Media: 3 Tenants awarded compensation after their landlord refuses to engage in HAP

The_Conductor

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0821/898813-housing-assistance-payment-case/

Short version:

3 tenants, took a joint case against their common landlord, after the landlord refused to take part in the HAP scheme.

The case was taken on their behalf via CIC and FLAC- to the Workplace Relations Commission (not the RTB).

An adjudication was made in favour of all 3 tenants- who were separately awarded their costs and compensation of up to 14,500 each.

FLAC stated on morning Ireland this AM: "This was an important test case, especially in the context of a housing crisis. Any assistance the State can give to ensure tenants could maintain their tenancy is hugely significant".

In short- the Workplace Relations Commission now appears to have superceded the RTB as the go-to body for tenants who have been discriminated against.

I'd love to have an official comment from the RTB on what their viewpoint is- of tenants fecking off to another body. It is a vote of no-confidence in the RTB on the part of tenants- who are badly affected by the glacial pace at which it proceeds. Landlords- well, the perception is- they don't feature.

The particular test case highlights the fact that changes in legislation can retrospectively be applied to pre-existing contractual obligations- the landlord had argued that the law could not be retrospectively applied- which in theory, it shouldn't be.

We need some proper legislation, and a proper body to enforce it- who operate in an expeditious manner- and are seen as neutral by both tenants and landlords. We do not have such a body at present.

Uriel.

Why aren't bodies like IPOA making cases/submissions to government regarding the issues faced by landlords in general. Or are they, and they are just not influential enough?

€14,500 per tenant and legal costs is a massive Kick in the teeth for this landlord. They should be able to appeal on points of law to the high court though surely?

Still not sure how the LRC had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first instance.

I have one property, accidental landlord, if I could afford to, I'd be gone out of the market in the morning.

jimmycrackcorm

How is it that the WRC has jurisdiction for this? I think the judgement is correct though as these were existing tenants.

neris

Uriel. wrote: »

Why aren't bodies like IPOA making cases/submissions to government regarding the issues faced by landlords in general. Or are they, and they are just not influential enough?

I have one property, accidental landlord, if I could afford to, I'd be gone out of the market in the morning.

IPOA wouldnt be influential enough its very small and landlords are seen as fair game to shaft over coz theyre seen to be people of "means", even the accidental landlord like yourself. The whole system is weighted in favour of the poor little tennant

dudara

I wonder on what basis did the WRC hear the case and how does it fall into their remit?

Either way, it's interesting as it's essentially a boycott of the RTB.

Morally, I tend to agree with the finding. It is unfair to discriminate against existing tenants. But is the basis for the finding solid?

The_Conductor

dudara wrote: »

Morally, I tend to agree with the finding. It is unfair to discriminate against existing tenants. But is the basis for the finding solid?

Concur 100% with you.
Morally- it was, 100%, the right call- but legally- and the choice of words the FLAC person being interviewed chose highlights this- it is questionable........

This particular landlord is probably going to cut his losses and pay up- but the case has raised far more questions, than it has answered (including how/why the WRC had jurisdiction- rather than the RTB).

Mrs Shuttleworth

The_Conductor wrote: »

Concur 100% with you.
Morally- it was, 100%, the right call- but legally- and the choice of words the FLAC person being interviewed chose highlights this- it is questionable........

This particular landlord is probably going to cut his losses and pay up- but the case has raised far more questions, than it has answered (including how/why the WRC had jurisdiction- rather than the RTB).

It is highly unlikely that the landlord has this amount of money disposable in cash. The tenants will now have to proceed to enforcement.

I hope the landlord appeals this.

CIARAN_BOYLE

dudara wrote: »

I wonder on what basis did the WRC hear the case and how does it fall into their remit?

Afaik wrc gets all discrimination cases in the first instance.

Klonker

The payouts seem huge to me. What exactly is this compensation for? If they were forced to move and pay rent somewhere else then fair enough maybe but even if they did have to move and I'm not sure that they did I'm pretty sure they didn't pay the majority of the rent themselves.

It seems to me this is to scare off other landlords of doing something similar.

Dravokivich

What's the surprise? it was announced at the end of 2015 that WRC had scope for these issues.

