Tenant offering more than 4%

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is not what you're saying

You're saying that on top of market rent, you and others here advocate for all these excess charges which would place certain demographics in a disadvantage.

The rental price is one thing, if people can't afford that fine. But other charges added are discriminatory.

Everyone cannot afford a Mac, but when start charging people to look at it, to walk into the shop, to have a drive run thats a problem.

The only demographic it discriminates against is those with less money than the market rate, that's capitalism for you and not an enumerated ground for a discrimination complaint.

gizmo81

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The only demographic it discriminates against is those with less money than the market rate, that's capitalism for you and not an enumerated ground for a discrimination complaint.

No if a person can afford the market rate as outlined in the RTB Report anything in excess of that is discriminatory.

Added on excess charges is an attempt to circumvent the law.

DubCount

So a Landlord in a RPZ has a vacancy, and under the legislation, the max rent he can charge is €1,000. However, other similar homes are for rent at €1,500. The landlord advertises the property at €1,000 and gets contacted by hundreds of prospective tenants. How is the landlord supposed to choose his next tenant, or even the dozen to invite to a viewing?

a) Look for tenants who are offering under the counter top up rent payments (they may be claimed back if there is a RTB case, but maybe there wont be a case)
b) Look for tenants who are offering 3,4 or 5 month deposits. that extra security would be nice if there is a problem down the line
c) Draw lots and be accused of discriminating against unlucky people
d) Have a housing list like for social housing where a tenant needs to be 3 years + on the list before a landlord can consider them for their property

Of course there are always other options
e) Why would I rent it out at all when I can make €2,500 per month on AirBnB from the same property
f) Just sell up and find an easier way to turn a profit

If you where the landlord, what option would you choose .... ?

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

No if a person can afford the market rate as outlined in the RTB Report anything in excess of that is discriminatory.

Added on excess charges is an attempt to circumvent the law.

It simply isn't, as outlined by various posters. You may disagree with that, reasoning would be nice, but absent RTB decisions or other courts decisions simply saying it's so doesn't cut it.

Samuel T. Cogley

DubCount wrote: »

If you where the landlord, what option would you choose .... ?

AirBnB and I don't like AirBnB, but the legislation offers me no other choice. So while it's all well and good trumpeting that the current legislation and various housing groups have a notion what they're at there goes another unit in an RPZ.

jamesthepeach

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

AirBnB and I don't like AirBnB, but the legislation offers me no other choice. So while it's all well and good trumpeting that the current legislation and various housing groups have a notion what they're at there goes another unit in an RPZ.

I sold one and the other is now Airbnb .
Down to the legislation too.

Samuel T. Cogley

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I sold one and the other is now Airbnb .
Down to the legislation too.

I'd love to say three down, but the amount of people looking to enter the market, given the posts on this forum... :pac:

gordongekko

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They're designed to put a break on profiteering.

About 60%of income goes to the government in taxes. If they reduced this level rents will reduce

antoinolachtnai

No it won't. At least not immediately. The reason it might help is because it would make it more attractive for developers to build new supply. It would be faster and cheaper to just give developers a payment for every completion.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is not what you're saying

You're saying that on top of market rent, you and others here advocate for all these excess charges which would place certain demographics in a disadvantage.

No-one mentioned 'market rent' here- other than you.
I did discuss stripping out certain aspects of charges and applying them seperately- for example, the polluter pays principle comes in in September- and householders are supposed to be billed separately based on the amount of waste they generate.

Similarly- car parking spaces- may be associated with a property- but billed separately- nothing out of the ordinary there.

I at no stage, contrary to your assertion, suggested that these additional charges were to be applied on top of market rent- I didn't mention market rent, at all.

Regardless of whether or not market rent is being charged- a landlord and management company- are supposed to supply refuse collection services to a tenant- but the tenant is, from the 1st of September, supposed to billed for the use of those services on a polluter pays principle- the Minister has insisted that this is the case. How Management Companies- most of whom bundle waste collection into Management Fees, plan to deal with this- remains to be seen- it is however government policy- and has been clarified as such.

gizmo81 wrote: »

The rental price is one thing, if people can't afford that fine. But other charges added are discriminatory.

Its not 'discriminatory' unless it is applied in breach of one of the grounds under which discrimination cannot occur. For example- waste collection is on a polluter pays principle, everyone is to pay- based on their generation of waste- so be it. Car parking- is separated in most apartment and house leases- while it doesn't have to be billed separately- often a Management Company may bill a property owner separately for it.

Just because you aren't able to afford something, or someone else got something and you didn't- doesn't mean you were discriminated against.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Everyone cannot afford a Mac, but when start charging people to look at it, to walk into the shop, to have a drive run thats a problem.

