Rent late

Stheno

davo10 wrote: »

WRC? The LL accepted HAP but the op's lease states rent is to be paid in advance. Payment a month in advance is the standard method of payment for all tenants, the LL is not discriminating against the op my requiring rent to be paid in this way.

The op received notice as he did not pay his rent on time and is now in arrears. As has been pointed out to you a number of times, clearing overdue rent does not mean a notice of termination will be rescinded. The LL wants to be paid in advance each month, that is not descrmination, it's every LLs right and it is in the ops tenancy agreement.

The case being promoted here by some was one where a ll refused to take hap and was taken to the WRC as it has been decided that refusal to take HAP is covered by the WRC, presumably as working people can get hap.

The difference in this case is that the tenant is in arrears and trying to use a landlord who agreed to sign up to hap to wriggle out of the arrears and the consequences so the WRC case is irrelevant.

All the OP needs to do is clear their arrears prior to HAP and everything should be fine once they abide by their lease but they are hoping some obscure legal argument will mean that a contract between two other parties supercedes their own.

In order words "i signed a contract and can't honor it, but I'm entitled to social welfare and that should cover it eventually"

I started off with empathy for the op but their refusal to deal with their situation is now beyond me.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

You will get through this. You just need to
1. appeal the notice
2. Appeal the overpayment of rent.
3. Take a case to the Workplace Relations Committee if the harassment continues.

He can't appeal the notice it's valid and there is proof on this thread from the RTB that even getting rent up to date does not invalidate the notice.

Appeal what over payment of rent, the op is in arrears and will be in arrears until he pays a full months rent himself to make up the difference between his last rent payment and the hap kicking in.

Vexation is the term used by the RTB for much of the "advice" you offer.

Unlesss the op clears his arrears and ensures the LL is paid his rent fully a month in advance he will most likely be evicted and I have absolutely no sympathy for him. Like others I had sympathy for his situation but his refusal to honour his lease and trying to weasel out of his arrears has my sympathy being for the LL now.

bajer101

The_Conductor wrote: »

Guys- remain civil towards one another- or do not post in this forum.
Next person who snipes at another poster- will get an infraction, rather than warnings.

If you disagree with what another poster posts- refute the post, factually, without attacking the poster.

You posted a comment which you seem to have removed, about the different HAP schemes. Understandable as it is a nightmare to navigate. My understanding of the various schemes is that there is General HAP. This pays the rent in arrears on the last Wednesday of the month and they do not pay deposits.

Homeless HAP, which is a completely different scheme and has no link with General HAP. Two completely different sections in different buildings. While talking to one person, they couldn't transfer me.

Homeless HAP is the initiative that will pay a deposit and two month's rent in advance. This is not General HAP (General HAP seems to be the lingo they use to differentiate ).

General HAP seem to be pretty gung ho that their payment in arrears model is legal. It's all pretty new and perhaps my case may be a legal tester.

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

You posted a comment which you seem to have removed, about the different HAP schemes. Understandable as it is a nightmare to navigate. My understanding of the various schemes is that there is General HAP. This pays the rent in arrears on the last Wednesday of the month and they do not pay deposits.

Homeless HAP, which is a completely different scheme and has no link with General HAP. Two completely different sections in different buildings. While talking to one person, they couldn't transfer me.

Homeless HAP is the initiative that will pay a deposit and two month's rent in advance. This is not General HAP (General HAP seems to be the lingo they use to differentiate ).

General HAP seem to be pretty gung ho that their payment in arrears model is legal. It's all pretty new and perhaps my case may be a legal tester.

General hap states just that and that rent prior to that is the tenants responsibility.

hap.ie/uploads/files/pdf/landlord-booklet-english.pdf

Have you paid previously owed rent and your new weekly contribution to the council?

bajer101

Stheno wrote: »

General hap states just that and that rent prior to that is the tenants responsibility.

hap.ie/uploads/files/pdf/landlord-booklet-english.pdf

Have you paid previously owed rent and your new weekly contribution to the council?

Oh FFS, for the final time, there is no arrears. August rent is paid. The only rent that is due is September's, which will be paid tomorrow, as per the agreement the landlord signed.

davindub

Cash Young Yachtsman wrote: »

He can't appeal the notice it's valid and there is proof on this thread from the RTB that even getting rent up to date does not invalidate the notice.

Appeal what over payment of rent, the op is in arrears and will be in arrears until he pays a full months rent himself to make up the difference between his last rent payment and the hap kicking in.

