Article: Landlords can no longer refuse rent supplement tenants

davo10

Speedwell wrote: »

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.

It is not up to LLs to "do wonders for the overall housing situation", it is up to the LL to achieve the highest possible return on an expensive asset and to have good tenants in it.

As long as there are insufficient rental properties and restrictions on mortgages, tents will increase. This bone headed policy will just add to the problem. LLs don't want to rent to RA recipients because it is far too much hassle and because if things go wrong, it's nigh on impossible to get an errant tenant out. If they want to improve the situation, make it easier to evict th bad ones and get the good ones in.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Speedwell wrote: »

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

Who cares if anyone "knows" what he is "up to" (though why being concerned about protecting an investment worth hundreds of thousands should be considered being "up to" anything)? He's not breaking the law, so can do what he likes, and rightly so.

Butters1979

Speedwell wrote: »

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.

It's not LL's responsibility to fix the housing crisis.

Bistoman

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

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.

The assumption is that all in receipt of rent allowance are unemployed. Some family's and low paid workers are entitled to rent allowance.
I don't think you need to be employed to rent a property so any reference should be acceptable, Not just from a "Boss" .

pc7

Bistoman wrote: »

I don't think you need to be employed to rent a property so any reference should be acceptable, Not just from a "Boss" .

If someone isn't employed it could be viewed they will be in the house more so then there will be more wear and tear (this came up recently on another thread here in terms of a house share). Some stated that they wouldn't want to share with someone not working as bills etc. would be bigger. Again its a private property and if the landlord wants an employer reference they should be entitled to ask for that.

the_syco

I see it as;

Landlords forced to charge 10% more than local SW rates
http://www.businesspost.ie/landlords-can-no-longer-refuse-rent-supplement-tenants/

So instead of being allowed to say no, everyone gets punished?

Rent and deposit up front. If they can't do so, tough sh|t.

Bistoman

pc7 wrote: »

If someone isn't employed it could be viewed they will be in the house more so then there will be more wear and tear (this came up recently on another thread here in terms of a house share). Some stated that they wouldn't want to share with someone not working as bills etc. would be bigger. Again its a private property and if the landlord wants an employer reference they should be entitled to ask for that.

I have rented in the past as a student, and by far the person who came from the most privileged background ( He is a professor now ) was responsible for the most ware and tear on the house. Over 4 years and a number of different tenants passing trough, It was the people looking for work and on RA that had more care for all the shared areas than the spoiled little princes who could care less for the LL property.
I'm just saying that it's a terrible idea to think that just because You are on hard times, You suddenly decide to kick holes in the walls.

pc7

Im shocked how low the rates are (especially for Dublin). Quick search shows not much available in dublin at those rates, so landlords shouldn't have an issue.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Maximum-Rent-Limits-by-County.aspx

ec18

Would this apply to sharing as well....say I'm getting a replacement for myself into a two bed apartment and the other occupant doesn't want to live with someone on RA, can we advertise the room as no RA?

Elemonator

Sorry if I'm missing the bigger picture, but shouldn't landlords be able to refuse anyone if they want? After all, it is their property that is already heavily regulated.

Appreciate if someone could explain the situation.

pc7

Bistoman wrote: »

I have rented in the past as a student, and by far the person who came from the most privileged background ( He is a professor now ) was responsible for the most ware and tear on the house. Over 4 years and a number of different tenants passing trough, It was the people looking for work and on RA that had more care for all the shared areas than the spoiled little princes who could care less for the LL property.
I'm just saying that it's a terrible idea to think that just because You are on hard times, You suddenly decide to kick holes in the walls.

Agree 100% was just making the point that had been made, listen we all know there are good RA tenants and bad RA tenants, there are good private tenants and bad. The bottom line that I think most landlords would agree on is that the Government is not helping, if they want to help, give deposits to RA tenants, increase RA where possible to stop families going into hotels, pay rent from RA tenants directly to landlords to remove the issue of non payment. There is no consequence in my experience with a RA tenant from keeping the rent the government gave him for me! In my eyes that's fraud and theft.

athtrasna

Mod note

There's a politics forum if you want to go off on an anti government rant. Please stick to the accommodation and property aspect. Several posts have had to be deleted.

Thanks

CIARAN_BOYLE

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.

So you are non resident? Right so I will give 20% of my rent directly to revenue and you can claim that back when making your return.

anothernight

Elemonator wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing the bigger picture, but shouldn't landlords be able to refuse anyone if they want? After all, it is their property that is already heavily regulated.

Appreciate if someone could explain the situation.

