Article: Landlords can no longer refuse rent supplement tenants

El_Dangeroso

No idea how this can be practically enforced:

http://www.businesspost.ie/landlords-can-no-longer-refuse-rent-supplement-tenants/

All the landlord has to do is say 'work reference required' or something similar.

Speedwell

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

...All the landlord has to do is say 'work reference required' or something similar.

I don't know. Perhaps they will, at first, but if that practice is seen as identical in practice to excluding people on rent assistance, it will probably be challenged. I mean, everyone knows what that language really means.

Jasper79

or even " Professionals Only", lots of ways around it, was a bit of pointless exercise except be to be seen to be doing something.

Gatling

Won't make a difference landlords and agencies will just advertise properties above and beyond rent supplement limits as is currently happening

TheChizler

Hasn't stopped plenty of landlords explicitly stating "no rent allowance": http://www.daft.ie/ireland/rooms-to-share/?s%5Broom_type%5D=either&s%5Badvanced%5D=1&s%5Bgender%5D=on&s%5Btxt%5D=rent+allowance&searchSource=sharing

Interestingly it's the advertiser who can get in trouble as well. Would it not be better to not have the advertiser filter the ads, so non compliant landlords can be exposed?

Butters1979

The way i read this is landlords can no longer say it's because of rent allowance. But a LL does not have to tell you why they don't want to let the place to you. As far as I'm concerned anyone should be allowed to chose exactly who they let live in their property.

The rental market is not a public service. It's private enterprise.

pc7

Just say you need a deposit, a years Irish Water deposit and that rules out most RA tenants, stupid ruling.

Sleepy

It's a case of creating legislation to be seen to be doing "something" about the housing crisis.

The effects of the legislation will be non-existant (unless some gobdaw sets out to test it in court by openly admitting they're discriminating on the basis of rental assistance / continues to include "Rent Allowance not accepted" etc. in their advertising.

SarahMollie

They had the ombudsman on Newstalk this morning. Admitted it would be hard to enforce, but said she was optimistic that a change in the law would bring about a change in peoples mindsets, as happened with the smoking ban etc.


She also cited lots of current examples of this still being on the property websites - perhaps they're not enforcing it until there is greater awareness. I personally hadn't heard about it until this morning, but then again, I'm not a landlord.


Seems very optimistic to me but we shall see.

pc7

The more I think on this the more it bugs me, who the hell are they to think they can tell landlords who to take into their properties. The reason I will never ever take a RA tenant again is down to a number of reasons, 1) the paperwork, I don't know how many times I filled it in and different forms (I also objected to the tenant knowing my personal address) 2) no deposit given 3) the rent being paid to them, it should be lodged directly to the landlord 4) they cleared out my property took everything. Now I know there are good RA tenants and all that but I will never go there again ever, no matter what the 'law' says.
ETA - I rang SW to let them know they'd left the property and took everything with it and were no longer in the country, turns out they were still paying them RA!

the groutch

All this will do is cause landlords to raise rents so RA tenants can't afford to rent their properties.
Then the gubberment/councils will raise RA, landlords will raise rents again, and it becomes a vicious circle, with the real victims being those actually working on lower end wages, being completely priced out of the rental market.

Calhoun

This annoys the he'll out of me and I'm not even a landlord, i would be putting up deposit to two months and be very strict on references before I let annoy live in my house.

davo10

Calhoun wrote: »

This annoys the he'll out of me and I'm not even a landlord, i would be putting up deposit to two months and be very strict on references before I let annoy live in my house.

This. LLs just ask for 2 months deposit plus one month in advance of signing the lease. Also, there is absolutely no restriction on what rent can be charged for a new rental so LLs just need to check what RA rate is for the area and set monthly rate well above this. In the end, all that has happened is that the new legislation enacted in December plus this beauty will push up new rentals country wide, great for LLs, disaster for all tenants.

Speedwell

davo10 wrote: »

This. LLs just ask for 2 months deposit plus one month in advance of signing the lease. Also, there is absolutely no restriction on what rent can be charged for a new rental so LLs just need to check what RA rate is for the area and set monthly rate well above this. In the end, all that has happened is that the new legislation enacted in December plus this beauty will push up new rentals country wide, great for LLs, disaster for all tenants.

Well, that's going to do wonders for the overall housing situation, I'm sure. After all, people on rent supplement are not going to turn around and get mortgages instead. What a human rights disaster that will be.

