Article: Landlords can no longer refuse rent supplement tenants

El_Dangeroso

No idea how this can be practically enforced:

http://www.businesspost.ie/landlords-can-no-longer-refuse-rent-supplement-tenants/

All the landlord has to do is say 'work reference required' or something similar.

Speedwell

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

...All the landlord has to do is say 'work reference required' or something similar.

I don't know. Perhaps they will, at first, but if that practice is seen as identical in practice to excluding people on rent assistance, it will probably be challenged. I mean, everyone knows what that language really means.

Jasper79

or even " Professionals Only", lots of ways around it, was a bit of pointless exercise except be to be seen to be doing something.

Gatling

Won't make a difference landlords and agencies will just advertise properties above and beyond rent supplement limits as is currently happening

TheChizler

Hasn't stopped plenty of landlords explicitly stating "no rent allowance": http://www.daft.ie/ireland/rooms-to-share/?s%5Broom_type%5D=either&s%5Badvanced%5D=1&s%5Bgender%5D=on&s%5Btxt%5D=rent+allowance&searchSource=sharing

Interestingly it's the advertiser who can get in trouble as well. Would it not be better to not have the advertiser filter the ads, so non compliant landlords can be exposed?

Butters1979

The way i read this is landlords can no longer say it's because of rent allowance. But a LL does not have to tell you why they don't want to let the place to you. As far as I'm concerned anyone should be allowed to chose exactly who they let live in their property.

The rental market is not a public service. It's private enterprise.

pc7

Just say you need a deposit, a years Irish Water deposit and that rules out most RA tenants, stupid ruling.

Sleepy

It's a case of creating legislation to be seen to be doing "something" about the housing crisis.

The effects of the legislation will be non-existant (unless some gobdaw sets out to test it in court by openly admitting they're discriminating on the basis of rental assistance / continues to include "Rent Allowance not accepted" etc. in their advertising.

SarahMollie

They had the ombudsman on Newstalk this morning. Admitted it would be hard to enforce, but said she was optimistic that a change in the law would bring about a change in peoples mindsets, as happened with the smoking ban etc.


She also cited lots of current examples of this still being on the property websites - perhaps they're not enforcing it until there is greater awareness. I personally hadn't heard about it until this morning, but then again, I'm not a landlord.


Seems very optimistic to me but we shall see.

pc7

The more I think on this the more it bugs me, who the hell are they to think they can tell landlords who to take into their properties. The reason I will never ever take a RA tenant again is down to a number of reasons, 1) the paperwork, I don't know how many times I filled it in and different forms (I also objected to the tenant knowing my personal address) 2) no deposit given 3) the rent being paid to them, it should be lodged directly to the landlord 4) they cleared out my property took everything. Now I know there are good RA tenants and all that but I will never go there again ever, no matter what the 'law' says.
ETA - I rang SW to let them know they'd left the property and took everything with it and were no longer in the country, turns out they were still paying them RA!

the groutch

All this will do is cause landlords to raise rents so RA tenants can't afford to rent their properties.
Then the gubberment/councils will raise RA, landlords will raise rents again, and it becomes a vicious circle, with the real victims being those actually working on lower end wages, being completely priced out of the rental market.

Calhoun

This annoys the he'll out of me and I'm not even a landlord, i would be putting up deposit to two months and be very strict on references before I let annoy live in my house.

davo10

Calhoun wrote: »

This annoys the he'll out of me and I'm not even a landlord, i would be putting up deposit to two months and be very strict on references before I let annoy live in my house.

This. LLs just ask for 2 months deposit plus one month in advance of signing the lease. Also, there is absolutely no restriction on what rent can be charged for a new rental so LLs just need to check what RA rate is for the area and set monthly rate well above this. In the end, all that has happened is that the new legislation enacted in December plus this beauty will push up new rentals country wide, great for LLs, disaster for all tenants.

Speedwell

davo10 wrote: »

This. LLs just ask for 2 months deposit plus one month in advance of signing the lease. Also, there is absolutely no restriction on what rent can be charged for a new rental so LLs just need to check what RA rate is for the area and set monthly rate well above this. In the end, all that has happened is that the new legislation enacted in December plus this beauty will push up new rentals country wide, great for LLs, disaster for all tenants.

