'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

beauf

the_syco wrote: »

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.

There was this old story
http://www.thejournal.ie/rent-allowance-deposit-return-department-554597-Aug2012/

SW used to pay the deposit for some people.

Which kinda defeats some of the security that a deposit is intended to achieve.

delthedriver

A substantial deposit, equivalent of two months rent together with payment of rent in advance will help eliminate Rent Allowance problems.

If the DSW /LA 's are willing to underwrite such an upfront charge for their clients, this may ease the problem.

There are excellent RA tenants, yet a minority of RA tenants are nothing more than a nuisance to the DSW/LA, the landlord , the neighbours, and are really not suitable for integration in private housing developments.

Tenants whether RA or otherwise who trash properties and cause criminal damage to property must be prosecuted.

Wabbit Ears

delthedriver wrote: »

Tenants whether RA or otherwise who trash properties and cause criminal damage to property must be prosecuted.

Problem is, prosecute or not, there currently is no mechanism to retrieve any monies from them.

beauf

They won't be prosecuted either. The reality is there's no protection for LLs. The govt has done nothing to improve social housing, has basically out sourced it. Throwing all risk on the LLs leaving tenants struggling.

They'll probly put in rent controls and limits on deposits next. Which will likely make it unviable business for many
Removing even more property from the market.

ElizKenny

Something like this should keep the RA away.
Pay 3 months deposit and the rent is €1000 PM
But pay 1 months deposit and the rent is €1500 PM


But if social welfare really wanted to get landlords to accept rent allowance they should have certain rules put in place.
Basically the landlord hand the keys to the social welfare and they do what they want and then give it back as they got it.

1 - The property is rented by the social welfare and NOT the tenant.
2 - So the social welfare are responsibly for every penny of the rent for the entire tenancy.
3 - If a tenant is being evicted its the social welfare that handle that and all costs associated, meanwhile rent is paid as normal.
4 - Landlord only deals with social welfare, and social welfare deal with their sub let.
5 - At the end of the lease social welfare hand back the property to the landlord exactly as they got it.
6 - Social welfare deal with any and all anti social issues that their tenants cause.

And on top of all of this there must be a way to evict within a month or two of someone needing eviction (non payment, anti social behaviour etc)

Big Davey

None of this will EVER happen.
EVER.

ElizKenny wrote: »

Something like this should keep the RA away.
Pay 3 months deposit and the rent is €1000 PM
But pay 1 months deposit and the rent is €1500 PM


But if social welfare really wanted to get landlords to accept rent allowance they should have certain rules put in place.
Basically the landlord hand the keys to the social welfare and they do what they want and then give it back as they got it.

1 - The property is rented by the social welfare and NOT the tenant.
2 - So the social welfare are responsibly for every penny of the rent for the entire tenancy.
3 - If a tenant is being evicted its the social welfare that handle that and all costs associated, meanwhile rent is paid as normal.
4 - Landlord only deals with social welfare, and social welfare deal with their sub let.
5 - At the end of the lease social welfare hand back the property to the landlord exactly as they got it.
6 - Social welfare deal with any and all anti social issues that their tenants cause.

And on top of all of this there must be a way to evict within a month or two of someone needing eviction (non payment, anti social behaviour etc)

Ray Palmer

ShaShaBear wrote: »

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.

