'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

conorhal

It's depressing and frustrating that five minutes reading this thread would provide a more workable and sensible solution to the problems facing RA tenents then Aodhan O' Riordain, a government minister, can offer. This isn't an equality issue, it's a comon sense issue and all this half assed legislation does is confirm to me that the 'equaladeeee!' brigade with their ideological bias do more harm then good to those they claim to help.

What's more shocking then depressing however is the fact that O' Riordain isn't stupid, so he must know that the net result of this legislation will be to drive up rent beyond the RA caps on the few properties within the reach of RA tenents and drive casual landlords out of the market because it's simply not worth the hassle thus reducing supply. That makes this legislations such a breathtaking act of cynical PR politics that you have to wonder at the mindset of such a minister. I really hope that 'lanky parasite' looses his seat in the next election.

ShaShaBear

I've had to claim rent allowance once, and will be shortly claiming it again as recommended by my landlord. I have left every property I have lived in in much better condition than I found it (including the highly dangerous and illegal solicitor's basement with no windows, ventilation or fire escapes I was forced to rent because I was on a social welfare payment.). I have made vast improvements to this house with savings so that it would be safe and clean for my daughter - so much so that my landlord has agreed to subsidise the installation of more wooden floors as the price of getting the carpets industrially-cleaned is so costly. I have always paid my deposit and rent up front and have never, even when on rent allowance, paid my rent in arrears. Because, like most other normal people, I save my excess for a rainy day. The joint payment myself and my partner get is more than sufficient to keep us afloat and spending it all for the craic just to see the landlord sell up and leave us homeless is downright stupid.

Although, given this is currently the only property in this town that is under limits for rent allowance and suitable for a baby, if he did sell up we would, in fact, be homeless.
But that's okay for people like us.

kampik

ted1 wrote: »

So your on RA, co sharing a rental property that is in your name.
Are you sub letting ? If the property is in your name, the lease would say X amount. Do you get X amount from the DSP, because they will only allow you to top up by a small amount.

I wouldn't go further on this as it would take ages to explain I agreed to share with a group of students who were slowly dropping out and after six months we had to take new people to afford the rent until the contract was up. I had to go in debt on my credit card(which I kept from the good times) and it took me about year and half to pay that bad experience back.
Its a thing of past, lesson (not to house share) was learned and now we, family, live on our own.

Grandpa Hassan

I'm sorry shadhabear. You sound like a model tenant but unfortunately are lumped in with the rest. Private LLs have been burned by this scheme so many times that it is just not worth the risk. I feel for you, but it's not the LLs fault. The blame lies with the government for persevering with a dysfunctional RA system

iainBB

What are the current legal ways you can choose/determine a tenant?

murphaph

ted1 wrote: »

The landlord also furnaces the revenue commissioner with a copy of his annual accounts

That's a great mental picture! The poor taxman in the fire!

john kinsella

Landlords will have to deal with their insurance policy implications too if they accept RA.

I was on a well known insurance company's website the other day and they state the following:


'If the home is Let, the term of the lease is at least 6 months and the leaseholder is in full time employment or is a parent caring for children on a full time basis'

Obviously not all RA recipients are not working but I'd imagine a fair few would be.

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

Landlords will have to deal with their insurance policy implications too if they accept RA.

I was on a well known insurance company's website the other day and they state the following:


'If the home is Let, the term of the lease is at least 6 months and the leaseholder is in full time employment or is a parent caring for children on a full time basis'

Obviously not all RA recipients are not working but I'd imagine a fair few would be.

or is a parent caring for children on a full time basis

^^

Grandpa Hassan

iainBB wrote: »

What are the current legal ways you can choose/determine a tenant?

Whether you like them?

