LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Looks like this lady discriminated against a HAPs recipient and rightly paid the price.

Judge Groarke said he was not satisfied the intention of the Prendergasts was to discriminate against Mr Keogh or anybody else receiving HAP.He observed it was the first time they had rented the property and there was “a quagmire of legislation”, which they were not familiar with.
“But unfortunately the law says that people are presumed to know the law and must act within the law whether they know what it is or not,” the judge said.
“I think that this was probably a human error, a human mistake on the part of the Prendergasts and they had no particular intention to treat anybody in a discriminatory fashion,” he said.
“I don’t think there was any mala fides on their part. I don’t think they are that kind of people. However, there was discrimination,” the judge added.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/landlord-must-pay-1000-compensation-for-rejecting-tenant-on-hap-37917940.html

gar32

This is happening to most people on the HAP I am sure. She sent an email stating "no HAP". I am sure most LL just don't answer or say sorry place it taken.

The governments polices need to change so housing is not in the mess and with the crazy prices they are today.

LL only want a tenant that looks after they place while they live there. It's more like a job interview then a right these days. More housing needed get on to your TD to complain please !!!

Grumpypants

She prob thought she was doing the right thing sending a polite response, lesson learnt she will just pick one person and ignore the others from now on.

Wheres Me Jumper?

as a LL i think it's only right and proper that you decide who you wish to let your property. although i can see certain lefty politicans in this country trying to take that right from LLs if they had their way.
certainly she was foolish to state "No HAPs"

godtabh

I dont mind HAP per say but what I dont like is that the inspection happens after agreeing to HAP. If the inspection fails (and I've heard some horror stories) the LL doen't get paid.

The whole system is a mess.

Wheres Me Jumper?

personally i dislike smokers.
would i be breaking the law by advertising "Non Smokers only"?

likewise dog/cat/snake/rabbit owners
is it illegal to exclude these categories of tenant?

runawaybishop

Did anyone actually read the article? She wasn't trying to discriminate, the daughter thought that they were unable to accept hap tenants as they were not registered. The judge accepted that but indicated ignornance of the law is not an excuse.

Garibaldi?

If the daughter had stated that they were not accepting HAP because they were as yet unsure of the rules and regulations regarding the system, Id say the judgement might have been different. Her statement was polite but gave no valid reason, thereby making it look like a flat refusal.

tretorn

I am so glad my tenant has found somewhere else, the relief of getting the property back.

Every home owner should have the right to let their house to whoever they want, they are the ones at a financial loss if the tenant turns out to be a filthy dead beat and the Government wont fund your legal costs in getting them out. Lazy layabout tenant will be on free legal aid and he wont care if costs are awarded against him, he doesnt pay any bills, never has and never will.

Can you imagine any judge letting their property to someone on HAP, give me a break. If someone has a good record and is on HAP that is very different to letting your property to someone who has no employment record and no reputation to care about.

Cuddlesworth

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If the daughter had stated that they were not accepting HAP because they were as yet unsure of the rules and regulations regarding the system, Id say the judgement might have been different. Her statement was polite but gave no valid reason, thereby making it look like a flat refusal.

The judgement would have been the same. You either discriminate or not.

splinter65

I’ve said it till I’m blue in the face. If you’re going to be a landlord you have to be wearing your business hat from the very start. Don’t try to fool yourself or anyone else that you're entering this business to be philanthropic. You’re doing it to make money. Totally familiarise yourself with all your rights and obligations before you start and those of your tenants.
If you don’t like it then don’t start to go down that road. If you want to plough ahead then do but don’t try to say afterwards that you didn’t know what you were getting into.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The judgement would have been the same. You either discriminate or not.

ignorance of the law is .....

Graces7

I was refused a rental on these grounds. all was grand until I mentioned HAP. which they called rent allowance. her face fell..they then emailed me " rent allowance does not suit my husband and I." They clearly had no idea it was discrimination.

flac offered help, but the house was not great and i did have others to see.

Samuel T. Cogley

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If the daughter had stated that they were not accepting HAP because they were as yet unsure of the rules and regulations regarding the system, Id say the judgement might have been different. Her statement was polite but gave no valid reason, thereby making it look like a flat refusal.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The judgement would have been the same. You either discriminate or not.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

ignorance of the law is .....

The Judge reduced the WRC fine precisely because he thought this was done due to ignorance and without intent no?

Wheres Me Jumper?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The Judge reduced the WRC fine precisely because he thought this was done due to ignorance and without intent no?

yes that would appear to be the case.
but that doesn't absolve her.
she STILL acted ILLEGALLY.

personally i think there should be an allowable defence of Gross Stupidity

Garibaldi?

