HAP Scheme if tenant doesn't pay

Dubjams

Hi,

I'd appreciate if someone could clarify happens with the HAP scheme when the tenant doesn't pay the council their portion? Does the council pay the council portion of the rent to the landlord or does the landlord get nothing? Will the council do anything to extract the tenants portion of rent from them?

We currently have a tenant on rent allowance who wants to move to HAP. She's acting as if this will solve all our problems. On rent allowance we rarely get her portion of the rent - we only get the rent allowance portion. She's a nightmare and we're trying without success for about 2 years to evict her (with the support of a letting agency). She's ignored PTRB judgements and just won't engage. We're actually asking very little from her. She's on a rent well below market rate. We're only asking her to pay the agreed rent. She thinks the world owes her everything and she should contribute nothing.

Our options at this stage are to go down the route of the courts and just get her out. My head says this is the right thing to do. She's made zero efforts to engage with her us (and we're softie landlords). My heart however knows if we evict her (with great expense that we can't really afford) that she won't get anywhere else to rent in this market. We certainly wouldn't give any reference. She has 2 kids and it's not fair on them. We don't want to be cold hearted.

Option B is to accept the HAP scheme at an increased rent. However the house is now in not great shape partly due to neglect by the tenant and partly due to an external leak problem that has been hard to sort out because of our tricky tenant not being engaged and available. We're afraid that the HAP inspector would want us to spend a lot of money on the house.

Anyway, back to my original question. How does the HAP scheme work if a tenant won't engage and pay their portion?

the_syco

From; http://www.dublincity.ie/HAP

The landlord will receive prompt payments directly from the Local Authority on a monthly basis subject to the HAP tenant paying the Local Authority

So it seems that if the tenant doesn't pay the council, you get nothing.

Dubjams wrote: »

She's ignored PTRB judgements and just won't engage.

Have you asked if your solicitor can they apply to the local circuit court for an eviction order, and then pay the sheriff to do the eviction?

Pkiernan

Under HAP you'll get no rent at all. She's certainly not going to pay the council.

You need to evict this deadbeat.
If after 2 years you haven't got her out then you've been poorly advised.
Also for your next tenancy ditch the agency. They do nothing for you.

godtabh

2 years to evit her and you are still playing her game? Get a court order and get her out

Onthefence

"We currently have a tenant on rent allowance who wants to move to HAP. "

Can a landlord refuse to move to HAP?

Being in a similar situation myself, I'd sell if i could and I will as soon as I can.

Your tenant wouldn't care less if her actions were putting your kids at risk of homelessness. Mine certainly didn't! I've learnt to harden up.

Pkiernan

I'm sure there'll be plenty on here to vilify the OP.

My recommendation is that these generous souls all chip in and make up the difference in lost rent for the OP.
Either that or take in this charming tenant themselves.

Browney7

Needs to be consequences for her actions. It's not on you to house her children. If it's as cut and dry as you say, Evict.

Dubjams

Thanks for the advice.

We are going to push ahead with eviction. It seems there's no up side to moving the tenant to HAP even though we're promised market rent. We just won't get that rent.

We know she's going to make it as difficult as possible and we aren't looking forward to the battle ahead.

We're wondering what's the worst case scenario in terms of eviction - time and cost?

All advice much appreciated.

Askthe EA

Dubjams wrote: »

Thanks for the advice.

We are going to push ahead with eviction. It seems there's no up side to moving the tenant to HAP even though we're promised market rent. We just won't get that rent.

We know she's going to make it as difficult as possible and we aren't looking forward to the battle ahead.

We're wondering what's the worst case scenario in terms of eviction - time and cost?

All advice much appreciated.

It's a long, long road. At a guess 6 - 8 months.

The_Conductor

Market rent- if you're in a rent controlled area- is current rent + 4%, not what you're next door neighbour is getting. You do not get to sit down and reset the 'market rent' associated with the property- just because you're moving from one scheme to another.