Edit:
Article from Feb 2016 about it:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0226/770891-landlords-rent-supplement/

The_Conductor

Klonker wrote: »

The payouts seem huge to me. What exactly is this compensation for? If they were forced to move and pay rent somewhere else then fair enough maybe but even if they did have to move and I'm not sure that they did I'm pretty sure they didn't pay the majority of the rent themselves.

It seems to me this is to scare off other landlords of doing something similar.

The payout does seem disproportionate- and if the landlord is one of the accidental landlords (which according to the RTB covers 63% of all property)- it could potentially bankrupt them.

Its not clear whether, or not, the three tenants were renting the one dwelling between them- or whether it was three separate dwellings- and they simply took the equivalent of a small-scale class action suit against the landlord.

One way or the other- the Minister- is going to have to revisit the manner in which Landlords are treated as not running a business, and all rental income is treated as 'unearned income'.

Awards like this- will drive people into bankruptcy- or worse.

The HAP scheme is all well and good- however, the manner in which all the risk associated with the scheme is blow back for a landlord- is inequitable and deeply unfair. If a local authority wants to offer HAP to a landlord- threatening a landlord with no rent at all, if a tenant doesn't pay their share to the local authority- and refusing to discuss this with the landlord- is quite remarkable- and a massive over-reach.

Equality means HAP tenants should be on an equal footing with other tenants. HAP is not about equality- it is about minimising risk for local authorities- landlords be damned.

Askthe EA

Morally correct but surely, legally unsound?

Lux23

I didn't think discrimination cases were ever in the RTB's remit and that it was up to the WRC since the law was changed to cover tenancy agreements?

The_Conductor

Lux23 wrote: »

I didn't think discrimination cases were ever in the RTB's remit and that it was up to the WRC since the law was changed to cover tenancy agreements?

We have one hell of a massive can of worms here.
What happens if a landlord advises the property he/she is letting- will not pass a HAP inspection?

There are brigades of people saying- oh, HAP is the same as any other scheme- but, its not.

If you can't discriminate against HAP tenants- but know your property won't pass a HAP inspection- but it is perfectly suitable for letting privately- what the hell do you do?

Askthe EA

The_Conductor wrote: »

We have one hell of a massive can of worms here.
What happens if a landlord advises the property he/she is letting- will not pass a HAP inspection?

There are brigades of people saying- oh, HAP is the same as any other scheme- but, its not.

If you can't discriminate against HAP tenants- but know your property won't pass a HAP inspection- but it is perfectly suitable for letting privately- what the hell do you do?

The one and only time I got fired was advising a client accept HAP. Cost them €1500 - €2000. Lesson learned.

Gatling

The_Conductor wrote: »

We have one hell of a massive can of worms here.
What happens if a landlord advises the property he/she is letting- will not pass a HAP inspection

If you can't discriminate against HAP tenants- but know your property won't pass a HAP inspection- but it is perfectly suitable for letting privately- what the hell do you do?

I get the feeling it will be considered discrimination again and an excuse to get out of if

The_Conductor

Gatling wrote: »

I get the feeling it will be considered discrimination again and an excuse to get out of if

Surely if a landlord can show that accepting a HAP tenant will place an unfair burden on them- they shouldn't have to? The whole premise of this- is equality legislation- and the notion that a HAP tenant has to be treated in an equal manner to any other tenant- fine- but the facts on the ground is that local authorities are insisting on standards significantly above those that a Private tenant is entitled to- and these are considered to be upgrades by Revenue- and not allowable costs...........

If it were a level playing field- it would be an equality measure- but, its not.

AlmightyCushion

The_Conductor wrote: »

Surely if a landlord can show that accepting a HAP tenant will place an unfair burden on them- they shouldn't have to? The whole premise of this- is equality legislation- and the notion that a HAP tenant has to be treated in an equal manner to any other tenant- fine- but the facts on the ground is that local authorities are insisting on standards significantly above those that a Private tenant is entitled to- and these are considered to be upgrades by Revenue- and not allowable costs...........

If it were a level playing field- it would be an equality measure- but, its not.

It would be similar to not hiring someone who is in a wheelchair because your office is on the second floor or higher and the only way up is a set of stairs, no ramp or elevator. Would that be viewed as discrimination in the eyes of the law?

