Rent Allowance & "under the table" top ups

share_bear

If someone on social welfare tops up their rent allowance by making an additional payment,
this is supposedly not allowed.

But where this happens, who is committing the "offence", the landlord or the tenant?

What is the offence, exactly? Is it mere risk of disqualification/clawback for the person on social welfare only?

In the media, this is referred to as "under the table", but in reality is the landlord free to declare the full payment on his taxes? Is the issue just one for the person on social welfare?

Are landlords declaring the total sum received?

Cuddlesworth

Both, the landlord and tenant are willingly defrauding the state.

davo10

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Both, the landlord and tenant are willingly defrauding the state.

There is no incentive for the social welfare dept to bring the proceedings against either the LL or the tenant for this infringement. If they did, it would inevitably result in less LLs accepting RA and more complaints to councils/ welfare dept from recipients unable to get accomadation.

I can't see who exactly would make the complaint, the tenant who would be unable to pay rent and would be evicted or the LL who would lose out on the top up?

MouseTail

Its the LLs who are more exposed, official documentation such as lease and RA form will have the lower rent. Try bringing that to PRTB. You would want to trust your tenants 110% to go down this route.

cerastes

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Both, the landlord and tenant are willingly defrauding the state.

Its the Social that are imposing unrealistic conditions, trying to force the real price of renting to be hidden.
rents are X, Social says they will pay only Y on limits of K.

Im concerned when you read the article in the Independant recently, its one thing to try and limit increases while a tenant is in place, but to try force the real cost to be hidden and try to control the rent price, this has led to what? any intervention by the govt in a renting problem has only led to more problems. Either people will not rent to Social tenants (RA or other schemes) or will withdraw the service altogether and make arrangements with familiy members or private tenants. The Social (SW) should be happy when people are willing to rent to a RA tenant as a lot of adverts I see have "RA not accepted" due to problems of one kind or another, half those being, dealing with the SocialWelfare (or HSE up till recently), mostly due to interfering in things like this, but standing back when there are problems with tenants who are not paying their rent or destroying a place.

The_Morrigan

This is illegal practice and we are not going to permit discussion of it here.
share_bear every single thread from you seems to be legally dubious. Please read the charter before you open any further threads or you will lose your posting rights.