HAP

hiphip

Are HAP tenants obliged to declare their status when seeking a property to rent? Thanks.

zell12

hiphip wrote: »

Are HAP tenants obliged to declare their status when seeking a property to rent? Thanks.

No.

GGTrek

hiphip wrote: »

Are HAP tenants obliged to declare their status when seeking a property to rent? Thanks.

You can even try to be "smart" and hide the fact but if you find an half decent landlord he/she will see very easily that you do not have the means (i.e. salary/income/savings) to pay the rent.

dennyk

Just keep in mind that HAP pays in arrears (it pays the rent for the current month to the landlord on the last Wednesday of that month), while most landlords require rent to be paid in advance (you pay the current month's rent on whatever day your rent is due on and that covers your rent until the same date next month). This means that you'll have to cover at least a month's worth of rent out of pocket without assistance from HAP, and many landlords in tight areas are asking for 2-3 months rent in advance these days, and/or a deposit equal to the same.

Also, HAP requires the landlord to cooperate and supply a lot of information and paperwork to the local authority. If you spring HAP on them unexpectedly right after moving in, there may be delays in getting the landlord's application submitted, especially if the landlord proves to be...less than enthusiastic about taking care of it in a timely fashion, or is not, shall we say, entirely on the up-and-up when it comes to some of the requirements like tax compliance, rental property standards, RTB registration, etc.. You won't get your HAP payments going until the landlord's part is done as well, but you will still be responsible for paying the rent as per your tenancy agreement and you can still be evicted for going into arrears if you can't keep up with the rent payments in the meantime. You may also find yourself booted out for no specified reason before the six-month timeframe after which Part 4 kicks in; it may be possible to fight that if you can prove it was due to your going on HAP, as that isn't technically legal, but it will still be a battle regardless, and even if you're successful it will obviously destroy any hope of an amicable relationship with your landlord. Not telling a potential landlord about HAP may make it easier to find a place initially, but it could also lead you to further hassle down the road, so just be aware and be prepared for the possible outcomes.

hiphip

GGTrek wrote: »

You can even try to be "smart" and hide the fact but if you find an half decent landlord he/she will see very easily that you do not have the means (i.e. salary/income/savings) to pay the rent.

Thanks for replies. I am, in fact, a landlord - not a tenant. I just wanted to know if HAP tenants are obligated to reveal how rent will be paid.

GGTrek

hiphip wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

You can even try to be "smart" and hide the fact but if you find an half decent landlord he/she will see very easily that you do not have the means (i.e. salary/income/savings) to pay the rent.

Thanks for replies. I am, in fact, a landlord - not a tenant. I just wanted to know if HAP tenants are obligated to reveal how rent will be paid.

It was not clear from your initial post at all. I guess you know how to protect yourself now: check references. If the prospective tenants does not produce a solid employer/income reference and/or solid bank statements, you should pass. In reality it is very simple: is prospective tenant(s) combined net monthly income > 2.5 or better than monthly rent? If answer is yes, prospective tenant(s) can be considered, if the answer is no, he should not be considered.
HAP will not even enter into the equation since a person that earns net 2.5 rent will not be eligible for HAP. I am sure some socialist poster will enter this thread now. They are always everywhere trying to spread their faith.

Samuel T. Cogley

GGTrek wrote: »

It was not clear from your initial post at all. I guess you know how to protect yourself now: check references. If the prospective tenants does not produce a solid employer/income reference and/or solid bank statements, you should pass. In reality it is very simple: is prospective tenant(s) combined net monthly income > 2.5 or better than monthly rent? If answer is yes, prospective tenant(s) can be considered, if the answer is no, he should not be considered.
HAP will not even enter into the equation since a person that earns net 2.5 rent will not be eligible for HAP. I am sure some socialist poster will enter this thread now. They are always everywhere trying to spread their faith.

I'm a socialist and so's my wife...


Arguably setting a criteria that can't be met by a class is indirect discriminsation. It's akin to saying we welcome black people but people with springy hair and brown eyes are a no-no.



Just sayin' for the benefit of the OP perhaps not entirely sure what side to err on.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

It was not clear from your initial post at all. I guess you know how to protect yourself now: check references. If the prospective tenants does not produce a solid employer/income reference and/or solid bank statements, you should pass. In reality it is very simple: is prospective tenant(s) combined net monthly income > 2.5 or better than monthly rent? If answer is yes, prospective tenant(s) can be considered, if the answer is no, he should not be considered.
HAP will not even enter into the equation since a person that earns net 2.5 rent will not be eligible for HAP. I am sure some socialist poster will enter this thread now. They are always everywhere trying to spread their faith.