HAP- also entails HAP requirements- which are significantly in excess of requirements for either renting on the private market- or any other scheme (e.g. if your smoke detectors don't have a 10 year battery in them- its an automatic fail, if your extractor fan in the bathroom is on the same circuit as the light in the bathroom- its an automatic fail, if the cold tap in the kitchen isn't grounded- its an automatic fail- etc etc).

The only person who HAP suits- is missy in the property at the moment- its certainly not going to suit you.

A leopard doesn't change its spots- she has repeatedly neglected her obligations under the RAS scheme- where at least you got the portion of the rent the local authority paid you- if she played the same game here with HAP- you'd get nothing whatsoever.

Avoid, avoid, avoid............

Holy Diver

The_Conductor wrote: »

Market rent- if you're in a rent controlled area- is current rent + 4%, not what you're next door neighbour is getting. You do not get to sit down and reset the 'market rent' associated with the property- just because you're moving from one scheme to another.

HAP- also entails HAP requirements- which are significantly in excess of requirements for either renting on the private market- or any other scheme (e.g. if your smoke detectors don't have a 10 year battery in them- its an automatic fail, if your extractor fan in the bathroom is on the same circuit as the light in the bathroom- its an automatic fail, if the cold tap in the kitchen isn't grounded- its an automatic fail- etc etc).

The only person who HAP suits- is missy in the property at the moment- its certainly not going to suit you.

A leopard doesn't change its spots- she has repeatedly neglected her obligations under the RAS scheme- where at least you got the portion of the rent the local authority paid you- if she played the same game here with HAP- you'd get nothing whatsoever.

Avoid, avoid, avoid............

Incorrect - all rented properties must comply with these requirements. The difference is that HAP properties are inspected.

njs030

Yes if she doesn't pay they don't pay you but it's set up that her portion comes out by dd on the same day as her payment goes in so in theory it's very hard for her not to pay.

The_Conductor

Holy Diver wrote: »

Incorrect - all rented properties must comply with these requirements. The difference is that HAP properties are inspected.

Nope- HAP properties must comply with current regs.
Pre-existing buildings must comply with the regs which were in place when they were first let. These can be very very different.

Holy Diver

The_Conductor wrote: »

Nope- HAP properties must comply with current regs.
Pre-existing buildings must comply with the regs which were in place when they were first let. These can be very very different.

Incorrect - check your facts.

TheAnalyst_

It boggles my mind that any landlord would accept RAS or HAP tenants. I would accept a lower rent from someone who is actually working and has some appreciation for the house and money that they are spending.

lucernarian

The_Conductor wrote: »

Nope- HAP properties must comply with current regs.
Pre-existing buildings must comply with the regs which were in place when they were first let. These can be very very different.

This is not the first time you've claimed this on this forum. Could you please provide a source for these claims? I have direct experience of Dublin City Council inspections and there was no HAP, rent allowance etc involved.

Btw a cold water tap that's not grounded in a kitchen is no joke and is in fact a serious health hazard. That's been in regulations since regulations for electrical safety have existed in this country.

njs030

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

It boggles my mind that any landlord would accept RAS or HAP tenants. I would accept a lower rent from someone who is actually working and has some appreciation for the house and money that they are spending.

It boggles my mind you think it's OK to generalise.

Do you think all carers and disabled people just don't care and are happy not to work. This attitude is quite unfair.

Spanish Eyes

Would she qualify for RAS. I know many think it is rubbish, but at least you are GUARANTEED the rent for a minimum four years, paid directly to you by the relevant council.

Just a thought.

The_Conductor

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Would she qualify for RAS. I know many think it is rubbish, but at least you are GUARANTEED the rent for a minimum four years, paid directly to you by the relevant council.

Just a thought.

The OP's tenant is already on RAS- and not paying her share of the rent.
All tenants- deemed to be in long term need of housing, are being migrated to HAP (under the 2014 Act). The OP's tenant will qualify for HAP- however, that is only part of the issue- she hasn't been paying her portion of the rent under RAS- so why should it be any different under HAP? The OP is getting the LA portion of the RAS payment- but not the tenant's portion- and is already significantly below market rate.

