People on 47k or under entitled to HAP !!!!!!!!

Bigmac1euro

See this is doing the rounds on Facebook today.
Should everyone sign onto HAP who’s earning under 47k ?????



If you're earning €35,000 per annum (after tax) as a single person you qualify for Housing Assistance Payment - that means a gross income of €47,000 a year.

The government recognises that salaries of up to €47,000 a year are not enough to sustain people in rented accommodation so have set up a system to subsidise renters.

This. Is. Madness!

It's not a sustainable system, the Government are banking on majority of people who qualify to not apply. Anyone who is on less that €47,000 should apply to HAP as a means of principle to cripple the system, cause its collapse and prove that it is not viable.

Collapsing HAP will force the government to look at better, cheaper, more sustainable measures. Rather than funding a private market the government should be controlling it. We need rent controls not sympathy payouts.

At €47,000 a year I want to be able to pay my own way in life. But this is no longer about individual pride, this is about taking a collective stand against spiralling living costs influenced by greed and rootlessness of privatisation.

HAP has increased by €275,610,000 in only four years: 2014 HAP payouts were a mere €390,000. Rebuilding Ireland project HAP figures to increase to €1billion - this will be the biggest capital expenditure on housing, meaning HAP payments supersede the funding for building ACTUAL houses.

Public money being pumped into the private market with limited returns. If the state used that €275million to invest in public housing we would at least have assets, physical infrastructure and long-term rent returns to show for it.

CalamariFritti

If this is true then it is madness indeed.

Dial Hard

Pretty sure it is true, I think it was mentioned on the first episode of How To Be Good With Money the other week.

FWIW I earn a lot less than 47k gross and I would never dream of applying for HAP. I can afford my rent, so I'm not going to apply for assistance that I don't need just because technically I can. It would be dishonest of me, imo.

Bigmac1euro

Dial Hard wrote: »

Pretty sure it is true, I think it was mentioned on the first episode of How To Be Good With Money the other week.

FWIW I earn a lot less than 47k gross and I would never dream of applying for HAP. I can afford my rent, so I'm not going to apply for assistance that I don't need just because technically I can. It would be dishonest of me, imo.

I suppose the question is, is the rent your paying an honest figure then ? If your rent is less than a 3rd of your salary your golden I suppose.

Then again I’m just saying, I don’t know your situation. And I’m lucky my rent is only a 1/4 of mine if even. But still this is absolute madness.

Del2005

So you want thousands of people evicted to stick it to the man. Genius.


HAP is flawed but whey you see how much councils are owed by people who pay a fixed percentage of their income on a token rent you'll understand why they are passing the buck to the private sector.

Ethereal Cereal

Dial Hard wrote: »

Pretty sure it is true, I think it was mentioned on the first episode of How To Be Good With Money the other week.

FWIW I earn a lot less than 47k gross and I would never dream of applying for HAP. I can afford my rent, so I'm not going to apply for assistance that I don't need just because technically I can. It would be dishonest of me, imo.

How would it be dishonest of you? Your literally obeying the rule of law.

It's dishonest of you not to avail of it, since you are enabling an unbalanced rental market, that the government are trying to balance, with this HAP scheme.

Teddy Daniels

It's different amounts in different areas:

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/table_with_2016_income_limits.pdf

these are the local authority limits for eligibility to go o the housing list which is in turn a requirement of getting hap.

marketty

Dial Hard wrote:

FWIW I earn a lot less than 47k gross and I would never dream of applying for HAP. I can afford my rent, so I'm not going to apply for assistance that I don't need just because technically I can. It would be dishonest of me, imo.

In this market I think you should be applying for any assistance you can get, ok you can afford your rent, but the money you could save by accepting assistance could go toward a deposit on purchasing a home. That's what I'd be doing anyway in your situation.

HAP is a scandal, it's the dole for landlords. If you own a kip and can't rent it out on the private market you can get the council to pay you for it by just bringing it up to a bare minimum standard. People paying the full rent themselves then have to compete with this artificial floor on rent prices. The local authorities should be building properties and collecting rent, not handing taxpayer money to private landlords. Absolute madness. The issue around local authority tenant arrears can be tackled by moving offenders to less desirable areas or legislating to take it direct from their income.