When you let out property you take a chance whether the tenants are HAP or not. A good HAP tenancy has many advantages. The money goes into the account every month regularly. Tenants don't leave at the drop of a hat leaving you to organize a new tenancy with everything entailed in that. People in the upper income bracket can wreck houses also. It's down to a person's character. Still. I feel sorry for this lady, a widow. She didn't mean any harm

Sleeper12

gar32 wrote:

This is happening to most people on the HAP I am sure. She sent an email stating "no HAP". I am sure most LL just don't answer or say sorry place it taken.

Most, if not all of the LLs getting caught for this are that stupid as to state no HAP. Plenty get away with it by not selecting the HAP Tennant.

I don't believe that there are too many people in Ireland , first time LL or not, that don't know that you can't refuse HAP.

alan partridge aha

Went with a reputable letting agent, he filtered out the potential scumbags and left me with excellent tenants.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The Judge reduced the WRC fine precisely because he thought this was done due to ignorance and without intent no?

In my opinion the landlord appealing to the Circuit Court was the wrong decision from an business point of view. Fine the WRC loves to slap big penalties on landlords (WRC "arbitrators" break the proportionality principle many times like the RTB adjudicators, because they know that unless the money is above 8-9ks it is not worth appealing for a landlord or an employer). A Circuit Court case will cost the landlord at least 2-3ks in legal fees (between solicitor and barrister) + the possible legal fees of the tenant solicitors (I am not sure if FLAC solicitors/barristers request legal fees if they win a case). Even if the landlord had won, the unemployed had nothing to loose and would not have paid the legal fees. So it is a short term win-win for the unemployed and a loose-loose for the landlord.
Long term the unemployed and HAP recipients will loose big with this behaviour, the guy in question with all the publicity he raised around himself will probably never find again a private rented accommodation in Ireland. These news will just give more publicity to the risks of dealing with HAP recipients and more landlords will just keep the hell away from HAP recipients by keeping their mouth shut and not answering any question from candidate tenants that are not suitable.


Then you see these desperate HAP recipients coming to this forum and complaining that they are totally ignored when applying: this is the rational behaviour imposed by current rules, unless the landlord really wants to accept HAP. The politicians and the socialists have to understand that people do not like to enter into a unsound contract by coercion! If politicians and the sold out Irish press try to masquerade the word coercion with discrimination it does not change the fact that it is still a coercion. Coercion is the only thing the Irish politicians have applied to landlords since 2009, the result is lack of supply!

Wheres Me Jumper?

Garibaldi? wrote: »

When you let out property you take a chance whether the tenants are HAP or not. A good HAP tenancy has many advantages. The money goes into the account every month regularly. Tenants don't leave at the drop of a hat leaving you to organize a new tenancy with everything entailed in that. People in the upper income bracket can wreck houses also. It's down to a person's character. Still. I feel sorry for this lady, a widow. She didn't mean any harm

no you do NOT.
you interview prospective tenants and decide who does and does not suit you as a LL.

if you don't like the cut of their jib, then you say "sorry, next please!"
personally i hate smokers and people with tattoos.

L1011

Pkiernan wrote: »

The lefty bleeding hearts on here

Politics Cafe, if you want to continue with that. Your post has been deleted as nothing in the linked article supports it.

Wheres Me Jumper?

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Went with a reputable letting agent, he filtered out the potential scumbags and left me with excellent tenants.

i dont see why a registrar of bothersome tenants cannot be compiled.
would that be illegal i wonder?

L1011

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i dont see why a registrar of bothersome tenants cannot be compiled.
would that be illegal i wonder?

Data protection and potential libel nightmare.

Del2005

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i dont see why a registrar of bothersome tenants cannot be compiled.
would that be illegal i wonder?

You can search the RTB database for judgements against tenants, but that's only going to be the ones who's landlord could be bothered to file a case against them as most landlords won't bother as there's no consequences for a tenant.

Garibaldi?

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

no you do NOT.
you interview prospective tenants and decide who does and does not suit you as a LL.

if you don't like the cut of their jib, then you say "sorry, next please!"
personally i hate smokers and people with tattoos.

Absolutely agree about the interview! what I mean is that surface respectability is not a guarantee that someone will not turn out to a total pain in the neck.

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

You can search the RTB database for judgements against tenants, but that's only going to be the ones who's landlord could be bothered to file a case against them as most landlords won't bother as there's no consequences for a tenant.

