Unpaid rental supplement

Ray Palmer

bennyl10 wrote: »

But arw staff not paid to do the forms?.. if thwy dont finish them them yes tbey shoukd work extra..
A decent system doesnt mistake lazy staff

The staff are paid for a certain amount of hours after that they should be paid overtime. No overtime no extra work. They already increased their working week by 2.5 hours a week. You would upset your fellow employees and union if you work for free.

There is too much work for the amount of staff and a recruitment ban. Would you work for free? Nothing lazy about that.

So to clarify your idea is get staff to work for free.

fussyonion

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The staff are paid for a certain amount of hours after that they should be paid overtime. No overtime no extra work. They already increased their working week by 2.5 hours a week. You would upset your fellow employees and union if you work for free.

There is too much work for the amount of staff and a recruitment ban. Would you work for free? Nothing lazy about that.

So to clarify your idea is get staff to work for free.

Ray, I completely understand your point regarding RA.

I, myself, was a RA tenant and every year the rent was reviewed. 9 times out of 10 the allowance was reduced in accordance with rent limits in the county.

I had to ask my LL for reductions and I hated it.

He was a lovely LL who had reduced it because we were good tenants, but I understood he, too, had a mortgage to pay for, and I knew it wasn't his fault that our rent allowance was being reduced.

I am not a RA tenant now but even if I was, I would be of the opinion that RA is a lot of hassle and if I was a LL, I wouldn't take them as tenants, purely based on the hassle with the forms that need to filled out and the reductions..it's just not worth it.

Ray Palmer

fussyonion wrote: »

I am not a RA tenant now but even if I was, I would be of the opinion that RA is a lot of hassle and if I was a LL, I wouldn't take them as tenants, purely based on the hassle with the forms that need to filled out and the reductions..it's just not worth it.

That is what I think anybody who has experienced the system would say from an objective point of view. Their is too many points of failure and reliance on the tenant to stay on top of it.

I have been dealing with an RA tenant for over 15 years and she is nightmare to deal with. The only reason she is there is because the owner of the property couldn't see her in any bother. I reckon she thinks she will be left the property in the will from things she said. She misunderstands that comment " you will be looked after when I am gone" which actual is just a promise I won't kick her out when I inherit the property.

Jiggers77

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Did the HSE tell you that or did she? I know the system and it is all automated and the "glitch" would want to be pretty unique to somehow just exclude her.

I can confirm as the OP that the HSE confirmed it was a computer glitch. The system didn't generate a form so tenant didn't receive it this was what I have been told by the community welfare officer anyway

Zamboni

The only moral I can see from this story is don't take RA tenants.
There are simply far too many variables, parties and systems involved in producing a successful rent payment.

afedo

if her rent was up for review, they only give 2 weeks to get them filled out and sent back, but if she is out of the country, one couldnt fault her, and she seems genuine.

The_Conductor

afedo wrote: »

if her rent was up for review, they only give 2 weeks to get them filled out and sent back, but if she is out of the country, one couldnt fault her, and she seems genuine.

If she is out of the country for weeks on end- that alone would raise a red flag with whoever is reviewing her supplement.

JustAThought

The_Conductor wrote: »

If she is out of the country for weeks on end- that alone would raise a red flag with whoever is reviewing her supplement.

I'd be considering going over to discuss it & looking very serious & unforgiving - not nodding & sympathising with her. You want her focused on her obligations with regard to the rent . Chances are she's spent the money on start of school year/holiday & is liking to blame the HSE. Are her children with her on this holiday? All 3 of them -& them living on social welfare payments. That s raising a big red flag here.

afedo

i forgot to the mention, the rent supplement is being changed early next year. the supplement will be paid directly to the landlord instead of the tenant, which is the case now, and the remainder will be deducted from your social welfare payment. I am not sure how this is going to work, because i pay my rent monthly, and they will pay the supplement weekly to the landlord, so my landlord wont get 450 a month that im paying. i know it still amounts to the same over 52 weeks, but my contract states monthly and not weekly. does anybody else have anymore knowledge on this? The only positive with that is more landlords will accept rent allowance if its paid directly to them. regards.

The_Conductor

Gross monthly rent multiplied by 12 and then divided by 52.18 (or 26.09, if the landlord elects to be paid forthnightly).

The welfare deductions are treated separately and are transferred to the Paymaster as a wholly different transaction.

The system is already in place, and ready to go.

afedo

so the landlord can be paid monthly? and my contribution paid monthly also? sorry im slow on the uptake ha

The_Conductor

afedo wrote: »

so the landlord can be paid monthly? and my contribution paid monthly also? sorry im slow on the uptake ha

My understanding is that its to be done on a weekly basis-I can't see any reason why it couldn't be setup for any schedule at all though- the social welfare contribution would continue to be deducted on a weekly basis- which could be then put with the rent and paid monthly- or whatever way you'd like it to be. There is not an awful lot behind the scheduling part of this.