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 allowance and landlords

  • 03-05-2008 2:07pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭


    ....


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭BigglesMcGee


    far as i know a landlord is entitled to examine the ability of the tennant to pay the rent regularly (among other things) and then decide if they want to want to take that person on.

    Much like a bank with a mortgage application.

    I would have thought most landlords would accept rent allowance anyway.
    Just dont bother going near those who dont.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    It's not compulsory.

    Most landlords do not accept rent supplement tenants at all. If you look at daft.ie, there are many ads saying No rent supplement tenants.

    There are many reasons why they don't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭nataliehun


    !!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    nataliehun wrote: »
    seems to me no one accepts even tho its garenteed rent!!

    A quick search of posts on here and you'll find all sorts of problems landlords have had with rent allowance tenants. It's not guaranteed rent as many recipients get the money themselves and don't pay the landlord, it's not automatically paid to the landlord (though I think there is a facility you can set up to have this done).

    Would I rent to someone with RA? Probably not if I could get a professional in. No guarantee of the kind of tenant I know but I've heard too many horror stories to risk it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    nataliehun wrote: »
    does anyone know is complussary for landlords to accept rent allowance by law?

    It is not.

    Anyone in receipt of rent allowance has my sympathies as they find themselves judged, stereotyped and discriminated against when looking for accomodation almost anywhere they go. It's a lucky thing that every landlord doesnt share the view, othewise we'd have many more homeless people on the streets then we already do.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    And it does mean that the landlord who does not accept RA nor is regged with the PRTB is not on the Revenue radar for tax liability.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭nataliehun


    No guarantee of the kind of tenant I know but I've heard too many horror stories to risk it.[/quote]

    and how can you guarantee a professional .? from the stories ive heard they can cause more problems than anyone else...some of us are good people and want to have a roof over our childrens heads.....usually if the case is a single mother has rent allowance its because the bum of a father either ran off/too lasy to pay maintence or work or simply doesnt show up..NOT CAUSE THE MOTHER ISNT A WORKING PROFESSIONAL.so i dont think its single mothers are to blaim for this situation its men that dont pull there wait as fathers.(and that is ireland is a huge %)while the mothers are working when they can even 2 jobs to pay for childcare while they are also trying to study at home and pay college fees....... so that my friend is a horror story for the mother and child NOT THE LANDLORD.. can landlords not make that a request that it goes into there bank a/c?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭nataliehun


    gurramok wrote: »
    And it does mean that the landlord who does not accept RA nor is regged with the PRTB is not on the Revenue radar for tax liability.


    prtb==???


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    PRTB is the regulatory authority for dealing with tenancy disputes. By law all tenancy agreements must be registered with them. There's a website at www.prtb.ie

    Gurramok's statement makes no sense to me. I don't think it automatically follows that someone who does not want rental allowance tenants is not registered with the PRTB or is non-tax compliant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    My statement was not to label all those who do not want rental allowance tenants as not registered with the PRTB as non-tax compliant.'

    It was meant to say that some can do it that way to avoid detection of paying tax.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    nataliehun wrote: »
    usually if the case is a single mother has rent allowance its because the bum of a father either ran off/too lasy to pay maintence or work or simply doesnt show up..NOT CAUSE THE MOTHER ISNT A WORKING PROFESSIONAL.so i dont think its single mothers are to blaim for this situation its men that dont pull there wait as fathers.(and that is ireland is a huge %)while the mothers are working when they can even 2 jobs to pay for childcare while they are also trying to study at home and pay college fees....... so that my friend is a horror story for the mother and child NOT THE LANDLORD..

    How true. Thank you for that nataliehun; I was in exactly the situation you describe from '98 - '05 while I was at PLC college and then university, and it's not a situation the majority of landlords are sympathetic to.

    As for the rent allowance, yes a landlord can request direct debit. That was true prior to '05 so I'm sure it's still true today.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Chinafoot


    I don't want to sound harsh or anything but landlords don't have any moral obligation to rent out to those that are down on their luck. Yes you're a single mother working hard to put yourself through college to provide a better life for your child. That's great. However, that's not the landlords problem.

    Landlords are there to make money on their property and they are going to go for the tenant that has a regular and secure income. For them, the working professional may seem like the best tenant to go for. Yeah there are horror stories on both sides and it's terrible that everyone on rent allowance gets lumped in as a waster or a sponger or whatever, but from a business point of view many landlords might not want to take the risk.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Well said Chinafoot!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    Chinafoot wrote: »
    I don't want to sound harsh or anything but landlords don't have any moral obligation to rent out to those that are down on their luck. Yes you're a single mother working hard to put yourself through college to provide a better life for your child. That's great. However, that's not the landlords problem.