The_Conductor

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It would be similar to not hiring someone who is in a wheelchair because your office is on the second floor or higher and the only way up is a set of stairs, no ramp or elevator. Would that be viewed as discrimination in the eyes of the law?

Or bringing it back to the remit of the forum- with apologies you're unable to let an apartment to a wheelchair bound prospective tenant- as, with regret, the door is too narrow to allow them get in............

Aka- are you expected to modify the premises to remove whatever the impediment is to employing the person, or allowing them to enter/exit a dwelling etc etc?

Is it discrimination- to suggest you can't afford the modifications?

If it was tax deductible- you might do the modifications- however, Revenue say its an enhancement to the property- and thus does not qualify- whereas the Local Authorities disagree with this assessment in their HAP checklist..........

Does not compute.

Michael D Not Higgins

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It would be similar to not hiring someone who is in a wheelchair because your office is on the second floor or higher and the only way up is a set of stairs, no ramp or elevator. Would that be viewed as discrimination in the eyes of the law?

It would be more like if the building already had a ramp and elevator as required by law, but because this employee benefits from some government scheme, you have to put in a ramp which is 10cm wider.

Askthe EA

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It would be similar to not hiring someone who is in a wheelchair because your office is on the second floor or higher and the only way up is a set of stairs, no ramp or elevator. Would that be viewed as discrimination in the eyes of the law?

Its worse. The equivalent is an employer would have to install a stairlift and make the property wheelchair friendly if a wheelchair tenant was to get the job.

jamesthepeach

So now you have landlords who only let to those with very good secure jobs which the tenant has very little chance of losing. Also you make the deposit at least 3 months rent.

All done without ever mentioning why a candidate was or wasn't successful in getting the property.

Really it's time someone like the ipoa took this unfair treatment of landlords on.

We're the tenants names published? Don't fancy their chances of renting ever again if they were?

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

We're the tenants names published? Don't fancy their chances of renting ever again if they were?

Both the tenants name and the landlord's name were anonymised in the publication of the adjudication.

Have a read of the adjudications link here: http://www.lrc.ie/en/Cases/2017/August/ADJ-00004100.html

(note there are three adjudications- one for each tenant- but they're largely cut and paste jobbies)

I'd seriously suggest the adjudicator *needs* to get a better understanding of the HAP scheme- there are a few comments in both the adjudications and the press release accompanying them- that are seriously at odds with what is happening on the ground.

Askthe EA

The_Conductor wrote: »

Both the tenants name and the landlord's name were anonymised in the publication of the adjudication.

Have a read of the adjudications link here: http://www.lrc.ie/en/Cases/2017/August/ADJ-00004100.html

(note there are three adjudications- one for each tenant- but they're largely cut and paste jobbies)

I'd seriously suggest the adjudicator *needs* to get a better understanding of the HAP scheme- there are a few comments in both the adjudications and the press release accompanying them- that are seriously at odds with what is happening on the ground.

That adjudication is gobsmacking! Surely, surely he will appeal?

The_Conductor

Askthe EA wrote: »

That adjudication is gobsmacking! Surely, surely he will appeal?

One would hope he/she would appeal- and honestly- I believe they would have reasonable grounds on which to do so- however, if its going to cost them- and they're already 40k down- unless they are seriously bloody minded- they would most probably think it an imprudent expenditure of yet more money- that they likely don't have.......... Aka- throwing good money, after bad.........

If they are sufficiently upset over the whole saga- they might do it- but the logical thing, given how much money is involved- is to drop it- despite the fact that they would be hanging god only knows how many other people out to dry- by doing so.

If the IPOA were in a position to identify the landlord- and assist them in taking a case- perhaps- however, as a landlord with potentially only a single property- they simply have too much to loose pursuing this any further.

Askthe EA

The_Conductor wrote: »

If the IPOA were in a position to identify the landlord- and assist them in taking a case- perhaps- however, as a landlord with potentially only a single property- they simply have too much to loose pursuing this any further.

The only way IPOA will be of any help if representatives from Kennedy & the other REITs get involved and bankroll a strong lobby group.

Del2005

The_Conductor wrote: »

Or bringing it back to the remit of the forum- with apologies you're unable to let an apartment to a wheelchair bound prospective tenant- as, with regret, the door is too narrow to allow them get in............

