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

Fol20

10pennymixup wrote: »

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.

Reminds me of Mary cash when she’s was being interviewed. No sense whatsoever..

Graham

Mod Note

stinkbomb, please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting in this thread again.

Fol20

OP is not easier to do open house viewings or 10min slots and then get a feel for the people you like and give them a checklist they need to give before you accept their application. Now days when so many people want a place, I don’t like the admin work when you could have a lot of tyre kickers. So I just normally do open viewing. People that are actually interested will talk to me face to face and if I like them. I’ll tell them the next step. 80pc of the time they don’t do my checklist and then those that do. I narrow down my preferences.

10pennymixup

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

stinkbomb, please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting in this thread again.

Sad face.

I was hoping to ask him how something considering his assertion that LL's are discriminating en masse. I was curious how he explained away all the tenancies that currently exist where rent is being paid by HAP, etc.

Fol20 wrote: »

Reminds me of Mary cash when she’s was being interviewed. No sense whatsoever..

Genuinely never heard the woman speak, nor read an interview. But I do get where you're coming from.

pwurple

Fol20 wrote: »

OP is not easier to do open house viewings or 10min slots and then get a feel for the people you like and give them a checklist they need to give before you accept their application. Now days when so many people want a place, I don’t like the admin work when you could have a lot of tyre kickers. So I just normally do open viewing. People that are actually interested will talk to me face to face and if I like them. I’ll tell them the next step. 80pc of the time they don’t do my checklist and then those that do. I narrow down my preferences.

Definitely NOT easier to do that these days, as desperation is making people do crazy things, especially when you are locked into a low rent in an RPZ area.

I had wads of cash waved in my face and was told I'd get this extra cash every two months, under the table... If I let it to them. I was threatened with the place being burnt down if I didn't let it to them. People got stroppy with other viewers arriving.

300 applications the OP had. At 15 minutes each, you only get through 4 per hour. That's 2 solid weeks of meeting people there...

s7ryf3925pivug

The reply in the OP is like someone saying they'll work the weekends for free when applying for a job. Polite desperation is not something to celebrate.

Franz Von Peppercorn

What’s the point of this thread? To show how desperate most renters are? To wallow in their misery?

s7ryf3925pivug

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What’s the point of this thread? To show how desperate most renters are? To wallow in celebrate their misery?

fixed

pc7

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What’s the point of this thread? To show how desperate most renters are? To wallow in their misery?

No it’s a sensible post from someone with an asset probably worth over 150k looking for advice. Because if they select the wrong tenant could end up sinking them.

Franz Von Peppercorn

pc7 wrote: »

No it’s a sensible post from someone with an asset probably worth over 150k looking for advice. Because if they select the wrong tenant could end up sinking them.

All they did was get impressed by a nice sounding email pandering to their prejudices.

Why mention the 340 responses? And clearly the contents of the email mattered, as a previous poster mentioned. The emailers had to sell themselves on not having a family, not being hap etc.

s7ryf3925pivug

pc7 wrote: »

No it’s a sensible post from someone with an asset probably worth over 150k looking for advice. Because if they select the wrong tenant could end up sinking them.

They didn't ask for advice at all. They asked renters for examples of how they might beg in response to "adds".

Having kids or a dog and calling your landlord to fulfil their responsibilities is not going to sink anyone.

pc7

It’s a one bed, where are they going to put these imaginary families? It’s your own prejudices against landlords that seems to be the issue.

stinkbomb

10pennymixup wrote: »

Sad face.

I was hoping to ask him how something considering his assertion that LL's are discriminating en masse. I was curious how he explained away all the tenancies that currently exist where rent is being paid by HAP, etc.



Genuinely never heard the woman speak, nor read an interview. But I do get where you're coming from.

Landlords in this forum are daily mentioning how they will not rent to people on HAP for not other reason that they are on HAP.
Can you please explain how boasting of illegal discrimination is not evidence of illegal discrimination?

stinkbomb

pc7 wrote: »

No it’s a sensible post from someone with an asset probably worth over 150k looking for advice. Because if they select the wrong tenant could end up sinking them.

