Landlord Fined for Refusing HAP

DubCount

I came across this article....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/landlord-who-refused-rent-allowance-payment-from-struggling-family-ordered-to-pay-14000-869851.html

14k finding against a landlord in relation to HAP discrimination. Its hard to know all the facts but I think it shows some interesting direction in WRC determinations in this type of case:
- The LL's inability to get a tax clearance cert was not allowed as grounds to refuse HAP. I assume that also means if a LL fails to meet any HAP criteria, its up to the LL to rectify failure, and its not grounds to refuse HAP.
- The discrimination against HAP tenants extends to existing tenancies as well as new tenancies
- The award is massive - more that 1 years gross rent.

Maybe this was a bad landlord. Maybe the tenants had suffered sufficiently to justify the award. For me, its yet another blow to the small private landlord sector. I'm not sure this kind of ruling will help our housing crisis.

Browney7

DubCount wrote: »

I came across this article....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/landlord-who-refused-rent-allowance-payment-from-struggling-family-ordered-to-pay-14000-869851.html

14k finding against a landlord in relation to HAP discrimination. Its hard to know all the facts but I think it shows some interesting direction in WRC determinations in this type of case:
- The LL's inability to get a tax clearance cert was not allowed as grounds to refuse HAP. I assume that also means if a LL fails to meet any HAP criteria, its up to the LL to rectify failure, and its not grounds to refuse HAP.
- The discrimination against HAP tenants extends to existing tenancies as well as new tenancies
- The award is massive - more that 1 years gross rent.

Maybe this was a bad landlord. Maybe the tenants had suffered sufficiently to justify the award. For me, its yet another blow to the small private landlord sector. I'm not sure this kind of ruling will help our housing crisis.

I read the WRC report - he was taking the piss. He didn't show up to the hearing to challenge or refute the evidence presented by the tenants but the evidence presented painted a picture of the following:

A roof of the house that was unfit for purpose since 2015 and realistically fobbed off tenants for years.
He fobbed the tenants off for almost nine months regarding HAP saying he'll have the form soon, "can you wait a few more months", yadda yadda. He also put this in writing.

Appears in this time he increased their rent despite plenty work needing to be done to the house.
Eventually supposedly had the form signed and handed the tenant an envelope with a "there's your HAP" when it was actually an eviction notice.

His lack of a tax clearance certificate is also his fault and his alone.

Part of the compensation were for furniture the tenants had to buy in the first place as the place was unfurnished and were unable to bring to the new property - presumably the eviction notice was valid or else they didn't challenge in the RTB and left in July (notice received in March).

Tenants seem quite a genuine case and seems unusual for LL not to respond although the case was originally postponed due to health issues in LL's family

the_syco

The couple were struggling to pay the rent and inquired with the landlord in May of last year about participating in HAP and he replied: “We can talk but it’s most unlikely that I will be doing HAP”.

First rule of fight club; don't talk about fight club. If you're going to refuse HAP, saying that you'll refuse HAP will get you fined.

He said: “The judgement is particularly welcome because it shows that the WRC will not accept secondary issues – such as failure to have a tax clearance cert – as an excuse for not accepting HAP tenants.

“This judgement shows that not having your own taxes in order is not an acceptable reason for discriminating against low-income families who need HAP.”

The part I bolded; will failure to update the house to HAP standards also be a secondary issue? What else will be listed as a secondary issue, I wonder?

Browney7 wrote: »

Part of the compensation were for furniture the tenants had to buy in the first place as the place was unfurnished and were unable to bring to the new property

Garden furniture. Being unable to bring that into an apartment as they couldn't get a house with a backyard that will accept HAP and a dog (which, even for people that will pay the rent themselves, it's hard to get a LL that'll allow you to have a dog) should not have any bearing.

Browney7

the_syco wrote: »

First rule of fight club; don't talk about fight club. If you're going to refuse HAP, saying that you'll refuse HAP will get you fined.


The part I bolded; will failure to update the house to HAP standards also be a secondary issue? What else will be listed as a secondary issue, I wonder?


Garden furniture. Being unable to bring that into an apartment as they couldn't get a house with a backyard that will accept HAP and a dog (which, even for people that will pay the rent themselves, it's hard to get a LL that'll allow you to have a dog) should not have any bearing.

