Renting to a person recieving HAP

The_Conductor

arctictree wrote: »

Sorry for bringing up an old thread. What happens if a tenant has just stated they are on HAP but the landlord doesn't have the money to upgrade the house or cant get a tax clearance cert?

The landlord would be viewed as discriminating against the HAP tenant, and liable to fines and/or imprisonment, until such time as the discrimination was made good and the tenant appropriately compensated for the landlord's lack of compliance with the HAP regime.

In short- you don't have a leg to stand on. You cannot argue mitigating factors- if you are not compliant, you are liable to both compensate the tenant and bring yourself into compliance- regardless of what it costs you to do so.

Yellow_Fern

The_Conductor wrote: »

The landlord would be viewed as discriminating against the HAP tenant, and liable to fines and/or imprisonment, until such time as the discrimination was made good and the tenant appropriately compensated for the landlord's lack of compliance with the HAP regime.

In short- you don't have a leg to stand on. You cannot argue mitigating factors- if you are not compliant, you are liable to both compensate the tenant and bring yourself into compliance- regardless of what it costs you to do so.

That is a shamefully immoral system

Graces7

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That is a shamefully immoral system

In what way?

Rows Grower

The_Conductor wrote: »

The landlord would be viewed as discriminating against the HAP tenant, and liable to fines and/or imprisonment, until such time as the discrimination was made good and the tenant appropriately compensated for the landlord's lack of compliance with the HAP regime.

In short- you don't have a leg to stand on. You cannot argue mitigating factors- if you are not compliant, you are liable to both compensate the tenant and bring yourself into compliance- regardless of what it costs you to do so.

This doesn’t sound right, in what specific scenario does this apply?

The_Conductor

Rows Grower wrote: »

This doesn’t sound right, in what specific scenario does this apply?

A landlord is not entitled to refuse to rent to someone on HAP, irrespective of whether or not the property is capable of passing a HAP inspection, and irrespective of whether or not the landlord is in possession of a current tax clearance certificate.

The landlord can of course choose who he/she wishes to rent their property to- and if they have multiple applicants, is free to choose a different tenant, they may not however choose the alternate tenant on any of the rules governing discrimination- one of which is whether or not the tenant is a HAP tenant.

This is not a specific scenario- it is across the board, and without exception.

If a landlord lets a property to a tenant who subsequently claims HAP- the landlord must ensure the property passes any inspection it may incur- and must ensure that they produce the requisite documentation (including a tax clearance certificate) to enable the tenant claim HAP.

Its been this way for some time- it is not new, and if landlords are not sufficiently familiar with the legislation they should either hand over the management of their property to a competent managing agent- or sell. One or the other.

Dav010

The_Conductor wrote: »

A landlord is not entitled to refuse to rent to someone on HAP, irrespective of whether or not the property is capable of passing a HAP inspection, and irrespective of whether or not the landlord is in possession of a current tax clearance certificate.

The landlord can of course choose who he/she wishes to rent their property to- and if they have multiple applicants, is free to choose a different tenant, they may not however choose the alternate tenant on any of the rules governing discrimination- one of which is whether or not the tenant is a HAP tenant.

This is not a specific scenario- it is across the board, and without exception.

If a landlord lets a property to a tenant who subsequently claims HAP- the landlord must ensure the property passes any inspection it may incur- and must ensure that they produce the requisite documentation (including a tax clearance certificate) to enable the tenant claim HAP.

Its been this way for some time- it is not new, and if landlords are not sufficiently familiar with the legislation they should either hand over the management of their property to a competent managing agent- or sell. One or the other.

But what if the LL accepts the HAP tenant, but Revenue refuse to issue a tax clearance certificate? The LL has not discriminated against a tenant in receipt of HAP, but is unable to obtain the necessary certificate to comply with HAP requirements, I could be wrong, but I think this is the point the arctictree is making as there is no mention of the HAP tenant being refused, only that the LL cannot comply (as opposed to will not) with the HAP requirements.

Dav010

Graces7 wrote: »

In what way?

The LL potentially faces huge fines for being unable to provide a certificate only Revenue can decide whether to issue, and which is not required for private rentals.

Rows Grower

The_Conductor wrote: »

A landlord is not entitled to refuse to rent to someone on HAP, irrespective of whether or not the property is capable of passing a HAP inspection, and irrespective of whether or not the landlord is in possession of a current tax clearance certificate.

The landlord can of course choose who he/she wishes to rent their property to- and if they have multiple applicants, is free to choose a different tenant, they may not however choose the alternate tenant on any of the rules governing discrimination- one of which is whether or not the tenant is a HAP tenant.

This is not a specific scenario- it is across the board, and without exception.

If a landlord lets a property to a tenant who subsequently claims HAP- the landlord must ensure the property passes any inspection it may incur- and must ensure that they produce the requisite documentation (including a tax clearance certificate) to enable the tenant claim HAP.

