LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

FelaniaMump

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

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"

Fortunately for society you are no longer allowed to discriminate against people so unfairly. Happy days.

FelaniaMump

godtabh wrote: »

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.

I have said this many times: the inspection is merely to check your property meets the MINIMUM standards for ALL rental properties. If it fails, you are illegally renting to ALL tenants.
It has nothing at all to do with HAP. If you fail the inspection your property does not meet the rather low minimum standards for all properties in Ireland.

Why are landlords so afraid of having to meet the minimum legal standards? How bad are your rentals that you are all so worried?

FelaniaMump

GGTrek wrote: »

I believe you are taking massive risks answering by email to these HAP people. They are trigger happy people with nothing to loose and as you have experienced they will not think twice before going to WRC since they have nothing to loose. I do not want tenants with nothing to loose, I have got a lot to loose for every tenancy and such an asymetric business relationship is too risky. The rational behaviour is not answering any email to applications that are not interesting for whatever reason. In this way all the political and media BS goes down the drain and it is completely bypassed, since no evidence is created. There are a lot of would be buyers that complain to politicians that their mortgages are not approved (I believe more than half), the hypocrite Murphy replied that the banks are finally making solid lending decisions and limiting risks (but he does not accept it for a landlord refusing tenants based on economic circumstances!) The politicians and their friends in the media would love thought control, but it is not possible yet

"these HAP people"?? They are just people. Normal everyday people, mostly with jobs and kids and lives. Much nicer people than you from the sounds of it.
I bet most of them can even spell LOSE.

FelaniaMump

deandean wrote: »

I'm not a landlord. But another reason I'd see for landlords to be wary of HAP tenants is that tenants paying rent from their earnings are likely to look after the house better.

Rubbish. If anything its the exact opposite, tenants who have somehow managed to be able to get a rental on HAP despite the obvious rampant discrimination against them are going to do everything they can to hold onto it, knowing that they are unlikely to get another one.
They're likely to be the best tenants, especially if they have children.

tretorn

In fairness though if she was new to renting she wouldnt be aware of pitfalls and how much rights tenants have and how much their rights are increasing.

Its impossible to get bad tenants out so its much safer to just go for professionals in fulltime employment who can afford to pay the rent out of their own income, someone probably advised this property owner not to go for HAP tenants and in an ideal world a landlord should be able to choose you they rent their house to so many people probably think they can just decline HAP tenants without penalty.

This is why its better to get a local letting agent take care of vetting tenants, they can weed out the ones that come with extra baggage and pick the ones least likely to cause trouble. The letting agent will just ignore emails from HAP tenants if there are other options and then owner of property wont find themselves having to compensate someone they just didnt want to have in their property.

I would rather just pay the fine that have to let the house to someone who might be a problem, getting a troublesome non paying tenant out will cost thousands and there will be no help from any source if you find yourself in this situation, your life will be a total misery.

FelaniaMump

In an ideal world all LL's should be able to choose not to rent to low paid families? Erm, housing crisis? You may have heard of it. People with professional jobs can't afford to pay the massive rents now asked for normal family homes.

It's depressing we needed to bring in laws to make you people not cause all low paid workers to be homeless, but thankfully we did. " I didn't know I wasn't allowed to discriminate against people" is not an excuse or a defence.

Troublesome non paying tenants are as likely, more likely even, to be private renters. Stop conflating "HAP reciepient" with "bad tenant", its idiotic, untrue and offensive.

beauf

FelaniaMump wrote: »

.... If you fail the inspection your property does not meet the rather low minimum standards for all properties in Ireland. ...

The minimum standards are open to interpretation. A few have reported that HAP inspections have failed properties that had previously passed other inspections. No idea how true or onerous this is. I seem to remember one saying they didn't accept window as ventilation but requires a mechanical fan etc. Again I don't know how true this is.

FelaniaMump

beauf wrote: »

The minimum standards are open to interpretation. A few have reported that HAP inspections have failed properties that had previously passed other inspections. No idea how true or onerous this is. I seem to remember one saying they didn't accept window as ventilation but requires a mechanical fan etc. Again I don't know how true this is.

I'll help you out: it's not true. It's a standard checklist and the council employees that do it (usually a clerk of works) all have the same training for it.
the minimum standards are low and the inspection takes 15 mins in total.

beauf

FelaniaMump wrote: »

...
It's depressing we needed to bring in laws to make you people not cause all low paid workers to be homeless, ....

What caused the crisis is govt policy. Both in not building social housing and in over heating the market.

beauf

FelaniaMump wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

The minimum standards are open to interpretation. A few have reported that HAP inspections have failed properties that had previously passed other inspections. No idea how true or onerous this is. I seem to remember one saying they didn't accept window as ventilation but requires a mechanical fan etc. Again I don't know how true this is.

