Hap Accepted - Landlords

Topdolla

Ok So I have started this thread to see if there are any kind landlords on here that will accept the HAP scheme, the idea is to help people find landlords that are willing to accept the HAP scheme and connect via this thread.

I have been looking for over a year to try and find a landlord to accept the HAP scheme, the minute I mention HAP in an email on daft I know that Im not getting another reply.

I urge people to post there details of what type of property they are looking for, how much they are entitled to and the area which they would prefer.

I would also like to setup a poll asking landlords would they accept the HAP scheme and get some opinions in the thread.

Ok so some information about me and what I am looking for.

I am a 27 year old male from Dublin, I have 2 jobs full time in IT and part time security.
I am entitled to €990 euro for a studio/apt/flat but can go up to 1300 as I have the means,
I am willing to offer a cash deposit until the council payment clears.

Why is no one willing to rent to me on the HAP scheme? I mean they get deposit and 2 months in advance paid by Direct Debit, Will have no problems with rent as the council pay this no matter what.

Hopefully some landlords will see this thread and decide to help people struggling to find a place on the HAP scheme and get guaranteed rent on a contract from the council.

island_visitor

people in receipt of HAP have a reputation ( rightly or wrongly ) for spending there accomodation allowance ( they receive from the local authority ) on things other than the agreed rent to the landlord , then the landlord cannot evict so is left with no rent and a place they cant sell

amcalester

island_visitor wrote: »

people in receipt of HAP have a reputation ( rightly or wrongly ) for spending there accomodation allowance ( they receive from the local authority ) on things other than the agreed rent to the landlord , then the landlord cannot evict so is left with no rent and a place they cant sell

HAP is paid directly to the landlord.

davo10

All LLs, when polled, will tell you they accept HAP, because they leave themselves open to prosecution if they don't. However, the reality is that none will actually accept HAP for very obvious reasons. There is currently a thread on this forum where a home owner cannot sell his property because the council has advised a welfare recipient to overhold.

Flippyfloppy

I think some landlords prefer if the tenant pays the rent/deposit themselves as an incentive to keep the place well.

davo10

amcalester wrote: »

HAP is paid directly to the landlord.

Is it HAP payments which cease being made by the council if the tenant stops paying their portion of the rent?

Topdolla

davo10 wrote: »

All LLs, when polled, will tell you they accept HAP, because they leave themselves open to prosecution if they don't. However, the reality is that none will actually accept HAP for very obvious reasons. There is currently a thread on this forum where a home owner cannot sell his property because the council has advised a welfare recipient to overhold.

That's why I created the poll here to show the reality of the situation, as the poll is anonymous landlords will have no fear of telling the truth, and really I have been told by landlords no I don't want to deal with HAP, should I try get them prosecuted? Or would they even really be if I tried?

Doubtful

Riskymove

davo10 wrote: »

However, the reality is that none will actually accept HAP for very obvious reasons. T.

not to minimise the issues or reluctance of landlords...but...
there are over 18,000 households in receipt of HAP and it is paid to over 10,000 landlords

so saying "none" is a bit of a distortion don't you think

davo10

Topdolla wrote: »

That's why I created the poll here to show the reality of the situation, as the poll is anonymous landlords will have no fear of telling the truth, and really I have been told by landlords no I don't want to deal with HAP, should I try get them prosecuted? Or would they even really be if I tried?

Doubtful

Your poll is effectively asking posters if they are breaking the law.

Topdolla

davo10 wrote: »

Your poll is effectively asking posters if they are breaking the law.

It is down to the LL who they want to rent to, they are not breaking the law by choosing a cash tenant over a hap tenant, if they tell you the reason they won't rent to you is because of hap they would be breaking the law.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry I have to ask - why if you have 1.5 jobs are you on HAP? If you can pay €310 on top of your HAP payment and presumably you're paying something towards HAP do you not rent a room like many twenty somethings do? I'm all for a safety net for families or single parents that fall on hard times but a young lad in his prime, and an employed one at that.

I know that's not PC and I'm usually fairly left wing but surely we have to draw the line somewhere.

davo10

Topdolla wrote: »

It is down to the LL who they want to rent to, they are not breaking the law by choosing a cash tenant over a hap tenant, if they tell you the reason they won't rent to you is because of hap they would be breaking the law.

Actually they are, if the only criteria is the method of payment. A LL who chooses a cash tenant over HAP is discriminating against the HAP tenant.

island_visitor

amcalester wrote: »

HAP is paid directly to the landlord.

if the tenant stops paying the council , the council suspend paying the landlord

either way the unreliability of HAP tenants is based on this perception

3putt

How on earth with 2 jobs do you qualify for HAP(rent allowance) whatever you want to call it?

this country is crazy

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

amcalester

davo10 wrote: »

Is it HAP payments which cease being made by the council if the tenant stops paying their portion of the rent?

