'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

Grandpa Hassan

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

This is completely irrelevent. We are not talking about pricing here or availability of insurance. We are talking about a limited supply of a product at a given price, and a selection of who will be offered it.

A LL with one property and multiple tenants will make a risk assessment and based on his personal risk appetite will decide whether or not to rent a place to a family or a single person. That is their perogative, and their decision will be based on their own prejudices.

You can't legislate that out. It's just a fact of life.

runawaybishop

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

We are not talking about pricing here or availability of insurance.

Actually, I was.

Grandpa Hassan

runawaybishop wrote: »

Actually, I was.

Okay. I'll rephrase. What has that got to do with the selection of a tenant by a LL?

Nothing

kampik

Kampik wrote:

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

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.

No need to say "bull" when I expressed my own idea and used the word "probably". I didn't say that it is like that but it is one of the possible reasons. I never heard of RA being paid directly to LL and I don't know anybody who has it that way.

SW website Q/A

15.Can the Rent Supplement be paid to Landlord directly?

In most cases payment is made to you, the tenant. However payment of your Rent Supplement can be made to the landlord if you request it and if the officer dealing with your claims agrees to it. Even if your Rent Supplement is paid direct to your landlord, you will still have to pay your landlord a minimum of €30 (for single people) or €40 (for couples) per week.

This indicates to me that SW prefer the post office collection and direct payment to LL must be approved. I think most of the people would agree with RA to be paid directly to LL if they got it offered. That never happened to me.

runawaybishop

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Okay. I'll rephrase. What has that got to do with the selection of a tenant by a LL?

Nothing

Incorrect, its entirely germane. If discrimination is allowed based on family status then companies can refuse to insure LLs with RA tenants who would not easily fall into the situation below. If such discrimination is not allowed then it is not an issue. Hence the discussion.

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.

Big Davey

Let's hope they backdate it too as I am out thousands and the social welfare virtually sniggered at me when I brought my case to their attention.
I faced what can only be described as a brick wall of pen pushers.

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

^^
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.

campingcarist

ShaShaBear wrote: »

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.

Surely that's discrimination against a single person.
30 for a single
40 for a couple
Singles always seem to lose out!!

January

campingcarist wrote: »

Surely that's discrimination against a single person.
30 for a single
40 for a couple
Singles always seem to lose out!!

We pay 50 per week.

The_Conductor

jd wrote: »

I guess landlords will look for 2 month's deposit + 1 month rent in advance, and advertise it so. So for a 2 bedroom apartment in Dub 9 you'd need to get the guts of 4k together. Simplest way of defending yourself against equality law

Its nothing whatsoever to do with the equality law.
Most sane landlords already seek 2 month's rent as a deposit- alongside 1 months' rent in advance. When you are letting a furnished apartment- a month's rent doesn't cut it as a deposit- and now you have Irish Water claiming they are entitled to preferential payment from tenants' deposits- which is taking the piss.

Irish people have a ridiculously poor opinion of renting- despite having very strong legislation protecting tenants (landlord's however get battered and bruised anytime they try to assert their rights- often to things as fundamental as having rent paid- period). The 2004 Act is stronger tenancy legislation than in most European countries- contrary to what most Irish people seem to imagine. Why it enshrines the notion of furnished property- I will never know..........

Until such time as the PRTB get their skates on and deal with any issues that arise in a prompt manner- you will have people taking the piss.

Landlords don't have to do anything at all to exclude RA tenants- other than seek the rent in advance- as they seek it from every other person. Why landlords should take getting paid in arrears from RA tenants- when there are plenty of tenants out there who are happy to pay like anyone else- is something that never ceases to surprise.

The_Conductor

January wrote: »

We pay 50 per week.

It depends on which local authority you live in- there are different limits. Someone posted a map with the different limit brackets in this forum before- I'll see if I can find it. From memory- Dublin City Council and SDCC were joint top.

kampik

campingcarist wrote: »

Surely that's discrimination against a single person.
30 for a single
40 for a couple
Singles always seem to lose out!!

