Landlord Fined for Refusing HAP

Turnipman

davo10 wrote: »

I don't want to have HAP tenants, its not dodgy, I'm not discriminating against the tenants, I am discriminating against a scheme that pays in arrears, stops payments when tenant stops paying council, refuses to give info as to why payment has been stopped and forces me to make upgrades to house above and beyond those set done by legislation for rental to private tenants.

Problem is that you'll need to go to the High Court to establish a right to stay out of HAP - and when you win (which you will) I wouldn't put it past the unqualified clowns running the WRC to appeal to the Supreme Court, seeing as they'll be spending other peoples' money.

utmbuilder

one huge downside of hap i believe is they come out and inspect the house to a very high level

if the house doesnt pass they tell the landlord he has to fix it or take it off the market

private rentals no inspections are required

maybe the landlord doesnt want the grief of dealing with inspectors

endacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

If I was a landlord I’d accept HAP. I’d never let a property under the scheme, but I’d accept it. They’ll always be somebody with regular payslips and a healthy bank balance to rent to. Although, as I said, of course I’d ‘accept’ HAP tenants.

martinr5232

Donaldboy25 wrote:

Well if you don't rent what would you know about renting and land lords and tenants

Maybe i am a tennant maybe im a landlord you dont know but one thing i know about your posts they are pure drivel your soliciter told you he would lose the flat will ya stop talking through your hole.

Cuddlesworth

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Aside from tax avoidance, why would a landlord refuse HAP? It's guaranteed money every month. It's difficult enough for people to get property. To me, it feels classist. I've a degree, don't smoke or drink - have never been in trouble in my life, but due to ill health - I'm forced to live off of disability and ultimately, rely on the likes of HAP for accommodation. Why should I be refused because I use HAP for the payment?

You can't think of any reasons why a landlord would be unhappy?

Carlos Orange

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

It's guaranteed money every month.

What is guaranteed about it? Never been on either side of HAP but it doesn't seem any more guaranteed than any other rental. If the tenant doesn't pay the local authority they won't pay the landlord.

Fol20

utmbuilder wrote: »

one huge downside of hap i believe is they come out and inspect the house to a very high level

if the house doesnt pass they tell the landlord he has to fix it or take it off the market

private rentals no inspections are required

maybe the landlord doesnt want the grief of dealing with inspectors

What happens if you decline to do the upgrades. Does it basically mean hap payments will stop and then it’s up to the tenant to pay again or are ll forced in some way to do the upgrade ?

The_Conductor

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

It's guaranteed money every month.

Nope, its not.

Any other rental- is paid in advance.
HAP is paid in arrears.
A HAP tenant pays their portion of the rent to the local authority- who pay the landlord in turn.
If the HAP tenant is late with their portion to the local authority- there is no 'grace period'- the landlord is automatically cut off- they don't even get the local authority portion of the rent- they get nothing whatsoever- and it can take 6 months to get the HAP payments reinstated- all the time the tenant is there not paying rent- and the deficit may, or may not, be made good by the local authority in their annual accounts.

Of any possible tenant- it makes far more sense to get a regular tenant in- who pays their rent themselves- and there is no intermediary- who refuses to communicate with either the tenant or the landlord (on data protection grounds).

HAP- is a wonderful scheme for local authorities. Its a nightmare for tenants and landlords.

Fol20

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Some is paid cash in hand.



So I should be refused accommodation because someone prior gave trouble? That's discrimination. Interview the person. Get a feel of who they are. But don't automatically assume they are troublesome because they are on HAP.

Well your just thinking about it from your perspective, if you popped over and wanted to live in one of my places, I would treat it like an interview. Tenant A has a good income, steady job and can move in no problem and has to funds right now. Tenant b might have a lower income thus impacting affordability/risk of not paying rent, will be using hap to pay for bills which involves a ton of red tape and potential issues down the line and most importantly the reputation of some hap clients leaves a lot to be desired. Don’t get me wrong, some people in suits can be just as bad however it’s all about mitigating risk and you wouldn’t discrimate against hap, you just pick the best candidate with the least amount of hassle.

Eric Cartman

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Some is paid cash in hand.



So I should be refused accommodation because someone prior gave trouble? That's discrimination. Interview the person. Get a feel of who they are. But don't automatically assume they are troublesome because they are on HAP.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
You should direct your anger towards other HAP / RA recipients who have caused this issue, nobody just made this up out of thin air.

A landlord once told me 'every landlord takes RA once' while we stood in a property he had just purchased off a landlord who got out of the game because an RA tenant overheld and when finally out (5 grand of arrears later) left the house with no appliances and most of the copper taken.

Bubbaclaus

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

I did contact the rtb they told us if I pulled him up and he still doing it he will lose the flat

Stop talking out your hole. Pure troll job derailing the thread.

Carlos Orange

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

But don't automatically assume they are troublesome because they are on HAP.

You are innately more trouble than someone not on HAP. You require housing standards in excess of the legal minimum. You require an inspection by a government body. You require tax paperwork. You require dealing with an additional 3rd party. I can easily imagine why with downsides and no real upsides (that I'm aware of) landlords would prefer to deal with other tenants which are plentiful.

the_syco

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I imagine they offered it to everybody in line until somebody didn't have HAP. Of course they won't write this stuff down, in case it's used against them.

Making refusal of HAP illegal just ensures more time is wasted trying to get a house that will actually take it.

The_Conductor

Guys- no more off-topic posting please.
If people have an issue of their own that they'd like to discuss- please start a separate thread- it is not acceptable to piggyback on a different thread.
If in doubt- PM one of the mods.

Thankyou.

Annasopra

The Student wrote: »

Why?

