'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

snubbleste

Dun dun dun! http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-moving-to-end-rent-supplement-tenant-discrimination-1.2109650
Who saw this coming?
Under equality legislation, landlords will not be able to discriminate against tenants dependent on state assistance payments.

What are the unintended consequences of this move?

Ken.

Is this a good thing or bad thing. I think it'll only work as long as the government don't keep reducing the rent allowance.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-moves-to-prohibit-refusal-of-rent-supplement-662940.html

The Government is expected to shortly enact a measure that would prohibit denying rental accommodation to tenants who get rent supplement.
It is common practice for rental adverts to say that rent supplement is not accepted, but the Coalition is seeking to prohibit that practice.

The Amendments to the Employment Equality (Amendment) (No 2) Bil is before the Seanad and is due to be published in the current parliamentary term “and the Bill enacted shortly”, Minister of State for equality Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has said.

Stheno

Surely landlords will just give a different reason not to rent to those on rs?

MrMorooka

Sigh. This does nothing to help people in the 'middle', the ones who earn enough that they don't qualify for rent allowance but not enough that they can buy, etc. Once again, it just squeezes them by causing further rent increases as LLs try to cover the costs of dealing with possible issues arising out of this move.

snubbleste

Rent increases all round then :cool:

The_Morrigan

Just merged the threads there guys & gals.

Goldigga

What are the unintended consequences of this move?

I can't see how this will actually change anything. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to someone with Rent supplement, they won't. This simply stops them advertising the fact in the advertisement!

MrMorooka

Maybe a better option would have been to find out why so many LLs don't accept RA, and then see what can be changed to address those concerns.

Or to build more social housing so that local government can directly address housing needs instead of pushing it onto private LLs.

Or more macro moves to decrease cost of living/reduce rental market pressures and make accommodation more affordable.

No, let's just blunder in with an ill-advised move for equality that seems completely uninformed of the situation on the ground.

snubbleste

Goldigga wrote: »

I can't see how this will actually change anything. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to someone with Rent supplement, they won't. This simply stops them advertising the fact in the advertisement!

It is not just the advertisement, they won't be able to refuse a rent supplement applicant under equality legislation

jjbrien

There is a way landlords will use not to accept rent allowance. They will now say working professionals only in their adverts

MrMorooka

Goldigga wrote: »

I can't see how this will actually change anything. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to someone with Rent supplement, they won't. This simply stops them advertising the fact in the advertisement!

Well no one will be able to talk about RA at viewings etc- the tenant act normal and sign the lease, then a week later the LL will get the RA form and won't be able to refuse.

Of course, just insisting on seeing bank records and payslips(to see a genuine ability to pay the rent) before choosing a tenant will most likely defeat this 9 times out of 10.

Aircraft Freak

snubbleste wrote: »

Dun dun dun! http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-moving-to-end-rent-supplement-tenant-discrimination-1.2109650
Who saw this coming?
Under equality legislation, landlords will not be able to discriminate against tenants dependent on state assistance payments.

What are the unintended consequences of this move?

Unless they're dodging paying tax on rental income, how do you police that?

I would also like to see rent supplement paid directly to landlords, one landlord I know will not take social welfare recipients because he has had experience with the tennent cashing the cheque and not paying the rent, you'd be surprised how much this happens, it then makes it hard for genuine folk to get into rented accommodation, everyone gets tarred with the same brush.

Grandpa Hassan

But LL will still choose tenants on the basis of job / income etc. Just arent allowed to say "no rent supplement" on the advert. For many, it will be an irrelevance, as rent supplement would not stretch to cover the advertised rent anyway, but I imagine that LLs on the margins of what is affordable to those on rent supplement will put their rents up when they come to re-let.

Which, as MMorroka said, will screw everyone

snubbleste

Aircraft Freak wrote: »

Unless they're dodging paying tax on rental income, how do you police that?

The tenant will take a case to the equality status authority or something.

Aircraft Freak

snubbleste wrote: »

The tenant will take a case to the equality status authority or something.

I think this is a pre election stunt, they have to appear to be doing something to tackle the issue, when they're not actually doing anything.

stevedublin

MrMorooka wrote: »

Or to build more social housing so that local government can directly address housing needs instead of pushing it onto private LLs.

And the money to build said housing comes from....?

Wabbit Ears

Until they address the reasons why landlords refuse Social welfare recipients this law is grossly unfair to landlords.

