Rental Income tax evaders not getting caught

snubbleste

The tenancy was reported to the PRTB when the Department of Social Protection began to pay rent supplement. http://www.thejournal.ie/rent-supplement-landlord-caught-2191569-Jul2015/

DSP automatically report tenancies to PRTB

karenalot

snubbleste wrote: »

The tenancy was reported to the PRTB when the Department of Social Protection began to pay rent supplement. http://www.thejournal.ie/rent-supplement-landlord-caught-2191569-Jul2015/

DSP automatically report tenancies to PRTB

Not sure why the DSP paid the rent in the first place? The rent supplement application form clearly states they need evidence of property registration with the PRTB or the application cannot be processed.

snubbleste

karenalot wrote: »

Not sure why the DSP paid the rent in the first place? The rent supplement application form clearly states they need evidence of property registration with the PRTB or the application cannot be processed.

Well, no. DSP want proof of ownership.
To process Rent Supplement, we need to establish ownership of the property by the landlord. One of the following documents are acceptable in photocopy form.
1. Evidence of registration with Private Residential Tenancies Board landlord section.
2. Receipt of payment to Non Principal Private Residence (NPPR).
3. Evidence of buildings insurance policy held by landlord.

karenalot

snubbleste wrote: »

Well, no. DSP want proof of ownership.
To process Rent Supplement, we need to establish ownership of the property by the landlord. One of the following documents are acceptable in photocopy form.
1. Evidence of registration with Private Residential Tenancies Board landlord section.
2. Receipt of payment to Non Principal Private Residence (NPPR).
3. Evidence of buildings insurance policy held by landlord.

Yes you at correct. Although twice I have let out a property (not my own) to tenants with rent supplement and twice welfare would not process the application till proof of PRTB was provided. This was in Kildare.

Tufty

There are social houses located in the estate I live in. My mortgage cost vs the social rent is approx per month ( €1,250 vs €200) for the same type house. Now I know the messages back will be about situation and circumstance ect.. But that's not where I'm taking this as I have zero snobbery. The problem I have is that these houses were provided to people who's circumstances deemed it necessary to have housing at a very low cost.

I understand that the council maintain the scheme and are under resourced and don't / can't regularly inspect the properties. In fact probably have no involvement once the rent is paid. If they did they would find one of the occupants spends significant time abroad in a property owned by them leaving this house vacant and the other rents out rooms as an extra income source.

I try to live by the rules. Pay my way and take charges like social / water / green area upkeep hoping that my contribution improves mine and everyone's facilities but it's getting harder witnessing the ongoing local fraud. I would never report it as personally they are not harming me and if they were discovered and punished might cause me to be in personal danger. Also I don't know who the council might replace them with so its better the devil I know and a case of head down keep peddling for me

cerastes

Tufty wrote: »

There are social houses located in the estate I live in. My mortgage cost vs the social rent is approx per month ( €1,250 vs €200) for the same type house. Now I know the messages back will be about situation and circumstance ect.. But that's not where I'm taking this as I have zero snobbery. The problem I have is that these houses were provided to people who's circumstances deemed it necessary to have housing at a very low cost.

I understand that the council maintain the scheme and are under resourced and don't / can't regularly inspect the properties. In fact probably have no involvement once the rent is paid. If they did they would find one of the occupants spends significant time abroad in a property owned by them leaving this house vacant and the other rents out rooms as an extra income source.

I try to live by the rules. Pay my way and take charges like social / water / green area upkeep hoping that my contribution improves mine and everyone's facilities but it's getting harder witnessing the ongoing local fraud. I would never report it as personally they are not harming me and if they were discovered and punished might cause me to be in personal danger. Also I don't know who the council might replace them with so its better the devil I know and a case of head down keep peddling for me

This thread seems unrelated to your post?
Im not saying your post isnt valid, but maybe it might better be served in its own thread? I fully understand where you are coming from and it seems that someone else should be able to avail of the property as there always seems to mention of shortage of property and long queues.
I'm sure plenty of homes/spaces could be freed up for others if individuals or families hogging homes that they dont use could be located.
How you think this will be better if you dont report it? I do not know, if you are concerned report it anonymously to the council.
Not sure how you expect the council to know about it unless they are told though, whereupon they can investigate and determine if the usage is correct and withing their terms.

It may be true that you wouldnt know who they might replace them with, but as you seem a person of good conscience or you would not have questioned it in your own mind.

Tufty

I think the council should not operate a system if they have no ability to maintain. I will not report this but appreciate your views.

Michael D Not Higgins

Tufty wrote: »

I think the council should not operate a system if they have no ability to maintain. I will not report this but appreciate your views.

They do, on a reactive rather than proactive basis. Why check up on everyone when only e.g. 1% are complained about? It's simply a waste of resources.

Tiddlypeeps

Tufty wrote: »

There are social houses located in the estate I live in. My mortgage cost vs the social rent is approx per month ( €1,250 vs €200) for the same type house. Now I know the messages back will be about situation and circumstance ect.. But that's not where I'm taking this as I have zero snobbery. The problem I have is that these houses were provided to people who's circumstances deemed it necessary to have housing at a very low cost.

I understand that the council maintain the scheme and are under resourced and don't / can't regularly inspect the properties. In fact probably have no involvement once the rent is paid. If they did they would find one of the occupants spends significant time abroad in a property owned by them leaving this house vacant and the other rents out rooms as an extra income source.

