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

beauf

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

The LL need to do nothing. Leave it up to potential tenants to offer what ever information they feel will make them the most attractive tenant. End of.

borderlinemeath

It really will be the end of one months deposit and a months rent upfront as 2 months deposit + a months rent will just be out of an RA applicants reach, and will most likely not be covered by the CWO.

We've had both good and bad RA tenants, but with the fact that rents have increased to levels where it prices RA tenants out of the private market shouldn't make it a landlords problem, it's a government problem and kicking the can down the road and saddling landlords with the problem of housing what always seems to be non compliant, non paying, anti social and property destroying tenants is only going to push even the most hardened landlord out of the market. It will also impact on the quality of rentals, no landlord is going to invest in upgrading their property if they're forced to let it to somebody who is statistically going to cause more damage or be less financially stable than a working tenant. If this legislation is pushed through expect to see a glut of rented properties on the market, my own included.

uck51js9zml2yt

handlemaster wrote: »

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.

Thankfully its only your experience and not a generalisation!

I know a number of people on social welfare who manage their money.
This forum is also a testament to the numerous working people who want to defraud their landlords by not paying their rent, damage property or walk away from their leases.

testaccount123

beauf wrote: »

The LL need to do nothing. Leave it up to potential tenants to offer what ever information they feel will make them the most attractive tenant. End of.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Tenants are already offering supporting documentation to prove they are a better prospective tenant than the next guy, do the government think people are just going to stop in order to be 'fair' to people who cant pay rent themselves?

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

According to the op there's nothing in the report about it

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

The thread has decided that, I don't see any external reference to it. While I realise insisting on a work reference will probably be grounds for the ET to decide there was discrimination simply asking for one in the case of an employed person and asking for say a letter from the social on the other hand will not.

You'll then have two piles of references, one of which ends up in the bin, err.. sorry I mean filed away under the relevant data protection laws with the very good reasons why that person was not selected with absolutely no reference to them being on RA.

I'm frankly angry, time is being wasted bringing in this legislation rather than sorting the bloody issue out. We've said it time and again here. Pay 10-15% below market rate, pay it directly to the LL and deal with any damage many of us will be falling over ourselves to take RA tenants. If you're an RA tenant thinking this is achieving anything but trying to buy your vote then I'm sorry you've been fooled.

super_furry

All this will mean is an end to 'no Rent Allowance' notes and a longer interview process with the same people on rent allowence passed over in favour of someone who isnt.

DivingDuck

super_furry wrote: »

All this will mean is an end to 'no Rent Allowance' notes and a longer interview process with the same people on rent allowence passed over in favour of someone who isnt.

This legislation benefits absolutely nobody beyond those passing it.

Disappointing all around.

bleary

I'm surprised how disappointed I have been in the response to the housing shortage. Labour and particularly Alan Kelly who seems intent to make things worse with most of his announcements. I was at a number of house viewings to buy in the last while. At a time of rocketing rents they were all ex rentals. They didn't have any bank involvement.
I've lived in places with strict rent controls, what it meant for us was that people with official leases never give them up, then they sublet illegally and profitably to people like me who have no rights and live in fear of 24 hour eviction. They also didn't pay tax or carry out any improvements or repairs.
The government initiatives are resulting in rising rents and increased homelessness. Can someone tell them please just STOP! Tackle Supply and stop messing about with these populist back of the beer mat measures.

foggy_lad

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.

Pretty useless legislation at this stage as most if not all landlords stopped stating no rent allowance over a year ago! They now just pick tenants who pay by bank or cash. How can discrimination ever be proven against then because they can just claim the other people paid cash or looked neater or had better references etc etc

Another government ploy of enacting useless and unenforceable legislation to be policed by a useless quango that is already months if not years behind its work and at the moment won't take enforcement action against anyone beyond its setting out it's own recommendations.

Yet also in the news is the shocking revelation that there are thousands of houses owned by councils around the country lying empty and many boarded up because they can't afford to renovate them for new tenants!

testaccount123

foggy_lad wrote: »

Pretty useless legislation at this stage as most if not all landlords stopped stating no rent allowance over a year ago! They now just pick tenants who pay by bank or cash. How can discrimination ever be proven against then because they can just claim the other people paid cash or looked neater or had better references etc etc

They are going to make it illegal to wear a suit to viewings next

K.Flyer

Would it not be a lot simpler to just ask for references from their previous landlord and letting agent. I am sure any history of late payments and property damage would be justification for refusal.
Conversely, by asking for and checking these two pieces of information, landlords may actually find very suitable tenants who are on RA.
I have seen properties ruined by both RA tenants and so called professional tenants and I have also seen properties being kept immaculately clean with no issues by both. Maybe its time for a better vetting process, rather than indiscriminately profiling either way.

murphaph

K.Flyer wrote: »

I have seen properties ruined by both RA tenants and so called professional tenants and I have also seen properties being kept immaculately clean with no issues by both. Maybe its time for a better vetting process, rather than indiscriminately profiling either way.

