Rent changing from advance to arrears with HAP

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

But you aren't treating them the same you already admitted as much.

Now you are complaining about lack of evidence but have nothing but your opinion, nothing. What you are saying doesn't even match the scheme.

Anyway, I vote we park this unless anyone has legislation or a case to refer to. When it is resolved the persons who are wrong can apologise to the person who is correct?

The “scheme” Is not an agreement between a LA and a LL, for some reason you think it is, despite both the HAP website and their brochures clearly stating this. HAP is an agreement between a tenant and a LA to pay rent.

Nothing you have posted here, or an any other thread has shown that not to be the case, or that HAP tenants are required to be treated differently to other tenants.

HAP website states that tenancies are covered by the RTA, the RTA makes no mention of having to change the date on which rent is to be paid , to accommodate a tenant.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

The “scheme” Is not an agreement between a LA and a LL, for some reason you think it is, despite both the HAP website and their brochures clearly stating this. HAP is an agreement between a tenant and a LA to pay rent.

Nothing you have posted here, or an any other thread has shown that not to be the case, or that HAP tenants are required to be treated differently to other tenants.

HAP website states that tenancies are covered by the RTA, the RTA makes no mention of having to change the date on which rent is to be paid , to accommodate a tenant.

Yeah, you keep making the same strange arguments, no recognition of the fact that the RTA does not deal with HAP for some reason. No recognition of the fact HAP tenants are treated differently, you receive rent from a someone other than the tenant, provide tax clearance, self certify the property is compliant, etc etc.

But anyway that is your position....

Agreement on the apology if you are incorrect?

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

Yeah, you keep making the same strange arguments, no recognition of the fact that the RTA does not deal with HAP for some reason. No recognition of the fact HAP tenants are treated differently, you receive rent from a someone other than the tenant, provide tax clearance, self certify the property is compliant, etc etc.

But anyway that is your position....

Agreement on the apology if you are incorrect?

The RTA does not distinguish between a HAP tenant and any other tenant, all must be treated equally, yet you are convinced that HAP tenants are due benefits not extended to others, what are you basing this on?

I receive payments at work from the State, therefore I am required to submit a tax compliance certificate, that does not mean I have to treat people who are entitled to benefit through that scheme differently to those that aren’t.

LL recieve rent from the LA on BEHALF of the tenant, the LA is neither the tenant nor the LL.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

The RTA does not distinguish between a HAP tenant and any other tenant, all must be treated equally, yet you are convinced that HAP tenants are due benefits not extended to others, what are you basing this on?

I receive payments at work from the State, therefore I am required to submit a tax compliance certificate, that does not mean I have to treat people who are entitled to benefit through that scheme differently to those that aren’t.

LL recieve rent from the LA on BEHALF of the tenant, the LA is neither the tenant nor the LL.

Not sure why you keep mentioning the RTA.

Equal Status Act is the relevant legislation.

Anyway, nothing new here? Are you going to agree to the apology or not?

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

Not sure why you keep mentioning the RTA.

Equal Status Act is the relevant legislation.

Anyway, nothing new here? Are you going to agree to the apology or not?

Because the HAP website clearly states the tenancies are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act.

While the Equal Status Act is relevant in the discrimination of tenants in receipt of HAP, up to now you have shown nothing to back up your claim that rent being paid in advance is discriminatory.

Apologise for? You haven’t been able to substantiate your claims, if you can, do.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Because the HAP website clearly states the tenancies are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act.

While the Equal Status Act is relevant in the discrimination of tenants in receipt of HAP, up to now you have shown nothing to back up your claim that rent being paid in advance is discriminatory.

Apologise for? You haven’t been able to substantiate your claims, if you can, do.

If you won't risk an apology for what you know but will happily cause someone to risk a fine of thousands, well that is not saying much for what you posted.

But it will be proved, cases come up and it is only a matter of time before some idiot will have tried this. Always happens when you see some crackpot advice posted online. So this will be resolved then

Graham

davindub, did you manage to find a single link to backup your assertion?

Anything?

davindub

Graham wrote: »

davindub, did you manage to find a single link to backup your assertion?

Anything?

What assertion is that Graham? I am content to wait for a case here to prove conclusively.

Are you agreeing to the apology?

Graham

davindub wrote: »

What assertion is that Graham?

That standard rental terms are automatically discriminatory.

Do post when you can back that up

davindub

Graham wrote: »

That standard rental terms are automatically discriminatory.

Do post when you can back that up

I never stated that Graham. What I did state is that requiring two payments in respect of the same month from a HAP tenant but not a normal tenant is discriminatory. Nothing is automatic, you need to make your case to the WRC.