Fann Linn

CalamariFritti wrote: »

If this is true then it is madness indeed.

This is old news.Has been that rate for a number of years. In Roscommon its €27k.
Horses for courses.

rosmoke

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

How would it be dishonest of you? Your literally obeying the rule of law.

It's dishonest of you not to avail of it, since you are enabling an unbalanced rental market, that the government are trying to balance, with this HAP scheme.

It would be dishonest as Social Benefits/HAP must be provided to those in need, if you can get by without it, it's only fair to do so, and not expect others to work for you.

vectorvictor

So we have one set of people complaining about high rents and another set complaining about the fact that assistance is available to counteract that.

It's an open market , rents aren't any higher than the market can bare or they would drop.

HAP isn't a free house , it's means assessed and the tenants contribution is matched to their income.

People who are eligible but take the moral stance of not seeking assistance are bordering on being thick in not realising that the freed up rent would enable them to save to buy and ultimately stop contributing to the problem of over demand and increasing rents

ShaneC93

To get HAP you have to be assessed and on the housing list though, it isn't just paid like a rebate to anyone who wants it.

rosmoke

ShaneC93 wrote: »

To get HAP you have to be assessed and on the housing list though, it isn't just paid like a rebate to anyone who wants it.

Anyone can lose their job and be placed on housing list or have a salary less than 47k or whatever the limit is.

tricky D

steo_magra wrote: »

HAP has increased by €275,610,000 in only four years: 2014 HAP payouts were a mere €390,000. Rebuilding Ireland project HAP figures to increase to €1billion - this will be the biggest capital expenditure on housing, meaning HAP payments supersede the funding for building ACTUAL houses.

Here is where the nonsense starts. HAP was introduced and phased in from 2014 so of course the first year was small and the figure grew as claims got transferred from Rent Supplement. So the proper figure for analysis for 2014 to present should be HAP plus Rent Supplement.


Then someone on €47k is going to get next to nothing due to Means testing unlike Child Benefit which is pretty much universally claimed and untested.



Add in Facebook rumour and hysteria and the rabble is off.....

Old diesel

marketty wrote: »

In this market I think you should be applying for any assistance you can get, ok you can afford your rent, but the money you could save by accepting assistance could go toward a deposit on purchasing a home. That's what I'd be doing anyway in your situation.

HAP is a scandal, it's the dole for landlords. If you own a kip and can't rent it out on the private market you can get the council to pay you for it by just bringing it up to a bare minimum standard. People paying the full rent themselves then have to compete with this artificial floor on rent prices. The local authorities should be building properties and collecting rent, not handing taxpayer money to private landlords. Absolute madness. The issue around local authority tenant arrears can be tackled by moving offenders to less desirable areas or legislating to take it direct from their income.

Landlords actually report that the standards HAP inspectors look for are often higher then the standards expected when the house was originally built.

Things like drilling walls to retrofit ventilation to each room.

Regardless of what landlord ability to fund the work is

Bigmac1euro

Del2005 wrote: »

So you want thousands of people evicted to stick it to the man. Genius.


HAP is flawed but whey you see how much councils are owed by people who pay a fixed percentage of their income on a token rent you'll understand why they are passing the buck to the private sector.

Wasn’t me that wrote this, just saying!

Idbatterim

It’s a farce. They need to build universal public housing. Would have voted fg before. Wouldn’t even normally vote in local elections, but the eirigi candidate in my area , is the only one who seems to give a toss about young people being screwed ! It simply suits fg and co and their constituents too much to do anything about it ! Hmmm vote for fg who will give me a few euro a week income tax cut every budget , but have you working poor to pay for a roof over your head ( getting massively more expensive per year) or vote for someone who will stop this outrageous flow of wealth from young to the old and or big business ..

overkill602

Idbatterim wrote: »

It’s a farce. They need to build universal public housing. Would have voted fg before. Wouldn’t even normally vote in local elections, but the eirigi candidate in my area , is the only one who seems to give a toss about young people being screwed ! It simply suits fg and co and their constituents too much to do anything about it ! Hmmm vote for fg who will give me a few euro a week income tax cut every budget , but have you working poor to pay for a roof over your head ( getting massively more expensive per year) or vote for someone who will stop this outrageous flow of wealth from young to the old and or big business ..