I think it's always the other way.
Couple has much lower max rent limit than two singles.
E.g. Cork

Maximum rent per month-
Single person in shared accommodation €250
Couple in shared accommodation €270
Single person €485
Couple with no children €575

Source: cannot post proper link... www citizensinformation ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html

So if you had a couple and one more person in a house, the single could have rent up to 250 a month but the couple only 270 combined. That means around 135 each... This makes almost impossible to house share as a couple on RA

jobbridge4life

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its nothing whatsoever to do with the equality law.
Most sane landlords already seek 2 month's rent as a deposit- alongside 1 months' rent in advance.

That is utter fiction.

The_Morrigan

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is utter fiction.

Nope it isn't.
We have regular posters here who are landlords and this is what they require.

jobbridge4life

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Nope it isn't.
We have regular posters here who are landlords and this is what they require.

Well I am renter in the private market as are 100% of my friends who don't live at home. In the Dublin market I'll add and I have never once been asked or heard of people being asked for two months of a deposit.

The_Morrigan

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Well I am renter in the private market as are 100% of my friends who don't live at home. In the Dublin market I'll add and I have never once been asked or heard of people being asked for two months of a deposit.

It's a recent phenomenon and quite true. Just do a search on the forum.

jobbridge4life

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's a recent phenomenon and quite true. Just do a search on the forum.

I'll prefer my personal experience and that of everyone I meet over the random internet mutterings of landlords with agendas.

The_Morrigan

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'll prefer my personal experience and that of everyone I meet over the random internet mutterings of landlords with agendas.

You do that.

It doesn't mean that the personal experiences of other forum users are any less correct.

Also...Mod Bit..don't make generalisations about the entire landlord base. It's against the charter.

The_Conductor

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'll prefer my personal experience and that of everyone I meet over the random internet mutterings of landlords with agendas.

A landlord's agenda is to be paid rent, and to have a deposit sufficient to cover any damage over and above normal wear and tear. Unfortunately- and increasingly- tenants don't fulfill their end of the bargain.

Its also a recent phenomenon for landlords to accept rent in arrears from certain cohorts of tenants- this doesn't make this practice any more right or wrong.

I have plenty of friends renting- the vast majority of them do not pay 2 month's deposit to their landlords- however, 3 that I am aware of- 2 in Dublin, one in Cunningham Road, the other one in Smithfield- do. The third that I am aware of- is in Galway. These are people who I know personally- not from this forum. All of them really liked the properties they are renting- and accepted that one of the terms of dealing with their landlord was that it required a larger deposit. They are in fully furnished properties- in very good locations- and they acknowledged this- and paid the requested deposit. If you are unwilling to- that is entirely your business. Indeed- depending on where property is- it may be wholly unfeasible to get a second month's deposit from prospective tenants- but increasingly it is being sought, and is being achieved- and if you or your friends aren't happy to pay it- someone else will be.

Aside from anything else- people are far more likely to take better care of a property- when they have a vested interest in doing so- than when the deposit is set at an artificially low level, not commensurate with the risk factor of letting it to a tenant.

It is quite normal in most other markets- to have as a minimum 2 month's rent of a deposit (3 in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and some other places)- and it is also quite normal to let properties wholly unfurnished- and for tenants to clean them and have them inspected when vacating them. In Switzerland- this extends to repainting the property. The same goes for selling a property- it is sold as you would find a new house- freshly painted.

Ireland the UK have some weird and warped ideas of renting- quite at odds with almost everywhere else in the globe.