Aka- are you expected to modify the premises to remove whatever the impediment is to employing the person, or allowing them to enter/exit a dwelling etc etc?

Is it discrimination- to suggest you can't afford the modifications?

If it was tax deductible- you might do the modifications- however, Revenue say its an enhancement to the property- and thus does not qualify- whereas the Local Authorities disagree with this assessment in their HAP checklist..........

Does not compute.

Since the landlord does not own the walls of the apartment how could they modify the door for access? It would have to be done by the management company and if they are to avoid a discrimination case, if apartment A is modified then someone looking at apartment Z will be able to use that to receive compensation, then the whole complex would need to be done and I can't see any management company being able to afford that.

The_Conductor

Del2005 wrote: »

Since the landlord does not own the walls of the apartment how could they modify the door for access? It would have to be done by the management company and if they are to avoid a discrimination case, if apartment A is modified then someone looking at apartment Z will be able to use that to receive compensation, then the whole complex would need to be done and I can't see any management company being able to afford that.

I hear you- however, whether something is feasible, or not, doesn't seem to feature in the equation...........

The person in the wheelchair- is disabled, therefore- they are being discriminated against- by nature of the fact that they can't do something that everyone else can do. Is it the landlord's fault? No- but nevertheless- the person is unable to access the building- so they are being discriminated against..........

Its a bit of a merry-go-round- without a right and a wrong answer- and you're damned no matter where you stand when the music stops.........

Lux23

But why did the landlord refuse to participate in the scheme? They weren't going to lose any money? I don't really understand why you find the decision so perplexing?

quietsailor

Here's a chilling extract from the section "Summary of Complinant's Case"

"The HAP Shared Services Centre administers the collection and payment of rental payments. Landlords undertaking the HAP Scheme are obliged to meet certain requirements which include registration of the property with the Residential Tenancies Board, certifying ownership of the property, provision of a valid Tax Clearance Certificate confirming tax compliance, and the property in question meeting certain minimum standards for rental accommodation under the requisite Regulations and being subject to a local authority inspection. Non-compliance by either of the Parties in relation to their respective obligations can lead to payments under the HAP Scheme being suspended or stopped".

This reads to me that the Landlord HAS to accept a HAP tenant - whether they want to or not and if the rental (house/apartment) isn't up to the HAP standard the LL can have their payment suspended.

Am I reading that correctly? - surely they can't do this - force you to take on a tenant under a scheme you never signed up to and then threaten to cut off your payments unless you make alterations - which, from reading a post above, isn't tax deductable, so you may not have the money to renovate

rawn

Lux23 wrote:

But why did the landlord refuse to participate in the scheme? They weren't going to lose any money? I don't really understand why you find the decision so perplexing?

Same! It seems straightforward. Some posters have brought up some excellent points about the difficulties of bringing a building up to HAP standards but that's not what was stopping this part LL. His defense was he didn't think he had to accept it for existing tenants. I'm sure many people advised him of the law during the process but he dug his heels in and is now - rightly - paying the price.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

But why did the landlord refuse to participate in the scheme? They weren't going to lose any money? I don't really understand why you find the decision so perplexing?

HAP minimum standards are higher than the usual minimum standards as the inspection team's interpretation of the published minimum standards is a much higher bar.

The_Conductor

Lux23 wrote: »

But why did the landlord refuse to participate in the scheme? They weren't going to lose any money? I don't really understand why you find the decision so perplexing?

For starters- what happens if/when the dwelling undergoes a HAP inspection?
It can fail for any of a long and bewildering list of reasons- some of which cost tens of thousands of Euro to rectify- and most of which are wholly irrelevant for renting in the private sector.

Or- what happens if the tenant neglects to pay their share of the rent to the local authority- and the landlord gets cut off altogether.

If a tenant doesn't pay their portion of the rent- the landlord gets nothing whatsoever- its not just the tenants portion that gets stopped.

Or- have you tried to contact a local authority to enquire about HAP lately? I've 17 names of people who have promised me a call back from 2 Dublin local authorities and Galway- none have done so......... Even if they did- they wouldn't discuss a tenant's situation with me (if I had a tenant who had stopped paying their portion of HAP)- on data protection grounds. I.e. all of the risk is put on the landlord- and none on the local authority.