I'm a socialist and so's my wife...


Arguably setting a criteria that can't be met by a class is indirect discriminsation. It's akin to saying we welcome black people but people with springy hair and brown eyes are a no-no.



Just sayin' for the benefit of the OP perhaps not entirely sure what side to err on.

Lets not mix pears wirh apples here like you have done with your comparison which is totally economically irrational.

Economic discrimination is at the base of any contract entered into voluntarily. A residential lease is at its core a loan of a property asset vs periodic payments where the only real collateral should be the asset (not in Ireland since it takes forever to recover possession) and the very small security deposit (which usually is a tiny fraction of the value of the asset). Given these important consideration of effective lack of collateral due to the Irish legal framework, the landlord has to evaluate the credit risk of the applicant like a bank would do for a personal unsecured loan which at its most basic has to consider the income and assets the person requesting the loan has. It is very clear that a person requesting a loan of a property through HAP has neither the income nor the assets in order for the loan to be granted since the government guarantee of payment is bogus and no guarantees are provided for damage and the borrower has no income or assets which the lender can later claim against in case of breach of contract obligations. So it is a totally economically irrational decision to lend a property to an HAP applicant when the lender has other applicants who have income and/or assets presenting much lower credit risk.

Let's stop the ideological BS please

Samuel T. Cogley

GGTrek wrote: »

Let's stop the ideological BS please

Hardly BS - You're advising the OP to indirectly discriminate against HAP. Someone with quite a bit of time on their hands and limited places to live has a colourable case. I was attempting to say it gently above but I'll say it more clearly here, the advice given in your above post is very poor indeed.

Do not set any sort of threshold there is no need. Simply decide, without a stated reason, to go with someone else and don't even go near the stress of even a spurious claim of discrimination.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Let's stop the ideological BS please

Hardly BS - You're advising the OP to indirectly discriminate against HAP. Someone with quite a bit of time on their hands and limited places to live has a colourable case. I was attempting to say it gently above but I'll say it more clearly here, the advice given in your above post is very poor indeed.

Do not set any sort of threshold there is no need. Simply decide, without a stated reason, to go with someone else and don't even go near the stress of even a spurious claim of discrimination.

Of course this is what the OP should do, what i do not accept is your argument of economic discrimination being the same as discrimination based on race or hair color or .... The government decided to setup another crap scheme called HAP that only favours the government and councils and then tried to force it onto landlords with an falsely ideological BS discrimination law in 2015, when in reality they were only interested in covering their bad policy decisions.
Forgot to say, unlike the other 9 grounds, the Equal Status Amendment Act 2015 only discriminates against the providers of accomodation services (landlords for the most part), for example other service providers like banks or brokers might decide not to open accounts or provide loads to people in receipt of social welfare due to the perfectly reasonably assumption that they present a high credit risk, while a landlord cannot! This should all be challenged in the courts, but the problem is the money for the legal costs to challenge this bad legislation.

davindub

GGTrek wrote: »

Of course this is what the OP should do, what i do not accept is your argument of economic discrimination being the same as discrimination based on race or hair color or .... The government decided to setup another crap scheme called HAP that only favours the government and councils and then tried to force it onto landlords with an falsely ideological BS discrimination law in 2015, when in reality they were only interested in covering their bad policy decisions.
Forgot to say, unlike the other 9 grounds, the Equal Status Amendment Act 2015 only discriminates against the providers of accomodation services (landlords for the most part), for example other service providers like banks or brokers might decide not to open accounts or provide loads to people in receipt of social welfare due to the perfectly reasonably assumption that they present a high credit risk, while a landlord cannot! This should all be challenged in the courts, but the problem is the money for the legal costs to challenge this bad legislation.

You can call your discrimination whatever you like, economic, random, etc, if it discriminates (intent is not necessary to prove) against HAP you have an issue. The WRC are well versed in dealing with people who aren't stupid enough to state "I am discriminating against X because of one of the 9 listed grounds". That is where the term indirect discrimination is coming from.

Now to give false legal advice normally would be the issue of any idiot stupid enough to listen to it, you are not qualified to give legal advice to anyone and definitely not to invent loopholes which until tested are "hypothetical BS". But in the instance of the equal status act

"13.—(1) A person shall not procure or attempt to procure another person to engage in prohibited conduct.


(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence."

Note prohibited conduct is defined in the act as discriminating against in the context of the act (i.e. on the 9 grounds).

There has been commentary (by suitably qualified persons) on the liability of the publisher to this term as well, it is expected that the publisher would also be guilty of an offense.