I'll help you out: it's not true. It's a standard checklist and the council employees that do it (usually a clerk of works) all have the same training for it.
the minimum standards are low and the inspection takes 15 mins in total.

Well lots of complaints about it, from different sources. They can't all be fake. They should block the properties from being rented of they are the bad. End of problem.

FelaniaMump

beauf wrote: »

What caused the crisis is govt policy. Both in not building social housing and in over heating the market.

Not only that. An army of amateur landlords who only care about ever increasing rents certainly helped.
As do the people who think anyone who needs help with those rents should be barred from all rentals......you can't be so stupid as to fail to see that?

FelaniaMump

beauf wrote: »

Well lots of complaints about it, from different sources. They can't all be fake. They should block the properties from being rented of they are the bad. End of problem.

Lot's of complaints from landlords whose properties fail the low minimum standards, yes.
How do they just block the properties from being rented then?

beauf

FelaniaMump wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

What caused the crisis is govt policy. Both in not building social housing and in over heating the market.

Not only that. An army of amateur landlords who only care about ever increasing rents certainly helped.
As do the people who think anyone who needs help with those rents should be barred from all rentals......you can't be so stupid as to fail to see that?

It's the private rental market. There is no such thing as a amateur. The sole aim is to make money. Housing not designed to make money is social housing, public housing.

This is what happens when you outsource public services. There is conflict of interest.

Kinda lost the argument of you have to resort to name calling.

beauf

FelaniaMump wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

Well lots of complaints about it, from different sources. They can't all be fake. They should block the properties from being rented of they are the bad. End of problem.

Lot's of complaints from landlords whose properties fail the low minimum standards, yes.
How do they just block the properties from being rented then?

They're blocking Airbnb and they blocked bedsits.

beauf

Grumpypants wrote: »

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.

We have all these rules and the is still a crisis. Nothing wrong with the rules. But maybe the problem isn't the rules.

Klonker

FelaniaMump wrote:

Troublesome non paying tenants are as likely, more likely even, to be private renters. Stop conflating "HAP reciepient" with "bad tenant", its idiotic, untrue and offensive.

How did you work out private renters are more likely to be bad tenants? my experiences, those of my friends I've talked to about these issues and the majority of people on here would seem to disagree with you. Any estates I've lived in it's always the social / HAP that cause the vast majority of problems.

FelaniaMump

Klonker wrote: »

How did you work out private renters are more likely to be bad tenants? my experiences, those of my friends I've talked to about these issues and the majority of people on here would seem to disagree with you. Any estates I've lived in it's always the social / HAP that cause the vast majority of problems.

Nonsense. You wouldn't even know which of your neighbours are on HAP. Most are working families indistinguishable from anyone else.

the_syco

FelaniaMump wrote: »

Why are landlords so afraid of having to meet the minimum legal standards? How bad are your rentals that you are all so worried?

Two reasons;

Firstly, the minimum standards are not given. People do not know until the inspection if they meet the standard or not.

Secondly, said standards change. If it passed one inspection, it may not pass the next inspection.

FelaniaMump wrote: »

are going to do everything they can to hold onto it

Including overholding. If a tenant that has a job overholds, you can chase them for payment of said rent. Pointless doing that for someone who has nothing to give.

FelaniaMump wrote: »

It's a standard checklist and the council employees that do it (usually a clerk of works) all have the same training for it.

So what you are saying is; am unqualified person with little or no training does the check?

FelaniaMump wrote: »

Not only that. An army of amateur landlords who only care about ever increasing rents certainly helped.

You do realise that "professional" landlords will always increase rents, whereas the private landlords will sometimes allow the rent to stay the same?

Fol20

FelaniaMump wrote: »

Nonsense. You wouldn't even know which of your neighbours are on HAP. Most are working families indistinguishable from anyone else.

Your right most are but all it takes is the .01pc of them to tarnish the rest and they dont have the reputation without good reason.

Fol20

the_syco wrote: »

Two reasons;

Firstly, the minimum standards are not given. People do not know until the inspection if they meet the standard or not.

Secondly, said standards change. If it passed one inspection, it may not pass the next inspection.


Including overholding. If a tenant that has a job overholds, you can chase them for payment of said rent. Pointless doing that for someone who has nothing to give.


So what you are saying is; am unqualified person with little or no training does the check?


You do realise that "professional" landlords will always increase rents, whereas the private landlords will sometimes allow the rent to stay the same?

