Repairs on HAP

Nomis21

I am a tenant who is on the HAP scheme. The Council are coming to inspect the property next week to check if it meets the standards required. The Council tell me that if the standards are not met then the landlord must carry out repairs within a given time or they will stop paying him. I know that the property requires substantial work to bring it up to standard but the landlord says he has no money and will end the tenancy if the council insist on repairs.

Can I be evicted in this case?

Turnipman

Nomis21 wrote: »

I am a tenant who is on the HAP scheme. The Council are coming to inspect the property next week to check if it meets the standards required. The Council tell me that if the standards are not met then the landlord must carry out repairs within a given time or they will stop paying him. I know that the property requires substantial work to bring it up to standard but the landlord says he has no money and will end the tenancy if the council insist on repairs.

Can I be evicted in this case?

You can. One of the valid few grounds for evicting a tenant are if the landlord intends to refurbish the property substantially. But that doesn't mean that you will. It depends on the outcome of the council inspection and the seriousness of the problems identified.

If where you're renting is a serious fire risk, for example, the Council simply couldn't allow you to continue residing there.

If your landlord promises the Council that he'll do the repairs (even though he doesn't intend to) then they'll probably keep on paying him HAP, although at some stage in the future (maybe a year or so down the line) they'll carry out a follow-up inspection at which point the HAP payment may stop.

The legal position is that if your landlord fails to ensure that the dwelling complies with the minimum standards, this is a breach of the Residential Housing Regulations. The local authority may issue an Improvement Notice setting out exactly what the landlord must do to bring the property up to the required standard. If the landlord does not comply, the local authority may issue a Prohibition Notice that orders the landlord not to re-let the property until the breach of the regulations has been rectified.

Glass fused light

If the building meets the minimum rental standard, but not any additional requirements under HAP the landlord (unless its in a contract) may have no obligation to make any changes. In this instance if the council stop paying the rent the landlord can begin eviction for no payment of rent.

If the building will not even meet the minimum standard the council can start enforcement to bring it up to standard but if the LL has no money to do the repairs the council would have to declare the property unfit as a rental property. And the LL would be be obliged to evict you. If the council had also stopped paying rent this eviction would likely be a quicker process as the RTB would accept the council notice of it being unfit.

davo10

Turnipman wrote: »

You can. One of the valid few grounds for evicting a tenant are if the landlord intends to refurbish the property substantially. But that doesn't mean that you will. It depends on the outcome of the council inspection and the seriousness of the problems identified.

If where you're renting is a serious fire risk, for example, the Council simply couldn't allow you to continue residing there.

If your landlord promises the Council that he'll do the repairs (even though he doesn't intend to) then they'll probably keep on paying him HAP, although at some stage in the future (maybe a year or so down the line) they'll carry out a follow-up inspection at which point the HAP payment may stop.

The legal position is that if your landlord fails to ensure that the dwelling complies with the minimum standards, this is a breach of the Residential Housing Regulations. The local authority may issue an Improvement Notice setting out exactly what the landlord must do to bring the property up to the required standard. If the landlord does not comply, the local authority may issue a Prohibition Notice that orders the landlord not to re-let the property until the breach of the regulations has been rectified.

Just to fill out the answer a little bit more, if the council stops paying HAP, you will have to pay the full rent yourself, if you do not, then you will be in arrears and served with an eviction notice.
Also, the accomadation standards required for HAP are higher than those for private rentals, the LL may not be able to carry out repairs/refurbish to meet council's regulations, but the house could still be let to a private tenant.

Op, if LL cannot meet the councils requirements and you cannot pay full rent yourself, it is essential that you look for a new property which accepts HAP as you will be evicted from your current property for non payment of rent. Remember HAP is an arrangement between you and the council which subsidises your rent, there is no agreement/contract between the council and your landlord so if HAP payments end, that does not effect the requirement for you to pay agreed rent.

splinter65

Also if you were maybe hoping that the council would carry out the repairs themselves then, no they won’t do that.
Your landlord is telling you that he can’t/won’t do it so whatever way it is now then even if it is approved by the council on the basis that he gives an undertaking to do the work, then that’s the way you will be living in it.
Find somewhere else .

