Devils advocate question in relation to declining HAP

the_syco

Making a new thread as opposed to derailing this one.
To play the devils advocate; is there anything that is an automatic fail for HAP? For example, if everything is fine bar the 10 year battery in the smoke alarm, will it fail the HAP test?

Before, landlords may say "don't accept RA", and therefore you know that you'd be wasting your time contacting that landlord if you're on RA.

But now they're not allowed to say that they don't accept HAP, it means they'll get a number of people wasting their own time looking at the house, and getting denied for some other random reason, as the landlord has no intention of renting it to someone on HAP, but can't say so.

Thus, I ask as I'd wonder would landlords then be allowed to say in their Daft ad; "unable to take anyone on HAP to to house being incompatible with HAP", if they have failed the HAP test?

Mrs OBumble

That would be just inviting some desperate want-to-be-tenant saying they'll pay to bring it up to HAP standard themselves.


I guess it might work if there was some structural reason why it could never be brought up to HAP standard.

gizmo81

I don't really understand HAP and discrimination. It's quite easy for a landlord to 'discriminate' against HAP tenants by simply choosing someone else but I wondered about existing tenants. Ones who try secure a property without informing the landlord about HAP or those who have diagnoses or become unemployed etc during a tenancy. So I reached out to DCC and on querying HAP with DCC, I got this response,

When the tenant becomes eligible for HAP, he can either apply for hap in his current accommodation or he can find an alternative landlord that will take him on as a tenant.

The landlord is not required to accept HAP from a sitting tenant.

If after an inspection, the property needs to be repaired, if the landlord refuses to repair the property the HAP payment will cease, and the tenant will have to source alternative accommodation.


If you have any further questions you can contact the HAP team on 01 222 6400


So, while a landlord cannot discriminate in advertising the property, there are no protections for a HAP tenant beyond that, if my understanding is correct?

I don't understand how that fits with the RTA 2004, if the property doesn't meet the minimum standards then the tenant can refer a dispute to the RTB, hy would they have to leave a property if it doesn't meet the minimum standards?

DCC states if the property doesn't meet the HAP inspection they will have to source alternative accommodation. Hypothetically then 8 months later in their new accommodation the property fails the HAP inspection, has the tenant to source alternative accommodation again?

While I understand people have been prosecuted for stating on adverts 'no HAP' is there any protections beyond that?

The_Conductor

You do raise a legitimate concern.
Landlords have little, if any, incentive to invest money in property- HAP or otherwise (any 'investment' in a property other than a repair on a like-for-like basis is not a tax deductible expense- e.g. if a landlord changes windows from single to double glazing- its an 'improvement' and not tax deductible).
Its entirely foreseeable that landlords will loose tenants over HAP inspections- by design or otherwise.

Whether a landlord can include in an advertisement that a property is not compatible with the HAP scheme- is an interesting one. Technically- it is a material disclosure that is highly relevant for prospective tenants- who is going to want to want to rent it- if they have to randomly move again 3-6 months down the line?

Someone somewhere- has failed to join up the dots on this one.........

davindub

The_Conductor wrote: »

You do raise a legitimate concern.
Landlords have little, if any, incentive to invest money in property- HAP or otherwise (any 'investment' in a property other than a repair on a like-for-like basis is not a tax deductible expense- e.g. if a landlord changes windows from single to double glazing- its an 'improvement' and not tax deductible).
Its entirely foreseeable that landlords will loose tenants over HAP inspections- by design or otherwise.

Whether a landlord can include in an advertisement that a property is not compatible with the HAP scheme- is an interesting one. Technically- it is a material disclosure that is highly relevant for prospective tenants- who is going to want to want to rent it- if they have to randomly move again 3-6 months down the line?

Someone somewhere- has failed to join up the dots on this one.........

Property improvements are "tax deductible" with the capital allowances scheme.

The_Conductor

davindub wrote: »

Property improvements are "tax deductible" with the capital allowances scheme.

Certain expenditure is allowable under the capital allowances scheme- such as repair work- which is wholly allowable in year 1- or certain qualifying expenditure (such as a boiler replacement etc) which is allowable at a 12.5% per annum over 8 years.

There is a specific property improvement allowance for industrial buildings- but not residential dwellings- typically its amortised on a flatline basis @ 4% per annum over 25 years.

Wear and tear- is allowable- on a like-for-like basis- in the year in which it is incurred.

There are some SEAI and Home Improvement grants- available to landlords for energy efficient capital purchases- typically its not on as favourable terms as it would be to an owner occupier- and in general, is akin to VAT back on the cost of the item and installation.

Repair claims- are fully tax deductible (in the year incurred- which is why they often are staggered over two financial years by landlords- often as a threshold measure).

There is not a 'capital allowances scheme' akin to the business schemes or the industrial schemes- for landlords- unfortunately- though it would be very nice for both tenants and landlords if one were introduced.

Baby01032012

[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wear and Tear[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wear and tear allowances are available in respect of capital expenditure incurred on fixtures and fittings (for example, furniture, kitchen appliances, etc) provided by a lessor for the purposes of furnishing rented residential accommodation. The allowances are available only where the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively in respect of a house used solely as a dwelling which is, or is to be, let as a furnished house on bona fide commercial terms on the open market. The rate of wear and tear depends on when the capital expenditure was incurred. For expenditure incurred on or after 4 December 2002 the allowance is 12.5% of the expenditure per annum for eight years.[/font]

davindub

The_Conductor wrote: »

Certain expenditure is allowable under the capital allowances scheme- such as repair work- which is wholly allowable in year 1- or certain qualifying expenditure (such as a boiler replacement etc) which is allowable at a 12.5% per annum over 8 years.

There is a specific property improvement allowance for industrial buildings- but not residential dwellings- typically its amortised on a flatline basis @ 4% per annum over 25 years.

Wear and tear- is allowable- on a like-for-like basis- in the year in which it is incurred.

There are some SEAI and Home Improvement grants- available to landlords for energy efficient capital purchases- typically its not on as favourable terms as it would be to an owner occupier- and in general, is akin to VAT back on the cost of the item and installation.

Repair claims- are fully tax deductible (in the year incurred- which is why they often are staggered over two financial years by landlords- often as a threshold measure).

There is not a 'capital allowances scheme' akin to the business schemes or the industrial schemes- for landlords- unfortunately- though it would be very nice for both tenants and landlords if one were introduced.

Capital allowances are the wear and tear. As you stated 12.5 pa fixed per year (not like for like basis?).

There are no cap allowances for the building itself (or new extension, etc) presumably as in nearly 100% of cases there would be a balancing charge on sale. Instead you can claim as part of the purchase price for CGT (including extensions, etc).

I have seen questions relating to where expenditure for replacement windows fall into. Normally you would claim capital allowances, it is easier to justify, less likely to invoke a audit. Some people might argue it's a repair - fine if you can stand over that decision and your overall tax bill.

ED E

Watching (I think) Irelands Property Crisis recently there was a HAP would be complaining about the reg change as it just wastes hours upon hours of her time.