HAP for landlords

jamesthepeach

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Self regulation of the market doesn't work. There are properties in Dublin that are now renting at more than twice what they were 3 years ago. This thread has seen landlord crying about having to change fire alarms and ventilation. Can you imagine what houses would look like on the rental market without minimum standards?

Same with hotel rooms.
Thats why it's called the market.
Try to regulate a market and you get ... Well you get what we have now.

And about minimum standards. The complaints I'm reading on here are not that there are minimum standards, it's that there are many different minimum standards.

Also to bring properties up to am new standards costs money. If you can't increase the rent you cant out the money into improvements.
Well the bed is made now. I guess anyone lying it just has to put up with it or get out of it.

Mrs Shuttleworth

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Or pass a law to stop a landlord even selling his property. They won't stop until they take every last bit of control a property owner has. What will be the unintended consequences of that then?

I have my own suspicions as to what the Government is at but it's for another forum - or more appropriately, wine-fuelled conversations in kitchens at night.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Self regulation of the market doesn't work. There are properties in Dublin that are now renting at more than twice what they were 3 years ago. This thread has seen landlord crying about having to change fire alarms and ventilation. Can you imagine what houses would look like on the rental market without minimum standards?

The issue is less about the minimum standards and more that you can be forced under pain of legal judgment to undertake repairs and take on certain tenants that you financially cannot afford to.

Askthe EA

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Self regulation of the market doesn't work. There are properties in Dublin that are now renting at more than twice what they were 3 years ago. This thread has seen landlord crying about having to change fire alarms and ventilation. Can you imagine what houses would look like on the rental market without minimum standards?

Same as they did before. Fine in the main with a few cowboys thrown in just like any other walk of life.

Duncanwooly

Askthe EA wrote: »

Same as they did before. Fine in the main with a few cowboys thrown in just like any other walk of life.

It doesn't seem like it's a few cowboys. Cowboys take shortcuts and bodge jobs. The LLs on this thread seem unwilling to even do a bodge job

The_Conductor

Duncanwooly wrote: »

It doesn't seem like it's a few cowboys. Cowboys take shortcuts and bodge jobs. The LLs on this thread seem unwilling to even do a bodge job

Honestly Duncan- the vast majority of landlords are fully compliant with all legislation- both residential (and other- such as equality legislation). In a similar vein- the vast majority of tenants- are fully au fait with their obligations as tenants- and pay their rent on time- and don't overhold etc.

The nature of the media- is we only hear the miraculous stories- alongside the horror stories- we don't hear what happens to the 98% of tenants and landlords- we hear all about the outliers.

Yes- there are some landlords who are complete and utter cowboys- who should be chased from the sector by both compliant landlords- and aggrieved tenants- and some method put in place to ensure they never darken the sector ever again.......

Its the nature of the way the media works.........

Askthe EA

Duncanwooly wrote: »

It doesn't seem like it's a few cowboys. Cowboys take shortcuts and bodge jobs. The LLs on this thread seem unwilling to even do a bodge job

Its not that they are unwilling to do jobs. We're not talking about basic things like cookers. We are talking about altering the previously perfectly acceptable property, at significant cost, to comply with HAP requirements. These costs cannot be offset against tax. Why would a landlord throw money away to accept a tenant when another tenant comes without these costs??

beauf

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Self regulation of the market doesn't work. There are properties in Dublin that are now renting at more than twice what they were 3 years ago. This thread has seen landlord crying about having to change fire alarms and ventilation. Can you imagine what houses would look like on the rental market without minimum standards?

They were called be-sits and the Govt removed them from the market removing a whole chunk of low cost housing from the market. A lot of bedsits were uneconomical to convert to the min standards, so people took them off the market and sold them I assume. So they disappeared from the private rental stock.

Crying..that kind of attitude has got us where we are. Someone points out a practical issue, and they are ignored or ridiculed. Then you wonder were all the rental stock has gone and why rents sky high.

its not self regulated. Its regulated by Local authorities (in their role as housing authorities) and are responsible for enforcing these minimum standards.

Figures from the Irish Examiner found that of the 285,025 private tenancies registered in 2014, only 13,913 dwellings underwent routine inspections.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-rental-homes-could-face-nct-style-inspections-1.2683089

Mrs Shuttleworth

Can anyone advise me the following as I only remember the old RAS.

Say a 1400 euro per month apartment being the current market rate - what portion of same does HAP pay, how is that calculated?

The_Conductor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Can anyone advise me the following as I only remember the old RAS.

Say a 1400 euro per month apartment being the current market rate - what portion of same does HAP pay, how is that calculated?

Each tenant is assessed according to their means- two tenants could have entirely different HAP payments for the exact same apartment.

Its designed to help low income households- possibly remain in employment etc- its not necessarily only social welfare recipients who qualify for HAP- and its intended that RAS- which is the short-term scheme- will eventually be fully wound up into HAP in the medium term........

So- there isn't really an answer to your question- it depends on the tenant what their rent contribution under HAP will be...........

karenalot

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Can anyone advise me the following as I only remember the old RAS.