Nomis21

davo10 wrote:

Op, if LL cannot meet the councils requirements and you cannot pay full rent yourself, it is essential that you look for a new property which accepts HAP as you will be evicted from your current property for non payment of rent. Remember HAP is an arrangement between you and the council which subsidises your rent, there is no agreement/contract between the council and your landlord so if HAP payments end, that does not effect the requirement for you to pay agreed rent.

It is very easy to say "Find somewhere else" but much harder to do that. Almost no Landlords take HAP now because unlike 3 years ago. They no longer need to.

I don't care how many eviction notices drop through the door I will not be going anywhere unless I have somewhere to go to.

davo10

Nomis21 wrote: »

I don't care how many eviction notices drop through the door I will not be going anywhere unless I have somewhere to go to.

Unfortunately this sums up precisely why landlords are reluctant to accept HAP.

Nomis21, without a good reference your chances of getting a new rental property of any type, private or HAP, in the future are practically zero.

I wasn't being flippant when I suggested you look for a new place to rent, it was practical advice. If HAP is stopped and you go into arrears, you will be evicted, and if the owner opens an RTB case, which he will, any future LL will be able to check the RTB site for your name. A serial murderer would have more chance of renting a property. This is about protecting yourself in the long term, not the short term, so start applying for new rental ads.

Nomis21

I hear what you are saying Davo but I have been a good tenant for 7 years. Looked after the house, paid on time, did most of the repairs myself and bought all the furniture as well. The Landlord says he cannot afford what the council asks (I have no details) but he has not even bothered to get a quote for the work. If he has no money to do the work he will have no money to evict me. I am staying. As the great Tommy Cooper once said: "It's not the principle it's the money!"

Klonker

Can you not pay the rent out of the €250k you inherited?

davo10

Nomis21 wrote: »

I hear what you are saying Davo but I have been a good tenant for 7 years. Looked after the house, paid on time, did most of the repairs myself and bought all the furniture as well. The Landlord says he cannot afford what the council asks (I have no details) but he has not even bothered to get a quote for the work. If he has no money to do the work he will have no money to evict me. I am staying. As the great Tommy Cooper once said: "It's not the principle it's the money!"

If the guy doesn't have the money to pay for upgrades, not much you nor he can do about that. The LL is in no way at fault here, the lease would have continued unchanged were it not for the changes imposed by the Council to allow you to be eligible for HAP subsidy.

And as sure as god made small apples, you will be evicted with an RTB judgment to your name. He's not going to leave you there if you aren't paying rent.

I have sympathy for you in that this situation is not of your making, but also because by acting the way you are, it's unlikely you will ever get another rental after you are evicted. Right now you need to help yourself rather than digging in, you need to find another property before you wreck your chances of getting it. A reference is not a benefit to have, it is an absolute necessity . And a quick search for your name will throw up an RTB adjudication for overholding. Seriously, you will have zero chance of renting again, either on HAP or paying the full amount yourself.

Nomis21

It would have been possible to pay the rent out of the 250k but I buried it all in the garden when I was drunk and I can't find it now.

The Landlord has been trying to sell this property for nearly 10 years with no luck probably because it is joined onto a derelict house. The council have also told him he can't rent it to anyone else without doing the upgrades. If the property is vacant it will likely get broken into and become derelict. That way we both lose.

I am going to offer a lower rent and if he accepts I will pay it all myself. As there is no rental available anywhere within my price range and I have a dog, I think it is unrealistic to think I will find another property to rent.

davo10

Nomis21 wrote: »

I am going to offer a lower rent and if he accepts I will pay it all myself. As there is no rental available anywhere within my price range and I have a dog, I think it is unrealistic to think I will find another property to rent.

I really don't think you are grasping the situation you are in.

The owner is not going to accept a lower rent at a time when rents are high. I'm pretty sure you think that he will be happy with whatever you offer.

Here is some info for you:

• properties are easier to sell when they are vacant. If he really wants to sell, then he will evict you, which is his right.

• the upgrades for private rental are not as substantial as for HAP rentals. The owner may be able to afford the lessor. But given that he wants to sell, perhaps there won't be anymore rentals.