It is the landlords property to do what he wants with it. If you have an issue with the cost of rental then find alternative accommodation that you can afford. If you can't afford market rates then lobby your local political representatives to increase the supply of accommodation.

Please don't comment on the morality of a landlords investment.

Why not?
Its a discussion forum. People can comment however they like.
In choosing to become landlords people are accepting the legal requirements of that. Landlords can only choose to do what they want within a legal framework!

Annasopra

The Student wrote: »

So if you can't meet the HAP requirements and don't want to dispose of the property as you may want it for your children at some point in the future what do you suggest?

Remember the asset rich and cash poor people?

Well tough really.

The Student

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why not?
Its a discussion forum. People can comment however they like.
In choosing to become landlords people are accepting the legal requirements of that. Landlords can only choose to do what they want within a legal framework!

The one sided nature of the legislation legal framework was not in operation when landlords became landlords.

Can you give me examples of any other business where you are not allowed use your asset as you deem fit, where you are forced to continue providing a service and not getting paid for it knowing full well you will never get paid. You may go to the RTB and win a case but you may never actually receive payment of the funds.

Some posters on this forum seem to think being a landlord is easy money, what they don't see is the risks associated some of which we can't mitigate against because of the Anti landlord stance the Govt has taken.

If posters have issues with the property sector then protest against the Govt not against small landlords of which I am one who bought property as a pension ironically to ensure I would have a pension and not to rely on the State (more fool me).

GGTrek

I shall go back to the topic with a really scandalous WRC decision against a landlord that came out in June this year (I had already published in this forum):
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/June/ADJ-00012409.html
https://www.thejournal.ie/landlord-discrimination-hap-allowance-4111614-Jul2018/
6k penalty, discrimination my ....! Couple with university degrees having 4 children, paying just 750pcm for an entire house (well below market rate right from the start) entering the house with just their income and as soon as they get part 4 they play the smart a..e card and ask for HAP!!! Not wanting to work to put a roof over their family head and "suffering" because they cannot get money from the state to pay for their rent! With the great availability of jobs in Ireland for graduates at the moment, such couple should have no problems at all in paying 750 eur pcm of rent! It is scandalous! You can look for the arbitrator name online and the name of the tenant, so you get an idea of the kind of people who are coming out with the stupid sums. If I were the landlord I would appeal and attack the smearing campaign of the tenants and the arbitrator (most of their allegations at the case are hearsay) together with the discrimination BS argument.The comment section of the Indo is always more interesting than the biased Indo article and this comment really nailed the issue: "The only message it sends is to tell landlords to stay the heck away from HAP but be more subtle about it."
The landlord was stupid, he should have stopped discussing anything with the tenants, accepted the HAP without complaining about the HAP inspection and relative costs, then as soon as the tenant's lease was up give notice to increase to market rent and as soon as the council inspection failed and HAP payments stopped proceeded very quickly to evict the smart ar..es for non payment of rent. The tenants would have got a lecture that they would have not forgot on being honests from the start and not hiding second intentions.

Drifter50

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not enough IMO. Should be ten times that. If he loses the house so what.

Should be an automatic process of notification to the revenue and to mortgage providers also.

Between 10 and 11% of all mortgages are currently in arrears

The number of tax payers unable to keep their tax clearance certificates continues to rise, year on year

A bit of balance please

Cuddlesworth

GGTrek wrote: »

I shall go back to the topic with a really scandalous WRC decision against a landlord that came out in June this year

Scandalous? That landlord is the exact type of person who needs to be gone from the Irish market. The discrimination law is there, its up to landlords to inform themselves of their obligations.

The_Conductor

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Scandalous? That landlord is the exact type of person who needs to be gone from the Irish market. The discrimination law is there, its up to landlords to inform themselves of their obligations.

That particular landlord was a fool- who no-one will shed a tear over.
The issue here- is the ruling itself- and not a suggestion that we should feel any pity towards the landlord (who deserves to be punished to the fullest extent possible). The ruling itself- is appalling- and dangerous for both landlords and tenants- and is only going to further constrain supply- as its hammering yet another nail in the coffin of the sector.

We critically need more supply in the sector- and we should be doing our utmost to try and assist the supplyside issues (within reason)- however, both policy and the regulatory environment- has had precisely the opposite effect.

DubCount

The_Conductor wrote: »

That particular landlord was a fool- who no-one will shed a tear over.
The issue here- is the ruling itself- and not a suggestion that we should feel any pity towards the landlord (who deserves to be punished to the fullest extent possible). The ruling itself- is appalling- and dangerous for both landlords and tenants- and is only going to further constrain supply- as its hammering yet another nail in the coffin of the sector.

We critically need more supply in the sector- and we should be doing our utmost to try and assist the supplyside issues (within reason)- however, both policy and the regulatory environment- has had precisely the opposite effect.

+1

My concern on this ruling is not for the particular landlord, but for the general outlook the WRC are sending out. There are 2 issues to consider:

1) As already established, if there is a sitting tenant who has not previously been on the HAP scheme, who then moves onto the HAP scheme, the LL must accept the HAP scheme even though it is a change to the original agreement.

2) This is new to me. If a LL has a valid reason not to accept HAP, because of the inability to get a tax clearance certificate, or some failure of the property, its not a reason to refuse HAP. If a LL refuses HAP, even if there is a valid circumstance where HAP criteria are not met, its discrimination.

I'm not sure how either would play out in court, but this seems to indicate the WRC view.

In practice, I'm not sure what happens if a LL cant remedy a failure to meet HAP criteria. Do they go along with the application, fail the application, terminate the tenancy for non payment? Will the WRC still consider this discrimination? Will the RTB consider this an illegal eviction?

