Impressive rental reply. What info would you send when replying to an ad?

power pants

Graces7 wrote: »

That is not what it means as you well know. And I have been discriminated against quite openly simply due to HAP.

Did you put in a complaint? did you win?

Maybe the landlord just didnt think you were suitable for his property.

ted1

Fian wrote: »

GDPR does not prevent you from sharing your own personal data with someone.

what do you mean by "them"? Sharing the references provided by previous landlords is also not a GDPR breach. The references were provided in order to be given to prospective landlords.

GDPR does not operate as some kind of blanket to prevent communication, it is intended to prevent companies from abusing your data without your permission. It does so in a pretty heavy handed way, probably because heavy handed is necessary, but this is all fine.

The potential tenant shared it with their potential landlord whinthen showed it to the OP.

Claw Hammer

stinkbomb wrote: »

HAP tenants pay the same deposit as anyone else, and most are working, and as likely or not to pay for any damage as any other tenants.

The fact that so many landlords do not understand the scheme, how it works, or who uses it is pathetic, but its not an excuse for your illegal discrimination.

You have not denied the rent is lower than market. How can someone on HAP afferd to pay damages of 5k say? I know a landlord who had 23k worth of damage caused by a HAP tenant. Think the tenant paid?

amcalester

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You have not denied the rent is lower than market. How can someone on HAP afferd to pay damages of 5k say? I know a landlord who had 23k worth of damage caused by a HAP tenant. Think the tenant paid?

HAP rent isnt lower than market rent, the amount the council pays is limited but the tenant tops up the balance.

pc7

They seem very good on paper, ring the job references (google number don't go by what they provided). Search for their social media profiles to see if party central. Search names and landlords name on rtb.ie for disputes. (https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/search-results/listing/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaC1yZXN1bHRzXC9saXN0aW5nIiwia2V5d29yZHMiOiJhb2lmZSBsdXN0ZWQiLCJjb2xsZWN0aW9uIjoiYWRqdWRpY2F0aW9uX29yZGVyc3x0cmlidW5hbF9vcmRlcnMifQ)
Meet them, use your gut, property is an expensive asset, you need to avoid overholding or damage at all cost.

10pennymixup

Graces7 wrote: »

sigh...

Tired?

Graces7 wrote: »

That is not what it means as you well know. And I have been discriminated against quite openly simply due to HAP.

Apologies to anyone that sees this as coming across semantic but Graces7 you were posting misinformation. Simples.

You stated that it was "illegal to refuse" it's not, it's illegal to discriminate. You don't/ didn't know what the legislation means, not me. Either that or you meant something vastly different to that which you typed. Whichever, it's still misinformation, end of I'm not going to hark on anymore about it.

I don't want to sound harsh but in reality I can't care about your belief that you were discriminated against because of HAP. It is very possible you didn't get the place/ places for many other reasons. One obvious reason being there was a better (for whatever reason) applicant. The applicant that ended up in the property.

And I am not trying to turn this into a anti RA/RAS/HAP/FIS or whatever type thread (so I'll not post again about SW rent payments on this thread ). FWIW I don't have a problem with receiving SW rent payments. And if anyone reading this thinks this a tongue in cheek statement, genuinely I don't have a problem with any type of payment for rent in advance.

power pants

10pennymixup wrote: »

Tired?



Apologies to anyone that sees this as coming across semantic but Graces7 you were posting misinformation. Simples.

You stated that it was "illegal to refuse" it's not, it's illegal to discriminate. You don't/ didn't know what the legislation means, not me. Either that or you meant something vastly different to that which you typed. Whichever, it's still misinformation, end of I'm not going to hark on anymore about it.

I don't want to sound harsh but in reality I can't care about your belief that you were discriminated against because of HAP. It is very possible you didn't get the place/ places for many other reasons. One obvious reason being there was a better (for whatever reason) applicant. The applicant that ended up in the property.

And I am not trying to turn this into a anti RA/RAS/HAP/FIS or whatever type thread (so I'll not post again about SW rent payments on this thread ). FWIW I don't have a problem with receiving SW rent payments. And if anyone reading this thinks this a tongue in cheek statement, genuinely I don't have a problem with any type of payment for rent in advance.

Couldn't agree more!

stinkbomb

10pennymixup wrote: »

Since when has it been illegal to refuse a prospective tenant that wishes to pay their rent with HAP payments?

I thought it was just illegal to discriminate against prospective tenants solely because they were in receipt of some social welfare payment such as HAP. That their application must be considered like everyone else that applied.

Big difference.

They way you put it, means if a LL rejects a tenancy application from someone on HAP, then they are doing something illegal. That they must give it to the HAP applicant - no choice if they want to follow the law. Even if they have pets, no references, their income isn't enough to cover bills/ rent, over occupancy etc. etc.

