Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group

MariMel

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.


SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports.

SPARK accepts that rent allowance is a huge burden, however believe that it is the result of a failure of government policy which placed many people out of the private property market and which was compounded by failure to provide social housing during boom times.

The recently introduced rent limits is an attempt by the government to reduce rent in the private market, however, they have abdicated their responsibility and expect individuals to negotiate rent reductions but if they fail to do this people will be forced to move out of their homes and children away from schools.

We are calling on all people affected by these new limits to submit an application to the PRTB for a rent review.
It costs twenty five euro for an application but people can remain in their home until their case is heard.
Secondly it will be too much for PRTB to manage and intervention will be necessary.
Thirdly, and importantly one govt. body will be forced to determine whether the Dept.of Protection had set fair current market values.

We believe that we can use state mechanisms to expose the devastating effect poor social policy is having on ordinary citizens and if we stand together we can win the right for people to remain.in their homes and communities.

https://www.facebook.com/irishsingleparentsfightback

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.


SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports.

SPARK accepts that rent allowance is a huge burden, however believe that it is the result of a failure of government policy which placed many people out of the private property market and which was compounded by failure to provide social housing during boom times.

The recently introduced rent limits is an attempt by the government to reduce rent in the private market, however, they have abdicated their responsibility and expect individuals to negotiate rent reductions but if they fail to do this people will be forced to move out of their homes and children away from schools.

We are calling on all people affected by these new limits to submit an application to the PRTB for a rent review.
It costs twenty five euro for an application but people can remain in their home until their case is heard.
Secondly it will be too much for PRTB to manage and intervention will be necessary.
Thirdly, and importantly one govt. body will be forced to determine whether the Dept.of Protection had set fair current market values.

We believe that we can use state mechanisms to expose the devastating effect poor social policy is having on ordinary citizens and if we stand together we can win the right for people to remain.in their homes and communities.

While I see the need for intervention from the PRTB to intervene in this matter, I think that the group is misled when it also wants to protest against the rent reductions.

While they fight for single parents in receipt of rent allowance, who fights for those (like myself) not in receipt?
The harder they fight to maintain rents, the harder my life as a working single parent is to pay my rent, which is dictated by the rate of RA in my area.
I spoke to my landlord re a reduction, he said he couldn't (a very nice landlord I might add) he has said that if I leave he will get a SW tenant and not lose a penny, so we have agreed that I will have to look for new accomadation.

I'm an ordinary citizen and if this group succeed then what happens to me and my children?

Should I be forced to give up work?

Edit to add.

Here is a circular giving all the information regarding the rent review. They received the information from the PRTB (landlords with tenants in receipt of RA must be registered).
http://www.focusireland.ie/files/swa%20circular%2021-2011%20-%20maximum%20rent%20limits.pdf

In it you will see that there are exceptions for those who are up for a review with the CWO but still in a lease.

MariMel

This is just one of many issues that SPARK are dealing with. Another is the misconception that lone parents dont work when 60% of them do.
Of these 60% some get rent supplement too. Its not just those that dont work.

I believe that this group do believe that rents are too high but that the onus has been put onto each individual to obtain a rent reduction and like the situation you find yourself in whereby you feel you have to move. In so doing, having parents bargaining with the security of their children in the process and like you risk having to move their children out of schools and away from support networks.

Many landlords do not also realise what the new rent supplement limits that came into effect from january 1st are and your landlord might very well be surprised if he checked into it.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

This is just one of many issues that SPARK are dealing with. Another is the misconception that lone parents dont work when 60% of them do.
Of these 60% some get rent supplement too. Its not just those that dont work.

I believe that this group do believe that rents are too high but that the onus has been put onto each individual to obtain a rent reduction and like the situation you find yourself in whereby you feel you have to move. In so doing, having parents bargaining with the security of their children in the process and like you risk having to move their children out of schools and away from support networks.

Many landlords do not also realise what the new rent supplement limits that came into effect from january 1st are and your landlord might very well be surprised if he checked into it.

It's not a misconception that lone parents do not work, many do, but they work part time and can earn up to 130 euro per week without their OPFP being affected, of the income over that, 50% is disregarded and if a working lone parent with one child earns under 506pw then they qualify for FIS.

You will not get Rent Supplement if you are in full time employment.


While the onus has been put on tenants (and I agree that this is morally wrong) then the group should fight that aspect, not to keep rents artificially high therefore affecting people like myself.


I have a friend (anecdotal I know) who is a single mother with one child - this is her income and she evens tells me I' crazy working full time - my disposable income is lower than hers, and I have a good job.

OPFP 212.80 (deduction from money over 130)
Part-time job 160
Rent supplement 130pw
FIS- 45pw

447.80pw Because she is in receipt of RA this is disregarded so she also gets
a medical card for her and her child and the back to school allowance.


