Landlords to face €15k fine for refusing rent allowance tenants

JONJO THE MISER

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/landlords-are-to-face-15k-fine-for-refusing-rent-allowance-tenants-31563485.html

It will be 'policed' in the same way as any allegation of discrimination under equality legislation.

The Equality Tribunal, which becomes part of the new Workplace Relations Commission on October 1, will adjudicate on complaints of discrimination. It makes binding judgments - unless appealed to the courts - and can award compensation to victims of discrimination.

Great news, im sick at looking at adverts by real estate agents stating no rent allowance or professionals only.
Pure snobbery and discrimination and about time it has come to a end.

MarkAnthony

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/landlords-are-to-face-15k-fine-for-refusing-rent-allowance-tenants-31563485.html

Great news, im sick at looking at adverts by real estate agents stating no rent allowance or professionals only.
Pure snobbery and discrimination and about time it has come to a end.

As long as you have two month deposit and a work reference I'm sure it'll be grand. This will change nothing other than RA tenants will now have to waste their time going to viewings where they had absolutely no chance of securing the property.

JONJO THE MISER

MarkAnthony wrote: »

As long as you have two month deposit and a work reference I'm sure it'll be grand. This will change nothing other than RA tenants will now have to waste their time going to viewings where they had absolutely no chance of securing the property.

You will no longer be able to ask for a work reference as this will discriminate against the unemployed, and about time too.

handlemaster

From someone who has lost 10k in damages to my property and non payment of rent from such a welfare tenant this wont make any difference. Landlords need more than a threat to except welfare tenants

davo10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

You will no longer be able to ask for a work reference as this will discriminate against the unemployed, and about time too.

Unless tenants on RA are allowed to top up the allowance to meet rental rates, all LLs have to do is advertise at a monthly rate higher than RA for that area. If the tenant brings a case for discrimination then the LL can respond by saying that legally they are prevented from accepting payments from the tenant which supplement RA.

Also as stated above, the LL can insist on two months or more deposit from all interested tenants plus rent to be paid in advance, as far as I'm aware, RA is paid in arrears.

JONJO THE MISER

handlemaster wrote: »

From someone who has lost 10k in damages to my property and non payment of rent from such a welfare tenant this wont make any difference. Landlords need more than a threat to except welfare tenants

Sorry to hear that but you cant equate 1 persons behaviour on RA to other people on it.
Im pretty sure there will be lots of test cases done and if say 1 landlord or estate agent has refused lots of RA applicants then a test case will be taken.

davo10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Sorry to hear that but you cant equate 1 persons behaviour on RA to other people on it.
Im pretty sure there will be lots of test cases done and if say 1 landlord or estate agent has refused lots of RA applicants then a test case will be taken.

Read the rest of the article you linked, it states that a large percentage of problems experienced by LLs are associated with RA tenants.

"While most tenants on rent supplement do observe the rules, the majority of non-compliant tenants happen to be on rent supplement. That's where the problem arises."

JONJO THE MISER

davo10 wrote: »

Unless tenants on RA are allowed to top up the allowance to meet rental rates, all LLs have to do is advertise at a monthly rate higher than RA for that area. If the tenant brings a case for discrimination then the LL can respond by saying that legally they are prevented from accepting payments from the tenant which supplement RA.

Also as stated above, the LL can insist on two months or more deposit from all interested tenants plus rent to be paid in advance, as far as I'm aware, RA is paid in arrears.

Yes this might work in Dublin, but most other towns and cities there are lots of places to rent under the threshold.
Also deposit can be got from the cwo.

JONJO THE MISER

davo10 wrote: »

Read the rest of the article you linked, it states that a large percentage of problems experienced by LLs are associated with RA tenants.

"While most tenants on rent supplement do observe the rules, the majority of non-compliant tenants happen to be on rent supplement. That's where the problem arises."

And are there stats to back this up?
Its mostly spin from certain groups so they can rationalise not taking RA tenants.
Imagine if you said that about a ethnic group.

davo10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Yes this might work in Dublin, but most other towns and cities there are lots of places to rent under the threshold.
Also deposit can be got from the cwo.