GGTrek

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

I shall go back to the topic with a really scandalous WRC decision against a landlord that came out in June this year  

Scandalous? That landlord is the exact type of person who needs to be gone from the Irish market. The discrimination law is there, its up to landlords to inform themselves of their obligations.

I stand to my opinion in such case: the case is scandalous! The tenants scandalously played the system to perfection by first showing they could afford the rent, negotiating a below market rent to enter and then as soon as they got part 4 rights played the poor me HAP card! I would say at least one of the two tenants being so highly qualified could got out to get a job to pay the LOW rent instead of playing the system. But no, hey I want the state to give me 555 eur per month out of an already low rent of 750! So that they probably paid the remaining 195 eur out of other state benefits instead of working! I look at the facts and the facts of the case are scandalous: that people with degree perfectly in good health in order to have 4 children decide they prefer not to work and prefer to play the system instead: it is scandalous to me!

Landlord was dumb, that was his only fault in my opinion since I am fully contrary to the bu..it discrimination irish law based on social welfare, which is just an out of jail card for the govvie!

Why did the govvie not pass a law on banks that forced them to loan money to people in receipt of welfare! Section 13 of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 is as scandalous as the current Irish govvie. No one in this forum will change my opinion on this fact. Like most of the RTA 2016 it should be legally challenged up to the Supreme Court to see if this shaky legislation would stand a constitutional test. The equal status act 2000 was designed to deal with serious human rights discriminations based on race, sex, ..., without discriminating among the service providers (banks, employers, shops, landlords, ...) instead the last Irish govvie made it into a joke by making economic discrimination a breach (but only for landlords). The Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015  with its full socialists thinking made being in receipt of housing assistance benefits a human right at birth! In section 3, together with liberal-illuministic non discriminaton rights of race, gender, marital status, disability, they have added the socialist being in receipt of "Housing assistance". This govvie transformed a serious law into a joke which in the case I showed was full played by the tenants with the help of the arbitrator. As I previously said in Ireland the only problem is organizing legal funding for small landlords to challenge the jokes that were legislated by the Irish govvie against landlords in the past 10 years.

The Student

DubCount wrote: »

+1

My concern on this ruling is not for the particular landlord, but for the general outlook the WRC are sending out. There are 2 issues to consider:

1) As already established, if there is a sitting tenant who has not previously been on the HAP scheme, who then moves onto the HAP scheme, the LL must accept the HAP scheme even though it is a change to the original agreement.

2) This is new to me. If a LL has a valid reason not to accept HAP, because of the inability to get a tax clearance certificate, or some failure of the property, its not a reason to refuse HAP. If a LL refuses HAP, even if there is a valid circumstance where HAP criteria are not met, its discrimination.

I'm not sure how either would play out in court, but this seems to indicate the WRC view.

In practice, I'm not sure what happens if a LL cant remedy a failure to meet HAP criteria. Do they go along with the application, fail the application, terminate the tenancy for non payment? Will the WRC still consider this discrimination? Will the RTB consider this an illegal eviction?

My read on this is that if an existing tenant wants to go on HAP and you agree and then subsequently the property is inspected and the rent ceases to be paid by HAP then issue a letter of termination. Go to the RTB for tenant not paying rent.

If the tenant takes a case with the WRC on discrimination grounds your defense is that the property does not meet HAP standards. As the HAP standards are higher than those in the private rental sector and your property meets those for the private rented sector then I don't see how the WRC can find against you.

You would not have refused HAP, rather the HAP would not engage your property as it did not meet their standards. It is not you refusing it is HAP refusing as their standards are to high.

A legal case could be taken on this if the WRC found against you in the above circumstances as you can't be forced into terms of a contract which you are not in agreement with in so far as you offered your property as is, if it does not meet the HAP standards you can't be forced to meet the HAP standards.

I am open to correction on my interpretation on the above and would welcome others views.

DubCount

The Student wrote: »

My read on this is that if an existing tenant wants to go on HAP and you agree and then subsequently the property is inspected and the rent ceases to be paid by HAP then issue a letter of termination. Go to the RTB for tenant not paying rent.

If the tenant takes a case with the WRC on discrimination grounds your defense is that the property does not meet HAP standards. As the HAP standards are higher than those in the private rental sector and your property meets those for the private rented sector then I don't see how the WRC can find against you.

You would not have refused HAP, rather the HAP would not engage your property as it did not meet their standards. It is not you refusing it is HAP refusing as their standards are to high.

A legal case could be taken on this if the WRC found against you in the above circumstances as you can't be forced into terms of a contract which you are not in agreement with in so far as you offered your property as is, if it does not meet the HAP standards you can't be forced to meet the HAP standards.

I am open to correction on my interpretation on the above and would welcome others views.

I would like to think you are correct in your interpretation. However, I am concerned that the WRC reading on this is its up the LL to meet the HAP requirements. If a LL wont (because of cost for example) or cant (e.g. they cant get a tax clearance cert) meet HAP requirements, I think the WRC may still interpret this as discrimination.

Again, my worry is nothing to do with the LL in this particular case. My worry is for a LL doing his/her best to be compliant but failing to meet HAP criteria, being hit with a WRC judgement for discrimination. An appeal to the high court may overturn the WRC, but thats an expensive option that most small LLs could not afford.

GGTrek

DubCount wrote: »

The Student wrote: »

My read on this is that if an existing tenant wants to go on HAP and you agree and then subsequently the property is inspected and the rent ceases to be paid by HAP then issue a letter of termination. Go to the RTB for tenant not paying rent.