OP doesn't have an asset at all, they have a friend with an asset.

mikemac2

A good email but seems wrong to me to attach work references and bank statements in the first enquiry email

They could email these to ten landlords and never hear anything and now their bank statements are distributed for nothing and the references won’t know whether to expect one call or ten

All of that can be done after the viewing or if the landlord replies to request. The first email will state these are available

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

Landlords in this forum are daily mentioning how they will not rent to people on HAP for not other reason that they are on HAP.
Can you please explain how boasting of illegal discrimination is not evidence of illegal discrimination?

I can do that simply by saying boasting of doing something is not actually evidence of doing something. Sure I lost my virginity when I was seven... and it was a threesome :rolleyes:

But that's making light of it.

I've already said that illegal discrimination must be happening (please read post #48 of this thread), and I make my judgement based on the fact that there are people who break the law or bend the rules or whatever in all walks of life, so there must be some LL's as well.

I said this back in the same post where I asked you how endemic do you think this practice is? From your language it comes across as that you think it is widespread, and that you are basing this assertion because "it's all over this forum" etc.

Yes Landlords do discriminate, but only some discriminate illegally. Every LL has to make a choice based on certain criteria, and the law says you can't use social welfare payments as one of those criteria. Just like you can't use race, ethnicity, etc.

I also think you need to be learn to differentiate between discrimination and illegal discrimination. All selection is discrimination, but not the definition you're getting confused with. I've have read one maybe two posters on this thread say things that could be construed as illegal D if they have acted this way. But all others simply tried to explain to you what criteria they used and how receiving rent payments from SW was not one of them, but ability to pay, ratio of income to rent, were criteria.

Not every person "on HAP" that is refused a tenancy is refused because they need social welfare assistance with rent payments, evidenced by many existing and some new ones (I have no idea how many and I'm not wasting time doing research for you, I don't care enough.)

If a LL posted here tomorrow that they didn't work out in advance that the tenant that they just let to was actually able to afford to rent the property, you would be the first person on to say what an unprofessional LL, serves them right.

Don't take everything you read on forums as gospel, and never to the extent that you get so het up about it. How do you know that the random people on this forum that you ascribe illegal goings on to, are even LL's. How do you know I'm a real LL, and not really a Walter Mitty type character.

And please take the time to read properly what has been posted (not just my posts) and not be so quick to jump. One earlier post had the poster say something like "if I was a LL (they) wouldn't accept HAP", you came calling them (paraphrasing) "the worst kind of LL, a cowboy LL" The poster had just said they were not a LL.

stinkbomb

That's a very patronising, if well intentioned reply, which suggests you did not actually read or understand my posts. I never said that all LL's discriminate, or that all those that do do so illegally.

What is clear from many posts here is that landlords do not understand HAP, how it works or who is on it, and are making judgements based on their errors in understanding. They do no understand that while HAP is paid in arrears, tenants pay first months rent up front, so that to all intents and purposes HAP is paid in advance, with the added benefit of having an extra month to come at the end if the tenant owes money. In this way HAP is MORE secure for landlords, not less.
They do not understand that hap tenants pay the same deposits as any other tenant, are as likely to be in work, can top up rents to the insane levels now demanded by landlords (aka "market rent"). They do not understand that people on HAP are not a lower form of life or tenant, they are just like anyone else, no more or less likely to cause issues or damage to any property than any other tenant.

Yes, the discrimination is widespread, I have spoken to housing charities and advice bodies about this, its a very common theme for them. More and more families are finding it impossible to find a rental because in some areas, no landlords will accept HAP, and are quite open about saying so, knowing there is little people can do about it. It's bad enough that bonuses were being offered to agents taking HAP tenants, why would that be if there was no need for extra help for these people?

Its a very serious problem. Families that could easily afford their rentals 3-4 years ago are now over the last few years being forced to apply to HAP to pay the much higher rents for the same properties. Houses that cost 900 a month 4 years ago are now 1500 a month, and HAP is needed to keep them from homelessness. If they then have to move, they are being turned down for every rental in their area.

