'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

PucaMama

why does everyone think a landlord has the right to nose through someones bank statements?

The_Morrigan

If one more person uses derogatory terms to describe the entire RA tenant base I will start handing out bans.

quadrifoglio verde

PucaMama wrote: »

why does everyone think a landlord has the right to nose through someones bank statements?

Risk minimization is why. And because the market allows for it

MarkAnthony

This really fecking angers me, I know it shouldn't but it really winds me up.

Rather than fix the fecking system, which many landlord, including myself would jump at we're fecking around with this! Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a cheap political stunt in a moron. It's frankly insulting.

The rent supplement is not accepted by many landlords, not because they think people are unworthy but because of the cack-handed, bureaucratic, arseways and sorry Irish way its handled!

Why not do this:

-Pay it directly to the landlord at the current rate with a tax break to make up the difference in market rate if needed.

-Properly inspect the properties and bring them up to code in concert with the landlord where required, explaining and guiding them through the tax implications/breaks.

-Ensure any damage that is genuinely done by tenants is repaired, and LL are told to cop on where it's wear and tear.

-Circumvent the need for the PRTB in these instances to reduce the load on that body.

I'd be ripping the arm off of Dublin City council, probably more than willing to take under market value in return for the security.

No instead we have feckless, cheap idiots that can't see beyond the nose on their faces.

/Rant.

MarkAnthony

PucaMama wrote: »

why does everyone think a landlord has the right to nose through someones bank statements?

Because yet again we have a 19th century system in place that lets people take the absolute piss. If we had a properly administered credit referencing system in place that was available to bone fide landlords/agencies we wouldn't need to go through bank statements, get employment references and generally treat people like criminal for wanting a place to live.

This goes hand in hand with a properly ran, streamlined system for both tenants and landlords to resolve disputes. Where a tenant doesn't pay the rent/ trashes the place, then has a judgement against them it should haunt them for years, everytime they go for a loan for a car or their own mortgage. May be that way the real asshats, of which there are plenty in the private rental sector, would be identified and people would stop being tarred with the same brush because of their economic status.

The fact that this measure has been given time is an absolute travesty rather than actually addressing the bloody problem.

PucaMama

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Risk minimization is why. And because the market allows for it

in other words, people are desperate for somewhere to live, so have no choice

MarkAnthony

PucaMama wrote: »

in other words, people are desperate for somewhere to live, so have no choice

Yes and the Landlord has a right to protect themselves.

murphaph

Aircraft Freak wrote: »

Direct payment to land lord and damage repair money from the state would solve the issue.

Why should these tenants be absolved of all social responsibility by the state (taxpayer) though? People who willfully damage property, especially when it is provided to them free of charge, should be left homeless. We have ZERO moral obligation to help this sort of person.

This is only heading one way: 3 month deposits, LL's checking bank statements/payslips. If you're a decent tenant then don't blame LL's, blame the electioneering wasters in government (and on the opposition benches) who think this cynical move will fool some clowns into voting for them-"sticking it to de man".

jd

I guess landlords will look for 2 month's deposit + 1 month rent in advance, and advertise it so. So for a 2 bedroom apartment in Dub 9 you'd need to get the guts of 4k together. Simplest way of defending yourself against equality law

PucaMama

jd wrote: »

I guess landlords will look for 2 month's deposit + 1 month rent in advance. So for a 2 bedroom apartment in Dub 9 you'd need to get the guts of 4k together.

which is ridiculous money.

MarkAnthony

murphaph wrote: »

Why should these tenants be absolved of all social responsibility by the state (taxpayer) though? People who willfully damage property, especially when it is provided to them free of charge, should be left homeless. We have ZERO moral obligation to help this sort of person.

This is only heading one way: 3 month deposits, LL's checking bank statements/payslips. If you're a decent tenant then don't blame LL's, blame the electioneering wasters in government (and on the opposition benches) who think this cynical move will fool some clowns into voting for them-"sticking it to de man".

I wouldn't leave them homeless but they'd be in a hostel or shipping container based home in the middle of a field.

jd wrote: »

I guess landlords will look for 2 month's deposit + 1 month rent in advance, and advertise it so. So for a 2 bedroom apartment in Dub 9 you'd need to get the guts of 4k together. Simplest way of defending yourself against equality law

I'm afraid that's exactly what I'll be doing and I've had the lambasting here for it!

First and last months rent + Security. So to rent my one bed in D8 you'll need €3.3K on day one. How the hell is that helping anyone?

jd

PucaMama wrote: »

which is ridiculous money.