    Landlords are there to make money on their property and they are going to go for the tenant that has a regular and secure income. For them, the working professional may seem like the best tenant to go for. Yeah there are horror stories on both sides and it's terrible that everyone on rent allowance gets lumped in as a waster or a sponger or whatever, but from a business point of view many landlords might not want to take the risk.

    Excuse me Chinafoot, but I believe everyone has a moral obligation not to discriminate against somebody on the grounds that their child’s father has shirked his responsibilities; it is enough to deal with in itself without being discriminated against because of it. I also would expect a person old enough to have a property available for rent in the first place to have enough maturity and intelligence not to tar everyone in any social group with the same brush.

    As far as rent being paid regularly and in a secure manner, a landlord cannot hope to get paid his rent more regularly or securely than in the form of a direct debit from a government department.

    I am not sure if you were referring to me or the OP as a student by the way, but if you were referring to me I am not a single mother working hard to put myself through college: I have long since done that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    I don't think it's an issue of discriminating against one type of tenant on RA.

    There are plenty of reasons for someone to be on RA, some more desirable as tenants than others...there was a poster on here on Methadone on RA...which is very different from being a single mother...which is different from being a recent immigrant... it's up to each landlord to decide who they are willing to take.

    It's much easier to decide against RA as a blanket decision than having to research the reasons why a tenant was in receipt of RA.

    On the professional thing, lots of landlords look for work references and that's one of the safest references you can get when it comes to judging tenants.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Chinafoot


    seahorse wrote: »
    Excuse me Chinafoot, but I believe everyone has a moral obligation not to discriminate against somebody on the grounds that their child’s father has shirked his responsibilities; it is enough to deal with without being discriminated against because of it. I also would expect a person old enough to have a property available for rent in the first place to have enough maturity and intelligence not to tar everyone in any social group with the same brush.

    That's all well and good but this comes down to a business making a profit and the business person minimising the risks affecting that profit. Yeah it sucks for someone in a bad situation but to be perfectly honest, the fact that a father has shirked on his responsibilities and left the mother in a tough situation is of no concern of the person who owns the property. What obligation do they have to the person looking for somewhere to live? Absolutely none.

    Yeah it's discrimination but landlords discriminate on all sorts of grounds....how often have you seen ads stating 'no couples', 'no children' and 'no pets'? The people who own the property have the right to decide who lives there. YOu might not like it but thats how it is.
    seahorse wrote: »
    As far as rent being paid regularly and in a secure manner, a landlord cannot hope to get paid his rent more regularly or securely than in the form of a direct debit from a government department.

    Well until direct debit is made the compulsory form of payment of rent allowance it is understandable that landlords will remain dubious.

    We can argue this all day but the fact of the matter is landlords renting out property have absolutely no moral obligation to give anyone a leg up when it comes to their business. To expect otherwise is very unrealistic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    athtrasna wrote: »
    It's much easier to decide against RA as a blanket decision than having to research the reasons why a tenant was in receipt of RA.

    I would imagine it is, but I would say that that's laziness athtrasna. I cant imagine any single parent having a problem with stating directly and honestly why they were in receipt of rent allowance.

    As to landlords looking to protect their investment: I can tell you that in the seven years I was on rent allowance I didn’t have a single house party simply because I had a child. Any home-trashing parties I attended were all going on in the homes of those who were working full-time and didn’t have kids.

    I can also tell you that 80+ % of my rent went straight to the landlords account on the first Monday of the month and he called around on the first Thursday of the same week so that I could hand him the surplus. My rent was never late once in seven years and I never had a problem or a complaint with a landlord.

    I have no problem with anybody protecting their investment, but doing so by discriminating against people on the basis that they've been abandoned by the father of their child is not an attitude that elicits any respect from me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    Chinafoot wrote: »
    That's all well and good but this comes down to a business making a profit and the business person minimising the risks affecting that profit. Yeah it sucks for someone in a bad situation but to be perfectly honest, the fact that a father has shirked on his responsibilities and left the mother in a tough situation is of no concern of the person who owns the property.

    It ought to be of no concern to the person who owns the property, but a large degree of landlords obviously feel that it is since they discriminate against people on that basis.
    Chinafoot wrote: »
    Well until direct debit is made the compulsory form of payment of rent allowance it is understandable that landlords will remain dubious.

    A landlord can decide for him or herself that they will only accept RA tenants on this basis; I would have no problems with that, in fact I think it's good business sense. If I were renting an RA tenant a home I would do that myself, in the same way and for the same reason that I would insist on a direct debit from any tenant.
    Chinafoot wrote: »
    We can argue this all day but the fact of the matter is landlords renting out property have absolutely no moral obligation to give anyone a leg up when it comes to their business. To expect otherwise is very unrealistic.
    Rent allowance tenants are not asking for “a leg up” Chinafoot; they are asking for what every other tenant is asking for - a home to rent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    seahorse, I know landlords who have had difficulty collecting the balance not covered by the RA and that colours their views somewhat. I think you will find that the issue relates to the rent potentially coming from two sources. Every single landlord I have dealt with as a tenant has expected the rent on the entire house to be made in a single payment to avoid a situation where they are not receiving the full rent due.