The landlord isn't responsible for you and is not making you homeless no matter what they do. If the state doesn't provide enough for the rent it is the state that are responsible. Others will say you should be responsible for yourself.
The LL owns the property and is not in anyway in servitude to keep providing it as a rental property for you at a rate the state wants to pay regardless of the market.
I can have sympathy for your situation but you seem to be suggesting that private LLs should somehow be responsible for social housing. The aren't and never should be, that is the state 's job. The more restriction on renting put on LLs will always lead to higher rents. The lack of protection to LLs is probably one of the largest factors in high rents. You must maximise all profit all the time due to how easy it is for a tenant to simple stop paying rent. You learn this very quickly as a LL.
I will simple increase deposit requirements and keep my rent above RA limits for ever more. It isn't the people on RA that are the issue it is the complete lack of security it provides to a LL. IF the RA is cut to a tenant I have not found one that will keep paying their rent. RA gets delayed and cut incorrectly and correctly very easily and that is on top of when they just cut it and tenants expected cuts to their rent. When this happened and I refused "good" tenants were very abusive calling me a "money grabber" etc... They couldn't afford their rent and they wanted me to subside it and I am the money grabber.
2 of the tenants just stopped paying thier rent while the other 2 only gave me the new amount via RA which actually meant they forged my signature of the forms. I got them all out but the caused damage. They weren't particularly bad people but they took their frustrations out on me incorrectly and robbed me.
They are still paying for their actions and will be for years to come.

delthedriver

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Problem is, prosecute or not, there currently is no mechanism to retrieve any monies from them.

PRTB ?? I understand where you are coming from, suing a man of straw is a waste of time. However if an individual steals from a shop or petrol from a service station it becomes a matter for the Gardai, surely if a tenant trashes a house or fails to pay rent it should become a matter for the Gardai also?

delthedriver

ElizKenny wrote: »

Something like this should keep the RA away.
Pay 3 months deposit and the rent is €1000 PM
But pay 1 months deposit and the rent is €1500 PM


But if social welfare really wanted to get landlords to accept rent allowance they should have certain rules put in place.
Basically the landlord hand the keys to the social welfare and they do what they want and then give it back as they got it.

1 - The property is rented by the social welfare and NOT the tenant.
2 - So the social welfare are responsibly for every penny of the rent for the entire tenancy.
3 - If a tenant is being evicted its the social welfare that handle that and all costs associated, meanwhile rent is paid as normal.
4 - Landlord only deals with social welfare, and social welfare deal with their sub let.
5 - At the end of the lease social welfare hand back the property to the landlord exactly as they got it.
6 - Social welfare deal with any and all anti social issues that their tenants cause.

And on top of all of this there must be a way to evict within a month or two of someone needing eviction (non payment, anti social behaviour etc)

Excellent ideas! Unfortunately until the attitude towards Ll's change in Ireland this will never happen. There are two many well meaning bodies fighting in the tenant's corner. Many landlords are so relieved to get their property back from a troublesome tenant, it becomes too much bother to pursue the offending parties.

delthedriver

The majority of RA tenants are fine decent people, unfortunately there are a number who simply should not be in the RA or RAS system. They can be identified and deserve nothing more than housing in the ghettos in Local Areas.
DSW need to be more upfront with landlords, placing certain tenants in private rental properties is a recipe for disaster. There is an onus on DSW to work with the landlord, where issues arise it is unacceptable to advise a landlord that DSW cannot discuss any issue due to Data Protection!!!!!

At present I am in the process of ridding myself of a RA tenant in one of my properties. Before the bleeding hearts out there start jumping up and down, no rent has been paid for six months. Tenant who is refusing to communicate with me is being investigated by DSW, hence they have stopped paying rent.

Tenant is now on 14 day warning and will receive a Notice of termination which will expire on 2April. TBH I don't care where this person goes to afterwards,homelessness has been brought about by the tenants inactions to communicate with DSW. My main concern is to get possession of the house , hopefully the house is still intact. I will however pursue them for every € !

I think Landlords need to take a harder line with people like this and let them realise we are not here to be abused & threatened by people who have no respect for themselves nor others, let alone the property of others.

beauf

delthedriver wrote: »

PRTB ?? I understand where you are coming from, suing a man of straw is a waste of time. However if an individual steals from a shop or petrol from a service station it becomes a matter for the Gardai, surely if a tenant trashes a house or fails to pay rent it should become a matter for the Gardai also?

For some reason it doesn't seem to be treated the same

Sheep Shagger

If this comes through I hope they make it compulsory for landlords to be paid directly and not rely on the tenant to transfer the rent money to the landlord.