You must have glossed over this bit...
"Moreover, they were not in a position to move all their belongings which they had specifically purchased to furnish the Respondent’s house and most of them had to be disposed of suffering a significant financial loss"

the_syco

Browney7 wrote: »

You must have glossed over this bit...
"Moreover, they were not in a position to move all their belongings which they had specifically purchased to furnish the Respondent’s house and most of them had to be disposed of suffering a significant financial loss"

I didn't gloss over that bit because it wasn't in the article that the OP linked to; https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/landlord-who-refused-rent-allowance-payment-from-struggling-family-ordered-to-pay-14000-869851.html

Browney7

the_syco wrote: »

I didn't gloss over that bit because it wasn't in the article that the OP linked to; https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/landlord-who-refused-rent-allowance-payment-from-struggling-family-ordered-to-pay-14000-869851.html

Fair enough, I went to the order from the wrc - an interesting read

the_syco

Browney7 wrote: »

Fair enough, I went to the order from the wrc - an interesting read

Jaysus, you could have at least linked us to it :pac:

=-=

Anyhoo's, seems he acted the ass in the hopes they'd go away. He'll appeal it, as he claims HAP "has absolutely nothing to do with ending your tenancy" but as he gave the "Notice of Termination" when he said he'll be giving them the HAP form, I'd say that that appeal will fail.

When they mentioned "the agreed long-term arrangement into account", it doesn't state if that was mentioned in the contract, or if this was something asked, such as "will you be staying long?".

Meh. Sounds like he deserved what he got.

On the off-chance that he wasn't bullshitting about his father having Parkinson's and early dementia, when he does appeal he'll be doing so like a bull through a china shop.

=-=

Off-topic, but it seems only dives that need things fixed allow dogs. I saw this often last year when I was looking at the market. Some were, like in this case, unfurnished.

DubCount

Just read the WRC order and I agree the LL was way out of line.

However, this line - "the WRC will not accept secondary issues – such as failure to have a tax clearance cert – as an excuse for not accepting HAP tenants" - is the line from the article I consider the most interesting. The implication is that a LL could fail any of the HAP criteria, and be forced to remedy that failure regardless of cost, and regardless of how long it takes to remedy the failure.

Just as an example, a tax clearance certificate may not be issued if a connected person's tax affairs are not up to date. So a LL may not be able to get a Tax Clearance Certificate if they are separated from a spouse who is non-tax compliant or behind in their tax filings.

Xterminator

Hi Op

i accept you just read the news article and didnt go to the ruling and read the details.

BUT ... i find it repugnant when i see people on this forum defending bad landlords who engage in illegal and underhand practises. If it makes you feel better i feel the same about people defending tenants who are also talking the p|ss.

Perhaps you should reflect on why you think

For me, its yet another blow to the small private landlord sector.

. surely the blow here is to the reputation of decent landlords, and the blow was stuck by this chancer, and not the WRC.

Cuddlesworth

the_syco wrote: »

Off-topic, but it seems only dives that need things fixed allow dogs. I saw this often last year when I was looking at the market. Some were, like in this case, unfurnished.

I did work before in a house where the tenants got a puppy and left it for 8-10 hours a day in the house and the back yard. The dog took out both sets of dual back doors, 5 internal wood doors, all the downstairs wooden floors gouged beyond repair, most downstairs internal walls had chunks out of them, it killed a very large 50 year old apple tree in the back garden which had to be removed, destroyed all the downstairs furniture and the kitchen. Basically, anything the dog can get to was chewed and scratched to bits. No idea what the quote was to fix back then, but I'm gussying the deposit wasn't enough.

When they copped exactly how much damage the dog had done in a month, they bailed leaving the dog tied up in the back garden until a friendly neighbour called the landlord concerned about it.

So yeah, if you have a high standards rental house its probably easier to state no pets in the lease.

davo10

DubCount wrote: »

Just read the WRC order and I agree the LL was way out of line.

However, this line - "the WRC will not accept secondary issues – such as failure to have a tax clearance cert – as an excuse for not accepting HAP tenants" - is the line from the article I consider the most interesting. The implication is that a LL could fail any of the HAP criteria, and be forced to remedy that failure regardless of cost, and regardless of how long it takes to remedy the failure.
.

I think you may be misinterpreting this. You cannot use secondary issues to not accept/refuse HAP. You can accept HAP as legislation states you must, then the Council can deem you ineligible due to not having a cert or the building not being up to standard. If you do this, there can be no accusation of discrimination.

