Offered to cut rent

Glenalla

Cannot understand what is going on, I have a tenant who is having his rent allowance cut, I have offered to lower rent by the same but he says the local officer stated he must find a house with a lower rental, this seems a mad situation, has anyone else experienced the same?

mp22

Moved from state benefits

bath handle

Glenalla wrote: »

Cannot understand what is going on, I have a tenant who is having his rent allowance cut, I have offered to lower rent by the same but he says the local officer stated he must find a house with a lower rental, this seems a mad situation, has anyone else experienced the same?

You must be still above what is considered the market rent.

Ray Palmer

RA hasn't been cut yet so somebody is telling porkies. Unless they mean it is being cut for personal reason such as child no longer living with them.

ABajaninCork

Ray Palmer wrote: »

RA hasn't been cut yet so somebody is telling porkies. Unless they mean it is being cut for personal reason such as child no longer living with them.

Um - ours has! The personal contribution has also risen by E11 to E35 pw.

The_Conductor

Ray Palmer wrote: »

RA hasn't been cut yet so somebody is telling porkies. Unless they mean it is being cut for personal reason such as child no longer living with them.

It was cut for all new claimants from the 1st of Jan, and is being progressively rolled out to all pre-existing claimants- at either periodic reviews (as they are scheduled) or if a tenant moves to a new property (immediately). The rates of personal contribution were also under the legislation. Meanwhile the personal contribution rates were increased from a minimum of 24 Euro to 30 Euro minimum, also from the 1st of Jan (for all).

Ray Palmer

smccarrick wrote: »

It was cut for all new claimants from the 1st of Jan, and is being progressively rolled out to all pre-existing claimants- at either periodic reviews (as they are scheduled) or if a tenant moves to a new property (immediately). The rates of personal contribution were also under the legislation. Meanwhile the personal contribution rates were increased from a minimum of 24 Euro to 30 Euro minimum, also from the 1st of Jan (for all).

What have they been cut to? They aren't being cut to existing tenancies and have yet to state the new rates AFAIK. So how does this match up?
Personal contributions going up is not an issue in this situation.

The_Conductor

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What have they been cut to? They aren't being cut to existing tenancies and have yet to state the new rates AFAIK. So how does this match up?
Personal contributions going up is not an issue in this situation.

The rate of the cut depends on the part of the country you're in (but is up to 45% in Roscommon and can be up to a EUR230 a month cut (Wicklow)). They are indeed being cut for existing tenancies- but only during the regular review process (annual review or more often if your case is flagged for special review)- or if you move dwelling (in which case its immediate). If your rent is above the revised max levels- the instructions to CWOs is the claim is to be turned down altogether.

Its been in the news all week.......

Ray Palmer

smccarrick wrote: »

The rate of the cut depends on the part of the country you're in (but is up to 45% in Roscommon and can be up to a EUR230 a month cut (Wicklow)). They are indeed being cut for existing tenancies- but only during the regular review process (annual review or more often if your case is flagged for special review)- or if you move dwelling (in which case its immediate). If your rent is above the revised max levels- the instructions to CWOs is the claim is to be turned down altogether.

Its been in the news all week.......

Interseting to see what happens so, my tenants haven't said anything. The review process has nothing to do with when the tenancy is up so the governemnt are effectively making tenants break leases. The tenant remain liable for the lease. Very ill thought out.

Another really good reason never to take RA tenants. Have they published the rates somwhere? Interested in Dublin rates.

I really would like to let one of my tenants go naturally through this rather than a fuss.

toexpress

If you google it the rates are on the social welfare website. There are set rates but I just had an email from the guy who owns the property next to mine and the rates are being cut here where I live by about €270 from what he was told.

It's an odd one right because at the end of the day the tenant signed into the lease, there are regulations around terminating a lease yet it seems that the department is just pushing people to break these regulations.

Also, it's a bit much of the department to arbitrarily cut the rates. But this may be why recipients are being told they have to move so that there isn't a legal issue at a later date with rents being cut and the effects to the market that this may have. I am just thinking out loud there but it could be any one of a number of reasons

Ray Palmer

toexpress wrote: »

If you google it the rates are on the social welfare website.