Social Welfare should also not have the ability to redirect money from a landlord to tenant (I have first hand experience of this happening and it cost me dearly).

Cuddlesworth

I used to work in Property management and still maintain contact with a number of landlords and property managers.

There are many and various reason why landlords don't take RA tenants, most listed already in this thread and completely true.

I think most people in this thread don't understand what typically happens with the bad RA tenants. I saw what happens when it went south countless times.

First thing that happens is the rent starts coming in late, with plenty of excuses. Then it stops. New landlords at this point can get suckered for a couple of months into not doing anything. The eviction process starts then. Eviction can take between 6-12 months, you need to go to the PRTB, then onto a actual court, then onto the local sheriff. Judges can grant stays in the house of up to 3 months while the tennant looks for another property. Or they can simply drop the case if a single piece of evidence is missing, or if the tenant gave a sob story and a small bit of cash towards the arrears. Then the landlord is owed more money and the process takes longer.

Any attempt to remove the tenant before eviction will be met with huge judgement orders against the landlord for illegal eviction. Fines of up to 20k are regularly seen on the PRTB site. And arrears are not addressed.

Lets say 6 months to start, to get a handle on what it costs to the landlord. 6 months would be the bare minimum in terms of eviction time. Average rent in Dublin would be around 1200 a month. Thats 7200 Euros the landlord is down in rent at the very least in Dublin.

After eviction you get to inspect the property. In most cases I saw, the damage was in around the 5k region. But in a few cases the damage scaled up to 40k. Again lets go with the 5k, since it was rare to see less then that. At this point, you are looking at another month empty for cleaning, repairs and replacement of damaged furniture. Getting the electricity/gas turned back on. Removing all the household waste etc.

Now the landlord is down roughly 13,500 Euros.

With a private tenant at this stage, you track them down. Using their online presence, linkedin, facebook, workplace etc. You take them to court and get damages against them. The amount owed more than justifies it. They have income, they have assets, money can be recovered.

With a long term unemployed person, any reasonable solicitor will tell you not to bother. The very best you can hope for is a fiver to be garnished once a week, meaning you get your money back in 50 years. Sometimes much longer. You can't take anything from people with what is perceived as next to nothing. The landlords learns at this point that there is no recourse when dealing with arrears from RA tenants.

The landlord walks away from the incident and tells everybody he knows why they should never deal with RA tenants. When they hear it the first time, they think it can't be that bad. When they hear it over and over again, they listen. It ends up on every ad.

The bad RA tenant walks away with a extra 7k on top of their payments, plus unpaid bills and whatever they stole from the property. And they walk into the next one and do the same thing. They do this constantly, generating more hate towards RA and teaching more landlords to stay away from it.

Social welfare stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly, even with the serial offenders. They have no mechanisms to identify the asshats that screw it up for the rest. They will not pay for damages done by RA tenants. They will not deal with landlords who are not receiving rent, stopping payments to the tenant during that period of time. They have no available database of bad/good tenants to help landlords.

And this law is a joke. All you have to do is price above the maximum by the local council(which is 98% of the properties out there) and change the wording.

"Property is outside of RA allowances, RA tenants need not apply".

Thats not discrimination, its simply fact.

beauf

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

If this comes through I hope they make it compulsory for landlords to be paid directly and not rely on the tenant to transfer the rent money to the landlord.

Social Welfare should also not have the ability to redirect money from a landlord to tenant (I have first hand experience of this happening and it cost me dearly).