In this case, the LL first refused, then used the cert to justify the refusal, if he had accepted it and the council then refused it, the ball would be in their court. The WRC cannot compel a LL to get his tax affairs in order, that is up to Revenue. If the LL doesn't have the money to do up a building, the WRC won't give him/her a loan.

The lesson learned here, never ever refuse HAP.

The_Conductor

davo10 wrote: »

I think you may be misinterpreting this. You cannot use secondary issues to not accept/refuse HAP. You can accept HAP as legislation states you must, then the Council can deem you ineligible due to not having a cert or the building not being up to standard. If you do this, there can be no accusation of discrimination.

In this case, the LL first refused, then used the cert to justify the refusal, if he had accepted it and the council then refused it, the ball would be in their court. The WRC cannot compel a LL to get his tax affairs in order, that is up to Revenue. If the LL doesn't have the money to do up a building, the WRC won't give him/her a loan.

The lesson learned here, never ever refuse HAP.

In a scenario like that- my landlord accepts my application to move over to HAP, completes the forms and hands them to me for conveying to my friendly local authority housing officer. The housing officer attempts to process them- but fails. I imagine my rent is going to be going through the LA in future- and all I am directly liable to the landlord for- is the rent up to when the first HAP payment is made (cognisant of the fact that HAP is paid in arrears). HAP doesn't come through for the landlord. I am immediately in arrears. I get issued with an eviction notice- and for data protection reasons the local authority can't/won't tell me why?

Seems like a right mess for tenants and landlords- but its so obvious why local authorities love it- any risk at all- is batted right back to tenants and landlords- and if I then ring for advice- I'll probably be told to overhold..........

Arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!

There has to be a way of actually running a scheme that doesn't shaft either tenants or landlords.

Tar.Aldarion

A letter with "there is your hap" and it being an eviction notice? Guy got what he deserved.

A friend of mine just got offered a place by an estate agency that said they accept HAP publicly for the property, however when she mentioned HAP the estate agent said the LL was worried his place wasn't up to inspection and she never heard back again, I imagine they offered it to everybody in line until somebody didn't have HAP. Of course they won't write this stuff down, in case it's used against them.

steamsey

http://www.thejournal.ie/landlord-refused-hap-wrc-4242635-Sep2018/

"A LANDLORD WHO refused to allow a family pay a portion of their rent through rent allowance for 15 months has been ordered to pay them €14,000 in compensation"

€14,000 awarded to the tenants. Incredible stuff. Has to be paid within 42 days. While I hate to fuel the fires of negativity surrounding being a landlord - this is a very one sided situation. That's an insane amount of money to have to pay.

heebusjeebus

Thread already
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057912424

marieholmfan

steamsey wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/landlord-refused-hap-wrc-4242635-Sep2018/

"A LANDLORD WHO refused to allow a family pay a portion of their rent through rent allowance for 15 months has been ordered to pay them €14,000 in compensation"

€14,000 awarded to the tenants. Incredible stuff. Has to be paid within 42 days. While I hate to fuel the fires of negativity surrounding being a landlord - this is a very one sided situation. That's an insane amount of money to have to pay.

Not enough IMO. Should be ten times that. If he loses the house so what.

Should be an automatic process of notification to the revenue and to mortgage providers also.

lawred2

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not enough IMO. Should be ten times that. If he loses the house so what.

Should be an automatic process of notification to the revenue and to mortgage providers also.

yerrah would you give it a rest

The Student

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not enough IMO. Should be ten times that. If he loses the house so what.

Should be an automatic process of notification to the revenue and to mortgage providers also.

Why?

It is the landlords property to do what he wants with it. If you have an issue with the cost of rental then find alternative accommodation that you can afford. If you can't afford market rates then lobby your local political representatives to increase the supply of accommodation.

Please don't comment on the morality of a landlords investment.

marieholmfan

The Student wrote: »

Why?

It is the landlords property to do what he wants with it. If you have an issue with the cost of rental then find alternative accommodation that you can afford. If you can't afford market rates then lobby your local political representatives to increase the supply of accommodation.

Please don't comment on the morality of a landlords investment.

The property has value only because of actions taken by the state on behalf of society. The landlord's criminal tax evasion does not excuse his criminal refusal to accept HAP. Criminal tax evading landlords should lose everything.

garhjw

Where does it say anything about tax evasion? Not have a TCC doesn't mean you are guilty of tax evasion.