Icepick

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

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

Hopefully they won't do it as it's actually grossly unfair to people paying rent with their earnings.
Rent supplements have deformed the market and if anything, they should be scrapped.

unreg999

Eric Cartman wrote:

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

I totally disagree with you & find your remarks about 'all people on RA being scumbags' completely derogatory & insulting.
As a single Mother left in a huge amout of debt by the ex, I have not worked in a number if years. I had a VERY good job but the high cost of childcare forced me out of the workplace.
Therefore I have been on RA now for a good few years. I have GLOWING reports & recommendations from each & every ll I have rented from, never missed a payment or ever had a problem. In fact, two in particular stated that I had left the house in better condition than any other tenant before!
Yes it can be a struggle to pay bills, heating etc but working people not on RA struggle too I'm sure! As I am sure working people can be just as likely to be scumbags & trash a house/not pay rent!!

Any time I've been moving & contacted a ll or agency about 'no RA' stated on the ad. it has generally been made clear to me that it is only because of tax non-compliance !

Personally I find your comments insulting generalisations & pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you never find yourself in hard times & having to join the legions of 'scumbags' on SW & RA...

unreg999

murphaph wrote:

Why should these tenants be absolved of all social responsibility by the state (taxpayer) though? People who willfully damage property, especially when it is provided to them free of charge, should be left homeless. We have ZERO moral obligation to help this sort of person.

it's not free of charge... I pay 33e out of my One Parent Family Allowance per week towards my rent as is the standard. Try doing the math figuring in bills, food, heating, clothes, school costs, travel etc etc etc

The_Morrigan

unreg999 I realise this is an emotive topic, but accusing another person of using a derogatory term, when in fact they have not will not help the situation at all.



Also, a reminder to all, the charter forbids a 'Them vs Us' type of discussion, there is an awful lot of generalisations coming from both sides here. If you can't have a discussion about a topic without it resulting in petty squabbling, oneupmanship and personalisation of your posts towards other people we will lock up the thread like so many other threads surrounding RA that have gone before.
You are all supposed to be adults here engaging in proper discussion and debate, not mud slinging.

There are both sides to this issue and neither side are doing themselves any favours here as far as I can see.

mikemac1

Good times for Vodafone and Three

A tenant now has to make twenty plus phone calls for properties they have no chance of getting

iainBB

mikemac1 wrote: »

Good times for Vodafone and Three

A tenant now has to make twenty plus phone calls for properties they have no chance of getting

Also they will have to turn up to view with no chance of getting as I guess you can't ask they question on the phone.

I am new to the job of landlord and no intention of having individuals in my property who are not in full term employment and are not standing on their own two feet.

Also will not take government payment as a matter of principle.

jd

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its nothing whatsoever to do with the equality law.
Most sane landlords already seek 2 month's rent as a deposit- alongside 1 months' rent in advance. When you are letting a furnished apartment- a month's rent doesn't cut it as a deposit- and now you have Irish Water claiming they are entitled to preferential payment from tenants' deposits- which is taking the piss.
.

You're missing my point. What will happen is that instead of saying no SW tenants in an ad landlords will just say x month's deposit + rent in advance

ABC101

The situation is fairly grave with regard to the rental market / housing market.

There are bad eggs on both sides, tenent and Landlords.

I've had some tenants, and they kept the place cleaner than I would have.

My experience is that single mothers tend to be o.k. However it is the boyfriend who causes most trouble. I may be accused of a generalization here, but that is my experience.

However if we look forward to the future, where do we see the rental market going?

The answer is clear, small private landlords are being pushed out of the market by penal taxation measures implemented by the Dept of Finance and enforced by the Revenue Commissioners.

The Govt does not want it's citizens getting involved in property again, rental provision is to be the role of the large property companies, i.e. those funds who buy entire apartment blocks, owning / managing hundreds / few thousands of properties etc.

Instead of the money being kept in the local economy by local landlords, the money is going abroad to foreign boards of management and the share holders of these companies.

For the Irish Citizen.... there is very very little left now to invest in,

Bank deposit rates are very low, 1% or less, and the Dirt Tax is very high 41%.

