HAP for landlords

K.Flyer

I know someone with long term tenants (one if them working) asked if they could go onto HAP. Up to that point they were paying rent (not R.A.) as usual, but with a new baby things were getting tight and wanted to try avail of it before they might hit financial problems.
All sorted in about 8 weeks or so. His tenant has more disposable cash, so less likely to fall behind on his share and he gets the same amount of rent as before, win win for each of them he reckons.

mikemac2

If one is working I would have thought family income supplement would have been the correct scheme for them

Maybe off topic of accommodation forum though

Bushmanpm

To the OP:
Having read through all the thread one thing is apparent; its quite messy and when the 'musical chairs' stops, as per usual it's the LL left standing!
Has the LA said what amount of rent they'll be paying? IE, is it at market rate or if below MR, by how much? How does this compare to the rent you're currently receiving privately?
One possibility (and its a bit 5hitty!) perhaps offer the tenant some amount of discount just to keep the LA out of the situation?
Only you have the numbers and can decide but personally HAP sounds more agro than its worth.

lucernarian

Askthe EA wrote: »

Again though, it's not scare mongering. If the property is older and a landlord accepts HAP it is inevitable that they will have to spend money to retrofit the house to modern standards. It is less likely that he will have to do anything if he has a private tenant.

I believe it's been accepted on this thread that the HAP requirements are identical to what the LA requires from any private rented dwelling.

That being the case, then the implication that renovation is inevitable would suggest that quite a lot of landlords are not maintaining their property to a minimum standard.

Furthermore, considering that meeting these standards (i.e complying with the law that's there for public welfare reasons) is regarded as a "downside" to HAP, either a lot of places do actually need these legally-required repairs, or else it is sorta scaremongering...

If somewhere needs these things, they may as well deal with it now rather than wait for an inspection to catch them. That would be a poor way to run a business.

wordofwarning

lucernarian wrote: »

That being the case, then the implication that renovation is inevitable would suggest that quite a lot of landlords are not maintaining their property to a minimum standard.

You could have the best furnishings, Italian granite worktops, Iranian rugs, German appliances etc and fail an inspection for having the wrong type of smoke detector. The smoke alarm is functionable, just it does not have a ten year battery. If you don't have a four ring hob, you fail an inspection.

There is this notion, that minimum standards equates to a house of a certain standard. You could have a kip that passes as it ticks the boxes on a form rather than it being a nice house to live in. The minimum standards mean you can tick the boxes on a form rather than providing a nice house to live in

lucernarian wrote: »

If somewhere needs these things, they may as well deal with it now rather than wait for an inspection to catch them. That would be a poor way to run a business.

So a landlord who struggles to pay his mortgage each month should just blow a few thousand on the house to comply with red tape, as there is a small chance he might have to do in the future? A lot of landlords are struggling and waiting to get out of the industry ASAP. Mindlessly spending money on ensuring a perfectly functioning extractor fan is up to standard etc is the least of their priorities...

A poor way to run a rental business is to be in the industry in the first place. The more mindless red tape coming from the Government will just have landlord's selling up.

Landlord's now have another reason not to take tenants on welfare ie their property will be inspected. Whereas if they let it to private market tenants, the property would likely never be inspected

handlemaster

What is the story with HAP do all existing rent allowance tenants have to go onto this scheme ?

circular flexing

handlemaster wrote: »

What is the story with HAP do all existing rent allowance tenants have to go onto this scheme ?

I believe that is the plan.

January

handlemaster wrote: »

What is the story with HAP do all existing rent allowance tenants have to go onto this scheme ?

Yes, it is the plan. I rang the council yesterday to inquire about it though and they told me that they're only doing it for anyone who's circumstances change atm. So if you have no job and get a job they'll move you to HAP, if your tenancy is in danger, rent increase or your RS is stopped for some reason they'll transfer you and to call back if my circumstances change.

How Strange

We rented our apartment last summer a d we've a hap tenant. We are getting the top end of the market rate for rent, 2 months in advance (one of those being a deposit) and rent paid in advance every months.

We had a LA inspection with Dublin CC after 3 months and everything was fine apart from they wanted a smoke detector not a heat detector. We had to fix up a couple of things before the tenant moved in buy nothing unusual or specific to hap tenants.

