HAP for landlords

Graham

peaches08 wrote: »

it's totally up to the person who OWNS the property who they choose to live in it and what deposit, reference etc they require..

Within the confines of the law. No use pretending such confines don't exist.

peaches08

Per the Local Authority a landlord is not OBLIGED to accept HAP
I have called since I posted of course there's no answer but managed to get someone I know who works in the LA to get this answered for me.
A tenant must be able to prove that the rent is affordable to the landlord and again a landlord is not obliged to accept HAP.

this system is all about the tenant and the LA nothing for the landlord and until that changes there will be an issue with HAP

gizmo81

peaches08 wrote: »

Per the Local Authority a landlord is not OBLIGED to accept HAP
I have called since I posted of course there's no answer but managed to get someone I know who works in the LA to get this answered for me.
A tenant must be able to prove that the rent is affordable to the landlord and again a landlord is not obliged to accept HAP.

this system is all about the tenant and the LA nothing for the landlord and until that changes there will be an issue with HAP

How about ringing Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission because they'll tell you fairly sharply that you are opening yourself up to a complaint under The Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.

peaches08

let' s sue the whole country why don't you! This is the attitude that has Landlords leaving the rental market

Again LL are not OBLIGED to take HAP tenants or if an existing tenant applies for HAP it's up to the landlord to accept or not. It's a landlords CHOICE who they view is the best possible tenant for their property.
the cons outweigh the pro's with HAP

If there's any Landlords on this forum I'd like to hear from them in relation to their experiences for the following issues.

With insurance issues and increased premium or a denial of insurance because of a HAP tenant,
lack of payment from tenant to the LA and how you resolved this with the LA and the length of time you were without rent until resolved.
anti-social behaviour and the HAP tenant with the LA,
damage to your property and how the LA dealt with this.
Property upgrade for HAP tenants following inspections of your property.
Rent issues with paying under market value rent or re negotiation your contract once you enter into HAP.

To me this is just too much RISK for a LL to accept HAP from a tenant

Graham

peaches08 wrote: »

Per the Local Authority a landlord is not OBLIGED to accept HAP

There is a difference between not being obliged to accept (i.e. giving preference to) and discriminating against.

Added:

While the LA clearly recongnise they cannot force a landlord at accept HAP, what they haven't stated is whether such refusal to accept constitutes discrimination. That's a question you would need to put to your own legal advisers.

gizmo81

peaches08 wrote: »

let' s sue the whole country why don't you! This is the attitude that has Landlords leaving the rental market

Again LL are not OBLIGED to take HAP tenants or if an existing tenant applies for HAP it's up to the landlord to accept or not. It's a landlords CHOICE who they view is the best possible tenant for their property.
the cons outweigh the pro's with HAP

If there's any Landlords on this forum I'd like to hear from them in relation to their experiences for the following issues.

With insurance issues and increased premium or a denial of insurance because of a HAP tenant,
lack of payment from tenant to the LA and how you resolved this with the LA and the length of time you were without rent until resolved.
anti-social behaviour and the HAP tenant with the LA,
damage to your property and how the LA dealt with this.
Property upgrade for HAP tenants following inspections of your property.
Rent issues with paying under market value rent or re negotiation your contract once you enter into HAP.

To me this is just too much RISK for a LL to accept HAP from a tenant

It's a business and you cannot refuse to serve a person a cake because they are gay, female, disabled, on welfare. This is no different.

peaches08

Graham wrote: »

My guess would be yes, as they could all indirectly discriminate against SW tenants.

A sensible landlord might ask for 2 or 3 references including a current landlords reference.

Most landlords in Dublin look for 3 months bank statements, work references and previous LL references,
You must show you are in funds to rent a property. Some LL ask for 2 months deposit and 1 month in advance others more others less.

Being a LL is not a business for a lot of people, a lot are accidental landlords
they are stuck with houses in neg equity or due to personal situations they cannot sell and have to rent then out. It's a loss making " Business" due to taxes etc.

Graham

peaches08 wrote: »

Most landlords in Dublin look for 3 months bank statements, work references and previous LL references,
You must show you are in funds to rent a property. Some LL ask for 2 months deposit and 1 month in advance others more others less.

Being a LL is not a business for a lot of people, a lot are accidental landlords
they are stuck with houses in neg equity or due to personal situations they cannot sell and have to rent then out. It's a loss making " Business" due to taxes etc.

