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

4ensic15

Calhoun wrote: »

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

European Human Rights Reports

"(2010) 51 E.H.R.R. 32: RADOVICI v ROMANIAJust satisfaction (article 41)

H12 (a) The applicants were entitled to compensation for the pecuniary damage resulting from their inability to receive rent for several years. The applicants were entitled to compensation for the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the various legal proceedings they were required to endure to recover their property, as well as from the distress related at their advanced age, amounting to an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment."

The above is from a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights. There are further comments on the practise of insisting on formalities as being out of all proportion to the hardship caused.

About time there was some attempt to force this on the PRTB.

athtrasna

While politics is involved in this thread, random political ranting or name calling has no place here.

Mod

Gatling

CatFromHue wrote: »

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

Yeah but it needs consent from both parties where it should be mandatory to be paid directly to landlords

handlemaster

Gatling wrote: »

Yeah but it needs consent from both parties where it should be mandatory to be paid directly to landlords

Tenant has all the power can stop payments direct to landlord at any time... bye bye rent money

Gatling

handlemaster wrote: »

Tenant has all the power can stop payments direct to landlord at any time... bye bye rent money

That's also true ,

CatFromHue

Gatling wrote: »

Yeah but it needs consent from both parties where it should be mandatory to be paid directly to landlords

Yeah I thought that.

The guy on the show was saying he was quite happy with the situation as he was guaranteed rent as the council would be paying it.

I didn't know it could be stopped that easily though.

Gatling

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah I thought that.

The guy on the show was saying he was quite happy with the situation as he was guaranteed rent as the council would be paying it.

I didn't know it could be stopped that easily though.

That sounds like either the RAS scheme or longterm leasing with the council rather than rent supplement which is paid by social welfare until the HAP scheme is fully in place.

With a lot of complaints when rent supplement isn't passed on social welfare bury there heads in the sand and say any issues is strictly between the tenant and landlord despite the majority of the rent supplement coming directly from social welfare

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

A LL should be allowed to decide who rents his property. All the legislation in the world won't stop this, the real reason for refusing people will just need to be kept quiet.

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

What's really needed is the power for a LL to land people out on their ear within about a month of damage or rent stopping being paid. It's total nonsense that it can drag on for years even, tenants shouldn't be protected like this.

4ensic15

If there is a dispute where it is complained that the tenant is not paying the tenant should have to pay the rent to the PRTB to maintain their appeal. Otherwise they should be straight out.

April 73

4ensic15 wrote: »

If there is a dispute where it is complained that the tenant is not paying the tenant should have to pay the rent to the PRTB to maintain their appeal. Otherwise they should be straight out.

That's a beautifully simple & brilliant idea. A landlord cannot evict a tenant during the PRTB dispute but a tenant can stop paying very easily. Very uneven situation.
If only that idea could be implemented.

c montgomery

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Homeless are not a landlords problem they are the government's problem.
A landlord has to get the best deal for themselves and have to be allowed to decide who they rent their 6 figure asset to.

The government spend 120 million on homeless each year, enough to rent 6000 homes at 20k a year. I'm guessing alot of this funds the wages of the many organisations who are helping out however.

the_syco

steddyeddy wrote: »

You know that this legislation is being brought in to help cut the homeless situation?

By decreasing the amount of homes to rent? How odd.

And even if you don't agree with me on this, you have to agree that it's not providing more homes. Opening the doors to more people will just mean more obstacles in place for those on lower income.

the_syco

c montgomery wrote: »

The government spend 120 million on homeless each year, enough to rent 6000 homes at 20k a year. I'm guessing alot of this funds the wages of the many organisations who are helping out however.

Although many homeless want a home, many don't. Their demons prevent them from settling down. And then there's the one with mental problems that are on the street when the mental hospitals closed down.

davo10

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Private landlords are not responsible for solving the "homeless situation". Bank managers do not care about philanthropic intentions, they care about repayments being made.

4ensic15

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

So what. All this legislation will do is make homelessness worse. Not a single extra unit of accommodation will be provided though this legislation and many units will be withdrawn from the rental market. If anyone could have thought of a more cack-handed way to improve the lot of the homeless I would be very surprised. Are there going to be salaried government employees going about enforcing this nonsense and trying to prosecute landlords? Are they going to find evidence which will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason a particular person was not given a flat was because they were on rent allowance? The mind boggles.

orl

Tasden wrote: »

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

Didn't realise that about coming off the housing list. thanks

delthedriver

As a landlord I would prefer to keep a property vacant than go through the trauma of another RA Tennant. Indeed I am aware of a number of landlords. who are doing this already.

handlemaster

delthedriver wrote: »

As a landlord I would prefer to keep a property vacant than go through the trauma of another RA Tennant. Indeed I am aware of a number of landlords. who are doing this already.

Hell hath no fury like a welfare tenant intent on been a c@#/t

delthedriver

handlemaster wrote: »

Hell hath no fury like a welfare tenant intent on been a c@#/t

Yes indeed !

Meadhbus

Okay, so I'm on back to education, planning on moving to Cork to go to UCC next year, in which case I'll probably need rent allowance. But needing rent allowance does not, in any way, make me a problem tenant. If I were to get a reference from my current landlord, would that put any of the landlords here minds' at rest?

delthedriver

Meadhbus wrote: »

Okay, so I'm on back to education, planning on moving to Cork to go to UCC next year, in which case I'll probably need rent allowance. But needing rent allowance does not, in any way, make me a problem tenant. If I were to get a reference from my current landlord, would that put any of the landlords here minds' at rest?

Probably not, you are a student and on Rent Allowance. ! Not an attractive risk , sorry !!!