Say a 1400 euro per month apartment being the current market rate - what portion of same does HAP pay, how is that calculated?

HAP tenants usually pay between 10% and 20% of their total household income towards the rent.

handlemaster

kceire wrote: »

I put my tennant on HAP.
Got full market rate and got deposit and 2 months rent in advance.

Payment is the last Wednesday of every month.
I got deposit and May and June's payment up front so my next payment will be last Wednesday in July.

Processed quick enough through dublin council.

Did you get paid in july?

Shaungoater

So I received my tenants payment of rent on the 10th of this month that but then the Hap kicked it in, so will receive hap for the 21st to the end of the month the last Wednesday of this month. I am presuming as I get paid in advance from the tenant and the hap is arrears, I now owe the tenant money?

1874

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I have my own suspicions as to what the Government is at but it's for another forum - or more appropriately, wine-fuelled conversations in kitchens at night.

If its to get all small landlords/owners out of the market at the lowest cost, ie legislate to force people out before prices increase to a point where the investment funds are not willing to buy at, potentially getting private owners to sell any property at a price below what they want or what the market demands, even if done so at a loss, then thats what I was thinking, if not, then Im curious. Its simply not possible for as many people to sell that want to.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The issue is less about the minimum standards and more that you can be forced under pain of legal judgment to undertake repairs and take on certain tenants that you financially cannot afford to.

How can someone even consider renting a place if they might be forced to upgrade to a standard that is not affordable? and not required anywhere else. Im not talking about some hovel, but if an ordinary house of reasonable condition might have to be renovated to meet a standard set by a LA forcing someone to rent to a particular section of a rental population and if now I read appliances ratings are included, this is ridiculous, an appliance is either in good condition and functional, the advantages of what energy rating has relative to the oldest recent example available is likely to be marginal. It would likely be economically impossible, so they force this under pain of legal threat, whats the end game to all this???

gizmo81

This idea that every person accessing social welfare payments for housing should be housed by the council is ridiculous.

Not everyone accessing rent supplements are long-term recipients.

People may access rent supplements due to redundancy, illness, separation, domestic violence, etc for a short period of time, why would the councils give all these people a council house?

beauf

I don't thinks that's the idea.

1) if you are going to use Private Rentals, put a proper system in place fair to all parties.
2) keep people in their own homes where you can, especially where its a temporary difficulty
3) bring back part ownership for people getting help.

But it all fails if you can't do (1)

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

This idea that every person accessing social welfare payments for housing should be housed by the council is ridiculous.

Not everyone accessing rent supplements are long-term recipients.

People may access rent supplements due to redundancy, illness, separation, domestic violence, etc for a short period of time, why would the councils give all these people a council house?

Perhaps not a council home- but how about short to medium term accommodation- perhaps under one of the RAS contracts the council/LA might be running with a landlord?

I get what you're saying- the issue is everyone is entitled to be housed- however, it doesn't necessarily have to be a council house- if it was a very short-term need, perhaps a little bit of imagination might be used by the council to try and figure what was in the best interests of both the tenant and the council?

HAP- should be ringfenced for those who are identified as having a long term housing need that they are unlikely to be in a position to provide for themselves. However- there are all those categories of prospective tenants that you've listed- who its entirely probable- will, at some stage, no longer require the assistance of a local authority to house themselves. Its these short-to-medium-term needs- that there has to be some sympathetic and thoughtful responses put into- how best to meet these?

jamesthepeach

The govt refuse to rent a property from a landlord properly, so that the landlord is the only one who on the hook from rogue tenants. What they should do is rent the property and be 100% responsible for it. Then they could sublet to whoever they like.

So they reduced the amount of money they have to social welfare recipients for rent. That didn't work. Landlords could rent to other people instead.

Then the govt changed the discrimination l laws to save themselves money when subsidising social welfare recipient rents. They tried to force landlords to rent for their lower subsidy with that law.

That didn't work, so they brought in rent controls to cap this spend and save themselves a few quid under the disguise of doing it for the general public.

That's not working either. Rents are increasing and landlords are fleeing, as well as those consolidating getting into property investment are saying no way jose, so supply is reducing.

What's next? Whatever it is I garauntee it will make things worse again.

Browney7

jamesthepeach wrote: »

The govt refuse to rent a property from a landlord properly, so that the landlord is the only one who on the hook from rogue tenants. What they should do is rent the property and be 100% responsible for it. Then they could sublet to whoever they like.

So they reduced the amount of money they have to social welfare recipients for rent. That didn't work. Landlords could rent to other people instead.

Then the govt changed the discrimination l laws to save themselves money when subsidising social welfare recipient rents. They tried to force landlords to rent for their lower subsidy with that law.

That didn't work, so they brought in rent controls to cap this spend and save themselves a few quid under the disguise of doing it for the general public.

That's not working either. Rents are increasing and landlords are fleeing, as well as those consolidating getting into property investment are saying no way jose, so supply is reducing.

What's next? Whatever it is I garauntee it will make things worse again.