Its been this way for some time- it is not new, and if landlords are not sufficiently familiar with the legislation they should either hand over the management of their property to a competent managing agent- or sell. One or the other.

LOL, you'd make a great little dictator.

Your first paragraph is total bull as well.

Dav010

Rows Grower wrote: »

LOL, you'd make a great little dictator.

Your first paragraph is total bull as well.

To be fair, the conductor has a valid point, claiming ignorance of the regulations isn’t a valid defence and the penalties are high for LLs falling fowl of the RTB/WRC. There have been severe penalties handed down in cases where LLs claimed they would not rent to HAP because they weren’t in a position to provide a TCC. There was one in the news a couple of months ago. But, in that case the LLs refused to rent to HAP, what is less clear is what would happen if the LL did rent to the HAP but subsequently was unable to get a TCC from Revenue.

Rows Grower

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, the conductor has a valid point, claiming ignorance of the regulations isn’t a valid defence and the penalties are high for LLs falling fowl of the RTB/WRC. There have been severe penalties handed down in cases where LLs claimed they would not rent to HAP because they weren’t in a position to provide a TCC. There was one in the news a couple of months ago. But, in that case the LLs refused to rent to HAP, what is less clear is what would happen if the LL did rent to the HAP but subsequently was unable to get a TCC from Revenue.

Which part of my post is wrong?

Dav010

Rows Grower wrote: »

Which part of my post is wrong?

All of it.

If you read the post you quoted, it was a follow up to a post stating that you cannot refuse to rent to a HAP tenant because you are unable to comply with the regulations. This has been proven to be correct by recent WRC rulings where LLs were penalised for using this excuse to refuse HAP tenants.

You also highlighted a paragraph and said the poster would make a good Dictator, yet, again, the poster was correct, claiming ignorance as a defence is futile, the RTB/WRC expect all LLs to be aware of the regulations, if the LL doesn’t know them, they are leaving themselves open to be fined a lot of money.

As far as I am aware, there is very little difference between the LA standard requirements for HAP tenants and private tenants, so a LL has to know what the minimum standards are irrespective of which type of tenant rents the property.

As I have said, what is less clear is what happens when the LL does agree to HAP, but Revenue won’t provide the TCC, does the LL direct the WRC to Revenue?

Rows Grower

Dav010 wrote: »

All of it.

If you read the post you quoted, it was a follow up to a post stating that you cannot refuse to rent to a HAP tenant because you are unable to comply with the regulations. This has been proven to be correct by recent WRC rulings where LLs were penalised for using this excuse to refuse HAP tenants.

You also highlighted a paragraph and said the poster would make a good Dictator, yet, again, the poster was correct, claiming ignorance as a defence is futile, the RTB/WRC expect all LLs to be aware of the regulations, if the LL doesn’t know them, they are leaving themselves open to be fined a lot of money.

As far as I am aware, there is very little difference between the LA standard requirements for HAP tenants and private tenants, so a LL has to know what the minimum standards are irrespective of which type of tenant rents the property.

As I have said, what is less clear is what happens when the LL does agree to HAP, but Revenue won’t provide the TCC, does the LL direct the WRC to Revenue?

The post I quoted is there for all to see and as I said the first paragraph is total bull.

As for the part I highlighted the reason I compared it to dictatorship is because is so ridiculous with it's insistence of "one or the other".

In all fairness, I'm sure the person who I quoted is well able to answer for themselves, they are a mod on the forum and shouldn't be coming out with such crap.

blackbox

I can understand that rental properties must meet regulatory standards, but why are the standards higher for HAP tenants than for the general public?

This makes no sense.

Graces7

blackbox wrote: »

I can understand that rental properties must meet regulatory standards, but why are the standards higher for HAP tenants than for the general public?

This makes no sense.

Are they? Or is it that they are fully checked? Whereas in other cases they are not ?
The last private rental I had was not safe in many ways. I was still on rent allowance and there was no check.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

Are they? Or is it that they are fully checked? Whereas in other cases they are not ?
The last private rental I had was not safe in many ways. I was still on rent allowance and there was no check.

Graces7, the self-righteousness you have displayed through this thread is quite instructive to potential landlords as to why they should avoid renting to HAP tenants. Not only does the Landlord have to contend with the local authority, they have to deal with (in the worst cases) a tenant who is tripping over themselves to exercise and tell the Landlord of their "entitlements". It is an unhealthy approach to a long term contract between the two parties.
The rent limits are so low outside the larger cities that any sensible landlord should come to the conclusion that if they can't rent in the private market they should seriously consider exiting the market and leave social housing provision and all the attendant obligations to the State who will eventually house these "entitled" tenants in their own good time e.g. 15 years later.
It is a fools game; the large residential investors don't take on HAP clients and also shelter their rental income through various structures yet smaller landlords are taxed punitively.
If the large investors do provide housing to be used for social housing they'll negotiate directly with the Council and come out of the process with iron-clad contracts for guaranteed income over decades at above market rates. One needs only look at what has happened with Apartments in Dublin 4 to see that HAP is only a scheme that a small unprofessional landlord would participate in.