• Having a dog is a choice, finding a rental property is hard enough, finding one that accepts pets is nigh on impossible, so you will need to carefully consider whether the dog is an incumbency to you renting.

• it is more unrealistic for you to think that the owner is going to leave you in situ if you are in arrears. You will be evicted, you will have an RTB adjudication against you, you will never, ever get another rental.

• whether it is unrealistic to think there is a chance of you getting another rental property really is not the concern of either the Landlord or the RTB, if you are in arrears, the RTB will adjudicate in the LLs favour.

• Again, HAP is an agreement between you and the CoCo, unlike recent high profile cases where LLs refused HAP, yours did not. You are not being discriminated against, and your rental would have continued unchanged. Your LL is blameless in this situation, but you seem to not appreciate that by digging in, you end all hope of future rental.

A word of advice, find a new home for the dog, and start looking for a new rental. You will be evicted.

Fol20

Nomis21 wrote: »

I hear what you are saying Davo but I have been a good tenant for 7 years. Looked after the house, paid on time, did most of the repairs myself and bought all the furniture as well. The Landlord says he cannot afford what the council asks (I have no details) but he has not even bothered to get a quote for the work. If he has no money to do the work he will have no money to evict me. I am staying. As the great Tommy Cooper once said: "It's not the principle it's the money!"

As Davo has already said. It’s a sad amstate if affairs when tenants can openly and willing abuse the system when it’s so difficult to evict tenants in arrears. Tenants should be out of a house within 2 months if they are not paying their bills.

Fol20

davo10 wrote: »

If the guy doesn't have the money to pay for upgrades, not much you nor he can do about that. The LL is in no way at fault here, the lease would have continued unchanged were it not for the changes imposed by the Council to allow you to be eligible for HAP subsidy.

And as sure as god made small apples, you will be evicted with an RTB judgment to your name. He's not going to leave you there if you aren't paying rent.

I have sympathy for you in that this situation is not of your making, but also because by acting the way you are, it's unlikely you will ever get another rental after you are evicted. Right now you need to help yourself rather than digging in, you need to find another property before you wreck your chances of getting it. A reference is not a benefit to have, it is an absolute necessity . And a quick search for your name will throw up an RTB adjudication for overholding. Seriously, you will have zero chance of renting again, either on HAP or paying the full amount yourself.

Just to add to this, any time I get tenants, I always check the RTB site of any issues with a person and I honestly wouldn’t care what it’s for, I would just decline them outright. As davo as already mentioned. It’s better to be proactive instead of reactive with a situation like this so I would start looking ASAP.

Fol20

Nomis21 wrote: »

It would have been possible to pay the rent out of the 250k but I buried it all in the garden when I was drunk and I can't find it now.

The Landlord has been trying to sell this property for nearly 10 years with no luck probably because it is joined onto a derelict house. The council have also told him he can't rent it to anyone else without doing the upgrades. If the property is vacant it will likely get broken into and become derelict. That way we both lose.

I am going to offer a lower rent and if he accepts I will pay it all myself. As there is no rental available anywhere within my price range and I have a dog, I think it is unrealistic to think I will find another property to rent.

Your putting all the blame on the landlord. He has done nothing wrong here and would have continued the status quo. You may think ll are rich with their 250k house but a lot are just barely getting by. If you were throwing a lower figure in my face especially if your below market rate, I would just show you the door and see the queue of 20 people lining up to fill the house. It actually sounds like you might have a decent ll if he allows dogs as any sane ll even if they are dog lovers know how much they destroy houses

Nomis21

Thank you Davo for the amount if time and effort you have put into this thread giving your opinion on my situation. In fact I am wondering at this point if you are my Landlord as you are arguing so passionately for me to accept my fate and leave this property and embrace homelessness at the earliest opportunity. But the fact is I am not going anywhere until I have somewhere to go to. The council have told me they are going to "Work with me". Not sure what they mean by that but I will post on here when I know more. That might not be for some time though...

deirdremf

Nomis21 wrote: »

Thank you Davo for the amount if time and effort you have put into this thread giving your opinion on my situation. In fact I am wondering at this point if you are my Landlord as you are arguing so passionately for me to accept my fate and leave this property and embrace homelessness at the earliest opportunity. But the fact is I am not going anywhere until I have somewhere to go to. The council have told me they are going to "Work with me". Not sure what they mean by that but I will post on here when I know more. That might not be for some time though...