I would argue that insisting on work reference almost certainly falls within the realms of discrimination:

Including a discriminatory term or condition in a lease, tenancy agreement or licence agreement, whether oral or verbal;

Nothing else in your post is particularly relevant, the law doesn't change because you're an accidental landlord.

jimmycrackcorm

Graham wrote:

My guess would be yes, as they could all indirectly discriminate against SW tenants.

My guess would be no otherwise charging significant rent beyond the SW limits could also be construed as discriminatory.

gizmo81 wrote:

How about ringing Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission because they'll tell you fairly sharply that you are opening yourself up to a complaint under The Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.

Fact? Or #Fakenews

gizmo81

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Fact? Or #Fakenews[/QUOTE

Why don't you ring them and find out?

I've quoted multiple times from the Commission.

Graham

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My guess would be no otherwise charging significant rent beyond the SW limits could also be construed as discriminatory.

I don't follow the logic.

Surely market rent is market rent and applies equally to all tenants. Unless you're suggesting increasing the rent over and above that which you would have charged a non-sw tenant.

1874

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ventilation requirements have evolved though- in the 1990s- it was the norm, and perfectly acceptable, to have ventillation built into windows and window frames- it was not necessary for separate ventillation.
If there is an extractor fan in a bathroom- on the same circuit as the light in the bathroom (perfectly allowable in the 1990s)- that'll need to be removed onto its own subsystem- etc etc etc.

Why is this?? a bathroom extractor on a seperate switch may never be used by someone?? if a fan is wired into a light it will be used. I dont see how having a fan extractor on a seperate wiring is of any benefit from an extraction point of view? what is the purpose?

gizmo81 wrote: »

It's a business and you cannot refuse to serve a person a cake because they are gay, female, disabled, on welfare. This is no different.

Ok, so if someone has a bakery business; one potential customer isnt gay/female/disabled and wants to pay the going rate for cake, another is gay/female/disabled and wants to avail of a system that means they only have to pay a share for the cake but if you agree to them availing of your business service a third party pays the balance (but that third party decides the total price for the cake and pay the balance) for the cake but that it means the business owner has to comply with conditions which exceed regulations and costs the business owner to implement, means they are likely to be paid in arrears and may even have the payment withdrawn after they have supplied the cake with no recourse through the third party, how is that discrimination to go for the first customer? rather than plain common sense.

Michael D Not Higgins

Graham wrote: »

I don't follow the logic.

Surely market rent is market rent and applies equally to all tenants. Unless you're suggesting increasing the rent over and above that which you would have charged a non-sw tenant.

I think what he's getting at is that he doesn't think setting a high deposit is discriminating against welfare tenants since setting a high level of rent which precludes them from applying is not discriminatory. It is equally discriminatory to everyone.

A welfare tenant may make a claim that a high deposit would prejudice against them but a landlord could make the defence that the deposit is protecting his asset and is applied equally to welfare or non-welfare tenant.

I'd hazard a guess that you'd need a stronger footing to take a case against breach of the Equal Status Act than the deposit amount.

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think what he's getting at is that he doesn't think setting a high deposit is discriminating against welfare tenants since setting a high level of rent which precludes them from applying is not discriminatory. It is equally discriminatory to everyone.

That makes sense as long as the deposit requirements are the same for both types of tenants.

circular flexing

the_syco wrote: »

Most people who I've read about the insurance companies not accepting HAP tenants, it was the broker who told them. Thus I'm assuming it's in the small print.

I assume it's similar to people only finding out that their modified car isn't covered after they crash. Have you ever asked Aviva if your house is covered when occupied by someone on any Social Welfare program?

I contacted Aviva. As it's still a private let it's not an issue. If it was under the Rental Accomodation Scheme then they wouldn't cover it. So long as I decide who lives in it, Aviva will cover it.

the_syco

peaches08 wrote: »

let' s sue the whole country why don't you! This is the attitude that has Landlords leaving the rental market

Telling the applicant that they didn't get the place because of any reason is stupid. Denying the applicant the place because you got someone else is the way to go, imo.

circular flexing wrote: »

I contacted Aviva. As it's still a private let it's not an issue. If it was under the Rental Accomodation Scheme then they wouldn't cover it. So long as I decide who lives in it, Aviva will cover it.

From threads on here, ti seems all RAS tenants are being moved over to HAP, so that may change. Although it's a private let, the deposit and the rent coming from the LA may colours the waters a bit.

The_Conductor

the_syco wrote: »

Telling the applicant that they didn't get the place because of any reason is stupid.

You're quite right- if one tenant gets any particular place, and another doesn't- you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to tell the tenant who wasn't successful why he/she didn't get the place.

