The eviction ban

I think a lot of that red tape could be eliminated. It is not really the landlord's business, after all, to know if the tenant is paying in full or paying with the assistance of HAP. The landlord has the right to the agreed upon rent but how that rent is made up is not the business of the landlord. Therefore a means of paying rent electronically could easily be set up. The landlord is given a special rental account and rent either in total from the tenant or a combination of the tenant contribution and HAP is made, but the make up of that amount would not be made known to the landlord.

While some can obviously rent to non-HAP tenants for higher rents, logically given over 50% are on some kind of support, not all can. HAP money is a net input to the market from the taxpayer and paid to landlords. Therefore landlords are already benefiting.

I don't think landlords should get HAP if the tenant decides not to pay. The reason I believe this is two-fold: as another poster pointed out, this creates a moral hazard. If a landlord doesn't fulfill their side of the bargain in a non-HAP tenancy, the tenant has the right to withhold rent until such time as the issue is sorted. This right must also be afforded to the HAP-tenant. Another example was also given of a non-national absconding back to his home country while the landlord continues to milk the HAP scheme. What would be your safeguards against this?

@Emblematic

There is no right to withhold rent. Failure to pay rent when due can result in a 14 day warning notice and if arrears are not paid within the warning period, a 28 day notice of termination.

Something tells me you aren't going to get sound housing advice from a grown man that roleplays as an American president on the internet.

I have no real issue with a vacancy tax. But it will not solve the issue. The main reason is it will not effect supply for 3-5 years if even then.

There is various reasons property may be empty. Will any property tax be imposed on those on nursing homes. Noe even SF will advocate for that. For that matter when someone goes into a nursing home long-term how long before a LA take back a house.

Next you have people who's house is empty short term, a person traveling, a person starting a relationship etc. None of these will be effected by a property tax.

Finally I know two/ three individuals all single women in there 50's who are minding there parents. One has actually moved back in with her mother but will not rent her house. The other case is a bit more nuanced. Two sisters who works is 50 ish miles from there mother. Both have small two bed houses in the area they work not far apart. Now if they could rent one and commute/live/mind there mother they would probably rent one of the houses.

Vacancy tax will not effect 70-90% of the the vacant houses. Many people need assurance if they rent short term that they will get there house back in a timely fashion of they need it or if they have a tenant that is damaging there property or is not paying the rent.

Supply is the issue but giving people who have vacant or semi vacant property the confidence to rent it might be the answer

Actually I think you are correct here and I was wrong in that both tenants and landlords should live up to their side of the bargain for the duration of the contract. However in situations where the landlord locks out a tenant, I think the tenant should have the right to deny the landlord the rent money. This is merely giving the HAP tenant the same leverage as the non-HAP tenant and rightly so, I'm sure you will agree.

On the other point, you say that landlords are being strongarmed by the government into renting out to social tenants. Can you give some evidence for this? Assuming you mean HAP tenants, the regulations only state that HAP can't be used as the basis for discrimination. But this does not mean you are forced into taking HAP.

Where a tenant want to withhold's rent at the very least it should go into an escrow account within the RTB if necessary. If it's not paid in then termination should proceed

Thats a semantic that doesn't address my point. Of course we know full well that landlords can get around the regulation by pretending the reason is something else, everybody knows it. But its like saying you can refuse to hire a black woman as long as you keep quiet about your real reasons for refusing... It may be true but its hardly the point, and in fact serves only to re-emphasise that the regulation exists in the first place.

We all know the magic words to avoid HAP tenants because the vast majority of landlords are so desperate not to have HAP tenants, now why do you think that is? And when you follow that thought, does it not have implications to the original point of landlords as a whole being overall beneficiaries of HAP? Because if that were true then why are they so keen to avoid them?

There are lots of landlords that have found themselves locked into HAP tenants, because historical tenants applied for HAP and then couldn't be evicted for one example. So I still have to suggest that if HAP didn't exist then all those landlords would happily get better deals elsewhere, and that makes HAP a negative to them, not a net positive.

Tell me how he would be worse off, because that would be more germane to the original point?

Hahaha edenderry is a stone's throw ? But because you have a pal that likes Kildare you think that backs up your point. Gas man.

Where did I say edenderry is a stone's throw? My point was the opposite, no-one has some God given right to live where they want to live.

A lot of people just get on with it and thrive anyway, others just add it to the list of reasons everyone else is responsible for them not thriving.

No, you have jumped into a discussion without reading from the start of it and have picked up the wrong end of the stick. I have no particular interest in entertaining that.

With rent control many of those existing HAP rentals are way behind market rents.

What is increasing rents is the new institutional units coming on line and they are free to market those at crazy rents.

When small landlords get out, including the HAP landlords, the cheaper rent controlled units are flushed out of the rental system as they are bought by owner occupiers and are only partially replaced in the rental market but with more expensive units, new builds from from funds. This is driving up rental prices. How can HAP increase rent when rent controls cap increases at 2%?

The rental market is shrinking with landlords getting out so the demand for less units will also increase rent prices that are set at this new market rate by new entrants.

The government have no replacement when the HAP landlords sell up so they are buying those units - now we have no HAP but tenant renting from the local authority, and the government blows several hundred grand on housing no-one new. Money that could have been spent on building a new unit and increasing overall supply.

@SwimClub my mistake. I mistakenly quoted you when intending to reply to bucketybuck.

Earlier in the week on NT somebody made the claim that corporate landlords are paying 12.5% tax on profits while small time landlords are paying up to 50% on the amount they charge on rent

Seems a bit bizarre to me... Can anybody confirm how true it is?