Why are the PRTB and Threshold advising people they can overhold

BarneyThomas

This is a long story so i'll try to shorten it here.

I have a few rental properties in Dublin.

Most of the time I let the tenants stay on the same rent for years even if the rent should have increased.

I have recently (about 6 months ago) decided that I need to recoup some of the extra taxes and charges that our dear government have put on me over the last few years, so had to increase the rents (with the increase they are still below the market rates in the areas).

All but one of the increases were accepted and all parties are happy.

So one apartment is rented to a couple who have been getting rent allowance. They just said "We cant pay it, so we wont pay it. The rent allowance isnt enough, talk to the CWO".
So i called the CWO and he just said nothing to do with him.
So then back to the tenants and they say tough, go to the CWO.

Eventually I decided to just issue fully legal eviction notice for not paying the rent.

They agreed to move out on a specific date.

That day came and they were not gone. They said they had called both the PRTB and Threshold and had been advised that they could stay and that they did not have to pay any rent and i could go jump.

I didnt believe this and now am in a long drawn out legal battle to get rid of them, with no rent at all coming in and they are living for free in my apartment. And no end in sight.

So roll on to last week and I was watching a program about increasing rents called "through the roof" on RTE.
There was a woman in the same situation. She cant afford market rate and rent allowance wont cover market rate so she was being evicted. On the last day it showed her calling threshold who advised her to overhold and that she didnt have to move out.

Ridiculous.

So then i decided to ring threshold and PRTB last week and pretend i was someone in the same situation. I was disgusted with the responses. Basically - "we can advise you to do this but you can overhold. Then spelled out the situation".

Prefacing telling someone to do something dodgy with a disclaimer like that means nothing. At the end of the day they these two groups are costing landlords a fortune by "advising people that they can break the law with no consequences"

How can this be allowed. And one of them is funded by the very group they are screwing.

What can be done about it?

timetogo

You'd wonder why people don't want to take renters that give rent allowance.

Beaner1

It is a valid option when facing homelessness.

BarneyThomas

timetogo wrote: »

You'd wonder why people don't want to take renters that give rent allowance.

I certainly wont be ever again anyway.
There was another couple on that program that you would nearly ring up and give them a discount to live in your property.
They kept the place immaculately that they were in and the guy even DIY a lot himself. They seemed lovely. Compare that then to others who wreck places and dont pay rent.

BarneyThomas

Beaner1 wrote: »

It is a valid option when facing homelessness.

Not being able to afford to live where you would like to and facing homelessness are two completely different things.

Field east

Have you informed there not allowance office. No point in they gating rent allowance an they using it for other purposes, . Don't like to see your and my tax payments being used to prop up that type of situation

BarneyThomas

Field east wrote: »

Have you informed there not allowance office. No point in they gating rent allowance an they using it for other purposes, . Don't like to see your and my tax payments being used to prop up that type of situation

I did.
They didnt seem to care.
And the tenants are paying nothing now anyway, so i dont know if the CWO stopped their RA or not.

I'll never being accepting anything to do with social welfare again for sure. The tenants were actually pointing me to the state for the rent and absolved themselves of any responsibility to pay their rent at all. Its not our fault they can pay they said, the cwo can pay it for us and if he doesnt, tough.

And the worst part is that when it comes due now i will have to increase the rents for all the other good tenants to the current market rate, to make up for the losses that these people have caused. So because of those two, the rest of us are now suffering in the pockets a lot more.

Field east

If you write to the rent allowance office- make sure it is the correct one- they will then have to act on it, given the times that are in it. Obviously keep a copy. Tell tenants of your intention beforehand and they might at least pay at the old rate. Because if the allowance is stopped they might have difficulty in getting it again.

BarneyThomas

Field east wrote: »

If you write to the rent allowance office- make sure it is the correct one- they will then have to act on it, given the times that are in it. Obviously keep a copy. Tell tenants of your intention beforehand and they might at least pay at the old rate. Because if the allowance is stopped they might have difficulty in getting it again.

This all happened about 6 months ago. They havent been paying rent since the minute they were told by threshold etc that they could get away with it and it would take me god knows how long to get them out. There is still no end in sight to the legal business involved.
And my solicitor has told me that while they will still owe me the rent they havent paid, i will never get it in the end.