Good to hear you are not going to "accept your fate" as those various landlords have advised you.


They want to write the rules, and also ignore them when they don't suit themselves.


As for the LL not having money to carry out work on the house, well, where is the rent you have been paying going to?

martinr5232

deirdremf wrote:

As for the LL not having money to carry out work on the house, well, where is the rent you have been paying going to?

Tax and morgtage i would assume.

deirdremf

martinr5232 wrote: »

Tax and morgtage i would assume.

Not sure what a morg-tage is, but for the rest, I wonder how much a house that has a derelict other half might have cost the LL.
If he needed a loan to buy the house, he won't be paying much tax, as there would be little profit involved, as income would be set against repayments.

But landlords always whinge about these things.

In my opinion, either they are really stupid people who didn't look at the various costs relating to letting a property - or they think that the rest of us are really stupid and will believe their BS.

davo10

deirdremf wrote: »

Good to hear you are not going to "accept your fate" as those various landlords have advised you.


They want to write the rules, and also ignore them when they don't suit themselves.

Actually if you were a little bit more informed you would know that the rules are written in the Residential Tenancies Act, which was most certainly not written by landlords.

The RTB leans pro tenant, but eviction as a result of non payment of rent is pretty clear cut. Breach of the lease agreement is a recognised reason for eviction.

I'm afraid, like the op, a lack of understanding of the implications of the ops actions in the long term is obvious.

Op, you would have to be a bit of a dead head to think I'm your LL. Believe it or not, unlike deirdremf here, I'm trying to give you constructive advice. You asked in the op can you be evicted, yes you can, and you seem unable to understand the ramifications of that beyond the obvious removal of you and a judgment against you for outstanding rent owed. Unfortunately you think you are getting one over on the LL, but he'll kick your ass out, the RTB are committed to reducing waiting times for dispute hearings.

Deirdremf, at a guess I would say mortgage/income tax/insurance etc. The financial affairs of the owner are not your concern.

You often find in threads like this, 99% of people will inform the op of their rights, but if they don't like what they hear, they latch on to the foolwho gives them the wrong advice on their rights. Deirdremf has come to your rescue.

martinr5232

deirdremf wrote:

Not sure what a morg-tage is, but for the rest, I wonder how much a house that has a derelict other half might have cost the LL. If he needed a loan to buy the house, he won't be paying much tax, as there would be little profit involved, as income would be set against repayments.

You dont pay tax on profit you pay it on income maybe you should educate yourself before spouting crap.

deirdremf

davo10 wrote: »

Actually if you were a little bit more informed you would know that the rules are written in the Residential Tenancies Act, which was most certainly not written by landlords.

You seem to have missed the word "want" in my post.

The RTB leans pro tenant, but eviction as a result of non payment of rent is pretty clear cut. Breach of the lease agreement is a recognised reason for eviction.

I'm afraid, like the op, a lack of understanding of the implications of the ops actions in the long term is obvious.

Op, you would have to be a bit of a dead head to think I'm your LL. Believe it or not, unlike deirdremf here, I'm trying to give you constructive advice. You asked in the op can you be evicted, yes you can, and you seem unable to understand the ramifications of that beyond the obvious removal of you and a judgment against you for outstanding rent owed. Unfortunately you think you are getting one over on the LL, but he'll kick your ass out.

Deirdremf, at a guess I would say mortgage/income tax/insurance etc. The financial affairs of the owner are not your concern.

So you want to censor what can be discussed here? Is this a new rule of the forum?

deirdremf

martinr5232 wrote: »

You dont pay tax on profit you pay it on income maybe you should educate yourself before spouting crap.

So you are saying that none of the costs can be set off against income, landlord?

davo10

deirdremf wrote: »

You seem to have missed the word "want" in my post.

I didn't, you do understand that the ops situation is covered in the RTA? Non payment of rent is a valid reason for eviction.

I'm not sure how LLs want to rewrite this rule, can you enlighten me?

davo10

deirdremf wrote: »

So you are saying that none of the costs can be set off against income, landlord?

Jesus wept.