The changes to the rent supplement limits make no difference to my landlord as I am 2/3rds into my lease.


I have no problem with my friend - I do not blame her for availing of her rights - but SW should target the needy - and the needy section of this society is increasingly becoming those of us who work full time and qualify for nothing.
This group should protest, but only about being put in the middle of this fight between landlords and the government - not to keep rents artificially high and protecting the "vulnerable" while inflicting the very things that they don't want to happen to them, that is having to move children from their schools, onto people like me.

Monty Burnz

daltonmd wrote: »

The harder they fight to maintain rents, the harder my life as a working single parent is to pay my rent, which is dictated by the rate of RA in my area.

Great point. I wish people would engage their brains before launching on another 'victimhood' campaign. Rent allowance is jacking up rents for everybody and making the country more expensive to live in, less competitive, and therefore is harmful to employment.

Victor

MariMel, is that a quote from somewhere?

Zamboni

MariMel wrote: »

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.


SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports.

It is not an interesting point.
It is a cheap attempt to use children as the heart pulling string to undermine a required reduction in state expenditure.

MariMel

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Great point. I wish people would engage their brains before launching on another 'victimhood' campaign. Rent allowance is jacking up rents for everybody and making the country more expensive to live in, less competitive, and therefore is harmful to employment.

I dont for one second believe any tenant RA or otherwise wants to keep rents as high as they are, nor do those who are in receipt of RA want to be as you imply, be harmful to employment.

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.
Should the prtb agree that the new rental limits are indeed what market value should reflect then surely this will go for all rental property, not just for those that accept RA.

stargazer 68

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Rent allowance is jacking up rents for everybody and making the country more expensive to live in, less competitive, and therefore is harmful to employment.

Dont know how you figure that one out. Since the new rent allowance limits the amount of properties now stating 'no rent allowance accepted' has dramatically increased.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

I dont for one second believe any tenant RA or otherwise wants to keep rents as high as they are, nor do those who are in receipt of RA want to be as you imply, be harmful to employment.

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.
Should the prtb agree that the new rental limits are indeed what market value should reflect then surely this will go for all rental property, not just for those that accept RA.

Then why are they protesting against them?
"SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government. "


if they had any bloody sense they'd be protesting for lower rents. If they actually wrote to the minister and asked her for protection against landlords who will not comply instead of fighting the reductions.

They should ask why landlords not reducing their rents are not given the option of entering the Rental Accommodation Scheme? If they do not then the tenant should be offered alternative accommodation.

With respect to people in receipt of rent supplement - if you can not afford to house yourself then sacrifices must be made. All local authorities try to rehouse people to their specifications - we'd all like the perfect house in the perfect location - this doesn't mean we're entitled to it.

I choose to live where I live because I work full time. If you need help then you need to learn to sacrifice.

Monty Burnz

Dovies wrote: »

Dont know how you figure that one out. Since the new rent allowance limits the amount of properties now stating 'no rent allowance accepted' has dramatically increased.

How I figure what out? How lowering the floor in the market will reduce rents for everyone?

daltonmd

Dovies wrote: »

Dont know how you figure that one out. Since the new rent allowance limits the amount of properties now stating 'no rent allowance accepted' has dramatically increased.

I've pointed this out on another thread - that is a meaningless fact because those properties are not rented out - this relates to existing rent supplement recipients.

Monty Burnz

MariMel wrote: »

I dont for one second believe any tenant RA or otherwise wants to keep rents as high as they are, nor do those who are in receipt of RA want to be as you imply, be harmful to employment.

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.

I can see why they are opposed to it then - no gain for them, only a gain for the taxpayer who is paying for their home...

daltonmd

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can see why they are opposed to it then - no gain for them, only a gain for the taxpayer who is paying for their home...

Good spot - actually makes the protest irrelevant to everyone including those protesting.

Zamboni

I can the headline tomorrow

IPOA supports SPARK

MariMel

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can see why they are opposed to it then - no gain for them, only a gain for the taxpayer who is paying for their home...

The point I have taken from it is not that they are opposed to reductions in rent.
WHat I believe they are opposed to is how many families will be uprooted by the tenant being made responsible for obtaining a government lead saving.
Tenants are being asked to negotiate a voluntary reduction in their rents. If this is not forthcoming then it is leaving many many families in great difficulty.

I know some think that families should be uprooted and move to cheaper accommodation in other areas and out of these 'perfect' homes.
However, each person is assessed as having a need within that specific region and obtains RA based on that. Its not automatically transferable to other areas.
Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive. If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Monty Burnz

MariMel wrote: »

Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive.

Why in the name of all that is holy would it be expensive? Probably the overwhelming majority of demand is from RA tenants - this is exactly the problem.

MariMel wrote: »

If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where not a single property is available for miles around - this is the land of empty rural estates. In an extreme case, I can see an argument for an exception being made.

