Rent allowance?

needhelp!

Hi just wondering if anyone knows if im entitled to any financial help.
Im 23 years old and working 15 to 20 hrs part time. and want to pay rent as i am currently staying with a friend and need to get my own acomadation sorted.my wages wouldnt be enough as im working in a grocery shop.im not claiming any social welfare or anything at the min.i was just wondering would i be entitled to rent allowance or anything.all advice would be greatly appreciated.

No Pants

I believe you need to be able to show that you've been paying a market rate rent for six months.

needhelp!

that will be hard because i cant afford to

No Pants

Well then you're just going to have to stay where you are.

D3PO

As No Pants has said you cant claim RA until your renting privately for 6 months.

So Id suggest you first figure out if you would be eligible for RA if renting privately for 6 months and then save enough to be able to do just than and then apply for RA.

Ray Palmer

Shouldn't you focus on getting a wage you can afford to rent with? Seems you have plenty of hours to work in the week.

RA is a support for those in need and it sounds like you could get to a point you won't be in need. Not sure why you expect somebody else to pay your rent.

D3PO

Ray get off your soap box you know nothing about the OP or their circumstances. If they are entitled to RA they are entitled to RA.

Unless of course your offering the OP a well paid full time job as an employee in your property empire your interest in their work is none of your business.

Ray Palmer

D3PO wrote: »

Ray get off your soap box you know nothing about the OP or their circumstances. If they are entitled to RA they are entitled to RA.

Unless of course your offering the OP a well paid full time job as an employee in your property empire your interest in their work is none of your business.

I didn't tell him to get a job I asked would that not be a better plan. You know a form of advise. It's been proven he isn't entitled to RA and can't get in a situation where he is. You haven't offered a solution my advise if followed would actual help. Being stuck on RA is not a good solution for most people.

How social funding is spent is my business.

Amazing how you can't stick to the charter about personal attacks. I ask you to remove them now.

The_Morrigan

Gentle reminder to remain civil.
If you have an issue with a post, then report it and leave the moderation to the mods.

Thanks

Morri

D3PO

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You haven't offered a solution my advise if followed would actual help. .

Wow go get a better job and earn more. Now why hasn't anybody come up with that as a plan before. I mean surely the dept of social welfare should hire you as a consultant you would be able to clear the 400k plus off the dole with your revolutionary idea.

You attacked the OP as subtle as you think it may have been it wasn't. The OP has come on for advise we all agree he currently isn't entitled to RA but that doesn't mean they don't have avenues open to them outside of getting a better job.

The_Morrigan

D3PO wrote: »

Wow go get a better job and earn more. Now why hasn't anybody come up with that as a plan before. I mean surely the dept of social welfare should hire you as a consultant you would be able to clear the 400k plus off the dole with your revolutionary idea.

You attacked the OP as subtle as you think it may have been it wasn't. The OP has come on for advise we all agree he currently isn't entitled to RA but that doesn't mean they don't have avenues open to them outside of getting a better job.

Cut it out - if you can't post in a constructive manner that the OP can benefit from, then don't post at all.

Morri

ABajaninCork

OP. Why don't you pop down to see the CWO? Bring all your payslips, bank statements and a list of your expenses/outgoings.

I don't know your circumstances, but it sounds to me you're working part-time. Can you not sign on for X's & O's? I'd check that if I were you.

And before RA's paid, you need to have been assessed as being in need of housing. So you need to get yourself on the LA housing list. Bring that paperwork to the CWO too, as they'll need to see it.

Hope this helps!

Mrs OBumble

OP, a word of warning for you: some local authorities will not accept you onto their housing list becasue they'll see you as young and mobile. If you're single with no kids, then you can always move up to Dublin, get full-time work and then you will be able to afford to rent without needing RA.

This is especially true if you're doing other things (eg studying) which is why you're only working part time.

Now - you said you're staying with a friend but this situation cannot last. So technically you're homeless, or at least at risk of becoming homeless. So one option is to approach the homeless support services in your area, who may be able to suggest some more alternatives.

No Pants

Where were you living before you moved in with your friend and could you move back there?

fussyonion

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, a word of warning for you: some local authorities will not accept you onto their housing list becasue they'll see you as young and mobile. If you're single with no kids, then you can always move up to Dublin, get full-time work and then you will be able to afford to rent without needing RA.

This is especially true if you're doing other things (eg studying) which is why you're only working part time.