But anyway:

This respondent refused to change his lease conditions and later relented:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/december/adj-00019284.html

This case the respondent served notice on the foot that the lease would need to be changed:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/october/adj-00019245.html

This case the respondent specifically would not alter the payment date
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/june/adj-00025781.html

It resolves Davo's and your argument that HAP tenants are not entitled to pay in arrears in a fashion, close enough for you?

We can resolve the specific example of forcing a tenant to pay 2 payments for the same period when a case arises.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

What I did state is that requiring two payments in respect of the same month

Find one example where a landlord has asked for such an arrangement as oppose to having it enforced by HAP.

I'll wait.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

I never stated that Graham. What I did state is that requiring two payments in respect of the same month from a HAP tenant but not a normal tenant is discriminatory. Nothing is automatic, you need to make your case to the WRC.

But anyway:

This respondent refused to change his lease conditions and later relented:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/december/adj-00019284.html

This case the respondent served notice on the foot that the lease would need to be changed:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/october/adj-00019245.html

This case the respondent specifically would not alter the payment date
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/june/adj-00025781.html

It resolves Davo's and your argument that HAP tenants are not entitled to pay in arrears in a fashion, close enough for you?

We can resolve the specific example of forcing a tenant to pay 2 payments for the same period when a case arises.

Not close enough for me.

In the first case, the LL/agent refused to provide the correct bank account details due to financial issues, in the other two the LLs refused to sign the HAP forms because they didn’t want HAP tenants

In none of the cases has a LL asked for two payments in respect of the same month.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Not close enough for me.

In the first case, the LL/agent refused to provide the correct bank account details due to financial issues, in the other two the LLs refused to sign the HAP forms because they didn’t want HAP tenants

In none of the cases has a LL asked for two payments in respect of the same month.

Read them carefully. I pointed out the case where the LL refused to sign the forms because it was payment in arrears. But in each of them they refused to change the terms of the lease to suit HAP which actually was your and Grahams specific argument. So you were both incorrect.

All that remains to be conclusively proven is does the tenant will have a course of action if forced to pay. I shouldn't have to go that far but hopefully for the meantime you desist from giving legal advice to someone which is very probable to result in a fine.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

Find one example where a landlord has asked for such an arrangement as oppose to having it enforced by HAP.

I'll wait.

That's a weird statement, what do you actually mean here, it wouldn't be an issue if HAP wasn't involved?

Anyway, same answer as Davo.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

Read them carefully. I pointed out the case where the LL refused to sign the forms because it was payment in arrears. But in each of them they refused to change the terms of the lease to suit HAP which actually was your and Grahams specific argument. So you were both incorrect.

All that remains to be conclusively proven is does the tenant will have a course of action if forced to pay. I shouldn't have to go that far but hopefully for the meantime you desist from giving legal advice to someone which is very probable to result in a fine.

In each case the LL refused to sign the forms/provide bank details, the adjudicator concluded that the LLs did not want HAP tenants and found against the Respondant.

The LL discriminated against the tenant by not/delaying signing, none of these cases show discrimination in the part of a LL who wants rent paid in advance for his/her property.

Show me a case for discrimination based on a LL asking for rent in advance rather than arrears, linking to cases where LLs refuse to return HAP forms signed does not substantiate your viewpoint.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

In each case the LL refused to sign the forms/provide bank details, the adjudicator concluded that the LLs did not want HAP tenants and found against the Respondant.

The LL discriminated against the tenant by not/delaying signing, none of these cases show discrimination in the part of a LL who wants rent paid in advance for his/her property.

Show me a case for discrimination based on a LL asking for rent in advance rather than arrears, linking to cases where LLs refuse to return HAP forms signed does not substantiate your viewpoint.

ALL the cases are involve discrimination otherwise they would not be at the WRC.

Anyway, I have provided links that should determine the matter if you were competent in the area. If you cannot read them or realise that all your arguments have been addressed, your problem.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

ALL the cases are involve discrimination otherwise they would not be at the WRC.

Anyway, I have provided links that should determine the matter if you were competent in the area. If you cannot read them or realise that all your arguments have been addressed, your problem.

Again, if you read them, the discrimination was determined based on the EA/LL refusing to supply bank account details and two where the LLs refused to sign and return the HAP forms. You have not shown discrimination based on rent being paid in advance. The adjudicator concluded the LLs did not want HAP tenants, this of course is discrimination.