The Student

davindub wrote: »

You can call your discrimination whatever you like, economic, random, etc, if it discriminates (intent is not necessary to prove) against HAP you have an issue. The WRC are well versed in dealing with people who aren't stupid enough to state "I am discriminating against X because of one of the 9 listed grounds". That is where the term indirect discrimination is coming from.

Now to give false legal advice normally would be the issue of any idiot stupid enough to listen to it, you are not qualified to give legal advice to anyone and definitely not to invent loopholes which until tested are "hypothetical BS". But in the instance of the equal status act

"13.—(1) A person shall not procure or attempt to procure another person to engage in prohibited conduct.


(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence."

Note prohibited conduct is defined in the act as discriminating against in the context of the act (i.e. on the 9 grounds).

There has been commentary (by suitably qualified persons) on the liability of the publisher to this term as well, it is expected that the publisher would also be guilty of an offense.

I think we all agree (certainly from a landlords perspective) that HAP is not attractive. The decision of who a property is let to is based solely on an economic perspective (not only on a tenants ability to pay the rent but also on the landlords ability to recoup losses etc). People forget that the transaction is a business transaction pure and simple.

The HAP scheme is a complete disaster and landlords will continue to find ways to avoid the scheme. For those who don't they will then sell up.

The treatment of landlords in the current climate is toxic, and rather than landlords and tenants at each others "throats" they should be both lobbying the govt to resolve the issue. The more toxic the market becomes the lower rental properties will be available and the lower the number of new properties will come on board.

There is a housing crisis of that this is no doubt but all three sides (Landlords, Tenants and Govt) need to play their respective parts in resolving it.

The anti landlord stance that the Govt and tenants are taking is driving a wedge even further between both landlords and tenants.

davindub

The Student wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

You can call your discrimination whatever you like, economic, random, etc, if it discriminates (intent is not necessary to prove) against HAP you have an issue. The WRC are well versed in dealing with people who aren't stupid enough to state "I am discriminating against X because of one of the 9 listed grounds". That is where the term indirect discrimination is coming from.

Now to give false legal advice normally would be the issue of any idiot stupid enough to listen to it, you are not qualified to give legal advice to anyone and definitely not to invent loopholes which until tested are "hypothetical BS". But in the instance of the equal status act

"13.—(1) A person shall not procure or attempt to procure another person to engage in prohibited conduct.


(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence."

Note prohibited conduct is defined in the act as discriminating against in the context of the act (i.e. on the 9 grounds).

There has been commentary (by suitably qualified persons) on the liability of the publisher to this term as well, it is expected that the publisher would also be guilty of an offense.

I think we all agree (certainly from a landlords perspective) that HAP is not attractive. The decision of who a property is let to is based solely on an economic perspective (not only on a tenants ability to pay the rent but also on the landlords ability to recoup losses etc). People forget that the transaction is a business transaction pure and simple.

The HAP scheme is a complete disaster and landlords will continue to find ways to avoid the scheme. For those who don't they will then sell up.

The treatment of landlords in the current climate is toxic, and rather than landlords and tenants at each others "throats" they should be both lobbying the govt to resolve the issue. The more toxic the market becomes the lower rental properties will be available and the lower the number of new properties will come on board.

There is a housing crisis of that this is no doubt but all three sides (Landlords, Tenants and Govt) need to play their respective parts in resolving it.

The anti landlord stance that the Govt and tenants are taking is driving a wedge even further between both landlords and tenants.

Not to rude but the merits of the legislation are irrelevant on whether you can be liable for damages.

Look the only answer to this thread that matters is that complying with the equal status act can be tricky, you could do with legal advice rather than a silly cover story.

Floppybits

I have just had a HAP application landed on me, the tenants have been in a year now. I have no problem with it but the amount of paperwork that is required from HAP, mortgage statement, PRTB registration or LPT Payment or Property documents, Bank statement to prove you are landlord. 
Not worth the hassle.  I will put the place on the Market in the new and get rid of it.

shindig-jp

Floppybits wrote: »

I have just had a HAP application landed on me, the tenants have been in a year now. I have no problem with it but the amount of paperwork that is required from HAP, mortgage statement, PRTB registration or LPT Payment or Property documents, Bank statement to prove you are landlord. 
Not worth the hassle.  I will put the place on the Market in the new and get rid of it.

Why sell if you don't have a problem. A little hassle in the beginning with paperwork , it's then finished

Nomis21

Wait till the HAP inspectors call to demand repairs and upgrades and then you will know about hassle!