Finding a HAP landlord

I've been reading for a long time how landlords don't want HAP tenants and didn't understand why a landlord would have any reason to favour a non-hap tenant. In reality it shouldn't make any difference to the landlord if a tenant avails of a subsidy or not, as long as the rent is paid. It seems there is additional paperwork involved at the start, but after that it should go along like any other tenancy.

However, if the max of 40% of total income is a sustainable level determined by the council as @archfi suggested, is that a reason why a landlord might decline a potential tenant based on them not having the means to meet the higher rent and still have sufficient income for other living costs?

Do landlords refuse HAP tenants because their overall income is not enough for the particular property and nothing at all to do with them receiving HAP?

Imo, I think it's kind of just about assumptions of what sort of person is on HAP. To get HAP you have to be on a housing list, and you even see it on this board that some people assume anyone on a housing list is a welfare sponge, unemployed, not responsible, going to cause trouble, etc.

Even though the money from the council will be reliable, if there's a gap that the tenant has to make up, they might assume this part will not be, and that they could be trouble in other ways (being loud, causing damage to property, etc.). There is also the fact that property receiving HAP has to meet minimum standards, and not all property might meet that if it were to ever be inspected.

As I said most landlords will take HAP where a person is working, better of being straight from day one, there is a lot of extra hassle to a landlord if the property wasn't previously let to a HAP tenant, the likes of fire certs and some clown from the council coming out 6 months after the tenant has moved in nit-picking and trying to find faults just so the can justify their job.

Well speaking as a landlord I have first hand experience where the tenant stopped paying their share to the council, the council stopped paying me then, rang them up and told them if my money wasn't in my account by the end of the week, the tenants were going, was more or less told it was in my lease agreement, so in others words, tough luck.

Why do you think they got rid of the RAS scheme?

I got rid of the tenant alright but never got paid what I was owed, but not to worry, all landlords are rich and do this job as a hobby.

Yeah, that’s the main problem really with HAP. There’s lot of extra hassle, with inspections, admin, tax clearance certs etc. There’s no real upside, as there isn’t a shortage of potential tenants, so why go through the hassle?

After the latest government law change its going to get nearly impossible for HAP tenants

They had a good scheme in place called RAS, but because tenants were not paying their share to the council they decided to change it to HAP so that the landlord takes the hit when the tenant stops paying, and now people are complaining about landlords not wanting to take HAP tenants.

You won't see a poll in the Journal about that though.

When you say refused, maybe they had a few to choose from and you were just unlucky they just didn't pick you.

Yes, microwaves and freezers are compulsory nowadays for rental property, let's say you did rent and applied for HAP down the line what happens when the place fails a HAP inspection, and I can assure you that a place that doesn't have a few basic requirements now hasn't got a hope of passing one.

Yes they do have a few weeks but in some instances it won’t matter because they are simply unable to do what is being asked.

Example a short while ago on another thread, a landlord with a HAP tenant both parties happy with the tenancy.

Along came the HAP inspector, was an apartment and the inspector took exception to the type of cooker hood.

From what I could gather, the cooker hood in situ was specially designed for properties that didn’t have access to an exterior vent.

But the inspector wanted a hood that was vented to an exterior wall.

However, the owner didn’t have rights to tamper with the exterior wall of the apartment block.

And all other apartments were obviously using similar style cooker hoods.

This situation was out of the LL’s control, he couldn’t change the cooker hood.

So the property failed the HAP inspection.

So, let’s say there are a few other owners in that block also renting out apartments.

They're all going to be in the same boat when it comes to accepting HAP.

Of course they’ll say they accept it, because it’s illegal to say they can’t.

They’d find themselves being sued for thousands for “discrimination” if they open their mouth to a prospective tenant.

So no doubt they’ll say sure, they accept HAP, then go through the motions, filling out forms, all the while knowing their property will fail the inspection. But there’s nothing they can do.

That’s just one example of inspectors picking on odd things.

Ive heard of others, there’s just no rhyme or reason to some of it, iseems to depend on from which side of the bed *some of these inspectors get out from in the morning lol

Its a failing in the system, properties should be pre approved for HAP before, not after the tenant moves in.

Apart from the obvious waste of time to the LL it causes if it’s already known that the property won’t pass.

And the headache afterward of spending a very lengthy time trying to remove a non paying tenant.

It would also spare potential tenants a lot of wasted time and effort and frustration.

If on rental adverts they could see some kind of note or sticker “Property HAP approved”.

The discrimination law is absolutely necessary, I’m not knocking it in the sense for which it was meant.

And it’s very well intentioned for sure.

But in this circumstance, it’s backfiring on itself. Because it’s effectively just gagging LL’s from responding to people.

There are *some legitimate issues with the HAP system and they have nothing to do with tenants at all.