Can't find the rate for Dublin

toexpress

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Can't find the rate for Dublin

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#l62fd2

It's in there

Zamboni

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#l62fd2

_Kaiser_

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Another really good reason never to take RA tenants.

And therein lies the problem really - I don't mean you personally as such - but I've no doubt many other landlords will come to the same conclusion.

Personally, and I'm not a landlord (or on RA) myself, I would've thought a RA tenant was better than a private one when you consider that (especially in the current climate) the latter could be subject to wage cuts, hours reduced or outright unemployment at any point - whereas a RA tenant is "stable" in that regard.

Of course you have the perception that "RA tenants" = "bad/problem tenants" by default, but I'd argue that a bad tenant is a bad tenant, regardless of where their rent is coming from!

Ray Palmer

toexpress wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#l62fd2

It's in there

Cheers just found them before hand. Glad to get rid of the tenant now so I can upgrade the last of the flats. It is shocking how she keeps the place and reverts it back everytime I have done it up.

toexpress

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Cheers just found them before hand. Glad to get rid of the tenant now so I can upgrade the last of the flats. It is shocking how she keeps the place and reverts it back everytime I have done it up.

I have said it before and I will say it again never ever rent to social welfare they are the scum of the earth in general terms they should be in tenements somewhere out of sight so we don't have to look at them.

Ray Palmer

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem really - I don't mean you personally as such - but I've no doubt many other landlords will come to the same conclusion.

Personally, and I'm not a landlord (or on RA) myself, I would've thought a RA tenant was better than a private one when you consider that (especially in the current climate) the latter could be subject to wage cuts, hours reduced or outright unemployment at any point - whereas a RA tenant is "stable" in that regard.

Of course you have the perception that "RA tenants" = "bad/problem tenants" by default, but I'd argue that a bad tenant is a bad tenant, regardless of where their rent is coming from!

Obviously no expereince of actually dealing with RA tenants. Ra tenants are more hassle and often get their payments cut off and then refuse to pay as they can't afford it. You can argue what you like but without direct expereince either way your perception is based on what exactley?
Had one good expereince 1 of 20 is not a great ratio and while I have had bad tenats aswell the majority of problems have been with RA. Glad to get rid of the last one and never again.

When you are in the position you can make your choice. Cosidering you think they would mean a stable tenant you might be in for a shock when reality hits you. The profile may have changed recently but it simply isn't worth the hassle in my expereince.

toexpress

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem really - I don't mean you personally as such - but I've no doubt many other landlords will come to the same conclusion.

Personally, and I'm not a landlord (or on RA) myself, I would've thought a RA tenant was better than a private one when you consider that (especially in the current climate) the latter could be subject to wage cuts, hours reduced or outright unemployment at any point - whereas a RA tenant is "stable" in that regard.

Of course you have the perception that "RA tenants" = "bad/problem tenants" by default, but I'd argue that a bad tenant is a bad tenant, regardless of where their rent is coming from!

It's no longer stable as you put it. For some time now the tenant has been getting a cheque which they can then choose to pass onto the landlord or not. Now I suspect that had a lot to do with what has come down the line. But anyway the notion that it is stable is not the case. While I have had problems with private tenants over the years I have had a lot less problems than friends who have taken social tenants.

I would agree that these days, with unemployment as it is you are talking about a different class of person than you previously were but long term claimants are all of the same class. Lower.

_Kaiser_

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Obviously no expereince of actually dealing with RA tenants. Ra tenants are more hassle and often get their payments cut off and then refuse to pay as they can't afford it. You can argue what you like but without direct expereince either way your perception is based on what exactley?
Had one good expereince 1 of 20 is not a great ratio and while I have had bad tenats aswell the majority of problems have been with RA. Glad to get rid of the last one and never again.

When you are in the position you can make your choice. Cosidering you think they would mean a stable tenant you might be in for a shock when reality hits you. The profile may have changed recently but it simply isn't worth the hassle in my expereince.

Seems to me that your issue is that your tenant may have their RA cut off/reduced, but as I pointed out, at the moment especially you may find a private tenant finds him/herself out of work or on significantly reduced wages due to circumstances beyond their control - will you be back on here complaining about them then too?

