Difficult Tenant

Esel

the_syco wrote: »

If the rent-supplemented tenant stops paying the rent, they keep getting money from the state, and the landlord gets nothing.


Even she is, due to data laws, the state can't talk to the landlord, and I doubt the landlord will be able to stop her from getting her rent supplement.

That's mad, Ted!

Why does the State not pay the supplement/allowance directly to the landlord?

Or would we need another €500m computer system for that?

[Vincent Browne]Joined-up government? Wha'?[/VB]

Cuddlesworth

If she has a source of income outside of social welfare, you can recover the money.

FishOnABike

Esel wrote: »

That's mad, Ted!

Why does the State not pay the supplement/allowance directly to the landlord?

Or would we need another €500m computer system for that?

[Vincent Browne]Joined-up government? Wha'?[/VB]

Why don't employers pay mortgage / rent directly to the bank / landlord on behalf of their employees and pay their employees salary net of mortgage / rent payments ?

Graham

FishOnABike wrote: »

Why don't employers pay mortgage / rent directly to the bank / landlord on behalf of their employees and pay their employees salary net of mortgage / rent payments ?

Because that would be plain silly.

Rent allowance on the other hand has but a sole purpose. To pay the rent, to the landlord.

It would actually be in rent allowance recipients interests for the rent to be paid directly to the landlord. It would give a level of security to the landlords that may incentivise the provision of rent allowance accommodations.

salamanca22

FishOnABike wrote: »

Why don't employers pay mortgage / rent directly to the bank / landlord on behalf of their employees and pay their employees salary net of mortgage / rent payments ?

Hardly the same, rent supplement is meant to be earmarked for a single purpose, rent. Your wages are not.

Rent supplement can be paid directly to the landlord if the tenant is not paying it to the landlord, all the landlord has to do is request it.

tuisginideach

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/rent_faq.aspx#q2

15.Can the Rent Supplement be paid to Landlord directly?

In most cases payment is made to you, the tenant. However payment of your Rent Supplement can be made to the landlord if you request it and if the officer dealing with your claims agrees to it. Even if your Rent Supplement is paid direct to your landlord, you will still have to pay your landlord a minimum of €30 (for single people) or €40 (for couples) per week.


That sounds to me like the tenant has to request it, not the landlord!

Sleepy

And surely any sane landlord would insist on this request being made before signing the lease?

The_Conductor

Sleepy wrote: »

And surely any sane landlord would insist on this request being made before signing the lease?

Surprisingly few are even aware that it is an option- married to that- you have a cohort of tenants who only pull rent supplement out of the hat at the very last hurdle (normally by presenting the landlord with a sheaf of papers to sign for DSP).

Its a lack of knowledge- that some (but not all RS recipients) leverage to their advantages.......

Boater123

salamanca22 wrote: »

Hardly the same, rent supplement is meant to be earmarked for a single purpose, rent. Your wages are not.

Rent supplement can be paid directly to the landlord if the tenant is not paying it to the landlord, all the landlord has to do is request it.

I wish that were so, but the tenant is the client of SW not the LL.

And even if the tenant keeps the rent allowance and doesn't pass it on despite it be paid by the SW specifically for rent, the SW will not get it back of the tenant and pay the LL what he/she is owed.

The LL can inform the Social if they're not receiving the payment from the tenant, and the social might stop the payment to the tenant, but that gets the LL no where.

I would class it as fraud, but no authority seems to be interested when it happens.

Sleepy

The_Conductor wrote: »

Surprisingly few are even aware that it is an option- married to that- you have a cohort of tenants who only pull rent supplement out of the hat at the very last hurdle (normally by presenting the landlord with a sheaf of papers to sign for DSP).

Its a lack of knowledge- that some (but not all RS recipients) leverage to their advantages.......

Once armed with the knowledge that it's an option though, surely you'd insist on it?

It's mind-boggling that there could be that many accidental / amateur landlords out there renting to social welfare tenants that haven't done the first bit of research into their situation!

Boater123

Sleepy wrote: »

Once armed with the knowledge that it's an option though, surely you'd insist on it?

It's mind-boggling that there could be that many accidental / amateur landlords out there renting to social welfare tenants that haven't done the first bit of research into their situation!

Imagine the scenario, the LL insists, the tenant complies, a week or month into the tenancy the tenant rings up the social and stops the payment to the LL, and collects it for themselves.

Nothing the LL can really do, except try have it stopped being paid altogether.

Sleepy

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

The_Conductor

Sleepy wrote: »

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

Only in the first 6 months- once the tenant has acquired Part IV rights- the terms in the lease cannot be less favourable than those of the RTA- so you can't use a clause in that manner.

Boater123

Sleepy wrote: »

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

Not sure what way the PRTB would adjudicate on a clause like this, maybe it would stand up, maybe not, I don't know.

It would just be "easier", if that's the right word, just to start proceedings for non payment of rent.

4ensic15

Sleepy wrote: »

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

The tenant has to be notified of the breach and given an opportunity to rectify. Only after that can the landlord issue notice for breach of condition. After that they have might have to go to the PRTB if the tenant does not vacate. Eviction will only happen after there is a determination order from the PRTB and a court order.

MarkR

Yep. Tennant goes and you can rent again. Vs no money coming in. Stinks

pc7

Sleepy wrote: »

And surely any sane landlord would insist on this request being made before signing the lease?

