'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

stevek93

Does anyone know why rent allowance option has been removed from daft?

The_Morrigan

stevek93 wrote: »

Does anyone know why rent allowance option has been removed from daft?

I'm gonna hazard a guess here and go with - covering their ass.

If a landlord can't use it as criteria within an ad, then there is no need for a search option to be available.

MarkAnthony

Not law yet as far as I know but I'm sure they want to avoid headlines.

The_Conductor

They were brought in and specifically requested to remove it by DSP (for at least the second time- possibly the third time). As per previously- they complied with the official request. Its not the first time that they've removed the search criteria- though they restored it rapidly in the past, when both tenants and landlords requested them to do so.

iainBB

I see new add on daft are say must be " full professional" or "must work full time"

PucaMama

iainBB wrote: »

I see new add on daft are say must be " full professional" or "must work full time"

Ah those clever landlords always find their ways to discriminate

The_Conductor

iainBB wrote: »

I see new add on daft are say must be " full professional" or "must work full time"

Alternatively seek a significantly higher deposit from someone who doesn't work fulltime or is not a professional- in view of the fact that they are present in the property for a far higher proportion of the day, and likely to have a far higher attrition rate on furniture, fixtures and fittings- than someone who is out of the house for 14-15 hours of the day..........? Seems reasonable..........?

It wouldn't rule out those on social welfare- but it would recognise that they are clearly a different category of tenant than someone who only sleeps in the property?

The whole rule on ruling out RA as a search criteria for tenants and landlords- is most half-baked nonsense the government have come up with in a long time. Its clearly unworkable- and only annoys absolutely everyone.

pillphil

The_Conductor wrote: »

Alternatively seek a significantly higher deposit from someone who doesn't work fulltime or is not a professional- in view of the fact that they are present in the property for a far higher proportion of the day, and likely to have a far higher attrition rate on furniture, fixtures and fittings- than someone who is out of the house for 14-15 hours of the day..........? Seems reasonable..........?

It wouldn't rule out those on social welfare- but it would recognise that they are clearly a different category of tenant than someone who only sleeps in the property?

The whole rule on ruling out RA as a search criteria for tenants and landlords- is most half-baked nonsense the government have come up with in a long time. Its clearly unworkable- and only annoys absolutely everyone.

How would a larger deposit help? You can't deduct for normal wear and tear.

The_Morrigan

pillphil wrote: »

How would a larger deposit help? You can't deduct for normal wear and tear.

You can deduct for wear and tear that is over and above 'normal'.

For instance, if a brand new sofa is put in the property on day one and it's falling apart by day 365 that is not normal wear and tear. I have a second hand sofa in my house 4 years it is still in perfect condition there is no way a sofa should need to be replaced under normal circumstances after a year.

The assumption is made that it is of a certain quality to begin with.

The_Conductor

pillphil wrote: »

How would a larger deposit help? You can't deduct for normal wear and tear.

Don't deduct for normal wear and tear.
Deduct for damage over and above normal wear and tear.
Document everything carefully- using photographic and video evidence.
Do not leave any loose ends.
Do not deduct for anything you can't stand over.

January

I've seen a good few ads on daft in the last few days saying No Rent Allowance in the ad.

The_Conductor

January wrote: »

I've seen a good few ads on daft in the last few days saying No Rent Allowance in the ad.

Ditto. It looks like its only the search criteria that has been nuked- the actual text of advertisements seems to be business as usual.......

matrim

The_Conductor wrote: »

Alternatively seek a significantly higher deposit from someone who doesn't work fulltime or is not a professional- in view of the fact that they are present in the property for a far higher proportion of the day, and likely to have a far higher attrition rate on furniture, fixtures and fittings- than someone who is out of the house for 14-15 hours of the day..........? Seems reasonable..........?

It wouldn't rule out those on social welfare- but it would recognise that they are clearly a different category of tenant than someone who only sleeps in the property?

