'No Rent Supplement' to be outlawed

mikemac1

Big Davey wrote: »

I even met prospective tenants who tried to haggle for the rent like they were buying a cheap car.

You make it sound like it's unexpected

A landlord got the best bank deal they could manage, haggled over the washing machine and fittings, haggled with tradesmen (and if they didn't they have money to burn) and can expect haggling over rent if the market conditions allow it

Nothing personal, just business

by the seaside

Big Davey wrote: »

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.

Why wouldn't you haggle over rent? I have done so successfully in the past, because the rent was overpriced.

delthedriver

by the seaside wrote: »

Why wouldn't you haggle over rent? I have done so successfully in the past, because the rent was overpriced.

Simple economics ! Supply and demand determine price.

Perhaps your landlord recognised a good tenant and was prepared to discount the price to secure someone who will pay the rent, not trash the place and not create any headaches during the tenancy.

Landlords , at least the vast majority are very reasonable people, it is not all rent price driven.

An honest, decent, respectable tenant who treats the property as if their own
is a pleasure to deal with. Yes they do exist !:)

murphaph

unreg999 wrote: »

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 one parent allowance is also provided free of charge. I'm not saying you shouldn't get it. I'm a father and it's hard enough with 2 parents, but the allowance and your home is provided to you by the rest of us through our taxes. That's just a simple fact.

by the seaside

delthedriver wrote: »

Simple economics ! Supply and demand determine price.

Perhaps your landlord recognised a good tenant and was prepared to discount the price to secure someone who will pay the rent, not trash the place and not create any headaches during the tenancy.

Landlords , at least the vast majority are very reasonable people, it is not all rent price driven.

An honest, decent, respectable tenant who treats the property as if their own
is a pleasure to deal with. Yes they do exist !:)

Very simply, it was overpriced in relation to the market.

Mind you, he was an honest, decent, respectable landlord. Yes, they do exist!

the_syco

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

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.

I'm actually surprised more landlords don't go the illegal eviction route. Not something I condone, but it seems the legal process is long and costly, and a 10k fine may be a years rent, or a 20k fine may be a years rent plus damages. So in the long term, the fine may be the cheaper way out. And should the fine bankrupt the landlord, the landlord would probably get more selling the property in a good state, than in a mangled state?

jacintaobrien wrote: »

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

Actually, if it was so widespread, loads of landlords would be refusing RA tenants. Oh, wait, that's what's happening...!

ElizKenny wrote: »

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.

I think this is what RAS is?

ednwireland

Had someone ring me from the other end of the country wanted me to let him have the house if he drove 4 hours to look at it . He was in ra. its now rented to 2 working people.
The last ra people didn't seem to have cleaned it in 4 years

orchidsrpretty

Bit of a Joke really, if I own the f*cking property shouldn't I be able to be picky about who rents it?

The_Morrigan

orchidsrpretty wrote: »

Bit of a Joke really, if I own the f*cking property shouldn't I be able to be picky about who rents it?

Pity you aren't as picky about your use of the English language...There is no need to swear.

Arbiter of Good Taste

orchidsrpretty wrote: »

Bit of a Joke really, if I own the f*cking property shouldn't I be able to be picky about who rents it?

Apparently not. And according to some people,you should be a charity as well

SILVAMAN

The sooner landlords can legally garnish the welfare/employment checks of tenants who abuse/destroy the property the better. There appears to be no obligation on the tenant to respect the rented property.
Conversely, the property ought to be in good order when offered for rent and the landlord obliged to meet in full his obligations.
Mutual respect works wonders.

Cuddlesworth

the_syco wrote: »

I'm actually surprised more landlords don't go the illegal eviction route. Not something I condone, but it seems the legal process is long and costly, and a 10k fine may be a years rent, or a 20k fine may be a years rent plus damages. So in the long term, the fine may be the cheaper way out. And should the fine bankrupt the landlord, the landlord would probably get more selling the property in a good state, than in a mangled state?

I used the word attempt deliberately. Illegal evictions were rare for me to encounter but in a single case I saw they simply kicked the door down and moved back into their house. Civil case, guards don't care. Plus you now can't evict them properly until after the PRTB case and won't be able to start that until you pay the fine issued.

Ri_Nollaig

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.

Read Cuddlesworth post above, post #168...