Wabbit Ears

lesson learned, Never, ever accept rent allowance. Life is to short to have a business relationship where the other party has absolutely nothing to lose and you have absolutely no recourse if anything every does go wrong.

Field east

I assume that you have issued the appropriately worded letters re informing them of non payment of overdue rent, giving them the appropriate deadlines and the eviction letter if they do not respond.
I'd advise to cut your losses And keep your time spent on this to the minimum by keeping away from the PTRB- especially when you more than likely not get your money back-unless a decision by it and a letter from it may help in evicting them.
I find the IPOA very helpful in this situation. If you are a member they are at the end of a phone re advice and you may not need a solicitor
If they are keeping the flat in very bad / uninhabitable condition, there is an objectionable smell emanating from it, and the other tenants are being upset because of the smell, noise, etc maybe you should report the space to theCO. CO officer who looks after accomodation conditions

The_Morrigan

Field east wrote: »

I assume that you have issued the appropriately worded letters re informing them of non payment of overdue rent, giving them the appropriate deadlines and the eviction letter if they do not respond.
I'd advise to cut your losses And keep your time spent on this to the minimum by keeping away from the PTRB- especially when you more than likely not get your money back-unless a decision by it and a letter from it may help in evicting them.
I find the IPOA very helpful in this situation. If you are a member they are at the end of a phone re advice and you may not need a solicitor
If they are keeping the flat in very bad / uninhabitable condition, there is an objectionable smell emanating from it, and the other tenants are being upset because of the smell, noise, etc maybe you should report the space to theCO. CO officer who looks after accomodation conditions

Could you keep your posts factual and leave out baiting speculation?
There is absolutely no basis for stating the bolded part above looking at the OP.

/Mod

astrofool

BarneyThomas wrote: »

"we can advise you to do this but you can overhold. Then spelled out the situation".

I presume that should have been can't in the original post, might be worth being extra careful when quoting that piece as it changes the meaning entirely.

beauf

BarneyThomas wrote: »

...How can this be allowed. And one of them is funded by the very group they are screwing.

What can be done about it?

Govt has failed miserably to provide housing. Or regulate the rental market.

The solution is obvious.

Mrs OBumble

Visit your TD, and complain about the actions of these government or government-funded agencies. Possibly also write to the Minister responsible for housing.

It won't solve your immediate problem, but the underlying issue needs to be reported or it will never be resolved.

The advice that the agencies should be giving at this time to for people to look for accommodation is areas which they can afford.

davo10

OP, not that I am advising you to do this, but after six months of non payment of rent and by the sounds of things, no end in site, I would be thinking myself, what have I got to lose by throwing them out on their ass? Yes they can take legal action but when a judge hears they havnt paid for six months and planned to stay there indefinitely, then I'd be thinking I might have a fair chance of being treated with some understanding in court.

The_Morrigan

davo10 wrote: »

OP, not that I am advising you to do this, but after six months of non payment of rent and by the sounds of things, no end in site, I would be thinking myself, what have I got to lose by throwing them out on their ass? Yes they can take legal action but when a judge hears they havnt paid for six months and planned to stay there indefinitely, then I'd be thinking I might have a fair chance of being treated with some understanding in court.

By the very fact that you've drafted that post you are offering it as advice.
You're around long enough to know what our charter states about advocating illegal actions.

Don't post on this thread again.

BarneyThomas

davo10 wrote: »

OP, not that I am advising you to do this, but after six months of non payment of rent and by the sounds of things, no end in site, I would be thinking myself, what have I got to lose by throwing them out on their ass? Yes they can take legal action but when a judge hears they havnt paid for six months and planned to stay there indefinitely, then I'd be thinking I might have a fair chance of being treated with some understanding in court.

Unfortunately it would be up to the PRTB and they obviously work for the overholder.
So if I threw them out the PRTB would make sure i paid for it.
And the worst part of it all is that I paid for the PRTB.
The whole system is a joke.

From now on im only renting to people who have good jobs and can afford the rent by a log way. And there will be a three month deposit. Just cant put myself up for this kind of skewed against the landlord system again.

