Article: Landlords can no longer refuse rent supplement tenants

Gatling

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

Are there any real reasons why landlords don't accept RA?

It's paid in arrears and most of the time it goes to the tenant first who passes or in some cases don't pass it on .
If tenants don't keep up to date with a yearly review for social welfare the RA can be late or suspended for several months while paper work is sorted .

One re occurring complaints is deposits related but that applies to all tenants

MarkAnthony

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

Agreed that a LL should be able to chose who they let live in their house, but descriminating based on income, even if the tenants can afford the rent, is somewhat draconic.

Are there any real reasons why landlords don't accept RA?

Well, not really. Other than a social welfare policy instructed by some for of common sense we also lack a proper credit referencing system in Ireland. The PRTB should be empowered with affecting both tenants and LL's personal credit when expenses on either side are not paid. LL's (and frankly tenants too) should be able to get a yes/no answer to a required credit score, just like Curry's can when you buy a TV. (In the UK, here I'm not so sure it's a score per se, more of a binary.)

Some people with very little disposable income are absolutely great with money whereas some people with loads of money can't get from one end of the month from the other. The problem is taking the worst case scenario of someone who is crap with money, the lesser of two evils is having someone with money. At least they can be cajoled into paying.

The problem in this country isn't LL's and it's not tenants either, it's the appalling system we have in place to try and regulate it.

beauf

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

...discriminating based on income...

How about they brought in a law that you have to rent your car to anyone who asks, with no deposit, no money in advance, and no practical means to get the car fixed, if they damage or wreck it. If you refuse they fine you 15k.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Gatling wrote: »

It's paid in arrears and most of the time it goes to the tenant first who passes or in some cases don't pass it on .
If tenants don't keep up to date with a yearly review for social welfare the RA can be late or suspended for several months while paper work is sorted .

One re occurring complaints is deposits related but that applies to all tenants

Cheers. The review would be a pain, but the risk of non payment of rent isn't unique to RA or SW recipients.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

beauf wrote: »

How about they brought in a law that you have to rent your car to anyone who asks, with no deposit, no money in advance, and no practical means to get the car fixed, if they damage or wreck it. If you refuse they fine you 15k.

That's an idiotic analagy which has nothing to do with my post or questions.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

Cheers. The review would be a pain, but the risk of non payment of rent isn't unique to RA or SW recipients.

No, but if you rent to someone in employment, there is more of a likelihood that they have assets to pursue if you need to chase them down. The likelihood of getting any joy from social welfare recipients is nil

Melvin Uninterested Liquid

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

Agreed that a LL should be able to chose who they let live in their house, but descriminating based on income, even if the tenants can afford the rent, is somewhat draconic.

Are there any real reasons why landlords don't accept RA?

Banks discriminate based on income everyday of the week when someone applies for a mortgage and just because someone can pay it doesn't always mean they will get it or get the amount they want for various different reasons.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

That's an idiotic analagy which has nothing to do with my post or questions.

Why? You are suggesting that no one should have a problem renting a property to someone with no down payment and little means at their disposal. such property would be worth multiples of a car.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Why? You are suggesting that no one should have a problem renting a property to someone with no down payment and little means at their disposal. such property would be worth multiples of a car.

No, no I am not suggesting that at all. You have misunderstood or have not read my post at all.

As for the comparision to a mortgage, it's also an unfair analagy. The amounts and conditions are incomparable.

Cuddlesworth

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

No, no I am not suggesting that at all. You have misunderstood or have not read my post at all.

As for the comparision to a mortgage, it's also an unfair analagy. The amounts and conditions are incomparable.

I've seen over 50k in losses if you account for all the costs involved. That can and has crippled some people financially. Any solicitor who advised to recoup off a social welfare tenant is a crook themselves..

Pkiernan

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

No, no I am not suggesting that at all. You have misunderstood or have not read my post at all.

As for the comparision to a mortgage, it's also an unfair analagy. The amounts and conditions are incomparable.

As a landlord whose been screwed over by deadbeat scumbags, this analogy is spot on.

beauf

Only a tiny minority of tenants (RA and Non TA) cause problems. But they have disproportional impact on the LL and the market in general. This is because the rental market (and within that RA system) has very little real protection for LL. You want a system that is sustainable for both tenants and LL's.

We've had successive changes (Govt policies) over many years that just make it worse for the supply of housing, and social housing especially.

handlemaster

How about the state guarantees the sw tenants rent 100% until tenant moves out

Lux23

handlemaster wrote: »

How about the state guarantees the sw tenants rent 100% until tenant moves out

Or pay the landlord directly, I am sure many landlords would be happy to know that their rental income is guaranteed making them more welcome to accepting RA tenants.

I kind of think this is a little bit pointless though because the WRC has already said they don't have the resources to adjudicate on these cases. If I was a fussy landlord, I may just take my chances.

handlemaster

Lux23 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

How about the state guarantees the sw tenants rent 100% until tenant moves out

Or pay the landlord directly, I am sure many landlords would be happy to know that their rental income is guaranteed making them more welcome to accepting RA tenants.

