Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rent changing from advance to arrears with HAP

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


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

    Fair is fair.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/16/enacted/en/html#sec16

    Davindub, the link above relates to payment of rent, now show me how a HAP tenant is discriminated against by having to pay rent in advance and how HAP entitles a tenant to beneficial terms over other types of tenants.

    Stinkbomb outlined a method how both LLs and tenants agree a satisfactory compromise. You consider this fraud.

    We keep going around in circles, you are bluffing and giving very dubious advice. What’s the point in continuing, you have been asked numerous times to link to any legislation which supports your view, not once have you been able to do so.


  • Options
    #63
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Dav010 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/16/enacted/en/html#sec16

    Davindub, the link above relates to payment of rent, now show me how a HAP tenant is discriminated against by having to pay rent in advance and how HAP entitles a tenant to beneficial terms over other types of tenants.

    Stinkbomb outlined a method how both LLs and tenants agree a satisfactory compromise. You consider this fraud.

    We keep going around in circles, you are bluffing and giving very dubious advice. What’s the point in continuing, you have been asked numerous times to link to any legislation which supports your view, not once have you been able to do so.

    Davo if you could rely on that part of the act, it would be a reason to refuse HAP. It didn't work in one of the cases I linked, remember the lady who refused on the basis that HAP is paid in arrears?

    The fraud relates to an important aspect of HAP, they pay for months of occupation, in arrears. They do not just pay an amount to the LL, they are paying for a specific period.

    Yes we are going around in circles, you keep returning to the same misguided things, I gave you the equal status act, the cases, you keep quoting the RTA, from which the WRC do not hear cases.

    If I were you, I would have based my argument based on the costs of compliance necessitated additional deposits but then I would also have to say, anyone doing this is taking a huge risk as well.

    Anyway, we can wait for a specific case to come along, even you would have to accept it then. Hopefully the majority of LL's who might read this will stick to the terms or get legal advice in the meantime. The fines are quite steep for the benefit...


  • Options
    #64
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    davindub wrote: »
    Davo if you could rely on that part of the act, it would be a reason to refuse HAP. It didn't work in one of the cases I linked, remember the lady who refused on the basis that HAP is paid in arrears?

    The fraud relates to an important aspect of HAP, they pay for months of occupation, in arrears. They do not just pay an amount to the LL, they are paying for a specific period.

    Yes we are going around in circles, you keep returning to the same misguided things, I gave you the equal status act, the cases, you keep quoting the RTA, from which the WRC do not hear cases.

    If I were you, I would have based my argument based on the costs of compliance necessitated additional deposits but then I would also have to say, anyone doing this is taking a huge risk as well.

    Anyway, we can wait for a specific case to come along, even you would have to accept it then. Hopefully the majority of LL's who might read this will stick to the terms or get legal advice in the meantime. The fines are quite steep for the benefit...

    In the WRC case you are referring to, she discriminated against the tenant by not signing the HAP forms when they were given to her, rent in arrears was just one of the excuses she gave for not wanting to sign it.

    The HAP site literally states that HAP tenancies are governed by the RTA and that the LA is not a party to the tenancy, so of course the RTA is relevant.

    You show me a case where the LL signed the forms when presented with them, but the tenant claimed discrimination when rent had to be paid in advance.

    Davindub, you are hoping a case might come along to validate your viewpoint, for now though, you are guessing.

    I’m done with this.


  • Options
    #65
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Dav010 wrote: »
    In the WRC case you are referring to, she discriminated against the tenant by not signing the HAP forms when they were given to her, rent in arrears was just one of the excuses she gave for not wanting to sign it.

    The HAP site literally states that HAP tenancies are governed by the RTA and that the LA is not a party to the tenancy, so of course the RTA is relevant.

    You show me a case where the LL signed the forms when presented with them, but the tenant claimed discrimination when rent had to be paid in advance.

    Davindub, you are hoping a case might come along to validate your viewpoint, for now though, you are guessing.

    I’m done with this.

    The WRC rejected the excuses, all of them. But glad you are done with this.


Advertisement