Luckily my properties are in high demand areas so i can be more picky with the requirements before someone moves in. I might lose 90% of viewers with asking for 3 months deposit, but i should be left with the ones who are more financially stable at the end. I was just appalled when i saw that happen on the rte program and then verified it too. Sickening.

garhjw

Beaner1 wrote: »

It is a valid option when facing homelessness.

No it's not

groovyg

BarneyThomas wrote: »

So roll on to last week and I was watching a program about increasing rents called "through the roof" on RTE.
There was a woman in the same situation. She cant afford market rate and rent allowance wont cover market rate so she was being evicted. On the last day it showed her calling threshold who advised her to overhold and that she didnt have to move out.

Prefacing telling someone to do something dodgy with a disclaimer like that means nothing. At the end of the day they these two groups are costing landlords a fortune by "advising people that they can break the law with no consequences"

How can this be allowed. And one of them is funded by the very group they are screwing.

What can be done about it?

I saw that programme and couldn't believe the advice she got. She was due to be evicted that day and Threshold told her she could overhold!! It doesn't make sense at all. At the end of the programme she seemed to have cleared her arrears and was able to stay in the apartment until the new year.
Such is the demand for accommodation, I don't think you'll have a problem finding tenants willing to pay three months deposit, I think there was one guy on the programme who turned up to view a house and he offered deposit plus three months rent upfront.

BarneyThomas

groovyg wrote: »

I saw that rte.ie/player/ie/show/10352948/"]programme and couldn't believe the advice she got. She was due to be evicted that day and Threshold told her she could overhold!! It doesn't make sense at all. At the end of the programme she seemed to have cleared her arrears and was able to stay in the apartment until the new year.
Such is the demand for accommodation, I don't think you'll have a problem finding tenants willing to pay three months deposit, I think there was one guy on the programme who turned up to view a house and he offered deposit plus three months rent upfront.

I was seriously disgusted at that advice they gave her. So much so i registered here to vent about it.

My theory is that she got on to the landlord and mentioned RTE were filming her while talking to him. So between that and the "advice" from threshold no landlord wants to try to hardline the "poor homeless woman", knowing she'll be telling the story to the tv cameras whether you submit to going on or not. And then knowing you are on a loser when she decides to stop paying the rent too. What choice did he have? None really.

MarkAnthony

Jesus I suggested looking for security and first and last month's rent (not the same as asking for 3 months rent in advance) and got flamed to a crisp. :pac:

I can not understand why the government is offering RA in desirable locations in Dublin. Newbridge and even as far a field as Wexford are commutable and property is in much lower demand. I can understand why such a scheme is needed and frankly they should negotiate themselves a good deal, say 10% under market. In return they should be guaranteeing the rent and repairing any damage done by the tenant. They can then recoup this from the tenant - what's the tenet going to do? Tell the Social to feck off and their not accepting RA anymore?

This country has allowed everyone at every level to completely abdicate personal responsibility.

ted1

OP if they are not paying rent are you obliged to carry on with your duties as a landlord? If not then I would be inclined to get the electricity gas and water disconnected

MarkAnthony

ted1 wrote: »

OP if they are not paying rent are you obliged to carry on with your duties as a landlord? If not then I would be inclined to get the electricity gas and water disconnected

I'm not sure that would be a good idea for even purely selfish reasons on the part of the OP. TBH he/she seems to have their head screwed on.

BarneyThomas

The problem is that the government, who are basically "the paying tenant" for properties that they pay rent allowance for, either cant afford/ dont want to pay for the going price.
If they cant afford it or wont afford it then rent elsewhere, but quit screwing over landlords by getting them to pay for a quango that is sticking the knife into them.

Rent allowance is simply not enough to rent property in Dublin the way it is. And with rent allowance comes hugely increased risk on the landlords part too.

BarneyThomas

ted1 wrote: »

OP if they are not paying rent are you obliged to carry on with your duties as a landlord? If not then I would be inclined to get the electricity gas and water disconnected

That wouldnt be allowed. Basically I can do nothing about someone living in my property but refusing to pay rent. It takes so long that some people i know in the business are paying tenants to leave rather than go through the required channels, but i refuse to do that.

The_Conductor

ted1 wrote: »

OP if they are not paying rent are you obliged to carry on with your duties as a landlord? If not then I would be inclined to get the electricity gas and water disconnected

Ted- this would constitute an attempt at an illegal eviction- and hand the tenant a lovely payday from their landlord.

