Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Article: Landlords can no longer refuse rent supplement tenants

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Speedwell
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    webpal wrote: »
    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"?

    Good question. What do they in fact do in Dublin, where the rent for even a modest but decent place is far above rent allowance?


  • Options
    #63
    pc7
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,121 Mod ✭✭✭✭pc7


    Speedwell wrote: »
    Good question. What do they in fact do in Dublin, where the rent for even a modest but decent place is far above rent allowance?

    I 'think' a lot say they'll top it up which is against RA afaik


  • Options
    #64
    anothernight
    Registered Users Posts: 2,541 ✭✭✭anothernight


    webpal wrote: »
    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"?

    Some RA recipients will top up the rent out of their own pocket. As far as I know that's not allowed, but it does happen. Considering how low RA is, I don't think these people have much of a choice.


  • Options
    #65
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    anothernight wrote: »
    Some RA recipients will top up the rent out of their own pocket. As far as I know that's not allowed, but it does happen. Considering how low RA is, I don't think these people have much of a choice.

    Curious how this happens or if SW turn a blind eye.

    I am a landlord with tennants in receipt of rent allowance. When completing the paperwork I have to put in how much the rent is, so surely this would throw up a red flag if over the limits ?


  • Options
    #66
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,249 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I'm hearing stories of housing officers topping up the RA on a case by case basis as well...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    Gatling wrote: »
    Won't make a difference landlords and agencies will just advertise properties above and beyond rent supplement limits as is currently happening
    You mean advertise at market rates? Why would they advertise the property for less than it's worth?


  • Options
    #68
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    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".

    It is a tricky one.

    I've heard landlords being cautious about Indian families because they are concerned about their heavy use of spices for cooking much might leave difficult to remove odours when they live (and to me it is a fact that Indian cooking generates more odours than your average Irish cooking).

    Also heard plenty of people who prefer female tenants because they expect them to be more tidy and quiet.

    Have even heard landlord who don't want native Irish tenants because they think foreigners will be more responsible (Irish landlord, and I am naturalised Irish with a clear foreign accent).

    I don't think it is right to refuse someone because they are Indian, male, or Irish, but on the other hand it is fair to be allowed to refuse someone because you think they will do something which which will damage your property and incur some cost to refurbish it when they leave.

    These landlord's might or might not make right judgement calls, but can any law really control this?

    And honestly in my experience landlords don't give a damn about the criteria you mentioned (both myself and my girlfriend are non native Irish - one European and one Asian - and never have we felt discriminated against for those reasons). What they want is a tenant which keeps the place well, pays the rent, and generates as little work for them as possible.


  • Options
    #69
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Speedwell wrote: »
    Good question. What do they in fact do in Dublin, where the rent for even a modest but decent place is far above rent allowance?

    I get the impression it's much like the amazing system we have for people on the dole. Turn up, preferably slightly high/drunk, in your worst trackies to a number of retail outlets, ask the manager to sign a piece of paper to say you were in looking for a job.

    I suspect RA simply have to show they've been looking for places. Please note I don't have a problem with RA tenants or am I tarring them with the above brush. I'm simply stating what I used to deal with in retail.

    Where the rent is higher than RA prospective tenants that show up will ask to top it up. At which point you're obviously going to say that you're fully compliant with ALL the relevant laws including that being a no-no.

    The only possible outcome from all this a few less word on a DAFT ad and a little bit more call credit being used by people who never stood a chance of getting the place. Oh and a waste of everybody's time of course.


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    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?

    I'm not too bothered I'd still nearly chance no RA even with the new rules but will tone it down to professionals only.
    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    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?

    Well that's what I mean I'll be ticking the males only box.


  • Options
    #71
    anothernight
    Registered Users Posts: 2,541 ✭✭✭anothernight


    Jasper79 wrote: »
    Curious how this happens or if SW turn a blind eye.

    I am a landlord with tennants in receipt of rent allowance. When completing the paperwork I have to put in how much the rent is, so surely this would throw up a red flag if over the limits ?

    I honestly don't know. My parents are landlords. They've had prospective RA tenants offer to top up the rent if they get the house, but ofc they didn't accept. They usually rent to professionals anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    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.

    Show me the legislation please...

    Every single business owner has to give his/her clients their personal address? I'd also love to see that legislation


  • Options
    #73
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    Show me the legislation please...