It really doesn't make any sense to bend over any further backwards for the current tenant?

Spanish Eyes

The_Conductor wrote: »

The OP's tenant is already on RAS- and not paying her share of the rent.
All tenants- deemed to be in long term need of housing, are being migrated to HAP (under the 2014 Act). The OP's tenant will qualify for HAP- however, that is only part of the issue- she hasn't been paying her portion of the rent under RAS- so why should it be any different under HAP? The OP is getting the LA portion of the RAS payment- but not the tenant's portion- and is already significantly below market rate.

It really doesn't make any sense to bend over any further backwards for the current tenant?

I was referring to the "Rental Accommodation Scheme" which is not the same as Rent Allowance (Supplement)

What does RAS offer?
There are a number of benefits to landlords by going on the RAS.

Guaranteed rent for a minimum of 4 years
No vacancies
No advertising costs
Tenants screened for you
No arrears
No rent collection


http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-housing-about-rental-accommodation-scheme/information-landlords

However, I am not sure if all councils operate the scheme, hence me asking if current tenant would qualify!

The_Conductor

Subject to the rental limits under the scheme.
Rent paid in arrears.
No deposit paid to landlord.


......?

Spanish Eyes

The_Conductor wrote: »

Subject to the rental limits under the scheme.
Rent paid in arrears.
No deposit paid to landlord.


......?

I know it's not perfect. But if someone doesn't pay rent and overholds, or wrecks the place, a deposit won't help much will it?

This way the rent is paid on the button every month. Just another alternative, nothing is perfect these days.

Yes depending on the location the LL might have to take a lower than market rent, but sometimes that suits them for the absolute guarantee of receiving it. Many others are locked into lower than market rate at the moment too, due to the new rules.

Swings and roundabouts.

jamesthepeach

Askthe EA wrote: »

It's a long, long road. At a guess 6 - 8 months.

Far longer than that.
And worse, the woman and her kids on the front page of the mirror looking out upon with a picture of the landlord beside it and the headline about the greedy landlord evicting the starving woman and her kids.

Dubjams

@Spanish Eyes,

Thanks for the suggestion but we don't think we'd be interested in the RAS scheme. We haven't heard many good things about it.

@Jamesthepeach

You're right - it wouldn't surprise me if our tenant ended up on the front of the paper. Our letting agency are pretty experienced and they reckon she knows every trick in the book. The number of sob stories from about dying and dead relatives reached such a level that you couldn't believe a word from her.

We're far from greedy landlords. This is our only rental property bought about 10 years ago as an attempt to plug a pension gap. Our tenant completely took advantage of inexperience.

pc7

Take it as a learning experience op and get rid of the tenant, you are not a charity, she's had more than ample opportunity to pay and hasn't. Cut your losses there are lots of good tenants out there. Best of luck with it, be sure to follow rtb guidelines to the letter and even seek legal advise.

TheDoc

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Far longer than that.
And worse, the woman and her kids on the front page of the mirror looking out upon with a picture of the landlord beside it and the headline about the greedy landlord evicting the starving woman and her kids.

And a sweet defamation payout for the landlord, that will help with some of the lost costs

beauf

With all these schemes the first question is what happens when it goes bad...

Lots of mumbling and shuffling of feet then...

jamesthepeach

beauf wrote: »

With all these schemes the first question is what happens when it goes bad...

Lots of mumbling and shuffling of feet then...

So true.

The_Conductor

TheDoc wrote: »

And a sweet defamation payout for the landlord, that will help with some of the lost costs

Good luck collecting it.......

Seriously OP- while the HAP scheme may suit you going forwards- your current tenant, most certainly doesn't. If you have any intention of running this as a going concern, you know what you have to do.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

Good luck collecting it.......

Seriously OP- while the HAP scheme may suit you going forwards- your current tenant, most certainly doesn't. If you have any intention of running this as a going concern, you know what you have to do.

Assume he is referring to the newspaper and not the tenant - libel actions are expensive though!