If landlords bothered to actually understand how it all works, they would know that they are spiting themselves and passing over good tenants with rent coming direct from the councils, as well as contributing to the housing crisis in yet another way.

Carlos Orange

stinkbomb wrote: »

If landlords bothered to actually understand how it all works, they would know that they are spiting themselves and passing over good tenants with rent coming direct from the councils, as well as contributing to the housing crisis in yet another way.

If there are 2 prospective tenants , one on HAP and one not. How does taking one contribute to the housing crisis and taking the other not? They both need a place to live.

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

That's a very patronising, if well intentioned reply, which suggests you did not actually read or understand my posts. I never said that all LL's discriminate, or that all those that do do so illegally.

What is clear from many posts here is that landlords do not understand HAP, how it works or who is on it, and are making judgements based on their errors in understanding. They do no understand that while HAP is paid in arrears, tenants pay first months rent up front, so that to all intents and purposes HAP is paid in advance, with the added benefit of having an extra month to come at the end if the tenant owes money. In this way HAP is MORE secure for landlords, not less.
They do not understand that hap tenants pay the same deposits as any other tenant, are as likely to be in work, can top up rents to the insane levels now demanded by landlords (aka "market rent"). They do not understand that people on HAP are not a lower form of life or tenant, they are just like anyone else, no more or less likely to cause issues or damage to any property than any other tenant.

Yes, the discrimination is widespread, I have spoken to housing charities and advice bodies about this, its a very common theme for them. More and more families are finding it impossible to find a rental because in some areas, no landlords will accept HAP, and are quite open about saying so, knowing there is little people can do about it. It's bad enough that bonuses were being offered to agents taking HAP tenants, why would that be if there was no need for extra help for these people?

Its a very serious problem. Families that could easily afford their rentals 3-4 years ago are now over the last few years being forced to apply to HAP to pay the much higher rents for the same properties. Houses that cost 900 a month 4 years ago are now 1500 a month, and HAP is needed to keep them from homelessness. If they then have to move, they are being turned down for every rental in their area.

If landlords bothered to actually understand how it all works, they would know that they are spiting themselves and passing over good tenants with rent coming direct from the councils, as well as contributing to the housing crisis in yet another way.

I last suggested that you took time to read the posts of others properly. I now suggest to take the time to read your own. (your own contradictions , in bold, all above in the one post, your latest).

Earlier I also wrote explaining about typed capped letters being taken as loud noisy shouting.

I refrained then from comparing that noise to that of an empty vessel.

I'm really don't want to start on your anecdotal evidence of housing authorities etc knowing of cases of illegal discrimination being widespread. The WRC must be inundated with complaints backed by these bodies :rolleyes:

Or how offering a rental to HAP helps solve the housing crisis. You can only rent to one tenant at a time. The failed applicants still need housing, be they SW or private.

Good luck with your posts, I'm not going to bother you anymore on this thread. There's just no point.

EDIT: Sorry Psinno, you got there before me about the housing

stinkbomb

You aren't going to bother as you know I am right, you don't disagree with my point that it is clear that landlords dont' understand HAP at at all.
You also clearly don't understand that while someone private renting who gets turned down for a rental has every other rental available to them, someone turned down purely because of HAP is likely to get the same next time, and next time and next time. They are the ones at increased risk of homelessness.

You're right, there is no point me trying to explain these basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, because they don't suit their narrative.

10pennymixup

stinkbomb wrote: »

You aren't going to bother as you know I am right, you don't disagree with my point that it is clear that landlords dont' understand HAP at at all.
You also clearly don't understand that while someone private renting who gets turned down for a rental has every other rental available to them, someone turned down purely because of HAP is likely to get the same next time, and next time and next time. They are the ones at increased risk of homelessness.

You're right, there is no point me trying to explain these basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, because they don't suit their narrative.

I understand it perfectly, just not in the way you "understand" it.