If the tenant takes a case with the WRC on discrimination grounds your defense is that the property does not meet HAP standards. As the HAP standards are higher than those in the private rental sector and your property meets those for the private rented sector then I don't see how the WRC can find against you.

You would not have refused HAP, rather the HAP would not engage your property as it did not meet their standards. It is not you refusing it is HAP refusing as their standards are to high.

A legal case could be taken on this if the WRC found against you in the above circumstances as you can't be forced into terms of a contract which you are not in agreement with in so far as you offered your property as is, if it does not meet the HAP standards you can't be forced to meet the HAP standards.

I am open to correction on my interpretation on the above and would welcome others views.

I would like to think you are correct in your interpretation.  However, I am concerned that the WRC reading on this is its up the LL to meet the HAP requirements.  If a LL wont (because of cost for example) or cant (e.g. they cant get a tax clearance cert) meet HAP requirements, I think the WRC may still interpret this as discrimination.  

Again, my worry is nothing to do with the LL in this particular case.  My worry is for a LL doing his/her best to be compliant but failing to meet HAP criteria, being hit with a WRC judgement for discrimination.  An appeal to the high court may overturn the WRC, but thats an expensive option that most small LLs could not afford.

The appeal of WRC determinations for Equal Status act is to the Circuit court, which is way less expensive, so it is doable. I have no qualms with the original case, but the case I posted shows the deviousness of the current legislation and how it can be abused by "smart" tenants playing the system

Cuddlesworth

GGTrek wrote: »

but the case I posted shows the deviousness of the current legislation and how it can be abused by "smart" tenants playing the system

In the summary of the landlords argument, he made it clear that he had every intention of discriminating against welfare tenants at the very beginning.

In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.

What would you like the arbitrator to do? Say sure its grand you dicked your tenants around for 7 months cause you "didn't fully understand how HAPS worked". Or that its the WRC's problem that it didn't "suit his circumstances"(ie: no income declared)? Or its fine because HAP would have been a "complication" for him.

Your calling a couple devious who followed the correct channels, were granted government aid and paid their rent for 7 months while their landlord messed them around.
Your making up arguments for a landlord who quite frankly should not be in that business and wasn't even capable of making them himself.

Samuel T. Cogley

eagle eye wrote: »

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

You should come and work for me. I might stop paying my portion of your wages at which point you won't see a cent but you seem okay with that.

davindub

DubCount wrote: »

The Student wrote: »

My read on this is that if an existing tenant wants to go on HAP and you agree and then subsequently the property is inspected and the rent ceases to be paid by HAP then issue a letter of termination. Go to the RTB for tenant not paying rent.

If the tenant takes a case with the WRC on discrimination grounds your defense is that the property does not meet HAP standards. As the HAP standards are higher than those in the private rental sector and your property meets those for the private rented sector then I don't see how the WRC can find against you.

You would not have refused HAP, rather the HAP would not engage your property as it did not meet their standards. It is not you refusing it is HAP refusing as their standards are to high.

A legal case could be taken on this if the WRC found against you in the above circumstances as you can't be forced into terms of a contract which you are not in agreement with in so far as you offered your property as is, if it does not meet the HAP standards you can't be forced to meet the HAP standards.

I am open to correction on my interpretation on the above and would welcome others views.

I would like to think you are correct in your interpretation. However, I am concerned that the WRC reading on this is its up the LL to meet the HAP requirements. If a LL wont (because of cost for example) or cant (e.g. they cant get a tax clearance cert) meet HAP requirements, I think the WRC may still interpret this as discrimination.

Again, my worry is nothing to do with the LL in this particular case. My worry is for a LL doing his/her best to be compliant but failing to meet HAP criteria, being hit with a WRC judgement for discrimination. An appeal to the high court may overturn the WRC, but thats an expensive option that most small LLs could not afford.

I dont think there is any cause to worry if you are genuine.

The WRC can be quite open to how they determine discrimination, but failure to comply with the HAP criteria might be a valid reason to terminate if you can show the failure was not intended to discriminate.

But what will not be tolerated will be blatent indirect discrimination (similiar to the other grounds) (eg refusal to accept payment in arrears could be construed as indirect discrimination, unless you had valid reasons). I dont think you will find many cases at the wrc where someone was decided against unfairly. I see one poster here who incites others to breach Equal status act by indirect means, you can see why they have to take a liberal view to determine the case fairly. With common sense you could easily think of other grounds for indirect discrimination and the circumstances when the same ground is not indirectly discrimination, i.e. it is due to other factors.

Old diesel

Would the type of work typically needed to get a property up to HAP spec be the type of work that would qualify in terms of renovation for a bypass of RPZ????.

The_Conductor

Old diesel wrote: »

Would the type of work typically needed to get a property up to HAP spec be the type of work that would qualify in terms of renovation for a bypass of RPZ????.

In general- it would be structural in nature- and such that it increased the number of bedrooms (legally) or otherwise changed the character of the property. Two recent cases- which were brought to the RTB by sitting tenants- involved the landlord buying the apartment next door (or underneath) and knocking 2 x1 beds into a 3 and in one instance a 4 bed unit. The RTB found those two cases (both in Dublin) to be legit.

A redesign, a new kitchen or bathroom, new floors, new windows doors, heating systems, plumbing or electrical rewires- were all found not to be acceptable.

Typically- a HAP inspection demands windows in bathrooms that did not need them when the property was built- and new ventilation systems in bedrooms (up until 2002- it was perfectly acceptable to build ventillation into velux type windows). Its entirely plausible that you could have holemasters out for a day or two drilling- which isn't cheap...........

GGTrek

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

but the case I posted shows the deviousness of the current legislation and how it can be abused by "smart" tenants playing the system

In the summary of the landlords argument, he made it clear that he had every intention of discriminating against welfare tenants at the very beginning.