Gatling

Rent increases under the guise of covering iw related charges and so on, they could easily increase deposits aswell completely pushing rs tenants out all together

OldNotWIse

How will they enforce it?

Also, unless they increase rent allowance to keep up with ever increasing rent, or make it permissible to make up the shortfall yourself, how will it even work?

Grandpa Hassan

snubbleste wrote: »

The tenant will take a case to the equality status authority or something.

I dont ever see that succeeding. The LL would just come up with another reason as to why they chose a different one of probably many hopefuls.

"well, judge, I got the feeling that me and mr X would have a really good LL / tenant relationship so I rented the place to him. I have no problems with RA at all". Mr X of course happens to work a professional job and not be on RA.

How is discrimiation supposed to be proven unless a really stupid LL writes in a rejection email "I didnt rent it to you cause youre on RA". In which case they deserve what they get on the basis of their stupidity

This is just a case of the government not wanting acknowledge the actual cause of the problem. Like addressing housing needs. Sure, its all the LLs fault

MrMorooka

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

writes in a rejection email

That's not even how it works, what happens these days is usually you go the open viewing with 50 other people, you all put your name down, then through some completely opaque process someone will be chosen the next day or whatever. You only know you didn't get it because the ad on Daft has gone down.

ted1

They need to pay the rent directly to the landlord bypassing the tenant. The tenant needs to pay the balance to the DSP.

They DSP will need to stop asking for reductions. They keep pushing for reductions once the tensnt moves in. I've had to sign and send numerous letters to tenants that the rent is as per lease and will continue to be for the duration of the lease. Failure to pay agreed amount will lead to eviction.

Miaireland

I am guessing this will make very little difference to things. Landlords will probably have different reasons to refuse like requesting things like references from current employers etc.

jobbridge4life

snubbleste wrote: »

It is not just the advertisement, they won't be able to refuse a rent supplement applicant under equality legislation

Not quite. Legally they are prohibited from refusing a person because they are in receipt of rent supplement. They can refuse them for any other legal reason they choose and in today's market they won't be short on alternative tenants.

This is all irrelevant anyway because it is simple they the old 'rent allowance not accepted' will be replaced with the 'employer references required'. Done and done.

snubbleste

Miaireland wrote: »

I am guessing this will make very little difference to things. Landlords will probably have different reasons to refuse like requesting things like references from current employers etc.

That would be viewed as discriminatory as someone who is on state payments would not be working

Daith

snubbleste wrote: »

That would be viewed as discriminatory as someone who is on state payments would not be working

Huh, sure that happens all the time. Work references essential and so on.

Big Davey

The reason why people don't want RA people is because of the higher level of scumbags on RA and the fact that the people in social welfare don't care how they behave.
If someone has a job and trashes your house you can drop up to their workplace to have a chat with them maybe embarrass them a bit etc
I had a toe rag in one of my houses on RA and would think hard before taking another RA person.
I let what seemed to be a nice polite single mother into a very nice house she was all smiles and watching what she said seemed like she was well brought up
THEN I met the boyfriend who was in the background and I have to say I have scraped nicer things off my shoe he was pure filth had I of seen him I would not have let them near the house.
Fast forward 6 months he is officially living there as they have been caught with the single mother scam.
Fast forward another 12 months and they are months behind on rent they have spent the RA and trashed the house
Social welfare enform me I will get my part of the RA in time, their part of the RA is nothing to do with welfare, the fact that I had proof with bank statements and other proof that the tenants were drinking and gambling most of their money and their part of the RA was nothing to do with welfare the thousands of euro of vandalism and damage was nothing to do with welfare !
If welfare are not going to stand over these people and give some guarantee I don't see why anyone should be forced to take RA
I would rather some decent person with a job and self respect and maybe something to loose by behaving such a way.

MrMorooka wrote: »

Maybe a better option would have been to find out why so many LLs don't accept RA, and then see what can be changed to address those concerns.

Or to build more social housing so that local government can directly address housing needs instead of pushing it onto private LLs.

Or more macro moves to decrease cost of living/reduce rental market pressures and make accommodation more affordable.

No, let's just blunder in with an ill-advised move for equality that seems completely uninformed of the situation on the ground.