Good luck with everything and blessings and all that.

the_syco

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.

Payment of deposit and first months rent has to be paid before I could ever sign an lease. You need the LL to fill out forms to get HAP to pay this.

stinkbomb wrote: »

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 LLs 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.

HAP doesn't always clear straight away. It can take 3 months, and not sure how many of the CC's backdate payment. So the tenant has to be paying the rent up until the HAP starts coming down. If the person requires HAP, they often cannot pay the first few months until HAP kicks in.

stinkbomb wrote: »

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

Funny how you assume I'm a landlord.

Graces7 wrote: »

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

What are your past (not most recent) references like?

stinkbomb wrote: »

being on HAP has nothing to do with which you are.

Being on HAP greatly reduces the chances of the tenant being able to afford to pay damages that their deposit doesn't cover.

stinkbomb wrote: »

You also clearly don't understand that while someone private renting who gets turned down for a rental has every other rental available to them, someone turned down purely because of HAP is likely to get the same next time, and next time and next time. They are the ones at increased risk of homelessness.

If someone can't rent a place, they are at risk of becoming homeless. If someone who is paying the rent with their own money can't rent a place, they become homeless.

tvjunki

stinkbomb wrote: »

You aren't going to bother as you know I am right, you don't disagree with my point that it is clear that landlords dont' understand HAP at at all.
You also clearly don't understand that while someone private renting who gets turned down for a rental has every other rental available to them, someone turned down purely because of HAP is likely to get the same next time, and next time and next time. They are the ones at increased risk of homelessness.

You're right, there is no point me trying to explain these basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, because they don't suit their narrative.

Landlords do understand hap. Yes a tenant provides a deposit and one month rent if they have it. The landlord jumps through hoops to get paperwork in order and the waits to see if the rent is paid.

If the tenant does not pay their tiny share the council pays nothing. Council will not talk to the landlords and the landlord then has to go through rtb process. They give 14 days notice and then 28 days notice. Still no rent and the rtb process. Tenant still in house.

The house is then inspected by an outside agency paid by the council when around 10krent paid or before.

A 22 page list or all checks for the property. 22 page!!. We would not have that for a snag list for a house purchase.
Landlords here are told the paint colour if magnolia is not acceptable, take carpets up as the tenant has allergies. There is more nonsense that landlords have said on this site.

ebbsy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who in their right mind would take HAP when hey don't have to?

Bloody right.

Sundew

LotharIngum wrote: »

So I was just wondering, what does everyone else do here when replying to an add. Some might think an email like that was overkill, but i thought it was great, as did my colleague.

Like going for a job interview,your pitch needs to stand out from the crowd, to be in with any chance of getting the place. I have been on both sides of this recently, as had to rent out my apartment and rent a bigger place!
We went to two house viewings where we we pretty wet behind the ears as to what was needed to do to get the place. The landlady liked us, but we had no references or details ready. It was an open viewing and although I would have considered ourselves very suitable tenants, we were dismissed immediately by auctioneer. So for our next viewing, we had our references/ bank details/ bills and my husband typed up a cover letter ( basically blowing our own trumpets...not something I am comfortable doing!). There were numerous other couples/ families viewing and 3 days later we were notified that we got it.....so selling yourself works! You have to these days!

Our auctioneer dealt with our apartment and he filtered out loads of potential tenants. We were fussy with who we wanted in......when it’s your own gaff you are! We also had long term neighbours to think of and we were pretty eager to find the right tenants.
Then he had two open viewings with about 12 potential tenants. 3 lots on the first evening had all their refs etc in tow and we then choose who we felt were the best fit out of those last few.

If anybody emailed me “ is property still available” I wouldn’t waste my breath replying especially if I have 100 + more replies to go through!