Vexation is the term used by the RTB for much of the "advice" you offer.

Unlesss the op clears his arrears and ensures the LL is paid his rent fully a month in advance he will most likely be evicted and I have absolutely no sympathy for him. Like others I had sympathy for his situation but his refusal to honour his lease and trying to weasel out of his arrears has my sympathy being for the LL now.

The RTA clearly states you can appeal notices of termination, there is no process to pre-determine the validity of a notice.

I won't even comment on the rest, it is becoming well beyond a farce, your animosity towards the OP has been evident and really the advice you are giving would result in nasty consequences for the tenant, with money involved the OP obviously would have difficulty collecting. You are actually contradicting the advice given to the OP by HAP, a solicitor, Flac will tell him the same, etc.

As for Vexation, the burden of proof is quite high.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

WRC? The LL accepted HAP but the op's lease states rent is to be paid in advance. Payment a month in advance is the standard method of payment for all tenants, the LL is not discriminating against the op my requiring rent to be paid in this way.

The op received notice as he did not pay his rent on time and is now in arrears. As has been pointed out to you a number of times, clearing overdue rent does not mean a notice of termination will be rescinded. The LL wants to be paid in advance each month, that is not descrmination, it's every LLs right and it is in the ops tenancy agreement.

Yes the landlord signed the agreement but hasn't accepted the terms of HAP, have they? Otherwise they wouldn't be evicting the tenant over Septembers rent.

bajer101

If people could take a step back and stop looking at this case from their own position, they would see huge problems that need to be addressed.

Main problem for me is that I got issued with a legally valid eviction notice when rent was twenty days late. That is just wrong. If a mortgage is twenty days late, the bank can't put you out. If your payment for your leased car is twenty days late, they can't take the car. But I got a valid eviction notice because rent was twenty days late.

The other issue is HAP. They pay rent in arrears, which is instantly problematic. I have been faced with a situation where it would be better if I made myself homeless and presented myself to a different division to try and keep the home I already have. Madness

davindub

bajer101 wrote: »

You posted a comment which you seem to have removed, about the different HAP schemes. Understandable as it is a nightmare to navigate. My understanding of the various schemes is that there is General HAP. This pays the rent in arrears on the last Wednesday of the month and they do not pay deposits.

Homeless HAP, which is a completely different scheme and has no link with General HAP. Two completely different sections in different buildings. While talking to one person, they couldn't transfer me.

Homeless HAP is the initiative that will pay a deposit and two month's rent in advance. This is not General HAP (General HAP seems to be the lingo they use to differentiate ).

General HAP seem to be pretty gung ho that their payment in arrears model is legal. It's all pretty new and perhaps my case may be a legal tester.

Op did you contact FLAC, they offer free legal advice but represented the tenants in the recent WRC case over HAP discrimination. They select cases like yours where there is public interest. They have a waiting list for appointments but they might be able to prioritise your case given the circumstances.

Also, just in case no one else has told you, the termination notice with the RTB needs to be appealed within 28 days of receipt.

bajer101

I'm still trying to get my head around this. You can legally evict someone if they are 15 days in arrears. That's just insane.

bajer101

davindub wrote: »

Op did you contact FLAC, they offer free legal advice but represented the tenants in the recent WRC case over HAP discrimination. They select cases like yours where there is public interest. They have a waiting list for appointments but they might be able to prioritise your case given the circumstances.

Also, just in case no one else has told you, the termination notice with the RTB needs to be appealed within 28 days of receipt.

RTP are useless. I'll sort this out myself. Joke of a system.

davindub

bajer101 wrote: »

RTP are useless. I'll sort this out myself. Joke of a system.

To be fair, you contacted the RTB for advice which they don't give, the person on the end of the phone might help to the extent of their knowledge, but you just don't know if you are talking to the administrator or janitor or whomever.

If you intend to appeal the notice, it must be with the RTB, but just to give you some background.

Yes a landlord can hand you a notice of termination when rent is in arrears, that is not prevented by the legislation, what is prevented is actually evicting someone without an enforcement order.

If the landlord physically evicts you, they would be penalised heavily. 20k+ damages.

If you do not leave the landlord has to apply for a notice of enforcement, but this would not be the correct time to contest the notice of termination served. The RTB may state you didn't appeal the notice and order you to vacate by a certain date. But the notice of enforcement won't be granted if an appeal is outstanding.

If the tenant leaves on the foot of a notice of termination, that the LL knew or ought to have known to be false, similar outcome.