The Student

marieholmfan wrote: »

The property has value only because of actions taken by the state on behalf of society. The landlord's criminal tax evasion does not excuse his criminal refusal to accept HAP. Criminal tax evading landlords should lose everything.

The property has value only because of inactions taken by the state on behalf of society.

If the State took there responsibility then the above would not happen. It is up to Revenue to deal with tax affairs. Again we have the anti landlord stance, if you have an issue with the rental market then get the govt to increase the supply of property rather than shifting the responsibility on to the private landlord leaving us to take all the risk!

Donaldboy25

The Student wrote: »

Why?

It is the landlords property to do what he wants with it. If you have an issue with the cost of rental then find alternative accommodation that you can afford. If you can't afford market rates then lobby your local political representatives to increase the supply of accommodation.

Please don't comment on the morality of a landlords investment.

The landlord can't refuse hap simple as plus most landlord walk into rented accommodation with out permission

Scienceless

marieholmfan wrote: »

Criminal tax evading landlords should lose everything.

What about all the other tax evaders in the country, or is it just landlords you have a problem with?

Scienceless

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

most landlord walk into rented accommodation with out permission

No they don’t.

banie01

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not enough IMO. Should be ten times that. If he loses the house so what.

Should be an automatic process of notification to the revenue and to mortgage providers also.

Where is there any mention of the Landlord undertaking criminal Tax Evasion?
The lack of a Tax Clearance certificate is not confirmation of criminality. A person may have an outstanding Tax liability from a failed business, an Inheritance or a deferred liability and payment plan with Revenue that would preclude them from being issued a Tax clearance cert. It does not mean they are a criminal.

While the Landlord in this instance made a rod for his own back with how he refused to take HAP, the fact is without a valid TCC he cannot particpate in the scheme. Further if when the HAP inspection takes place, and the property is below par. If the Landlord cannot afford to remedy the defects, the tenancy would not have continued in any case and the people would have been made homeless through the very process intended to house them.

Donaldboy25

Scienceless wrote: »

No they don’t.

Yes they do its all over the internet most landlords don't respect tenants

The Specialist

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

Yes they do its all over the internet most landlords don't respect tenants

Talking out of your hole, maybe don't believe everything you read on the internet?

Scienceless

The Specialist wrote: »

Talking out of your hole, maybe don't believe everything you read on the internet?

Exactly. Well said.

Donaldboy25

The Specialist wrote: »

Talking out of your hole, maybe don't believe everything you read on the internet?

Good one well I live in a flat 8 years I've recorded my landlord walking in to my flat without permission 100s of times so yes bid talking out of my hole maybe stop trying to know everything

steamsey

Whoops! Didn't see that there was already a thread. Seeing as this one went straight down the toilet can we delete / merge?

The Specialist

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

Good one well I live in a flat 8 years I've recorded my landlord walking in to my flat without permission 100s of times so yes bid talking out of my hole maybe stop trying to know everything

So your landlord is every landlord in the country is it? I've been in 4 different rentals in the past 5 years and not once have I had an issue like you. Maybe move if you are renting from someone who doesn't respect your privacy?

Donaldboy25

The Specialist wrote: »

Talking out of your hole, maybe don't believe everything you read on the internet?

Also my bedroom is leaking the last 8 years landlord won't do nothing and brings the rent up 5 to 20 euro every few months ive already been told by my solicitor if I took him to court there's a big chance he would lose flat

Scienceless

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

Good one well I live in a flat 8 years I've recorded my landlord walking in to my flat without permission 100s of times so yes bid talking out of my hole maybe stop trying to know everything

And your experiences reflect everybody else’s?
They don’t.

Donaldboy25

Scienceless wrote: »

And your experiences reflect everybody else’s?
They don’t.

As I said loads of people put it on internet about there landlords and your man said don't believe everything u read on internet doesn't mean there not telling the truth

martinr5232

Donaldboy25 wrote:

Yes they do its all over the internet most landlords don't respect tenants

If its on the internet it must be true.

Its also all over the internet about tennants overholding and wrecking rented accomadation but i bet in your eyes thats only propaganda put out by all the fatcat landlords living in mansions.

Scienceless

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

Also my bedroom is leaking the last 8 years landlord won't do nothing and brings the rent up 5 to 20 euro every few months ive already been told by my solicitor if I took him to court there's a big chance he would lose flat

Go to court then. I’ve no time for dodgy landlords but there’s more good than bad out there.