I tried to do this with a RA tenant (also said I wanted a deposit, tenant was told this would be given). SW took so long to process paper work back and forth, for about a month. I said no as couldn't lose any more rent waiting (they said they'd back date it to the agreed date, but I couldn't risk it). Put an ad up and had a tenant with a deposit that night. this was a few years back when the market was cold. Also before I decided no RA ever again (not taring all with same brush etc etc but my business my choice)

FishOnABike

pc7 wrote: »

I tried to do this with a RA tenant (also said I wanted a deposit, tenant was told this would be given). SW took so long to process paper work back and forth, for about a month. I said no as couldn't lose any more rent waiting (they said they'd back date it to the agreed date, but I couldn't risk it). Put an ad up and had a tenant with a deposit that night. this was a few years back when the market was cold. Also before I decided no RA ever again (not taring all with same brush etc etc but my business my choice)

RA tenant or not, the same letting conditions should prevail, deposit (nowdays often the equivalent of two or more months rent) plus one month rent in advance payable at the time the lease is signed and monthly thereafter. It's a business. If you can get someone who is willing to abide by these conditions (and there's plenty) why would any business person increase their risk by settling for less?

punisher5112

FishOnABike wrote: »

RA tenant or not, the same letting conditions should prevail, deposit (nowdays often the equivalent of two or more months rent) plus one month rent in advance payable at the time the lease is signed and monthly thereafter. It's a business. If you can get someone who is willing to abide by these conditions (and there's plenty) why would any business person increase their risk by settling for less?

Who in the renter pool can afford over two months rent upfront and a deposit.

The system should be in place where prtb holds deposit and treats both sides the same.

If someone is renting house out and has a mortgage especially the LL that never wanted to be but the recession and all that.

Stricter rules on both sides and run all letting through prtb or similar.

athtrasna

Can we get back on topic please? Mod

bobby lingen

Just to give ye a heads up on the story of this 'difficult tenent'. The eviction date came and we tried to call her on the phone and to the house...no answer. So we went in and it looks like she uped and left.

She left behind a house which requires a re-paint to all rooms internally, light fittings to be changed, a skip to be hired to remove all the rubbish, all in all I reckon between unpaid rent and cost to get the house back in order the bones of €3.5K (who would want to be a landlord).

Also there is a water bill for about €350, what should I do with this?, I have no idea where the tenant has gone to, she could have imigrated for all I know as I do not have any forwarding address.
Does the water bill have to be paid by me?

tuisginideach

If the water bill was in her name, no you don't have to pay it. They should have a PPS No. for her and should follow up that way (or so they told me).

bobby lingen

The addess was to 'the occupier', so I would guess she never registered with irish Water (i'm not surprised tbh)

tuisginideach

Did you 'de-register' when she moved in / give her name to Irish water?

bobby lingen

the irish water resistration came into being while she was renting the place, and with all the hulla ballow I guess she just ignored the regisitration letter. I do not know if it was our (landlord) responsibility to make sure she was registered or not, but I suppose at this stage it is too late now as she will well gone.

tuisginideach

Having paid my water bills up to election time I would now be reluctant to pay any more, until a definite Government decision is made on the future - or not - of Irish water!

I presume you have her PPS no. for PRTB registration - I wonder would irish water accept that now?

bobby lingen

yes, I agree, but for the moment lets assume the whole irish Water thing was up and running, would this bill fall back on me?, unlike the ESB or bin charges which must initially be signed up by the tenant, and any unpaid bills follow the tenant.

I suppose with the **** up of setting up Irish Water there will be plenty of issues like mine where tenants who have not registered and who have not paid, leave with these unpaid bills, at the end of the day someone will have to pay and I'm afraid it will be me.

bobby lingen

tuisginideach wrote: »

Having paid my water bills up to election time I would now be reluctant to pay any more, until a definite Government decision is made on the future - or not - of Irish water!

I presume you have her PPS no. for PRTB registration - I wonder would irish water accept that now?

During the week, I will call both Irish Water and PRTB for advise, but I am not too hopeful but then again I may be surprised

TheChizler

If you give IW the tenant's name that absolves the LL of responsibility for the bill. Since the tenancy is still technically in effect I wonder could you still give them their name and the date they moved in?

Edit: http://www.water.ie/customer-registration/landlords-and-tenants/ says you have 20 days to give IW the tenant's name, and if you don't you're liable for the charges until you do. So it sounds like if you give them the name at this stage you're liable from when they moved in until now unforunately.

From the Act: wrote:

(4) Notwithstanding section 21(5) and subsection (5) of this section, where the owner of a dwelling fails to comply with subsection (1)(b), the owner shall pay to Irish Water any charge under section 21 in respect of the dwelling for the period from the date of commencement of the agreement for the occupation of the dwelling until the date on which the owner so complies.

The_Conductor

TheChizler wrote: »

If you give IW the tenant's name that absolves the LL of responsibility for the bill. Since the tenancy is still technically in effect I wonder could you still give them their name and the date they moved in?

Nope- unless the tenant sets up an account with Irish Water- you cannot retrospectively give IW the tenants name- and imagine that you are absolved from the bill- the manner in which the legislation is granted- means the bill becomes associated with the property- which also means it may be very difficult for the landlord to find a subsequent tenant unless he/she clears the outstanding debt first.

It is a first for attaching a lien associated with consumption of a utility to a property- and it is to make the debt more recoverable by IW (other utilities can be added in this manner under the legislation- which has to be one of the least consumer friendly pieces of legislation ever enacted in Ireland).