The_Morrigan

Big Davey wrote: »

The reason why people don't want RA people is because of the higher level of scumbags on RA and the fact that the people in social welfare don't care how they behave.
If someone has a job and trashes your house you can drop up to their workplace to have a chat with them maybe embarrass them a bit etc
I had a toe rag in one of my houses on RA and would think hard before taking another RA person.
I let what seemed to be a nice polite single mother into a very nice house she was all smiles and watching what she said seemed like she was well brought up
THEN I met the boyfriend who was in the background and I have to say I have scraped nicer things off my shoe he was pure filth had I of seen him I would not have let them near the house.
Fast forward 6 months he is officially living there as they have been caught with the single mother scam.
Fast forward another 12 months and they are months behind on rent they have spent the RA and trashed the house
Social welfare enform me I will get my part of the RA in time, their part of the RA is nothing to do with welfare, the fact that I had proof with bank statements and other proof that the tenants were drinking and gambling most of their money and their part of the RA was nothing to do with welfare the thousands of euro of vandalism and damage was nothing to do with welfare !
If welfare are not going to stand over these people and give some guarantee I don't see why anyone should be forced to take RA
I would rather some decent person with a job and self respect and maybe something to loose by behaving such a way.

Less of the derogatory statements and gross generalisations please.

hdowney

quite simply rents will increase. anyone who was letting a property on the borderline for RA and was a 'No RA Accepted' advertiser will increase to above the threshold and therefore cannot accept RA tenants for the simple reason that RA tenants must get a property with rent within the limits set by the Gov't

jobbridge4life

hdowney wrote: »

quite simply rents will increase. anyone who was letting a property on the borderline for RA and was a 'No RA Accepted' advertiser will increase to above the threshold and therefore cannot accept RA tenants for the simple reason that RA tenants must get a property with rent within the limits set by the Gov't

In most areas of high demand there are virtually no properties below the limit as is.

LifesgoodwithLG

I would rather some decent person with a job and self respect and maybe something to loose by behaving such a way.[/QUOTE]

Yikes , you got well and truly shafted by your current tenants and you have my total sympathy. Here's the deal a scum bag is a scum bag regardless if they are receive RA or not. I am just about to apply for RA, I have lived in rented accommodation in Dublin for 15 years and have references from every single landlord or lady I have ever lived in. I have never once ( not even for a day ) paid late never mind avoided paying. The difference between me and your current tenants, I was raised with the attitude of always paying your way. I would rather eat Weetabix for a year than to owe money to anyone and that's the truth.

I totally appreciate that your rental property is your investment and you have to do everything to protect it. After 14 years working I was made redundant, I have just applied to do an unpaid internship to get more experience in the area I would like to work in. I am finishing a post grad in a well skilled area and have just been accepted for another postgrad as well as also doing voluntary work.

I am not working , HOWEVER I have self respect and I am working my ass off so that this time next year I will be in a really good position and shall be paying $$$$$$ in tax. You have been really shafted and I can understand your frustration however please don't tar us all with the one brush that's like saying that all landlords are greedy B's jumping on the current bandwagon. ( ps my landlord wants to increase my rent by 33 % )

pps I hope that you get your situation sorted in your favour.

murphaph

hdowney wrote: »

quite simply rents will increase. anyone who was letting a property on the borderline for RA and was a 'No RA Accepted' advertiser will increase to above the threshold and therefore cannot accept RA tenants for the simple reason that RA tenants must get a property with rent within the limits set by the Gov't

It's known that rents above the published limits are being sanctioned by the cwo's so this is no guarantee. Landlords will just need bank statements from now on from everyone.

Eric Cartman

having worked for and talked to many landlords, they all only take RA/ RS once.

Ive seen and been told about houses coming back filthy, mould all over everything , appliances and windows broken, electricity meters interfered with to illegally get free electricity, gas meters that had been bet with hammers. None of it reported. Thats before the noise complaints, gardai calling round and shouting matches at 3am in the middle of the street.

I would gladly make the statement that a large percentage, verging on a majority of RA tenants are the single most damaging thing you can put in a rental property.

Even the very good ones who try their hardest, simply do not have the money to maintain a house to a proper standard. With the best will in the world, they still don't have the money to pay for oil to keep the heating on, or to pay a plumber / electrician in an emergency when the landlord is not available.

LL's will find a way around this and I hope they do, I would never rent a property to a social welfare tenant based on all the horrors I've seen.

Hollister11

Can they ask for bank statements as proof of income to cover rent ?
If so they can use that as a reason to rent or not rent to someone

January

The only way a landlord should accept a RA tenant is by having the RA lodged directly into the landlords bank account and the remainder (the portion to be paid by the tenant) garnished from the tenants income at source.