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/eirigi-behind-failed-gun-shop-raid-gardai-fear-28941110.html

marketty

Old diesel wrote:

Landlords actually report that the standards HAP inspectors look for are often higher then the standards expected when the house was originally built.

So? If the house wasn't built to a decent standard in the first place, or built a hundred years ago, it needs to be brought to a decent spec before the council houses someone in it.

Old diesel wrote:

Things like drilling walls to retrofit ventilation to each room.

Seems like a basic enough requirement.

Old diesel wrote:

Regardless of what landlord ability to fund the work is

If they can't afford to make the place habitable, when rents are as high as they are and the work is tax deductible, they can't afford to be landlords and should sell.

overkill602

If they can't afford to make the place habitable, when rents are as high as they are and the work is tax deductible, they can't afford to be landlords and should sell.

[/QUOTE]

"Doh"

Del2005

marketty wrote: »

So? If the house wasn't built to a decent standard in the first place, or built a hundred years ago, it needs to be brought to a decent spec before the council houses someone in it.



Seems like a basic enough requirement.




If they can't afford to make the place habitable, when rents are as high as they are and the work is tax deductible, they can't afford to be landlords and should sell.

For a normal rental the property has to meet the standards required when it was built. For HAP it has to meet current standards and the majority of property in this country can't meet it, even with renovation.

There's no point in having a tax deduction from zero income. If the HAP tenant does not pay their token part to the council then the landlord does not get any rent and due to privacy laws they don't find out till the rent isn't paid. The landlord then has 2 years of no rent while waiting to get their property back and it will most likely be trashed. The small minority of rouge tenants destroyed it for the majority.

splinter65

This is totally fake news. 47000 is applicable to a single person in certain areas in Dublin. It’s as low as 25000 in Leitrim.
If you are renting then apply to your local authority to be considered as in need of housing. If you are successful in that then you’ll be offered the chance to apply for HAP. Try that in Fethard on Sea with a 47000 salary and let us know how you get on .....

karenalot

splinter65 wrote: »

This is totally fake news. 47000 is applicable to a single person in certain areas in Dublin. It’s as low as 25000 in Leitrim.
If you are renting then apply to your local authority to be considered as in need of housing. If you are successful in that then you’ll be offered the chance to apply for HAP. Try that in Fethard on Sea with a 47000 salary and let us know how you get on .....

Hardly fake news. The figures are published for all to see.

The 47k gross applies to all areas of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Wicklow and Cork and Galway cities. It’s 30k gross income in Leitrim. Fethard on Sea is 37k gross.

Old diesel

Del2005 wrote: »

For a normal rental the property has to meet the standards required when it was built. For HAP it has to meet current standards and the majority of property in this country can't meet it, even with renovation.

There's no point in having a tax deduction from zero income. If the HAP tenant does not pay their token part to the council then the landlord does not get any rent and due to privacy laws they don't find out till the rent isn't paid. The landlord then has 2 years of no rent while waiting to get their property back and it will most likely be trashed. The small minority of rouge tenants destroyed it for the majority.

To be clear - the "meets the standard of when it was built" criteria isn't ideal either as a lot of houses were built before things like insulation was a requirement.

Ive read before that insulation only became a requirement in 1978 or thereabouts.

What's needed is clarity on why HAP apparently needs a higher standard.

Id love to see an inspection of two identical properties one for HAP and the other for normal rental - ideally with same inspector and see what actually comes back.

splinter65

karenalot wrote: »

Hardly fake news. The figures are published for all to see.

The 47k gross applies to all areas of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Wicklow and Cork and Galway cities. It’s 30k gross income in Leitrim. Fethard on Sea is 37k gross.

That’s to reflect the rents in those cities. As I said, apply to Wexford coco as a single person with a salary of 47000 and you’ll be laughed out of the building.

marketty

Del2005 wrote:

For a normal rental the property has to meet the standards required when it was built. For HAP it has to meet current standards and the majority of property in this country can't meet it, even with renovation.

