'Rent allowance not accepted'

ronano

I'm looking to move to a new apartment. 'Rent allowance not accepted' is on allot of daft ads, anyone who has been looking recently in similar situation, how much is it just screening out applicants?

Is there any point in me viewing listings with this on it? I'm not a scumbag, well presented, late 20's in education.

davet82

no point enquiring, tax reasons i'd say most likely or have been burned in the past by bad tenants on RA

the_syco

ronano wrote: »

Is there any point in me viewing listings with this on it? I'm not a scumbag, well presented, late 20's in education.

What college are you in, and are you trying to rent nearby it? The EA may have a student house of some sort nearby. By "in education", I'm assuming you mean part-time 20 hour (or so) education?

srsly78

I got rent allowance while in receipt of BTEA as a mature student. I was able to convince a "no RA tenants need apply" landlady that I should be an exception to her rule.

Ring them up and ask politely I would say, just be ready to get shot down.

djimi

davet82 wrote: »

no point enquiring, tax reasons i'd say most likely or have been burned in the past by bad tenants on RA

While youre probably right, it cant hurt to ask. Enquire over the phone though rather than waiting until the viewing which could end up just wasting your time and theirs.

zef

I think its mostly a screen for 'dodgy' tenants, altho of course there's probably a hefty percentage of tax-evaders in there.
Heard of aquaintances calling about 'no rent allowance' properties and securing them in the end. The fact you are in education might swing it for you- or they might take a liking to you. Good luck with it anyway, hope you find somewhere. No harm in asking is there?!

davet82

djimi wrote: »

While youre probably right, it cant hurt to ask. Enquire over the phone though rather than waiting until the viewing which could end up just wasting your time and theirs.

well it may hurt, it can be very offensive and frustrating being told i'd rather not rent to you because 'i'm making a presumption about you because you are recieving state benefits' even in a round-about way, i'd just steer clear but if the op is thick skinned then go for it i suppose...


good luck with hunt op

BostonB

ronano wrote: »

I'm looking to move to a new apartment. 'Rent allowance not accepted' is on allot of daft ads, anyone who has been looking recently in similar situation, how much is it just screening out applicants?

Is there any point in me viewing listings with this on it? I'm not a scumbag, well presented, late 20's in education.

Try a search on this forum about previous threads on it.

RA is the least preferred choice. But many LL have no choice but to accept it.

djimi

davet82 wrote: »

well it may hurt, it can be very offensive and frustrating being told i'd rather not rent to you because 'i'm making a presumption about you because you are recieving state benefits' even in a round-about way, i'd just steer clear but if the op is thick skinned then go for it i suppose...


good luck with hunt op

You know what response you are likely to get and you know that you are chancing your arm; why would you get offended and frustrated if you get told what you already know?

K.Flyer

ronano wrote: »

I'm looking to move to a new apartment. 'Rent allowance not accepted' is on allot of daft ads, anyone who has been looking recently in similar situation, how much is it just screening out applicants?

Is there any point in me viewing listings with this on it? I'm not a scumbag, well presented, late 20's in education.

Recent discussion on RA here.
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056845208?page=1

Zulu

As a land lord who advertises "no rent allowance", I'd suggest to keep looking.

Personally I'd prefer not to get calls from people asking "do you accept rent allowance?", after all I went to the trouble of stating it clearly in the advertisement. It really bugs me/what I detest, is when people arrange a viewing, go through the whole viewing, and at the end ask. It's a monumental waste of time. And inevitably they get pissy when you say no.

And by-the-by it's not for "tax reasons", it's about being able to afford a service.

Zulu

davet82 wrote: »

well it may hurt, it can be very offensive and frustrating being told i'd rather not rent to you...

Genuinely I don't get this. Would you also get "offended and frustrated" if you walked into, say Weirs, and they refused to sell you their biggest diamond ring because you couldn't afford it?

I'm sympathetic towards people down on their luck, and in receipt of state benefits, but if you can't afford something, you can't afford it.