If your issue is with tenants wrecking the place, missing rent payments (when able to afford it) or general messing about then I completely agree - but again, this can happen regardless of whether its RA funded or not .. and I don't need to be a landlord (condescending attitude not required either) to know and realise that

To be honest with you, your attitude would put me off renting anything from you - RA or privately.

Yawns

I'm currently in receipt of RA. I invite anyone who thinks we are all scum to come around and have a look at my home any day of the week. The place is spotless and rent is paid on time without fail. I know there's rotten apple out there who receive RA but I also have known and lived with private renters who are the same as those scum receiving the RA.

Bad apples in both bunches but it's prob a bit better not to go tarring everyone with the same brush. If you are that worried about the tennants not passing on the RA they are still allowing some cases of the RA to be paid direct to LL. It happened to a couple I know just in the last month. In that case it did deserve to go to the LL as he has a drink problem and spends almost all cash on booze. He would be the same with the rent if he wasn't on RA, it still wouldn't get paid.

toexpress

Yawns wrote: »

I'm currently in receipt of RA. I invite anyone who thinks we are all scum to come around and have a look at my home any day of the week. The place is spotless and rent is paid on time without fail. I know there's rotten apple out there who receive RA but I also have known and lived with private renters who are the same as those scum receiving the RA.

Bad apples in both bunches but it's prob a bit better not to go tarring everyone with the same brush. If you are that worried about the tennants not passing on the RA they are still allowing some cases of the RA to be paid direct to LL. It happened to a couple I know just in the last month. In that case it did deserve to go to the LL as he has a drink problem and spends almost all cash on booze. He would be the same with the rent if he wasn't on RA, it still wouldn't get paid.

Yeah I have heard good stories too. My mother rented to a social welfare tenant before. They were brilliant, they even put down a patio and replaced a worn suite that their dog chewed with a brand new one before they left. But they were the odd good one which you could be as well. And to be honest if I was offered a good quality person like you I would jump at it, but how do I know until you are in the house? The risks are far to high for me and I would guess a lot more like me. It's not like before where we can take these risks now because that might mean the difference between being able to make the note at the bank this month or not.

Other than that one tenant that my mother had I have never heard a of a good social welfare tenant. Sadly, as a result of her great experience with that girl (she was lovely I have to say I met her) I took one into the house I now live in. Never again.

I should also point out that girl was one who had found herself widowed very young (32) and by 38 she had set herself up with a little business (she did this from home and claimed social welfare at the time but I would have to say however wrong it is her little business does well these days and screw it she paid her contributions so I would applaud her) you could well be like her, someone that wouldn't be of social welfare class and just found circumstances beyond your control.

If you are and want a house in Kildare PM me

_Kaiser_

I think the point is that the "definition" of a RA tenant has changed massively in the last few years as so many decent ordinary, hard-working people have found themselves out of work and on severely reduced means.

Equally the lack of certainty in most of the job market means anyone could be told they're going to be on the dole tomorrow.

Therefore "stereotyping" in this manner is ultimately self-defeating for the landlord. Rent to someone based on your perception of the person (surely an essential for any landlord?), not your preconception of them.

Pin_Cushion

Yawns wrote: »

I'm currently in receipt of RA. I invite anyone who thinks we are all scum to come around and have a look at my home any day of the week. The place is spotless and rent is paid on time without fail. I know there's rotten apple out there who receive RA but I also have known and lived with private renters who are the same as those scum receiving the RA.

Bad apples in both bunches but it's prob a bit better not to go tarring everyone with the same brush. If you are that worried about the tennants not passing on the RA they are still allowing some cases of the RA to be paid direct to LL. It happened to a couple I know just in the last month. In that case it did deserve to go to the LL as he has a drink problem and spends almost all cash on booze. He would be the same with the rent if he wasn't on RA, it still wouldn't get paid.

Same here. I've been in the same place for three years, lost my job after a year of renting. The landlord jumped at the chance of reducing my rent in order to have me stay on for another year. Place is spotless, rent has never been missed etc, etc.

I've rented a load of places in my life and I can tell you that there are as many "bad apple" landlords as there are tenants. More slumlords than ever now because of the volume of very poor buildings that were thrown up during the building boom.