If the guy can't afford to pay for the upgrades, what difference does tax relief on expenditure make?

Fol20

deirdremf wrote: »

Good to hear you are not going to "accept your fate" as those various landlords have advised you.


They want to write the rules, and also ignore them when they don't suit themselves.


As for the LL not having money to carry out work on the house, well, where is the rent you have been paying going to?

Well if you haven’t noticed ll are leaving the market and the overall number of rentals on the market is decreasing and this can only lead to one thing - more expensive rentals.

Tbh what your basically saying is, yes yes, don’t pay the landlord rent since the council will soon not subsidize it any longer so in affect your stealing from the ll as your taking a service for free. How would you like it if you worked for free?

Fol20

deirdremf wrote: »

Not sure what a morg-tage is, but for the rest, I wonder how much a house that has a derelict other half might have cost the LL.
If he needed a loan to buy the house, he won't be paying much tax, as there would be little profit involved, as income would be set against repayments.

But landlords always whinge about these things.

In my opinion, either they are really stupid people who didn't look at the various costs relating to letting a property - or they think that the rest of us are really stupid and will believe their BS.

You understood what he was saying. No need to bring in the nazi police to auto correct words.

Clearly you don’t have real world experience of how the market works. A lot of ll supplement their own PAYE income to cover expenses,taxes etc to pay for their buy to let property. If this property requires a lot of work and isn’t generating a lot of money to begin with that could offset his past profit by a good few years.

Gatling

Nomis21 wrote: »

The council have told me they are going to "Work with me". Not sure what they mean by that but I will post on here when I know more. That might not be for some time though...

What they mean is they won't do anything for you till you actually present as homeless and your not their problem till then

Fol20

Gatling wrote: »

What they mean is they won't do anything for you till your actually present as homeless and your not their problem till then

Too right. I wouldn’t count on them. Davo is giving you advice that might be hard to stomach but like a best friend telling you some honest feedback. Sometimes it’s necessary to bite the bullet before it gets worse.

amcalester

Has everyone missed the post where the OP said they buried a €250K inheritance in the garden.

Has to be a wind up.

Ginger83

Nomis21 wrote: »

It is very easy to say "Find somewhere else" but much harder to do that. Almost no Landlords take HAP now because unlike 3 years ago. They no longer need to.

I don't care how many eviction notices drop through the door I will not be going anywhere unless I have somewhere to go to.

Let us know how that goes.....you'll end up a tenant without a reference that no LL will touch.

Nomis21

davo10 wrote:

I didn't, you do understand that the ops situation is covered in the RTA? Non payment of rent is a valid reason for eviction.

For many years I have paid the rent on time and looked after the property. My LL has been happy with me and I have been happy living here. Then along comes the council and says they are not happy. The result of this could be one more derelict abandoned boarded up property and one more homeless person. It is a scandal that regulations that are supposed to help tenants and Landlords actually causes both parties problems. If the tenant is happy with the standard of his accommodation then why is it the business of the council to interfere? They should only act on complaints from tenants and not otherwise interfere.

This forum is populated almost entirely by landlords whose greatest fear is having a problem with a tenant and their reaction on here is understandable, but I do find the concern for my future reputation as a tenant just a little bit fake.

davo10

Nomis21 wrote: »

For many years I have paid the rent on time and looked after the property. My LL has been happy with me and I have been happy living here. Then along comes the council and says they are not happy. The result of this could be one more derelict abandoned boarded up property and one more homeless person. It is a scandal that regulations that are supposed to help tenants and Landlords actually causes both parties problems. If the tenant is happy with the standard of his accommodation then why is it the business of the council to interfere? They should only act on complaints from tenants and not otherwise interfere.

This forum is populated almost entirely by landlords whose greatest fear is having a problem with a tenant and their reaction on here is understandable, but I do find the concern for my future reputation as a tenant just a little bit fake.

You do understand that in order to get a future rental, it is your reputation/reference that the prospective landlord assesses? That is the point we are all trying to get across to you, unsuccessfully it seems.

