You have the house...now you dont!

qvsr46ofgc792k

My partners sister went to view a house last week and she fell in love with it and was told by the letting agency she could move in on the 1/11/11.
She will be collecting rent allowance from the social welfare and the letting agency even helped her fill in all the neccesary forms.

All was good up until today when the agency rang up to tell her that the landlord is not accepting rent allowance and so she can not move in.

Is this allowed? Surely the letting agency should have known this before they offered her the house.

Any info would be appreciated.

Fol20

At the end of the day, its the landords house so he makes the final decisions. What do you expect to get out of this?

qvsr46ofgc792k

Fol20 wrote: »

At the end of the day, its the landords house so he makes the final decisions. What do you expect to get out of this?

I dont know whether your reply was being smart or not but to put it into perspective:

YES the house is yours (LAST WEEK), so:

• Packed Bags
• Hired a Van
• bought new furniture
• Moved out of old premises (staying in parents for time being)

and now they turn around and say no?
I understand that the landlord has a choice but surely there is laws against saying yes you can and then no you cant 4 days before your due to move in.

not even wrong

Achilles Old-fashioned Minibus wrote: »

Surely the letting agency should have known this before they offered her the house.

Yes they should and it is very unprofessional behavior from them however until contracts are signed and deposits/keys change hands nothing is final.

Turn the situation around; if she had agreed to move in but unforeseen circumstances had arisen to change her plans before signing the lease then she'd feel rightfully hard done by if the landlord tried to force her to continue anyway.

athtrasna

Achilles Old-fashioned Minibus wrote: »

I dont know whether your reply was being smart or not but to put it into perspective:

YES the house is yours (LAST WEEK), so:

• Packed Bags
• Hired a Van
• bought new furniture
• Moved out of old premises (staying in parents for time being)

and now they turn around and say no?
I understand that the landlord has a choice but surely there is laws against saying yes you can and then no you cant 4 days before your due to move in.

No, it's not illegal. Unpleasant but not illegal.

I would imagine the agent held some information back from the landlord and when the landlord found out, they insisted on sticking with their position on RA.

If you sister is on RA, it's unlikely she handed over a deposit? Or signed contracts?

qvsr46ofgc792k

Yeah nothing was signed or handed over, that was meant to be done today.
From the last two replies I can see it from another perspective alright.

Its a nasty way of doing business alright and no person should be discriminated against because they will be in reciept of rent allowance.

air

Rent allowance is surely on the cards for a serious reduction in the upcoming budget so it would be hard to blame any landlord for not accepting it.

MagicMarker

Achilles Old-fashioned Minibus wrote: »

I dont know whether your reply was being smart or not but to put it into perspective:

YES the house is yours (LAST WEEK), so:

• Packed Bags
• Hired a Van
• bought new furniture
• Moved out of old premises (staying in parents for time being)

and now they turn around and say no?
I understand that the landlord has a choice but surely there is laws against saying yes you can and then no you cant 4 days before your due to move in.

She shouldn't have done any of this until the lease was signed tbh.

Victor

athtrasna wrote: »

If you sister is on RA, it's unlikely she handed over a deposit? Or signed contracts?

Why do you say this? the normal rules apply to people on RA.

prettygurrly

sadly it doesn't matter if you hand over a deposit and sign contracts. until you have keys you have nothing. had a landlord decide not to move out but didn't make the decision till we had given up our old apt and packed up all our stuff. we gave him a month's notice and four days before hand i enquired as to whether we could get the keys or a date as to when we cud move as we had so much stuff. didn't get a straight answer from letting agent until we were homeless for 4 days. found another house a week later and are very happy here but it was very upsetting how this could just happen and there was nothing we could do. threatened to take the landlord to court but don't have time and resources for that carry on.

bottom line...landlords do whatever they like. but if agency did not clarify if the landlord would accept RA then it is squarely at their door for this mess

athtrasna

Victor wrote: »

Why do you say this? the normal rules apply to people on RA.

Because the money would not be advanced to the tenant until all the paperwork was received and approved. No signature from the landlord, no RA approval. No CWO would just give the money to a RA tenant in case they found somewhere they liked.

Contracts are usually signed and handed over with at least a deposit.

wush06

air wrote: »

Rent allowance is surely on the cards for a serious reduction in the upcoming budget so it would be hard to blame any landlord for not accepting it.

So how would this work if the tenants have a lease for 12 months. Would they have to make up the difference in rent.

Victor

athtrasna wrote: »

Because the money would not be advanced to the tenant until all the paperwork was received and approved. No signature from the landlord, no RA approval. No CWO would just give the money to a RA tenant in case they found somewhere they liked.

Contracts are usually signed and handed over with at least a deposit.

You realise that many tenants who are entiteld to RA have their own assets? Just low incomes.

prettygurrly wrote: »

sadly it doesn't matter if you hand over a deposit and sign contracts. until you have keys you have nothing.

As you say, you could take the landlord to court, although I imagine the PRTB would accept jurisdiction aswell.

air

wush06 wrote: »

So how would this work if the tenants have a lease for 12 months. Would they have to make up the difference in rent.

I guess they would have to find the money like everyone else does, RA is just a small part of our totally unsustainable social welfare bill.

air

Victor wrote: »

You realise that many tenants who are entiteld to RA have their own assets? Just low incomesl

This is a total farce also, in other countries people are not entitled to welfare while they own assets that can be disposed of.

naughtysmurf

Not sure how the whole rent allowance thing works but is it possible the landlord prefered a tenant not getting rent allowance, who paid full rent in cash and was able to avoid tax?

athtrasna

naughtysmurf wrote: »

Not sure how the whole rent allowance thing works but is it possible the landlord prefered a tenant not getting rent allowance, who paid full rent in cash and was able to avoid tax?

This is a myth! Yes there is a small proportion but the reason many landlords won't take RA is because the stories and experiences from a minority of RA tenants have scared landlords. We've all heard stories of unpaid rent, trashed houses, anti social behaviour - the experiences of the few tar the many. It's not fair, but it's how it is.

naughtysmurf

athtrasna wrote: »

This is a myth! Yes there is a small proportion but the reason many landlords won't take RA is because the stories and experiences from a minority of RA tenants have scared landlords. We've all heard stories of unpaid rent, trashed houses, anti social behaviour - the experiences of the few tar the many. It's not fair, but it's how it is.

That's fair enough, was more coming from the angle of landlord avoiding tax rather than assuming that someone getting rent allowance was more likely to be anti-social and wreck the place

athtrasna

naughtysmurf wrote: »

That's fair enough, was more coming from the angle of landlord avoiding tax rather than assuming that someone getting rent allowance was more likely to be anti-social and wreck the place

Revenue are cracking down big time, and with Councils in on the act now policing the NPPR charges...it's a bigger and bigger risk to take.

There's also the issue that RA is paid in arrears, and the Councils control the rent, in that the maximum RA paid for a property has come down a lot in the past 18 months. Most landlords can't afford to work like that where there is an alternative.

Victor

air wrote: »

This is a total farce also, in other countries people are not entitled to welfare while they own assets that can be disposed of.

Are you saying that people entltled to welfare should be allowed have €500-1,000 of their own money (the typical amount needed for a deposit and a month's rent)?