Tar.Aldarion

But you aren't sympathetic towards them, they clearly can afford it because it is paid for them? You can easily afford rent on social welfare without allowance, nevermind with, assuming no family. I'm not on it but I think it's ridiculous when i see it. I've seen ads up a year now that say it.
My problem isn't with rent allowance it's with most apartments being terrible.

Zulu

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

But you aren't sympathetic towards them

I am; they have my sympathy.

they clearly can afford it because it is paid for them?

Well it's not that clear to me. They clearly can NOT afford it because they need assistance paying for it. So, I am exposing myself to the risk that the government decide to cut rent allowance in future budgets. Which I'm not prepared to do.

You can easily afford rent on social welfare without allowance

No they can't, I've yet to see a tenant have the months rent upfront, with a month deposit upfront on rent allowance. Inevitably, they wish to pay in arrears.

I'm not on it but I think it's ridiculous when i see it.

Are you a landlord even? - I'm trying to gather what your experience is...

My problem isn't with rent allowance it's with most apartments being terrible.

OK... ...respectfully, is this the thread for that problem?

Tar.Aldarion

But they are getting it paid to assist them, that means they can now afford it. how does that make sense: that they can't afford it because they are given money so that they can afford it? The government can cut rent most once per year, and by then tenants will be in a part IV tenancy anyways and landlords have plenty of ways to move them out if they don't pay, but people do anyway. And if they don't you can make a break clause? All problem tenants I've seen have been working ones. Leaving the place in a state, leaving without paying bills and the last months rent because they know they won't get their deposit back.


They can afford it because thousands do, I paid my rent out of social welfare for a couple of years before I could find a job again. No rent allowance. I know people on rent allowance atm and they easily pay it, I know people without it and they also pay rent, which of course is harder. There are far better ways to gauge whether you accept people than that.

I've always had my deposit and rent up front, and set up a direct debit. If they don't it's not hard to deny them. People should be able to pay that on the spot or I wouldn't accept them either.

BostonB

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

But they are getting it paid to assist them, that means they can now afford it.....

Its paid in arrears and usually tenant has to provide the deposit. So that's one months deposit and one months rent up front out of their own pocket. Is that affordable?

BostonB

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

.... landlords have plenty of ways to move them out if they don't pay...

Really? What are they?

davet82

djimi wrote: »

You know what response you are likely to get and you know that you are chancing your arm; why would you get offended and frustrated if you get told what you already know?

Some people do, i know somebody who prefers not to rent to people on RA, he states on any advertisement that he does not accept RA, people still ring and he tells them he just would rather not rent to them and people get offended... i know, i don't get it either but thats what happens

Zulu wrote: »

Genuinely I don't get this. Would you also get "offended and frustrated" if you walked into, say Weirs, and they refused to sell you their biggest diamond ring because you couldn't afford it?

I'm sympathetic towards people down on their luck, and in receipt of state benefits, but if you can't afford something, you can't afford it.

some peoples RA covers the rent required or can easily meet the extra payment towards their rent but the landlord still would rather a professional couple instead of somebody on RA, then they get offended when this is explained, nothing to do with money

Zulu

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

... they can't afford it because they are given money so that they can afford it? The government can cut rent most once per year

What? Have you never heard of either a "supplementary" or "emergency" budget? There is nothing ensuring that the government only cut the allowance once a year.
And besides, once a year is too much. I'd rather just avoid that risk altogether. It's my property, I'm not obliged to take the risk.

and by then tenants will be in a part IV tenancy anyways and landlords have plenty of ways to move them out if they don't pay,

woah, woah, woah. I'm sorry, but you are clearly displaying your ignorance of the situation. It's VERY hard, and VERY expensive to "move them out" if they choose to make things awkward. Seriously.

All problem tenants I've seen have been working ones.

Again, are you a landlord? I'm guessing not from your previous comment. If not, how many "problem tenants" have you experienced?

Tar.Aldarion

BostonB wrote: »

Its paid in arrears and usually tenant has to provide the deposit. So that's one months deposit and one months rent up front out of their own pocket. Is that affordable?