Its not an interview where you supply feedback to candidates. You have one successful applicant- the others, were simply unsuccessful, good luck with your search, goodbye.

Once you go down the road of speculating why one tenant got the tenancy and another didn't- openly with a non-successful applicant- you are opening yourself to a barrage of trouble.

via4

I am a tenant ( sorry I know you wanted llandlords opinions) I am on hap & I find it easier to pay the rent this way because it's paid directly to the landlord. I pay a top up on my hap card ( this is me giving the council money to give to the landlord) & I do this in the post office the day I get my money so it's done straight away. Before I had to put the money away each week & then go to the bank & if I didn't make the bank on the day it must have been annoying for the landlord getting it a few days late if my day fell in a Friday.
I'm in the north east & the hap people said at the time the would come & inspect the house this has never happened ever. I think they kind of leave the tenants that they get a sense of you being a clean person they don't bother ( I could be completely wrong but I kind of guessed this )
The fact you have good tenants your safe. If they were bad payers I wouldn't go down the hap route.

The_Conductor

In short- I'd be quite surprised if tenants weren't estatic to be moved to HAP- as in general it means their accommodation would be upgraded significantly to meet current building regs/standards- and local authorities love it- because any of the risk associated with the scheme is batted back to the landlord- but there are significant risks for landlords- notable among them- if the tenant misses a payment to the local authority- the landlord gets nothing- i.e. the landlord doesn't get the local authorities share of the rent- they get nothing at all, if the tenant doesn't pay their share to the local authority.

Its good to see Dublin City Council offering to pay a 2 months deposit- and the rent in advance- which to be brutally honest- is simply a reflection of the fact that there is so little property available in the area- its a bit stupid putting HAP tenants at some a disadvantage to other tenants- the rent in advance and 2 months deposit- is an attempt to create a more level playing field with private sector tenants (arguably 2 months deposit is insufficient- I'm helping a lady let an apartment in Christchurch at the moment- she is getting 6 months rent as a deposit- and 3 months rent in advance- and in exchange is letting at approx. 25% below open market rates for the area. She has her choice of tenants willing to subscribe to these conditions- over 20 turned up to her first viewing- and she cancelled the second viewing to sort through the first evening's crowds.

This one month deposit thing- is coming back to bite people- esp. when seeking a new tenancy- however, most landlords are willing to play ball- and offer a lower headline rent- in exchange for a significantly better deposit bond from tenants. Where the landlord doesn't have a mortgage on the property- the main cost they have is tax- so it makes sense to offer a reasonable quid-pro-quo.

The_Conductor

the_syco wrote: »

From threads on here, ti seems all RAS tenants are being moved over to HAP, so that may change. Although it's a private let, the deposit and the rent coming from the LA may colours the waters a bit.

HAP is specifically for tenants who need long term (i.e. greater than 12 months) assistance towards providing accommodation for themselves. I.e. they are not anticipated to be capable of housing themselves in the short to medium term.

Rent supplement (and RAS) are continuing- in a much more restricted format- intended solely for short term assistance (for example if someone is critically ill but it is anticapted that they will recover and be in position to provide for themselves in future).

The massive roll-out of HAP- is an acknowledgement that government policies have failed- and there is going to be a long term need to source private sector accommodation for people. Some local authorities are purchasing additional units, in addition to social housing units, in new developments- to try to build up housing stock- as local authorities do not have the resources to construct units in the numbers in which they are required.

Zebrano

Morning All

I am just about to rent out my property for the first time and in the process of choosing tenants, a lot of which have asked if I will accept HAP tenants. I have read the information booklet about the scheme and it seems like there is a lot of paperwork involved. I know the council also inspect the house and if it is not up to standard, then will require the landlords to make the changes. The house was built nearly 60 years ago. It has all the minimum appliance required (and more), well ventilated, fire blankets/alarms, carbon monoxide alarms etc, but is there an exhaustive list anywhere of what the requirements are?

I would appreciate any feedback from landlords who have gone through this process. Does the paperwork take a lot of time and result in delayed rental payments? Can the tenant pay the difference of HAP and rental price?

Would appreciate any feedback at all - positive or negative.

Thank you

Graham

Threads Merged

the_syco

Zebrano wrote: »

Can the tenant pay the difference of HAP and rental price?

If they don't pay the LA, you don't get anything. IMO, doing HAP for an existing tenant that you have no issues with is fine, but if doing HAP with a new tenant you won't know until it's too late if they have any intention on paying rent or not. And then it's up to you (not the LA) to evict them. Which can take a while.

TBH, if they can't afford the rental price, I doubt you'll be getting the rental price from them.