As far as I know, it's not a great system and has a lot of flaws but the landlord is paid directly rather than via the tenant.

davo10

Riskymove wrote: »

not to minimise the issues or reluctance of landlords...but...
there are over 18,000 households in receipt of HAP and it is paid to over 10,000 landlords

so saying "none" is a bit of a distortion don't you think

A considerable number will have moved onto HAP after being cash/RA tenants, a lot of rural LLs will have no option but to rent to HAP tenants. The question being asked by the op, if a LL has the option of a cash or HAP tenant, will he/she rent to HAP tenant, the answer is No, cash is preferable to government rent subsidy.

Riskymove

davo10 wrote: »

Actually they are, if the only criteria is the method of payment. A LL who chooses a cash tenant over HAP is discriminating against the HAP tenant.

that isn't correct landlords are not obliged to accept HAP tenant over a non-HAP tenant

davo10

Riskymove wrote: »

that isn't correct landlords are not obliged to accept HAP tenant over a non-HAP tenant

That's a double edged sword, if a HAP applicant asks why they didn't get the property, the LL cannot say because the other applicant paid cash.

At the end of the day, it would be a pretty stupid LL who would say, I'm not taking HAP tenants, there are other criteria which can be applied in the selection process without having to consider cash -V- HAP

Riskymove

davo10 wrote: »

the answer is No, cash is preferable to government rent subsidy.

it may well be preferable but that doesn't mean none of them would accept HAP if that is what was on offer

amcalester

davo10 wrote: »

That's a double edged sword, if a HAP applicant asks why they didn't get the property, the LL cannot say because the other applicant paid cash.

Landlord isn't obliged to give a reason, a simple "Thanks for your interest but I've decided to rent to someone else" will suffice.

davo10

Riskymove wrote: »

it may well be preferable but that doesn't mean none of them would accept HAP if that is what was on offer

The evidence on boards, where the op is conducting the poll, is the that posters rarely have anything positive to say about RA/HAP schemes.

Samuel T. Cogley

amcalester wrote: »

Landlord isn't obliged to give a reason, a simple "Thanks for your interest but I've decided to rent to someone else" will suffice.

As with most cases of discrimination people are rarely that smart.

spaceHopper

I wouldn't want to deal with HAP at all,
They inspect the house and could demand changes, why take the risk of letting a tenant in only for it to get messy. If the property was pre approved for HAP maybe, it would depend on the tennant. I'd have zero tolerence for bull sh1t paper work too.

island_visitor

i asked on another thread if a landlord leases his house - apartment to the council for ten years under the long term lease scheme ( where the landlord has no direct dealings with the tenant and wont know how is living in the house )

is he or she sure of receiving the agreed rent even the tenant starts messing around and not paying the local authority ? , i think this is a great scheme for landlords but im hearing mixed messages on this particular potential problem arising

island_visitor

spaceHopper wrote: »

I wouldn't want to deal with HAP at all,
They inspect the house and could demand changes, why take the risk of letting a tenant in only for it to get messy. If the property was pre approved for HAP maybe, it would depend on the tennant. I'd have zero tolerence for bull sh1t paper work too.

was told recently that when it comes to either the long term lease schemes or HAP , if your property is already in the system , such is the shortage of accommodation that they wont close the place down no matter how poor of condition the place is in

contrast this with landlords who are applying to have there properties accepted into the long term scheme and they make huge demands as regards what standard the property should be in , i had a surveyor check out a house for me recently , house is beautifully restored , the surveyor told me the council would not accept it as there is no upstairs bathroom , it was a two bed terraced town house , you could not hope to fit a bathroom upstairs unless you halved the size of one of the already smallish bedrooms

as usual the state is an ass and has no common sense

Samuel T. Cogley

This is, yet again, a system that is easily fixed. The LA take over the property, ideally unfurnished at 80% of market rate and everyone goes through one system of social housing. The LA collect rent towards it's costs and deals with it's own messers. Of course we'll never see it done as fecking over LL's is probably saving a few million a year.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry I have to ask - why if you have 1.5 jobs are you on HAP?

2.5 jobs if I'm reading this correctly. Even if they aren't paying well with 2.5 jobs surely you are earing too much for HAP? I dont even know how the logistics of this would work if they really are full time (8 hours per day) jobs.

amcalester

Kyng Dry Bulldog wrote: »

2.5 jobs if I'm reading this correctly. Even if they aren't paying well with 2.5 jobs surely you are earing too much for HAP? I dont even know how the logistics of this would work if they really are full time (8 hours per day) jobs.

Stick a comma into the OP and it becomes 2 jobs, full time in IT and part time security.

No way could he be working 2.5 FTE, when would he sleep?