It's not indiscriminate at all and the same sort of profiling takes place any time you take out insurance. The Insurance company, just like the LL, doesn't know you personally, so they use your details to profile you. Young, inexperienced drivers pay more for motor insurance, despite the fact that many (most??) young drivers don't actually crash their cars and an experienced drivers paying buttons for insurance do have terrible crashes from time to time.

LLs use exactly the same approach when filtering out RS tenants. Most RS tenants are fine, but most bad tenants are on RS.

Startagain2010

My 'professional' tenants paid rent on time , kept the place in good order, paid bills on leaving and caused no trouble whatsoever. My first experience with RA tenants will be my last . Rent often late and stopped altogether when given notice. Have done huge amount of damage and have informed us that they've no intention of leaving the house till they're ready. Have now had to employ a solicitor. Huge expense and tons of stress has been my experience. Theses people have zero respect .

beauf

MarkAnthony wrote: »

....I'm frankly angry, time is being wasted bringing in this legislation rather than sorting the bloody issue out. We've said it time and again here. Pay 10-15% below market rate, pay it directly to the LL and deal with any damage many of us will be falling over ourselves to take RA tenants. If you're an RA tenant thinking this is achieving anything but trying to buy your vote then I'm sorry you've been fooled.

+1 it is that simple.

its just the Govt dragging their heels, not sorting out the problem. The Govt has made it so the LL has no power. Make RA an attractive business for the LL end of problem. Saying losses can be covered by insurance, is just kicking the can somewhere else, insurance companies.

Flatzie_poo

murphaph wrote: »

It's not indiscriminate at all and the same sort of profiling takes place any time you take out insurance. The Insurance company, just like the LL, doesn't know you personally, so they use your details to profile you. Young, inexperienced drivers pay more for motor insurance, despite the fact that many (most??) young drivers don't actually crash their cars and an experienced drivers paying buttons for insurance do have terrible crashes from time to time.

LLs use exactly the same approach when filtering out RS tenants. Most RS tenants are fine, but most bad tenants are on RS.

Completely agree.

Not only that, Insurers discriminate and load premiums based on where you live... how can the government turn a blind eye to this, yet still berate LL from taking RA into account when leasing?

RA tenants are riskier in most cases to a LL. Just as lower class areas are riskier to insurers.

It's not discrimination, it's about protecting your asset, makinmg a good economic decision, and choosing the best tenant to meet your needs.

It's another case where the government implements a measure without discussing the pros on cons with those who are directly affected.

Jaketherake

so now you'll have ads on daft like this

"
for an invite to view the property.
Please email a little about yourself and supporting documentation to zzzzx@ zz.zxz.
"

T he landlord can then arrange viewings over email and never has to state why he didn't email anyone back.

Anyone should know to email work references and state they are working. if they don't then assume they are on ra.

I also always insist on refs from last the LLs. Because last one might be being nice to get someone to move on.

beauf

The Govt could set up a system of good references for RA client. Making them preferred clients for LL's, over non RA clients. They won't though for a myriad of reasons.

Gatling

beauf wrote: »

The Govt could set up a system of good references for RA client. Making them preferred clients for LL's, over non RA clients. They won't though for a myriad of reasons.

A simple data base of those on rent supplement that's list's complaints against tenants including those involved in anti social or fraud

McGrath5

This new piece of useless legislation does nothing to address the problem on the ground.

The government needs to start building social housing for the large section of society who simply cannot afford to purchase their own property.

handlemaster

K.Flyer wrote: »

Would it not be a lot simpler to just ask for references from their previous landlord and letting agent. I am sure any history of late payments and property damage would be justification for refusal.
Conversely, by asking for and checking these two pieces of information, landlords may actually find very suitable tenants who are on RA.
I have seen properties ruined by both RA tenants and so called professional tenants and I have also seen properties being kept immaculately clean with no issues by both. Maybe its time for a better vetting process, rather than indiscriminately profiling either way.