Yes, because I have done it multiple times, so has my gf and members of my family. Yes it's hard but can people not put up with even a little hardship these days? I know what I needed and i got it.

BostonB wrote: »

Really? What are they?

In a fixed contract you set a break clause regarding s.34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. For a part IV tenancy, if theya re renting a room in the landlords home they are not subject to Residential Tenancies Act 2004 at all, if not, if a tenant is not keeping obligations (28 days notice) including any rent arrears or any damage, or if there is serious anti-social behaviour (7 days notice) along with the list of ways a landlord can evict them, that I have seen happen just because the landlord wanted people out, not because it was true:

(1) the dwelling is no longer suitable to the tenant’s accommodation needs having regard to the number of bed spaces and size of the property;

(2) the landlord intends to sell the property for full consideration within three months of the termination

(3) the landlord requires the property for his own occupation

(4) the landlord requires the property for occupation by a family member

(5) the landlord intends to refurbish/renovate the property

(6) the landlord intends to change the use of the property.

I also constantly see ads that go against the equality legislation.

Tar.Aldarion

Zulu wrote: »

What? Have you never heard of either a "supplementary" or "emergency" budget? There is nothing ensuring that the government only cut the allowance once a year.
And besides, once a year is too much. I'd rather just avoid that risk altogether. It's my property, I'm not obliged to take the risk.

I've heard of them, it doesn't really happen. Nobody is saying you are obliged to, it's just a discussion on why/why not you would want to or not.

woah, woah, woah. I'm sorry, but you are clearly displaying your ignorance of the situation. It's VERY hard, and VERY expensive to "move them out" if they choose to make things awkward. Seriously.

Again, are you a landlord? I'm guessing not from your previous comment. If not, how many "problem tenants" have you experienced?

Sometimes it is hard, sometimes it is easy, it depends on the situation. I am not a landlord but have been renting for a decade and have seen many problem tenants when I lived with them. I also know a lot of landlords. Recently I helped one clean up a house that was absolutely destroyed by a working family, who then left without paying rent and unpaid bills. I think it's hard to be a landlord and understand you want to protect yourself but I think references, character checks and the like are much more important than them falling on hard times. Especially getting contact locations for if they up and leave like in the case I mentioned, thousands worth of damage.

Zulu

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

...but I think references, character checks and the like are much more important than them falling on hard times.

I trust you understand that "no RA" isn't the only discriminating factor, right? But considering character references can be completely made up, there is little I can do to protect myself.
So I don't take anyone in who's at a greater risk of not being able to pay the rent. As well as people without proof of employment & people without references. Or people I simply dislike when I met them.

BostonB

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes, because I have done it multiple times, so has my gf and members of my family. Yes it's hard but can people not put up with even a little hardship these days? I know what I needed and i got it..

Many people can't thats the reality. Which is why many don't have deposits and get them from the Govt. We've posted links to that in the past.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

In a fixed contract you set a break clause regarding s.34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. For a part IV tenancy, if theya re renting a room in the landlords home they are not subject to Residential Tenancies Act 2004 at all, if not, if a tenant is not keeping obligations (28 days notice) including any rent arrears or any damage, or if there is serious anti-social behaviour (7 days notice) along with the list of ways a landlord can evict them, that I have seen happen just because the landlord wanted people out, not because it was true:

(1) the dwelling is no longer suitable to the tenant’s accommodation needs having regard to the number of bed spaces and size of the property;

(2) the landlord intends to sell the property for full consideration within three months of the termination

(3) the landlord requires the property for his own occupation

(4) the landlord requires the property for occupation by a family member

(5) the landlord intends to refurbish/renovate the property

(6) the landlord intends to change the use of the property.

I also constantly see ads that go against the equality legislation.

Theres people break the law in all kinds of way all the time. But thats not what we are discussing. You seem to be under the mis-understanding that everyone follows the letter of the law if issued with a legal eviction notice. Thats not how the world works.

What do you do when the tenant says no, to all of the above, stops paying rent, changes the locks, and stops all communication. How long does it take the LL to get the house back, and who pays for the cost of doing all of that.