Of course landlords given the choice between employed tenants and unemployed tenants would always choose the employed ones because they'll be in the property for less hours of the day. In reality, it's a free market and tenants choose which landlords to apply to rather than the other way around.

Ray Palmer

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Seems to me that your issue is that your tenant may have their RA cut off/reduced, but as I pointed out, at the moment especially you may find a private tenant finds him/herself out of work or on significantly reduced wages due to circumstances beyond their control - will you be back on here complaining about them then too?

If your issue is with tenants wrecking the place, missing rent payments (when able to afford it) or general messing about then I completely agree - but again, this can happen regardless of whether its RA funded or not .. and I don't need to be a landlord (condescending attitude not required either) to know and realise that

Regardless, good luck with your next tenant... I just find it a tad ironic that you started off complaining that your tenant had come to you trying to negotiate due to circumstances beyond his control, and you've spun that into "RA tenants just aren't worth the hassle"

To be honest with you, your attitude would put me off renting anything from you - RA or privately.

As I have over 5 properties and have been renting out for over 20 years I may have a little more knowledge on the issue than you. RA tenats are more hassle not an issue for debate with my experience. Not claiming they are scum or anything close, just not worth it. Any tenant can be bad but RA tenants have been more hassle and I won't take them again. That is the reality and other LLs doing it for a long time also agree. I won't rent to students anymore either.

I'll admit my last post sounded overly harsh but I am running a business and am not running a charity for people. You obviously mixed up your posters as I haven't complained about trying to negotiate rent with my tenant. What is beyond my tenants control really isn't my problem, if they can't afford it then they should go find somebody will to take RA and accept lower rent. The fact they are under a legal responsibility to pay rent to me is also their problem as it is my problem if I want to terrminate a lease early.

I have tenants for years over 10 years with me so must be doing something right so you won't have to rent off me.

Uriel.

toexpress wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Cheers just found them before hand. Glad to get rid of the tenant now so I can upgrade the last of the flats. It is shocking how she keeps the place and reverts it back everytime I have done it up.

I have said it before and I will say it again never ever rent to social welfare they are the scum of the earth in general terms they should be in tenements somewhere out of sight so we don't have to look at them.

This is an exceptionally harsh post.

While i wouldnt rent to an RA tenant (unless i knew them) i think that generalisation is extreme to the point of stupid.

RA or private you get good and bad.Unfortunately for a lot of landlords, the experience of RA tenants generally has the balance shift towards bad and so the risk becomes higher and thats why landlords are reluctant to take on RA tenants

Victor

toexpress wrote: »

I have said it before and I will say it again never ever rent to social welfare they are the scum of the earth in general terms they should be in tenements somewhere out of sight so we don't have to look at them.

This is offensive to many decent people, who happen to find themselves in difficult circumstances. There is no need to be so offensive in saying it.

C-J

I am in receipt of ra and have an impeccable apartment. Rent paid direct debit each month so always on time. I have a first degree in corporate law and am on a panel for an garda siochana, i'm a part time llb student and work part time. Your mid life crisis comments as regards ra recipients being scum shows the older generation of snobbery that exists in this country.

toexpress

C-J wrote: »

I am in receipt of ra and have an impeccable apartment. Rent paid direct debit each month so always on time. I have a first degree in corporate law and am on a panel for an garda siochana, i'm a part time llb student and work part time. Your mid life crisis comments as regards ra recipients being scum shows the older generation of snobbery that exists in this country.

Mid life crises

How old am I?

To be clear, it's my opinion and one to which I am entitled, but I apologise, I should have worded it in more acceptable terms

Treehouse72

Ray Palmer wrote: »

As I have over 5 properties and have been renting out for over 20 years I may have a little more knowledge on the issue than you.

Except that you didn't know rent allowance rates had been cut.

Yeah, you sound right on top of the whole thing mate.

ABajaninCork

Yawns wrote: »

I'm currently in receipt of RA. I invite anyone who thinks we are all scum to come around and have a look at my home any day of the week. The place is spotless and rent is paid on time without fail. I know there's rotten apple out there who receive RA but I also have known and lived with private renters who are the same as those scum receiving the RA.