As you have pointed out most of Felania are unfounded. If its true that they are amateur inspectors, i would be shocked and genuinely hope thats not correct.

Klonker

FelaniaMump wrote:

Nonsense. You wouldn't even know which of your neighbours are on HAP. Most are working families indistinguishable from anyone else.

Where's this stat that most are working?
You talking both parents working like the majority of private owners/renters or not including where one parent works and the other stays at home to look after the kids and has the taxpayer subsidise this lifestyle choice? Would love to see where you get all your stats. It's probably like the government's 5%-6% unemployment rate when really only about 70% of the adult population actual work.

the_syco

Fol20 wrote: »

As you have pointed out most of Felania are unfounded. If its true that they are amateur inspectors, i would be shocked and genuinely hope thats not correct.

I wouldn't be surprised, as it would explain why they're not all singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were.

Still doesn't explain why said standards are not publicly available, to allow the landlords to see what is needed for HAP. Currently the inspections only happen after the tenant has moved in, and said minimum standards are different to when the house was built, so it's a gamble if the LL#s house will pass, and if they fail they'll have to remove the tenant themselves once HAP is cut off.

Ray Palmer

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I'm not making assumptions..

Yes you are

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

It's obvious you don't want anyone on HAP anyway so better off not replying to questions when people ask you.

Unless you can explain how I discriminated somebody you are making further assumptions. You can live your life as you like but no need to assume refusing HAP is instantly wrong not why I was renting the place to HAP. There is no need to assume anything as I stated what happened.

Garibaldi?

A tenant may damage property, overhold, or decide to leave before a tenancy is over, causing a landlord expense and inconvenience No matter what that person's financial situation may be, it is very difficult to get compensation over and above the deposit if a person is unable/reluctant to pay it. The risk in HAP is no greater than any other. It depends on the individual tenant.

duskyjoe

My dealings with a HAP tenant- refused to leave an apartment until court proceedings issued- apartment left a mess requiring 1000’s to be spent to repair same- social protection pay rent at their discresrion and won’t discuss anything behind the mask of GDPR, HAP tenant would t hand back my keys and owes me over 4k in back rent. I sooner leave a unit vacant than rent to HAP- total and utter financial nightmare

Old diesel

FelaniaMump wrote: »

godtabh wrote: »

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.

I have said this many times: the inspection is merely to check your property meets the MINIMUM standards for ALL rental properties. If it fails, you are illegally renting to ALL tenants.
It has nothing at all to do with HAP. If you fail the inspection your property does not meet the rather low minimum standards for all properties in Ireland.

Why are landlords so afraid of having to meet the minimum legal standards? How bad are your rentals that you are all so worried?

Landlords are happy to meet minimum standards.

Their concern is that HAP inspections are looking for higher standards then minimum.

And that some of what HAP is looking for is unneccessary.

A house built in 1960 is been asked to meet 2018 standards - that's the perception.

Landlords are been asked to drill holes in walls for ventilation. But no one is explaining why or looking at how is this to be paid for.

L1011

Media coverage at the weekend seemed to suggest that between 1-2% of all HAP tenancies have had the payments to landlords stopped due to non-compliance by the tenant; potentially a lot higher in specific council areas (and presumably lower in the rest to maintain the average).

That's a relatively significant rate for one specific risk I'd think.

Old diesel

L1011 wrote: »

Media coverage at the weekend seemed to suggest that between 1-2% of all HAP tenancies have had the payments to landlords stopped due to non-compliance by the tenant; potentially a lot higher in specific council areas (and presumably lower in the rest to maintain the average).

That's a relatively significant rate for one specific risk I'd think.

Whats the equivalent non compliance rate in non HAP rentals?????

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

Whats the equivalent non compliance rate in non HAP rentals?????

Indont think you will ever know the true figure. Most ll will try and avoid using RTB if they can since its so pro tenant and the likely hood of you reclaiming the rent arrears/damage is so low. You need to evaluate if its worth sending more money at the problem.

the_syco

Garibaldi? wrote: »

A tenant may damage property, overhold, or decide to leave before a tenancy is over, causing a landlord expense and inconvenience No matter what that person's financial situation may be, it is very difficult to get compensation over and above the deposit if a person is unable/reluctant to pay it.

The main difference is that if they work, you have a better chance of getting money off them, than if they don't work.

Old diesel wrote: »

Landlords are happy to meet minimum standards.

Their concern is that HAP inspections are looking for higher standards then minimum.

And that some of what HAP is looking for is unneccessary.

"Landlords are happy to meet minimum standards", BUT are not told them. Finding out a year into the tenancy that you may need to pump several thousand euro into the property, money that you probably won't get back, is a large risk.