PierreLeCake

From time to time tenants post on Boards that they are not being offered houses or even getting to view them and what should they do to make themselves more attractive to a landlord. The advice generally given is that in time with a scarcity of rental properties they should treat it like a job interview and try and stand out from the other prospective tenants. The OP said his friend got 360 queries for a 1 bed apartment. No landlord is going to email every potential candidate asking for further information so a lot will get weeded out immediately.
Why bother emailing "Is the apartment still available" when you can just as easily spend a few extra minutes giving details about yourself like the OP's example. Indeed you only have to type it out once and then cut and paste for all the properties that you are interested in.
The last time I rented out my property it was the people who told me a bit about themselves that got a viewing.
The example given by the OP is a bit over the top , but probably an example of how desparate people are to get a place. I would n't expect people to email bank statement and payslips.Ultimately I will make a decision when I meet the prospective tenants and suss them out personally.
The thread then descends into the inevitable argument about HAP. The problem with HAP is that it is not attractive to Landlords and being attractive to Landlords is the name of the game if you want to secure a rental property.
The real problem here is the HAP scheme itself. It is not fit for purpose. Its extra paperwork for the landlord, having to prove ownership of the house , get a Tax clearance certificate etc. Personally I think Landlords should charge a HAP form signing fee between 150 - 250 euros because its extra work with no extra return.
The Landlord is paid in arrears not in advance like private renters.
Different councils take different lengths of time to process the forms so the landlord could be 2 or 3 months out of pocket before being paid
If the forms are filled out incorrectly the council does nothing. They won't let the landlord know or even talk to him about it.
The biggest whammy is the house is inspected after the tenant has moved in .If it does n't meet the onerous standards demanded by the councils then rent is stopped. The real hypocrisy here is that councils own social housing would n't meet their own standards.
Of course rental property should be fit to live in but when a Council fails you for trivial things it makes a mockery of the whole process.
Another gothca for landlords is if the tenant fails to pay their agreed portion of rent to the Council than the Council stops paying the landlord. Where is the fairness in that. I can't stop paying my mortgage because the tenant has n't paid me or there will be serious consequences if I do.
Because of the incompetence of the Government and Councils you have a situation where no sane Landlord would touch HAP but if he tells the potential Tenant that he is guilty of discriminantion.The end result is that HAP tenants can't secure a property with all the attendand stress and worries. Once a landlord suspects thay might be a HAP tenant they won't even get to view the property. Ultimately if 360 people apply to rent an apartment then 359 are going to be disappointed


If the government was serious about housing Social Walfare tenants in private property they should make HAP attractive to landlords.
This could be done by a few simple things.
Give Landlords a hefy Tax discount for taking HAP tenants. Something like reduce the tax from the current 52% to 40%
Pay rent and deposit in advance as is the norm
Do a pre HAP inspection on the house so the landlords know what has to be done and how much it will cost if they want to go the HAP route.
The council acts as a gurantor for the tenant. If the tenant does n't pay the council its the councils's problem.Don't stop the landlords rent.
The real problem is the lack of Social Welfare housing. If the Government was building on a grand scale it would , over time , reduce the need for HAP tenants to look for private rentals. That might benefit private renters as there would be less competition for housing and who knows rents might even fall. But thats never going to happen.Its easier to to paint the landlord as the bogeyman, shaft them with high taxes, Rent Control and systematically erode their few rights.

Fol20

stinkbomb wrote: »

You aren't going to bother as you know I am right, you don't disagree with my point that it is clear that landlords dont' understand HAP at at all.
You also clearly don't understand that while someone private renting who gets turned down for a rental has every other rental available to them, someone turned down purely because of HAP is likely to get the same next time, and next time and next time. They are the ones at increased risk of homelessness.

You're right, there is no point me trying to explain these basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, because they don't suit their narrative.

Stinkbomb, honestly what facts? you keep saying ll dont understand it, yet several on here have outline a number of different factors that influence their decision making when selecting a good tenant, you seem to ignore everything in the hope that by the same the same thing over and over, it will eventually make it so. Affordability along with your gut on what you think the tenant is like are the most important aspects of picking a tenant, there is also added perks for picking non app which i also take into account but it is heavily weighted towards the other two. Please outline your "facts" because you keep repeating the same thing without backing it up. Has there been studies performed of how ll dont know how HAP works, has the IPOA or charities performed not biased studies to highlight what you keep droning on about?