Why would you want to trust Social Welfare again when they are terrible to deal with.

delthedriver

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The landlord isn't responsible for you and is not making you homeless no matter what they do. If the state doesn't provide enough for the rent it is the state that are responsible. Others will say you should be responsible for yourself.
The LL owns the property and is not in anyway in servitude to keep providing it as a rental property for you at a rate the state wants to pay regardless of the market.
I can have sympathy for your situation but you seem to be suggesting that private LLs should somehow be responsible for social housing. The aren't and never should be, that is the state 's job. The more restriction on renting put on LLs will always lead to higher rents. The lack of protection to LLs is probably one of the largest factors in high rents. You must maximise all profit all the time due to how easy it is for a tenant to simple stop paying rent. You learn this very quickly as a LL.
I will simple increase deposit requirements and keep my rent above RA limits for ever more. It isn't the people on RA that are the issue it is the complete lack of security it provides to a LL. IF the RA is cut to a tenant I have not found one that will keep paying their rent. RA gets delayed and cut incorrectly and correctly very easily and that is on top of when they just cut it and tenants expected cuts to their rent. When this happened and I refused "good" tenants were very abusive calling me a "money grabber" etc... They couldn't afford their rent and they wanted me to subside it and I am the money grabber.
2 of the tenants just stopped paying thier rent while the other 2 only gave me the new amount via RA which actually meant they forged my signature of the forms. I got them all out but the caused damage. They weren't particularly bad people but they took their frustrations out on me incorrectly and robbed me.
They are still paying for their actions and will be for years to come.

Great post Ray Palmer! Agree with your sentiments entirely.:)

The_Morrigan

delthedriver wrote: »

Wow ! Never heard of DSW paying deposits..........delighted to see my taxes are not being wasted:rolleyes: It surprises me how some people on Rent Allowance have" nothing" to contribute in terms of a deposit, yet have Sky TV,the latest iphone etc Are DSW paying for those luxuries too along with the baby buggy, the medical card ,and free creche facilities :rolleyes:

Half of your post had nothing to do with property....Please stay within the remit of the forum.

Thanks

delthedriver

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I used to work in Property management and still maintain contact with a number of landlords and property managers.

There are many and various reason why landlords don't take RA tenants, most listed already in this thread and completely true.

I think most people in this thread don't understand what typically happens with the bad RA tenants. I saw what happens when it went south countless times.

First thing that happens is the rent starts coming in late, with plenty of excuses. Then it stops. New landlords at this point can get suckered for a couple of months into not doing anything. The eviction process starts then. Eviction can take between 6-12 months, you need to go to the PRTB, then onto a actual court, then onto the local sheriff. Judges can grant stays in the house of up to 3 months while the tennant looks for another property. Or they can simply drop the case if a single piece of evidence is missing, or if the tenant gave a sob story and a small bit of cash towards the arrears. Then the landlord is owed more money and the process takes longer.

Any attempt to remove the tenant before eviction will be met with huge judgement orders against the landlord for illegal eviction. Fines of up to 20k are regularly seen on the PRTB site. And arrears are not addressed.

Lets say 6 months to start, to get a handle on what it costs to the landlord. 6 months would be the bare minimum in terms of eviction time. Average rent in Dublin would be around 1200 a month. Thats 7200 Euros the landlord is down in rent at the very least in Dublin.

After eviction you get to inspect the property. In most cases I saw, the damage was in around the 5k region. But in a few cases the damage scaled up to 40k. Again lets go with the 5k, since it was rare to see less then that. At this point, you are looking at another month empty for cleaning, repairs and replacement of damaged furniture. Getting the electricity/gas turned back on. Removing all the household waste etc.

Now the landlord is down roughly 13,500 Euros.

With a private tenant at this stage, you track them down. Using their online presence, linkedin, facebook, workplace etc. You take them to court and get damages against them. The amount owed more than justifies it. They have income, they have assets, money can be recovered.

With a long term unemployed person, any reasonable solicitor will tell you not to bother. The very best you can hope for is a fiver to be garnished once a week, meaning you get your money back in 50 years. Sometimes much longer. You can't take anything from people with what is perceived as next to nothing. The landlords learns at this point that there is no recourse when dealing with arrears from RA tenants.

The landlord walks away from the incident and tells everybody he knows why they should never deal with RA tenants. When they hear it the first time, they think it can't be that bad. When they hear it over and over again, they listen. It ends up on every ad.