The whole rule on ruling out RA as a search criteria for tenants and landlords- is most half-baked nonsense the government have come up with in a long time. Its clearly unworkable- and only annoys absolutely everyone.

But it would still be normal wear and tear so you couldn't deduct for it.

The_Conductor

matrim wrote: »

But it would still be normal wear and tear so you couldn't deduct for it.

Yes- but presumably a RA/RS tenant wouldn't be able to pay 3 months of a deposit- so you'd end up with your preferred tenants anyway- without running afoul of discriminatory advertisements........

And- if a RA/RS tenant was able to pay the deposit- you can be damn sure they'd take great care of the property........

RA/RS tenants have no vested interest in the property- sure social welfare pay the deposit anyway. This attitude is what wrecks it for so many people........

Tar.Aldarion

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- but presumably a RA/RS tenant wouldn't be able to pay 3 months of a deposit- so you'd end up with your preferred tenants anyway- without running afoul of discriminatory advertisements........

And- if a RA/RS tenant was able to pay the deposit- you can be damn sure they'd take great care of the property........

RA/RS tenants have no vested interest in the property- sure social welfare pay the deposit anyway. This attitude is what wrecks it for so many people........

That last be permeates to anybody with a bad mindset, they merely use the deposit as the last months rent. For 3 months that's harder all right but I imagine a lot of people will stop paying if they've messed up the place as it takes so long to remove them.

The_Conductor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That last be permeates to anybody with a bad mindset, they merely use the deposit as the last months rent. For 3 months that's harder all right but I imagine a lot of people will stop paying if they've messed up the place as it takes so long to remove them.

In which case- the system needs to be changed- so that people are not handed deposit after deposit on a plate. Landlord's need to take cases at the PRTB- its there to protect both tenants and landlords- and if tenants misbehave- there deserves to be a record of their misbehaviour on file- aside from anything else- it would protect prospective landlords from them in future.

The system is so piss poor its not funny. The manner in which the government has abdicated all responsibility for housing a significant portion of the population who are not capable of housing themselves- is almost criminal.......

Polo_Mint

This Topic wont make any difference.

Landlords will ask for References from your last landlord and also Employer

If you dont have an Employer reference then it will be tough luck

Ive been asked for an Employer reference the last 2 places ive rented

Tar.Aldarion

Polo_Mint wrote: »

This Topic wont make any difference.

Landlords will ask for References from your last landlord and also Employer

If you dont have an Employer reference then it will be tough luck

Ive been asked for an Employer reference the last 2 places ive rented

I've seen these faked multiple times with success. Bank statements too. It's a hard system to stop being abused.

The_Conductor wrote: »

In which case- the system needs to be changed- so that people are not handed deposit after deposit on a plate. Landlord's need to take cases at the PRTB- its there to protect both tenants and landlords- and if tenants misbehave- there deserves to be a record of their misbehaviour on file- aside from anything else- it would protect prospective landlords from them in future.

The system is so piss poor its not funny. The manner in which the government has abdicated all responsibility for housing a significant portion of the population who are not capable of housing themselves- is almost criminal.......

It's diabolical for all involved, I hate how renting is handled here, and it's just not getting better.

Gatling

There is no unlimited deposits handed out by the welfare .
A lot of the times people have and do pay there own deposits,
As it stands now you have to be privately renting for 6 months and show you were paying your rent before you can get rent supplement and or been accepted on to the housing lists but in most cases now you have to have satisfied both requirements before you get rent supplement.

yeah the system is broke but practically criminalising 90,000 currently on the housing lists is completely unjustified been honest .

Every landlord or friends of landlords have plenty of antidotes about big bad rs tenants just as much we hear of the big bad landlord who's thinks people on rs are easy prey when it comes to withholding deposits .

Correct me if I'm wrong but tenants rents whole properties not just a bed to sleep in or am I missing something .