Well, that's going to do wonders for the overall housing situation, I'm sure. After all, people on rent supplement are not going to turn around and get mortgages instead. What a human rights disaster that will be.

Also, it doesn't occur to me that there will be a rush of landlords setting their rents well above what people are able to pay. After all, I presume they actually want to rent their properties.

webpal

So how is this meant to work? I rent out a house at €1,000 a month. Person comes to view and says will I take RA, I say yes. Do I now have to lower the rent? Am I now discriminating cos I wont lower the rent?

_Kaiser_

the groutch wrote: »

All this will do is cause landlords to raise rents so RA tenants can't afford to rent their properties.
Then the gubberment/councils will raise RA, landlords will raise rents again, and it becomes a vicious circle, with the real victims being those actually working on lower end wages, being completely priced out of the rental market.

Not just those, but anyone who is renting will suffer higher prices as a result.
Landlords will just raise rents above RA limits and/or insist on things like work references or higher deposits to get around this.

Another half-assed inadequate solution from a Government that is more concerned about getting us all back on the Property Ladder than really addressing the housing issues in this country.

Ballymun towers may have become unfashionable and a hotbed of antisocial behavior and drugs, but a modern take on that idea is what's needed, not pushing people further and further out (and then wondering why the M50 is gridlocked in the mornings) as is currently the approach.

_Kaiser_

webpal wrote: »

So how is this meant to work? I rent out a house at €1,000 a month. Person comes to view and says will I take RA, I say yes. Do I now have to lower the rent? Am I now discriminating cos I wont lower the rent?

No, you can set the rent at whatever limit you like. If the RA tenant can't meet that because the limit is lower than what you want then that's not your issue... or you could insist on 2 months deposit (which would probably eliminate them from the running as well) or work/previous LL references.

But seeing as "market rents" are generally significantly higher than RA limits as it is now (even before this latest fudge) then in reality it'll make no difference to those struggling to find a place to live.

Mitzy

pc7 wrote: »

The more I think on this the more it bugs me, who the hell are they to think they can tell landlords who to take into their properties. The reason I will never ever take a RA tenant again is down to a number of reasons, 1) the paperwork, I don't know how many times I filled it in and different forms (I also objected to the tenant knowing my personal address) 2) no deposit given 3) the rent being paid to them, it should be lodged directly to the landlord 4) they cleared out my property took everything. Now I know there are good RA tenants and all that but I will never go there again ever, no matter what the 'law' says.
ETA - I rang SW to let them know they'd left the property and took everything with it and were no longer in the country, turns out they were still paying them RA!

I agree 100%. I was stung for 4 months rent by a previous tenant who's rent allowance ran out & then simply refused to pay me. I ended up in mortgage arrears and my credit rating was damaged as a result. I will never go there again with a RA tenant unless they can pay me 6 months rent upfront. It's simply too risky.
I know it's harsh but there needs to be protection offered for landlords.

anothernight

Well, why would they improve their system when they can just ban the more attractive alternative? :rolleyes:

If taking a RA tenant wasn't so much hassle (paperwork, late payments, no recourse if tenant doesn't pay or damages the place, etc) many people would want to rent to RA tenants, if only because it would be a guaranteed rent. But hey, fixing the system is probably too much effort for the government, so why bother when they can just pretend to be doing something about it instead.

doolox

The reality is that the level of rent supplement or laws against discrimination will not affect the level of rents charged. If a landlord is given a choice between a tenant at RA rates and a tenant at higher rate of course he will pick the higher rate.

The government need to build a lot of houses and rent them out to people directly. At the very least they need to set up semi private companies staffed by qualified and trained people to obtain, build or refurbish housing units to a certain standard to supply the market in a controlled and planned way to dampen the rise in rent that is now taking place in Dublin due to scarcity.

Somewhere I read that there are 1400 houses available for rent in Dublin, there are 500000 housing units altogether in Dublin 1/3 of which are rented meaning that 166000 units are rented at any time. This means that less than 1% are available for rent at the moment. Either the time between rents has shrunk dramatically or a lot of rentals are changing hands very quickly without recourse to advertising or agencies to publicise their availability. Without some visibilty in a public forum it will be very difficult to police or monitor compliance to any rental laws.