The Student

The two biggest sticking points with the HAP scheme is the non payment of the tenants rent contribution to the Local Authority and secondly the accommodation standards expected. The HAP Scheme was introduced specifically because of the non payment of rent by Tenants to the Local Authorities. This is one of the reasons the RAS is closed to new applicants. While I appreciate properties need to be habitual to a reasonable level, some of the requirements are just ridiculous.

peaches08

the_syco wrote: »

If they don't pay the LA, you don't get anything. IMO, doing HAP for an existing tenant that you have no issues with is fine, but if doing HAP with a new tenant you won't know until it's too late if they have any intention on paying rent or not. And then it's up to you (not the LA) to evict them. Which can take a while.

TBH, if they can't afford the rental price, I doubt you'll be getting the rental price from them.

there is an issue with existing tenants moving to HAP, the delay in payment as you are in arrears with LA paying, and if the tenant doesn't pay the LA you don't get paid, it takes about 4- 6 weeks to figure out that happens, then you have to follow normal procedure to evict, 14 days late rent notice then a month to leave, which could mean months before you can get them out of your property.
good luck then with chasing rent from a non paying tenant and getting anyone from the LA to answer their phones !!! it's not their problem if the tenant doesn't pay their share to the LA, it's your problem as a landlord , you still do not get your LA portion of the rent for that month.

HAP is fantastic for the LA and the tenants, very poor for landlords a disaster really

Zebrano

Thank you, those risks really outweigh the benefits and a lot can go wrong resulting in non-payment of rent. At least with a current tenant you know them and know what kind of a person they are. I think I will steer clear for now.

Thanks

Kiwibear

If a Tennant does not pay the LA their part of the rent the LA continue to pay the LL for 4 months. During them 4 months they will try contact the Tennant etc to arrange payment of arrears. If Tennant agrees to pay the arrears by 5e extra a week the LA will continue to pay the LL. The LA will also notify the LL if this situation arises, long before non payment happens.

1874

Kiwibear wrote: »

If a Tennant does not pay the LA their part of the rent the LA continue to pay the LL for 4 months. During them 4 months they will try contact the Tennant etc to arrange payment of arrears. If Tennant agrees to pay the arrears by 5e extra a week the LA will continue to pay the LL. The LA will also notify the LL if this situation arises, long before non payment happens.

If this is correct, it seems its a recent thing, as For all Ive heard and read about HAP the landlord is on their own in the case of a tenant not continuing payments to the LA. That said, different LA seem to do things differently, so how this could be a hard and fast rule for all or even any would surprise me, any link?
If it is accurate for a specific LA, it probably reflects their dawning realization that HAP simply isnt being taken up in the volume they hope or that they can offer less return for more restrictive commitment by landlords.
If they really wanted to fix this, they might have gotten away with reduced rental value, if they took complete responsibility for payments and dealt with arrears by the tenant to them directly or took their payment directly so there would be no arrears to them, and if they took full responsibility for anti social issues and condition of the property. Id even suggest they should look into getting unfurnished blank slate property off people and let people furnish fit out appliances themselves or with LA support depending on their finances, that might even be cheaper than continuing with people in hotels/B&Bs longterm.

Kiwibear

I signed up for HAP with DCC 2 weeks ago and they told me at my final meeting. So no link but it was made clear to me.
It's frustrating because I'm a good Tennant. I actually hired a builder and got structural damage repaired because my LL was ignoring me and my kids were about to fall through the floor. Paid it myself didn't look for refund. I work contract work here and there aswell as foster a child. My LL has to move back in and so I've been given my notice after almost 4 years.
I applied for a new place offered 1900 (200 above asking price) and deposit and 2 months rent in advance and gave references and bank statements the lot and, I was refused and now they're holding more viewings on the place so the only reason I was refused is, because of HAP I'm sure. I've never missed a rent payment and my LL reference states this and also says the best Tennant I ever had. LL told me they did not even ring to check reference so refused me simply because I'm a HAP tenant.

Michael D Not Higgins

Kiwibear wrote: »

If a Tennant does not pay the LA their part of the rent the LA continue to pay the LL for 4 months. During them 4 months they will try contact the Tennant etc to arrange payment of arrears. If Tennant agrees to pay the arrears by 5e extra a week the LA will continue to pay the LL. The LA will also notify the LL if this situation arises, long before non payment happens.

This is the first I've heard of this. It's also something they should advertise if that is the case. On the HAP leaflets it says the payments are suspended if the tenant stops paying their contribution. If they've changed their policy they could sway more landlords to accept HAP.