Also, it doesn't occur to me that there will be a rush of landlords setting their rents well above what people are able to pay. After all, I presume they actually want to rent their properties.

webpal

So how is this meant to work? I rent out a house at €1,000 a month. Person comes to view and says will I take RA, I say yes. Do I now have to lower the rent? Am I now discriminating cos I wont lower the rent?

_Kaiser_

the groutch wrote: »

All this will do is cause landlords to raise rents so RA tenants can't afford to rent their properties.
Then the gubberment/councils will raise RA, landlords will raise rents again, and it becomes a vicious circle, with the real victims being those actually working on lower end wages, being completely priced out of the rental market.

Not just those, but anyone who is renting will suffer higher prices as a result.
Landlords will just raise rents above RA limits and/or insist on things like work references or higher deposits to get around this.

Another half-assed inadequate solution from a Government that is more concerned about getting us all back on the Property Ladder than really addressing the housing issues in this country.

Ballymun towers may have become unfashionable and a hotbed of antisocial behavior and drugs, but a modern take on that idea is what's needed, not pushing people further and further out (and then wondering why the M50 is gridlocked in the mornings) as is currently the approach.

_Kaiser_

webpal wrote: »

So how is this meant to work? I rent out a house at €1,000 a month. Person comes to view and says will I take RA, I say yes. Do I now have to lower the rent? Am I now discriminating cos I wont lower the rent?

No, you can set the rent at whatever limit you like. If the RA tenant can't meet that because the limit is lower than what you want then that's not your issue... or you could insist on 2 months deposit (which would probably eliminate them from the running as well) or work/previous LL references.

But seeing as "market rents" are generally significantly higher than RA limits as it is now (even before this latest fudge) then in reality it'll make no difference to those struggling to find a place to live.

Mitzy

pc7 wrote: »

The more I think on this the more it bugs me, who the hell are they to think they can tell landlords who to take into their properties. The reason I will never ever take a RA tenant again is down to a number of reasons, 1) the paperwork, I don't know how many times I filled it in and different forms (I also objected to the tenant knowing my personal address) 2) no deposit given 3) the rent being paid to them, it should be lodged directly to the landlord 4) they cleared out my property took everything. Now I know there are good RA tenants and all that but I will never go there again ever, no matter what the 'law' says.
ETA - I rang SW to let them know they'd left the property and took everything with it and were no longer in the country, turns out they were still paying them RA!

I agree 100%. I was stung for 4 months rent by a previous tenant who's rent allowance ran out & then simply refused to pay me. I ended up in mortgage arrears and my credit rating was damaged as a result. I will never go there again with a RA tenant unless they can pay me 6 months rent upfront. It's simply too risky.
I know it's harsh but there needs to be protection offered for landlords.

anothernight

Well, why would they improve their system when they can just ban the more attractive alternative? :rolleyes:

If taking a RA tenant wasn't so much hassle (paperwork, late payments, no recourse if tenant doesn't pay or damages the place, etc) many people would want to rent to RA tenants, if only because it would be a guaranteed rent. But hey, fixing the system is probably too much effort for the government, so why bother when they can just pretend to be doing something about it instead.

doolox

The reality is that the level of rent supplement or laws against discrimination will not affect the level of rents charged. If a landlord is given a choice between a tenant at RA rates and a tenant at higher rate of course he will pick the higher rate.

The government need to build a lot of houses and rent them out to people directly. At the very least they need to set up semi private companies staffed by qualified and trained people to obtain, build or refurbish housing units to a certain standard to supply the market in a controlled and planned way to dampen the rise in rent that is now taking place in Dublin due to scarcity.

Somewhere I read that there are 1400 houses available for rent in Dublin, there are 500000 housing units altogether in Dublin 1/3 of which are rented meaning that 166000 units are rented at any time. This means that less than 1% are available for rent at the moment. Either the time between rents has shrunk dramatically or a lot of rentals are changing hands very quickly without recourse to advertising or agencies to publicise their availability. Without some visibilty in a public forum it will be very difficult to police or monitor compliance to any rental laws.

