Rent Allowance

firestarter51

rent allowance was reduced to (i think) 86 for every 100 of the rent total, i was on it a few years back, it was a god send, and when i was looking for a property i went and met with the landlord had a chat and showed him references and he was happy enough to accept me.
i think the whole tennent gets the money and pays the landlord is a balls of a system, the tenants after me didnt pay rent for three months and wrecked the place, landlord said to me he will never rent again.

OldNotWIse

fussyonion wrote: »

I wasn't saying YOU were angry. I wasn't even suggesting the OP was angry, I was merely pointing out that in general, RA tenants direct their frustration and anger at Landlords.

Who refuse them simply because they are on RA, yes. IMO that frustration and anger is rightly directed. If, however they are directing their anger and frustration over something beyond the control of the LL, then it is misdirected.

OldNotWIse

Graces7 wrote: »

op; i wish you all the luck in the world.

being discriminated against is a harsh reality for so many on social welfare. myself included, and you can see the attitudes here that we are up against.

discrimination re ra is not listed in law of course but it is a very harsh reality. aimed at those already struggling.... used to be called kicking a man when he is down.
sad that so many lls do not seemingly have the iq to screen ra applicants as they do others.that is where the discrimination lies. no ra, period. no intelligence or even humanity there. label us all with the sins of the few.

and yes that is the lls fault. not the govts. not anyone elses.

saddens for ireland.

sadder to see this too when rent on a particular property is within our reach.

as i say, good luck. blessed here with a good landlord and ra is fine.

Agree with you 100%
At the end of the day, the biggest reason why LL's refuse those on RA is because they are prejudiced against them. Of course, this is not a popular thing to say and you will be met with all manner of denials and other excuses, but the dogs on the street know it to be true.

marathonic

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Who refuse them simply because they are on RA, yes. IMO that frustration and anger is rightly directed. If, however they are directing their anger and frustration over something beyond the control of the LL, then it is misdirected.

For me, the following two statements are one, and the same:

• I refuse to accept a rent that is 25% below the market rate
• I refuse to accept Rent Supplement recipients

There is a general misconception that the reason a landlord doesn't accept rent supplement recipients is that they think they are more unreliable as a tenant. Whilst this may be true in certain cases, and in particular for landlords that have been burned in the past by such tenants, this is most certainly not true in the majority of cases.

The primary reason for not accepting rent supplement tenants, as mentioned before, is the maximum rents imposed by the government - which, as has been mentioned before, can be reduced at any time, even mid-contract.

At the end of the day, due to recent government policy, landlords know that, be accepting a rent supplement recipient, they are losing control of the ability to set their own rent based on their local markets. Why do this unless absolutely necessary? Again, in most cases, it's nothing to do with the tenant and everything to do with government policy.

OldNotWIse

marathonic wrote: »

For me, the following two statements are one, and the same:

• I refuse to accept a rent that is 25% below the market rate
• I refuse to accept Rent Supplement recipients

There is a general misconception that the reason a landlord doesn't accept rent supplement recipients is that they think they are more unreliable as a tenant. Whilst this may be true in certain cases, and in particular for landlords that have been burned in the past by such tenants, this is most certainly not true in the majority of cases.

The primary reason for not accepting rent supplement tenants, as mentioned before, is the maximum rents imposed by the government - which, as has been mentioned before, can be reduced at any time, even mid-contract.

At the end of the day, due to recent government policy, landlords know that, be accepting a rent supplement recipient, they are losing control of the ability to set their own rent based on their local markets. Why do this unless absolutely necessary? Again, in most cases, it's nothing to do with the tenant and everything to do with government policy.

Have we not already covered this ground? that tenants make up the difference themselves? I dont know anyone on RA who is benefitting from below market rent.

marathonic

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Agree with you 100%
At the end of the day, the biggest reason why LL's refuse those on RA is because they are prejudiced against them. Of course, this is not a popular thing to say and you will be met with all manner of denials and other excuses, but the dogs on the street know it to be true.

No, no, and no. And I could prove it - if I had the time and inclination.

All you have to do is look at the daft listings of rental properties in most towns in Ireland. Then compare that the maximum rents a landlord is allowed to charge rent supplement recipients (information available in link below).

Now, ask yourself, if I said to you that I'm willing to give you €400 per month or €500 per month for the next 12 months, which would you choose?

Some of my best tenants have been on social welfare. This was BEFORE the government brought in the maximum rent rules. Now, I avoid them where possible.

A daft advert that states 'no rent allowance' is basically a landlord saying 'I do not want to accept a rent that is below market rate'. Where exactly is the discrimination here?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html

OldNotWIse

marathonic wrote: »

No, no, and no. And I could prove it - if I had the time and inclination.

All you have to do is look at the daft listings of rental properties in most towns in Ireland. Then compare that the maximum rents a landlord is allowed to charge rent supplement recipients (information available in link below).

Now, ask yourself, if I said to you that I'm willing to give you €400 per month or €500 per month for the next 12 months, which would you choose?

Some of my best tenants have been on social welfare. This was BEFORE the government brought in the maximum rent rules. Now, I avoid them where possible.

A daft advert that states 'no rent allowance' is basically a landlord saying 'I do not want to accept a rent that is below market rate'. Where exactly is the discrimination here?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html

I really think you've just proved my point...

marathonic

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Have we not already covered this ground? that tenants make up the difference themselves? I dont know anyone on RA who is benefitting from below market rent.

This is NOT permitted.

I had a tenant that wanted to do this a couple of years ago. In order to do so, I would have to understate the rent in his rent book and on the forms that a landlord is periodically required to complete for the Social Welfare. I am not willing to commit fraud.

tinyk68

I hope that the op finds somewhere to rent but the system makes it very difficult for everyone involved. I'm a landlord and have a tenant on ra. He's not allowed to top up rent allowance payments so basically I can't charge enough rent to cover the mortgage on the property. Let's not even mention the rest of the costs involved! I'm losing money every month and wouldn't have taken someone on rent allowance if I hadn't been desperate to let the property. Outside of Dublin the market is still very slow so we have to take whatever we can get. He's no trouble but the place is filthy and will have to be professionally cleaned and painted whenever he leaves. More costs for me. Price fixing is supposed to be illegal but it is what rent allowance does and both sides loose out.

marathonic

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I really think you've just proved my point...

How exactly? I'm not going to get into a silly argument when it's obvious to all reading that I have COMPLETE disproved your point.

The_Morrigan

Seeing as the thread descended into madness, despite the Mod warning, we've decided to close the thread.