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Without wanting to sound cruel (and entering more debatable waters), it might do no harm for children to associate unemployment with insecurity - you can be damn sure they will try hard to find work when they have grown up. Better for them and better for society.

Zamboni

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Then, their parents should have thought about that before they decided to abdicate their responsibility for the childs accomodation to the state.

The irony of this entire premise if laughable.

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

Then, their parents should have thought about that before they decided to abdicate their responsibility for the childs accomodation to the state.

Before coming out with such biased statements, you should remember that not only one parent families can claim a rent supplement payment.

Or do you also believe that families where either one or both adults lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are now in receipt of Rent Supplement, have also "abdicated their responsiblity" for their children's accommodation?

Would you also say the same for all those now claiming Mortgage Interest Supplement?

MariMel

Zamboni wrote: »

Then, their parents should have thought about that before they decided to abdicate their responsibility for the childs accomodation to the state.

The irony of this entire premise if laughable.

That is a whole other thing.........but I am glad you are working full time in a safe secure job, fully able to support yourself and your children, immune to ever finding yourself in a position where you are single parent, unemployed after working for years, trying and trying to find future employment and in meanwhile being in danger of losing the roof over the head of your children.

Zamboni

Deleted User wrote: »

Before coming out with such biased statements, you should remember that not only one parent families can claim a rent supplement payment.

The topic is about SPARK, not a general conversation about rent supplement tenants.

Deleted User wrote: »

Or do you also believe that families where either one or both adults lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are now in receipt of Rent Supplement, have also "abdicated their responsiblity" for their children's accommodation?

I believe that beggars can't be choosers.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you also say the same for all those now claiming Mortgage Interest Supplement?

Really not relevant to this thread.

Zamboni

MariMel wrote: »

That is a whole other thing.........but I am glad you are working full time in a safe secure job, fully able to support yourself and your children, immune to ever finding yourself in a position where you are single parent, unemployed after working for years, trying and trying to find future employment and in meanwhile being in danger of losing the roof over the head of your children.

Contingency planning. Google it.

MariMel

Zamboni wrote: »

The topic is about SPARK, not a general conversation about rent supplement tenants.
.

I started this thread.......as a conversation about RA after reading a post by SPARK.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

The point I have taken from it is not that they are opposed to reductions in rent.
WHat I believe they are opposed to is how many families will be uprooted by the tenant being made responsible for obtaining a government lead saving.
Tenants are being asked to negotiate a voluntary reduction in their rents. If this is not forthcoming then it is leaving many many families in great difficulty.

How can you take that point when they clearly said they were protesting about the reductions? I think you have taken up this cause with good intentions but haven't really looked into the issue.

MariMel wrote: »

I know some think that families should be uprooted and move to cheaper accommodation in other areas and out of these 'perfect' homes.

Nobody is saying that at all. What I am saying is that this group should protest about being piggy in the middle between the landlords and the state. If they demand protection from landlords who do not enter RAS or reduce their rent.

MariMel wrote: »

However, each person is assessed as having a need within that specific region and obtains RA based on that. Its not automatically transferable to other areas.

Nobody is saying that they have to move from the area that they are in. Outside of Dublin particularly, there is a huge amount of houses for rent, there may be the few that will find it difficult, but not impossible, to relocate within the area, if this happens then they will have to make sacrifices.

MariMel wrote: »

Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive. If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

Living in a rural location is a choice and these choices are restricted when you are not paying your own rent. On that point, if these people are living in rural locations I bet they have cars? I can't afford to run a car yet people on RS can? Something wrong there.

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

And this group excludes my children - or do they not count for anything?

I have heard it all now.
PS V Private
Workers V unemployed
Families V pensioners

and now children V children .

By god we can blame the Germans, the French and the EU/ECB/IMF for a lot - but nobody is crueler to the Irish people than the Irish themselves.

daltonmd

MariMel wrote: »

That is a whole other thing.........but I am glad you are working full time in a safe secure job, fully able to support yourself and your children, immune to ever finding yourself in a position where you are single parent, unemployed after working for years, trying and trying to find future employment and in meanwhile being in danger of losing the roof over the head of your children.

Are you serious here MariMel? I am in a full-time secure job and yet I still fear for the roof over my head and MY children's head, mainly because I am being squeezed by paying a huge portion of my income for rent.
This rent is fast becoming unaffordable and people like you support groups who are protesting against the very thing that I need to survive.
You are very shortsighted I have to say.

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

The topic is about SPARK, not a general conversation about rent supplement tenants.

The OP clearly started the topic to discuss Rent Supplement.

Zamboni wrote: »

I believe that beggars can't be choosers.

Nice.

Zamboni wrote: »

Really not relevant to this thread.

I beg to differ. Whether by Rent Supplement or Mortgage Interest Supplement, its still the State subsidising accommodation costs for families on low income.