The government need to soften demand for housing by competing with private landlords in supplying housing. Given the costs and complexities involved this will probably be very difficult unless the government can do the job of landlord tax free. The EU probably won't allow this.

rossmores

When renting my priorities are that a tenant will be able to pay the rent and will respect the unit and others in the building.
In my experience RA require more attention, administration, insurance costs and are less responsible than non RA tenants who pay the same rent.
If there is a fine, is it an incentive for the RA to report and be rewarded for same.
There are a lot less properties on the rental market and increasing interference is evidently not helping the problem.

_Kaiser_

Mitzy wrote: »

I agree 100%. I was stung for 4 months rent by a previous tenant who's rent allowance ran out & then simply refused to pay me. I ended up in mortgage arrears and my credit rating was damaged as a result. I will never go there again with a RA tenant unless they can pay me 6 months rent upfront. It's simply too risky.
I know it's harsh but there needs to be protection offered for landlords.

I agree with this (as a "professional" tenant myself) - LL's need an efficient and enforceable way to recoup the cost of any damages or unpaid rent (because ultimately the actions of such people damage those of us who do treat it as a service and respect the property accordingly) - after all there's legislation now to be able to deduct LPT and court-ordered unpaid bills from source so it's not impossible.

Against that though, tenants equally need stronger protections against amateur/cowboy landlords - we see on this forum every week cases where the tenant is in the right in a dispute, but the advice is "you might as well get used to the idea of moving regardless" (because either way it's going to become untenable for them).

Really what we need is a shift away from this idea that renting is a short-term stopgap on the glorious road to property ownership and "dead money" in favour of a recognition of what it could/should be.. a long term home for those who either can't afford, or don't want to be saddled with a mortgage.

The reality is that NO-ONE is "entitled" to own property and there are many people who won't (for a variety of reasons). Rather than viewing these people as "peasants", we need to reform our system to ensure that home ownership and renting are in fact equally viable and valid choices.

Until that happens we'll never solve the housing issues in this country.

snubbleste

pc7 wrote: »

. (I also objected to the tenant knowing my personal address)

A tenant is entitled by law to know the landlord's address.

pc7

snubbleste wrote: »

A tenant is entitled by law to know the landlord's address.

I still object to it, doesn't mean the law is right. I rang SW with my address as I wouldn't give it to the Tenant. If they know I'm out at work or out of the country I don't know these people. The PRTB have my address as do Revenue that should be enough, I'm a compliant (and decent) landlord.

Speedwell

pc7 wrote: »

I still object to it, doesn't mean the law is right. I rang SW with my address as I wouldn't give it to the Tenant. If they know I'm out at work or out of the country I don't know these people. The PRTB have my address as do Revenue that should be enough, I'm a compliant (and decent) landlord.

If you're that paranoid and mistrustful of people with whom you choose to do business, then perhaps it is not the right business for you.

pc7

Speedwell wrote: »

If you're that paranoid and mistrustful of people with whom you choose to do business, then perhaps it is not the right business for you.

My personal home is just that my personal home, nothing to do with business, they can have my business address.

Anyway don't want to derail the thread. Back on topic this law is an ass IMO as are many others interfering with the private rental market.

snubbleste

Good to get a reminder of this as I've to advertise a room in my houseshare soon. Will be going with "professional only" rather than no RA on the ad.

snubbleste wrote: »

A tenant is entitled by law to know the landlord's address.

If true this is beyond stupid, I wouldn't give it to any tenant if I was renting out a place.

Speedwell

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

If true this is beyond stupid.

Good to get a reminder of this as I've to advertise a room in my houseshare soon. Will be going with "professional only" rather than no RA on the ad.

Right, because then nobody will know what you're up to. Good thinking.

snubbleste

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

.. If true this is beyond stupid, I wouldn't give it to any tenant if I was renting out a place.

Well then you'd be breaking the law
Rent Book.
5. (1) The landlord of a house to which these Regulations apply shall—
( a ) on the commencement of a tenancy, or ( b ) where a tenancy exists on the date on which these Regulations come into operation, within two months from such date,
provide the tenant of such house with a rent book or other documentation to the like effect (referred to in either case in these Regulations as "the rent book").
(2) The landlord shall, on provision of the rent book, enter therein in clearly legible writing—
( a ) the address of the house, ( b ) the name and address of the landlord and, if the landlord has duly appointed an agent, of such agent,

get a room

1 Rent allowance with work references required
2 Rent allowance with market rent and two months deposit.

Aka Ishur

First and last month rent up front plus one month deposit is going to become the norm awfully fast.