The bad RA tenant walks away with a extra 7k on top of their payments, plus unpaid bills and whatever they stole from the property. And they walk into the next one and do the same thing. They do this constantly, generating more hate towards RA and teaching more landlords to stay away from it.

Social welfare stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly, even with the serial offenders. They have no mechanisms to identify the asshats that screw it up for the rest. They will not pay for damages done by RA tenants. They will not deal with landlords who are not receiving rent, stopping payments to the tenant during that period of time. They have no available database of bad/good tenants to help landlords.

And this law is a joke. All you have to do is price above the maximum by the local council(which is 98% of the properties out there) and change the wording.

"Property is outside of RA allowances, RA tenants need not apply".

Thats not discrimination, its simply fact.

Very well said !!

delthedriver

beauf wrote: »

Why would you want to trust Social Welfare again when they are terrible to deal with.

Indeed, it would be less costly to have a vacant unit than a RA problem, who does not pay rent and trashes the place.;) In a rising market , the value of the property is staying ahead of inflation, rents are rising so a Landlord can afford to be extra choosy about who they will accept as a tenant.

cerastes

snubbleste wrote: »

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

On what grounds, say over a private tenant? at what point can it be said or proved this is the case, whther it is or isnt?

snubbleste wrote: »

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

Unless they are told its because of RA, then what grounds would this be on?

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

Probably? nonsense, its possible to get it paid direct to the LL, and it should be the only way, the tenant isnt meant to be making any balance up but the SW knows that RA limits are below what market rates are, so everyone just turns a blind eye.

How about the SW pays the landlord, the tenant makes up an agreed difference to the SW dependant on their means, the SW garauntee the rent and deposit but hand nothing over, instead they use what they hold on the tenant to ensure nothing bad occurs or the tenant will be penalised by them. As it is, SW turning a blind eye to landlord problems means everyone suffers and the RA payment is then being misused if its not paid for rent so the SW is shortchanging the state.
By the SW not paying out depositis would save a fortune if they garaunteed them.

Anti social tenants or those that refuse to pay, either private or RA should have a fast track process for eviction. The state could then very easily rely on a huge resource of private landlords to provide the bulk of housing they cannot or wont provide. That way, any RA tenant removed for bad behaviour could simply be replaced with a good one, when word gets around, LL will be queing up for RA tenants, where damage and rent covered, a huge saving would be made by all, the SW could then negotiate lower rents as it is stable and they work in cooperation with the landlord.

The state could then only provide the most basic and cheap accomodation, the worst reserved for the worst offenders and if need be, children taken into some kind of care, SW should be cut or garnered and food and utility vouchers provided encashable by SW claimant at set places (only for the worst of RA tenants who have been forcibly removed).

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.

john kinsella wrote: »

Nope, You are talking about motor insurance.

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

It is when you have a mortgage, and as most do, in practice it is compulsory.

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.

Its on the way, already ask for more than a months rent deposit, and as Govts entertain more screwy ideas that protect no one and actually make it worse for all, landlords will be routinely ask for more than a months rent.

beauf wrote: »

They won't be prosecuted either. The reality is there's no protection for LLs. The govt has done nothing to improve social housing, has basically out sourced it. Throwing all risk on the LLs leaving tenants struggling.

They'll probly put in rent controls and limits on deposits next. Which will likely make it unviable business for many
Removing even more property from the market.

This is the problem, they could make it much better for the SW, tenants and landlords in some basic measures, which will not cost them or may infact reduce the costs involved. They dont have a clue and probably represent the worst and richest landlords themselves, not ordinary people that came into by circumstances or couldnt get out of it.

As for making it an unviable business, maybe thats part of the plan too, they already seem to want to make it impossible for people to own (total reliance on an ineffective state and state system). As they have made a complete balls of social housing, with little cost benefits and no responsibility on their part, I wonder what the agenda is? crash the market so prices drop but refuse ordinary people a stake in purchasing a home?

jacintaobrien

I think its about time they outlawed this type of discrimination,people of all backgrounds fall on hardtimes,they don't need to be kicked when their down.