Why limit it to the tenants who have judgements against them? If their name is on the site at all, why take the risk?

One of the benefits of going with a local EA is that they know what is going on in the area, a physical “list” of dodgy tenants will not exist, but the EA will know who not to rent to.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Dav010 wrote: »

Why limit it to the tenants who have judgements against them? If their name is on the site at all, why take the risk?

One of the benefits of going with a local EA is that they know what is going on in the area, a physical “list” of dodgy tenants will not exist, but the EA will know who not to rent to.

i disagree. many agents are useless. it's not their property so why should they care? also as they are paid commission, it's no skin off their nose if tenants turnover every few months.

i had dealings with an agency years ago, and the moron walked away and left the front door wide open. luckily my neighbour contacted me.

i have NEVER used an agency since, and never will.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Absolutely agree about the interview! what I mean is that surface respectability is not a guarantee that someone will not turn out to a total pain in the neck.

agreed you never really can tell 100% but by interviewing them, you will get a much better feel for a person.

i remember 1 instance where a family was viewing house of mine. their little boy was quite lively. i said something like "i bet he keeps you on your toes" to which mummy replied "oh he'll have great fun smashing this place" :eek:

they didn't get the house.:D

beauf

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i dont see why a registrar of bothersome tenants cannot be compiled.
would that be illegal i wonder?

Need a bond/deposit system. Someone abuses the system they lose the bond. Make it legal to refuse someone with no bond.

The govt will never agree to it as they'd couldn't out source problem tenants then.

The current system allows the govt to shift all negativity to Landlords.

tretorn

Do we not have a bond /deposit system.

My tenant paid a deposit when he moved in and I will give it back to him now.

Sleeper12

tretorn wrote:

My tenant paid a deposit when he moved in and I will give it back to him now.

There are many threads where the tenant deliberately recks the property. One LL was out of pocket 14k and this includes the deposit.

beauf

No.

It has to be a system that gives the next landlord or tenant some indication that there was a problem with a prior tenancy.

The RTB system is too difficult to look up.

Wheres Me Jumper?

beauf wrote: »

No.

It has to be a system that gives the next landlord or tenant some indication that there was a problem with a prior tenancy.

The RTB system is too difficult to look up.

i agree. it's very cumbersome.

maybe a system whereby good tenants are given a positive rating.
that way LLs can decide if they wish to take in a 5 star/credits or a 1 star/credit tenant. if a tenant has built up no credits/stars, then perhaps the LL can decide to insist on 3 month's deposit instead of the usual 1 months.

Garibaldi?

In fairness, while you'd feel sorry for the lady who was sued, she walked right into it by saying she didn't want HAP. Communication in most walks of life these days is like stepping on egg-shells.Diplomacy and weasel words "would, allegedly, appear to be" the name of the game.

NuMarvel

tretorn wrote: »

I am so glad my tenant has found somewhere else, the relief of getting the property back.

Every home owner should have the right to let their house to whoever they want, they are the ones at a financial loss if the tenant turns out to be a filthy dead beat and the Government wont fund your legal costs in getting them out. Lazy layabout tenant will be on free legal aid and he wont care if costs are awarded against him, he doesnt pay any bills, never has and never will.

Can you imagine any judge letting their property to someone on HAP, give me a break. If someone has a good record and is on HAP that is very different to letting your property to someone who has no employment record and no reputation to care about.

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

Cuddlesworth

tretorn wrote: »

Do we not have a bond /deposit system.

My tenant paid a deposit when he moved in and I will give it back to him now.

Its not common knowledge but its actually really hard to get money off somebody if they don't want to pay you. And if they are on social welfare schemes long term, you will never get a cent regardless of how much they owe.

Del2005

NuMarvel wrote: »

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

Since when is HAP one of the 9 discrimination laws? The government is moving the goal posts instead of fixing the issues.

A private landlord doesn't have the resources to fight these changes, but don't worry once the private landlord is driven out the professionals will challenge and then we'll see professionals evicting tenants quickly.

Cuddlesworth

Del2005 wrote: »

Since when is HAP one of the 9 discrimination laws?

