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

Riverireland

There is a major unemployment problem currently. People with degrees and masters are working as interns for next to nothing. They are getting older and will want to settle down and have family's. They are going to have to live somewhere and there is very little rented accommodation available. The only logical solution is social housing. Unless you can come up with a better, feasible solution which you have given no indication of yet.

ronkmonster

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.

My tennant has gone onto a RAS scheme in Wexford. I get the money direct from council and in advance. The council also holds a deposit amount. Tennant pays a small amount to the council.

Exclamation Marc

At the viewing;
Landlord; "so what do you do for a living?"
Viewer: "Oh I'm on RA"
Landlord: "I see, so what do you think of the place?"
(Carry on viewing - make no mention of RA again)

Landlord removes viewer from running and selects someone "more suitable".

Legislation bypassed. What a waste of time.

athtrasna

Dissed doc and McGrath 5 please do not post on this thread again and familiarise yourselves with the Accommodation and Property forum charter before posting in this forum again

Mod

Jaketherake

At this point anyone house hunting should offer up the fact that they are working, along with references without being asked.
Because if they dont, then it will just be assumed that they are on RA by any landlord.
Landlord wont have to ask anything. He just checks out all of the references he has been handed.

When I was called by the local CWO and asked would I rent my property to them I said "sure, of course I will. I'll give it to you at market rate for 5 years and when you are done with it you give it back to me in the same state you got it in. You deal with your own tenants and the trouble and damage they cause and i'll see you in 5 years." My offer was declined.

4ensic15

One likely thing to happen is that LLs will ask for 3 months bank statements at viewings. No sign of a salary lodgement every month will be the end of the road for some prospective tenancies.

Nomis21

RA/RS is being replaced very shortly (already in some areas) by HAP (Housing assistance payment).

Landlord is paid the full rent directly by the council which will take over responsibility from from Social welfare. Tenant's contribution will be deducted automatically by DSP from tenants social welfare payment.

It might take a few years for LL's to realise though.

orl

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

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!

I disagree that the equality tribunal is useless The ET was responsible for the Sheehy Skeffington case which has transformed recruitment and promotion in the third level sector.

Here is a recent significant case on sexual harassment which got alot of media coverage - see the attached article in the examiner:
http://bit.ly/1JznaQJ
The Equality tribunal don't need to enforce their awards. This is done in the Circuit court. I think you are getting the Equality Tribunal mixed up with the EAT.

orl

hardCopy wrote: »

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.

This system exists. It's called RAS. It's a tripartitie arrangement between the council a private landlord and a tenant.

the_syco

foggy_lad wrote: »

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!

And said tenants are now probably making someones house a hole inthe ground.

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.

They want a free house, they better be prepared to move for it.

See no point in paying good money for land just because it's close to Dublin.

Jaketherake

Nomis21 wrote: »

RA/RS is being replaced very shortly (already in some areas) by HAP (Housing assistance payment).

Landlord is paid the full rent directly by the council which will take over responsibility from from Social welfare. Tenant's contribution will be deducted automatically by DSP from tenants social welfare payment.

It might take a few years for LL's to realise though.

Does that scheme remove the risk for the landlord if they get a bad tenant who trashes it decides to make life hell for the neighbours ?

Until whatever scheme is flavour of the month takes responsibility for fixing things with their tenants when they go wrong, nothing will change.

Tasden

orl wrote: »

This system exists. It's called RAS. It's a tripartitie arrangement between the council a private landlord and a tenant.

The problem with ras is that the people are then considered housed and taken off the housing list. Then after 5 (?) years when the lease expires and its not renewed for whatever reason they are back to square one and lower down the housing list, so no better off long term, whereas those who rent privately in the mean time remain on the list.

Although the new housing assistance payment being brought in works the same way as ras iirc, in that once you receive the payment you're no longer deemed in need of housing and are taken off the list.

And not a lot of landlords accept ras either afaik

markpb

Nomis21 wrote: »

RA/RS is being replaced very shortly (already in some areas) by HAP (Housing assistance payment).

Landlord is paid the full rent directly by the council which will take over responsibility from from Social welfare. Tenant's contribution will be deducted automatically by DSP from tenants social welfare payment.

They've been working on that scheme for years - what's taking so long?

Riverireland

Riverireland wrote: »

There is a major unemployment problem currently.

The unemployment situation is not that bad at the moment, an awful lot of people are back in work.

Riverireland wrote: »

People with degrees and masters are working as interns for next to nothing. They are getting older and will want to settle down and have family's. They are going to have to live somewhere and there is very little rented accommodation available. The only logical solution is social housing. Unless you can come up with a better, feasible solution which you have given no indication of yet.

I'm sorry but it's not the governments job or taxpayers job to provide free or almost free houses for people who want to proceed with their life and family etc but without the means to do it themselves. If you can't afford to buy and can't afford to rent or can't find a place then plans have to be put off and people stay living at home. It's madness that people expect to be housed. If I was out of work and couldn't afford rent then I'd move home simple as that as would most people brought up with the mentality of paying their own way, I also wouldn't dream of starting a family unless I had the means to do it myself.