Its a wonderful scheme for local authorities- as they don't have to accept responsibility- well, for anything at all- its an entitlement for the tenant- akin to any other- but for the landlord- they are the one left holding the saucepan.

Askthe EA

Lux23 wrote: »

But why did the landlord refuse to participate in the scheme? They weren't going to lose any money? I don't really understand why you find the decision so perplexing?

Because, firstly, it allows for retrospective changing of the terms of a contract without the consent of one of the parties? That in itself is mad.

There are significant costs incurred to bring a property to HAP standards, costs which cannot be claimed back against Tax.

Askthe EA

rawn wrote: »

Same! It seems straightforward. Some posters have brought up some excellent points about the difficulties of bringing a building up to HAP standards but that's not what was stopping this part LL. His defense was he didn't think he had to accept it for existing tenants. I'm sure many people advised him of the law during the process but he dug his heels in and is now - rightly - paying the price.

How do you know thats whats not stopping him? Maybe he didnt want to accept HAP due to the extra costs he knew would come.

Lux23

But he didn't use any of that in his defence, he simply said he didn't want to do it. Sounds like he/she was very foolish not to at least consider it. If he failed the HAP inspection for instance surely that could have been a reason to refuse? I think you're all getting your knickers in a twist about something that seems fairly straightforward to me. You can't refuse RA tenants and you can't refuse HAP either - that has been the law for a while now. This confirms it and rightly so.

The_Conductor

rawn wrote: »

Same! It seems straightforward. Some posters have brought up some excellent points about the difficulties of bringing a building up to HAP standards but that's not what was stopping this part LL. His defense was he didn't think he had to accept it for existing tenants. I'm sure many people advised him of the law during the process but he dug his heels in and is now - rightly - paying the price.

What happens if/when he/she pleads penury and is forced to sell the property?
The tenants get nada- and are turfed out, the landlord has the property repossessed- and its then flogged to whoever the lender can get to buy it.

Its a bit of a can't win situation- but the icing on the cake is the level of the fines being imposed on the landlord- he/she is being treated as a business by the LRC- rather than as a private individual- whereas Revenue etc- treat them as a private individual and rental income as unearned income taxed at their marginal rate (akin to share dividends etc).

I.e. one organ of state is treating the landlord as a business- the other as a milk cow- you can't have it both ways- its either one or the other- it places any landlord with 1-2 properties in an incredibly dangerous position- and landlords with 1-2 properties account for 63% of all properties registered with the RTB.

Its a mess- compounded by the level of fines levied on the landlord.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

But he didn't use any of that in his defence, he simply said he didn't want to do it. Sounds like he/she was very foolish not to at least consider it. If he failed the HAP inspection for instance surely that could have been a reason to refuse? I think you're all getting your knickers in a twist about something that seems fairly straightforward to me. You can't refuse RA tenants and you can't refuse HAP either - that has been the law for a while now. This confirms it and rightly so.

I take your point, and it's certainly reflected in the WRC's ruling which states the landlord's case of just testing the legislation makes the case of discrimination more serious. He may have even been able to mitigate some of the damages if these other points were brought forward.

The_Conductor

Lux23 wrote: »

But he didn't use any of that in his defence, he simply said he didn't want to do it. Sounds like he/she was very foolish not to at least consider it. If he failed the HAP inspection for instance surely that could have been a reason to refuse? I think you're all getting your knickers in a twist about something that seems fairly straightforward to me. You can't refuse RA tenants and you can't refuse HAP either - that has been the law for a while now. This confirms it and rightly so.

You can't refuse them- but what happens if/when a pre-existing tenant goes on HAP- and the property is inspected and fails? The landlord is then discriminating against the HAP tenant- if he/she doesn't bring it up to HAP standards- which are significantly above those a private sector tenant is entitled to. This has been confirmed by Revenue- who say an upgrade to HAP standards- is an upgrade of a property- and thus is ineligible as a cost against rental income, as the landlord can use the upgrade to attain a higher rent. However if the landlord does this- they'll be up before the RTB at tribunal on any of a number of different grounds (including, but not limited to, RPZ grounds).