I've been in my current apartment 3 years now 2 brand new couches from bargin town lasted 6 weeks before the base came away from the couches leaving them badly dipped landlord inspected them and agreed they were faulty but decided not to change them .
Other than that out place in spotless that's with 2 young kids .

runawaybishop

Gatling wrote: »

There is no unlimited deposits handed out by the welfare .
A lot of the times people have and do pay there own deposits,
As it stands now you have to be privately renting for 6 months and show you were paying your rent before you can get rent supplement and or been accepted on to the housing lists but in most cases now you have to have satisfied both requirements before you get rent supplement.

yeah the system is broke but practically criminalising 90,000 currently on the housing lists is completely unjustified been honest .

Every landlord or friends of landlords have plenty of antidotes about big bad rs tenants just as much we hear of the big bad landlord who's thinks people on rs are easy prey when it comes to withholding deposits .

Correct me if I'm wrong but tenants rents whole properties not just a bed to sleep in or am I missing something .

I've been in my current apartment 3 years now 2 brand new couches from bargin town lasted 6 weeks before the base came away from the couches leaving them badly dipped landlord inspected them and agreed they were faulty but decided not to change them .
Other than that out place in spotless that's with 2 young kids .

So why do you think this legislation is being pushed through? Why do you think LLs do not want to take RA tenants? There is clearly an issue with the perception of RA tenants and LLs have no recourse if any issues do arise so it is simply easier to not allow them. The problem is not the LLs here, it is the RA system.

Gatling

runawaybishop wrote: »

So why do you think this legislation is being pushed through? Why do you think LLs do not want to take RA tenants? There is clearly an issue with the perception of RA tenants and LLs have no recourse if any issues do arise so it is simply easier to not allow them. The problem is not the LLs here, it is the RA system.

Oh yeah perception is the problem here ,
But landlords and I'd say it's now the majority are only interested in money ,but I've said this before its a charity but a business .

I'd guarantee you anything if the government decided to pay the current going rates and cover everything including from wear and tear to serious stuff without any funds required from the landlords they would be queuing up to take tenants on rs due to maximum profits and zero expenditure or liability .

If rather see non furnished properties to become standard that way tenants have to furnish them ,
And a minimum age before one can apply for rs .

The_Conductor

Gatling wrote: »

Oh yeah perception is the problem here ,
But landlords and I'd say it's now the majority are only interested in money ,but I've said this before its a charity but a business .

I'd guarantee you anything if the government decided to pay the current going rates and cover everything including from wear and tear to serious stuff without any funds required from the landlords they would be queuing up to take tenants on rs due to maximum profits and zero expenditure or liability .

If rather see non furnished properties to become standard that way tenants have to furnish them ,
And a minimum age before one can apply for rs .

The problem is not just perception though.

Normal tenants pay their rent in advance.
RA tenants pay it in arrears.

Normal tenants do not seek to reduce the rent with no warning.
RA tenants are at the whim of the government- who do this regularly.

Normal tenants do not seek to rent the property at a discount to the open market rate.
RA tenants do.

Yes- you are paying for more than simply a bed to lie on- but the point I was making is that professionals will be out of the property for a significant portion of the day- and consequently produce less wear and tear on furniture, fixtures and fittings- than do other categories of tenants.

The icing on the cake- is that landlords are being penalised with the tax regime- it is almost as though there is a concerted effort to get landlords to divest themselves of property- it simply doesn't pay to let property anymore. The only winner in the whole transaction- is the government- its certainly not the landlord- and its definitely not the tenant..........

The government has successfully abdicated its responsibility to house those incapable of housing themselves- to the private sector. They don't want to pay for it however...........

January

The_Conductor wrote: »

The problem is not just perception though.

Normal tenants pay their rent in advance.
RA tenants pay it in arrears.

Normal tenants do not seek to reduce the rent with no warning.
RA tenants are at the whim of the government- who do this regularly.

Normal tenants do not seek to rent the property at a discount to the open market rate.
RA tenants do.

Yes- you are paying for more than simply a bed to lie on- but the point I was making is that professionals will be out of the property for a significant portion of the day- and consequently produce less wear and tear on furniture, fixtures and fittings- than do other categories of tenants.