Seriously though, with maybe 20 potential tenants applying, the LL will pick the one that he / she feels comfortable with. As long as the LL does not document a reason as to why he has turned others down there is really nothing that can be found against them. It is not like other services as there is only one property....so there is no discrimination inherent in turning people down. Those who look for discrimiation everywhere would probably have the LL toss a coin!

john kinsella

runawaybishop wrote: »

or is a parent caring for children on a full time basis

^^

A parent is singular. So no two adult families with kids.

That would remove a lot of people from the market would it not?

MouseTail

iainBB wrote: »

What are the current legal ways you can choose/determine a tenant?

You cannot choose or not choose a tenant based on:
Gender, marriage status, family status, age, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, membership of the travelling community.

So, in theory, those ads for 'no couples' or 'would suit professional female' are illegal.

The Act does not apply to rent a room scheme.

I cannot see how the proposal is workable or policeable. How on earth would you prove, as a group of 20 people competing to rent a place that you didn't get it because you are a RA recipient.

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

A parent is singular. So no two adult families with kids.

That would remove a lot of people from the market would it not?

Nope, each parent is full time caring.

Also, family status is protected and cannot be discriminated against.

ABajaninCork

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I've had to claim rent allowance once, and will be shortly claiming it again as recommended by my landlord. I have left every property I have lived in in much better condition than I found it (including the highly dangerous and illegal solicitor's basement with no windows, ventilation or fire escapes I was forced to rent because I was on a social welfare payment.). I have made vast improvements to this house with savings so that it would be safe and clean for my daughter - so much so that my landlord has agreed to subsidise the installation of more wooden floors as the price of getting the carpets industrially-cleaned is so costly. I have always paid my deposit and rent up front and have never, even when on rent allowance, paid my rent in arrears. Because, like most other normal people, I save my excess for a rainy day. The joint payment myself and my partner get is more than sufficient to keep us afloat and spending it all for the craic just to see the landlord sell up and leave us homeless is downright stupid.

Although, given this is currently the only property in this town that is under limits for rent allowance and suitable for a baby, if he did sell up we would, in fact, be homeless.
But that's okay, sure we're only some sort of scumbags

Totally agree with this. It's depressing to read the oh so predictable responses on this thread. We've had to claim the RA too. Thank God we don't need to claim at the moment as the process is beyond humiliating. But we're a regular couple. We have a dog (with the LL's permission), pay the rent, keep the place clean and in a good state of repair. For some funny reason we think this is our HOME, and treat the property like one rather than a doss house.

BTW - What does a scumbag look like? We have no clue, having never hung around any even though I still claim Welfare.

runawaybishop

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Totally agree with this. It's depressing to read the oh so predictable responses on this thread. We've had to claim the RA too. Thank God we don't need to claim at the moment as the process is beyond humiliating. But we're a regular couple. We have a dog (with the LL's permission), pay the rent, keep the place clean and in a good state of repair. For some funny reason we think this is our HOME, and treat the property like one rather than a doss house.

BTW - What does a scumbag look like? We have no clue, having never hung around any even though I still claim Welfare.

If the RA system was working well why would these proposed steps be required? It clearly isn't working and LLs are not happy about renting to people on RA. The proposed steps will not in any way address the underlying issue with the system and LL will just continue to refuse RA applicants, just not openly.

ABajaninCork

runawaybishop wrote: »

If the RA system was working well why would these proposed steps be required? It clearly isn't working and LLs are not happy about renting to people on RA. The proposed steps will not in any way address the underlying issue with the system and LL will just continue to refuse RA applicants, just not openly.

It doesn't take Einstein to figure that out. It was mentioned earlier in the thread. We're very lucky we have a decent LL who understood when times were hard.

IMO the RA system does NOT work and it needs to be completely overhauled. When the RA was cut a few years ago, the new limits set a completely unrealistic floor in the market. It is now difficult, if not impossible to find somewhere half decent to live particularly in Dublin and Cork that is within the RA limits and a LL willing to take it.

john kinsella

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nope, each parent is full time caring.

Also, family status is protected and cannot be discriminated against.

Nope, you're wrong I'm afraid. The policy clearly states a parent. Not parents.