Flatzie_poo

Gannon Dead Cheesecake wrote: »

I also wouldn't dream of starting a family unless I had the means to do it myself.

Agreed - I think some people see doing this as a quick pass to getting bumped up on the social housing ladder.

A family friend is a RA tenant who smokes. That really irks me.

aido79

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

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.

If only insurance companies could introduce a kind of third party insurance for tenants. This could be used to cover damages to a landlords property, loss of rental income etc. A tenants premium could be based on their record and would be increased if a claim is made as is the case with car insurance claims and similarly a no claims bonus could be applied for tenants with a good record.
Premiums wouldn't have to be as expensive as car insurance premiums as most tenants are generally good but it would protect landlords against the smaller percentage of bad tenants and give them some piece of mind.

Gatling

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

A family friend is a RA tenant who smokes. That really irks me.

Awful

Gatling

They should scrap the housing list for but the most needy or people with disabilities ,
You then make everyone responsible for their own housing needs ,
If someone gets into trouble then they should only ever get a short term payment for rents ,

beauf

I'm no fan of the current system but I think that's a bit harsh. Would you prefer to see more homeless people like the USA. I don't think anyone would.

Calhoun

Be interesting to see if landlords could sue the goverment for damages if they were forced to rent to folk on RA.

Gatling

beauf wrote: »

I'm no fan of the current system but I think that's a bit harsh. Would you prefer to see more homeless people like the USA. I don't think anyone would.

It won't make them homeless but theres no way people should get to sit on there behinds for in a lot of cases 10+ years using been on rent supplement excuse as to why they can't get meaningful employment or single mothers having the idea of they can't go back to work till there youngest finishes school ,

Take the lifestyle choices out of the equation and things can improve ,

IvyTheTerrible

I don't understand why the RA payment doesn't go direct to the landlord. That's how it works here in France, you even have landlords who only take RA because it's a guaranteed rent.

Gatling

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I don't understand why the RA payment doesn't go direct to the landlord. That's how it works here in France, you even have landlords who only take RA because it's a guaranteed rent.

It goes back to pre electronic banking and landlords physically collected rents ,
It just never moved with the times ,it's stupid then when landlords contact with social welfare to complain there not getting paid by a ra tenants welfare don't want to know because its a issue between the tenant and landlord despite it been welfares money that's been misused

Oink

- I'm a tenant, with no hope of buying
- I can just about afford my rent.

Still, I think there are people trying to take potshots at landlords instead of fixing the problem. This is not great mother soviet russia. The reason why my rent is so high is because the successive gubinments did not fix the housing crisis. The reason why LLs do not want to accept rent allowance is because the system is ridiculous ( + other considerations ... ).

Again, I'm paying through the nose, but I don't see how any of this is my LL's problem!

Exclamation Marc

<mod snip>

Yep, landlords are easy targets. How dare we decide what to do with private property that we purchased and carry the burden of.

beauf

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I don't understand why the RA payment doesn't go direct to the landlord. That's how it works here in France, you even have landlords who only take RA because it's a guaranteed rent.

Calhoun wrote: »

Be interesting to see if landlords could sue the goverment for damages if they were forced to rent to folk on RA.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like this to me. The Govt isn't dealing with the LL but with the tenants. The LL is a third party. So they can't share information with them, or deal with them directly. The LL can't sue the Govt. The Govt removed themselves from any risk. The tenant & LL carry all the risk. Which is another reason why its not attractive to LL's.

CatFromHue

Gatling wrote: »

It goes back to pre electronic banking and landlords physically collected rents ,
It just never moved with the times ,it's stupid then when landlords contact with social welfare to complain there not getting paid by a ra tenants welfare don't want to know because its a issue between the tenant and landlord despite it been welfares money that's been misused

Is there not a system where the rent can go directly to the LL, it just has to get consent for both sides.

I could be wrong but there's a youngish guy who was a few RTE programmes as he's owns a few properties and is a landlord and I thought that's how he went about it

Calhoun

beauf wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like this to me. The Govt isn't dealing with the LL but with the tenants. The LL is a third party. So they can't share information with them, or deal with them directly. The LL can't sue the Govt. The Govt removed themselves from any risk. The tenant & LL carry all the risk. Which is another reason why its not attractive to LL's.

Ya i was just wondering if this would open them up to liability since they are making it mandatory to not discriminate based upon RA, essentially trying to force the issue.

steddyeddy

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

I think the point of the legislation is to reduce discrimination due to stereotyping. Where I live in England objected to people of darker skin moving into the area for fear they'd "wreck the place". I'm sorry about your property but I lived in plenty that were later destroyed by students ect.

steddyeddy

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.

Sorry but this is a pretty sh1tty attitude. You know that this legislation is being brought in to help cut the homeless situation?