In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.

What would you like the arbitrator to do? Say sure its grand you dicked your tenants around for 7 months cause you "didn't fully understand how HAPS worked". Or that its the WRC's problem that it didn't "suit his circumstances"(ie: no income declared)? Or its fine because HAP would have been a "complication" for him.

Your calling a couple devious who followed the correct channels, were granted government aid and paid their rent for 7 months while their landlord messed them around.
Your making up arguments for a landlord who quite frankly should not be in that business and wasn't even capable of making them himself.

Since you like quoting, I shall quote directly from the case to show how devious and scandalous the tenants in the case were and how well they played the system (since the system is built for players):

"According to the Complainants’ evidence, in June 2017, they contacted the Respondent again by phone. The Complainants stated that they tried to explain to the Respondent how the HAPS arrangement could benefit him as a landlord [this is a known lie coming from politicians and tenants' organizations, since HAPs is definetely not adding any benefit to a landlord, just problems]. However, the Complaint stated that the Respondent again refused to engage unless there was a financial gain for him [probably a rent increase to market rate to cover the upgrade costs]. In further evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent suggested that he would visit the rented property and would discuss with them how much money they have coming in and, then, they could come up with a “new figure” which they could pay him." So the landlord was willing to further reduce rent in order to avoid HAP even though rent was 17% below market already, but the tenants did not want that, because they wanted to pay almost nothing from their money, they wanted the state to pay.

"According to the Complainants, because of their difficult financial situation" caused entirely by their lack of employment in a country with almost no unemployment for graduates, then they continue to say a lot of "he say, they say" with no evidence whatsoever (just the usual tactic used by tenants in a pro-tenant forum like the RTB, they try to throw garbage hearsay to see if it sticks), all this hearsay was denied by the landlord, however the Arbitrator on the "balance of probabilities" totally accepted the hearsay of the tenants in order to add a penalty to the damages.

And this is how they really gamed the dumb landlord and won their case following a strategy suggested by the good old Threshold suggestions (always champions of the poor me tenants): "They further informed the Respondent in this correspondence that, if he did not reply, they would take this to be a continual failure to accept a HAPS payment from them. The Complainants stated that they received no reply to this correspondence. According to the Complainants’ evidence, they received correspondence on 23 October 2017 from MABS, informing them that they had spoken with the Respondent and he confirmed that he would not agree to the HAPS application." u]They got a witness this was the key to the case[/u. The landlord fell into their game beautifully. It shows that the university educated tenants really played well their hands against the obstinate but dumb landlord.

Finally I disagree that the landlord did not understand what HAP entailed, he understood perfectly how negatively it would affect his situation, but was dumb to write it down in reply to the players tenants: "However, in this correspondence, the Respondent stated that he noted house inspections were part of the HAPS arrangements. The letter, which was presented in evidence at the Hearing, went on to state that the Respondent presumed the house in question would fail such an inspection.

In addition, the letter stated that, in the event that the Complainants wished to remain in the house and that he (the Respondent) could obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate, they (the Complainants) would have to look after whatever work would be required in the house following on from any HAPS inspection. The Complainants stated that they considered it unfair, unreasonable and unlawful to require them to look after the repairs that may be needed." They were right to say the upgrade costs and repairs were not their responsibility and the landlord was very dumb to state it in written form, but the landlord would be right to refuse performing any upgrade because of the HAP inspection or would be right to request a rent increase to market in order to recoup the costs of the upgrade, while this was instead negatively described in the hearsay reported by the tenants. So the tenants knew that they were paying below market, but they wanted an upgraded property without paying for the upgrade with higher rent! The Complainants stated that the Respondent informed them he was going to raise the rent substantially at the end of the 12-month lease. The Complainants stated that they requested this in writing from the Respondent but they never received it. Again hearsay and even if it was true of course they never received it, a rent increase notice cannot be sent out during a fixed term, again trying to play out the victims.

Finally the victim/superiority complex beauty at the very end of the report: "The Complainants described themselves as educated individuals with degree and postgraduate qualifications. However, they now find themselves temporarily out of work and with four young children to support, are finding it very difficult to manage." 8 months out of work is not temporarily out of work! Both of them out of work! Both of them with degrees and postgraduate qualifications in a country with almost no unemployment! Even worse with four children to support, I would go out and get any type of job offered instead of playing games for state handouts! For me these two are the definition of smart top gamers of the system! If I had time I would fish other top gamers from RTB tribunal and High Court appeals to show to the readers this forum how a top gamer plays. It would be very instructive: they all play the victim card. I like to show to the readers in this forum how a law drafted very cunnilly from the legal advisors of the irish govvie is playing into real cases for gamers who really do not deserve it, so that it is not just a question of ideas, but of facts. I shall stop on this thread since I believe my objective of showing landlords reading in this forum how the law can been used by players has been achieved.

I can also see the usual socialist poster coming out today on how tenancy law should work in Ireland according to his socialist view (which had really great results so far ) and I am not talking about the poster I am quoting. Thank God in Ireland a person can still express his own opinions on matters of public interest, unlike in the socialist/communist "paradises".

godtabh

Xterminator wrote: »

Hi Op

i accept you just read the news article and didnt go to the ruling and read the details.

BUT ... i find it repugnant when i see people on this forum defending bad landlords who engage in illegal and underhand practises. If it makes you feel better i feel the same about people defending tenants who are also talking the p|ss.

Perhaps you should reflect on why you think . surely the blow here is to the reputation of decent landlords, and the blow was stuck by this chancer, and not the WRC.