Manion

wordofwarning wrote: »

Landlord's now have another reason not to take tenants on welfare ie their property will be inspected. Whereas if they let it to private market tenants, the property would likely never be inspected

I had no idea about these requirements for rental properties. Seems every house I ever lived in would fail. M sure they are all good ideas but seriously not helpful.

lucernarian

Manion wrote: »

I had no idea about these requirements for rental properties. Seems every house I ever lived in would fail. M sure they are all good ideas but seriously not helpful.

Why are they not helpful?

Lumen

Manion wrote: »

I had no idea about these requirements for rental properties. Seems every house I ever lived in would fail.

Every kitchen I've ever cooked in would fail an HSE inspection, but I'm not calling for restaurant kitchen inspections to end.

It is normal that services provided to the public are regulated to ensure that they are safe, because the market alone is a poor regulator due to information and expertise deficits.

Manion

Are those the only options? This level of regulation or no regulation? Your statement is a text book response to why we regulate any market and I don't disagree with that.

However there is such a thing as too much regulation. Every requirement has a cost. I think things might have gone too far one way when you have regulations mandating a higher quality rental stock than the fast majority of Irish people live in but we see proposals to house families in converted furniture warehouses.

Lumen

Manion wrote: »

Are those the only options? This level of regulation or no regulation? Your statement is a text book response to why we regulate any market and I don't disagree with that.

However there is such a thing as too much regulation. Every requirement has a cost. I think things might have gone too far one way when you have regulations mandating a higher quality rental stock than the fast majority of Irish people live in but we see proposals to house families in converted furniture warehouses.

Putting aside the unintended consequence of landlords finding ways to avoid the HAP market (which could be solved by also inspecting non-HAP properties), I would always look for evidence as to whether the market needs regulation.

I haven't rented in Ireland but I have visited rentals occupied by friends and most were quite deficient in a number of areas (electrical, plumbing, insulation, ventilation) that the tenants would not be able/allowed to fix themselves. edit: not only that, but requests to remediate have been ignored for years, the usual response being either endless procrastination or "if you don't like it, find somewhere else".

You also don't have to look very far for examples of poor fire safety in rental stock. They're regularly in the news.

Manion

Lumen wrote: »

Putting aside the unintended consequence of landlords finding ways to avoid the HAP market (which could be solved by also inspecting non-HAP properties), I would always look for evidence as to whether the market needs regulation.

I haven't rented in Ireland but I have visited rentals occupied by friends and most were quite deficient in a number of areas (electrical, plumbing, insulation, ventilation) that the tenants would not be able/allowed to fix themselves.

You also don't have to look very far for examples of poor fire safety in rental stock. They're regularly in the news.

Ah now, if you had wide spread inspection of non HAP rentals, the "unintended consequence" would be a reduction in the number of properties and an increase in the rental costs for those that decided to be compliant. Again text book response. So you solve that problem by having rent controls. People leave the market all together and let property idle. So you then solve that problem by introducing higher property taxes on vacant residential property.

See London:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/21/tens-thousands-london-homes-deemed-long-term-vacant

It's not simple, every time a government dips into a market there are ripples and unintended consequences. Banning bed sits morally was a great idea. Horrible places that no one should have to live in, but as we learnt there was no effective measures in place to ensure there was alternatives for those people.

The_Conductor

Lumen wrote: »

Every kitchen I've ever cooked in would fail an HSE inspection, but I'm not calling for restaurant kitchen inspections to end.

It is normal that services provided to the public are regulated to ensure that they are safe, because the market alone is a poor regulator due to information and expertise deficits.

While I understand fully where you're coming from- a landlord has a small shopping list of items they have to supply to a prospective tenant- including- a 4 ring cooker, a fridge with a freezer compartment, a kettle and a few other odds and ends. The landlord is not obliged to vouch for the kitchen passing a HSE audit- and indeed, I reckon over 95% of all kitchens in the country- both in rented and owner occupied properties- would fail a thorough audit.

Any house I've been in- I've cleaned the kitchen and the bathroom before allowing them be used. Depending on the amount of time I have- I may get an oven deep clean done in advance, sometimes, after the fact.

A HAP tenant has an expectation of a significantly higher standards being applied- than does a regular tenant- however, a failure to meet HAP standards- does not mean there is anything wrong with the cleanliness of a property- or its suitability for a prospective tenant of any other category.