That what I mean by what way.

Ray Palmer

RA is just hassle nothing to do with the people on it. Not uncommon for it to be stopped suddenly. Tenant then unable to pay rent.
Some tenants have asked me to lie on their forms too which gets me pretty annoyed. When the existing RA tenants move out I will never accept it again.

murphaph

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

But they are getting it paid to assist them, that means they can now afford it. how does that make sense: that they can't afford it because they are given money so that they can afford it? The government can cut rent most once per year, and by then tenants will be in a part IV tenancy anyways and landlords have plenty of ways to move them out if they don't pay, but people do anyway. And if they don't you can make a break clause? All problem tenants I've seen have been working ones. Leaving the place in a state, leaving without paying bills and the last months rent because they know they won't get their deposit back.


They can afford it because thousands do, I paid my rent out of social welfare for a couple of years before I could find a job again. No rent allowance. I know people on rent allowance atm and they easily pay it, I know people without it and they also pay rent, which of course is harder. There are far better ways to gauge whether you accept people than that.

I've always had my deposit and rent up front, and set up a direct debit. If they don't it's not hard to deny them. People should be able to pay that on the spot or I wouldn't accept them either.

There are plenty of tales of some moron CWO making a mistake and the rent supplement being suspended without notice and even more tales of RS tenants just pocketing the money themselves.

When people don't pay for something from money they've had to earn, they may respect it that little bit less as well.

For the record, I do have RS tenants in my place and they're great, but I can see the downsides of RS and I got super lucky with my tenants IMO,

Dub.

You sign your lease, then tell your Landlord that you lost your job and have to apply for rent allowance.

Nothing the Landlord can do about it.

BostonB

Does the LL not have to complete some of the application form? What happens if they refuse?

murphaph

Dub. wrote: »

You sign your lease, then tell your Landlord that you lost your job and have to apply for rent allowance.

Nothing the Landlord can do about it.

If the landlord has stipulated in the lease that the tenant must be in employment then he can clearly move for breach of contract or whatever. Anyway, most RS tenants won't have the deposit and month in advance in their pocket.

I'd say deposits are going to increase as well in the future IMO as landlords move to protect themselves in a sector where the state does nothing to protect landlords from rogue tenants (the PRTB/courts system is a long drawn out expensive joke).

In Germany you pay 3 months deposit and before someone says "ah but they have strong tenants' rights there blah blah", the German tenant has in reality similar rights to an Irish tenant, and stories of German landlords withholding deposits are not uncommon

Ray Palmer

Dub. wrote: »

You sign your lease, then tell your Landlord that you lost your job and have to apply for rent allowance.

Nothing the Landlord can do about it.

It will cost you more money to do it and the LL can always refuse to sign the forms too. You don't have to accept RA and are liable for the rent still and lose your deposit. Not a great idea

Dub.

murphaph wrote: »

If the landlord has stipulated in the lease that the tenant must be in employment then he can clearly move for breach of contract or whatever. Anyway, most RS tenants won't have the deposit and month in advance in their pocket.

I`ve never heard of a lease that allows for eviction if the tenant loses his job. Is that even legal? And most tenants will have their deposit readily available after leaving their previous accommodation.

Personally, i would recommend letting the Landlord keep the deposit, as it can be a massive hassle to recover from some of these people . Much easier to just hold on to the last month`s rent and use that to pay the deposit on the next place.

Again, nothing they can do about it.

BostonB

Dub. wrote: »

I`ve never heard of a lease that allows for eviction if the tenant loses his job. Is that even legal? And most tenants will have their deposit readily available after leaving their previous accommodation.

Assuming they got their deposit back from the previous LL.

Dub. wrote: »

Personally, i would recommend letting the Landlord keep the deposit, as it can be a massive hassle to recover from some of these people . Much easier to just hold on to the last month`s rent and use that to pay the deposit on the next place.

Again, nothing they can do about it.

Leaving the LL out of pocket if there's any damage.