The icing on the cake- is that landlords are being penalised with the tax regime- it is almost as though there is a concerted effort to get landlords to divest themselves of property- it simply doesn't pay to let property anymore. The only winner in the whole transaction- is the government- its certainly not the landlord- and its definitely not the tenant..........

The government has successfully abdicated its responsibility to house those incapable of housing themselves- to the private sector. They don't want to pay for it however...........

I'm on RA, my rent is paid for in advance. I made sure of this when I was taking the house. I paid first months rent and deposit myself and now the rent is always in advance. Not all RA tenants are bad.

Cuddlesworth

January wrote: »

Not all RA tenants are bad.

Nobody has ever said that. But a much higher proportion of them in comparison to private tenants are.

The_Conductor

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nobody has ever said that. But a much higher proportion of them in comparison to private tenants are.

Exactly. Most students are fine too- however, a small but significant cohort ruin things for others.......

Fair play to you January- if others were as diligent as you- there wouldn't be any problem- unfortunately- you are the exception rather than the rule.

Having met you a few times- if I had a property to let- I'd let it to you in a heartbeat- I honestly couldn't say the same thing about any other tenant-

I'm suspicious by nature- and my brothers and sisters have been badly burnt by tenants in the past (aside from spending the RA allowance on god only knows what- one tenant thought it was fine to light a barbeque next to a gas tank (at the back of Jury's off Bridge Street in Galway). The structural damage that tenant caused- cost over 80k to repair. That particular tenant vanished overnight- leaving 4 months of unpaid bills- and gaping holes in the masonry walls- in their wake..........

I have seen worse case scenarios- and then run of the mill bad cases- more times than I care to remember. Unfortunately- a significant cohort of tenants know the law- and know how the PRTB works- and know how to use these salient points to their advantage. For a landlord- getting their property back without serious damage- even if they haven't been paid rent in over a year- is often a best case scenario. Quite often there is significant damage involved. My brother has spent over 5k on deepcleaning in the last 5 years- and has had 2 tenants, in the same period, who overstayed without paying rent for a combined period of 32 months.

Gatling

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nobody has ever said that. But a much higher proportion of them in comparison to private tenants are.

Based off what exactly antidotal posts on here or actual data

The_Conductor

Gatling wrote: »

Based off what exactly antidotal posts on here or actual data

There isn't actual data- because there isn't anything in it for landlords to take their delinquint tenants to court. Why go to the hassle and bother- its costly- and time consuming- when you're handed a judgement that you can't enforce because the tenant has no means..........

Tenants know this- and play the system for what its worth. Many decent honest tenants who would be a joy to rent to- get caught up in the cross-fire.

There aren't statistics- because other than out of sheer persistence when landlords are so annoyed that they pursue cases anyway- cases are never lodged. Landlords consider themselves very lucky to get property back undamaged- even after rent hasn't been paid for a protracted period of time. Keep in mind- even after you exhaust the PRTB process- you then have to go to court to get an order to have a tenant vacate a property- it really is a best case scenario when the tenant vanishes in the dead of night- even when they leave tens of thousands in unpaid rent and other bills........

Cuddlesworth

Gatling wrote: »

Based off what exactly antidotal posts on here or actual data

Based off landlords experience. You can argue all you want, there are plenty of reasons why a bare handful of properties in the greater Dublin region accept RA. Damage is one of them.

Gatling

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Based off landlords experience. You can argue all you want, there are plenty of reasons why a bare handful of properties in the greater Dublin region accept RA. Damage is one of them.

As I said earlier if rs covered the current going rates and removed any financial liability for landlords in terms of redecorating ,wear and tear and more serious stuff they would be queuing up to get rs tentants in the door .

I'm not arguing but demonising 90,000 people give or take currently getting rs while waiting to be housed is stupid Rediculous .

It's another bubble wanting to implode

mikemac1

Must be working full time
No students
Professional wanted to share with........

The filter button may be gone but the info is just in the ad these days.