LCD/LED/CFL light bulbs- or rather the lack of them- should not rule a property out of contention- nor should the battery in a smoke alarm not being a 10 year battery, nor a CO2 detector not having at least 4 years serviceable life left (as per the BB dates on them).

There has to be some sanity in the system.

Lumen

The_Conductor wrote: »

The landlord is not obliged to vouch for the kitchen passing a HSE audit- and indeed, I reckon over 95% of all kitchens in the country- both in rented and owner occupied properties- would fail a thorough audit.

To be clear, I'm not saying that rental kitchens should pass HSE inspections, I'm just saying that it's normal to apply higher standards in the provision of services to the public than we tolerate in our own homes.

The_Conductor wrote: »

A HAP tenant has an expectation of a significantly higher standards being applied- than does a regular tenant

I suspect this is more about state housing providers avoiding accusations that they are lowering standards by outsourcing to the private sector - they presumably apply the same standards to their own rental stock.

The_Conductor wrote: »

LCD/LED/CFL light bulbs- or rather the lack of them- should not rule a property out of contention- nor should the battery in a smoke alarm not being a 10 year battery, nor a CO2 detector not having at least 4 years serviceable life left (as per the BB dates on them).

No, and those requirements juxtaposed are ironic - one acts for efficiency and the other against. Presumably those half-used CO detectors end up in landfill.

Manion

Found a booklet for landlord on HAP.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/housing-assistance-payment/housing-assistance-payment-landlord-information

Indicates no deposit and payment in arrears. Also maximum amounts. Seems to contradict the earlier poster.

Nomis21

The conditions are different in every council area.

Dublin pay LL in advance. My county, Offaly, pay LL in arrears.

TresGats

I believe it is the Dublin 'Homeless Relief' scheme that pays Deposit & HAP rent in advance.

Manion

TresGats wrote: »

I believe it is the Dublin 'Homeless Relief' scheme that pays Deposit & HAP rent in advance.

That appears to be the case as the HAP documentation on the Dublin city council website specifically states that they don't pay a deposit and rent is paid in arrears. There is mention that deposits maybe paid under a DSP scheme in exceptional circumstances. At the same time they have the poster linked to that gives out the opposite information. I guess this only applies to people in emergency accommodation. Someone already renting under RA or privately wouldn't get this. It's not exactly clear.

Do they not realise that this is just placing people who are disadvantaged at another massive disadvantage when competing in the market for a place to live. I'd love to know the logic behind why they apply these terms. I could see landlords refusing to rent under them.

The_Conductor

Manion wrote: »

Do they not realise that this is just placing people who are disadvantaged at another massive disadvantage when competing in the market for a place to live. I'd love to know the logic behind why they apply these terms. I could see landlords refusing to rent under them.

2-3 months rent as a depost, alongside rent in advance- are the norm, not an exception, when renting. I thought the poster was suggesting the scheme had been restructured to recognise this and create a level playing field for prospective tenants. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever creating such an active disincentive for landlords to let to HAP tenants.

Nomis21

Manion wrote: »

Do they not realise that this is just placing people who are disadvantaged at another massive disadvantage when competing in the market for a place to live. I'd love to know the logic behind why they apply these terms. I could see landlords refusing to rent under them.

One problem night be that the tenant pays his portion of the rent to the LA weekly and the Landlord is paid monthly. The LA need to collect the tenant's portion of the rent over a month before paying the Landlord.

But the fact is that in this renting climate, Landlords with good quality homes do not need HAP. HAP is for homes at the lower end of the rental market and as such are more likely to fail inspections and cause the tenant to be homeless if the Landlord can't afford the repairs.

Manion

Nomis21 wrote: »

One problem night be that the tenant pays his portion of the rent to the LA weekly and the Landlord is paid monthly. The LA need to collect the tenant's portion of the rent over a month before paying the Landlord.

But the fact is that in this renting climate, Landlords with good quality homes do not need HAP. HAP is for homes at the lower end of the rental market and as such are more likely to fail inspections and cause the tenant to be homeless if the Landlord can't afford the repairs.