Landlords cherrypicking and choosing who they want based on wage,and driving up rents up makes the renting situation impossible for most people,workiing and not working..

beauf

cerastes wrote: »

....

As for making it an unviable business, maybe thats part of the plan too, they already seem to want to make it impossible for people to own (total reliance on an ineffective state and state system). As they have made a complete balls of social housing, with little cost benefits and no responsibility on their part, I wonder what the agenda is? crash the market so prices drop but refuse ordinary people a stake in purchasing a home?

Someone suggested to me maybe its to drive the small LL out of the market so that SW only deal with large companies with large portfolio's of properties. In this way they can driver better deals en mass. Seems a bit far fetched, I don't they think that far ahead.

More likely its a short term goal to take as much of the work and cost away from SW/Govt as possible. Regardless of the impact on tenants or LL.

beauf

jacintaobrien wrote: »

...Landlords cherrypicking and choosing who they want based on wage,and driving up rents up makes the renting situation impossible for most people,workiing and not working..

The Govt are doing as much as possible to drive up the costs for LL's.

Anyone can become a LL and undercut the rest of the market if they think that's a viable business for them. Even the Govt aren't doing that. They are outsourcing social housing.

delthedriver

jacintaobrien wrote: »

I think its about time they outlawed this type of discrimination,people of all backgrounds fall on hardtimes,they don't need to be kicked when their down.

Landlords cherrypicking and choosing who they want based on wage,and driving up rents up makes the renting situation impossible for most people,workiing and not working..

I don't think anyone is suggesting kicking people while they are down

The real issue is , landlords are taking a kicking from a minority of RA tenants who are non-paying , abusive, destructive and are the cause of antisocial behaviour which impacts on their neighbours.

If you are a landlord would you not wish to secure your property with a tenant who is going to pay the rent on time, not treat the property like a pig house, and not cause nuisance to their neighbours.

I stress it is a minority who are messing it up for decent people. You will appreciate when a landlord gets stung once , he will be very wary of any new tenants and as you say cherry pick those who are likely to cause the least amount of grief to all concerned. Surely the landlord has a right to do this.

Quite frankly I have no time for free loaders who are willing to destroy someone's property, fail to fulfill their obligations, ie paying rent on time, and who cause ructions with neighbours. They need to be put on a central register , available to landlords to ensure they do not get a chance to repeat their wrongdoings. They simply don't deserve housing.

jacintaobrien

delthedriver wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting kicking people while they are down

The real issue is , landlords are taking a kicking from a minority of RA tenants who are non-paying , abusive, destructive and are the cause of antisocial behaviour which impacts on their neighbours.

If you are a landlord would you not wish to secure your property with a tenant who is going to pay the rent on time, not treat the property like a pig house, and not cause nuisance to their neighbours.

I stress it is a minority who are messing it up for decent people. You will appreciate when a landlord gets stung once , he will be very wary of any new tenants and as you say cherry pick those who are likely to cause the least amount of grief to all concerned. Surely the landlord has a right to do this.

Quite frankly I have no time for free loaders who are willing to destroy someone's property, fail to fulfill their obligations, ie paying rent on time, and who cause ructions with neighbours. They need to be put on a central register , available to landlords to ensure they do not get a chance to repeat their wrongdoings. They simply don't deserve housing.

So you are tarring them all with the same brush,freeloaders,people who destroy property or treat it like a pig sh*t house etc.

If it was so widespread there would be no renting industry whatsoever,point out individual cases where people are doing this.

delthedriver

beauf wrote: »

Someone suggested to me maybe its to drive the small LL out of the market so that SW only deal with large companies with large portfolio's of properties. In this way they can driver better deals en mass. Seems a bit far fetched, I don't they think that far ahead.

More likely its a short term goal to take as much of the work and cost away from SW/Govt as possible. Regardless of the impact on tenants or LL.