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

having worked for and talked to many landlords, they all only take RA/ RS once.

Ive seen and been told about houses coming back filthy, mould all over everything , appliances and windows broken, electricity meters interfered with to illegally get free electricity, gas meters that had been bet with hammers. None of it reported. Thats before the noise complaints, gardai calling round and shouting matches at 3am in the middle of the street.

I would gladly make the statement that a large percentage, verging on a majority of RA tenants are the single most damaging thing you can put in a rental property.

Even the very good ones who try their hardest, simply do not have the money to maintain a house to a proper standard. With the best will in the world, they still don't have the money to pay for oil to keep the heating on, or to pay a plumber / electrician in an emergency when the landlord is not available.
.

Your statement is wrong .

hfallada

How is outlawing a LL from taking rent allowance going to make a difference,when rent allowance doesnt meet the market rent? Most LL dont rent to rent allowance tenants, not because of the type of individuals. But because rent allowance is simply too low for most places on the market.

The housing shortage is also due to local authorities, deciding they were going to sell their social housing to the people in it. But never actually replaced the tens of thousands of homes out of the social housing system. Even now most social housing in Dublin is such low density. Eg there is plenty of 2 storey council houses around Dublin 1. While the private apartment beside them are 6/7 storeys of high density housing. Local authorities should be penalised for selling their social housing in the future.

LifesgoodwithLG

"I would gladly make the statement that a large percentage, verging on a majority of RA tenants are the single most damaging thing you can put in a rental property" Anything to back this up with or I have to call this out as a very ignorant sweeping statement.

How about families with small children ? How about Students , how about dare I say it Foreign People / Throws out usual suspects.

I have just applied for RA and guess what I paid out 14, 000 in my last paycheque 6 months ago. Do you see any merit in differentiating between people who have never worked and those who have been recently made redundant ? My apartment ( although I rent I have lived here for 2 years and treat it as my home ) is in better condition now than when I moved in. I will continue to maintain it as I treat this as my home.

Landlords, this is your property and I completely understand that you have to protect it so please do diligent research before allowing people to move in.

Eric Cartman

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

"I would gladly make the statement that a large percentage, verging on a majority of RA tenants are the single most damaging thing you can put in a rental property" Anything to back this up with or I have to call this out as a very ignorant sweeping statement.

How about families with small children ? How about Students , how about dare I say it Foreign People / Throws out usual suspects.

I have just applied for RA and guess what I paid out 14, 000 in my last paycheque 6 months ago. Do you see any merit in differentiating between people who have never worked and those who have been recently made redundant ? My apartment ( although I rent I have lived here for 2 years and treat it as my home ) is in better condition now than when I moved in. I will continue to maintain it as I treat this as my home.

Landlords, this is your property and I completely understand that you have to protect it so please do diligent research before allowing people to move in.

yes, I do, if somebody moves into a house while employed, falls on hard times and takes up RA , then goes back to employment and gets off it , I've no issue with that, and in reality have seen many landlords who are staunchly anti-RA are quite amenable to this arrangement. The problem comes from the long term unemployed and people who show up on day 1 expecting to pay with RA, those tenants always leave a house in a worse than wear and tear state in my experience.

I do not have a peer reviewed study to prove my findings unfortunately, but I would argue that upwards of 50 landlords across 8 counties and a 100% negative response rate can't add up to nothing.

LifesgoodwithLG

I do not have a peer reviewed study to prove my findings unfortunately, but I would argue that upwards of 50 landlords across 8 counties and a 100% negative response rate can't add up to nothing.[/QUOTE]

So that's a no then ? :cool:

Eric Cartman

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

I do not have a peer reviewed study to prove my findings unfortunately, but I would argue that upwards of 50 landlords across 8 counties and a 100% negative response rate can't add up to nothing.

So that's a no then ? :cool:[/QUOTE]

if I was wrong surely landlords would jump at the chance to take guaranteed long term government money, instead of a law having to be brought in to stop them saying no.

if it was just a tax thing it would mean upwards of 80% of properties advertised on daft are being let by tax evaders.

Grandpa Hassan

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

So that's a no then ? :cool:

An overwhelming weightof anecdotes is enough for me.

As EC said, there is a reason why LLs steer clear.