Fol20

PierreLeCake wrote: »

From time to time tenants post on Boards that they are not being offered houses or even getting to view them and what should they do to make themselves more attractive to a landlord. The advice generally given is that in time with a scarcity of rental properties they should treat it like a job interview and try and stand out from the other prospective tenants. The OP said his friend got 360 queries for a 1 bed apartment. No landlord is going to email every potential candidate asking for further information so a lot will get weeded out immediately.
Why bother emailing "Is the apartment still available" when you can just as easily spend a few extra minutes giving details about yourself like the OP's example. Indeed you only have to type it out once and then cut and paste for all the properties that you are interested in.
The last time I rented out my property it was the people who told me a bit about themselves that got a viewing.
The example given by the OP is a bit over the top , but probably an example of how desparate people are to get a place. I would n't expect people to email bank statement and payslips.Ultimately I will make a decision when I meet the prospective tenants and suss them out personally.
The thread then descends into the inevitable argument about HAP. The problem with HAP is that it is not attractive to Landlords and being attractive to Landlords is the name of the game if you want to secure a rental property.
The real problem here is the HAP scheme itself. It is not fit for purpose. Its extra paperwork for the landlord, having to prove ownership of the house , get a Tax clearance certificate etc. Personally I think Landlords should charge a HAP form signing fee between 150 - 250 euros because its extra work with no extra return.
The Landlord is paid in arrears not in advance like private renters.
Different councils take different lengths of time to process the forms so the landlord could be 2 or 3 months out of pocket before being paid
If the forms are filled out incorrectly the council does nothing. They won't let the landlord know or even talk to him about it.
The biggest whammy is the house is inspected after the tenant has moved in .If it does n't meet the onerous standards demanded by the councils then rent is stopped. The real hypocrisy here is that councils own social housing would n't meet their own standards.
Of course rental property should be fit to live in but when a Council fails you for trivial things it makes a mockery of the whole process.
Another gothca for landlords is if the tenant fails to pay their agreed portion of rent to the Council than the Council stops paying the landlord. Where is the fairness in that. I can't stop paying my mortgage because the tenant has n't paid me or there will be serious consequences if I do.
Because of the incompetence of the Government and Councils you have a situation where no sane Landlord would touch HAP but if he tells the potential Tenant that he is guilty of discriminantion.The end result is that HAP tenants can't secure a property with all the attendand stress and worries. Once a landlord suspects thay might be a HAP tenant they won't even get to view the property. Ultimately if 360 people apply to rent an apartment then 359 are going to be disappointed


If the government was serious about housing Social Walfare tenants in private property they should make HAP attractive to landlords.
This could be done by a few simple things.
Give Landlords a hefy Tax discount for taking HAP tenants. Something like reduce the tax from the current 52% to 40%
Pay rent and deposit in advance as is the norm
Do a pre HAP inspection on the house so the landlords know what has to be done and how much it will cost if they want to go the HAP route.
The council acts as a gurantor for the tenant. If the tenant does n't pay the council its the councils's problem.Don't stop the landlords rent.
The real problem is the lack of Social Welfare housing. If the Government was building on a grand scale it would , over time , reduce the need for HAP tenants to look for private rentals. That might benefit private renters as there would be less competition for housing and who knows rents might even fall. But thats never going to happen.Its easier to to paint the landlord as the bogeyman, shaft them with high taxes, Rent Control and systematically erode their few rights.

Everything you said,bar one point i completely agree with.Why does the government need to do inspections? Its extra admin work costing the tax payer money. If a property isnt fit for purpose, a dispute should be lodged with the RTB similar to private standard rental. They keep saying HAP should be treating equally so lets make it equal.

10pennymixup

Fol20 wrote: »

........... They keep saying HAP should be treating equally so lets make it equal.

I like this.

Claw Hammer

Any landlord who takes HAP deserves to be inspected monthly. It is a complete abomination of a system.