THe blow could refer to the secondary issues.

If a tenant comes asking for HAP fair enough. If the tenant goes on hap there there is an inspection 6/12/18 months down the line and you fail no rent.

You cant ask for an inspection up front or you are judged to be discriminating.

The landlord is forced in to a contract where it would appear they have zeor rights and all the risk.

davindub

GGTrek wrote: »

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

but the case I posted shows the deviousness of the current legislation and how it can be abused by "smart" tenants playing the system

In the summary of the landlords argument, he made it clear that he had every intention of discriminating against welfare tenants at the very beginning.

In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.

What would you like the arbitrator to do? Say sure its grand you dicked your tenants around for 7 months cause you "didn't fully understand how HAPS worked". Or that its the WRC's problem that it didn't "suit his circumstances"(ie: no income declared)? Or its fine because HAP would have been a "complication" for him.

Your calling a couple devious who followed the correct channels, were granted government aid and paid their rent for 7 months while their landlord messed them around.
Your making up arguments for a landlord who quite frankly should not be in that business and wasn't even capable of making them himself.

Since you like quoting, I shall quote directly from the case to show how devious and scandalous the tenants in the case were and how well they played the system (since the system is built for players):

"According to the Complainants’ evidence, in June 2017, they contacted the Respondent again by phone. The Complainants stated that they tried to explain to the Respondent how the HAPS arrangement could benefit him as a landlord [this is a known lie coming from politicians and tenants' organizations, since HAPs is definetely not adding any benefit to a landlord, just problems]. However, the Complaint stated that the Respondent again refused to engage unless there was a financial gain for him [probably a rent increase to market rate to cover the upgrade costs]. In further evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent suggested that he would visit the rented property and would discuss with them how much money they have coming in and, then, they could come up with a “new figure” which they could pay him." So the landlord was willing to further reduce rent in order to avoid HAP even though rent was 17% below market already, but the tenants did not want that, because they wanted to pay almost nothing from their money, they wanted the state to pay.

"According to the Complainants, because of their difficult financial situation" caused entirely by their lack of employment in a country with almost no unemployment for graduates, then they continue to say a lot of "he say, they say" with no evidence whatsoever (just the usual tactic used by tenants in a pro-tenant forum like the RTB, they try to throw garbage hearsay to see if it sticks), all this hearsay was denied by the landlord, however the Arbitrator on the "balance of probabilities" totally accepted the hearsay of the tenants in order to add a penalty to the damages.

And this is how they really gamed the dumb landlord and won their case following a strategy suggested by the good old Threshold suggestions (always champions of the poor me tenants): "They further informed the Respondent in this correspondence that, if he did not reply, they would take this to be a continual failure to accept a HAPS payment from them. The Complainants stated that they received no reply to this correspondence. According to the Complainants’ evidence, they received correspondence on 23 October 2017 from MABS, informing them that they had spoken with the Respondent and he confirmed that he would not agree to the HAPS application." u]They got a witness this was the key to the case[/u. The landlord fell into their game beautifully. It shows that the university educated tenants really played well their hands against the obstinate but dumb landlord.

Finally I disagree that the landlord did not understand what HAP entailed, he understood perfectly how negatively it would affect his situation, but was dumb to write it down in reply to the players tenants: "However, in this correspondence, the Respondent stated that he noted house inspections were part of the HAPS arrangements. The letter, which was presented in evidence at the Hearing, went on to state that the Respondent presumed the house in question would fail such an inspection.

In addition, the letter stated that, in the event that the Complainants wished to remain in the house and that he (the Respondent) could obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate, they (the Complainants) would have to look after whatever work would be required in the house following on from any HAPS inspection. The Complainants stated that they considered it unfair, unreasonable and unlawful to require them to look after the repairs that may be needed." They were right to say the upgrade costs and repairs were not their responsibility and the landlord was very dumb to state it in written form, but the landlord would be right to refuse performing any upgrade because of the HAP inspection or would be right to request a rent increase to market in order to recoup the costs of the upgrade, while this was instead negatively described in the hearsay reported by the tenants. So the tenants knew that they were paying below market, but they wanted an upgraded property without paying for the upgrade with higher rent! The Complainants stated that the Respondent informed them he was going to raise the rent substantially at the end of the 12-month lease. The Complainants stated that they requested this in writing from the Respondent but they never received it. Again hearsay and even if it was true of course they never received it, a rent increase notice cannot be sent out during a fixed term, again trying to play out the victims.

Finally the victim/superiority complex beauty at the very end of the report: "The Complainants described themselves as educated individuals with degree and postgraduate qualifications. However, they now find themselves temporarily out of work and with four young children to support, are finding it very difficult to manage." 8 months out of work is not temporarily out of work! Both of them out of work! Both of them with degrees and postgraduate qualifications in a country with almost no unemployment! Even worse with four children to support, I would go out and get any type of job offered instead of playing games for state handouts! For me these two are the definition of smart top gamers of the system! If I had time I would fish other top gamers from RTB tribunal and High Court appeals to show to the readers this forum how a top gamer plays. It would be very instructive: they all play the victim card. I like to show to the readers in this forum how a law drafted very cunnilly from the legal advisors of the irish govvie is playing into real cases for gamers who really do not deserve it, so that it is not just a question of ideas, but of facts. I shall stop on this thread since I believe my objective of showing landlords reading in this forum how the law can been used by players has been achieved.

I can also see the usual socialist poster coming out today on how tenancy law should work in Ireland according to his socialist view (which had really great results so far ) and I am not talking about the poster I am quoting. Thank God in Ireland a person can still express his own opinions on matters of public interest, unlike in the socialist/communist "paradises".