Topdolla

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry I have to ask - why if you have 1.5 jobs are you on HAP? If you can pay €310 on top of your HAP payment and presumably you're paying something towards HAP do you not rent a room like many twenty somethings do? I'm all for a safety net for families or single parents that fall on hard times but a young lad in his prime, and an employed one at that.

I know that's not PC and I'm usually fairly left wing but surely we have to draw the line somewhere.

Good argument, I have rented in shared accommodation in the past and its like a lucky bag, you don't know who or what you are going to be living with.

I like my privacy and if I could afford to rent my own place with cash I would, but unfortunately the lack of housing in this country is a disgrace and working as hard as I do I should be allowed have that.

amcalester

Topdolla wrote: »

Good argument, I have rented in shared accommodation in the past and its like a lucky bag, you don't know who or what you are going to be living with.

I like my privacy and if I could afford to rent my own place with cash I would, but unfortunately the lack of housing in this country is a disgrace and working as hard as I do I should be allowed have that.

Whatever about the shortage of housing stock I’m not sure the state should supplement your lifestyle choice.

Topdolla

amcalester wrote: »

Whatever about the shortage of housing stock I’m not sure the state should supplement your lifestyle choice.

It is there fault that there is a shortage of housing, look at the homeless crisis, this is because the government failed to act accordingly and build the houses needed to house these families.

Also in regards to the HAP inspection, the standards for this inspection are set out in the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2017.

Which all Landlords should adhere to.

amcalester

Topdolla wrote: »

It is there fault that there is a shortage of housing, look at the homeless crisis, this is because the government failed to act accordingly and build the houses needed to house these families.

Also in regards to the HAP inspection, the standards for this inspection are set out in the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2017.

Which all Landlords should adhere to.

HAP inspections have been known to go beyond those standards.

Still no reason for the state to subsidize your lifestyle choice.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Topdolla

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry how do you raise a family in a single bedroom apartment?

zell12

All landlords accept HAP and comply with minimum housing standards.
If they do not they're breaking the law

Topdolla

zell12 wrote: »

All landlords accept HAP and comply with minimum housing standards.
If they do not they're breaking the law

Well most landlords in this country are breaking the law then.

Samuel T. Cogley

zell12 wrote: »

All landlords accept HAP and comply with minimum housing standards.
If they do not they're breaking the law

I do neither.

Some of the minimum standards are simply not practical and I'm buggered if I'm going to accept HAP while it's administered as it currently is. If anyone (except Topdolla) asks it's because I didn't like the shirt he was wearing.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

I just looked up the hap limits and for a single person the highest was Dublin but it was 660 per month, not sure where the op is getting their 900 plus figure

And you can qualify for hap earning up to 35k net in Dublin so about 42k gross

Topdolla

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Im sure people do this all over the world based on the need to, but should a family be raised in a single bed-roomed household?

Topdolla

Stheno wrote: »

I just looked up the hap limits and for a single person the highest was Dublin but it was 660 per month, not sure where the op is getting their 900 plus figure

And you can qualify for hap earning up to 35k

They are the old rates, and I got that figure directly from the council.

Topdolla

Topdolla wrote: »

It is there fault that there is a shortage of housing, look at the homeless crisis, this is because the government failed to act accordingly and build the houses needed to house these families.

Also in regards to the HAP inspection, the standards for this inspection are set out in the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2017.

Which all Landlords should adhere to.

Renting alone is always going to be expensive, it always has been.

Most people who work have to share for a few years at the very least and I see no reason why the government should be paying to house people living alone. Why should you have the government paying for your apartment while thousands more people have to pay for their own place in a house share?

The_Conductor

Topdolla wrote: »

Sorry how do you raise a family in a single bedroom apartment?

According to the last census- there are over 28,200 owner occupied apartments and other dwellings- with a single bedroom, where children under the age of 12 are living. The fact that they're owner occupied- means the parents aren't necessarily entitled to anything at all- yet, somehow, they manage.

Topdolla

The_Conductor wrote: »

According to the last census- there are over 28,200 owner occupied apartments and other dwellings- with a single bedroom, where children under the age of 12 are living. The fact that they're owner occupied- means the parents aren't necessarily entitled to anything at all- yet, somehow, they manage.

I see you are also the mod of the adoption forum so let me ask this, If you wanted to adopt a child in this state would that be allowed if you had no bedroom for the child? Or if you said ah the kid can have the room we have a sofa bed.

rawn

Topdolla wrote: »

draiochtanois wrote: »

All over Europe that's how it's done

Parents sleep on a couch bed in the living room and the children in a bedroom.

Irish people have notions.

Im sure people do this all over the world based on the need to, but should a family be raised in a single bed-roomed household?

Better a one - bed than a hotel room.