Honestly, none of the posters have a vested interest in your future reputation , we are however giving you a landlords perspective when you apply for a new rental. No reference and an RTB judgment means absolutely no chance of renting ever again. Also, you and your situation are a prime example of why owners do not want HAP tenancies, you could be the best tenant in the world, but HAP scheme is not in any way appealing.

deirdremf

davo10 wrote: »

You do understand that in order to get a future rental, it is your reputation/reference that the prospective landlord assesses? That is the point we are all trying to get across to you, unsuccessfully it seems.

Honestly, none of the posters have a vested interest in your future reputation , we are however giving you a landlords perspective when you apply for a new rental. No reference and an RTB judgment means absolutely no chance of renting ever again. Also, you and your situation are a prime example of why owners do not want HAP tenancies, you could be the best tenant in the world, but HAP scheme is not in any way appealing.

Do you know about all those under-age kids who forge ID so they can get into pubs/clubs?

In the same way, it's terribly easy to get a false reference, so your concern seems rather false to me.

deirdremf

Fol20 wrote: »

Clearly you don’t have real world experience of how the market works. A lot of ll supplement their own PAYE income to cover expenses,taxes etc to pay for their buy to let property. If this property requires a lot of work and isn’t generating a lot of money to begin with that could offset his past profit by a good few years.

I've been an "occasional" landlady in my time, so yes I have experience of "the real world".
I've also been a tenant, so I know the "real world" from both sides.

If the property isn't washing its face - and this includes necessary work to bring it up to standard - then the LL should cut their losses and get out.

Of course, we only have the LL's word for it that they can't afford to do the work. Frankly, I don't believe a word of it.

Maybe it was that last holiday in Mauritius that used up the last of their money?

splinter65

deirdremf wrote: »

Do you know about all those under-age kids who forge ID so they can get into pubs/clubs?

In the same way, it's terribly easy to get a false reference, so your concern seems rather false to me.

Any landlord can check with RTB. That won’t be a fake reference. If a tenant has been involved in a case it will be there for all to see. No landlord will rent to someone who, rightly or wrongly, took a case against another landlord.
That would be lunacy.

Fol20

deirdremf wrote: »

I've been an "occasional" landlady in my time, so yes I have experience of "the real world".
I've also been a tenant, so I know the "real world" from both sides.

If the property isn't washing its face - and this includes necessary work to bring it up to standard - then the LL should cut their losses and get out.

Of course, we only have the LL's word for it that they can't afford to do the work. Frankly, I don't believe a word of it.

Maybe it was that last holiday in Mauritius that used up the last of their money?

What is an occasional landlady. You either had experience or not.

Yes of course we only have his word. It could be true or it might not. As mentioned already some genuine ll don’t have the funds, others might be flowing in it, and some may just not want to provide the funds to renovate. All that really matters here is that the property will not be renovated.
Your very anti ll with that last comment and don’t really seem to have a grasp of what the situation for ll are really. Too many assumptions with no facts.

Ginger83

deirdremf wrote: »

Do you know about all those under-age kids who forge ID so they can get into pubs/clubs?

In the same way, it's terribly easy to get a false reference, so your concern seems rather false to me.

How will that solve the RTB check?

deirdremf

Fol20 wrote: »

What is an occasional landlady. You either had experience or not.

Someone who rented out a property when they moved, not sure whether it would be a permanent move or not.

Yes of course we only have his word. It could be true or it might not. As mentioned already some genuine ll don’t have the funds, others might be flowing in it, and some may just not want to provide the funds to renovate. All that really matters here is that the property will not be renovated.
Your very anti ll with that last comment and don’t really seem to have a grasp of what the situation for ll are really. Too many assumptions with no facts.

Most landlords are shíte - in my not-so-limited experience.


I've had all sorts, some good at fixing stuff (all of which was, like the house, 3rd rate). Others with nice property, shíte at fixing stuff. Others rent out 5th rate property, and take no interest in it except for what they can get out of it.


I've also rented abroad, and nowhere, absolutely nowhere have I come across the crap that I have dealt with here.

BowWow

amcalester wrote: »

Has everyone missed the post where the OP said they buried a €250K inheritance in the garden.
Has to be a wind up.

On another thread the OP discusses his/her inheritance of that amount.

amcalester

BowWow wrote: »

On another thread the OP discusses his/her inheritance of that amount.

And then buried it in the garden? Come on, OP is on a wind up.