I.e. you have different organs of state prescribing different things to landlords- without any cognisance of what other rules are being imposed on landlords by other bodies- and the landlords have to obey absolutely everything.

Honestly- the best course of action for any landlord with 1-2 properties- is to sell them ASAP.

AlmightyCushion

The_Conductor wrote: »

What happens if/when he/she pleads penury and is forced to sell the property?
The tenants get nada- and are turfed out, the landlord has the property repossessed- and its then flogged to whoever the lender can get to buy it.

Its a bit of a can't win situation- but the icing on the cake is the level of the fines being imposed on the landlord- he/she is being treated as a business by the LRC- rather than as a private individual- whereas Revenue etc- treat them as a private individual and rental income as unearned income taxed at their marginal rate (akin to share dividends etc).

I.e. one organ of state is treating the landlord as a business- the other as a milk cow- you can't have it both ways- its either one or the other- it places any landlord with 1-2 properties in an incredibly dangerous position- and landlords with 1-2 properties account for 63% of all properties registered with the RTB.

Its a mess- compounded by the level of fines levied on the landlord.

How does revenue not treat the landlord as business? Surely, landlords get treated the same as any one else who is self employed?

jamesthepeach

quietsailor wrote: »

Here's a chilling extract from the section "Summary of Complinant's Case"

"The HAP Shared Services Centre administers the collection and payment of rental payments. Landlords undertaking the HAP Scheme are obliged to meet certain requirements which include registration of the property with the Residential Tenancies Board, certifying ownership of the property, provision of a valid Tax Clearance Certificate confirming tax compliance, and the property in question meeting certain minimum standards for rental accommodation under the requisite Regulations and being subject to a local authority inspection. Non-compliance by either of the Parties in relation to their respective obligations can lead to payments under the HAP Scheme being suspended or stopped".

This reads to me that the Landlord HAS to accept a HAP tenant - whether they want to or not and if the rental (house/apartment) isn't up to the HAP standard the LL can have their payment suspended.

Am I reading that correctly? - surely they can't do this - force you to take on a tenant under a scheme you never signed up to and then threaten to cut off your payments unless you make alterations - which, from reading a post above, isn't tax deductable, so you may not have the money to renovate

Probably like every other part of the recent legislation it would not stand up if challenged. Finding a big enough bankroll to challenge it all is the problem. Many people offered to pay the ipoa to challenge the legislation but they ran with their tail between their legs.

Eric Cartman

a disgrace. Landlords should be allowed to turn down HAP.

The_Conductor

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How does revenue not treat the landlord as business? Surely, landlords get treated the same as any one else who is self employed?

All rental income is treated as 'unearned income' and subject to USC etc- not the net. A landlord cannot take cognisance of any work or materials that he/she uses in the course of running their letting- only if it is outsourced to a third party. No reasonable costs incurred in running the tenancy- travel expenses etc- it is expected that a landlord will do everything 'on their own time'. Only major allowable cost is 75% mortgage interest- however, if a landlord prudently pays down their debts- or inherits the family home and doesn't have any debt on it- they have no large cost to offset against their taxable income.

In theory- if a self employed person lets a property and doesn't have a mortgage associated with it- they can end up paying 54.5% in taxes and charges on the gross rental income. Show me a self employed person- in any other sector- who pays a marginal rate of tax of 54.5%.

Also- what the hell is the story with PRSI and USC on gross (and not net) rental income. Is the landlord going to get reimbursed if the property is vacant? Whats the reasoning? It just doesn't add up.

Also- unlike running any other business- regulatory taxes and charges are not deductible- so property tax, RTB fees etc- are *not* deductible (if you have a managing agent- his/her fees are- management charges in a serviced complex are, any costs associated with the day-to-day running of the property- are.

If you upgrade the property (for example- putting double or triple glazed windows in)- to make it more comfortable for tenants- as its an 'improvement' rather than a repair- it is *not* deductible...........

I could go on and on.......... Letting a property- is nowhere near running a business as a self-employed person- in fact, the taxation associated with letting a property in Ireland- is nothing short of a travesty for a small scale landlord- esp. if they've inherited a property, or paid back some of the mortgage. On the other side of the coin- we have the REITs and large scale landlords- who have set themselves up as charities- so they don't pay any tax- as in, any- at all........... Something doesn't give.