    Every single business owner has to give his/her clients their personal address? I'd also love to see that legislation

    You've actually quoted the post. Read over it again in relation to a registered address and the proposed solution. Please feel free to PM me if you require even further clarification, I'm here to help.


  • Options
    #74
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    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.

    And that is the whole problem. There is a huge unbalance in protection, Landlords are hardly protected. Government is pretending they are doing something to protect the tenants (exp. the rent freeze) - but it makes it harder and harder for the landlords. This hurts the market, hurts the supply - and in the mid and long term hurts the tenants as well.

    It is a very nice model of earning money for your retirement - you get tenants and the rent pays the mortgage. In 30 years you end up with a mortgage-free house. Unless something goes wrong... In result very few people with spare houses decide to rent it out. ...

    It is simply so much safer and simpler to sell the property.


  • Options
    #75
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    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.

    Well references. Not work references. Though if people volunteer they are working, or work references the LL doesn't have to ask.


  • Options
    #76
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    grogi wrote: »
    And that is the whole problem. There is a huge unbalance in protection, Landlords are hardly protected. Government is pretending they are doing something to protect the tenants (exp. the rent freeze) - but it makes it harder and harder for the landlords. This hurts the market, hurts the supply - and in the mid and long term hurts the tenants as well.

    Despite it is a very nice model of earning money for your retirement - you get tenants and the rent pays the mortgage. In 30 years you end-up with a mortgage free house - very few people with spare houses decide to rent it out. Unless something goes wrong...

    It is simply so much safer and simpler to sell the property.

    To be honest the rental market is the wild west both fro tenants and landlords.

    A decent landlord can be screwed by a rubbish tenant as much as a decent tenant can be screwed by a rubbish landlord.


  • Options
    #77
    ronano
    Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭ronano


    With the rent supplement limits being substantially below rents in Dublin what are people doing? 520 a month for a single person apartment isn't achievable with only 1 apartment available. Are people paying difference under the table the norm for those in receipt of rent supplement. Is the department OK with it in practice but not on paper?

    Beyond if people should or should not be getting supplement how are they being housed?


  • Options
    #78
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Bob24 wrote: »
    To be honest the rental market is the wild west both fro tenants and landlords.

    A decent landlord can be screwed by a rubbish tenant as much as a decent tenant can be screwed by a rubbish landlord.

    Very hard for a LL to leave a tenant 10k+ out of pocket. Not so the other way.


  • Options
    #79
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ronano wrote: »
    ....Is the department OK with it in practice but not on paper?...

    They don't want to know. Thats the simple truth of it.


  • Options
    #80
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    beauf wrote: »
    Very hard for a LL to leave a tenant 10k+ out of pocket. Not so the other way.

    Yes - but you are only looking at the financial aspect.

    A bad landlord can refuse to fix a property including for things which affect the tenant's health (water infiltration and mould are a common occurence).

    A bad landlord can use ways to leave a tenant without a home at very short notice.

    Sure you always have the PTRB, but it will take a while to review cases and even if you eventually win your life will already have been affected.


  • Options
    #81
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Yes - but you are only looking at the financial aspect.

    A bad landlord can refuse to fix a property including for things which affect the tenant's health (water infiltration and mould are a common occurence).

    A bad landlord can use ways to leave a tenant without a home at very short notice.

    Sure you always have the PTRB, but it will take a while to review cases and even if you eventually win your life will already have been affected.


    The landlord starts on the back foot with only one months rent and always ends on the bad foot... tenant can refuse to pay rent.. prtb etc etc means nothing and tenants know this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    joejobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭joejobrien


    handlemaster wrote: »
    The landlord starts on the back foot with only one months rent and always ends on the bad foot... tenant can refuse to pay rent.. prtb etc etc means nothing and tenants know this.

    Dead on ,
    The system of addressing failures in the rental business is too long , too lax, and sadly for many LL to recover loss from a tenant is almost impossible in 90% cases.
    There are talks of attaching an order against social welfare. This would be a starting point for LL to recover there lossess in that event. However Goverment meddling will possible fail to deliver a satisfactory solution to BOTH PARTIES.
    Realistic the LL would require at min 4 months rent as deposit to be protected to some degree as the PRTB drag there feet instead of resolving the matter asap. Also there need to be monetatary penalty attached to tenant where there are constantly refusing to partake in negotations or comply with direction handed down by PRTB.
    These are all trouble for a LL. So in an attempt to advoid them , you try to min the exposure to those circumstances.
    Note** many tenants are find but the when you get a bad one it tends to leave a bitter taste


  • Options
    #83
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Yes - but you are only looking at the financial aspect.