Thats a bit of an extreme example- however, if the discrimination is applied in a blanket fashion- and equally applies to everyone- while I might be envious of you and your iBook Air (or whatever they're called these days)- the fact that I can't afford one- doesn't mean I am being discriminated against. The fact that I'm envious of my next door neighbour who is on holidays at the moment- when I can't afford to take a break- doesn't mean I'm being discriminated against. The fact that I could pay a 300 Euro deposit to take an Audi A3 on a test drive- before deciding whether I wanted to buy it (on PCP credit)- which is akin to your Mac example- also doesn't mean I am being discriminated against.

Just because you, or I, can't afford something- or our next door neighbour has something that we don't have, or I have to pay 300 a month in medical fees- and you don't- doesn't mean discrimination is happening.

Life isn't fair- it does however relate to making a series of choices, and the choices we make influence how we live our lives. I have two young children- so I don't have money to do many things that I might otherwise be able to afford. Thats not discrimination- thats a choice I voluntarily made.

Just because you don't get something- anything at all- doesn't mean you're discriminated against.

Fian

gizmo81 wrote: »

No if a person can afford the market rate as outlined in the RTB Report anything in excess of that is discriminatory.

Added on excess charges is an attempt to circumvent the law.

that word does not mean what you think it means.

gizmo81

Fian wrote: »

that word does not mean what you think it means.

discriminatory

adjective
making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discriminatory rental practices.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

discriminatory

adjective
making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discriminatory rental practices.

context
ˈkɒntɛkst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

Graham

Mod Note

If you have a link to external source that corroborates charging the same amount to a protected/non-protected class is discrimination post it or move on.

gizmo81

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

If you have a link to external source that corroborates charging the same amount to a protected/non-protected class is discrimination post it or move on.

Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, or on any of the nine grounds, may also take the form of landlords or letting agents –

refusing to let you look at the property
refusing to rent the property to you
including discriminatory terms or conditions in leases or other tenancy agreements, whether written down or spoken
refusing to renew your lease or other tenancy agreement
end your lease or other tenancy agreement
withdrawing services related to property, or making it very hard for you to get these services.

https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/

I believe it's very clear. Written or spoken discriminatory terms and conditions. Example, Work references, three months deposit, etc

Withdrawing services, example, furniture, parking etc

While it may be applied to all.It's discriminatory because it affects people differently.

Graham

Mod Note

Nope, that's not it. It's your interpretation of it.

Now move on.

Paulw

gizmo81 wrote: »

Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, .....

It's discriminatory because it affects people differently. While i may be applied to all.

So, if 5 people turn up to view a property, the property can only be rented to one, does that mean that the other 4 are discriminated against??

Surely it's only discrimination IF you can prove that you were not considered based on one of the reasons of discrimination.

Just because you don't get the property does not mean that there has been any discrimination.

Also, from the website you linked -
It is not discrimination for a landlord or other person to refuse to let you rent a property if you cannot afford the market rent. If you think the landlord is being unfair in setting or reviewing rent, or you have a dispute with your landlord, you can contact the Residential Tenancies Board.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, or on any of the nine grounds, may also take the form of landlords or letting agents –

refusing to let you look at the property
refusing to rent the property to you
including discriminatory terms or conditions in leases or other tenancy agreements, whether written down or spoken
refusing to renew your lease or other tenancy agreement
end your lease or other tenancy agreement
withdrawing services related to property, or making it very hard for you to get these services.

https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/


I believe it's very clear. Written or spoken discriminatory terms and conditions. Example, Work references, three months deposit, etc

Withdrawing services, example, furniture, parking etc

How is a LL supposed to vet his tenants correctly, tenants who will take control of an asset worth 100's of thousands of euro if they do not ask for things like work reference to at lest help in assessing in the persons ability to pay? The simple fact is that a LL should be allowed rent his/her property to who ever he/she wants, why on earth do you think he should be forced to hand over his very valuable asset to someone he doesn't want to?

There is no way a LL should be technically* forced to accept people on HAP, rent allowance etc as solving the housing problem is the governments problem not private LL's who should be looking for the best tenant possible to suit them.

Also who is "withdrawing" services. If it's a new letting and the parking space is extra then how can you say its withdrawn from the new tenant as they never had it in the first place. Some places charging for parking and others not in the same complex is common place so you will find it very hard to argue its a new thing or in anyway discriminatory.

You appear to think LL's should have no rights or control over any aspect of letting their property which frankly is nonsense.

