Discussion: Social tenants greater rent affordability greater than working profession

Baby01032012

As someone who recently advertised a 2 bed apartment for rent I had applicants who were working professionals and those not working but in receipt of Housing Assitance Payments.

Who could best afford the 2 bed. When I looked at those working, references, payslips etc. Considering their net income % rent take. These were people in ok jobs or working professionals with family. But potentially spending 50% net income on rent.

Looked at single applicants or single parents not working but eligible for HAP ( south county Dublin) who were pre approved for 10-15% in excess of the rent advertised.
No work refs, etc but they were happy to offer higher rent to secure the apartment the rent was not a barrier.

I know there are other considerations. But on basis of rent affordability alone I was concerned for the working individuals.

It made me think though how we can have a scenario where those working full time couldn't compete with those supported by the state. There has to be something wrong with this.

athtrasna

Mod note We generally don't allow "them V us" threads on the forum so posters are asked to tread carefully. Sweeping generalisations will not be tolerated so please think before you post when replying to this thread. Thanks

theteal

Baby01032012 wrote: »

As someone who recently advertised a 2 bed apartment for rent I had applicants who were working professionals and those not working but in receipt of Housing Assitance Payments.

Who could best afford the 2 bed. When I looked at those working, references, payslips etc. Considering their net income % rent take. These were people in ok jobs or working professionals with family. But potentially spending 50% net income on rent.

Looked at single applicants or single parents not working but eligible for HAP ( south county Dublin) who were pre approved for 10-15% in excess of the rent advertised.
No work refs, etc but they were happy to offer higher rent to secure the apartment the rent was not a barrier.

I know there are other considerations. But on basis of rent affordability alone I was concerned for the working individuals.

It made me think though how we can have a scenario where those working full time couldn't compete with those supported by the state. There has to be something wrong with this.

I'm sorry but you're the one charging the high level of rent. I'm confused as to the level of concern for the working individuals. I know it's not your responsibility to help the government out of the housing situation they've created but the "something wrong" is the lack of availability of housing which has led to the cripplingly high rents currently being charged in certain parts of the land.

The government can't have stupid levels of families living on the streets so at a basic level, rent allowance rates will be what they need to be to pay the market rent.

MarkAnthony

theteal wrote: »

I'm sorry but you're the one charging the high level of rent. I'm confused as to the level of concern for the working individuals. I know it's not your responsibility to help the government out of the housing situation they've created but the "something wrong" is the lack of availability of housing which has led to the cripplingly high rents currently being charged in certain parts of the land.

The government can't have stupid levels of families living on the streets so at a basic level, rent allowance rates will be what they need to be to pay the market rent.

I think what the OP is driving at is this is a ridiculous self fulfilling prophecy.

Rents are driven up so rent allowance is increased, which drives up rents. Who do you think is paying for the rent allowance - that's right people paying tax which is indirectly private tenants.

God love anyone renting in this nightmare.

Anyone unemployed and on rent allowance (granted there are plenty of people who need a hand up and have the best job they can get) should be labouring on the sites that social housing should be going up on. That and they need to stop selling council houses - absolutely ridiculous carry on. That and it's time to start moving people out of unsuitable social housing. Not had a job in 36 months - off to Kerry it is, no kids in the house any more - apartment time. That and council rents should be the going market rent once the household income meets the national average wage.

4ensic15

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Not had a job in 36 months - off to Kerry it is, no kids in the house any more - apartment time. That and council rents should be the going market rent once the household income meets the national average wage.

Why should Kerry have to host all the social tenants? There are enough problems in Kerry as it is.

Barely Hedged

4ensic15 wrote: »

Why should Kerry have to host all the social tenants? There are enough problems in Kerry as it is.

I assune Kerry was taken as an example. Feel free to insert any county name in place of Kerry that doesn't have a rental shortage.

The government are being tasked with solving this issue and Kerry is under governmental jurisdiction.

Shawn Michaels

For the social welfare recipients, the money is paid to them for onward tranmission to you, correct?

Keane2baMused

Shawn Michaels wrote: »

For the social welfare recipients, the money is paid to them for onward tranmission to you, correct?

Not for HAP, the landlord is paid directly and the tenant then pays the council rent.

HAP is a much better system and has much less scope for abuse than rent allowance. The sooner the better rent allowance is phased out, however they need to address the issue of council housing lists. HAP also encourages return to work as the payment is not lost (however many will argue this is unaffordable long term for the state).

OP I take your point and it is actually a fair one. Working professionals not only have the high cost of rent but then also childcare which can be the equivelant of the rent.

I don't believe getting a private tenant ensures the place will be better looked after, there will be good and bad eggs either way.

Baby01032012

theteal wrote: »

I'm sorry but you're the one charging the high level of rent. I'm confused as to the level of concern for the working individuals. I know it's not your responsibility to help the government out of the housing situation they've created but the "something wrong" is the lack of availability of housing which has led to the cripplingly high rents currently being charged in certain parts of the land.

The government can't have stupid levels of families living on the streets so at a basic level, rent allowance rates will be what they need to be to pay the market rent.

In relation to this and me charging high level of rent... It's the social welfare tenant in this case offered in excess of 10-15% of the rent I was asking. So it's them setting an even higher rent level. It was offered because they were pre approved for a higher amount. This is a predominantly social welfare area, the level of rent I was asking was at the upper end. However because social protection had pre approved individuals for a higher level than what is being asked for this area they in effect are setting the high rent level.
Rent allowance is very different. However this HAP scheme gives greater flexibility with rent levels and gives tenants the flexibility to also add to the maximum level which rent allowance doesn't.
I think HAP is setting a dangerous precedent. I'm very supportive of social welfare tenants. It's the HAP/ social protection policy I have an issue with and the effect its having on rent levels in my area for everyone.

Keane2baMused

Baby01032012 wrote: »

It's the HAP/ social protection policy I have an issue with and the effect its having on rent levels in my area for everyone.

I think with some work HAP has far greater potential for success than RA ever has. Rent allowance has been a major cause of the poverty trap as those who receive it often can't afford to return to work. It's a catch 22.

I take your point about it raising rent levels but that is in very specific areas. In general landlords still don't want to get involved with a social housing tenancy. There's also the added hassle of council inspections etc.