Why are almost all landlords against rent allowance?

polo6069

I can't understand why most landlords would see everyone as whole, what I mean by that is there have been many incidence where tenants have had ridiculous parties and may wreck the house or some other things like that but it doesn't mean everyone would do that sort of thing, maybe I have got the wrong idea are there other reasons why landlords don't allow rent allowence?

Lelantos

polo6069 wrote: »

I can't understand why most landlords would see everyone as whole, what I mean by that is there have been many incidence where tenants have had ridiculous parties and may wreck the house or some other things like that but it doesn't mean everyone would do that sort of thing, maybe I have got the wrong idea are there other reasons why landlords don't allow rent allowence?

2 reasons, firstly in some people's minds rent allowance is given to poor people who a landlord wouldnt want in his property. Secondly rent allowance means the landlord is now "on the books" can't hide the extra income. Reasons given to me by my exlandlord

whippet

polo6069 wrote: »

I can't understand why most landlords would see everyone as whole, what I mean by that is there have been many incidence where tenants have had ridiculous parties and may wreck the house or some other things like that but it doesn't mean everyone would do that sort of thing, maybe I have got the wrong idea are there other reasons why landlords don't allow rent allowence?

When you are leaving a significant personal asset / or property which has a huge debt attached to it in the possession of total strangers most people would like to mitigate as much risk as possible.

As much as a generalisation as it may be, many landlords feel more secure when the rent is being paid in total from the tenants working wages as they may rightly or wrongly make the assumption that they will respect the property more if they have to earn the money to live there.

dzer2

Cash is king

jd

There can be delays in the processing of Rent Allowance - if a landlord is barely making the mortgage he mightn't have enough cashflow to cover it.

eg
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75385746&postcount=8
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80967561&postcount=21

3DataModem

Exactly as above. Landlords perceive that a who earns the money will look after it better than someone who is a dependant of the state.

athtrasna

A landlord can set their rent but local authorities set what they pay. There was a cut of up to 20% in what councils paid last year. Landlords were left with the option to end leases or take the cut. At a time when most rents don't cover the property mortgage, it's understandable that landlords want to have relative control of their income.

Luca Brasi

When a tenant has to pay the full deposit and a month in advance, provide references and generally comply with a contract they are more inclined to mind the property. There are just too many people getting rent allowance who don't care about the property they are renting. I have seen them selling the fridge, going to the St V de P or the Welfare and claiming the fridge is broke and getting a new one.
Usually its a small few give the rest a bad name. Its the other way around with the Rent Allowance crowd

BostonB

Lelantos wrote: »

2 reasons, firstly in some people's minds rent allowance is given to poor people who a landlord wouldnt want in his property. Secondly rent allowance means the landlord is now "on the books" can't hide the extra income. Reasons given to me by my exlandlord

So you don't want landlords to make sweeping generalisations about tenants, but don't have a problem with sweeping generalisations about Landlords.

BostonB

polo6069 wrote: »

...are there other reasons why landlords don't allow rent allowence?

There's many reasons. Some mentioned already.

One reason is the system is brutal. Its paid in arrears with no deposit. The LL requires a deposit and rent paid in advance. Its slow, often pays many months late, and the Local Authority won't deal with the LL as they are a 3rd party. So if you have a problem they won't talk to the LL about the situation. Many authorities won't pay the deposit/rent direct to the LL.

The solution is to always get a deposit of 1 or 2 months upfront, and the rent paid in advance. Of course this only works if its the tenants money not the local authorities - but the LL has no way of knowing this.

The system need some form of 3rd party bond, for deposits and rent. If either LL or Tenant acts the fool they forfeit their bond and money and people will know not to deal with them again.

K.Flyer

Another reason, told to me by a Landlord, is a wear and tear issue. His assumption was that if someone was on rent allowance and no deposit paid by the council the tenant generally did not care too much for the condition of the property as they had no deposit to lose, plus the likelyhood was that they were not working and they and their friends hanging around the house could lead to anti social behaviour which he did not want associated with his property.
Whilst he was making a sweeping judgement, I have seen, through my work, that he is right to "some" degree.
But I have also seen quite a lot of properties let to people on rent allowance and the properties being kept absolutely spotless and in tip top condition by the tenants.
Conversely I have seen properties let to people NOT on rent allowance and paying privately and the tenants had turned the place into an absolute dump needing a full refurb after they had left.
My advise to anyone who is thinking of letting out their property to either private or rent allowance tenants is to seek out and cross check references from the previous landlords.
Also cross check with PRTB for any reports against them
Dont accept references from anyone with just a mobile number ask for a land line and an address.
If they have been good tenants they will have no problem getting them for you.
Dont judge someone for being on Rent Allowance, or presume private payers are better, ask for and check references.

Lelantos

BostonB wrote: »

So you don't want landlords to make sweeping generalisations about tenants, but don't have a problem with sweeping generalisations about Landlords.