A LL is quite within their rights to refuse an application from anyone, as long as they are not doing it solely on the grounds of the applicant wishing to pay rent with a social welfare payment.

EDIT: looks like someone made the point when I was typing, must learn to type quicker.

The point being, obviously, is that ll's ARE refusing prospective tenants purely on the basis of being on HAP, and are admitting to it all over this forum.

stinkbomb

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You have not denied the rent is lower than market. How can someone on HAP afferd to pay damages of 5k say? I know a landlord who had 23k worth of damage caused by a HAP tenant. Think the tenant paid?

You think they would have paid if they weren't on HAP? Of course not. There are bad tenants and good tenants, being on HAP has nothing to do with which you are.

Claw Hammer

stinkbomb wrote: »

You think they would have paid if they weren't on HAP? Of course not. There are bad tenants and good tenants, being on HAP has nothing to do with which you are.

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

JDD

Okay I see the reasoning why you can't renege on a contract offered to someone who only tells you afterwards that they are on HAP. But if you were down to two candidates, one on HAP, one not, you're always going to pick the one who isn't on HAP because they'll have a higher income, right?

So if you asked all your prospective tenants for proof of income, and a certain amount of them are under a threshold (decided by you), you'd just discount them because there is a higher risk they won't meet a months rent, or won't be able to compensate you for damage. You're not discriminating against them because a portion of their rent payment comes from HAP, you're discriminating against them because they're poorer than other candidates. Which is perfectly legal.

Twenty Grand

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

Not worth the hassle when there's plenty looking who don't need assistance.

Claw Hammer

JDD wrote: »

Okay I see the reasoning why you can't renege on a contract offered to someone who only tells you afterwards that they are on HAP. But if you were down to two candidates, one on HAP, one not, you're always going to pick the one who isn't on HAP because they'll have a higher income, right?

So if you asked all your prospective tenants for proof of income, and a certain amount of them are under a threshold (decided by you), you'd just discount them because there is a higher risk they won't meet a months rent, or won't be able to compensate you for damage. You're not discriminating against them because a portion of their rent payment comes from HAP, you're discriminating against them because they're poorer than other candidates. Which is perfectly legal.

That is indirect discrimination which may well be illegal. If you have 2 candidates, pick the one you want, don't explain. If challenged later, say it was because the referees of the one chose were more positive.

beauf

10pennymixup wrote: »

...genuinely I don't have a problem with any type of payment for rent in advance.

I never understood the reason for the rent in arrears.

That's basically a free loan of one months rent and no deposit.

LotharIngum

CiniO wrote: »

It is actually very possible that person who just sent an email asking if place was still available would be much better tenant. But you'll never have a chance to find out.

Good point.
She needed to sort the list into the people she wanted to show to, so she put 10 into the list who she will show it to and then check their refs etc.

Then the next bunch of viewers will be the people who told her a bit about themselves but who she has to contact to get more info.
I don't think she'll even get to those tbh after seeing the first group, if even one of them is as good as their application says.

And then she would have to strike out on about 30 people to get to the rest.
The order was self selecting really.

angela1711

It’s hard to believe that nowadays you need to promote yourself as if you were applying for a job in Google just to get an extremely overpriced apartment in Dublin.
Also, if you want to rent your property you should have it up to a certain standard.
The requirements for HAP aren’t anything out of this world- Clean walls, fire blanket, smoke alarm, no mold, working central heating etc. If the apartment you intent to rent is in bits you shouldn’t be allowed to rent it at all regardless if the prospective tenants are on HAP or not.

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

The point being, obviously, is that ll's ARE refusing prospective tenants purely on the basis of being on HAP, and are admitting to it all over this forum.

All I was doing pointing out the difference in discriminate and refuse.

I am sure there are some LL's doing as you say either in ignorance of the law or full knowledge of it, there has to be. It stands to logic. There are bad apples in all walks of life.

But when you say "LL's ARE refusing" do you mean all LL's or just some? It's just that I don't believe it's any more a few.

10pennymixup

beauf wrote: »

I never understood the reason for the rent in arrears.

That's basically a free loan of ones months rent and no deposit.

Agree. It makes a mockery of the renting business format.

stinkbomb

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

So you would illegally discriminate, you openly admit it? You are the worst cowboy LL.

You've got it all wrong and you know nothing about it.

stinkbomb

beauf wrote: »

I never understood the reason for the rent in arrears.

That's basically a free loan of one months rent and no deposit.