The government need to soften demand for housing by competing with private landlords in supplying housing. Given the costs and complexities involved this will probably be very difficult unless the government can do the job of landlord tax free. The EU probably won't allow this.

rossmores

When renting my priorities are that a tenant will be able to pay the rent and will respect the unit and others in the building.
In my experience RA require more attention, administration, insurance costs and are less responsible than non RA tenants who pay the same rent.
If there is a fine, is it an incentive for the RA to report and be rewarded for same.
There are a lot less properties on the rental market and increasing interference is evidently not helping the problem.

_Kaiser_

Mitzy wrote: »

I agree 100%. I was stung for 4 months rent by a previous tenant who's rent allowance ran out & then simply refused to pay me. I ended up in mortgage arrears and my credit rating was damaged as a result. I will never go there again with a RA tenant unless they can pay me 6 months rent upfront. It's simply too risky.
I know it's harsh but there needs to be protection offered for landlords.

I agree with this (as a "professional" tenant myself) - LL's need an efficient and enforceable way to recoup the cost of any damages or unpaid rent (because ultimately the actions of such people damage those of us who do treat it as a service and respect the property accordingly) - after all there's legislation now to be able to deduct LPT and court-ordered unpaid bills from source so it's not impossible.

Against that though, tenants equally need stronger protections against amateur/cowboy landlords - we see on this forum every week cases where the tenant is in the right in a dispute, but the advice is "you might as well get used to the idea of moving regardless" (because either way it's going to become untenable for them).

Really what we need is a shift away from this idea that renting is a short-term stopgap on the glorious road to property ownership and "dead money" in favour of a recognition of what it could/should be.. a long term home for those who either can't afford, or don't want to be saddled with a mortgage.

The reality is that NO-ONE is "entitled" to own property and there are many people who won't (for a variety of reasons). Rather than viewing these people as "peasants", we need to reform our system to ensure that home ownership and renting are in fact equally viable and valid choices.

Until that happens we'll never solve the housing issues in this country.

snubbleste

pc7 wrote: »

. (I also objected to the tenant knowing my personal address)

A tenant is entitled by law to know the landlord's address.

pc7

snubbleste wrote: »

A tenant is entitled by law to know the landlord's address.

I still object to it, doesn't mean the law is right. I rang SW with my address as I wouldn't give it to the Tenant. If they know I'm out at work or out of the country I don't know these people. The PRTB have my address as do Revenue that should be enough, I'm a compliant (and decent) landlord.

Speedwell

pc7 wrote: »

I still object to it, doesn't mean the law is right. I rang SW with my address as I wouldn't give it to the Tenant. If they know I'm out at work or out of the country I don't know these people. The PRTB have my address as do Revenue that should be enough, I'm a compliant (and decent) landlord.

If you're that paranoid and mistrustful of people with whom you choose to do business, then perhaps it is not the right business for you.

pc7

Speedwell wrote: »

If you're that paranoid and mistrustful of people with whom you choose to do business, then perhaps it is not the right business for you.

My personal home is just that my personal home, nothing to do with business, they can have my business address.

Anyway don't want to derail the thread. Back on topic this law is an ass IMO as are many others interfering with the private rental market.

snubbleste

Good to get a reminder of this as I've to advertise a room in my houseshare soon. Will be going with "professional only" rather than no RA on the ad.

snubbleste wrote: »

A tenant is entitled by law to know the landlord's address.

If true this is beyond stupid, I wouldn't give it to any tenant if I was renting out a place.

Speedwell

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

If true this is beyond stupid.

Good to get a reminder of this as I've to advertise a room in my houseshare soon. Will be going with "professional only" rather than no RA on the ad.

Right, because then nobody will know what you're up to. Good thinking.

snubbleste

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

.. If true this is beyond stupid, I wouldn't give it to any tenant if I was renting out a place.