2015

GGTrek

NuMarvel wrote: »

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

Your comrade BS will not go without any critic here. These coercions on landlords were a 2015 Christmas "gift" to LL from the govvie to show they were doing something instead of building or providing social housing for low income people (or long term unemployed). It was the usual smart political move of deflecting their total responsibility!
Since when discriminating on economic grounds for a loan (a rental is a loan of an asset) has been against the law! Try to go to a bank, say that you are unemployed and ask for a personal loan of 10k and see the answer you will get. Why should I be forced by utterly incompetent politicians and socialists like you to loan my assets if I don't want to!
Your easy peasy solution of lobbying to change the law is useless and it is the answer I would expect from an adolescent with a very simplistic black&white view of the world, the number of TDs against LLs in Ireland is enourmous because it is an easy vote winner to go against them (but then they complain that there is no supply: have you ever thought why???)
The only solution is an expensive legal challenge to the supreme court of all the worst rubbish rental and planning laws the jokers at the Oireachtas have passed since 2009 (sooner or later it will happen if the Irish politicians are stupid enough to p..s off the big investors).

Graham

Mod Note

Quit the comrade/commie nonsense.

NuMarvel

GGTrek wrote: »

Your comrade BS will not go without any critic here. These coercions on landlords were a 2015 Christmas "gift" to LL from the govvie to show they were doing something instead of building or providing social housing for low income people (or long term unemployed). It was the usual smart political move of deflecting their total responsibility!
Since when discriminating on economic grounds for a loan (a rental is a loan of an asset) has been against the law! Try to go to a bank, say that you are unemployed and ask for a personal loan of 10k and see the answer you will get. Why should I be forced by utterly incompetent politicians and socialists like you to loan my assets if I don't want to!
Your easy peasy solution of lobbying to change the law is useless and it is the answer I would expect from an adolescent with a very simplistic black&white view of the world, the number of TDs against LLs in Ireland is enourmous because it is an easy vote winner to go against them (but then they complain that there is no supply: have you ever thought why???)
The only solution is an expensive legal challenge to the supreme court of all the worst rubbish rental and planning laws the jokers at the Oireachtas have passed since 2009 (sooner or later it will happen if the Irish politicians are stupid enough to p..s off the big investors).

I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up. All I have done is stated the law as it is. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, just that it is what it is.

As for my "adolescent" suggestion of how to effect change, that's typically been how change has been advanced in Ireland in the recent past (eg, marriage equality, change in water charges), but you're welcome to bring a legal challenge if you wish. In any case, it's pointless complaining about a law if you're not willing to challenge or change it in some form.

Xterminator

as a LL i think it's only right and proper that you decide who you wish to let your property. although i can see certain lefty politicans in this country trying to take that right from LLs if they had their way.

taking that point to its logical conclusion, then landlords should be able to say no blacks or no jews or gays etc. cause its their property yes?

And any politicians that prevent you from doing what you want with your own property whether legal or illegal is a lefty communist type eh?

Any landlord should appraise themselves of the law and adhere to it, just like any other business, like bed and breakfast , baker or restaurant owner.

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

...or vote with their feet and leave the market...

There are 1,778 fewer landlords than there were three years ago, while tenancies have declined by 8,829.

binana

Why would a landlord not want a HAP tenant? It's basically guaranteed rent on time. Is it because it requires compliance from the landlord and they have to declare all the income and go through official channels? Or is it because of a prejudice against the "type" of people who get HAP?

It's really normal now to get state assistance when renting given the extent of the housing crisis in Dublin and other cities. Workers on full time wages could qualify for HAP. All different types of people from all backgrounds are entitled to HAP so it's not the same as refusing smokers (an example given in the thread) all smokers smoke, not all HAP recipients behave or live a certain way. Bang of snobbery off everyone defending HAP refusals.

steamsey

binana wrote: »

Why would a landlord not want a HAP tenant? It's basically guaranteed rent on time. Is it because it requires compliance from the landlord and they have to declare all the income and go through official channels? Or is it because of a prejudice against the "type" of people who get HAP?

It's really normal now to get state assistance when renting given the extent of the housing crisis in Dublin and other cities. Workers on full time wages could qualify for HAP. All different types of people from all backgrounds are entitled to HAP so it's not the same as refusing smokers (an example given in the thread) all smokers smoke, not all HAP recipients behave or live a certain way. Bang of snobbery of everyone defending HAP refusals.

There is definitely a perception that HAP tenants are more likely to cause problems.

We shouldn't assume that landlords are steering away from HAP because they are not declaring income. Of course, there are some that want to stay under the radar. But it's not that simple. IMO if they are steering away from it, it's largely because of the tenant stops paying, the council stops paying their share. From HAP.ie - "If the HAP tenant does not pay this rent contribution, HAP payments to their landlord will be suspended and eventually stopped". What you'd like to see here is that if the tenant stops paying, the council will look after it and deal with the tenant - not leave the landlord and the tenant at it.