Tomayto / Tomato.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP clearly started the topic to discuss Rent Supplement.
Nice.
I beg to differ. Whether by Rent Supplement or Mortgage Interest Supplement, its still the State subsidising accommodation costs for families on low income.

Tomayto / Tomato.

Rent supplement - Paid to people in the PRIVATE RENTAL SECTOR
Mortgage Interest Supplement - Paid to people who OWN THEIR OWN HOMES.


Absolutely irrelevant to this issue.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, as I see no difference in the State paying someone's mortage, then paying someone's rent. It all filters back to the banks.

Either way, what the purpose of the OPs post was is that the State is putting Rent Supplement recipients in the crossfire between them and the Landlords and putting the onus on the tenant to re-negotiate the rent, and telling them they will have to move and find alternative accommodation if the landlord does not agree.

This leaves the tenant caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone has reasons for choosing to live where they live - it may be based on work, others may have chosen because they have family supports there (which would enable them to work if jobs were available) or children in schools - or they may just be part of communities that have been years in the making.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, as I see no difference in the State paying someone's mortage, then paying someone's rent. It all filters back to the banks.

Oh I agree with the underlined part - but you are wrong to throw MIS into the mix in this discussion for many reasons, the main ones being that the landlord issue doesn't arise, their repayments are not dictated by a landlord or the state and it as no bearing on the rental market.

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way, what the purpose of the OPs post was is that the State is putting Rent Supplement recipients in the crossfire between them and the Landlords and putting the onus on the tenant to re-negotiate the rent, and telling them they will have to move and find alternative accommodation if the landlord does not agree.

No, the initial purpose, as I pointed out was that the group were going to protest against the reductions. I have posted a circular that was given to all CWO's in relation to this, in the circular it is clear that there will be help and leeway given to those who find themselves caught in the crossfire.
If they do have to move then the CWO helps them with their deposit, they still are in need of housing.

Deleted User wrote: »

This leaves the tenant caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone has reasons for choosing to live where they live - it may be based on work, others may have chosen because they have family supports there (which would enable them to work if jobs were available) or children in schools - or they may just be part of communities that have been years in the making.

If you cannot pay your rent and are dependent on state aid then you have to accept that you lose the right to demand those "choices".

The main aim for RS is to house people, not to house people exactly where they "choose" near the people they "choose" and near the schools that they"choose".

I would love to live in a house by the sea in Dalkey - that would be my "choice", however my income dictates otherwise.
The old saying, " champagne tastes and a beer wallet" comes to mind.

We all have to cut our cloth to fit.

Zamboni

Deleted User wrote: »

This leaves the tenant caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone has reasons for choosing to live where they live - it may be based on work, others may have chosen because they have family supports there (which would enable them to work if jobs were available) or children in schools - or they may just be part of communities that have been years in the making.

If a private tenant(s) take a job loss or wage reduction and cannot afford their rent, they either negotiate a cheaper rent or move to accomodation with lower rental.

Yet tenant(s) reliant in some way on a subsidy from the state feel they are above this.

Fittle

My problem with spark is that they only to speak out about the 'sterotypical' single parent i.e. those in receipt of FIS or LPA or any state benefits and as another poster rightly pointed out, there are many of us who work f/t with no support from the State.

That..and all the typo's on their website:rolleyes: which is never a good sign for any organisation.

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

If a private tenant(s) take a job loss or wage reduction and cannot afford their rent, they either negotiate a cheaper rent or move to accomodation with lower rental.

Yet tenant(s) reliant in some way on a subsidy from the state feel they are above this.

There is very little room for negotiation when how much you can contribute to your Rent is calculated and set for you by SW and you are not allowed to "top it up" without risking losing what Rent Supplement you do receive.

I consider that to be a very different position then someone who is renting privately and paying all the rent from their own income - even if they take a wage cut, they are still in a better position to negotiate.

Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.

smallerthanyou

Not to attack the group, so fair play to them for trying to do something, I just find their policy statements ill-thought out and their way of communicating them poor.

Anyway probably for another forum - for this forum the RA has put an artificial floor on rental prices and it has to be removed for the benefit of all. There is a mention in policy of single parents being vulnerable to homelessness which is trying to tug at the heartstrings. We don't live in a country (yet) where there are children living on the streets. Families will find somewhere to live within the new limits. It may not be the perfect somewhere but it is somewhere and that's the basic right to shelter they are entitled to covered and I'm happy that we live in a country that provides that.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

There is very little room for negotiation when how much you can contribute to your Rent is calculated and set for you by SW and you are not allowed to "top it up" without risking losing what Rent Supplement you do receive.

I consider that to be a very different position then someone who is renting privately and paying all the rent from their own income - even if they take a wage cut, they are still in a better position to negotiate.

Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.