So although it seems like the system is not protecting you, it is. But you just need to engage with the process. Like most EU cities, tenants rights are actually strong.

Appealing the notice successfully won't prevent the the landlord from handing you one next month as well, it should, but it might not. That is where the WRC has more power, they can award damages for the discrimination and resultant stress (financial/ mental) involved.

Just on the other foot (incl my own), many landlords are in month to month situations, rent covers repayments, hence HAP is not ideal, but they are obliged to accept the terms and they benefit financially from the deal as well (100% of mort. int is now reclaimable, so over the year they should be more than compensated for the delay in payments). But 20 days could be a lot to a struggling landlord so it may be equitable to continue to allow this.

There are two bodies who will help you.
1. FLAC - would be the best if intending or interested in pursuing a claim with the WRC, but do have waiting lists
2. Threshold - charity - they take a more confrontational approach, they may try and negotiate with the landlord on your behalf if they feel the notice was invalid, but you still appeal the notice yourself.

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

Oh FFS, for the final time, there is no arrears. August rent is paid. The only rent that is due is September's, which will be paid tomorrow, as per the agreement the landlord signed.

Was September rent not due September first as per the lease you signed? So you are over three weeks in arrears?

Graham

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm still trying to get my head around this. You can legally evict someone if they are 15 days in arrears. That's just insane.

The landlord hasn't evicted you, I assume he's given you the 14 days notice.

Landlords almost have no choice (well informed landlords anyway) otherwise they risk establishing an acceptable pattern of allowing late rent which could work against them in an RTB judgment.

Mrs Shuttleworth

bajer101 wrote: »

Main problem for me is that I got issued with a legally valid eviction notice when rent was twenty days late. That is just wrong.

Why?

If your employer paid your salary three weeks late, would you be saying, "ah sure you're grand"??

The mods have asked us to be polite so we will.

At best your response conjures images of a term best described by a white wintry substance falling from the sky onto a crumbling Cadburys chocolate bar.

At worst you are on here to test the moral turpitude of legitimate landlords who oppose the mind bending counterintuitive pressures being placed upon them.

Please assure on me on both counts that I am wrong.

Grumpypants

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Why?

If your employer paid your salary three weeks late, would you be saying, "ah sure you're grand"??

The mods have asked us to be polite so we will.

At best your response conjures images of a term best described by a white wintry substance falling from the sky onto a crumbling Cadburys chocolate bar.

At worst you are on here to test the moral turpitude of legitimate landlords who oppose the mind bending counterintuitive pressures being placed upon them.

Please assure on me on both counts that I am wrong.

Most people who get paid monthly get paid a month in arrears. The wages i got on the 25th september was for my work in August.

You pay your ESB in arrears. Most comercial rent is paid in arrears. It isn't uncommon.

Grumpypants

OP, I've read back through the thread but can't find if you answered this.

Has the landlord actually agreed to the HAP contract? Or have hap just approved you. Surely if the ll have agreed and signed a contract that says rent is paid on the 26th they should be well aware of when it will be paid.

Have you spoken with them and asked why they signed the contract and are still looking rent to be paid on the 1st.

I can't help but feel this could all be sorted with a three way conference call between you, the ll and the council.

The_Conductor

Just for the sake of clarity- a notice of termination- is not the same as an eviction.
When a tenancy is terminated (by either party) but the tenant does not vacate the property- the tenant is then overholding- however, the landlord still has to go through the process of obtaining an enforcement order via the RTB, before he/she can apply for assistance to evict the tenant.

As davindub has rightly pointed out- tenancy law in Ireland is strongly in a tenant's favour- and while you might be getting stressed out with your 14 days notice of rent being overdue- this is not an eviction- and is, from the landlord's perspective, only the first cog in the wheel.

The RTB also- do not offer advice to tenants (or landlords). They are the body charged with enforcing tenancy legislation and with regulating the sector- this is their remit- offering advice to people over the phone- is not part of their remit. Their telephone service is partially outsourced to Capita down in Clonakilty anyhow- 4 times out of 5 when you ring the RTB- you're not even talking to someone employed by them.

I would be very hesitant to suggest relying on advice offered by Threshold- who have been shown to be wanting in many cases- FLAC are very good though- and extremely enthusiastic (though chronically understaffed and under resourced).

The best of good luck to you.