Bad apples in both bunches but it's prob a bit better not to go tarring everyone with the same brush. If you are that worried about the tennants not passing on the RA they are still allowing some cases of the RA to be paid direct to LL. It happened to a couple I know just in the last month. In that case it did deserve to go to the LL as he has a drink problem and spends almost all cash on booze. He would be the same with the rent if he wasn't on RA, it still wouldn't get paid.

Totally agree. My husband & I keep our place SPOTLESS. We don't live like pigs, and we respect other people's property. We claim RA and pay our landlord every penny. The rent's paid on time and we are not in arrears.

Dunno about you guys, but to us rent's a priority. That gets paid before ANYTHING ELSE. Even if we're skint for the week.

Next to be paid are the utilities. Anything else, I'm afraid the creditors can bloody well wait for a week if we can't pay immediately.

C-J

Yes you should have phrased it differently. There are lot of people in this country screwed over by the greed of others, I hope someday you can imagine how being poor feels. You don't need money to be human

toexpress

C-J wrote: »

Yes you should have phrased it differently. There are lot of people in this country screwed over by the greed of others, I hope someday you can imagine how being poor feels. You don't need money to be human

I have been on the breadline C-J, you claim to have a first having read law. It would appear that they have dropped the standards because you make some fairly wild assumptions, firstly about my age and secondly about my financial status. I am not poor because I get out and I work and I do so to make sure my bills are paid.

Kindly refrain from your silly school boy deductions. You may be on a panel somewhere but Jessica Fletcher you are not.

Cuddlesworth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem really - I don't mean you personally as such - but I've no doubt many other landlords will come to the same conclusion.

Personally, and I'm not a landlord (or on RA) myself, I would've thought a RA tenant was better than a private one when you consider that (especially in the current climate) the latter could be subject to wage cuts, hours reduced or outright unemployment at any point - whereas a RA tenant is "stable" in that regard.

Of course you have the perception that "RA tenants" = "bad/problem tenants" by default, but I'd argue that a bad tenant is a bad tenant, regardless of where their rent is coming from!

From a more personnel perspective. RA tenants trash the place, can be extremely socially dysfunctional, are impossible to get rid of and can quite often lead to eviction notices. They also withhold the rent, subsidising their "other" habits. And the people paying the RA couldn't give a flying **** about it.

So now none of the people I would know personally will rent to people on RA. And yes, they have had horrible experiences with private tenants as well. Its just the difference between a person who lets a dog chew up the couch and pulls a running and a guy who rips the toilet out and throws it out the window at a neighbour.

Yawns

Quite good timing. Had a phonecall less than an hour ago from the landlord who wanted to pop over. He came, looked and left. First time having met him. Very nice man and he was delighted with the place. Not joking. Just very odd timing what with this thread n all
Just had to do a bit of paperwork and we were both happy campers.

Maybe he's reading this thread! Hello if you are, do let me know your name :P

steddyeddy

toexpress wrote: »

Mid life crises

How old am I?

To be clear, it's my opinion and one to which I am entitled, but I apologise, I should have worded it in more acceptable terms

I was involved with a charity for adult abuse victims. Many of whom depend on temporary assistance from social welfare and rent allowance to get out of an abusive home. I dont think you'll have the ability to understand that some people on social welfare really really need it but hopefully others will apreciate this fact. I have seen many refused because they were on rent allowance leaving them more desperate than before. Probraly some have been refused by the people here. Rent allowance is often essential for the most vunerable of society. Baer in mind many of the people you turned away were in sh1t you couldnt imagine.

Cuddlesworth

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was involved with a charity for adult abuse victims. Many of whom depend on temporary assistance from social welfare and rent allowance to get out of an abusive home. I dont think you'll have the ability to understand that some people on social welfare really really need it but hopefully others will apreciate this fact. I have seen many refused because they were on rent allowance leaving them more desperate than before. Probraly some have been refused by the people here. Rent allowance is often essential for the most vunerable of society. Baer in mind many of the people you turned away were in sh1t you couldnt imagine.

He runs a business not a charity. And its stupid to accept the market minimum for the risk involved.