Yip, but that's what they'll do.

murphaph

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I wouldn't leave them homeless but they'd be in a hostel or shipping container based home in the middle of a field.

Not a bad idea, stainless steel indestructible toilet like in prison cells etc. I do feel sorry for the children of these sort of people (and for sure those who actually damage property intentionally are a minority of RA tenants but sadly a sizable minority IMO). I think the only thing the state can do is to stop financially incentivising this class of person to procreate. That's the only thing short of some sort of Nazi round up that will break the cycle. The money needs to be diverted to schools to make sure these kids are fed and looked after at least there. I'd much rather my taxes went to warm meals and free uniforms etc. for vulnerable kids than to the parents' local Paddy Power.

MarkAnthony

murphaph wrote: »

Not a bad idea, stainless steel indestructible toilet like in prison cells etc. I do feel sorry for the children of these sort of people (and for sure those who actually damage property intentionally are a minority of RA tenants but sadly a sizable minority IMO). I think the only thing the state can do is to stop financially incentivising this class of person to procreate. That's the only thing short of some sort of Nazi round up that will break the cycle. The money needs to be diverted to schools to make sure these kids are fed and looked after at least there. I'd much rather my taxes went to warm meals and free uniforms etc. for vulnerable kids than to the parents' local Paddy Power.

Well, there are some points in that I might steer clear of! :pac:

That said if you're the sort of person that trashes the home your children live in I think it's time for the intervention of social services; whether you're on rent allowance or earning a million a year.

ted1

PucaMama wrote: »

why does everyone think a landlord has the right to nose through someones bank statements?

Because the landlord is trusting them with an asset worth roughly 350,000 euro

by the seaside

ted1 wrote: »

Because the landlord is trusting them with an asset worth roughly 350,000 euro

Perhaps you should campaign for a change in the law to allow landlords to open their tenants' post.

MarkAnthony

by the seaside wrote: »

Perhaps you should campaign for a change in the law to allow landlords to open their tenants' post.

This sort of nonsense helps no one. Both LL and tenants are put at stupid levels of risk because of a feckless and reactionary government.

beauf

jd wrote: »

I guess landlords will look for 2 month's deposit + 1 month rent in advance, and advertise it so. So for a 2 bedroom apartment in Dub 9 you'd need to get the guts of 4k together. Simplest way of defending yourself against equality law

.. and/or raise the rent.

Can only see this making the problems worse for everyone.

kampik

I know a lot of people who are working full time and don't have money or simply don't pay for rent because they don't care.
I had never missed payment on RA and even many times helped to pay for working friends.
The conclusion: RA doesn't mean troublesome tenant. What determines the tenant is personality...

PS: one of the reasons why they wouldn't send the money straight to LL is probably that you have to show yourself every week in the post office to prove that you are not on holidays

the_syco

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

It sure would. Why is it so hard to just pay the LLs directly?

Data protection, I think?

You can live in a house rent free until someone pays tens of thousands of euro to get you out (whilst all the time while you are getting rent money from the state). There needs to be better landlord rules put in place, as many don't take RA tenants because it's not easy to get rid of the bad ones. And you only need one bad tenant to ruin you.

Someone may say that's the risk they take. Well, you'll find the new law will just increase other demands to ensure you have a stable job, regular income, etc, etc, and it'll screw over more people than it'll help.

murphaph wrote: »

I think the only thing the state can do is to stop financially incentivising this class of person to procreate.

No child benefit after child three, imo.

murphaph

kampik wrote: »

I know a lot of people who are working full time and don't have money or simply don't pay for rent because they don't care.
I had never missed payment on RA and even many times helped to pay for working friends.
The conclusion: RA doesn't mean troublesome tenant. What determines the tenant is personality...

I was a safe driver at 18. Never had a crash. Should all 18 year old males be charged the same insurance premium as the average 50 year old male? After all my sample size of one example says all 18 year old males are perfectly safe drivers!

ted1

kampik wrote: »

I know a lot of people who are working full time and don't have money or simply don't pay for rent because they don't care.
I had never missed payment on RA and even many times helped to pay for working friends.
The conclusion: RA doesn't mean troublesome tenant. What determines the tenant is personality...

PS: one of the reasons why they wouldn't send the money straight to LL is probably that you have to show yourself every week in the post office to prove that you are not on holidays

If you can afford to pay for friends should you be getting RA?

jank

Eric Cartman wrote: »

having worked for and talked to many landlords, they all only take RA/ RS once.