According to the Revenue Commissioners 96% of all tax paid on rental income in 2016- was by landlords who had 1 or 2 properties. Yet- 37% of all properties are let by landlords with more than 2 properties (according to the RTB). Go figure...........

jimmycrackcorm

Eric Cartman wrote:

a disgrace. Landlords should be allowed to turn down HAP.

No they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. However they shouldn't be forced to have to upgrade their properties to meet the HAP inspection requirements.

I too am curious what happens if in this particular case what would happen if this was so.

Either way the landlord lost for the renting equivalent of an employment constructive dismissal.

I think that landlords well now start saying they will accept HAP subject to inspection in advance, and tenants well find that the properties won't pass.

The_Conductor

If a landlord agrees to take a HAP tenant- and the property fails the HAP inspection- the landlord's payment is stopped immediately- as he/she is deemed to be in breach of their contractual obligations to the local authority under the scheme- wholly regardless of whether, or not, the property complies with all standards as laid out in the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended)- or whether or not the tenant continues to pay the local authority their share of the rent........

I.e. you can have a perfectly acceptable tenant, continue to pay their share of the rent, in a property fully compliant with the RTA, and the LA stop the rent.

For good measure- the local authority will not enter into correspondence with the landlord if a HAP payment is stopped, on data protection grounds...........

Honestly- the only sane thing to do- is specify a fully refundable 3 months rent upfront as a deposit from a prospective tenant, any tenant on HAP or RAS- is accepted- on the basis of a local authority pre-inspection- and minimum 3 previous landlord references from all- alongside confirmation that the prospective tenant has not taken a case against the landlord to the RTB/PRTB........

You'd be nuts to take on a HAP/RAS tenant- without a LA pre-inspection- and you'd be nuts to take on any tenant- without 3 months deposit.

Ideally- rent unfurnished if at all possible.

This is turning into a completely nutty situation.

godtabh

Listening to Matt Copper headlines the lady from FLAC sounded very smug. Didnt like her attitude as it seemed to be a case of them versus us.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a disgrace. Landlords should be allowed to turn down HAP.

Exactly a LL should be able to decide exactly who rents his property to and refuse anyone for any reason he wishes. Joke of a system that's dictating otherwise.

Eric Cartman

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

Exactly a LL should be able to decide exactly who rents his property to and refuse anyone for any reason he wishes. Joke of a system that's dictating otherwise.

I working with a few landlords who are converting every decent apartment they have in dublin into short let with airbnb, and their reasoning is all down to HAP, evictions taking too long and silly PRTB requests .

godtabh

Alora Embarrassed Vapidity wrote: »

Exactly a LL should be able to decide exactly who rents his property to and refuse anyone for any reason he wishes. Joke of a system that's dictating otherwise.

I agree they should be allowed to refuse but for the 9 grounds you cant discriminate against

• Gender
• Civil status
• Family status
• Sexual orientation
• Religion
• Age
• Disability
• Race (includes race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins)
• Membership of the travelling community.

but how is being a HAP tenant equate to being discriminated against for being gay?

It is not the private landlords job to provide accommodation. This is the case of the government passing the buck again.

The_Conductor

godtabh wrote: »

Listening to Matt Copper headlines the lady from FLAC sounded very smug. Didnt like her attitude as it seemed to be a case of them versus us.

Was there any explanation of how they came up with the 40k fine?
Seems completely and utterly over the top- and without any justification.
Also- was it clarified what the story with the landlord is- are they one of the 1-2 unit landlords (who make up 63% of the entire market)- or a large scale landlord?

The 40k- just sticks in the gullet- even if they were making a finding against the landlord- they could have given him/her a reasonable fine- 40k just seems so ridiculous- its the sort of fine that they're trying to bankrupt them- or worse........

40k fine- for a private individual- even if they were in the wrong- and I'd argue that the main issue here was the LL argued the wrong case- aka he/she tried to get it dismissed on a point of law- rather than attacking the system head-on to show it was totally ridiculous............

40k though? My god.

Wabbit Ears

So realistically the landlord here will just have to sell up and the tenants have to find new accommodation and will experience the reality of finding new rental accommodation which will simply being them reaping what they sowed.