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

Nope, you're wrong I'm afraid. The policy clearly states a parent. Not parents.

Policy is illegal.

john kinsella

runawaybishop wrote: »

Policy is illegal.

Is a general assumption before the policy is taken out. The policyholder must tick a box that they have agreed to the assumptions which the above is one.

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

Is a general assumption before the policy is taken out. The policyholder must tick a box that they have agreed to the assumptions which the above is one.

Doesn't matter what it is, family status is protected and cannot be discriminated against.

john kinsella

runawaybishop wrote: »

Doesn't matter what it is, family status is protected and cannot be discriminated against.

Insurance companies can I'm afraid. Home insurance is not mandatory so they can put whatever restrictions they want on a policy. It is up to the potential policy holder to either accept their terms or not.

Del2005

Aircraft Freak wrote: »

Direct payment to land lord and damage repair money from the state would solve the issue.

As long as any payments from the state are reduced till the repair cost has been covered with interest.

Wabbit Ears

Del2005 wrote: »

As long as any payments from the state are reduced till the repair cost has been covered with interest.

^^
This

If the state is paying peoples rent they should also take responsibility to pay their debts and damages directly from the persons SW payments. Until this is brought into policy the situation will never change.

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

Insurance companies can I'm afraid. Home insurance is not mandatory so they can put whatever restrictions they want on a policy. It is up to the potential policy holder to either accept their terms or not.

Nope, there are specific cases where it is allowed. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate on sex any more and certainly not on family status.

January

kampik wrote: »

I know a lot of people who are working full time and don't have money or simply don't pay for rent because they don't care.
I had never missed payment on RA and even many times helped to pay for working friends.
The conclusion: RA doesn't mean troublesome tenant. What determines the tenant is personality...

PS: one of the reasons why they wouldn't send the money straight to LL is probably that you have to show yourself every week in the post office to prove that you are not on holidays

Well that's bull because our RA is payed straight into our landlords account every month via EFT and then we pay him our portion also through EFT.

Captain Chaos

January wrote: »

Well that's bull because our RA is payed straight into our landlords account every month via EFT and then we pay him our portion also through EFT.

Thought you were not allowed to add to the RA amount? Is that not what's pushing rents even higher.

In Dublin the RA won't cover most places not so can't be used anyway. The LLs have priced the market out of RA range so they don't have to deal with it.

john kinsella

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nope, there are specific cases where it is allowed. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate on sex any more and certainly not on family status.

Nope, You are talking about motor insurance.

Home insurance is not mandatory therefore they can add whatever wording they feel like.

ShaShaBear

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Thought you were not allowed to add to the RA amount? Is that not what's pushing rents even higher.

In Dublin the RA won't cover most places not so can't be used anyway. The LLs have priced the market out of RA range so they don't have to deal with it.

The claimant has a portion they must pay and social welfare covers the rest. It's thirty euro for a single person or forty for a couple regardless of the rent.

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

Nope, You are talking about motor insurance.

Home insurance is not mandatory therefore they can add whatever wording they feel like.

Being mandatory means nothing. You cannot discriminate except in very particular circumstances, i'e love to see where insurance companies have an exemption to discriminate based on family status.

john kinsella

runawaybishop wrote: »

Being mandatory means nothing. You cannot discriminate except in very particular circumstances, i'e love to see where insurance companies have an exemption to discriminate based on family status.

Look it up

runawaybishop

john kinsella wrote: »

Look it up

Great response, never thought to look it up.

9. Is different treatment on the basis of risk allowed in relation to insurance, annuities, pensions etc.?

In relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies and other matters related to the assessment of risk, differences in treatment are permitted only if they can be justified by actuarial or statistical data from a source on which it is reasonably to rely, or other relevant underwriting or commercial factors, and the difference in treatment is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors.

So, again, i'd like to see where insurance companies have an exemption to discriminate based on family status.