I do think a large element of people not diving head first into property investment and speculation is due to what they saw happening less than ten years ago where people dived head first into a risky, highly geared investment. Everyone thought they could get rich buying and flipping property. There's just not enough of anything being built now

jamesthepeach

Browney7 wrote: »

I do think a large element of people not diving head first into property investment and speculation is due to what they saw happening less than ten years ago where people dived head first into a risky, highly geared investment. Everyone thought they could get rich buying and flipping property. There's just not enough of anything being built now

True, one would think hard about investing already, but now, particularly since Christmas, the investment landscape is positively scary. So you don't even have the well funded, well researched investors entering the market now, added to the landlords getting out of long term renting.

Duncanwooly

jamesthepeach wrote: »

[...]added to the landlords getting out of long term renting.

Everyone of your posts on this thread has mentioned landlords leaving the market. What evidence have you that this is the case. The sales market hasn't been flooded by properties recently put up for sale. Neither has their been a drop in demand, if landlords are giving property to family members, created by said family members leaving their current accommodation.

The_Conductor

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Everyone of your posts on this thread has mentioned landlords leaving the market. What evidence have you that this is the case. The sales market hasn't been flooded by properties recently put up for sale. Neither has their been a drop in demand, if landlords are giving property to family members, created by said family members leaving their current accommodation.

The evidence is in the RTB annual reports- which enumerates the number of registered landlords. Over the past 7 years it has progressively fallen from just under 240k to a little over160k- and is continuing to fall. The absolute number of properties on the rental market- has not in fact fallen- i.e. on average a landlord today has additional units over and above what they had 7 years ago.

Its in the RTB annual report. Unfortunately it doesn't go back beyond 7 years- it would be nice to look at 2007-2008- and map it over the lost decade.

jamesthepeach

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Everyone of your posts on this thread has mentioned landlords leaving the market. What evidence have you that this is the case. The sales market hasn't been flooded by properties recently put up for sale. Neither has their been a drop in demand, if landlords are giving property to family members, created by said family members leaving their current accommodation.

I doubt there is much going to famy members at all. Those numbers would be small.
You don't have to sell to get out of the market. Some are.
Check out the Airbnb numbers and the daft reports. Read all the stories here and everywhere else. Do you honestly think landlords are staying in the market?

As tenants are leaving landlords are leaving. This will be a natural full of rental properties. Then you have the ones asking tenants to leave so they can get out too.
The ones returning are actually staying in the market because they can now charge market rate, unless they decide to do short term instead because of the risks for the future.

Askthe EA

Duncanwooly wrote: »

Everyone of your posts on this thread has mentioned landlords leaving the market. What evidence have you that this is the case. The sales market hasn't been flooded by properties recently put up for sale. Neither has their been a drop in demand, if landlords are giving property to family members, created by said family members leaving their current accommodation.

I read somewhere today that of the RTB cases in relation to tenancy termination, 40% were related to termination on grounds of selling. This suggests LLs are getting out and are making a balls of the termination notices.

jamesthepeach

Askthe EA wrote: »

I read somewhere today that of the RTB cases in relation to tenancy termination, 40% were related to termination on grounds of selling. This suggests LLs are getting out and are making a balls of the termination notices.

Or that people go to the rtb automatically, just to get a stay of execution, whether they have a case or not.

Askthe EA

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Or that people go to the rtb automatically, just to get a stay of execution, whether they have a case or not.

Eitherway, the most common by far IS selling. LLs are clearly getting out.

the_syco

Askthe EA wrote: »

I read somewhere today that of the RTB cases in relation to tenancy termination, 40% were related to termination on grounds of selling. This suggests LLs are getting out and are making a balls of the termination notices.

I wonder how many of the 40% are the cause of the LL selling?

Mrs Shuttleworth

jamesthepeach wrote: »

What's next? Whatever it is I guarantee it will make things worse again.

Vacant property tax, the snooper's charter recently launched and expansion of CPOs should scare the last remaining potential investors off. If you can be forced to let a property in the future to individuals of the Government's choice and/or have a CPO slapped on you (both of which have happened recently in Germany and Italy) then landlords will exit the market at the earliest opportunity.

No one will buy and indeed lenders may well pull the drawbridge up on many mortgage products if an owner cannot commit by virtue of Govt legislation to pay the sums due at a certain unpredictable point in time.

The_Conductor

Anyone who wants to invest in property- will probably dump whatever standalone units they have- and buy a few apartments in a development- and hand them over to an agent- or buy units in a REIT- and shelter themselves in that manner.

Someone on here last night pointed out that houses in housing estates, with gardens etc- will be the first thing that vanishes from the rental market. No landlord is going to try to retrofit current specs to a 20 year old semi-d, esp. if they then can't offset the costs involved against rental income- as its considered to be an 'improvement'.

So- the profile of rental property will evolve- stand alone units and houses with gardens in particular- will vanish- in favour of blocks of apartments and flats.

Thats the road we have in front of us.

handlemaster

It appears the government are shooting the hand that feeds them. They want private landlords to handle there social issue  problem of housing shortage. Thats ok, but dont then say landlords are not a business by  not giving fair usage of the tax system.