Sorry Loueze but the OP stated that 60% of single parents claiming are working and I laid out their income in an earlier post. It is misguided to think that working people are in a very different position from those who work and pay rent from our income, as a matter of fact we are in a worse position, more vulnerable, without the fallback of the state to take up the slack.

For example if one of my kids was sick tomorrow I am immediately down 50 euro for a doctors visit (then there's meds on top of that).
The single parents on RA have their medical cards to cover that.

I have also explained here that negotiation is not an option if the LL (as mine is ) is at the pin of his collar and can replace me with a steady stream of income from a RA tenant.

The landlords have the same problem, they cannot meet their mortgage repayments if the reduce the rent - keeping rents subsidised means that I am in direct competition with the state for what I pay in rent.

This group want to protect these landlords incomes ( and the banks) and in the process private tenants like myself are suffering.

Zamboni

Deleted User wrote: »

There is very little room for negotiation when how much you can contribute to your Rent is calculated and set for you by SW and you are not allowed to "top it up" without risking losing what Rent Supplement you do receive.

I consider that to be a very different position then someone who is renting privately and paying all the rent from their own income - even if they take a wage cut, they are still in a better position to negotiate.

Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.

OK, so they relucantly move, in the same fashion that a private tenant would have to move in the event of a failed negotiation.
I think you will find that forced migration due to poor economic circumstances is a fact of life and common occurance in the world.
The state can no longer afford to provide the cushion of accomodation subsidy in a fixed location.
Again, beggars cannot be choosers.
No amount of pleading that the children will have to leave their schools and friends is going to change the fact that we cannot afford it.

It is like asking someone for charity and on receipt, saying, not good enough.
Honestly, you couldn't make this sh1t up.

jmayo

MariMel wrote: »

Regardless of what the rents are the mandatory contribution made my those in receipt of RA remains the same. Those in receipt of RA do not 'save' any money in these new rates.

Ehh dear, it is not about helping those in receipt of RA to save money.
It is about saving the state and by extension those of us taxpayers who are carrying the can some money.

MariMel wrote: »

The point I have taken from it is not that they are opposed to reductions in rent.
WHat I believe they are opposed to is how many families will be uprooted by the tenant being made responsible for obtaining a government lead saving.
Tenants are being asked to negotiate a voluntary reduction in their rents. If this is not forthcoming then it is leaving many many families in great difficulty.

And as someone else mentioned who the hell negotiates for the private renter who is entirely paying for their own rent ?
Is it ok for them to have to move, but not the ones whose rent is being funded by their taxes ?

MariMel wrote: »

Another point to make is the example of someone who lives in a rural area where available housing is few and expensive.

Actually I would beg to differ.
If anything there should be less people trying to rent in rural areas.
And if one is living in a rural area what do they do for transport ?
In most cases motorised transport is necessary if you live in rural area.
Thus is the taxpayer also meant to provide cars to welfare recipients who chsoe to live in rural areas.
After all we must think of the poor kiddies.

MariMel wrote: »

If their landlord refuses to reduce the rent then what happens there? How do you uproot children out of schools? When there is no other school for miles....especially if there is like in many places, no school transport available.

Again that must mean that you have a car of some sort if you are so far from schools ?

MariMel wrote: »

For those who think that it is a ploy to tug at heartstrings by mentioning children.....I personally find this odd.......it is children who will be affected most by this. Children need stability and a sense of security.

Obviously only the children of those in receipt of other taxpayers money. :rolleyes:

First of all, I am a working single parent myself - with a mortgage - so I know very well what the position of working single parents is.

That doesn't mean I can't see beyond that and think what the Government has done here by putting RS tenants in this position between them and landlords, as being fair, or right.

As for CWOs negotiating, or giving leeway on RS? ... amusing.

This is not something that should come down to the personal discretion of any one CWO or Deciding Officer - as anyone who has ever had experience of that system of decision making, knows how inconsistent it can be.

daltonmd

Zamboni wrote: »

OK, so they relucantly move, in the same fashion that a private tenant would have to move in the event of a failed negotiation.
I think you will find that forced migration due to poor economic circumstances is a fact of life and common occurance in the world.
The state can no longer afford to provide the cushion of accomodation subsidy in a fixed location.
Again, beggars cannot be choosers.
No amount of pleading that the children will have to leave their schools and friends is going to change the fact that we cannot afford it.

It is like asking someone for charity and on receipt, saying, not good enough.
Honestly, you couldn't make this sh1t up.

I am really of the opinion that a lot of people in this group on RA are not actually vulnerable (of course some are), they can't seem to distinguish "cuts" from "not kept in the way they were kept during the boom" .

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

Again, beggars cannot be choosers.

Zamboni wrote: »

It is like asking someone for charity and on receipt, saying, not good enough.
Honestly, you couldn't make this sh1t up.

And I find your posts highly offensive.

Social Welfare recipients are not beggars, or seeking charity.