I kind of think this is a little bit pointless though because the WRC has already said they don't have the resources to adjudicate on these cases. If I was a fussy landlord, I may just take my chances.

Add your reply here.


LL can already get paid direct but this is under the control of the tenant so can stop payments anytime so the bad tenants know this and pocket the rent . Then move onto the next LL or stay in place drawing out the eviction process

the_syco

handlemaster wrote: »

How about the state guarantees the sw tenants rent 100% until tenant moves out

Only works if the LL can have the tenant evicted within 30 days of no rent, otherwise the bad tenants will continue to f**k it up for everyone else.

karenalot

Lux23 wrote: »

Or pay the landlord directly, I am sure many landlords would be happy to know that their rental income is guaranteed making them more welcome to accepting RA tenants.

HAP (Housing Assistance Payment) is replacing long term Rent Supplement across the country and is paid directly in full to the landlord. It's already rolled out in most counties and slowly being introduced into Dublin. The tenant pays their share to the local authority through the Household Budget Scheme and they must cover their own deposit when moving in.

HAP also allows tenants to take up full time employment while still receiving means tested assistance. This was a major flaw of the previous Rent Supplement as it gave little incentive to work.

handlemaster

karenalot wrote: »

HAP (Housing Assistance Payment) is replacing long term Rent Supplement across the country and is paid directly in full to the landlord. It's already rolled out in most counties and slowly being introduced into Dublin. The tenant pays their share to the local authority through the Household Budget Scheme and they must cover their own deposit when moving in.

HAP also allows tenants to take up full time employment while still receiving means tested assistance. This was a major flaw of the previous Rent Supplement as it gave little incentive to work.

I understand if the tenant doesn't pay their share to the local authority, the then all payments to the Landlord are stopped. So not much better.

MarkAnthony

Very interested to know more on HAP.

karenalot

handlemaster wrote: »

I understand if the tenant doesn't pay their share to the local authority, the then all payments to the Landlord are stopped. So not much better.

The Household Budget deduction is something that the tenant signs up for and is taken at source from An Post social welfare payments. The tenant can only cancel the HAP part of the deduction with written notice to An Post and must include a letter of authorisation from the relevant housing body.

So basically no, they cant just stop payments without approval first from their local authority first.



Edit: Different rules could possibly apply to social welfare recipients not collecting payments directly from a post office due to being in employment etc.

handlemaster

KARENALOT

If you read the pdf on the following for landlords you will see that if the tenant doesnt pay their payment to the relevant authority the HAP payment is stopped. The tenant then have to pay all the rent themselves. .. in short they wouldnt pay the Landlord. ..

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html

Eule

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

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.

Why it's important to know the LLs' address and why tenants may have to pay your tax directly to the Revenue:

"Landlords living abroad

If your landlord lives outside Ireland and you pay your rent through an agent, you do not have to deduct tax from the rent. The landlord’s collection agent must account for the tax in an annual tax return.

However, if you pay the rent directly to the landlord (including into their bank account) whether in Ireland or abroad, you must deduct tax at the standard rate (20% at present) from the gross amount that you pay. This deduction is not your tax relief - it is tax payable to Revenue from your landlord's income.

For example, your landlord lives in Germany and you pay him/her gross rent per month of €1,000. First, work out the amount of tax to be deducted (€1,000 x 20% = €200). Now deduct the tax due from the gross rent you pay (€1,000 - €200 = €800). The net rent to be paid to your landlord is €800 per month. The amount due to Revenue is the €200 per month that you deducted from the gross rent of €1,000.

Accounting to Revenue for tax deducted from rent

You must account to Revenue for the tax that you deduct from the gross rent. If you fail to deduct tax from rent that you pay directly to a landlord living outside Ireland, this will mean that you (and not the landlord) will be liable for any tax that should have been deducted.
"

(Sorry for the paste, my account here is to new for me to be able to post URLs)

Personally I think this is quite a crazy way of doing things and LLs could still lie about their address, and the prospect of getting a huge bill from the taxman because my LL didn't pay their taxes for years also is not attractive, especially since the tenant is on the hook for the past 6 years here, could be quite a tidy sum.

Eule

Eule wrote: »

Why it's important to know the LLs' address and why tenants may have to pay your tax directly to the Revenue:

"Landlords living abroad

If your landlord lives outside Ireland and you pay your rent through an agent, you do not have to deduct tax from the rent. The landlord’s collection agent must account for the tax in an annual tax return.

However, if you pay the rent directly to the landlord (including into their bank account) whether in Ireland or abroad, you must deduct tax at the standard rate (20% at present) from the gross amount that you pay. This deduction is not your tax relief - it is tax payable to Revenue from your landlord's income.

For example, your landlord lives in Germany and you pay him/her gross rent per month of €1,000. First, work out the amount of tax to be deducted (€1,000 x 20% = €200). Now deduct the tax due from the gross rent you pay (€1,000 - €200 = €800). The net rent to be paid to your landlord is €800 per month. The amount due to Revenue is the €200 per month that you deducted from the gross rent of €1,000.

