LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

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.

binana

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

amcalester

binana wrote: »

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

Inspections aside (inspections that go above and beyond what is expected in privately rented accommodation) I don't think there's too much extra hassle once it's all set up, but getting it set up is a lot more bureaucracy and the rent is payed in arrears.

A lot of little reasons can amount to a big reason to say no to HAP tenant.

If you want more landlords to accept HAP, make it more attractive for them to do so.

binana

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

cruizer101

binana wrote: »

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

Any extra work even it was just one extra form is hassle when you don't get any advantage.

Say I'm need milk, two shops identical price, one is 5 min away the other is 7.
Which do i go to? the 5 min away one, there is nothing wrong with the other its only 2 min more walk away but humans are lazy so for the same outcome (and in the case of HAP a lot would perceive it to be a worse outcome) they will take the easy option. Its as simple as that.

I'm not saying it is right but it is the reality. If the government want LL to accept HAP there needs to be an incentive.

steamsey

binana wrote: »

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

No.

The reason landlords might not too fond of the HAP scheme is because there is no benefit to it from the landlord's perspective. That's it. I made the point that if they wanted more uptake, they should have incentivized it for landlords, which they didn't. The point here is that landlords are expected to take on additional risks, work and cost with no upside. You'd have to be a mug to do this. Surely that's very understandable.

Ray Palmer

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

cruizer101

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

Off topic I know but how are you in breach of GDPR by holding onto email communication sent to you

amcalester

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

Tenants can make up the difference between the HAP limit and the actual rent charged.

binana

steamsey wrote: »

No.

The reason landlords might not too fond of the HAP scheme is because there is no benefit to it from the landlord's perspective. That's it. I made the point that if they wanted more uptake, they should have incentivized it for landlords, which they didn't. The point here is that landlords are expected to take on additional risks, work and cost with no upside. You'd have to be a mug to do this. Surely that's very understandable.

("So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork.")

Yes. Same thing in different words. The perceived extra risk is the stereotype about people who get HAP, the extra work and costs are presumably the paperwork involved and keeping the property to a set standard for inspections.

beauf

binana wrote: »

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

You've stereotyped reasons as a counter to stereotypes.