SMJSF

The best legal advice for this situation would be a solicitor or citizens advice. They would be more informed about the legal side and rights of both parties.

miss misty

As a landlord I would never ever entertain renting to someone on RA. Terrible I know but as this thread shows you would be mad to allow RA tenants into your property, and I'm speaking from experience. Unfortunately one bad experience has ruined it for probably a lot of genuine renters. If the government wants to protect them then let the government house them.

BarneyThomas

SMJSF wrote: »

The best legal advice for this situation would be a solicitor or citizens advice. They would be more informed about the legal side and rights of both parties.

I have a solicitor engaged.
Im not looking for legal advice at all. I just came on to vent at what Threshold and PRTB are doing really.

yankinlk

BarneyThomas wrote: »

I have a solicitor engaged.
Im not looking for legal advice at all. I just came on to vent at what Threshold and PRTB are doing really.

glad you did. i will be joining the queue of LL no longer accepting any RA. i did it for long enough, and enough is enough. this govt is fixing nothing.

Beaner1

yankinlk wrote: »

glad you did. i will be joining the queue of LL no longer accepting any RA. i did it for long enough, and enough is enough. this govt is fixing nothing.

Why did you accept high risk tenants that you knew you could never sue when you could have had a working renter.

garhjw

Beaner1 wrote: »

Why did you accept high risk tenants that you knew you could never sue when you could have had a working renter.

Yet another ridiculous statement from you

Beaner1

garhjw wrote: »

Yet another ridiculous statement from you

It's a question but thanks for the contribution.

MarkAnthony

Beaner1 wrote: »

Why did you accept high risk tenants that you knew you could never sue when you could have had a working renter.

RA doesnt necessarily mean the person isn't working. Perhaps the OP felt that in a small way he was giving back - I know I'd be delighted to accept RA if it was properly administered and guaranteed. It should be a win/win but yet again we have something poorly run by people that couldn't think outside the box if it was full of sh1te and on fire.

Victor

ted1 wrote: »

OP if they are not paying rent are you obliged to carry on with your duties as a landlord? If not then I would be inclined to get the electricity gas and water disconnected

It is not acceptable to encourage an illegal eviction.

Moderator

murphaph

BarneyThomas wrote: »

What can be done about it?

Landlords need to organise. We need to lobby parliament to change the laws to make it more difficult for people to simply stop paying their rent and overholding. That's the only sustainable solution. Homelessness is society's problem, that means all of us as taxpayers. It is not a "landlord's problem". If that was the case, then hunger would be a supermarket's problem.

Check out the IPOA and see what you think.

murphaph

Beaner1 wrote: »

Why did you accept high risk tenants that you knew you could never sue when you could have had a working renter.

Maybe they were hard working renters before losing their jobs? Who are you to ask!

makeorbrake

BarneyThomas wrote: »

From now on im only renting to people who have good jobs and can afford the rent by a log way. And there will be a three month deposit. Just cant put myself up for this kind of skewed against the landlord system again.

This is the only avenue open to you. If as you say - yours is a high demand area - then this practice has to start there. Let it become the norm.

It's the only action that may effect change - but of course that will take years. In the meantime, be thorough with references and take the 3 months deposit.



I heard someone from Threshold and the Residential Landlords Association being interviewed on TodayFM recently. The Threshold representative was castigating the RLA guy for discriminating against Rent Allowance.


It's totally irresponsible - and this guy knows damn well - it's not about discrimination! If the system functioned, LLs should be tripping over each other to take on RA tenants. It's ironic but it should be a case of guaranteed income. Why would a LL turn down a RA tenant....unless of course there's something fundamentally wrong with the system???

Beaner1

murphaph wrote: »

Maybe they were hard working renters before losing their jobs? Who are you to ask!

I'm beaner1 and I want an answer.

BarneyThomas

I have read about one way that rent allowance could work.

Social welfare go to the landlord and rent their apartment from them.
Social welfare take over absolutely everything from the tenants to service charges, maintenance, fixtures and fittings, repairs.
All the landlord does is own the place and collect the rent directly from social welfare.

Then have the social welfare have to follow all the rules landlords have to follow and effectively become the landlords.
And they must deal with their own tenants and not have the landlord be responsible for their mistakes in getting bad tenants.


