Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are the PRTB and Threshold advising people they can overhold

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    garhjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #34
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭Beaner1


    garhjw wrote: »
    Yet another ridiculous statement from you

    It's a question but thanks for the contribution.


  • Options
    #35
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,299 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #39
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭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???


  • Options
    #40
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    BarneyThomas
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    They need to provide social housing.


  • Options
    #43
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    BarneyThomas
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,972 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


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


  • Options
    #50
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    yankinlk
    Registered Users Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    BarneyThomas wrote: »
    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?

    i hear your pain. i got a call from local council today, answering an ad for a room for rent. i clearly labelled the ad as 65 per week, per room, 4 sharing. she did not identify her self as a county council servant, instead she pretended to be a member of the public. im stunned to think she genuinely thought my house was 65 per week, for the whole house. its clear she has no concept of money, or costs, or value or anything. she was purely looking to get a place as cheap as possible to house a family on RAS... the limits or unbelievably low for what i have to put up with.

    consider renting to a family of 7 for a 4 bed house, no jobs, living in the house 24 hours a day, running it into the ground... for this im expected to take a drop in market rate for "4 year contracts".

    if the family is trouble, i have 4 years of neighbors giving out to me, with no help from CC.


  • Options
    #53
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,327 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    yankinlk wrote: »
    i hear your pain. i got a call from local council today, answering an ad for a room for rent. i clearly labelled the ad as 65 per week, per room, 4 sharing. she did not identify her self as a county council servant, instead she pretended to be a member of the public. im stunned to think she genuinely thought my house was 65 per week, for the whole house. its clear she has no concept of money, or costs, or value or anything. she was purely looking to get a place as cheap as possible to house a family on RAS... the limits or unbelievably low for what i have to put up with.

    consider renting to a family of 7 for a 4 bed house, no jobs, living in the house 24 hours a day, running it into the ground... for this im expected to take a drop in market rate for "4 year contracts".

    if the family is trouble, i have 4 years of neighbors giving out to me, with no help from CC.
    In fairness why not put it advertise it for what it is 260 a week./1126 a month

    Do you collect the rent monthly or weekly?


  • Options
    #54
    yankinlk
    Registered Users Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    ted1 wrote: »
    In fairness why not put it advertise it for what it is 260 a week./1126 a month

    Do you collect the rent monthly or weekly?

    you are not familiar with the student market obv. its 65 per room. a student will want one, and some will even offer to split one.

    also, i have found, it doesn't matter what way i collect rent, tenants want to see the price in a currency weekly... as the majority of people are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck.


  • Options
    #55
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    BarneyThomas wrote: »
    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.


    Can you not just use the rest of your life to endlessly pursue them until they pay what they owe. COnstantly suing them, etc?


  • Options
    #56
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    dissed doc wrote: »
    Can you not just use the rest of your life to endlessly pursue them until they pay what they owe. COnstantly suing them, etc?

    No, enforcement against private individuals isn't worth it at the best of times. Another reason not to allow RA I'm afraid; no point in suing someone with no money.

    This whole system really needs sorting out.


  • Options
    #57
    rsl1976
    Registered Users Posts: 824 ✭✭✭rsl1976


    Many years ago when I was getting RA the social paid it directly into my LL account. Is this not done anymore?


Advertisement