Donaldboy25

Scienceless wrote: »

Go to court then. I’ve no time for dodgy landlords but there’s more good than bad out there.

Yes I know some are good I've had a few good ones I'm saying most landlords are stingy and greedy

Donaldboy25

martinr5232 wrote: »

If its on the internet it must be true.

Its also all over the internet about tennants overholding and wrecking rented accomadation but i bet in your eyes thats only propaganda put out by all the fatcat landlords living in mansions.

Do you rent

mikemac2

You’ve well and truely hijacked the thread ^^^^

Just because that’s your situation and it does not meant “most” landlords enter without permisson

I’ve had some great landlords and some who were chancers but I never had any enter without permisson but anyway I can’t claim to speak for every tenant in Ireland and neither can you

Hundreds of times and you allow this? You’re a pushover

Donaldboy25

mikemac2 wrote: »

You’ve well and truely hijacked the thread ^^^^

Just because that’s your situation and it does not meant “most” landlords enter without permisson

I’ve had some great landlords and some who were chancers but I never had any enter without permisson but anyway I can’t claim to speak for every tenant in Ireland and neither can you

Hundreds of times and you allow this? You’re a pushover

I let him away with it because I'm building it bigger and bigger I've pulled him up so many times

eagle eye

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

The Student

eagle eye wrote: »

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

So if you can't meet the HAP requirements and don't want to dispose of the property as you may want it for your children at some point in the future what do you suggest?

Remember the asset rich and cash poor people?

Edgarfrndly

Aside from tax avoidance, why would a landlord refuse HAP? It's guaranteed money every month. It's difficult enough for people to get property. To me, it feels classist. I've a degree, don't smoke or drink - have never been in trouble in my life, but due to ill health - I'm forced to live off of disability and ultimately, rely on the likes of HAP for accommodation. Why should I be refused because I use HAP for the payment?

Scienceless

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

Or not willing to take the huge risk involved with no mechanism in place to remove non paying tenants?
No wonder houses are empty.

Gumbo

Donaldboy25 wrote: »

Yes I know some are good I've had a few good ones I'm saying most landlords are stingy and greedy

Less of the generalisation please.

Mod note

davo10

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Aside from tax avoidance, why would a landlord refuse HAP? It's guaranteed money every month. It's difficult enough for people to get property. To me, it feels classist. I've a degree, don't smoke or drink - have never been in trouble in my life, but due to ill health - I'm forced to live off of disability and ultimately, rely on the likes of HAP for accommodation. Why should I be refused because I use HAP for the payment?

Tax avoidance? Virtually all rent is paid into bank accounts by electronic transferr.

You will have to look at the many posts by LLs who have had problems with HAP/RA tenants.

Gumbo

eagle eye wrote: »

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

Not entirely true. There are massive risks associated with HAP, just as there’s massive advantages. The LL should be able to decide if it can work for them or not.

Edgarfrndly

davo10 wrote: »

Tax avoidance? Virtually all rent is paid into bank accounts by electronic transferr.

Some is paid cash in hand.

davo10 wrote: »

You will have to look at the many posts by LLs who have had problems with HAP/RA tenants.

So I should be refused accommodation because someone prior gave trouble? That's discrimination. Interview the person. Get a feel of who they are. But don't automatically assume they are troublesome because they are on HAP.

davo10

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Some is paid cash in hand.



So I should be refused accommodation because someone prior gave trouble? That's discrimination. Interview the person. Get a feel of who they are. But don't automatically assume they are troublesome because they are on HAP.

Should never be paid in cash.

It is not you personally, it is the HAP scheme. When it comes to rental property viewings, HAP are at the bottom of the list of preferred tenants.

Ginger83

eagle eye wrote: »

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

Very foolish landlord, there were many ways of not accepting HAP without admitting it.

davo10

eagle eye wrote: »

Delighted with that judgement against the Landlord.
If you want to rent out property then you have to be willing to accept HAP.
If you are not willing to accept it you are either dodgy or discriminating.

I don't want to have HAP tenants, its not dodgy, I'm not discriminating against the tenants, I am discriminating against a scheme that pays in arrears, stops payments when tenant stops paying council, refuses to give info as to why payment has been stopped and forces me to make upgrades to house above and beyond those set done by legislation for rental to private tenants.