Capital Gains Tax is 33%, up from 20% a few years ago.
Dividend Tax is 41%,
Penal taxation measures on Landlords now means you pay tax on a loss with rental property.
Income tax rates are in effect crippling the population.

The days of posters on boards arguing over bad landlords or bad tenants will come to an end as Irish citizens are further pushed out of the letting market.

That's the way I see things going.

Goldigga

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldigga View Post
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

They won't be able to refuse the application, but what is stopping them from asking for a reference?

Big Davey

2 months deposit can just mean the tenants stop paying the rent 3 months before they leave instead of the usual 2 months when they say the deposit will cover the last month even though the house may be in bits leaving you with no deposit at all.
4 or 5 months deposit would not even work as it would take that to get a troublesome tenant out at current time frames from PRTB.
The SYSTEM needs to change and people need to be held accountable it makes no difference if they are RA or ordinary working renters.
Prison terms need to be handed out to people who damage property and don't pay rent and refuse to pay back the money.
If a person went into the local library or dole office or school or anything that was owned by the government and did thousands of euros of vandalism they would go to prison
BUT
The same person can do thousands of euro to a hardworking landlords house and sure it's grand its a private matter deal with it.
I believe the name LANDLORD needs to be abolished and something else used as it is outdated and just winds people up thinking of the English lanlords of years ago.
As soon as you say you are a landlord to Gardai , social welfare or any other government body you can see them getting their back up and getting ackward straight away.
The odds are so against any of us succeeding and keeping houses for the 20, 25, 30 years that many have planned it's just not funny.
I know plenty that are getting out and have houses up for sale at the moment as they can't stick it.
But sure the government will give the tenants houses won't they.................

The_Conductor wrote: »

A landlord's agenda is to be paid rent, and to have a deposit sufficient to cover any damage over and above normal wear and tear. Unfortunately- and increasingly- tenants don't fulfill their end of the bargain.

Its also a recent phenomenon for landlords to accept rent in arrears from certain cohorts of tenants- this doesn't make this practice any more right or wrong.

I have plenty of friends renting- the vast majority of them do not pay 2 month's deposit to their landlords- however, 3 that I am aware of- 2 in Dublin, one in Cunningham Road, the other one in Smithfield- do. The third that I am aware of- is in Galway. These are people who I know personally- not from this forum. All of them really liked the properties they are renting- and accepted that one of the terms of dealing with their landlord was that it required a larger deposit. They are in fully furnished properties- in very good locations- and they acknowledged this- and paid the requested deposit. If you are unwilling to- that is entirely your business. Indeed- depending on where property is- it may be wholly unfeasible to get a second month's deposit from prospective tenants- but increasingly it is being sought, and is being achieved- and if you or your friends aren't happy to pay it- someone else will be.

Aside from anything else- people are far more likely to take better care of a property- when they have a vested interest in doing so- than when the deposit is set at an artificially low level, not commensurate with the risk factor of letting it to a tenant.

It is quite normal in most other markets- to have as a minimum 2 month's rent of a deposit (3 in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and some other places)- and it is also quite normal to let properties wholly unfurnished- and for tenants to clean them and have them inspected when vacating them. In Switzerland- this extends to repainting the property. The same goes for selling a property- it is sold as you would find a new house- freshly painted.

Ireland the UK have some weird and warped ideas of renting- quite at odds with almost everywhere else in the globe.

the_syco

Just thought of something funny; if the government will pay the deposit, it'll become a game to see how much of a deposit the government will pay, and then it'll be a game to see what the percentage is of people losing their entire deposit.

Hollister11

Big Davey wrote: »

The odds are so against any of us succeeding and keeping houses for the 20, 25, 30 years that many have planned it's just not funny.
I know plenty that are getting out and have houses up for sale at the moment as they can't stick it.
But sure the government will give the tenants houses won't they.................

My folks have had their first house for 21 years, another they had for 11 years. They have another currently 12 years and our current home for 9 years.