Nothing sweeping about it. I.was leaving my rented accommodation & a friend wished to move in, these were what the reasons the landlord gave me for not taking rent allowance learned from past experience.

BostonB

If they told you its because LL were aliens from Mars would you just repeat that also?

Lelantos

BostonB wrote: »

If they told you its because LL were aliens from Mars would you just repeat that also?

Since the majority of the posts seem to be along the same vein I fail to see your point. You accused me of sweeping generalisations, I then pointed outit was a single individual & now you have a problem with that. A disgruntled landlord perhaps?

repsol

BostonB wrote: »

If they told you its because LL were aliens from Mars would you just repeat that also?

To be fair I would probably rent a property to an alien from Mars before I would let anyone on rent allowance inside the door.

the_syco

Rent allowance is paid in arrears.
Rent is paid in advance.

So in this case, unless the tenant supplies the deposit and the first months rent themselves, I don't see what the problem is. Of course, they may not be able to afford it, but that's not the landlords problem; that's the tenants problem.

thetl

Personally I have had nothing but bad luck with tenants on rent allowance , the list is endless late rents damaged furniture anti social behaviour total lack of respect in general for my property. I know you can't tar everybody with the same brush but I am at the stage where it's just not worth taking the risk anymore the

the_syco

thetl wrote: »

late rents

Along with the RA being paid in arrears, if the tenant doesn't fill out the forms, the RA may not come through, may be late, and sometimes during the letting the RA may be a few weeks late (seems this "just happens"). The tenant has no control over this, but it's the LL that gets stung. And then if the tenant withholds some of the cash, the LL is left short.

thetl wrote: »

total lack of respect in general for my property

If the tenant didn't pay the deposit, and doesn't care if they get it back, some tenants will not take care of the place as well as they should.

BostonB

Lelantos wrote: »

Since the majority of the posts seem to be along the same vein I fail to see your point. You accused me of sweeping generalisations, I then pointed outit was a single individual & now you have a problem with that. A disgruntled landlord perhaps?

You didn't say "this" is why my LL doesn't take RA.
You said my LL said these are the reasons LL don't take RA
First one isn't a sweeping generalisation, the second one is.

The point if you don't want LL to make sweeping generalisations about RA tenants. Then it makes no sense to make sweeping generalisations about LL. One has just as closed mind as the other. Not likely to understand the problem with that kinda mindset.

Unless all LL don't pay tax (unlikely) then its logical that LL who do pay tax don't prefer RA tenants either. So there must be more to it than simply tax avoidance. There has to be financial reasons (and other reasons) for it.

BostonB

the_syco wrote: »

Rent allowance is paid in arrears.
Rent is paid in advance.

So in this case, unless the tenant supplies the deposit and the first months rent themselves, I don't see what the problem is. Of course, they may not be able to afford it, but that's not the landlords problem; that's the tenants problem.

I think a lot of LL aren't aware that they should treat RA tenants the same as other tenants, or high risk tenants. Deposit and rent up front. Increase the deposit required. Asking for trouble if you don't stick to that.

This of course is a problem for tenants who may not have the funds. However some Authorities give out deposits in "special cases". But of course that defeats the point of the deposit. As its not the tenants money.

So it might get lost...
http://www.thejournal.ie/rent-allowance-deposit-return-department-554597-Aug2012/

€32 million in rental deposits paid out on behalf of recipients of rent allowance has gone missing.

Not clear if LL or tenants didn't hand it back. Or even that the dept just has lost it.

Lelantos

BostonB wrote: »

You didn't say "this" is why my LL doesn't take RA.
You said my LL said these are the reasons LL don't take RA
First one isn't a sweeping generalisation, the second one is.

The point if you don't want LL to make sweeping generalisations about RA tenants. Then it makes no sense to make sweeping generalisations about LL. One has just as closed mind as the other. Not likely to understand the problem with that kinda mindset.

Unless all LL don't pay tax (unlikely) then its logical that LL who do pay tax don't prefer RA tenants either. So there must be more to it than simply tax avoidance. There has to be financial reasons (and other reasons) for it.

No, they are the reasons my ex LL didnt take rent allowance, that's what he told me, I mentioned that in my first post, I didn't say all landlords, so politely jog on

murphaph

RS adds an extra layer of "something can go wrong" to the whole agreement, so many LL's avoid it for that reason alone. You are dealing with public servants in guaranteed jobs who don't understand the ramifications "a little delay" can have on the tenant/landlord.

I have RS tenants and only for the fact that the tenants are excellent, I wouldn't be doing with RS to be quite honest. The system needs overhauling. Under no circumstances should RS be paid to tenants directly. This simple change would have huge positive effects for RS tenants and landlords alike. RS tenants should never be taken without a deposit up front and rent in advance like any "normal" tenant. RS tenants who have this cash in hand are possibly a good bet as it shows they are able to manage money somewhat.

juan.kerr

BostonB wrote: »

If they told you its because LL were aliens from Mars would you just repeat that also?

Would the Martians be entitled to rent allowance?