Many of the people you are insulting, contributed for many, many years.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

First of all, I am a working single parent myself - with a mortgage - so I know very well what the position of working single parents is.

Really? So you understand a single working mother with a mortgage, a single mother on RA - yet seem to think that a single working mother in private rental accommodation is "different"? You have no idea yet you immediately take the side of those who have the privilege of having a very generous safety net under them over someone who doesn't - interesting alright.

Deleted User wrote: »

That doesn't mean I can't see beyond that and think what the Government has done here by putting RS tenants in this position between them and landlords, as being fair, or right.

Did you read the posts? It's exactly what I have been saying - if you read the first post you will see that the group are protesting against the rent cuts. That's the gripe.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for CWOs negotiating, or giving leeway on RS? ... amusing.

Yep - as amusing as my landlord negotiating or giving me leeway.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not something that should come down to the personal discretion of any one CWO or Deciding Officer - as anyone who has ever had experience of that system of decision making, knows how inconsistent it can be.

Who said it should? It's not the issue, the state is more than generous and people on RA don't want anything to upset their lives and are willing to force me and my family into decisions that they object to making. I am being asked to sacrifice more than they feel willing to. It's obscene.

Zamboni

Deleted User wrote: »

And I find your posts highly offensive.

Social Welfare recipients are not beggars, or seeking charity.

Many of the people you are insulting, contributed for many, many years.

Ah, you're offended.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cLuZ_TuRQj8/Trr3DCe5MjI/AAAAAAAACYQ/5ZyPChGsQmI/s1600/Im+offended.jpg

I am not insulting anybody.
I am merely saying that if one is in need and seeks support, one cannot dictate the level of support provided.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

And I find your posts highly offensive.

Social Welfare recipients are not beggars, or seeking charity.

Actually I would agree that there is a large cohort of social welfare recipients who are far from beggars.
They have a sense of entitlement that is more demanding than begging.

Deleted User wrote: »

Many of the people you are insulting, contributed for many, many years.

And many of the ones in receipt of social welfare, including I would reckon a sizable majority of those getting single parent allowances, were on welfare long before the bubble burst and the recession hit in.
We may according to figures have had full employment in 2002-2006, but there were approximately 90,000 to 100,000 on the live register.
How many of those are now the single parent families that spark speaks for ?

I would also bet any of those that have emigrated since 2007 were not the ones who have made welfare their career choice and were not on welfare prior to 2007.

daltonmd

daltonmd wrote: »

Really? So you understand a single working mother with a mortgage, a single mother on RA - yet seem to think that a single working mother in private rental accommodation is "different"? You have no idea yet you immediately take the side of those who have the privilege of having a very generous safety net under them over someone who doesn't - interesting alright.

Why does that surprise you? I have a wide range of friends and am capable of thinking (and relating) to others outside of my own sphere of reference.

And yes, I also think an employed single working parent (lets keep this gender neutral?) in private rental accommodation is different, as I already explained - they would have more scope to negotiate terms with their landlord, then someone on Rent Supplement whose contribution is fixed by SW and they are not allowed go over that.

As for CWOs, I can tell you with confidence that inconsistency on how rules and "guidelines" are applied is a major issue.

daltonmd wrote: »

The state is more than generous and people on RA don't want anything to upset their lives and are willing to force me and my family into decisions that they object to making. I am being asked to sacrifice more than they feel willing to. It's obscene.

And likewise, I find the manner in which the issues being faced by families on SW are trivialised here, as equally obscene.

See above.

daltonmd

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does that surprise you? I have a wide range of friends and am capable of thinking (and relating) to others outside of my own sphere of reference.

Because as a full time working single mother I have explained to you that "we" are no different than single parents claiming rent allowance.

Deleted User wrote: »

Off course, "topping up" does go on under the table - but it leaves vulnerable families at an even worse disadvantage - as they will go short elsewhere, (heat, food, etc) to make up the difference - and will do nothing to drive down the rates in the rental market.

This is interesting and maybe you could shed some light on this. In order to get Rent supplement the landlord has to be registered with the PRTB, correct?
The rent must fall under a certain amount. Correct?
The lease must be brought to the CWO, signed by both the landlord and the tenant for X amount. Correct?
Please explain to me how a landlord can demand a "topping up " payment and why doesn't the tenant report it? Because they would be doing us all a favour. But you see here's the nub of that issue - far from going hungry - they can afford the payment. Harsh I know but it's the truth and the reality is that this is what the rent reviews are aiming at.

Deleted User wrote: »

And yes, I also think an employed single working parent (lets keep this gender neutral?) in private rental accommodation is different, as I already explained - they would have more scope to negotiate terms with their landlord, then someone on Rent Supplement whose contribution is fixed by SW and they are not allowed go over that.