Well then you'd be breaking the law
Rent Book.
5. (1) The landlord of a house to which these Regulations apply shall—
( a ) on the commencement of a tenancy, or ( b ) where a tenancy exists on the date on which these Regulations come into operation, within two months from such date,
provide the tenant of such house with a rent book or other documentation to the like effect (referred to in either case in these Regulations as "the rent book").
(2) The landlord shall, on provision of the rent book, enter therein in clearly legible writing—
( a ) the address of the house, ( b ) the name and address of the landlord and, if the landlord has duly appointed an agent, of such agent,

get a room

1 Rent allowance with work references required
2 Rent allowance with market rent and two months deposit.

Aka Ishur

First and last month rent up front plus one month deposit is going to become the norm awfully fast.

davo10

Speedwell wrote: »

Well, that's going to do wonders for the overall housing situation, I'm sure. After all, people on rent supplement are not going to turn around and get mortgages instead. What a human rights disaster that will be.

Also, it doesn't occur to me that there will be a rush of landlords setting their rents well above what people are able to pay. After all, I presume they actually want to rent their properties.

It is not up to LLs to "do wonders for the overall housing situation", it is up to the LL to achieve the highest possible return on an expensive asset and to have good tenants in it.

As long as there are insufficient rental properties and restrictions on mortgages, tents will increase. This bone headed policy will just add to the problem. LLs don't want to rent to RA recipients because it is far too much hassle and because if things go wrong, it's nigh on impossible to get an errant tenant out. If they want to improve the situation, make it easier to evict th bad ones and get the good ones in.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Speedwell wrote: »

Right, because then nobody will know what you're up to. Good thinking.

Who cares if anyone "knows" what he is "up to" (though why being concerned about protecting an investment worth hundreds of thousands should be considered being "up to" anything)? He's not breaking the law, so can do what he likes, and rightly so.

Butters1979

Speedwell wrote: »

Well, that's going to do wonders for the overall housing situation, I'm sure. After all, people on rent supplement are not going to turn around and get mortgages instead. What a human rights disaster that will be.

Also, it doesn't occur to me that there will be a rush of landlords setting their rents well above what people are able to pay. After all, I presume they actually want to rent their properties.

It's not LL's responsibility to fix the housing crisis.

Bistoman

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

No idea how this can be practically enforced:

http://www.businesspost.ie/landlords-can-no-longer-refuse-rent-supplement-tenants/

All the landlord has to do is say 'work reference required' or something similar.

The assumption is that all in receipt of rent allowance are unemployed. Some family's and low paid workers are entitled to rent allowance.
I don't think you need to be employed to rent a property so any reference should be acceptable, Not just from a "Boss" .

pc7

Bistoman wrote: »

I don't think you need to be employed to rent a property so any reference should be acceptable, Not just from a "Boss" .

If someone isn't employed it could be viewed they will be in the house more so then there will be more wear and tear (this came up recently on another thread here in terms of a house share). Some stated that they wouldn't want to share with someone not working as bills etc. would be bigger. Again its a private property and if the landlord wants an employer reference they should be entitled to ask for that.

the_syco

I see it as;

Landlords forced to charge 10% more than local SW rates
http://www.businesspost.ie/landlords-can-no-longer-refuse-rent-supplement-tenants/

So instead of being allowed to say no, everyone gets punished?

Rent and deposit up front. If they can't do so, tough sh|t.

Bistoman

pc7 wrote: »

If someone isn't employed it could be viewed they will be in the house more so then there will be more wear and tear (this came up recently on another thread here in terms of a house share). Some stated that they wouldn't want to share with someone not working as bills etc. would be bigger. Again its a private property and if the landlord wants an employer reference they should be entitled to ask for that.

I have rented in the past as a student, and by far the person who came from the most privileged background ( He is a professor now ) was responsible for the most ware and tear on the house. Over 4 years and a number of different tenants passing trough, It was the people looking for work and on RA that had more care for all the shared areas than the spoiled little princes who could care less for the LL property.
I'm just saying that it's a terrible idea to think that just because You are on hard times, You suddenly decide to kick holes in the walls.

pc7

Im shocked how low the rates are (especially for Dublin). Quick search shows not much available in dublin at those rates, so landlords shouldn't have an issue.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Maximum-Rent-Limits-by-County.aspx

ec18

Would this apply to sharing as well....say I'm getting a replacement for myself into a two bed apartment and the other occupant doesn't want to live with someone on RA, can we advertise the room as no RA?