Accounting to Revenue for tax deducted from rent

You must account to Revenue for the tax that you deduct from the gross rent. If you fail to deduct tax from rent that you pay directly to a landlord living outside Ireland, this will mean that you (and not the landlord) will be liable for any tax that should have been deducted.
"

(Sorry for the paste, my account here is to new for me to be able to post URLs)

Personally I think this is quite a crazy way of doing things and LLs could still lie about their address, and the prospect of getting a huge bill from the taxman because my LL didn't pay their taxes for years also is not attractive, especially since the tenant is on the hook for the past 6 years here, could be quite a tidy sum.

I understand about the deducting 20% of the rent fiasco (if the tenant knows the LL is living abroad). I was simply asking the poster why they were going to deduct 20% of the rent assuming I was living abroad just because I wasn't willing to give them my address.

I could be living aboard and give multiple address here and I could be living here and refuse to give any address who is any tenant who is my customer to question it? where you actually live is not always where you officially live.

I've lived away from my home house (during the week anyway) for over 7 years yet every proof of address I have is for my home Place as I never use my rental addresses, always my home address.

athtrasna

Please can we stay on topic!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Pkiernan wrote: »

As a landlord whose been screwed over by deadbeat scumbags, this analogy is spot on.

Deadbeat scumbags are not limited to SW recipients. There's also deadbeat scumbags that work too.

handlemaster wrote: »

LL can already get paid direct but this is under the control of the tenant so can stop payments anytime so the bad tenants know this and pocket the rent . Then move onto the next LL or stay in place drawing out the eviction process

Is it possible to get the RA signed over to the landlord before the tenant moves in?

It's completely inexcusable for a tenant to refuse to pay and still have the law on their side. Unable to recoup the payment is also a load of balls. Idealy, whatever rent was not payed from the RA, should be deducted from any further SW payments and given to the landlord. That will teach a lot of these thugs a thing or two.

A minority of RA/SW people are making a mess of things, but there's a majority out there that will not cause any issues at all. It's short sighted to refuse rent (I know it's your right) to somebody based on one common factor. Do references not mean anything anymore? Or are they not followed up? It's not a guarantee, but it should prove previous payments etc.

the_syco

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

Do references not mean anything anymore?

Unfortunately, if you're trying to et rid of a problem tenant, you may provide the reference to get them to leave your house.

handlemaster

Melvin Uninterested Liquid wrote: »

Pkiernan wrote: »

As a landlord whose been screwed over by deadbeat scumbags, this analogy is spot on.

Deadbeat scumbags are not limited to SW recipients. There's also deadbeat scumbags that work too.

handlemaster wrote: »

LL can already get paid direct but this is under the control of the tenant so can stop payments anytime so the bad tenants know this and pocket the rent . Then move onto the next LL or stay in place drawing out the eviction process

Is it possible to get the RA signed over to the landlord before the tenant moves in?

It's completely inexcusable for a tenant to refuse to pay and still have the law on their side. Unable to recoup the payment is also a load of balls. Idealy, whatever rent was not payed from the RA, should be deducted from any further SW payments and given to the landlord. That will teach a lot of these thugs a thing or two.

A minority of RA/SW people are making a mess of things, but there's a majority out there that will not cause any issues at all. It's short sighted to refuse rent (I know it's your right) to somebody based on one common factor. Do references not mean anything anymore? Or are they not followed up? It's not a guarantee, but it should prove previous payments etc.

Add your reply here.


References mean nothing as stated problem tenants get the best references to get them to move on. The welfare office are no better dont care if th tenant pays the LL or not. Unfortunately the welfare tenants have less common sence when it comes to rent than working folk. Why should a landlord take the chance.

MarkAnthony

handlemaster wrote: »

Add your reply here.


References mean nothing as stated problem tenants get the best references to get them to move on. The welfare office are no better dont care if th tenant pays the LL or not. Unfortunately the welfare tenants have less common sence when it comes to rent than working folk. Why should a landlord take the chance.

I have to agree here, this is my bias as well. I have sympathy for people who've fallen on hard times, however that sympathy does not extend to my business dealings. There's a certain failure of self-reliance if the state is picking up the tab. That shouldn't be visited on private LL's.

Now keeping it strictly business if a RA (using the term loosely) is made a good bet through a system I've mentioned numerous times I wouldn't have an issue with the person per se.

beauf

A lot of these issues people are bringing up are common to all tenants.

But if you want to make LL prefer RA tenants. Then they should put in place a system for RA that gives its some advantages to the LL. Rent direct to LL, damage covered by the local authority etc. (let the them filter tenants as a result) Tax incentives for the LL over non RA tenants. At the moment the RA system itself has some disadvantages for the LL. Perhaps HAPs is a start on this. Dunno I haven't read up on it. At the moment its run as a cost saving exercise. With the risks all on the LL side, non on the Govt side.

Basically the govt is using a stick instead of a carrot. Because its cheaper in the short term.