No, previous threads here indicate it is nationwide. Rents are lower outside Dublin but RA is also lower. LLs do not want RA, not because of personal animus, but because the RA scheme is a pain in the arse. The allowance is paid to the tenant in arrears (not sure if this is still the case, I haven't rented to RA in years) and often this is not passed on to the LL. Also as the family tends to be in he house all day, wear and tear tends to be greater.

handlemaster

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Sorry to hear that but you cant equate 1 persons behaviour on RA to other people on it.
Im pretty sure there will be lots of test cases done and if say 1 landlord or estate agent has refused lots of RA applicants then a test case will be taken.

A business such as a shop pub excetra can refuse entry so should a landlord have the same right. How about saying 100% of the rent is paid direct to the landlord and the welfare tenant cannot stop the rent been paid direct as is the case right now

davo10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

And are there stats to back this up?
Its mostly spin from certain groups so they can rationalise not taking RA tenants.
Imagine if you said that about a ethnic group.

If it wasn't, wouldn't it be far more appealing to rent to a Government backed tenant with guaranteed rental income? C'mon why do you think 95% of LLs will not accept RA?

JONJO THE MISER

davo10 wrote: »

If it wasn't, wouldn't it be far more appealing to rent to a Government backed tenant with guaranteed rental income? C'mon why do you think 95% of LLs will not accept RA?

Well i was on RA years ago and rented off loads of LLs that took rent allowance, this not taking RA seems to have become more prevalent in recent years due to lots of demand for rental property.
When there was a glut of rental property LLs had no problem taking RA but now it seems some LLs want to discriminate against certain groups.

JONJO THE MISER

handlemaster wrote: »

A business such as a shop pub excetra can refuse entry so should a landlord have the same right. How about saying 100% of the rent is paid direct to the landlord and the welfare tenant cannot stop the rent been paid direct as is the case right now

Not if the only reason is there on RA.
You are right paying the landlord direct would be a better system.

davo10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Well i was on RA years ago and rented off loads of LLs that took rent allowance, this not taking RA seems to have become more prevalent in recent years due to lots of demand for rental property.
When there was a glut of rental property LLs had no problem taking RA but now it seems some LLs want to discriminate against certain groups.

Yip, that's hit the nail on the head. LL used to put up with the problems and take the risk of renting to RA tenants, now LLs do not have to and wont. And that will continue despite this proposed new legislation, the only thing that will change is that the RA question on daft will be removed and LLs won't declare that they will not rent to RA.

It will be a simple task of asking "does your RA cover the full monthly rental, will it be paid in advance directly to my account as this is what I require of all perspective tenants?". As the answer to that question most likely will be "no", then that negates any allegation of discrimination, the RA simply could not meet the criteria required of all tenants.

Ironically on a weekend when there were articles in the papers about legislation to cap rents, this legislation could cause new let rents to rise further above RA rates to insulate LLs against charges of discrimination. Go figure.

athtrasna

This will do one of two things. Push even more landlords out of the market or move to more ingenious ways of letting property like through LinkedIn.

I'm no longer a landlord thankfully but the thought that I couldn't choose exactly the type of person I was handing over the keys of a asset worth six figures to would have pushed me anyway. It's time to get real.

handlemaster

Any landlord with any sense now should make sure they are charging the max rent possible regardless if their tenant is good or bad. There is and will be no thanks for been flexible because you are currently been paid on time.

flunkyfearsome

handlemaster wrote:

From someone who has lost 10k in damages to my property and non payment of rent from such a welfare tenant this wont make any difference. Landlords need more than a threat to except welfare tenants

Direct payments from CWO to yourself it's been like that for years

handlemaster

flunkyfearsome wrote: »

Direct payments from CWO to yourself it's been like that for years

Can be stopped by the tenant any time. The landlord has no say over that. Also its not for the full rent. The landlord then has to receive another payment from the tenant to recieve the full rent. My expérience is social welfare recipients are bad at managing money and the rent is not seen as top priority.

mickoneill31

I'm totally out of the loop but as as external person looking in, this seems like tinkering to appeal to some voters but won't make much difference to anybody.

How hard is it to implement some changes that people are actually looking for like a third party holding on to the deposit, an easier method to get rid of non paying or anti social renters, sorting out RA so that there's never any messing about for a landlord to get it etc. I'm sure there's much more that would benefit landlords and tenants.