Sigh. My more succinct post got deleted, so I'll have to explain it without mentioning the government. Please excuse the much increased length and overuse of the passive voice.

In an ideal world, landlords should be able to choose who they let into their property. The problem is that there seems to be a shortage on rental properties. The RA system is inconvenient because the allowance is very low, it requires the landlord to deal with paperwork, it is paid to the tenant and not to the landlord, its payment can be delayed or stopped for various reasons, and if the tenant receives it but chooses not to pay the rent, there's very little consequence on the tenant. So for ages people would openly refuse RA.

Some people think the solution is to increase social housing to meet demand, but a solution is needed for the here and now. For whatever reason, the chosen option is to ban this RA refusal. It's not exactly enforceable, but if a way to enforce it is found, it may have unintended consequences such as overall rent increases.

I'm of the opinion that I* should be able to choose who I rent my property to as long as I don't infringe any of the grounds of discrimination. Why are landlords now banned from refusing certain tenants? That's anyone's guess. I can't give you my guess because my post will be deleted again if I do, but hopefully the explanation above will help you to make up your own mind.


*Hypothetically, as I currently rent.

Barely Hedged

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

So you are non resident? Right so I will give 20% of my rent directly to revenue and you can claim that back when making your return.

Irrelevant. I can assign anybody in Ireland to collect my rent and avoid the 20% reassignment. Personal addresses are not up for discussion. It doesn't happen in any other business

TheChizler

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Personal addresses are not up for discussion. It doesn't happen in any other business

Sure it does. Personal addresses are generally your business address when you're self employed. Now if you were the CEO of a limited company that owned the property you would only give the address of the business.

REXER

pc7 wrote: »

If someone isn't employed it could be viewed they will be in the house more so then there will be more wear and tear (this came up recently on another thread here in terms of a house share). Some stated that they wouldn't want to share with someone not working as bills etc. would be bigger. Again its a private property and if the landlord wants an employer reference they should be entitled to ask for that.

So how would you feel about a stay at home housewife? Just curious.

pc7

REXER wrote: »

So how would you feel about a stay at home housewife? Just curious.

Its not my view, was just saying what was said in another thread. If there are kids the house is screwed anyhow if its anything like mine

pc7

And to add one of the best tenants I ever had were a muslim family, the wife was a sahm, house was spotless and always offered us dinner when it was time to collect the rent.

athtrasna

anothernight please do not discuss moderation on thread. Thanks

Elemonator

anothernight wrote: »

Sigh. My more succinct post got deleted, so I'll have to explain it without mentioning the government. Please excuse the much increased length and overuse of the passive voice.

In an ideal world, landlords should be able to choose who they let into their property. The problem is that there seems to be a shortage on rental properties. The RA system is inconvenient because the allowance is very low, it requires the landlord to deal with paperwork, it is paid to the tenant and not to the landlord, its payment can be delayed or stopped for various reasons, and if the tenant receives it but chooses not to pay the rent, there's very little consequence on the tenant. So for ages people would openly refuse RA.

Some people think the solution is to increase social housing to meet demand, but a solution is needed for the here and now. For whatever reason, the chosen option is to ban this RA refusal. It's not exactly enforceable, but if a way to enforce it is found, it may have unintended consequences such as overall rent increases.

I'm of the opinion that I* should be able to choose who I rent my property to as long as I don't infringe any of the grounds of discrimination. Why are landlords now banned from refusing certain tenants? That's anyone's guess. I can't give you my guess because my post will be deleted again if I do, but hopefully the explanation above will help you to make up your own mind.


*Hypothetically, as I currently rent.

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for. I do agree with you on some points. Not meaning to sound stand-offish, but I feel now that landlords have been made the scapegoat for the housing crisis (not by you, by the government) trying to cover their failings.

GerardKeating

Elemonator wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing the bigger picture, but shouldn't landlords be able to refuse anyone if they want? After all, it is their property that is already heavily regulated.

Appreciate if someone could explain the situation.

So you think a Landlord should be able to refuse a tenant if they are Female, Gay, Black, Asian?

A Landlord already has restrictions on whom (and for what reasons) they can refuse in the equality legislation, this adds a minor addition to the "list".

Sleepy

The thing is, it's not a minor addition.

A black lesbian muslim who rents privately pays rent in exactly the same way as a straight white atheist man. A RA tenant requires the landlord to do additional paperwork, forego a a deposit, rely on the Dept of Social Welfare to not stop the tennants RA with no notice etc. etc. etc.

Refusing a prospective tenant based on who they are is not the same thing as refusing to carry out business in a particular way. One is discrimination, the other isn't.