GGTrek

I suggested to the OP to skip the socialist posters suggestions to go the hard legal route against his institutional investor landlord ( REIT, fund, ...). They have the legal muscle (read money for top lawyers) to force you out and to go all the way to the high court if some socialist arbitrator decides not to apply the law. Being late for rent more than 14 days gives legal ground to 28 days termination yes! I posted the relevant section of the RTA that shows exactly that, forget ideology about what is right or wrong. If you challenge the notice at the RTB you will declare war to a big corporate and in approximately 6-9 months you will almost surely loose your current accommodation. Is that what you want with a young daughter to prove an ideological point? As I said take the rational route and call your landlord administration, talk with someone high up that has power to negotiate and reach a deal. It might not be such a big deal for your landlord to be paid in arrears as long as on time. You just won't know that until you start communicating. Do not listen to legal advice from HAP officers, one particular nasty tenant of mine received advice from them (and threshold) that I could not terminate his lease at 4 years, he actually had the audacity of sending me the email BS from these officer like it was legal gold! I took the email and presented it myself to RTB and then proceeded to show the ineptitude of my tenant and the officer with respect to what the law stated to the adjudicator: my tenant was evicted btw. Again cut the ideological discussion and start negotiating. If you have the means to pay the first month due in advance please offer it as a negotiating tool if not explain it to your landlord administration. Do not take ideological stands like some posters here, remember one fundamental thing: you are the one risking your accommodation, the posters (including me) have nothing to risk!

Mrs Shuttleworth

Grumpypants wrote: »

Most people who get paid monthly get paid a month in arrears. The wages i got on the 25th september was for my work in August.

You pay your ESB in arrears. Most comercial rent is paid in arrears. It isn't uncommon.

That isn't the point, and no tenant looking for somewhere to live who advanced the above argument would find it. The OP agreed in the lease to pay in advance. They were the terms agteed. He broke those terms and for some inexplicable reason is expressing outrage at the landlord for acting correctly in response.

FWIW with reference to your point virtually all hotels, guest houses etc. now require full payment on check in plus an extra swipe of your debit card to hold as security deposit against extras, damage.

davindub

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Grumpypants wrote: »

Most people who get paid monthly get paid a month in arrears. The wages i got on the 25th september was for my work in August.

You pay your ESB in arrears. Most comercial rent is paid in arrears. It isn't uncommon.

That isn't the point, and no tenant looking for somewhere to live who advanced the above argument would find it. The OP agreed in the lease to pay in advance. They were the terms agteed. He broke those terms and for some inexplicable reason is expressing outrage at the landlord for acting correctly in response.

FWIW with reference to your point virtually all hotels, guest houses etc. now require full payment on check in plus an extra swipe of your debit card to hold as security deposit against extras, damage.

But you don't consider that the LL is equally bound by the contract they signed with HAP, why?

Mrs Shuttleworth

davindub wrote: »

But you don't consider that the LL is equally bound by the contract they signed with HAP, why?

The landlord has no privity of contract with HAP. The local authorities make that very clear.

Your question also implies that the landlord entered into this agreement voluntarily. The landlord did not. It was forced to enter into this arrangement by virtue of the legislation and RTB/WRC determinations that you must accept HAP particularly from a subsisting tenant.

davindub

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

But you don't consider that the LL is equally bound by the contract they signed with HAP, why?

The landlord has no privity of contract with HAP. The local authorities make that very clear.

Your question also implies that the landlord entered into this agreement voluntarily. The landlord did not. It was forced to enter into this arrangement by virtue of the legislation and RTB/WRC determinations that you must accept HAP particularly from a subsisting tenant.

I assume you mean the tenant has no action under privity of contract.

But privity does not prevent the tenant from using the contract as evidence of the new agreement, just the tenant cannot enforce the contract.

Tenancy is different from lease as it cannot be terminated except in he manner provided for in the act . Tenancy arises from lease or payment of rent and the terms of the tenancy will be decided by lease, legislation, etc. RTB can interpret the terms of the tenancy bearing in mind all these factors. They really won't enforce one lease ignoring other relevant factors.

The matter of whether a LL is forced to enter into the HAP contract would be out of scope for the RTB. The LL would have to make that case elsewhere.

Mrs Shuttleworth

davindub wrote: »

I assume you mean the tenant has no action under privity of contract.

But privity does not prevent the tenant from using the contract as evidence of the new agreement, just the tenant cannot enforce the contract.

Tenancy is different from lease as it cannot be terminated except in he manner provided for in the act . Tenancy arises from lease or payment of rent and the terms of the tenancy will be decided by lease, legislation, etc. RTB can interpret the terms of the tenancy bearing in mind all these factors. They really won't enforce one lease ignoring other relevant factors.