Show me a case where the LL accepted HAP and signed the forms, then a tenant brought a case for discrimination based on rent being paid in advance.

stinkbomb

Lads, its fun watching you argue, but are either of you on HAP? Or actually deal with HAP?

Leaving aside the rules and regulations, what actually happens in reality is simple. HAP pay in arrears at the end of the month. Landlords (in the main) only take in advance at the beginning of the month. So the tenant pays the first month up front and then the HAP that comes at the end of the month is treated by the landlord as a payment in advance for the next month. If a tenant switches on to HAP mid tenancy, then they pay an extra month and the same thing happens. In both cases, when the last month comes around and HAP pays, the LL gives that back to the tenant.

Council HAP departments are well aware of this system and advise that LL's have every right to do so, and the RTB agrees.

Graham

stinkbomb wrote: »

what actually happens in reality is simple. HAP pay in arrears at the end of the month. Landlords (in the main) only take in advance at the beginning of the month. So the tenant pays the first month up front and then the HAP that comes at the end of the month is treated by the landlord as a payment in advance for the next month. If a tenant switches on to HAP mid tenancy, then they pay an extra month and the same thing happens. In both cases, when the last month comes around and HAP pays, the LL gives that back to the tenant.

Council HAP departments are well aware of this system and advise that LL's have every right to do so, and the RTB agrees.

Nail -> Head

davindub

stinkbomb wrote: »

Lads, its fun watching you argue, but are either of you on HAP? Or actually deal with HAP?

Leaving aside the rules and regulations, what actually happens in reality is simple. HAP pay in arrears at the end of the month. Landlords (in the main) only take in advance at the beginning of the month. So the tenant pays the first month up front and then the HAP that comes at the end of the month is treated by the landlord as a payment in advance for the next month. If a tenant switches on to HAP mid tenancy, then they pay an extra month and the same thing happens. In both cases, when the last month comes around and HAP pays, the LL gives that back to the tenant.

Council HAP departments are well aware of this system and advise that LL's have every right to do so, and the RTB agrees.

Do you?

Without being smart, you seem to have the same problem as Davo. The RTB do not rule on HAP discrimination and someone I spoke to yesterday in HAP did not agree with it, but that they were only administrating the scheme.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

Without being smart, you seem to have the same problem as Davo. The RTB do not rule on HAP discrimination and someone I spoke to yesterday in HAP did not agree with it, but that they were only administrating the scheme.

HAP administration staff don't rule on discrimination either.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Again, if you read them, the discrimination was determined based on the EA/LL refusing to supply bank account details and two where the LLs refused to sign and return the HAP forms. You have not shown discrimination based on rent being paid in advance. The adjudicator concluded the LLs did not want HAP tenants, this of course is discrimination.

Show me a case where the LL accepted HAP and signed the forms, then a tenant brought a case for discrimination based on rent being paid in advance.

Nope, that is not what happened....

Anyway I have now largely backed up what I was saying, you still have nothing. You'd better resolve that!!!

Graham

davindub wrote: »

Anyway I have now largely backed up what I was saying

you really haven't. Not even close.

JimmyVik

davindub wrote: »

Nope, that is not what happened....

Anyway I have now largely backed up what I was saying, you still have nothing. You'd better resolve that!!!

You sound like Donald Trump now.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

HAP administration staff don't rule on discrimination either.

Well that was his point, they don't.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

you really haven't. Not even close.

You are beginning to look ridiculous here. Anyway feel to post anything you have. Because you have posted nothing. Nada

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

You are beginning to look ridiculous here. Anyway feel to post anything you have. Because you have posted nothing. Nada

You are the poster making dubious and unsubstantiated claims, you have been asked numerous times to post links to support your viewpoint, you have posted nothing.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

You are the poster making dubious and unsubstantiated claims, you have been asked numerous times to post links to support your viewpoint, you have posted nothing.

You advised the OP "remember the hap scheme does not change the contract so the tenant continue must pay you in advance."

And I called bull**** and now proved it.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

You advised the OP "remember the hap scheme does not change the contract so the tenant continue must pay you in advance."

And I called bull**** and now proved it.

No davindub, you really haven’t. You have done a lot of bluffing, but with no substance to your claim.

Stinkbomb posted the practical method which is used to continue to pay rent in advance.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

No davindub, you really haven’t. You have done a lot of bluffing, but with no substance to your claim.

Stinkbomb posted the practical method which is used to continue to pay rent in advance.

That was your quote to another poster. Back it up please as I have done.

Fair is fair.

I will probably regret hearing this, but what course of action does the Landlord have if the tenant refuses to participate in this fraud?