Oh get off your soapbox, I'm not a socialist just saying your uneducated dodgy legal advice on how to break the law won't work.

Graces7

Small thought but why does a prospective tenant need to ask if HAP is acceptable?

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

Small thought but why does a prospective tenant need to ask if HAP is acceptable?

Perhaps because the accommodation rules are wholly different for a HAP than for any other class of tenant (aka- the building has to meet current building regulations- not the regulations that were in place when the building was built).

A HAP tenant is entitled to live in a building covered by the latest building regulations. This means- if a prospective HAP tenant is renting a property constructed prior to November 2017 (the last change in the regulations)- the building is not HAP compliant- until it is retrofitted to at least match the requirements of the latest regulation............

For everyone else- the regulations in place when the building was constructed- apply.

If a tenant (or indeed the landlord) knows that a building is not going to meet HAP requirements- it is wholly disingenuous to proceed as though it is going to- and in the case of the landlord he/she cannot discriminate against someone who may be a HAP tenant- however, hes not going to get paid- unless he/she undertakes a refit (the extent of which would be unknown)- until after its been inspected.........?

Obvious solution to this- the local authorities should be compelled to inspect properties before the tenancy commences- and any that fail- are not- by the decision of the local authority, not the landlord- to be offered to HAP tenants.

By rights- there should not be multiple different playbooks in force.
We have BER ratings- and a landlord is legally obliged to provide the rating to prospective tenants. All properties should meet identical minimum standards (and ideally vastly exceed them)- but once the minimum standards are met- they are fit for habitation. This whole situation where one cohort of tenants have rights that no-one else (including owner occupiers) have- is local authorities having their cake and eating it............

If a property fails to meet a minimum set of standards (which should be reasonable standards- excluding any hovels or poor quality units from the market)- it should be uninhabitable by *anyone* until it is upgraded to at least those minimum standards (and preferably higher). If a property meets those minimum standards- there should be one rule- one playbook, applicable to all- no-one gets to have a cohort of buyers, sellers, owner occupiers or tenants- in a different manner from others.

The bigger issue with HAP property- is insisting that it is required to retrofit it to current building regs (this is of course totally ignoring the operation of the scheme itself- which is an entirely different issue).

Local authorities are on a golden goose with HAP- its completely risk free for them- they can bat the bulk of the risk on the landlord, and to a lesser extent the tenant.

Foweva Awone

So as a matter of interest - if the property fails to meet the standards, could the tenant hypothetically offer to pay the costs if the landlord refused and if the tenant really wanted the property?

The_Conductor

Foweva Awone wrote: »

So as a matter of interest - if the property fails to meet the standards, could the tenant hypothetically offer to pay the costs if the landlord refused and if the tenant really wanted the property?

It depends- I can't see how/why a tenant would agree though (a colleague has a 24k bill in Co. Meath to bring a property built in 2002 up to HAP spec just yesterday). Whats in it for a tenant? If they agree to pay a bill that could run to tens of thousands- how on earth do they get it back- by paying a reduced rent- which in turn affects the value of the property if the owner ever decides to sell?

If its a small cost (to put ventilation into bedrooms and change a few light sockets- which could cost a couple of grand) I can't see any landlord getting too het up under the collar about it. A complete rewiring and replumbing- are an entirely different kettle of fish........... It really depends on whats on the shopping list (and it can be a long and meandering list).

I can't see anything to stop a tenant approaching a landlord informally and offering to pay whatever it takes to bring a building up to spec- but I just don't understand why they would do it- as they have no financial interest in the building. If it were on the continent and a 20 year lease- where they would be leaving at the end of the 20 years- and returning the property empty- with a fresh coat of paint- ready for inspection before their deposit were returned- it would be a different story.

Nothing to stop them doing it- per se- but no reason that they would do it either.........

Fol20

The_Conductor wrote: »

It depends- I can't see how/why a tenant would agree though (a colleague has a 24k bill in Co. Meath to bring a property built in 2002 up to HAP spec just yesterday). Whats in it for a tenant? If they agree to pay a bill that could run to tens of thousands- how on earth do they get it back- by paying a reduced rent- which in turn affects the value of the property if the owner ever decides to sell?

If its a small cost (to put ventilation into bedrooms and change a few light sockets- which could cost a couple of grand) I can't see any landlord getting too het up under the collar about it. A complete rewiring and replumbing- are an entirely different kettle of fish........... It really depends on whats on the shopping list (and it can be a long and meandering list).

I can't see anything to stop a tenant approaching a landlord informally and offering to pay whatever it takes to bring a building up to spec- but I just don't understand why they would do it- as they have no financial interest in the building. If it were on the continent and a 20 year lease- where they would be leaving at the end of the 20 years- and returning the property empty- with a fresh coat of paint- ready for inspection before their deposit were returned- it would be a different story.

Nothing to stop them doing it- per se- but no reason that they would do it either.........

Honestly, even it’s just a couple of k to do some snag list, I wouldn’t agree unless it falls under minimum standards.

The Student

Fol20 wrote: »

Honestly, even it’s just a couple of k to do some snag list, I wouldn’t agree unless it falls under minimum standards.

Agree

Old diesel

The_Conductor wrote: »

It depends- I can't see how/why a tenant would agree though (a colleague has a 24k bill in Co. Meath to bring a property built in 2002 up to HAP spec just yesterday). Whats in it for a tenant? If they agree to pay a bill that could run to tens of thousands- how on earth do they get it back- by paying a reduced rent- which in turn affects the value of the property if the owner ever decides to sell?