None of those seem hugely difficult. Is there unwillingness to fix them for any particular reason?

4ensic15

flunkyfearsome wrote: »

Direct payments from CWO to yourself it's been like that for years

The CWO only pays the rent allowance, not the rent. Trying to get the difference is often difficult and the recalcitrant tenants are the ones who cause damage.
The likelihood is that it is unconstitutional not to allow Landlords to seek work references. A landlord who can't investigate the ability of a prospective tenant to pay his rent and to show a level of stability is being deprived of a property right. Why should he have to hand over a major asset to someone he can't vet?

April 73

The government is desperately scrambling to make private landlords responsible for housing tenants who should have access to social housing - either paid for by the state or rented at a fair price relative to income.

I cannot see how it will be possible to police the idea of not asking for work references. Any landlord about to hand over keys with just a month's rent & month's deposit as security is entitled to know who they are renting to. Sitting down with prospective tenants & asking the right questions will soon reveal how the rent is to be paid & enough about the tenant to allow a fair decision to be made - even in the event of the daft idea of banning work references - which has to be budget day/Election Day kite-flying.

DivingDuck

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Imagine if you said that about a ethnic group.

People on RA are not an ethnic group. An ethnic group generally comprises a broad spectrum of people, young and old, rich and poor, etc., and without reference to a specific circumstance.

"People on RA" are people in specific circumstances, like "college students" or "wheelchair users" or "TDs". Their specific circumstance is that they are not able to generate the necessary money to house themselves. Making generalisations or assertions about people in that specific circumstance, in reference to that circumstance (i.e., talking about people on RA regards housing) is not comparable to making sweeping generalisations about an ethnic group.

VisibleGorilla

PR for a government on the way out.

Rent Allowance not accepted will now simply read 'Employer references needed'.

Job done.

4ensic15

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

PR for a government on the way out.

Rent Allowance not accepted will now simply read 'Employer references needed'.

Job done.

Read the thread. Work references can't be asked for either.

ZeroThreat

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/landlords-are-to-face-15k-fine-for-refusing-rent-allowance-tenants-31563485.html

It will be 'policed' in the same way as any allegation of discrimination under equality legislation.

The Equality Tribunal, which becomes part of the new Workplace Relations Commission on October 1, will adjudicate on complaints of discrimination. It makes binding judgments - unless appealed to the courts - and can award compensation to victims of discrimination.

Great news, im sick at looking at adverts by real estate agents stating no rent allowance or professionals only.
Pure snobbery and discrimination and about time it has come to a end.

Does "professionals only" mean that only those working in medicine, dentistry or law may apply??

Flatzie_poo

4ensic15 wrote: »

Read the thread. Work references can't be asked for either.

Read the thread.

The LL can just advertise on LinkedIn as a way around this.

NoCrackHaving

This is just a sop by the government to be seen to be doing something to solve the housing shortage in the rented sector rather than actually doing something. Rent allowance was only ever intended to be a stop gap measure while people were waiting for social housing but has mushroomed to being the norm not the exception. More social housing needs to be built and this rent allowance joke got rid of. But we all know that won't happen and instead soundbites like this will be introduced that won't help tenants or landlords.

cruizer101

Is this not just going to lead to time being wasted, if a LL doesn't want a RA tenant can he not just give a different reason. A landlord can still have choice over who he rents to, so he can just say he preferred the other non RA tenant for whatever reason.

beauf

April 73 wrote: »

The government is desperately scrambling to make private landlords responsible for housing tenants who should have access to social housing - either paid for by the state or rented at a fair price relative to income....

+1

Its Govt failure, to provide housing or make it attractive for others to do so. This will just make it worse. Its inept beyond belief.

DivingDuck

cruizer101 wrote: »

Is this not just going to lead to time being wasted, if a LL doesn't want a RA tenant can he not just give a different reason. A landlord can still have choice over who he rents to, so he can just say he preferred the other non RA tenant for whatever reason.

The idea is to put the landlord in the position where he is not able to discern which tenants are on RA and which are not, so that he can't use that as a factor in his decision-making.

So, effectively: to force people into renting their immensely expensive property to someone without being able to ask for any information about them at all, really.