They might get a discount from the landlord on the rent for taking over full control, but obviously if they are not willing to pay enough to make it attractive then no landlord will bite.

At the moment rent allowance is not high enough to even rent a place in Dublin, never mind the LL take on all the extra risks that seem to come with rent allowance. At the moment a premium of 25 - 30% over market rate might and i say might, make me consider taking rent allowance, and then only if the rent was paid directly from the CWO to me. They are living in cloud cuckoo land though if they think paying less than market rate is going to attract LLs.

Social welfare want to dump their problems onto LLs and then the landlords are getting crucified when it all goes wrong. Social welfare need to become responsible for their own issues.


As it stand Rent Allowance is a no go area for any LL unless they somehow cant rent their property easily.
I see a situation where as people currently getting rent allowance move on, the landlord will never accept it again. Even if he has had good experience with tenants on it before, its just too little nowadays.

beauf

They need to provide social housing.

MarkAnthony

TBH I great way of getting RA under control would be simply to offer to pay the BTL on an apartment they want. Legislation could be brought in forcing banks to give Social Welfare a break on mortgage rates. 30-somethings in neg eq. like myself would jump at the chance to move; the banks would have security - probably at a better rate than the trackers many of us are on.

All the social would need to do is take over as landlord and guarantee the rent. An all round win solution. Proper investors like yourself OP who know what they're doing could carry on in the private sector making a bigger profit, amateurs like me would have a bit of security.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

They need to provide social housing.

St Teresa's Gardens
Croke Park Flats

Just two developments I know are almost completely empty.

I know there are major social problems with these areas and that there are other plans for the area but it is workable given the right enforcement. Future plans are great but we're in the middle of a housing crisis in Dublin. Sickening to see these places lying empty.

People on RA in apartments etc should be housed in these areas. Put proper security and community workers in. Trouble makers get a shipping crate with a minimal fit somewhere miles from anywhere and are allowed back when they learn to behave themselves.

MouseTail

The best solution I believe is to make RA invisible to the LL, similar to the housing credits they have in the UK, this would only work of course if the PRTB system was overhauled, and the process of eviction fasttracked.

BarneyThomas

MouseTail wrote: »

The best solution I believe is to make RA invisible to the LL, similar to the housing credits they have in the UK, this would only work of course if the PRTB system was overhauled, and the process of eviction fasttracked.

And if the rent allowance was enough to rent at the market rate.

MouseTail

BarneyThomas wrote: »

And if the rent allowance was enough to rent at the market rate.

No, I don't think raising the RA limits will do anything except increase the welfare to work trap, I do think top ups should be allowed.

murphaph

MouseTail wrote: »

The best solution I believe is to make RA invisible to the LL, similar to the housing credits they have in the UK, this would only work of course if the PRTB system was overhauled, and the process of eviction fasttracked.

I don't think it's possible to make it invisible and I would question whether or not it would be right to effectively trick landlords this way. A LL will (if he has half a brain) be getting and checking work references and indeed bank statements to see that prospective tenants are who they say they are and have a steady income stream that comes from paid employment and not welfare.

LLs have lost all trust in the system and it will take years to win it back.

spaceHopper

OP Sorry for your troubles, can I ask is it possible to have them made bankrupt? Or is that off the wall.

Carawaystick

murphaph wrote: »

A LL will (if he has half a brain) be getting and checking work references and indeed bank statements to see that prospective tenants are who they say they are and have a steady income stream that comes from paid employment and not welfare.

That's grand until a tenant loses a job, and their income stream changes to social insurance payments.
Or the tenant becomes injured and their income changes to non-paid-employment insurance.

Michael D Not Higgins

Carawaystick wrote: »

That's grand until a tenant loses a job, and their income stream changes to social insurance payments.
Or the tenant becomes injured and their income changes to non-paid-employment insurance.

Someone who loses their job during a tenancy is more likely to have savings to fund a period of lower income. They are also not going to receive rent allowance right off the bat, and are more likely to get another job than someone in long term unemployment (I'm not sure of the exact numbers but there's a statistic that someone unemployed for a year is whatever percent less likely to get a job than someone less than a year).

On the whole, I'd say it's more likely that someone in a job at the start of a tenancy is more likely to have a job at the end than someone without one at the start.