Jarren

As long as they satisfy Social Welfare requirements for rent allowance why not ?

juan.kerr

Jarren wrote: »

As long as they satisfy Social Welfare requirements for rent allowance why not ?

Maybe, but should we have to pay childrens allowance too (assuming they have children)?

smcgiff

juan.kerr wrote: »

Maybe, but should we have to pay childrens allowance too (assuming they have children)?

Only if Mars becomes part of the EU.

BostonB

juan.kerr wrote: »

Would the Martians be entitled to rent allowance?

Frayed knot. Uranus only. According to some guy someone I heard of met on a bus, who was exPluto so it must be true.

BOHtox

Let's deregulate the market and allow rents to fluctuate according to demand. Abolish rent allowance and allow rents to go both up and down, not just up, and allow it to naturally stimulate.

Procrastastudy

BOHtox wrote: »

Let's deregulate the market and allow rents to fluctuate according to demand. Abolish rent allowance and allow rents to go both up and down, not just up, and allow it to naturally stimulate.

Eh? We don't have a regulated market in Ireland do we? I thought rent controls were found to be unconstitutional.

I don't see the point in rent allowance - surely this is just very expensive social housing? Take the NAMA portfolio and convert it to social housing - job done no?

BostonB

Let nama be the LL.

Procrastastudy

BostonB wrote: »

Let nama be the LL.

It would flood the rental market and cause the BLT loans to default.

P_1

Procrastastudy wrote: »

It would flood the rental market and cause the BLT loans to default.

Would the banks charge you interest for the mayo on one of those I wonder

IMO NAMA should release some of the currently empty properties that are on its books to ensure a balanced playing field in the rental market. The trouble is working out how much this some is. Too much and we'll see a swathe of BTL loans defaulting, not enough and they may as well not have bothered.

murphaph

NAMA doesn't have property evenly scattered around the country with "even" access to schools (for example). My tenants have a son of school going age. Wherever they live, must be within reach of a school with a place for that boy. I would be extremely surprised if ready to move into NAMA properties are not concentrated in particular areas (I don't know of any great supply of ready to move into NAMA properties in D15, certainly not enough that could take all the D15 RS tenants anyway) and if most of those properties were not outside major urban centres (ie, centres more likely to be able to provide at least a school place, somewhere reachable from the home).

In any case, NAMA's job is to make the smallest loss possible for the taxpayer. It is not there to make renting cheaper for renters or make house prices cheaper for first time buyers. It should never have been established IMO but now that we have it, let it make the smallest loss possible for the taxpayer (who will be expected to foot any loss NAMA makes of course).

As a landlord, we need rent controls to make long term renting attractive to decent tenants and we also need a system whereby bad tenants can be removed quickly and efficiently by the landlord so he is not ruined by them. We need a bond system with blacklists to protect both parties. We need all these things and we can have them, as other countries do. The constitution can be changed if it is presenting a problem. The constitution shouldn't be making life more difficult for the people.

riclad

IN many areas ra limit is below average rent ,therefore
many landlords can,t afford to take on ra client,many bought in the boom, in negative equity .The rent hardly covers the mortgage.IF you are single you should be allowed to sign a form, let rent be paid to landlord if you wish.Landlords are running a business.
I think nama, owns loads of apartment blocks in dublin,they are not going to rent them out,to ra clients,for various technical ,reasons .They may sell some blocks maybe to local councils or housing charitys,if it makes
financial sense.


ON current rates only a single mother can afford an apartment on rent allowance.
They have alot of empty buildings,which they are not renting out
OR buildings which are 90 per cent complete.
Namas job is not to fix the social housing problem,
i think its there to complete building projects, and sell or rent buildings at a profit,providing a return to the taxpayer.

BostonB

murphaph wrote: »

NAMA doesn't have property evenly scattered around the country with "even" access to schools (for example). My tenants have a son of school going age. Wherever they live, must be within reach of a school with a place for that boy. I would be extremely surprised if ready to move into NAMA properties are not concentrated in particular areas (I don't know of any great supply of ready to move into NAMA properties in D15, certainly not enough that could take all the D15 RS tenants anyway) and if most of those properties were not outside major urban centres (ie, centres more likely to be able to provide at least a school place, somewhere reachable from the home)...

Why D.15? there isn't enough school places there to begin with. Nama could even out the unbalanced Development and urban crawl.

murphaph

BostonB wrote: »

Why D.15? there isn't enough school places there to begin with. Nama could even out the unbalanced Development and urban crawl.

Sorry I don't get you BostonB. Could you elaborate?

P_1

riclad wrote: »

They may sell some blocks maybe to local councils or housing charitys,if it makes financial sense.

I think they're starting to do that now, I read somewhere, not sure where, possibly askaboutmoney.com or thepropertypin.com , that NAMA had sold a block in the Herbeton development in D8 to Clúid.

BostonB

murphaph wrote: »

Sorry I don't get you BostonB. Could you elaborate?

Make no sense to keep feeding the Over development of D.15.