I try to live by the rules. Pay my way and take charges like social / water / green area upkeep hoping that my contribution improves mine and everyone's facilities but it's getting harder witnessing the ongoing local fraud. I would never report it as personally they are not harming me and if they were discovered and punished might cause me to be in personal danger. Also I don't know who the council might replace them with so its better the devil I know and a case of head down keep peddling for me

If you are not willing to do anything about it then what advice are you actually looking for? Or are you just looking for a place to soap box?

Tufty

If I felt that the responsible council employees were maxed out 8 hours a day , 5 days a week with work deemed resourceful I'd go with that. I don't

Tufty

I'm looking to see how the people react to fraud and feel about it. Fraud that is financed by the tax payer.

Michael D Not Higgins

Tufty wrote: »

If I felt that the responsible council employees were maxed out 8 hours a day , 5 days a week with work deemed resourceful I'd go with that. I don't

Maybe alert them to it then and keep 'em busy. I don't see the benefit in your rant about the council and its employees if you only complain about them rather than to them.

Tufty

It shouldn't be a situation where I have to. I explained I am interested in people's reaction to fraud. Fraud paid by the tax payer.

Michael D Not Higgins

Tufty wrote: »

It shouldn't be a situation where I have to. I explained I am interested in people's reaction to fraud. Fraud paid by the tax payer.

Firstly, you don't know it's fraud. Secondly, how much do you think it costs to monitor every council property?

Tufty

I know it's fraudulent to sublet a council property. I've know idea , how much ?

Michael D Not Higgins

Tufty wrote: »

I know it's fraudulent to sublet a council property. I've know idea , how much ?

Again I'll point out that you don't know the full picture and as cerastes said only the council on inspecting the property can make the decision whether it is in breach of their terms.

Let's just say the cost won't get the politician who implements it re-elected.

El_Duderino 09

Tufty wrote: »

I know it's fraudulent to sublet a council property. I've know idea , how much ?

More than its worth to pursue them for it. Build a case, employ legal professional and court system to pursue the case. Then they are in a council house so will probably say they can't pay it back anyway. Revenue rely on tips for this type of crime.

Your choice is to whinge about it or do something about it.

Tufty

That's that then. The fraud continues and the public servants get paid for a job well done. Also an extra days holiday per month to go cash that pay cheque.

El_Duderino 09

Tufty wrote: »

That's that then. The fraud continues and the public servants get paid for a job well done. Also an extra days holiday per month to go cash that pay cheque.

Yep. As long as you sit on the information they need to do something about it.

Tufty

Great. I await the next tax that offsets such fraud and incompident council employees and there schemes.

El_Duderino 09

Tufty wrote: »

Great. I await the next tax that offsets such fraud and incompident council employees and there schemes.

How is it incompetence? They need the information you have decided to withhold. You share a small piece of responsibility for the continuation of the crime.

Tufty

Incompident by not inspecting / maintaining properties they are responsible for. Not one inspection in over a decade. I have no relationship with them , though they have a relationship with the fraudulent tenant. I have justified why I have decided not to report it as who knows who could they replace the tenant with?

Gumbo

Tufty wrote: »

That's that then. The fraud continues and the public servants get paid for a job well done. Also an extra days holiday per month to go cash that pay cheque.

Your first post mentioned that you had no snobbery but maybe ignorance plays a part?

There is no banking time any more in councils and when it was there it was 30 mins every fortnight. Not a day a month.

Also, they council have no power to investigate why someone goes on a holiday or where.

You say you are interested in people's views on fraud, yet you turn a blind eye to it yourself and allow everybody else including yourself to pay for it.

Gumbo

Tufty wrote: »

Incompident by not inspecting / maintaining properties they are responsible for. Not one inspection in over a decade. I have no relationship with them , though they have a relationship with the fraudulent tenant. I have justified why I have decided not to report it as who knows who could they replace the tenant with?

I haven't inspected my rental property in over 12 months either. If there's no complaints ior poblems, there's no reason to inspect.

El_Duderino 09

Tufty wrote: »

Incompident by not inspecting / maintaining properties they are responsible for. Not one inspection in over a decade. I have no relationship with them , though they have a relationship with the fraudulent tenant. I have justified why I have decided not to report it as who knows who could they replace the tenant with?

Ah so it's basic economics you're annoyed with. You can pay for uneconomical inspections, investigations, prosecutions or pay to make up the shortfall in revenue through your own tax or do something about it.

Funny thing is that you're the only one who can realistically do anything about it and you've outlined your self interest in making sure revenue don't find out about it.

What exactly is your gripe again?

Tufty

They council ?

My interest is how people on boards feel about such fraud costing the tax payer not whether I should report it.

I couldn't care less if you inspect your personal property. In my opinion more fool you not to.

Do you believe that there should be no motor checkpoints to check for no tax / insurance or drink driving or no passport check at airports because there was no complaints or ( not ior) problems reported. Sure the Garda are as busy and under resourced as much as the council are.

Ridiculous !

Gumbo

Tufty wrote: »

They council ?

My interest is how people on boards feel about such fraud costing the tax payer not whether I should report it.

I couldn't care less if you inspect your personal property. In my opinion more fool you not to.

Do you believe that there should be no motor checkpoints to check for no tax / insurance or drink driving or no passport check at airports because there was no complaints or ( not ior) problems reported. Sure the Garda are as busy and under resourced as much as the council are.

Ridiculous !

How the people of boards feel? The people of boards feel that you are the one allowing this to happen. You are just as much the problem as the people screwing the system.

Tufty

And you are the spokesperson for the entire boards community how ?

Paulw

Mod Note: Thread closed, pending review.