    It does not actually help your case that 80%+ got paid in one run and the balance "later". Landlords - understandably - do not see that as a viable way of doing business.

    Landlords who do choose not to rent to RA recipients do not give a toss one way or the other why someone might be on RA. They only care that you are on RA. It is - also - not the case that all RA recipients were abandoned by the father of their child and that is a generalisation which is not fair on single parents and not fair on landlords.

    In any case, the issue relates to the lack of viable social housing in this country, or alternative means of getting people back on their feet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭nataliehun


    ....


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭BigglesMcGee


    Calina wrote: »
    seahorse, I know landlords who have had difficulty collecting the balance not covered by the RA and that colours their views somewhat. I think you will find that the issue relates to the rent potentially coming from two sources. Every single landlord I have dealt with as a tenant has expected the rent on the entire house to be made in a single payment to avoid a situation where they are not receiving the full rent due.

    It does not actually help your case that 80%+ got paid in one run and the balance "later". Landlords - understandably - do not see that as a viable way of doing business.

    Landlords who do choose not to rent to RA recipients do not give a toss one way or the other why someone might be on RA. They only care that you are on RA. It is - also - not the case that all RA recipients were abandoned by the father of their child and that is a generalisation which is not fair on single parents and not fair on landlords.

    In any case, the issue relates to the lack of viable social housing in this country, or alternative means of getting people back on their feet.

    Also i think that there is a ready made excuse for the renter there.
    "The Health Center stopped my RA. I cant pay the rent."

    I think you're right. Landlords prefer to deal with one person.
    But at the same time im sure there are plenty of landlords out there who will take RA.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Chinafoot


    seahorse wrote: »
    I am not sure if you were referring to me or the OP as a student by the way, but if you were referring to me I am not a single mother working hard to put myself through college: I have long since done that.

    I was of course referring to the original poster.
    seahorse wrote: »
    It ought to be of no concern to the person who owns the property, but a large degree of landlords obviously feel that it is since they discriminate against people on that basis.

    The point I was making which you seem to have deliberately missed, is that the landlord will not be interested in the ins and outs of why the possible tenant is on rent allowance. You say that it's terrible to discriminate against someone who is in that position because the fatehr of their child did a runner, the point I am making is that to the landlord that is irrelevant. A landlord will instead see someone who is having their rent subsidised and they may feel more comfortable with someone who they know is in a stable job with the full amount coming in every month.

    seahorse wrote:
    I can also tell you that 80+ % of my rent went straight to the landlords account on the first Monday of the month and he called around on the first Thursday of the same week so that I could hand him the surplus.

    See therein lies the issue for most landlords. It's not the full rental amount so it's not "guaranteed" rent as far as they are concerned. Say your rent is €1000 a month and you're getiing 80% rent allowance, there is no guarantee that the €200 is going to materialise. And as has already been pointed out to you, many landlords would prefer to have the rent paid in one go instead of having two separate payments.
    seahorse wrote:
    My rent was never late once in seven years and I never had a problem or a complaint with a landlord.

    Well good for you! Thing is though, this thread isn't just about you. You clearly feel like you're being insulted here and you don't seem to see beyond your own situation so this is all rather pointless.

    seahorse wrote:
    I have no problem with anybody protecting their investment, but doing so by discriminating against people on the basis that they've been abandoned by the father of their child is not an attitude that elicits any respect from me.

    Again, it is no concern of the landlords why you are on rent allowance. If the landlord decides they don't want anyone that is on rent allowance regardless of their circumstances then they have every right to do so. Do you think everyone on rent allowance is a single mother who has been abandoned by the father of their child? I doubt it very, very much.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    Calina wrote: »
    Landlords who do choose not to rent to RA recipients do not give a toss one way or the other why someone might be on RA. They only care that you are on RA.

    I know. And speaking of generalisations, you couldn’t get a more straightforward example of general discrimination if you went looking for one.
    Calina wrote: »
    It does not actually help your case that 80%+ got paid in one run and the balance "later". Landlords - understandably - do not see that as a viable way of doing business.

    I'd imagine that situation wouldn’t suit most landlords Calina but it was at the request of mine actually. I asked him if he wanted a second direct debit set up from my account but since he was in the house on the same day each week collecting the rent from the other tenants (it was a large house divided into flats) he said it would suit him just as well to knock in for it.

