinguish between "rights" and "standard of life". As I said earlier, I'd like to live in Dalkey - but I can't afford to - if you find yourself in need of RA then you have to accept that you may have to move a little bit out. If you were working and had to pay the whole rent out of your salary - say 800pm, thats almost 10k per year. Would you do that? There are plenty of single parents, like myself, who simply couldn't afford to do that - we have to live within our means and in my case I live outside Dublin because I couldn't afford the area that I wanted.

You have to ask yourself this - if a working single mum with 2 children, earning 35k per year could not afford 10k rent a year, is it fair that a non working single parent or a state assisted single parent can? And that the effect of this is keeping rents in that area artificially high.
This isn't about the RA recipient being forced to move - it is about the effect that RA has had on rents - it has propped up the rental market and forced working people like myself out.

If it's not fair for you mushy, then why is it fair for me?

mushymoo

Staying on RA is the only option for some, stay put and hope CWO and PRTB sorts the situation out.... if there is nothing smaller in your county that will accept you as a tenant (found this when asked to rent 1bed bedsits for 700euro, would not take children).

No, the high rents are not fair on me nor you, daltonmd, that is true.

As Enda said, we are "all in this together"? If rents are too high for potential tenants, maybe you would like to challenge the Govt on the lack of affordable rented housing available, as that helps everyone. The more who speak up, the more its clear there is a problem. Best of luck to all those renegotiating and/or moving house/flat

daltonmd

mushymoo wrote: »

Staying on RA is the only option for some, stay put and hope CWO and PRTB sorts the situation out.... if there is nothing smaller in your county that will accept you as a tenant (found this when asked to rent 1bed bedsits for 700euro, would not take children).

Mushymoo, I want you to have a read of this:

http://ireland.angloinfo.com/housing/renting-accommodation/landlords-tenants/

"Rent increases

Landlords must register all tenancies with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB). Rent changes must also be reported to the PRTB within a month of the increase. A landlord is not able to increase rent during an agreed lease period, and may only increase it when the agreement is up for renewal. Landlords may, however, increase rent more frequently for short-term rental agreements.
Tenants in Ireland are protected against rent increases. Landlords cannot charge more than the open market rate for the property as detailed in the Private Residential Tenancies Act 2004."


Now the question that RA tenants have to ask is:


A) If a landlord is not able to increase your rent, then how can the CWO? (Your contribution was increased).



If the State has found that YOUR landlord is charging a rent that is above the market rate then this should be reported to the PRTB.


This is an issue between the State, the PRTB and the landlord. Now I would love to see SPARK or an affected tenant who is mid lease asking a solicitor to look at this.
The state is effectively saying that a landlord is charging a rent that is higher than market rent - you are stuck in the middle as you are mid lease.
The landlord is demanding that you pay the extra, the state is saying that you can't as it has determined the market rent.

There is a legal challange here if someone who is affected has the balls to take it up.

mushymoo wrote: »

No, the high rents are not fair on me nor you, daltonmd, that is true.

That was my point and thank you for acknowledging it.

mushymoo wrote: »

As Enda said, we are "all in this together"? If rents are too high for potential tenants, maybe you would like to challenge the Govt on the lack of affordable rented housing available, as that helps everyone. The more who speak up, the more its clear there is a problem. Best of luck to all those renegotiating and/or moving house/flat

Honestly I would if I was in receipt of RA - but I'm not. If I were you though I would complain to the PRTB - tell them that the state has said your landlord is charging to much and has increased your contribution.

The state is asking you and others to breach a legal contract - that's not right and the PRTB may have something to say on the issue.

Good luck and if I see anything else of use then I'll let you know.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

have written to joan.....got reply from her dept saying it was up to me to find somewhere within the new limits, not the responsibility of the dept and yes she was aware of all the facts. Wrote to tds, county councillors even got a letter of support from my social worker as well but to no avail.
Am in the process of appealing.
It very easy for joan to say people should contact her then to fob them off with how the reductions will save tenants money......as i and other have stated, no matter how far the rents are reduced the contribution RS tenants have to make doesnt.
My situation albeit not your normal one, is just a selection of what is happening many many families yet me, like them are all tarred with the one brush.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056582273&page=2

It's good to see you got sorted Marimel.

Lacha

Is there any interest in co-housing to share expenses? It's quite popular in the UK, Australia and the US. It's not all about the financial aspect, but about the support. Any comments would be much appreciated.

An bhfuil suim sa tír seo ina bheith ag roinnt tigh srl chun an saol a dhéanamh níos éasca? An bhfuil éinne ansin a bhíos ag smaoineamh "taobh amuigh den bhosca"? Tá córas mar seo ag oibriú i dtíortha eile. Bhéinn buíoch ach mbarúlacha a fhéail.

daltonmd

Lacha wrote: »

Is there any interest in co-housing to share expenses? It's quite popular in the UK, Australia and the US. It's not all about the financial aspect, but about the support. Any comments would be much appreciated.

An bhfuil suim sa tír seo ina bheith ag roinnt tigh srl chun an saol a dhéanamh níos éasca? An bhfuil éinne ansin a bhíos ag smaoineamh "taobh amuigh den bhosca"? Tá córas mar seo ag oibriú i dtíortha eile. Bhéinn buíoch ach mbarúlacha a fhéail.

When you say co housing do you mean setting up communities?