I'm sure the council has sufficient cash flow to not need to collect money first from tenants. I think it's more likely to be they don't wish to be out of pocket in the event that they don't pay up. So that risk is pushed to the landlords. It seems to be the definition of talking out both sides of their mouth.

peaches08

Hi
I have a tenant looking for HAP, they were great until they split up and one is in the house, she is a nightmare on the best of times ( always trying not to pay the full rent y saying something is broken and trying to get permission to replace and take out of the rent , turns out that's never the case she's j ust looking for cheap rent )
I'm ok with her as long as she pays the rent. this house is in neg equity still and costs me about 300 a month to top up the mortgage, I haven't a hope of selling it anytime soon but if I have to I will, I'm sick of it.

I do not want to accept HAP, first when calling my insurance agent he told me specifically most companies won't accept HAP tenants and the ones that do your premium goes higher,
second I have no tax clear cert ( going through a divorce, it's a big mess)

the council also pays in arrears and I know if the tenant doesn't pay their part it's all up to the landlord to chase etc.

Can I refuse HAP? Can someone please advise me on this. I know you can't discriminate against HAP tenants when advertising a property but what about an existing tenant,

Anyone any advise ?
thank you

peaches08

Hi
I've the same issues, tenant though is a nightmare, they split and she's in the house and just driving me insane with trying to dock the rent for broken items ( nothing is broken once I checked she's just looking for low rent ) I increased the rent by 100 in Jan and it's still 250 under market value. the house costs me each month

I do not want to accept HAP, first your insurance goes up, you're paid in arrears and there could be work to be done to get to the inspection which I can't afford. I have also no tax clearance (messy divorce)

Can they FORCE you to take HAP from your tenant? I want nothing to do with it or any council unless they want to buy the place.
thanks

The_Conductor

If your property fails the HAP inspection- it doesn't qualify for HAP- however, then you have the trouble of trying to remove the tenant- who may decide this is an opportune time not to pay rent at all.

HAP is a mess- for numerous reasons- but mostly because it puts all the risk on the landlord- for very little benefit.

E.g.

1. Its paid in arrears
2. You may or may not get a deposit
3. The tenant pays their portion of the rent directly to the council/local authority
3(b). If the tenant doesn't pay their portion- the landlord gets nothing whatsoever- the local authority stop payments altogether
4. The HAP inspection normally involves bringing a property up to current specs- if you were letting it privately it only has to meet the specs relevant to a building of its age. E.g. ventillation built into window frames may not be acceptable- you need separate ventillation for any habitable room, a fan on the same circuit as lighting for the bathroom- is verbotten, it has to be on a separate circuit. The Kiddie CO detectors- and/or fire alarms- that you get in B&Q/Woodies etc- are not acceptable- you need the commercial ones that have the 10 year batteries etc etc etc

If you have doubts about the tenant- before you ever get going on the scheme- forget it. If you get a good tenant on the scheme- they could be brilliant. In the OP's case- where the tenant is acting the maggot making deductions from the rent before they are ever on the scheme- just picture what'll happen if they do this with their portion of the rent for the local authority- the landlord will get nothing whatsoever- its not that they get the local authority portion of the rent- they get nothing whatsoever..........

gizmo81

peaches08 wrote: »

Hi
I've the same issues, tenant though is a nightmare, they split and she's in the house and just driving me insane with trying to dock the rent for broken items ( nothing is broken once I checked she's just looking for low rent ) I increased the rent by 100 in Jan and it's still 250 under market value. the house costs me each month

I do not want to accept HAP, first your insurance goes up, you're paid in arrears and there could be work to be done to get to the inspection which I can't afford. I have also no tax clearance (messy divorce)

Can they FORCE you to take HAP from your tenant? I want nothing to do with it or any council unless they want to buy the place.
thanks

You're not 'obliged' to take HAP (according to the council. But and it's a big but . . .

Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, or on any of the nine grounds, may also take the form of landlords or letting agents –

refusing to let you look at the property
refusing to rent the property to you
including discriminatory terms or conditions in leases or other tenancy agreements, whether written down or spoken
refusing to renew your lease or other tenancy agreement
end your lease or other tenancy agreement
withdrawing services related to property, or making it very hard for you to get these services.

https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/

If you refuse a tenant you could end up with a complaint under the Equal Status Act. Which will be a whole different ball-game to the RTB.

gizmo81

Edit: Double Post

The_Conductor

Guys- I've merged the two HAP threads- as it was getting a bit confusing.