If its a small cost (to put ventilation into bedrooms and change a few light sockets- which could cost a couple of grand) I can't see any landlord getting too het up under the collar about it. A complete rewiring and replumbing- are an entirely different kettle of fish........... It really depends on whats on the shopping list (and it can be a long and meandering list).

I can't see anything to stop a tenant approaching a landlord informally and offering to pay whatever it takes to bring a building up to spec- but I just don't understand why they would do it- as they have no financial interest in the building. If it were on the continent and a 20 year lease- where they would be leaving at the end of the 20 years- and returning the property empty- with a fresh coat of paint- ready for inspection before their deposit were returned- it would be a different story.

Nothing to stop them doing it- per se- but no reason that they would do it either.........

What was to be done for 24 k?????

The_Conductor

Old diesel wrote: »

What was to be done for 24 k?????

• Complete rewiring
• Replumbing the kitchen appliances
• Ventilation in all the bedrooms
• Window in the en-suite bathroom
• Removal of some plasterboard walls and resizing of rooms- to make the property wheelchair compliant (which is nuts- the prospective tenant is in their prime and 100% definitely not in a wheelchair)
• A ramp to the door (once again- not sure how/why)
• Repainting the entire property as the colour scheme is non-compliant (it was magnolia and white- which seems pretty standard to me- I honestly have no idea what the reasoning is with this either........

All told it came to just over 24k (and thats with the girl calling in some favours from family, friends and colleagues). Some shortcuts were taken (one colleague had a large bore masonry drill (no idea where he got it from- or why- but he did the holes in all the walls- which saved over a grand- and various others probably saved another 5-6k).........

This was a lovely house- not quite walking into a showhome- but not far off it....... Now- its bland, anonymous- and the rooms are significantly smaller with a lot of space lost in abnormally wide hallways and a landing of bizarre proportions.

Old diesel

The_Conductor wrote: »

• Complete rewiring
• Replumbing the kitchen appliances
• Ventilation in all the bedrooms
• Window in the en-suite bathroom
• Removal of some plasterboard walls and resizing of rooms- to make the property wheelchair compliant (which is nuts- the prospective tenant is in their prime and 100% definitely not in a wheelchair)
• A ramp to the door (once again- not sure how/why)
• Repainting the entire property as the colour scheme is non-compliant (it was magnolia and white- which seems pretty standard to me- I honestly have no idea what the reasoning is with this either........

All told it came to just over 24k (and thats with the girl calling in some favours from family, friends and colleagues). Some shortcuts were taken (one colleague had a large bore masonry drill (no idea where he got it from- or why- but he did the holes in all the walls- which saved over a grand- and various others probably saved another 5-6k).........

This was a lovely house- not quite walking into a showhome- but not far off it....... Now- its bland, anonymous- and the rooms are significantly smaller with a lot of space lost in abnormally wide hallways and a landing of bizarre proportions.

Would you mind if I screenshot that post and share it on my twitter.

Insane stuff

Scienceless

Repainting the entire property as colour scheme non compliant......

Sorry but is this a piss take...?

Is this what council inspections are actually reporting on??

I’ll say it again, any wonder small time landlords are exiting the market in big numbers, myself included.

I’m actually relieved I won’t have to listen to their bs.

If you’re a small time landlord then get out as soon as you can.

The_Conductor

Old diesel wrote: »

Would you mind if I screenshot that post and share it on my twitter.

Insane stuff

It is insane- I have no idea whether all the people who do inspections are as anal (theres no other way of putting it)- or whether some are a lot more laissez faire in attitude. Why should a property have to be wheelchair compliant- if the occupant isn't in a wheelchair? Perhaps there may have been crossed lines somewhere- however, if there was- I'm not aware of what they were.

As for the paint scheme- looks like she is in good company on this one- I've had a PM from another Meath landlord stating he was also made repaint- and there is a thread in this forum from a landlord letting a property under HAP to Dublin City Council- who was also recently made repaint...........

And people wonder why HAP is so unpopular?

The Student

Scienceless wrote: »

Repainting the entire property as colour scheme non compliant......

Sorry but is this a piss take...?

Is this what council inspections are actually reporting on??

I’ll say it again, any wonder small time landlords are exiting the market in big numbers, myself included.

I’m actually relieved I won’t have to listen to their bs.

If you’re a small time landlord then get out as soon as you can.

Was requested to repaint as well

Scienceless

The Student wrote: »

Was requested to repaint as well

Is it really within the remit of council inspections to dictate colour schemes?

What has that go to do with building standards / regulations??

Serious question.

The Student

Scienceless wrote: »

Is it really within the remit of council inspections to dictate colour schemes?

What has that go to do with building standards / regulations??

Serious question.

No its not but I really think some of them are on a power trip!

The Student

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In the summary of the landlords argument, he made it clear that he had every intention of discriminating against welfare tenants at the very beginning.

In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.

What would you like the arbitrator to do? Say sure its grand you dicked your tenants around for 7 months cause you "didn't fully understand how HAPS worked". Or that its the WRC's problem that it didn't "suit his circumstances"(ie: no income declared)? Or its fine because HAP would have been a "complication" for him.

Your calling a couple devious who followed the correct channels, were granted government aid and paid their rent for 7 months while their landlord messed them around.
Your making up arguments for a landlord who quite frankly should not be in that business and wasn't even capable of making them himself.

Keep up with the anti landlord stance and see how many landlords leave the market.

Scienceless

The Student wrote: »

No its not but I really think some of them are on a power trip!

I’d call it an abuse of their positions and they should be made answer for requiring such so called upgrades which have nothing to do with the building standards they are supposedly enforcing (which I’ve no problem with btw).

inspectors requiring unnecessary work outside of the building regulations has a problem with landlords themselves imo.