Do you not know Landlords give the best references , who wants a bad tenant that wont be taken in by some other fool as has been done to them

Gatling

McGrath5 wrote: »

The government needs to start building social housing for the large section of society who simply cannot afford to purchase their own property.

sense of entitlement needs to be corrected it's rediculous someone can leave school at 17 or 18 or have and go straight on to the housing list and sit there till there housed 12+ years time .

dissed doc

beauf wrote: »

+1 it is that simple.

its just the Govt dragging their heels, not sorting out the problem. The Govt has made it so the LL has no power. Make RA an attractive business for the LL end of problem. Saying losses can be covered by insurance, is just kicking the can somewhere else, insurance companies.

That is the whole point TBF. The hierarchy is Government > Welfare-receiving voters > Tax paying voters > People who have a claim on the income of the welfare group (landlords, services companies, etc., ).

Landlords are in competition with the government, they will always lose. The government wants a solid core welfare group who can be used vor voting blocs. That requires the welfare receiver to get the money every month themselves, it is psychological, the pocket money from daddy, so to speak. They do not bite the hand that feeds.

dissed doc

McGrath5 wrote: »

This new piece of useless legislation does nothing to address the problem on the ground.

The government needs to start building social housing for the large section of society who simply cannot afford to purchase their own property.

Ireland has a conflict between people who want stuff for nothing, like you, and people who for some reason work to earn to pay for themselves. The government is not a parent, despite what it has become. If you cannot afford to purchase property like 99% of the planet, rent. The amount of infants in Ireland is now around 45% of the population. No wonder we are always hearing about our young population compared to the rest of the EU. We are swamped with children, in fact.

handlemaster

McGrath5 wrote: »

This new piece of useless legislation does nothing to address the problem on the ground.

The government needs to start building social housing for the large section of society who simply cannot afford to purchase their own property.

Put another way people who work must pay for free housing for those who don't.

MarkAnthony

dissed doc wrote: »

Ireland has a conflict between people who want stuff for nothing, like you, and people who for some reason work to earn to pay for themselves. The government is not a parent, despite what it has become. If you cannot afford to purchase property like 99% of the planet, rent. The amount of infants in Ireland is now around 45% of the population. No wonder we are always hearing about our young population compared to the rest of the EU. We are swamped with children, in fact.

That's absolute and utter rubbish. I am more than happy to pay tax that goes to house people who are less well off. I'm all for social housing, I'm for that social housing being diffused into all areas including Donnybrook and Darndale but I object to my private property being co-opted by an incompetent and inept government.

It's impossible to agree with your ridiculous position for the simple fact that rents are so high. Some people need a leg up and I'd rather live in that society than ghettoise the majority of the population while I sit in my compound paying very little tax.

No if you want to move people who have been unemployed in Dublin for >5 years out of social housing and down to Kerry I'm all for it but tarring every low income person with the 'you want something for nothing' brush is just silly.

Eric Cartman

K.Flyer wrote: »

Would it not be a lot simpler to just ask for references from their previous landlord and letting agent. I am sure any history of late payments and property damage would be justification for refusal.
Conversely, by asking for and checking these two pieces of information, landlords may actually find very suitable tenants who are on RA.
I have seen properties ruined by both RA tenants and so called professional tenants and I have also seen properties being kept immaculately clean with no issues by both. Maybe its time for a better vetting process, rather than indiscriminately profiling either way.

if a professional tenant does damage to your property you can bring them to court and be awarded a judgement for the repairs. A welfare tenant you will either be found against, it will be thrown out or at best case you'll have a her a week ordered to you, which you will never get and spend more money than its worth bringing it back to court.

If the government pre-paid the full rent and a 2 month deposit and covered for any damages, had the premesis professionally cleaned at their expense after the tenancy has ended , and had an office like a letting agent that dealt with all the noise complaints / antisocial behaviour incidents / lost key incidents and the swift eviction of problem tenants, then id say a lot of landlords would be all too happy to accept RA.

this will just be another method of re-enforcing RA as the artificial floor below which no rental property worth giving a crap about will ever be available for.

hardCopy

Stupid idea. If landlords want nothing to do with the scheme the solution is to make it more attractive.

The local authority should be signing fixed term leases and paying directly to the landlord. If the tenant does any damage it should for the LA to fix and chase the tenant for costs. Or you know, provide social housing, instead of expecting the private sector to provide it out of the goodness of their hearts.

This does nothing for the housing shortage as even if more RA tenants get properties it'll still mean non RA tenants lose out.

Riverireland

<mod snip>

Some people don't understand that because you believe social housing should be provided you are not in need of it yourself. Personally I don't find it challenging, but others just can't get their heads around it at all!

The Randy Riverbeast

Wont do much good in the areas where housing is in demand. For galway its 540 for a couple, 300 sharing. Would need a child before it reaches enough for a 1 bed.

If a place is going for the RA rate then there probably wont be that much demand anyway so the LL is more likely to accept RA.