So, rent is not guaranteed on time as you say, no more than it is with a
non-HAP rental. There are no benefits to HAP for the landlord, no matter how it's dressed up. (Don't even bother mentioning the mortgage interest relief benefit they offer - it's worth very little unless you have a brand new mortgage)

Imagine this - HAP tenant stops paying, therefore council stops paying. You have a mortgage on this rental that has to be paid. You probably also have a mortgage on your family home. You have to go to the tenant and ask for both their bit of the rent, and the council's. What chance do you think you have of getting this? You are now paying two mortgages - possible for a year or more until you can legally have them evicted. You will not get that money back.

This could of course happen with a non-HAP tenant too - but you have to assess whether you think it's more likely with a HAP or non-HAP tenant and go with the best option for you financially.

There is no deposit from the council - and HAP tenants often don't have one themselves. You'd have to be stone mad not to at least have one month's deposit.

Experienced landlords are extremely careful about who they let in because of the risks associated with renting these days. One wrong tenant could ruin you. Therefore, landlords do not like being told who they have to accept as a tenant. The "government" is not there to help you when you are paying two mortgages because a tenant has stopped paying their share of the rent, so why should they be there to tell you who to rent to? Many landlords prefer their chances with non HAP tenants.

HAP needs to be tweaked to make it more attractive to landlords. It's not the tenant's fault, but the scheme is not well designed.

The government is trying, via HAP, to outsource the "housing problem" to landlords without offering them anything in return. If they had thought about it, they might have offered a real tax benefit and a real guaranteed rent to landlords for participating in HAP to offset the risks.

I would also say that the biggest apartment owners in the country are REITs, who have no problem with HAP. They can afford to take risks that individual landlords cannot.

binana

I said "basically" guaranteed, but I take your point it still carries risk. If the tenant's sole source of income is social welfare payments I think the rent comes straight out of that before the tenant gets it, but I'm not too sure. I know that was the case at one point.

My question was really WHY are HAP recipients considered higher risk? A very broad spectrum qualify for the relief.

And nobody is telling landlords they HAVE to house people on HAP, they just can't use that as the explicit reason not to. It's still perfectly fine to say, no you're not a match for this property or whatever.

beauf

binana wrote: »

I said "basically" guaranteed, but I take your point it still carries risk. If the tenant's sole source of income is social welfare payments I think the rent comes straight out of that before the tenant gets it, but I'm not too sure. I know that was the case at one point.

My question was really WHY are HAP recipients considered higher risk? A very broad spectrum qualify for the relief.

And nobody is telling landlords they HAVE to house people on HAP, they just can't use that as the explicit reason not to. It's still perfectly fine to say, no you're not a match for this property or whatever.

Well its been in law a long time, along with a load of other laws and rules, taxes and charges and fines.

Who cares once it works eh?....

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hap-is-worsening-housing-crisis-claims-expert-37392119.html

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/1005/1001663-housing-crisis-government-policy/

binana

I don't agree with the concept of HAP either. I don't think the state should be giving public money to private landlords, but people need places to live and the government don't want to provide homes, so we've got to live with it for now.

beauf

I think the various Governments have interfered with the market constantly for the last 20yrs or so.

In the first six months of this year, local authorities built just 364 homes across the entire country, while housing associations built just 113. Dublin City Council built just 16 homes. That is a total of just 475 new social homes built in six months in the midst of the housing crisis.

In Rebuilding Ireland, 85 percent of the total new social housing to be provided until 2021 is to be supplied from the private rental sector (e.g. 83,000 from the Housing Assistance Payment), Part V or leasing from the private sector. Just 15 percent are new builds by local authorities and housing associations.

What ever is happening, is happening due to Government policy.

Garibaldi?

Some people just don't respect the rights of others. You cannot define people by their socio economic status. Many well-off people have proven to be problematic tenants. And whether a tenant has assets or not , it is very difficult to get compensation/damages from someone if that person does not want to give it. It's not a good idea to be prejudiced against HAP.

cruizer101

binana wrote: »

Why would a landlord not want a HAP tenant? It's basically guaranteed rent on time. Is it because it requires compliance from the landlord and they have to declare all the income and go through official channels? Or is it because of a prejudice against the "type" of people who get HAP?

Why would they go for HAP, there is little to no advantage to doing it but there is disadvantages some maybe just perceived such as "HAP tenants are bad tenants" but others are real, extra hassle having to deal with councils and inspections.
Even if they are only minor why bother when, especially in todays rental market, you can rent to someone else with none of the hassle.