Del2005 wrote:

There's no point in having a tax deduction from zero income. If the HAP tenant does not pay their token part to the council then the landlord does not get any rent and due to privacy laws they don't find out till the rent isn't paid. The landlord then has 2 years of no rent while waiting to get their property back and it will most likely be trashed. The small minority of rouge tenants destroyed it for the majority.

If HAP is such a bad deal for landlords why don't they lobby government to build thousands of units of local authority owned and managed social housing, like we did for decades in this country? Because they know if that happened the sky high rents achievable at the moment would collapse. To be fair, I'll agree with you that HAP may be a pain for a landlord in relation to his/her particular property and circumstances, and there's always the risk of the nightmare tenant (with or without HAP btw), but the very existence of HAP in the market as a driver of rent prices is a good thing for landlords, even those who don't accept it.

Sleepy

I've done some work on the RTB inspections and, quite frankly, my home, and those of most of my friends that are paying mortgages on their own homes or renting privately wouldn't pass.

Most of the fixes required to pass would be fairly minor but it's still incredible to think that we expect higher standards for those who aren't paying their way in life than for those who are.

Old diesel

Sleepy wrote: »

I've done some work on the RTB inspections and, quite frankly, my home, and those of most of my friends that are paying mortgages on their own homes or renting privately wouldn't pass.

Most of the fixes required to pass would be fairly minor but it's still incredible to think that we expect higher standards for those who aren't paying their way in life than for those who are.

Whats the most challenging fix in your experience - and would you be happier with the standards required if they applied to all rentals.

gibgodsman

It also doesn't mean you get anything if your within the means limit, they asses your earnings, rent and everything else, if you can pay the rent on your own then you will do so. If you are lucky enough to get it, you also contribute to the rent with that amount also depending on your assessment.

TheBoyConor

Utter rubbish being talked about in regard to the standard which houses have to meet for the HAP scheme.

Any rented dwelling has to be compliant with the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses Regulations) 2017. It doesn't matter whether it's rented completely privately with no assistance or through the HAP scheme.

These regulations are NOT Building Regulations. They are different Regulations, which in most part are relating to the condition and fit out of the house. In some areas like ventilation, or safety of heating appliances they refer to guidance in the Building Regulations. They make no reference whatsoever to minimum insulation. That is wrong information.

For example a house built in the 1950s must meet the the current Rented Houses Regulations regardless of it being privately rented or HAP. There is no distinction there. However, the 1950s rented house does not need to meet current Building Regulations. It's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Trust me. I know this area. Know it inside out in fact.

Sleepy

Old diesel wrote: »

Whats the most challenging fix in your experience - and would you be happier with the standards required if they applied to all rentals.

They do apply to all rentals, they just wouldn't tend to be inspected or reported on for non-council tenants.

Most fails are simple stuff: fire alarms not adhering to code, no wall-mounted fire blanket, ventilation issues etc.

Fann Linn

Sleepy wrote: »

I've done some work on the RTB inspections and, quite frankly, my home, and those of most of my friends that are paying mortgages on their own homes or renting privately wouldn't pass.

Most of the fixes required to pass would be fairly minor but it's still incredible to think that we expect higher standards for those who aren't paying their way in life than for those who are.

Not everyone on HAP or in CoCo housing is on the dole.

TheBoyConor

Yes, most failures of the standards are pretty minor. Wall vents, fire blankets, heaters in bathrooms.

Private tenancies, while obliged to comply, will never be inspected unless there is a complaint made to the local authority. They would be fewer than 10% of all inspections done. The vast majority of inspections are for the HAP and RAS schemes.

Sleepy

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not everyone on HAP or in CoCo housing is on the dole.

I didn't say they were. If you're in receipt of HAP, however, it can't be said that you're paying your way in life. Your lifestyle is being subsidised by your fellow citizens.

Bigmac1euro

Sleepy wrote: »

I didn't say they were. If you're in receipt of HAP, however, it can't be said that you're paying your way in life. Your lifestyle is being subsidised by your fellow citizens.