And as one of those I am telling you that I have no more scope than someone in receipt of RA - do you think the landlords problems are different? Or are you saying that again it's ok for ME to pay more because you wrongly think I have more money than someone who works, gets OPFP, FIS, Medical Card back to school allowance - I can tell you I don't.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for CWOs, I can tell you with confidence that inconsistency on how rules and "guidelines" are applied is a major issue.

It's not the issue.

Deleted User wrote: »

And likewise, I find the manner in which the issues being faced by families on SW are trivialised here, as equally obscene.

See above.

Well you trivialised me and my issues when you stated that I am in a different (read better) situation out working my ass off and providing form my family without the net.

sophia25

SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated? The state is the largest consumer of private rental property and has the power to negotiate rent decreases that would benefit all consumers. However they have failed to do this and instead expect the deals to be done on an individual basis. Landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on ra anyway so this will compound it.

Rent allowance is a huge burdeñ on state coffers. However,the lack of regulation in the financial institutions which led to a property bubble pushed accomodation costs too high for many people, not just lone parents. During the boom the state decided to use ra as a way of dealing with social housing. This was poor poicy and planning. It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities. Children will have to change schools andfor what? For a cat and mouse game between the govt and landlords. The private rental market relies on ra and will.eventually have to accept rent limit imposed by the state which will benefit all tenants. The point Spark wants to make is that it is unfair to use tenants in this manner. The govt have all the power as both the largest customer and also as legislstor to reduce rent. Poor govt policy led to overuse of rental allowance and now that we can't afford it, there are better ways to deal with the problem than using families.as pawns in a chess game,

Zamboni

sophia25 wrote: »

It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities.

No it is not inherently wrong. Economic migration is a fact of life.
It has been and is a commonplace occurance in the world.
Post Celtic Tiger Ireland is no exception to this occurance.
Because you are part of a generation that grew up in a war free welfare state you have built up unrealistic impression of rights and wrongs.

Newaglish

sophia25 wrote: »

SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated? The state is the largest consumer of private rental property and has the power to negotiate rent decreases that would benefit all consumers. However they have failed to do this and instead expect the deals to be done on an individual basis. Landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on ra anyway so this will compound it.

Rent allowance is a huge burdeñ on state coffers. However,the lack of regulation in the financial institutions which led to a property bubble pushed accomodation costs too high for many people, not just lone parents. During the boom the state decided to use ra as a way of dealing with social housing. This was poor poicy and planning. It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities. Children will have to change schools andfor what? For a cat and mouse game between the govt and landlords. The private rental market relies on ra and will.eventually have to accept rent limit imposed by the state which will benefit all tenants. The point Spark wants to make is that it is unfair to use tenants in this manner. The govt have all the power as both the largest customer and also as legislstor to reduce rent. Poor govt policy led to overuse of rental allowance and now that we can't afford it, there are better ways to deal with the problem than using families.as pawns in a chess game,

How do you suggest this is dealt with then? You imply that the government as a legislator has some sort of ability to control rents - are you saying that they should legislate for fixed rents? How would this work in different areas, for different types of accommodation? I'm not even sure if the EU would allow such an anti-free market measure to be introduced.

If SPARK so desperately want rents to be reduced, then reducing RA is the most effective way of correcting this issue in the economy and it will actually help those single mothers who are not on RA also.

daltonmd

sophia25 wrote: »

SPARK want rents reduced, of course they do,fgs what benefit would they have in keeping rents inflated?

Then why are they protesting to maintain these rents?
From the first post:

SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government

sophia25 wrote: »

The state is the largest consumer of private rental property and has the power to negotiate rent decreases that would benefit all consumers. However they have failed to do this and instead expect the deals to be done on an individual basis. Landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on ra anyway so this will compound it.

Again, why are they protesting against these cuts which will, as you say, benefit everyone?

sophia25 wrote: »

Rent allowance is a huge burdeñ on state coffers. However,the lack of regulation in the financial institutions which led to a property bubble pushed accomodation costs too high for many people, not just lone parents. During the boom the state decided to use ra as a way of dealing with social housing. This was poor poicy and planning.

Exactly - but for the last 3 years it has been the private renters who have suffered because of the high rent allowance. It was a case of "I'm ok Jack" for these people for years, now, when they are being targeted they are protesting against the cuts - astonishing hypocrisy.

sophia25 wrote: »

It is inherently.wrong and.unjust t expect families to move from their homes and communities. Children will have to change schools andfor what? For a cat and mouse game between the govt and landlords.

What you mean is "it is inherently wrong and unjust to expect families on RA to move from their homes and communities". Really? What about private renters who have had to always do this if they could no longer afford the rent? What about people who have had to relocate to find work - is that ok? What about families forced to leave the country fgs - this is how it is when you are NOT on RA.
This is the real world, not a bubble where you think that people who benefit from the system should feel that they can demand a standard of living that is denied to other sectors of society.

sophia25 wrote: »

The private rental market relies on ra and will.eventually have to accept rent limit imposed by the state which will benefit all tenants. The point Spark wants to make is that it is unfair to use tenants in this manner. The govt have all the power as both the largest customer and also as legislstor to reduce rent. Poor govt policy led to overuse of rental allowance and now that we can't afford it, there are better ways to deal with the problem than using families.as pawns in a chess game,

Yes indeed RA has subsidised the high rents that those on RA DID NOT/DO NOT have to pay - as long as they weren't affected shure that was no problem.