UDP

steddyeddy wrote: »

Baer in mind many of the people you turned away were in sh1t you couldnt imagine.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a landlord. As Cuddlesworth said, they are not charities.

steddyeddy

I was posting in response to his scum of the earth comment which few of you seem to have a problem with.

Cuddlesworth

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was posting in response to his scum of the earth comment which few of you seem to have a problem with.

There are always exceptions to the rule when generalising. But the fact remains, your far more likely to get a scum of the earth tenant when accepting RA. And they are impossible to get rid off, cost a fortune in damages and have nothing to lose in court. They are a huge fiscal risk and are treated as such in the current market.

Milk & Honey

One of the big problems with RA is that when the tenant causes hassle, the Welfare people do absolutely nothing to help the landlord. There is no reason why when rent allowance is approved the rent allowance and a sufficient sum to make up the rent is not paid directly to the landlord. the difference between the rent and the subsidy could be deducted from the tenants weekly welfare payment

Yawns

That is the way it works in some cases Milk & Honey. A couple I know personally are in receipt of RA. They don't care for the house or rent first. They don't care about unpaid bills. Sure they brag about it to me saying they just use different names. This is the reason I understand why people hate having RA tenants. We have all heard stories about people like this. This guy laughed at me asking why I bothered paying my bills. I just told him to cope on and at least I won't be worrying about my power being cut.

In his case, his landlord now has the RA paid direct to his account. However there's also landlords who receive the RA but claim they don't. This can be disproved of course but there's bad landlords as well as good just like bad tenants as well as good.

There are always exceptions to the rule when generalising. But the fact remains, your far more likely to get a scum of the earth tenant when accepting RA. And they are impossible to get rid off, cost a fortune in damages and have nothing to lose in court. They are a huge fiscal risk and are treated as such in the current market.

If a scum of the earth tenant rents from you privately you will find it just as impossible to get rid of them, cost the same fortune in damages and they are the same huge fiscal risk. People are gonna be scum if they are getting RA or not. I know the stigma attached to it. Best way to ween them out is have them pay the rent themselves until the RA kicks in. If they are serious tenants they will consider this if they can afford to do so. A scum won't want to pay a penny out of his pocket if he doesn't have to.

I made the same agreement with my landlord. I paid the rent until the RA kicked in. It just happened to go through the system fast, I had all the paper work ready when I moved in. To this day I still put my rent up every month and save the RA for doing a big shop or for the bills the following month. I was able to do this by saving before I moved in. It also helps that I didn't bother looking at places I couldn't afford without the RA. I could afford €550 a month so that is what I went for. I get paid monthly so every week I put some rent & bill money away. I then use the RA for the other things I can't save for each week be it some car tax or what not. Usually it's things like I might need an extra 20 for this bill here or something. Either way my rent has never been missed even tho the RA is only paid in arrears. In fact it's usually 2 - 3 days early as I once paid on the day and it didn't go through until 2 days later, now I lodge it early to make sure it's in.

UDP

Thats the thing. Its not that RA tenants are all worse but there is a higher chance of getting someone dodgy with RA. The thing is like people said RA recipients have been diluted in the last few years with decent people but still the old dodgy RA recipients are still there.

Milk & Honey

Yawns wrote: »

That is the way it works in some cases Milk & Honey. A couple I know personally are in receipt of RA. They don't care for the house or rent first.
In his case, his landlord now has the RA paid direct to his account. However there's also landlords who receive the RA but claim they don't. .

The RA is not the full rent. The full rent is never paid to the landlord directly.

C-J

Surely a 'good landlord' would be able to distinguish an undesirable tenant on viewing of the property and ask references etc?? If you end up with a bad tenant it's your own lack of attention at fault

Yawns

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The RA is not the full rent. The full rent is never paid to the landlord directly.

I am aware of that. In this particular case tho both sides are giving wrong information to the CRU so this lad claims. The rent is below county limit, but they are claiming for more than what it really is so that the RA will cover entire rent. I have not seen the forms but he has bragged about this and it's not the first time I've heard of a person doing it so I don't doubt it.