The_Conductor

Topdolla wrote: »

I see you are also the mod of the adoption forum so let me ask this, If you wanted to adopt a child in this state would that be allowed if you had no bedroom for the child? Or if you said ah the kid can have the room we have a sofa bed.

No- your application would end up in a dusty filing cabinet somewhere, never to see the light of day ever again.........

It would be considered to be inappropriate living accommodation not fit/suited to bringing up children.......... Yet- parents of natural children- who through no fault of their own only have a single bedroomed dwelling- somehow manage- and aren't breaking any rules.........

In short- your rights as a local authority or social welfare tenant with children- vastly exceed your non-existent rights- as someone who fends for themselves..........

Look at that lady down in Clare who admitted to a judge last week that her social welfare entitlements were in excess of the net pay a person on 120k per annum takes home..........

That lady nets 55k in social welfare entitlements- and has one of Clare Co. Co.'s few 6 bed houses. She has 4 children of her own- and is court appointed guardian of another 2 kids. She could not bring up any of those children on her own steam.

HAP is all well and good- and is a great safety net for those who need it most. However, there has to be some cognisance of who the worse off in society are- and I firmly believe the family who are somehow coping on their own steam but are living in inappropriate accommodation- are at least as deserving as anyone else- however, there isn't a magic money tree- contrary to what some people must believe- we have to draw a line somewhere- that line quite simply doesn't exist at the moment- and the perception is you'd be nuts to try and support yourself.

the_syco

Topdolla wrote: »

I have been looking for over a year to try and find a landlord to accept the HAP scheme, the minute I mention HAP in an email on daft I know that Im not getting another reply.

Not being able to say no to HAP means those with HAP have to waste a lot more of their own time ringing around, as those that don't accept HAP will jut find another excuse.

amcalester wrote: »

HAP is paid directly to the landlord.

Tenant pays percent to CC, CC pays HAP to LL. If tenant doesn't pay percent, LL gets nothing.

Topdolla wrote: »

I have been told by landlords no I don't want to deal with HAP, should I try get them prosecuted? Or would they even really be if I tried?

If they said that they do support it, got your hopes up, went through the process of filling in the forms leaving out enough info so that they're not eligible to rent their house to you (all this taking weeks), and suddenly you're homeless as you no longer have a place to live; would this be better?

island_visitor wrote: »

if the tenant stops paying the council , the council suspend paying the landlord

either way the unreliability of HAP tenants is based on this perception

The state has effed up in the past, and not paid the all the LL's a months HAP. The LL doesn't see that missing months HAP.

island_visitor wrote: »

is he or she sure of receiving the agreed rent even the tenant starts messing around and not paying the local authority ?

AFAIK, the LL then won't get paid, and it's the LL's issue, not the CC.

Topdolla wrote: »

I should be allowed have that.

If you want your own place, pay for it. Otherwise you're freeloading on a system designed for people with nothing.

Topdolla wrote: »

It is there fault that there is a shortage of housing, look at the homeless crisis, this is because the government failed to act accordingly and build the houses needed to house these families.

The government has never built houses.

Topdolla wrote: »

Which all Landlords should adhere to.

Why?

GGTrek

Topdolla wrote: »

draiochtanois wrote: »

All over Europe that's how it's done

Parents sleep on a couch bed in the living room and the children in a bedroom.

Irish people have notions.

Im sure people do this all over the world based on the need to, but should a family be raised in a single bed-roomed household?

I agree with you on this one. A couple with a child should not live in a one bedroom apartment: it is not healthy for the child and for the parents. However with the current housing crisis two adults can perfectly share a one bedroom apartment, probably not ideal for non-couples, but definitely a waste of tax money to supporta a single person in a one bedroom apartment without sharing when the state could provide the same apartment to accommodate two people.

Caranica

In the current market, demand far exceeds supply. Landlords have to choose between multiple self-finanacing tenants which is tough, HAP tenants would come way down the list of ideal tenants for all the reasons already cited on this thread.

As to why you pick one over the other "I thought tenant A was a perfect fit for this property", sorry potential tenants B-Z.

No discrimination, though your actual reasons may be that B had kids, C smells, D doesn't have a permanent job, E's social media shows they like late night parties, F needs HAP.

There's always a reason you pick one tenant over another. A blanket response, A is best, no need to explain to the rest why they didn't get it. Ergo no evidence of discrimination.

Former landlord, wouldn't encourage my worst enemy to get into the game.

circular flexing

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

This is, yet again, a system that is easily fixed. The LA take over the property, ideally unfurnished at 80% of market rate and everyone goes through one system of social housing. The LA collect rent towards it's costs and deals with it's own messers. Of course we'll never see it done as fecking over LL's is probably saving a few million a year.

This already exists in some areas

e.g. http://fingalcoco.ie/housing/rental-accomodation-scheme/