The tenant has to pay the first month upfront, AND THE DEPOSIT, same as anyone else. You are WRONG.
The council pays in arrears but the tenant has to make it so it is as if it is in advance. So actually less risk to the Landlord rather than more.

tom1ie

stinkbomb wrote: »

Yes, a dream applicant...no kids or pets or on HAP, I presume you filtered all those out and illegally discriminated against them? And now you're here to boast about it?

Would you ever feck off!

LotharIngum

stinkbomb wrote: »

Yes, a dream applicant...no kids or pets or on HAP, I presume you filtered all those out and illegally discriminated against them? And now you're here to boast about it?

She would be quite happy to rent to a person on HAP.
If they beat out all the other applicants as the best possible tenant.
Lots of criteria come to bear in making that decision.

beauf

stinkbomb wrote: »

The tenant has to pay the first month upfront, AND THE DEPOSIT, same as anyone else. You are WRONG.
The council pays in arrears but the tenant has to make it so it is as if it is in advance. So actually less risk to the Landlord rather than more.

Its either paid in arrears or it isn't. What happens if a tenant doesn't have a month rent and a deposit.

Fol20

stinkbomb wrote: »

HAP tenants pay the same deposit as anyone else, and most are working, and as likely or not to pay for any damage as any other tenants.

The fact that so many landlords do not understand the scheme, how it works, or who uses it is pathetic, but its not an excuse for your illegal discrimination.

All of what you just said can be reversed. Many ll are fully aware of how it works and avoid it like the plague for many reasons already outlined. When getting paid, you want to make it as easy as possible. Not create more work for potentially less money.

LotharIngum

EdgeCase wrote: »

Children are all of a sudden shunned from accomodation as an inconvenience much like you're also punished at work for daring to reproduce.

You'd wonder what kind of weird society we are building? One like Japan, full of old people who'll have to be looked after by robots ?!

Is it legal in Ireland to discriminate against a couple with kids?!

Her apartment is a one bed. Not suitable for children.

Why am I even bothering justifying her decisions to the offended on behalf of the "people you don't even know brigade".


Look everybody. There is no discrimination here. Don't be looking for it. Most suitable tenant gets the apartment. Simple.

Fol20

stinkbomb wrote: »

Well I wouldn't mention the HAP until you gave me an agreement in writing to rent to me, then I'd get you to court when you reneged once you discovered the hap.

AND the landlord only finds out rent hasn't been paid when its not paid from anyone else, same as HAP. Rent may technically be paid in arrears, but LL
s take a month upfront from the tenant, then the HAP comes next month from the council, so effectively it is in advance, same as any other tenants.

Funny how so many daft ll's have such strong opinions about somehting they don't understand.

HAP can some times take months to start. I’m not going to wait months to get paid when I have a dozen others that are nice and easy where they just pay the good old fashioned way with no red tape. I don’t even know why you keep saying ll don’t understand it.

Fol20

stinkbomb wrote: »

The point being, obviously, is that ll's ARE refusing prospective tenants purely on the basis of being on HAP, and are admitting to it all over this forum.

Not quite. Affordability. Is a major factor when deciding a tenant. When your on HAP, you do not earn as much and I would be afraid of non payment. Yes the government pays you , however your budget might be so tight you may struggle with that even. More recently, I had two people interested in my place, one wanted my
Place yet rent would be costing him 70pc of his salary and the other was only going to be 20pc. Both of these were not HAP but it was a no brainer. When you also factor in the extra red tape, I’m not discriminating against the person as it’s HAP, I just take in several variables including but not only the stuff that go along with HAP. You can’t use the HAP card every time something doesn’t go your way. Remain object when talking, reverse the situation and if you were in the ll shoes. Would you pick someone with a better job, more money, will just sign a contract with no strings attached, nonwaiting periods to receive the money, less parties involved,potentially spends less time at home so less wear and tear or the reverse.

Fol20

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They wouldn't have been let in at all if they weren't on HAP. If they were vetted private tenants there is some chance they would be made pay. there is none with HAP. The Council wont approve a house for HAP unless the rent is below market. If I was a landlord I wouldn't let in anybody on HAP.

HAP can go to market rate. At least in my case one of my tenants pays the difference. Wish I didn’t have to deal with the hassle but market rate can be achieved

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

The tenant has to pay the first month upfront, AND THE DEPOSIT, same as anyone else. You are WRONG.
The council pays in arrears but the tenant has to make it so it is as if it is in advance. So actually less risk to the Landlord rather than more.

You do realise that words and sentences typed in caps are the literary equivalent of shouting. Some see that as the last vestige of some one losing an argument.

Fol20

stinkbomb wrote: »

So you would illegally discriminate, you openly admit it? You are the worst cowboy LL.

You've got it all wrong and you know nothing about it.

Is this guy trolling?