*I say technically as any one with half an ounce of cop on can refuse to rent to people by just being smart about it. First thing you tell any tenant viewing a property is that "someone else" who viewed the place has first refusal that gives you an very easy and legitimate reason to refuse anyone you wish.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/

I believe it's very clear. Written or spoken discriminatory terms and conditions. Example, Work references, three months deposit, etc

Withdrawing services, example, furniture, parking etc

Honestly- I don't believe the IHREC would go into the detail you're suggesting- and indeed- have a look at the link you've provided. It says nothing whatsoever about

• the deposit,
• references,
• furniture,
• parking,
• refuse charges

- or pretty much anything else. It does say you cannot have discriminatory terms or conditions in leases or tenancy agreements- but it most certainly does not state- or suggest- that any (of the above) are discriminatory. You are making this distinction- and trying to suggest that the IHREC are saying this- excuse me, please look at your link- they most certainly are not.

quadrifoglio verde

The_Conductor wrote: »

Landlords are getting millions from the schemes you've noted- as are the Revenue Commissioners. Most landlords I know wouldn't shed a tear if they were excluded from these schemes- and increasingly large cohorts of them are being excluded- on the basis the properties they are letting do not comply with current building standards- which would not be applicable in the private rental sector.

Is this not a very simple way for landlords to avoid accepting hap.
Just tell the applicant Sorry I'm unable to rent the property to you as it doesn't meet hap standards?
Ideally you wouldn't want to have got to that stage in the first place, bit if you did, it would be a way out without discrimination

The_Conductor

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Is this not a very simple way for landlords to avoid accepting hap.
Just tell the applicant Sorry I'm unable to rent the property to you as it doesn't meet hap standards?
Ideally you wouldn't want to have got to that stage in the first place, bit if you did, it would be a way out without discrimination

You have to provide a BER certificate to prospective tenants in any event- its increasingly likely that any items which downgraded a BER certificate- would be the same items that rendered any particular property unsuitable for a HAP tenancy.

However- if you go down this road- its entirely foreseeable that you'll simply have the government bring in new rules- along the lines of any rental property having to be a minimum of a BER B level (or something similar).

Aka- perfectly acceptable properties- could potentially end up being excluded from the rental market- and while its admirable that you'd be increasing the suitability of rental properties- you'd have every owner occupied property in the country at a lesser level than rental properties.

If/when the supply side issues that are currently to the fore are resolved- its entirely foreseeable that landlords will have to distinguish properties from one another by some manner or means- who is to say that a BER A property might be significantly more desireable and worth a lot more to prospective tenants- than a lower rated property.........

At the moment- supply is so constrained- that the likes of whats on a BER cert- simply doesn't matter for the vast majority of tenants- however, this is not going to remain this way..........

DubCount

gizmo81 wrote: »

Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, or on any of the nine grounds, may also take the form of landlords or letting agents –

refusing to let you look at the property
refusing to rent the property to you
including discriminatory terms or conditions in leases or other tenancy agreements, whether written down or spoken
refusing to renew your lease or other tenancy agreement
end your lease or other tenancy agreement
withdrawing services related to property, or making it very hard for you to get these services.

https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/

I believe it's very clear. Written or spoken discriminatory terms and conditions. Example, Work references, three months deposit, etc

Withdrawing services, example, furniture, parking etc

While it may be applied to all.It's discriminatory because it affects people differently.

I'm sure I'm going to regret posting this, but here goes......

As I understand equality law, you cant use a surrogate for discrimination (known as indirect discrimination). For example. If I am trying to employ someone as a driver, I cant specify that a person applying for the job must be a member of a particular golf club that only has male members. Its not relevant to the job and it could be argued that its only purpose is to act as a surrogate to stop women applying for the job.

However, in the same example, I can legitimately specify they must have a full drivers license. Even if more men than women hold such a license, its not discriminating as it is a relevant requirement, and is not in place just to act as a surrogate to discrimination.

In my view, asking for payment of management charges or a 3 month deposit or similar requirements are not examples of indirect discrimination. They are relevant to the letting contract, and the fact that fewer HAP applicants or fewer ethnic minorities can afford them, does not make them discriminatory unless you can prove the purpose of the requirement is only in place just to be a surrogate for discrimination.

Requiring work references could be viewed as discrimination as this could be viewed as existing solely to discriminate against HAP applicants. However if you ask for relevant references, proving you only considered someone who gave you a work reference is not very easy.

Just to add some fuel to the fire, if I'm letting a room in my home, I can be as sexist, racist, ageist as I like. When I'm letting a 1 bed apartment next door to my home, I'm open to any charge of discrimination.

awec

gordongekko wrote: »

About 60%of income goes to the government in taxes. If they reduced this level rents will reduce

Ha, pull the other one!

The chances of a landlord passing on any tax savings to their tenants must be somewhere below zero.

quadrifoglio verde

awec wrote: »

Ha, pull the other one!

The chances of a landlord passing on any tax savings to their tenants must be somewhere below zero.

I'd agree. However they could bring back in the rent relief for tenants. It would be a tax cut on rental, but ensure that the tenant gets it back.

Also makes tax due on rental income harder to evade/underdeclare