Elemonator

Sorry if I'm missing the bigger picture, but shouldn't landlords be able to refuse anyone if they want? After all, it is their property that is already heavily regulated.

Appreciate if someone could explain the situation.

pc7

Bistoman wrote: »

I have rented in the past as a student, and by far the person who came from the most privileged background ( He is a professor now ) was responsible for the most ware and tear on the house. Over 4 years and a number of different tenants passing trough, It was the people looking for work and on RA that had more care for all the shared areas than the spoiled little princes who could care less for the LL property.
I'm just saying that it's a terrible idea to think that just because You are on hard times, You suddenly decide to kick holes in the walls.

Agree 100% was just making the point that had been made, listen we all know there are good RA tenants and bad RA tenants, there are good private tenants and bad. The bottom line that I think most landlords would agree on is that the Government is not helping, if they want to help, give deposits to RA tenants, increase RA where possible to stop families going into hotels, pay rent from RA tenants directly to landlords to remove the issue of non payment. There is no consequence in my experience with a RA tenant from keeping the rent the government gave him for me! In my eyes that's fraud and theft.

athtrasna

Mod note

There's a politics forum if you want to go off on an anti government rant. Please stick to the accommodation and property aspect. Several posts have had to be deleted.

Thanks

CIARAN_BOYLE

Kimora Swift Musketeer wrote: »

If true this is beyond stupid, I wouldn't give it to any tenant if I was renting out a place.

So you are non resident? Right so I will give 20% of my rent directly to revenue and you can claim that back when making your return.

anothernight

Elemonator wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing the bigger picture, but shouldn't landlords be able to refuse anyone if they want? After all, it is their property that is already heavily regulated.

Appreciate if someone could explain the situation.

Sigh. My more succinct post got deleted, so I'll have to explain it without mentioning the government. Please excuse the much increased length and overuse of the passive voice.

In an ideal world, landlords should be able to choose who they let into their property. The problem is that there seems to be a shortage on rental properties. The RA system is inconvenient because the allowance is very low, it requires the landlord to deal with paperwork, it is paid to the tenant and not to the landlord, its payment can be delayed or stopped for various reasons, and if the tenant receives it but chooses not to pay the rent, there's very little consequence on the tenant. So for ages people would openly refuse RA.

Some people think the solution is to increase social housing to meet demand, but a solution is needed for the here and now. For whatever reason, the chosen option is to ban this RA refusal. It's not exactly enforceable, but if a way to enforce it is found, it may have unintended consequences such as overall rent increases.

I'm of the opinion that I* should be able to choose who I rent my property to as long as I don't infringe any of the grounds of discrimination. Why are landlords now banned from refusing certain tenants? That's anyone's guess. I can't give you my guess because my post will be deleted again if I do, but hopefully the explanation above will help you to make up your own mind.


*Hypothetically, as I currently rent.

Barely Hedged

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

So you are non resident? Right so I will give 20% of my rent directly to revenue and you can claim that back when making your return.

Irrelevant. I can assign anybody in Ireland to collect my rent and avoid the 20% reassignment. Personal addresses are not up for discussion. It doesn't happen in any other business

TheChizler

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Personal addresses are not up for discussion. It doesn't happen in any other business

Sure it does. Personal addresses are generally your business address when you're self employed. Now if you were the CEO of a limited company that owned the property you would only give the address of the business.

REXER

pc7 wrote: »

If someone isn't employed it could be viewed they will be in the house more so then there will be more wear and tear (this came up recently on another thread here in terms of a house share). Some stated that they wouldn't want to share with someone not working as bills etc. would be bigger. Again its a private property and if the landlord wants an employer reference they should be entitled to ask for that.

So how would you feel about a stay at home housewife? Just curious.

pc7

REXER wrote: »

So how would you feel about a stay at home housewife? Just curious.

Its not my view, was just saying what was said in another thread. If there are kids the house is screwed anyhow if its anything like mine

pc7

And to add one of the best tenants I ever had were a muslim family, the wife was a sahm, house was spotless and always offered us dinner when it was time to collect the rent.

athtrasna

anothernight please do not discuss moderation on thread. Thanks