I just go my own honest way and things have worked out fine for me thus far. I just don't like being considered scum alongside this type of person even tho I understand why people do generalize. If it's true that his landlord is also signing off on a false lease for this purpose, should I consider all landlords scum too? I don't. Same when I hear horror stories of what can only be described as slum conditions to which landlords rent out. I don't tar them all with one brush. My last landlord and current landlord are both fine gentlemen. I barely talk to them which means everything is going smoothly.

Yawns

C-J wrote: »

Surely a 'good landlord' would be able to distinguish an undesirable tenant on viewing of the property and ask references etc?? If you end up with a bad tenant it's your own lack of attention at fault

Sometimes an estate agent will just sign up a tenant even if they are trouble. They will get paid regardless. Some landlords just don't care until they have to pay for the damages. Then there's the pushy landlords who can't accept that the house becomes the tenants home and know to leave them in peace. The variety is great and wide for both sides.

Kosseegan

Yawns wrote: »

I am aware of that. In this particular case tho both sides are giving wrong information to the CRU so this lad claims. The rent is below county limit, but they are claiming for more than what it really is so that the RA will cover entire rent. I have not seen the forms but he has bragged about this and it's not the first time I've heard of a person doing it so I don't doubt it.

I just go my own honest way and things have worked out fine for me thus far. I just don't like being considered scum alongside this type of person even tho I understand why people do generalize. If it's true that his landlord is also signing off on a false lease for this purpose, should I consider all landlords scum too? I don't. Same when I hear horror stories of what can only be described as slum conditions to which landlords rent out. I don't tar them all with one brush. My last landlord and current landlord are both fine gentlemen. I barely talk to them which means everything is going smoothly.

If that was the case the landlord would be taxed on a greater income than he receives in rent.

Yawns

I've always thought that when I heard people claiming this. Apparently they do it tho. I'm not gonna doubt it. If the ll wants to make false declarations, it's up to him/her. If they get caught I have 0 sympathy. I can't exactly report and prove the case as they have a lease between themselves that says the rent is x amount. In this scenario that the guy is in, the ll gets the RA every month which covers the tenants contribution as the actual rent paid is less than what the lease says.

steddyeddy

Apologies for the late reply Im up to my eyes at the moment. I dont expect landlords to act as a charity and take in rent allowance people. What I do expect is a person like a landlord who is providing a social necessity such as housing to have a but of common sense and be aware of the damage referring to people who need help as "scum of the earth" can cause. Many of the people we worked with didnt even want rent allowance they worked two jobs to pay for their rent yet some landlords didnt want to house them because of their abusive background.

Some people on rent allowance are battered wives, the elderly, those who were evicted from a house not being able to afford mortgage payments. Some of the people we worked with have their own business or are doing phds now bottom line people on rent allowance as a temporary stop gap can be great members of society.

Ill end by saying some of the landlords who paint rent allowance recievers as "scum" have on previous threads bragged about breaking the law, evicting people illegally or tracking people down. People in glass houses gentlemen.

Glenalla

As it turns out the tenant has found another similar house locally that has just been redecorated and wants to move in instead. The statement about not being able to accept a reduction in rent was just a way to get out of my property. As my property was just redecorated 16 months ago it makes me wonder what state he will leave it in?. I have not checked it internally as I live 5 hours away but had a neighbour check it externally from time to time.

ShaShaBear

I'm in receipt of Rent Allowance and it helps put me through college. I've re-decorated the place on my own time and money, landlord was so pleased he let me off rent over Christmas. He fixes stuff the second I ask, and I keep the place spotless. Bills have never been late and neither has rent. I have to pick it up in the PO every week, and it goes directly to the bank for his rent.

I'm not even going to go into the "scum" comments, as people like that simply do not deserve my recognition. I was in a very dire situation after my dad died, and I was, and still am, so utterly thrilled to be receiving help to live and continue my studies that I would not dare throw it back in someone's face.

But I am well aware of at least 11 people living in my area that fully abuse the privilege that the state provides by letting people like myself live independently.

I tend to find what works best is to meet the landlord or estate agent fully prepared with references and background information, then when they have seen what a delightful and honest person you are, drop the RA bomb. If they still refuse you, they clearly weren't going to be very nice people to rent from.
I can remember a time where I had more trouble finding a place willing to allow my dog