Anything is possible................ In London some LA tenants recently found themselves to have new landlords. The new Landlords were American Pension Schemes who were buying up LA properties, chucking out the tenants , refurbishing the properties and then letting the properties and substantially increased rents.

delthedriver

jacintaobrien wrote: »

So you are tarring them all with the same brush,freeloaders,people who destroy property or treat it like a pig sh*t house etc.

If it was so widespread there would be no renting industry whatsoever,point out individual cases where people are doing this.

No you are misreading my post................!!

Arbiter of Good Taste

jacintaobrien wrote: »

So you are tarring them all with the same brush,freeloaders,people who destroy property or treat it like a pig sh*t house etc.

If it was so widespread there would be no renting industry whatsoever,point out individual cases where people are doing this.

Sigh....Nobody is "tarring them all with the same brush". The fact is a LL is entrusting a valuable asset to strangers. Like any business, it is only wise to mitigate any risk - real or potential.

If a LL is presented with two potential tenants, which should he choose?

Tenant A with no financial risk, who will not be able to pay in advance, and who will most likely not suffer any consequences - financial or reputational - if they stop paying rent or trash the property?

Or Tenant B, employed with a steady income, can pay in advance, will be looking for a reference on moving out, and doesn't want to risk an irate landlord showing up at their place of work?

Reasonable people don't hate people for simply being on RA, but all things being equal, the truth is a private tenant is perceived to be a lower risk.

In reality, that's not always the case, so don't you think a LL would not jump at the chance if the market value rent was government guaranteed, and the LL was sure of being compensated by the government for any damage? Why would they take any chances with private tenants in that case?

ElizKenny

jacintaobrien wrote: »

I think its about time they outlawed this type of discrimination,people of all backgrounds fall on hardtimes,they don't need to be kicked when their down.

Landlords cherrypicking and choosing who they want based on wage,and driving up rents up makes the renting situation impossible for most people,workiing and not working..

Well the easiest way to do this is to rent directly to social welfare.
And keep the landlord completely out of the loop.
That way the social welfare can rent the property for as long as the lease lasts and put whoever they like into it. But it will be the social welfare take on all of the associated costs or problems with THEIR tenants.

If THEIR tenant wants to stop paying them for rent THEY can deal with it.
If they want to evict their tenant, let them go ahead.

But pay the landlord rent all the time, until they hand it back in the condition it was given to them in.

See the social welfare want to wash their hands of the RA tenants and hand them over to the landlord along with any problems.

If the social welfare were made responsible for the rent and the tenant then they wouldnt be so quick to look the other way. The landlord would still be paid during eviction proceedings. Good tenants have nothing to worry about. Win/win.

So to sum up - yes landlords should agree to rent their property to the social welfare for a defined period. The social welfare get the keys and put whoever they want in and pay the rent on time and in full for the ENTIRE time they are in posession of the property. Until such a time as they give it back in the same condition to the landlord.

This is the sort of contract landlords should offer when asked to rent to RA tenants. They should approach the CWO directly and tell them, "im not refusing to rent to RA tenants, but here are my terms - up to you now MR CWO"

MarkAnthony

The above +1 million.

It's lazy, feckless, local authorities that are the problem not private landlords who have every right to screen tenants within the the bounds of equality legislation. This move just makes a mockery of equality legislation trying with smoke and mirrors to show they're doing something about the problem. It's akin to trying to kill yourself by flying on commercial flights.

Big Davey

jacintaobrien wrote: »

I think its about time they outlawed this type of discrimination,people of all backgrounds fall on hardtimes,they don't need to be kicked when their down.

Landlords cherrypicking and choosing who they want based on wage,and driving up rents up makes the renting situation impossible for most people,workiing and not working..

It's only a few years ago the market was flooded with houses and the tenants were cherry picking what houses they wanted.
I even met prospective tenants who tried to haggle for the rent like they were buying a cheap car.
Thankfully the boot is on the other foot now.