Subsidized because the system is broken and needs an overhaul, not by choice in a lot of cases I imagine.

The problem is a lot of people cannot live a normal life even on the "Living Wage" in this country.

marketty

Or you could look at it like this

Sleepy wrote:

If you're a landlord in receipt of HAP, however, it can't be said that you're paying your way in life. Your property is being subsidised by your fellow citizens.

Rents would not be as high as they are if HAP didn't exist and low earners were accommodated in proper state owned social housing. HAP is a gift for landlords.

gibgodsman

steo_magra wrote: »

Subsidized because the system is broken and needs an overhaul, not by choice in a lot of cases I imagine.

The problem is a lot of people cannot live a normal life even on the "Living Wage" in this country.

100% agree with this, I work 5 days a week 40+ hours for 21.5k, thats 4 years of college with an honors degree in Business and I.T for that amount.

terrydel

marketty wrote: »

If HAP is such a bad deal for landlords why don't they lobby government to build thousands of units of local authority owned and managed social housing, like we did for decades in this country? Because they know if that happened the sky high rents achievable at the moment would collapse. To be fair, I'll agree with you that HAP may be a pain for a landlord in relation to his/her particular property and circumstances, and there's always the risk of the nightmare tenant (with or without HAP btw), but the very existence of HAP in the market as a driver of rent prices is a good thing for landlords, even those who don't accept it.

It's a pain for small, one property or accidental landlords, but institutional landlords have no such problems as they have the scale and resources to comply with it.
Simply put, our housing crisis is the fault of fine gael and their ideology largely, and those that voted and continue to vote for them are responsible and should hang their heads in shame. If you are moaning about it and have voted for them or plan on doing so, you are a hypocritical moron. This crisis is simply policy, and exactly as intended by those that created it.

terrydel

Sleepy wrote: »

I didn't say they were. If you're in receipt of HAP, however, it can't be said that you're paying your way in life. Your lifestyle is being subsidised by your fellow citizens.

What utter drivel, you are paying what you are capable and the rest is subsidised. If you can't see that you are either blind, stupid or both.

Eric Cartman

terrydel wrote: »

What utter drivel, you are paying what you are capable and the rest is subsidised. If you can't see that you are either blind, stupid or both.

so the government is paying some of your rent .... and youre not supporting yourself..... which is what the poster said.

Not being able to decline HAP/RA was the worst thing to happen to rent rates in the nation, it set a new floor for the price of a rental in any given area as landlords could rent any crap shack that just about met standards for the full whack limit of RA/HAP , it also meant it was the floor price that every landlord who doesnt want to take these payments had to advertise over in order to avoid ending up in trouble.

terrydel

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so the government is paying some of your rent .... and youre not supporting yourself..... which is what the poster said.

Not being able to decline HAP/RA was the worst thing to happen to rent rates in the nation, it set a new floor for the price of a rental in any given area as landlords could rent any crap shack that just about met standards for the full whack limit of RA/HAP , it also meant it was the floor price that every landlord who doesnt want to take these payments had to advertise over in order to avoid ending up in trouble.

He said that it can't be said you're paying your way, that's the drivel, you are paying you way as much as you can.

Eric Cartman

terrydel wrote: »

He said that it can't be said you're paying your way, that's the drivel, you are paying you way as much as you can.

"i want to buy x for 1000 euro "
"if you pay 200 the government will pay the other 800 for it"
"it can hardly be said you paid for that entirely"
"but I paid what I could for it"

Taking a subsidy on a service like renting a property does not mean youre paying your way, it means youre paying as much as you can, but not the value of the service.

terrydel

Eric Cartman wrote: »

"i want to buy x for 1000 euro "
"if you pay 200 the government will pay the other 800 for it"
"it can hardly be said you paid for that entirely"
"but I paid what I could for it"

Taking a subsidy on a service like renting a property does not mean youre paying your way, it means youre paying as much as you can, but not the value of the service.

You're paying what you can afford, to me that's paying your way.

In any case, the clear insinuation in the original post I responded to was that those on hap are scrounging, hence I correctly labelled it drivel