Big Davey

It's not guaranteed ! Far from it. I would say having to deal with the pen pushers in welfare who have no grip on the real world is nearly worse when things go wrong.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So that's a no then ? :cool:

if I was wrong surely landlords would jump at the chance to take guaranteed long term government money, instead of a law having to be brought in to stop them saying no.

if it was just a tax thing it would mean upwards of 80% of properties advertised on daft are being let by tax evaders.[/QUOTE]

syklops

Dumb Landlord: I dont want to rent to you because you are on RS
Tenant :ZOMG. Discrimination!

Smart Landlord: Im sorry, the apartment has been taken by someone else.
Tenant: Kthxbye.

Aircraft Freak

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

An overwhelming weightof anecdotes is enough for me.

As EC said, there is a reason why LLs steer clear.

Back in the boom my father used to let out to RA and jumped at the chance, he had a few bad experiences, but back then he managed to get the social to pay for repairs( I'm not sure how?), these days he won't touch them with a barge pole. He's had to pay for repairs and a skip for a backgarden full of bins, ~150 rubbish bins was the estimate, I think he spent €5,000, between skips and repairing the house, the bastards took the staircase, no messing, you walk into the house and the bloody stairs was gone. Now he let the auctioneer look after getting tennants in as the house is in a different county, so he never met them face to face, after that he just said "professionals only" after that.

He thinks they burned it in the fire, there was a ladder where the staircase was to get upstairs.

Eric Cartman

syklops wrote: »

Dumb Landlord: I dont want to rent to you because you are on RS
Tenant :ZOMG. Discrimination!

Smart Landlord: Im sorry, the apartment has been taken by someone else.
Tenant: Kthxbye.

people on SW can be some of the most litigious in the country id say its more likely you'll have a few ambulance chasing chancer solicitors up in court trying to win a bit of compo for irelands 'must unfortunate'

Eric Cartman

Aircraft Freak wrote: »

Back in the boom my father used to let out to RA and jumped at the chance, he had a few bad experiences, but back then he managed to get the social to pay for repairs( I'm not sure how?), these days he won't touch them with a barge pole. He's had to pay for repairs and a skip for a backgarden full of bins, ~150 rubbish bins was the estimate, I think he spent €5,000, between skips and repairing the house, the bastards took the staircase, no messing, you walk into the house and the bloody stairs was gone. Now he let the auctioneer look after getting tennants in as the house is in a different county, so he never met them face to face, after that he just said "professionals only" after that.

He thinks they burned it in the fire, there was a ladder where the staircase was to get upstairs.

i wish I could say that shocked me, but I've seen the banisters taken off the stairs and burned in the fire, internal doors cut up for firewood too, your father unfortunately learned the hard way about the issues that arise.

the_syco

Months deposit, and months rent up front will prevent it from helping a lot of RA tenants.

If a the landlord demand that they pay in advance, rather than in arrears, this will mean constant eviction notices whilst the RA tenant waits for the welfare to come though in arrear.

Eric Cartman

the_syco wrote: »

Months deposit, and months rent up front will prevent it from helping a lot of RA tenants.

If a the landlord demand that they pay in advance, rather than in arrears, this will mean constant eviction notices whilst the RA tenant waits for the welfare to come though in arrear.

those are like a red rag to a bull though , eviction notices move the landlord from the category of 'sound lad' to 'b*stard conspiring against me' and the revenge damage comes in to play.

Grandpa Hassan

the_syco wrote: »

Months deposit, and months rent up front will prevent it from helping a lot of RA tenants.

If a the landlord demand that they pay in advance, rather than in arrears, this will mean constant eviction notices whilst the RA tenant waits for the welfare to come though in arrear.

Payment in advance is surely required by almost all landlords.....

So I guess that makes this whole conversation pretty much redundant as that is not something that RA tenants can generally do

Aircraft Freak

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those are like a red rag to a bull though , eviction notices move the landlord from the category of 'sound lad' to 'b*stard conspiring against me' and the revenge damage comes in to play.

Yup, especially when arrears arise, it's tear the place down time, "fcuking not paying rent this month, toilets blocked, have to pay for that" well then stop flushing baby wipes down there!? "The front door is squeaking", " the neighbours are noisy, I'm not paying for that"

But they wouldn't pay for the poxy bins? There was rats everywhere, embarrassing having to apologise to people that bought the houses next door, and walk away with your tail between your legs, you'd swear you did the damage.