My Mother rents out our old family house and my sisters and I have inherited the running of it.
...So 'inherited' accidental landlords if you will.

Will, lessons are learnt fast and while the first tenant was perfect and never had an issue, infact the house was probably in better condition when they left then when they moved in, the second was on Rent Allowance. Knowing nothing of what that meant at the time agreed, as assumed it meant guaranteed rent, as the SW is paying right?

Was fine for a while but eventually they just decided to pocket the RA and give us the finger. Wont go into the details but eventually got rid of them, it took over week clear the rubbish they had built up, all furniture in the house was destroyed and had to be dumped. Cost 1000s to restore and thats ignoring the rent they didn't pay.

Needless to say will never touch anyone with a rent supplement ever again. If you still feel this is "too harsh" and "tarring everyone with the same brush". Would you do any different? If you owned the house and would be left with a potential bill of 1000s?

The_Morrigan

Folks jacintaobrien has been site banned and cannot reply. Please don't quote them and expect an answer.

/Mod

kampik

cerastes wrote: »

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.

If it would be such a nonsense, why aren't they paying to the bank account any more? The reason is that they want people to show up every week in the post office... So I still think this is a reason why they don't advise anyone the option of direct payment to LL.

karenalot

kampik wrote: »

If it would be such a nonsense, why aren't they paying to the bank account any more? The reason is that they want people to show up every week in the post office... So I still think this is a reason why they don't advise anyone the option of direct payment to LL.

Rent allowance is posted out as a monthly cheque which has to be cashed. They still have to show up each week to collect their dole payments which is separate.

beyondbelief67

karenalot wrote: »

Rent allowance is posted out as a monthly cheque which has to be cashed. They still have to show up each week to collect their dole payments which is separate.

A lot of social welfare payments are now paid straight into bank accounts no longer only into post office, carers allowance, disability allowance, for certain, I think job seekers is too.

Schecter01

Mad if you ask me

karenalot

beyondbelief67 wrote: »

A lot of social welfare payments are now paid straight into bank accounts no longer only into post office, carers allowance, disability allowance, for certain, I think job seekers is too.

Job seekers isn't paid directly to bank accounts. There are still plenty in my local post office collecting their payments on dole day.

Back to Enterprise Allowance, Jobbridge and disability payments are different as they are either out working or possibly not physically able make it to the post office.

The_Morrigan

Folks this is not State Benefits - discussion of how non RA social welfare payments are made do not fall within the remit of the forum. Please stay on topic.

iainBB

The legislation states "social economic income or employment status"

That would indicate to me that you could not ask for a work reference or bank statements. From now on as picking someone based on that info would be against the new laws.

Schecter01

Madness

ec18

what would be the case if the landlord is living in the house?

Eldarion

ec18 wrote: »

what would be the case if the landlord is living in the house?

Then it's not a Landlord - Tenant relationship, it would be an Owner - Licensee relationship and the legislation would not be applicable.

cerastes

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Gotta laugh at this goverment, they shift the responsibility onto a different party and stand back smugly at another problem solved while having done exactly nothing to solve the issue. Cant make it up.

But its worse than that, they'd have done better and more for all if they did nothing, because they have actually made it worse for everyone, particularily those they are supposedly claiming to help.

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 see banned by the time I read to the end of the thread before replying but, its not the landlords that will have driven the cost up, but those that imposed this stupidity, instead of imposing a realistic process that could be legislated, actually fair and cost little or nothing and reap huge benefits for everyone, but particularily those on RA, rents may actually have fallen if there was realistic support for LL from the SW, but the mindset is so limited and shorterm that all that can be thought up is knee jerk reactions becuase they dont understand rentals or renting and the problems faced by each side.

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.

I agree, thats as far as they see, short term, other than that its pencil whipping a solution, ie nothing really done, although it would be better if they actually did do nothing becuase they are making things worse and cant seem to learn from past mistakes, I always recal Bacon, but Im sure there are more, meddling without forethought, experience or knowledge is a recipe for disaster that affects those involved, not those on the sidelines or not present.

Big Davey wrote: »

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.