The matter of whether a LL is forced to enter into the HAP contract would be out of scope for the RTB. The LL would have to make that case elsewhere.

There is no "new agreement". The lease between the landlord and the tenant is subsisting.

There is no contract between the landlord and the local authority - nothing. The landlord accepts that the rent for the month will be paid on the last Wednesday of every month, but the tenant is responsible for the shortfall in accordance with the terms of the lease. Even the local authority in their booklets make that very clear.

The case some posters on here seem to be making is that it is acceptable to be permanently in arrears vis-a-vis the terms of the lease. It isn't.

It really is no surprise that the landlord wants the OP out.

davindub

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

I assume you mean the tenant has no action under privity of contract.

But privity does not prevent the tenant from using the contract as evidence of the new agreement, just the tenant cannot enforce the contract.

Tenancy is different from lease as it cannot be terminated except in he manner provided for in the act . Tenancy arises from lease or payment of rent and the terms of the tenancy will be decided by lease, legislation, etc. RTB can interpret the terms of the tenancy bearing in mind all these factors. They really won't enforce one lease ignoring other relevant factors.

The matter of whether a LL is forced to enter into the HAP contract would be out of scope for the RTB. The LL would have to make that case elsewhere.

There is no "new agreement". The lease between the landlord and the tenant is subsisting.

There is no contract between the landlord and the local authority - nothing. The landlord accepts that the rent for the month will be paid on the last Wednesday of every month, but the tenant is responsible for the shortfall in accordance with the terms of the lease. Even the local authority in their booklets make that very clear.

The case some posters on here seem to be making is that it is acceptable to be permanently in arrears vis-a-vis the terms of the lease. It isn't.

It really is no surprise that the landlord wants the OP out.

The landlord signed a HAP agreement. That is a contract. The landlord will also benefit from an additional tax deductible amount of 20% on their finance cost. Hard to argue that there is no contract.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The landlord signed a HAP agreement. That is a contract. The landlord will also benefit from an additional tax deductible amount of 20% on their finance cost. Hard to argue that there is no contract.

This is a contract between the LL and the council, the separate contract between the LL and the tenant is still valid.

Grumpypants

Cash Young Yachtsman wrote: »

This is a contract between the LL and the council, the separate contract between the LL and the tenant is still valid.

If it is anything like the contract i signed with my tenant then it is a contract between all three parties.

It is very clear.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Grumpypants wrote: »

If it is anything like the contract i signed with my tenant then it is a contract between all three parties.

It is very clear.

Read the HAP Information Booklet for landlords. It is very clear about there being no agreement between the local authority and the landlord. It's even in the frequently answered questions.

This is evidenced by the (barmy) system of the local authority not paying the HAP payment to the landlord in a month if the tenant bounces paying their contribution to the local authority in that month. In effect the local authority follows the tenant in committing the illegal act.

If there was a binding agreement in place between the landlord and the local authority then LA's portion should still be paid regardless.

It isn't. There is no contract.

Fkall

Grumpypants wrote: »

Most people who get paid monthly get paid a month in arrears. The wages i got on the 25th september was for my work in August.

You pay your ESB in arrears. Most comercial rent is paid in arrears. It isn't uncommon.

Commercial rent is normally paid in advance.

the_syco

bajer101 wrote: »

Oh FFS, for the final time, there is no arrears. August rent is paid. The only rent that is due is September's, which will be paid tomorrow, as per the agreement the landlord signed.

What agreement? The only agreement that I can see is that you must pay the contribution to the local authority, and that the LL agrees that they are tax compliant. Other than that, I see nothing about any agreement stating otherwise, as the form that may state may depend on your area.

bajer101 wrote: »

You can legally evict someone if they are 15 days in arrears. That's just insane.

How long do you think they should have? Two months?

=-=

As per 3.6 here it states

Similar to the Rent Supplement scheme, there are limits regarding the
maximum payment for different household types in different areas.

Has the OP confirmed that the HAP will cover the full amount of their rent? The information provided to me in the links state that it pays the full amount, but that this "full amount" depends on the limit for the area.

Grumpypants wrote: »

If it is anything like the contract i signed with my tenant then it is a contract between all three parties.

It is very clear.

As per 3.8 here, it's clear that the LL has no contract with the local authority.

You don’t have a contract with the local authority. The local authority makes payments on behalf of the HAP tenant.