Now - you said you're staying with a friend but this situation cannot last. So technically you're homeless, or at least at risk of becoming homeless. So one option is to approach the homeless support services in your area, who may be able to suggest some more alternatives.

Is that true?
Which local authorities don't accept you if you're young and mobile?

No Pants

fussyonion wrote: »

Is that true?
Which local authorities don't accept you if you're young and mobile?

I think it's more that you have no dependants and can easily move elsewhere to seek work and a place to live.

Mrs OBumble

fussyonion wrote: »

Is that true?
Which local authorities don't accept you if you're young and mobile?

I don't know which ones.

But it's what i was told in some phone calls in a temping job I had for a while.

TBH, I agree with them. An early 20-something needs housing, for sure, but they don't need to be settling down in a town that doesn't have enough work for them, unless there are some special circumstances which mean they need to stick around.

IMHO it's a flaw in the system that the only housing support for low-paid workers is council housing, which implies long-term tenancy.

Cuddlesworth

fussyonion wrote: »

Is that true?
Which local authorities don't accept you if you're young and mobile?

They accept you. They accept you right at the back of the list, which is where you stay. Until you get kids.

Ray Palmer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They accept you. They accept you right at the back of the list, which is where you stay. Until you get kids.

Not true the regulations changed due to the inherent problem of people never moving up the list as they were single and male. It changed about 2 years ago.

Cuddlesworth

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not true the regulations changed due to the inherent problem of people never moving up the list as they were single and male. It changed about 2 years ago.

In a closed and non-transparent system it takes a lot more than a regulation change to fix such a fundamentally flawed process. Although I would like to see this regulation change, where was it published?

Gatling

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not true the regulations changed due to the inherent problem of people never moving up the list as they were single and male. It changed about 2 years ago.

Actually it hasn't changed at all ,
Your housed based on priority and time on the list ,families ,disabled and people at risk will always be given priority on the list ,you won't remain at the bottom of the list as a single person but people with the above will take priority that wont change ,
Consider the total lack of single bedroom of social housing stock available across the country that goes against single persons too

Ray Palmer

Gatling wrote: »

Actually it hasn't changed at all ,
Your housed based on priority and time on the list ,families ,disabled and people at risk will always be given priority on the list ,you won't remain at the bottom of the list as a single person but people with the above will take priority that wont change ,
Consider the total lack of single bedroom of social housing stock available across the country that goes against single persons too

It did change as I recall it was about to be brought to the European Court of Human Rights when they changed it. The system is now a weighted system and the longer you are on the list the more you move up. Priority can be out weighed by length on the list. You just start at different points

Gatling

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It did change as I recall it was about to be brought to the European Court of Human Rights when they changed it. The system is now a weighted system and the longer you are on the list the more you move up. Priority can be out weighed by length on the list. You just start at different points

But as I said earlier with very little stock to suit a single persons needs ,
Its less likely they would be housed over other applicants ,
If it was based on time on the list lads and lasses waiting to be housed some cases 10-12+ years would have to be given houses based on length on list rather than what's actually available for there needs ,

ABajaninCork

I think people are forgetting something. In order to be considered for RA, you have to be assessed as being in need of housing. A lot of people particularly married & cohabiting couples may not necessarily need to be housed, especially as the likelihood of getting social housing will be low, but might need assistance with the rent.

Mrs OBumble

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I think people are forgetting something. In order to be considered for RA, you have to be assessed as being in need of housing. A lot of people particularly married & cohabiting couples may not necessarily need to be housed, especially as the likelihood of getting social housing will be low, but might need assistance with the rent.

Indeed. that is a key point in this post.

The OP does not want a council house, they just want some Rent Allowance. (Most likely just for a short time while they're under-employed, meaning that the cost of the RA will be well less than the true cost of providing them with a subsidised house for life!)

But according to the ideological position that some here adopt, the goverment is abdicating its responsiblity to provide housing support to those in need if it gives Rent Allowance (ie money that goes to a private-sector investor) instead of aloocating the OP a council or voluntary-housing house.

The OP's point is that it is mad that s/he had to waste to much administrative time to access that short-term Rent Allownace.

And I cannot help but point out that if the OP is low paid but working full time, they could well be earning less than someone getting better pay for working 2-3 days week, and in this case the better paid person would be eligible for RA but the low-paid full time worker would get no housign support (except the aforementioned council house opportunity).

Madness.