    If landlords have trouble collecting the balance of their rent, well, I can understand why that would put them off; what I cant understand is why they'd have trouble in the first place since the balance of the rent is only 15/20% and that was always manageable for me. Also, it is a simple enough thing to have a second direct debit set up to transfer the surplus of rent, so there's no reason why they cannot have their rent paid to their account on the same day as the rent supplement arrives.

    I'd have no objections to a landlord evicting someone for non-payment or late-payment of rent regardless what the source of that rent. That is simply business; I know if I were renting a property and the rent was not paid or was consistently late the tenants concerned would be straight out the door.

    Chinafoot - Firstly you needn’t worry about having insulted me; that is actually a very difficult thing to do. There is no point in us discussing this any further; you and I obviously disagree and are unlikely to see each others view. I strongly believe that a blanket ban on RA tenants is a very snobbish and narrow-minded view and as I've said before it's a lucky thing it's not indulged by all landlords because if it were there would be many many more homeless on our streets, including families with babies and young children. I would like to point out though that I am not for a moment saying that people renting properties should feel obliged to rent to those on RA; I am saying they should not discriminate against them because of it. That is a very different thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    seahorse wrote: »
    I'd have no objections to a landlord evicting someone for non-payment or late-payment of rent regardless what the source of that rent. That is simply business; I know if I were renting a property and the rent was not paid or was consistently late the tenants concerned would be straight out the door.

    Then you don't understand how difficult it is for a landlord to evict tenants. They don't go straight out the door very often; they go to the PRTB and complain and the lease gets frozen while the PRTB goes through the motions. And they might still lose at the end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I could imagine a lot of Landlords start off willing to accept RA, have good experiences with the likes of someone like Seahorse, or Natalie, and then gets someone that takes the p*ss, costs them any profit they made, or puts their livelihoods in danger (mortgage repayments mount up, holidays get cancelled) and they swear off tenants with RA forever.

    The only way to solve it is to give Landlords more rights when they have tenants with RA. Mandatory direct debt of the Government portion, weaker rights for the tenant when they do miss payments.

    It's not fair on some, but the image of people who accept RA needs to be improved, if they want to be able to rent freely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    seahorse wrote: »
    what I cant understand is why they'd have trouble in the first place since the balance of the rent is only 15/20% and that was always manageable for me.
    Why take the risk. 5 people look at the place. One is working, will always have the rent, two others get social welfare, and two get rent allowance. I'd rent to the one that is working and can guarantee the rent. And no, I don't care why they're on social welfare or get rent allowance.

    Also, if they try to kick one out, as they haven't paid rent, and the judge goes in favour of the SW/RA tenant... they, or any landlord in the area, won't be taking on any SW/RA tenants again. Why? Less hassle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Power Chords


    Just because somebody is working does not mean the landlord is guaranteed his rent.
    I'm eligable for a RA because of a disability. I worked full time in the past, teaching. I lived in rented accommodation, never any problems with paying rent and no problems of any other kind. Work isn't an option, so instead of sitting around I'm a full time student again.
    I'm no different now than I was then in terms of the person I am, simply, my circumstances have changed and now I'm highly limited with the accommodation available to me.
    Landlords are missing out on potentially great tenants by putting up a block, it seems they should be at least willing to meet potential tenants and then make their decisions, for the sake of both parties


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Just because somebody is working does not mean the landlord is guaranteed his rent.

    Of course, but out of interest do you have any figures that show that people on RA are able to meet the rent as often as those not on RA?

    There's a few possibilities, if the numbers are equal then its the image of people on RA which could be causing the problem, perhaps the worst RA tenants are much worse than the worst non RA tenants, you have to wonder what prompts a Landlord to not accept RA, as having a percentage of guaranteed government rent sounds like a plus, so there must be other worse factors that Landlords are willing to give up that advantage.

    If the numbers are in favour of the people not on RA, then the Landlord is totally justified to not accept RA if they want to maximise profit and minimise risk for their business.

    If the numbers are in favour of the people on RA, then again, there is an image problem somewhere that needs to be solved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Power Chords


    I doubt anybody has those numbers.
    Do you have the numbers which state that non-RA tenants are able to meet the rent as often as those on RA?
    I wouldn't imagine sufficent or relevant research exists.
    A property manger I know gave some reasons why RA tenants are overlooked, the assumption is generally that they are unemployed, spending more time at home than working tenants which over time puts greater ware on the facilitys and general look of the house, carpets, wall paper, paint, etc. need changing more often. The other reason being that some landlords don't want to deal with the tax issues.
    Both fairly valid as far as I'm conerned but it doesn't take much time to meet a potential tenant which would give the landlord an opportunity to judge based on the person over the fact that somebody recieves RA which people get for various reasons.
    It's ignorance to assume that somebody recieves RA only because of unemployment and will cause problems or create problems for the landlord.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement