HAP should be the average for a given area or you end up ghettoising the poor/vulnerable to certain areas and accomodation types.
This is why HAP is flawed from the absolutel outset. The state should not be using private LL's to house people.
Maybe the average actual rent paid, but if your expecting the average asking rent on Daft I think your expectations are unrealistic
The first thing to do is to use the RTB calculator to figure out the maximum allowable increase. Depending on when the rent was last set, it could be a decent sum.
If a property has been let for the first time then they can break the 4% rule to bring the rent inline with the current market rate in the area.
It was talked about on the radio a while back when a state/council owned property raised the rents more than the 4% allowed.
I don't expect anything from HAP other than a hot mess, but if the model is to distribute social tenants over a wider area (a good policy socially) then HAP has to keep up. That includes paying HAP to a level that allows (some) people to be housed people in desirable areas.
If the hap is to be kept low and attractive to LL. Its should offer some other value added to the landlord. Lower risk. Many LL would be happy with a modest rent if the risk was reduced.
But one of the cost savings of out sourcing is that the risk of over holding and repairs is borne by the landlord not the local authority.
That makes no sense as there are certain standards a house has to reach to be able to be used for HAP.
I've been renting my whole adult life, almost 30 years now and this is my first time on HAP, it's the nicest house I've ever lived in and there was an inspection done with a list of work given to the landlord to bring it up to spec or else it would have been cancelled!
Therefore, by default you are looking at the better houses in an area for the HAP scheme and certainly not the lower end, forcing people who are already financially vulnerable to 'top up' the miserly rent cap, putting them in a much worse situation just trying to keep a roof over their heads.
It's a REALLY messed up situation
There is no incentive to keep the rent low as the tenant is expected to top the rent up out of their social welfare payment.
I am on Disability Allowance and my weekly top up to the landlord is almost half my weekly payment including the weekly contribution that is made to the county council.
I know of people in even worse situations than that. If the rent increases then that comes out of the top up too, there is no increase from the cc above the cap!
It's a very bad system in my opinion, a total poverty trap
There is a set maximum rent for each area in the country, This is considerably lower than the market rent. The local authority pays this to the landlord every month(on the last Wednesday). The tenant pays a contribution from their own income, not to the landlord, but to the authority.This contribution is based on the tenants's income. If the income is very modest, so also is the contribution. If the tenant fails to pay the contribution, the full payment to the landlord is withheld and the landlord needs to address the matter through the PRTB.
I don't know about the procedure 're. non-payment but the rest is correct.
The minimum contribution is €26 per week but very few people are paying that as it is means tested so even as a disabled single parent I was paying €36 per week out of my payment of €220 as I was also receiving the extra €29 per week for my child. If I had been receiving maintenance it would have been discounted pound for pound.
That did not include the extra monthly top-up of €200 (endorsed by the CC as part of the HAP scheme) making my total rent payable €82 out of €220 weekly.
Though I am very lucky to have a roof over our heads for now, don't get me wrong, this is not a sustainable system in my opinion and nothing more than a poverty trap.