As a private renter I have been a pawn for long enough and resent any group which singles out a section of society for better treatment, simply because they are receiving state benefit - how many safety nets do they want?

daltonmd

daltonmd wrote: »

This is interesting and maybe you could shed some light on this. In order to get Rent supplement the landlord has to be registered with the PRTB, correct? The rent must fall under a certain amount. Correct? The lease must be brought to the CWO, signed by both the landlord and the tenant for X amount. Correct?

They are some of the conditions of qualifying for rent supplement, yes.

daltonmd wrote: »

Please explain to me how a landlord can demand a "topping up " payment and why doesn't the tenant report it? Because they would be doing us all a favour.

The landlord agrees to put a lower amount down on the forms, and the balance is paid in cash. Have you really never heard of this? The tenant doesn't report it because (a) finding landlords who will accept rent allowance are becoming fewer and fewer as it is. (b) if they do report them the landlord won't renew leases at the end of the year - which means trying to find a new place and having to go through the whole process again and (c) if they report them to the CWO, the CWO will cut off rent supplement for infringement of the terms of the payment. Either way, its the tenant who will be left stuck and looking for somewhere to live.

daltonmd wrote: »

But you see here's the nub of that issue - far from going hungry - they can afford the payment. Harsh I know but it's the truth and the reality is that this is what the rent reviews are aiming at.

No, thats your perception of the truth. The truth is there are many going without basics such as adequate heating, or cutting back on other basics such as food, so they can make those ends meet. Ask St Vincent De Paul or Barnardos if you don't believe this is true.

daltonmd wrote: »

And as one of those I am telling you that I have no more scope than someone in receipt of RA - do you think the landlords problems are different?

Yes I think the landlord problems are different. Finding one who will rent to you in the first place, is definitely more challenging.

daltonmd wrote: »

Or are you saying that again it's ok for ME to pay more because you wrongly think I have more money than someone who works, gets OPFP, FIS, Medical Card back to school allowance - I can tell you I don't.

I don't think its okay for you to pay more - but I definitely think private renters DO have more scope! Private renters are the equivalent of "cash buyers" and usually a landlord's first preference, as tenants. That gives them an advantage over RS tenants. Private renters such as yourself, may not have more money, but you are not bound by the restrictions that come with depending on Rent Supplement either. You have more control over decisions such as where you live and how much you are willing to pay - a Rent Supplement tenant does not have the same options, or shall we say, "haggling power" that you do. For a rent supplement tenant, the control ultimately lies with a CWO or Deciding Officer.

You only have to look at the amount of ads which state "rent allowance not accepted" to know that the majority of landlords will prefer to take a private renter, over a rent supplement tenant, - and this automatically gives the private renter an advantage - especially in terms of access to decent rentals.

Finally, I read the SWA circular posted last night and the terms for "leeway" as described are very specific, very limited, and ultimately, timebound. Eventually, if the Rent Supplement tenant cannot get their landlord to lower the rent to within RS limits, they will have to move. But I don't know where the Dept expect all these cheaper rental units they want rent supplement tenants to move to, are going to come from.

Newaglish

One point that I think people need to realise is that not everybody is entitled to the standard of living that they desire. My family was poor when we were younger in the 80s and 90s - this means that we didn't always have the things that we wanted. We weren't in new suits and tacky dresses at our communions, we didn't always get the newest gadgets for birthdays and at Christmas and we didn't always live in ideal accommodation either.

If you are a single mother who is unemployed, odds are that you are going to be poor. Sometimes, just sometimes, your life is not going to be perfect and this is what is called reality. There are people living in accommodation that is too expensive for them to afford and are horrified at the thought of having to move somewhere more affordable. That's life I'm afraid. You might have to live in a crappy area that isn't near to the perfect school and is further out of town or you can live somewhere that is closer to town but the accommodation is not up to the standard that you are used to. It's an unfortunate fact but that's how the economy works.

At the moment the rent allowance is too high, both from the perspective of the government being able to afford it and for the market value of the properties themselves. The floor for rents is just too high and has been forced there by high RA, which distorts the entire market.

The purpose of government welfare is to ensure that people are entitled to a basic standard of living and to prevent deprivation. It is not there to prevent people from having to face situations which are less than ideal and that includes economic migration.

Then the Government should have stepped in and introduced rent control legislation, instead of using Rent Supplement tenants as their pawns to try and force rental prices down.