I am afraid that this is the truth.

Speaking from experience my family have a couple of properties that we rent out to anyone. Men, women, Irish, Eastern European (they are generally great tenants!), tradies or professionals. We once went down the route of RA. Never again. We prefer to leave the property empty, thus scarificing income rather than take a risk that could leave one out of pocket with no recourse for tens of thousands. Its a very simple risk/reward calculation. There IS a reason why many LL won't accept RA. It is because of the large minority of those on RA have utterly no respect for the property of others and their neighbors and the LL have no recourse to claw back lost earnings due to damage and vandalisation of property.

If the state is so keen on this, can a LL send them an invoice for the damage a tenant has done to their property? If, so RA all the way!! :rolleyes:

This makes the Equality Authority more redundant and pointless then ever. A perfect example of the state makes a problem WORSE then better by passing stupid laws.
Issue with high rents? Pass some unenforceable but populist equality legislation that will push rents even higher and will make LL's extra picky about their tenants.

jank

murphaph wrote: »

Not a bad idea, stainless steel indestructible toilet like in prison cells etc. I do feel sorry for the children of these sort of people (and for sure those who actually damage property intentionally are a minority of RA tenants but sadly a sizable minority IMO). I think the only thing the state can do is to stop financially incentivising this class of person to procreate. That's the only thing short of some sort of Nazi round up that will break the cycle. The money needs to be diverted to schools to make sure these kids are fed and looked after at least there. I'd much rather my taxes went to warm meals and free uniforms etc. for vulnerable kids than to the parents' local Paddy Power.

+ 1 million to this. The VFI might lobby against it though.

kampik

ted1 wrote: »

If you can afford to pay for friends should you be getting RA?

If you are responsible and can save a bit to have something in case of emergency and you are either willing or you have no choice to help your housemates, then why not?
By having no choice, I mean when you have flat mates who just don't care and you want to keep the house reputation which is in my name good. And yes, sometimes you have no option to choose who you live with until the contract is up or you can afford to move out.

Eugene Norman

ted1 wrote: »

Because the landlord is trusting them with an asset worth roughly 350,000 euro

Given the number of landlords in arrears maybe the taxpayer, owner of the banks, forgiver of loans should get a glimpse at landlords bank accounts.

ted1

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Given the number of landlords in arrears maybe the taxpayer, owner of the banks, forgiver of loans should get a glimpse at landlords bank accounts.

The banks do have access to the bank accounts and when giving loans do indeed go through the lsndlords financial details.
The landlord also furnaces the revenue commissioner with a copy of his annual accounts .

Your comment just makes you look silly with a big chip on your shoulder.

ted1

kampik wrote: »

If you are responsible and can save a bit to have something in case of emergency and you are either willing or you have no choice to help your housemates, then why not?
By having no choice, I mean when you have flat mates who just don't care and you want to keep the house reputation which is in my name good. And yes, sometimes you have no option to choose who you live with until the contract is up or you can afford to move out.

So your on RA, co sharing a rental property that is in your name.
Are you sub letting ? If the property is in your name, the lease would say X amount. Do you get X amount from the DSP, because they will only allow you to top up by a small amount.

Big Davey

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Given the number of landlords in arrears maybe the taxpayer, owner of the banks, forgiver of loans should get a glimpse at landlords bank accounts.

I don't know of any landlords who have got debt forgiveness from banks a rental is very easy to reposess as its not the landlords home.
Any landlord I know and I know a few pay their taxes every year plus accountants, prtb, property tax, insurance, maintenance etc
A large part of the problem is jealousy from people in government bodies who have a guaranteed wage packet every week but still resent people who try to get on in life.
Landlords have to contend with so much, bad tenants, no support from government, a broken PRTB that does not work but you WILL pay the mortgage or the bank will take the house.
One Christmas I was under pressure financially as my RA tenant just stopped paying the rent 3 months previous I had to fork out the money while they lived in my property for free and lavished toys and gifts around and drank and gambled the RA money it then took me 2 months and thousands of euro to get the house sorted.
They got a little slap on the wrist and have to pay back a €5 or so a week to the welfare and are now REHOUSED with my taxes !
I have a judgement that is not worth the paper it's written on.
The system is a joke.

Tiger Mcilroy

Gotta laugh at this goverment, they shift the responsibility onto a different party and stand back smugly at another problem solved while having done exactly nothing to solve the issue. Cant make it up.