    A bad landlord can refuse to fix a property including for things which affect the tenant's health (water infiltration and mould are a common occurence).

    A bad landlord can use ways to leave a tenant without a home at very short notice.

    Sure you always have the PTRB, but it will take a while to review cases and even if you eventually win your life will already have been affected.

    For the LL there is only a financial aspect. Its not a replacement for true social housing, that the govt is using it for. The LL can't fund social housing.


  • Options
    #84
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    beauf wrote: »
    For the LL there is only a financial aspect. Its not a replacement for true social housing, that the govt is using it for. The LL can't fund social housing.

    Because the only aspect for the landlord is financial doesn't mean a crap landlord can't screw a good tenant in other ways than financial ones though. That was my only point and I get that a landlord is not providing a public service (I am one myself in another country and a tenant here).

    You only seem to be looking at things from a landlord's perspective when you consider who can screw whom in the landlord/tenant relashionship. Something like getting evicted for no reason with no proper notice and not knowing where to put your things is probably more emotionally difficult than losing a few grands (which on the other hand can itself be more annoying in the long term if you have to keep chasing the tenant and engage in legal proceedings). Don't know which on is worst but both are crap.


  • Options
    #85
    CollyFlower
    Registered Users Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭CollyFlower


    As far as I can see all responsibility is being put on the LL's.... As was mentioned earlier, how would a LL be discrimateing if the RA is below the market rate in some areas?

    It seems to me it would the people who are administering the RA are being discriminatory.


  • Options
    #86
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Because the only aspect for the landlord is financial doesn't mean a crap landlord can't screw a good tenant in other ways than financial ones though. That was my only point and I get that a landlord is not providing a public service (I am one myself in another country and a tenant here).

    You only seem to be looking at things from a landlord's perspective when you consider who can screw whom in the landlord/tenant relashionship. Something like getting evicted for no reason with no proper notice and not knowing where to put your things is probably more emotionally difficult than losing a few grands (which on the other hand can itself be more annoying in the long term if you have to keep chasing the tenant and engage in legal proceedings). Don't know which on is worst but both are crap.


    Because this isn't a discussion about tenant vs LL. Or emotional difficulty.

    1) Its about why the LL doesn't want RA business.
    2) The a shortage of housing (in particular social housing).


  • Options
    #87
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    CollyFlower wrote: »
    ...It seems to me it would the people who are administering the RA are being discriminatory.

    They've would have appeared to have outsourced it to save money.


  • Options
    #88
    CollyFlower
    Registered Users Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭CollyFlower


    They pay hotels a fair bit way above the RA limit to take people in..... It would be a lot cheaper to pay the LL the full amount or above than to carry on providing hotel accommodation.


  • Options
    #89
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If they could get LL interested.


  • Options
    #90
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Yes - but you are only looking at the financial aspect.
    Renting a house is a business. What other aspect but the financial aspect is there?
    Bob24 wrote: »
    Sure you always have the PTRB
    The PTRB is only for suing the big bad landlord. Have never heard of a landlord getting the cash off someone who has destroyed their house.
    Bob24 wrote: »
    Something like getting evicted for no reason with no proper notice and not knowing where to put your things is probably more emotionally difficult than losing a few grands
    Lose a few grand a few times, and suddenly the landlord loses the house. one way to ensure that this happens a lot less is to only rent to people who pay up front (and not in arrears).
    CollyFlower wrote: »
    They pay hotels a fair bit way above the RA limit to take people in..... It would be a lot cheaper to pay the LL the full amount or above than to carry on providing hotel accommodation.
    "Hotel accommodation" is usually a homeless shelter that was a hotel before the council took over it. Of course the latter bit gets in the way of a good story, so won't get mentioned.


    Actually, short term the landlords are not in for good times. Long term, those on RA are completely and utterly fcuked if the anti-everybody decide to make life difficult for landlords, and more landlords decide to sell to the highest bidder, and the pool of available houses dramatically shrinks for those that can afford the months rent and months deposit, never mind for those who don't have a deposit, and will pay in arrears.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The Raptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭The Raptor


    Aka Ishur wrote: »
    First and last month rent up front plus one month deposit is going to become the norm awfully fast.

    This is what I'm afraid of. How are low paid workers who don't get any help in paying rent meant to pay this? Its quite alot.


Advertisement