It happened, its turned full circle now, whereas it was expected and I had a tenant being pushed to reduce rent, now the shoe is on the other foot, they are actually trying to legislate to prevent landlords from fleeinghfrom the sinking ship that RA and other schemes for paying for privately supplied social housing is.
The things is, its isnt just the bad RA tenants that are the problem, its the SW who have created, fostered and watched this problem grow by turning their backs on landlords and providing no support, they could easily legislate to say any tenant involved in anti social behaviour will be evicted or rehoused in the worst most remote available house at the end of the line.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm actually surprised more landlords don't go the illegal eviction route. Not something I condone, but it seems the legal process is long and costly, and a 10k fine may be a years rent, or a 20k fine may be a years rent plus damages. So in the long term, the fine may be the cheaper way out. And should the fine bankrupt the landlord, the landlord would probably get more selling the property in a good state, than in a mangled state?


Actually, if it was so widespread, loads of landlords would be refusing RA tenants. Oh, wait, that's what's happening...!


I think this is what RAS is?

Ive read landlords are fleeing from this also, for the same reasons, although maybe not as bad as RA, SW dont want to know when there are problems, its up to the private landlord to deal with antisocial issues and evictions and a host of other costs and problems.
SW should just rent either a furnished or unfurnished property with preferential rent rates for levels that leave them less costs. Theyd still be able to negotiate reduced rents if they provided support and security of rent, as it is they dont want to know.
If they were in there with the support, itd cost them nothing and they'd have a lot of clout in the PRTB to have people evicted, and threats of garnering SW payments of any kind. That would cost them nothing but a policy change.

That or start providing the housing themselves.

kampik wrote: »

If it would be such a nonsense, why aren't they paying to the bank account any more? The reason is that they want people to show up every week in the post office... So I still think this is a reason why they don't advise anyone the option of direct payment to LL.

I dont think they want people showing up every week, no need for a tenant to get the cheque to then forward on to the landlord. Deposit it in landlords account, pay balance to landlord, or better still, SW provides security of the property condition and of rent and pays the landlord the full sum and then the tenant pays any balance, all deducted at source from tenants payments, all away from any possible private arrangements that are well outside this thread and everyone gets what they wanted and agreed to and paid on time and no hassles.
All that needs is the SW change their attitude (unlikely the way this is being pushed onto landlords from above),change their policy and implement some self fullfilling and acting processes and it will run itself problem free and cheaper.

Grandpa Hassan

iainBB wrote: »

The legislation states "social economic income or employment status"

That would indicate to me that you could not ask for a work reference or bank statements. From now on as picking someone based on that info would be against the new laws.

They are suggesting that a LL should rent their property with no references? This is actually becoming comical.........

edit: "ah, sure, I have no idea if you can afford €1,250 a month but, hey, sign on the line and here are the keys."

iainBB

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

They are suggesting that a LL should rent their property with no references? This is actually becoming comical.........

edit: "ah, sure, I have no idea if you can afford €1,250 a month but, hey, sign on the line and here are the keys."

The problem is for me my property rent is in the RA price range but I have intention of renting to the that market. So will get hundreds of calls and need away to filter

The_Conductor

iainBB wrote: »

The legislation states "social economic income or employment status"

That would indicate to me that you could not ask for a work reference or bank statements. From now on as picking someone based on that info would be against the new laws.

Its not just comical- it could potentially be challenge-able on numerous grounds- least of which would be the various company acts- where a landlord who let a mortgaged property to tenants without vetting them properly- and subsequently acceded to a financial charge against them- could be deemed to have traded recklessly..........?

I genuinely don't see how this could possibly be upheld were it to be challenged.

athtrasna

I'm really at a loss to see why the government has the right to make any laws on how a private individual decides who to entrust their property to.

Yes RA needs reform, but even simple things like wear & tear are impacted by people being in the house more than workers, these are all factors a landlord can currently take into account. I can't see how anyone is entitled to tell a landlord how they can make that decision.

As a former LL I'm glad I'm out of the game, currently have a room rented in my home and had a list of factors I used to filter 90 responses to the ad, to 5 I invited to view, to the one I chose. Not just did I want someone who works, I wanted someone who works similar hours so bills weren't being run up 24 hours a day. Glad I'll still be "allowed" to choose who I invite into my home based on my own criteria!

unreg999

karenalot wrote:

Rent allowance is posted out as a monthly cheque which has to be cashed. They still have to show up each week to collect their dole payments which is separate.

It might be different in different places but I've never had this experience or heard of it... it's collected weekly in the post office, same day each week, cash.. never heard of a monthly RA cheque