MarkAnthony

ec18 wrote: »

Would this apply to sharing as well....say I'm getting a replacement for myself into a two bed apartment and the other occupant doesn't want to live with someone on RA, can we advertise the room as no RA?

I'd not mention it on the ad. When you're showing them the room and having a bit of chit chat you'll find out pretty quickly if the person is employed etc.

Elemonator wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing the bigger picture, but shouldn't landlords be able to refuse anyone if they want? After all, it is their property that is already heavily regulated.

Appreciate if someone could explain the situation.

I don't want to go off on too much of a jurisprudential rant but people treat their rental properties like chattels when they're actually under the law of real property. People need to understand that real property ownership is never absolute.

When you rent out a property you do so under the relevant common and legislative laws. One of those is the Equality legislation. Now people get themselves very confused when it comes to discrimination. One is free to discriminate until the cows come home as long as it doesn't fall under one of the listed grounds.

No one is forced to be a Landlord, it's a business like any other. If one doesn't want to get involved in that there are plenty of more lucrative and secure investments.

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Personal addresses are not up for discussion. It doesn't happen in any other business

You're bang on - it's not up for discussion, it's a legislative requirement. It happens in every single business; a registered address is required. One can form an LLC and do it that way if you don't want to give out your address.

ec18

ec18 wrote: »

Would this apply to sharing as well....say I'm getting a replacement for myself into a two bed apartment and the other occupant doesn't want to live with someone on RA, can we advertise the room as no RA?

This is the very reason I'm putting "professional only" in my ad. I actually don't think my LL had a problem with RA but I don't want to live with someone who is hanging around the house using up esb and gas, might not have money for bills etc.

GerardKeating wrote: »

So you think a Landlord should be able to refuse a tenant if they are Female, Gay, Black, Asian?

My ad will also state males only. Women use too much heat and watch crap on tv so no. Also wouldn't fit the dynamic of the house that's always been lads only since I've lived there.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

So you are non resident? Right so I will give 20% of my rent directly to revenue and you can claim that back when making your return.

Why would you think I'm non resident? I see absolutely no reason why a person I am engaged in business with I.e. A tenant should have any right to my private home where my family etc live. Deduct 20% of the rent just once and you are out on your ear.

I've never known the address of my LLs nor have I had any reason to know it.

MarkAnthony

I'm posting this separately in case I'm infringing on the political discussion. Please delete this if it is.

This time and effort would have been much better spent reforming the RA system. As a LL myself I'd be delighted to take a lower rent on the basis of 100% occupancy, the money paid directly to me and damages covered. I'm going to avoid going any further as it makes me genuinely angry that this situation has be so badly mishandled. It the very definition of a lose, lose.

Boater123

So what happens if someone who is a RAS (not RA) tenant applies to rent a property and the LL is not signed up to, nor wants to sign up to the RAS scheme?

The reason they do not want to sign up to the RAS scheme is that they don't want 11 months instead of 12 months rent (based on the LA's valuation, not the LL's/market rent), they do want a security deposit, and they want a say in who goes in to their property and be able to verify references from previous LL's.

Would this be classed as discriminatory towards tenant's in receipt of a social welfare payment ?

MarkAnthony

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

This is the very reason I'm putting "professional only" in my ad. I actually don't think my LL had a problem with RA but I don't want to live with someone who is hanging around the house using up esb and gas, might not have money for bills etc.

I'd suggest an amendment to Professionals welcome. Professionals only may fall foul of the new law by implication. That said perhaps you can be on RA and a professional?

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

My ad will also state males only. Women use too much heat and watch crap on tv so no.

This is an interesting one, your usual colourful descriptions notwithstanding, DAFT specifically facilitates this as it does no couples. Does the Equality legislation not apply to rent a room?

Elemonator

GerardKeating wrote: »

So you think a Landlord should be able to refuse a tenant if they are Female, Gay, Black, Asian?

A Landlord already has restrictions on whom (and for what reasons) they can refuse in the equality legislation, this adds a minor addition to the "list".

I don't think I have ever seen a property advertised with those restrictions. I'm all for making sure everyone has the opportunity to rent but if you look rough and have the type of personality that would total the house, then the landlord's shoulder shouldn't be constantly looked over. The owner of the house should always have at least some discretion. I have a feeling if the Government keeps pressing the issue, tenants will just sell up, it won't be worth the hassle. There needs to be a balancing act.

webpal

Just having further thoughts on this. If I rent a house out for €1000 a month, why would someone on RA think its worth viewing? When they turn up to view, what do you say. "Yes I'll happily take RA. Oh wait, RA isnt that high, not my fault good luck"?