TLDR; Selling your investment property is often a more rational strategy than taking on a HAP tenant.

arctictree

So basically if I cant afford to upgrade the property (or dont have a valid TCC), the tenant would need to be given notice and the property sold?

crossmolinalad

godtabh wrote: »

Check your insurance. Mine doesn’t allow hap tenants

??????????????????
A insurer doesn't allow hap but a landlord isn't allowed to say no to a hap tenant
How does that work??
Landlord must allow hap and wou.nd be insured anymore because insurer says no??

Bikerman2019

Rows Grower wrote: »

The tenant will already have been told if they are entitled to a HAP payment or not. You can contact the HAP department of your local council before actually letting them move in and they will give you a heads up on any issues if there are any.

If you let the tenant in before you receive official approval the payment can be back dated to when they moved in, there might be a small shortage that the tenant is liable for the first month if they moved in early.

Make sure you get your months advance/deposit before you hand over the keys and have a copy of the contract signed by both of ye and all should be good.

Not quite. I manage a house where the tenant was told they were ok for HAP. Then they were told sorry, you cannot have HAP. Do not take anything for granted.

L1011

Just a reminder to avoid personalisation of issues here, and to deal with the post contents not the poster of them

Rows Grower

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Not quite. I manage a house where the tenant was told they were ok for HAP. Then they were told sorry, you cannot have HAP. Do not take anything for granted.

That's your own fault for taking a potential tenant at their word, what I said was the landlord can contact the HAP department before letting the house and the HAP department will give a heads up on any potential issues.

Rows Grower

crossmolinalad wrote: »

??????????????????
A insurer doesn't allow hap but a landlord isn't allowed to say no to a hap tenant
How does that work??
Landlord must allow hap and wou.nd be insured anymore because insurer says no??

Most insurer's now won't insure a house that is to be let under the HAP scheme and those that do even if you have numerous policies with them will charge a high premium. If memory serves me right I think it's about double the premium to insure for a HAP tenancy compared to a private rental.

It's not true that a landlord cannot refuse to take HAP tenant and I don't know why a mod on here would state that but there you go.

The_Conductor

Rows Grower wrote: »

It's not true that a landlord cannot refuse to take HAP tenant and I don't know why a mod on here would state that but there you go.

That is not actually what I said.

A landlord cannot discriminate against a HAP tenant.
To do so- is considered a WRC ground for discrimination.

It does not mean a landlord has to choose a HAP tenant if one applies to rent a property- it means if you are choosing a different tenant, it has to be on grounds other than the fact that the other prospective tenant is a HAP tenant.

I.e. if you are turning down a HAP tenant for property- it has to be grounds other than the fact that they are a HAP tenant.

I know you don't believe me- you've said as much (quite vociferously). However, I would appreciate if you didn't try to twist what I said.

Rows Grower

The_Conductor wrote: »

That is not actually what I said.

A landlord cannot discriminate against a HAP tenant.
To do so- is considered a WRC ground for discrimination.

It does not mean a landlord has to choose a HAP tenant if one applies to rent a property- it means if you are choosing a different tenant, it has to be on grounds other than the fact that the other prospective tenant is a HAP tenant.

I.e. if you are turning down a HAP tenant for property- it has to be grounds other than the fact that they are a HAP tenant.

I know you don't believe me- you've said as much (quite vociferously). However, I would appreciate if you didn't try to twist what I said.

Read back where I quoted you there this morning and you will see that I am not trying to twist anything.

You stated exactly what I quoted.

I didn't try to twist your words.

You made a statement which was incorrect, I disagreed with it and here you are 10 hours later trying to claim I am trying to twist your words instead of telling the truth and owning up to your error.

You gave out false information on a forum you are a mod on, it's there in black and white so don't try to blame me for your mistake.

I also took issue with your "one or the other comment" by the way.

Bikerman2019

Rows Grower wrote: »

That's your own fault for taking a potential tenant at their word, what I said was the landlord can contact the HAP department before letting the house and the HAP department will give a heads up on any potential issues.

Again, not quite. It was not my problem, it was theirs. They then had to stump up all the cash themselves - which they did.


As for contacting HAP, I dont believe that, I imagine they would just quote data protection and refuse to tell me. Not that I care, I was the agent, and they DID pay it all themselves.

Rows Grower

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Again, not quite. It was not my problem, it was theirs. They then had to stump up all the cash themselves - which they did.


As for contacting HAP, I dont believe that, I imagine they would just quote data protection and refuse to tell me. Not that I care, I was the agent, and they DID pay it all themselves.

Believe what you want Bikerman but I'm telling the truth.

There are ass*oles in every walk of life but I've found from my own experience the people that work in HAP are easy to deal with once you know what's expected of you as a landlord.

It's in their own interests at the end of the day that the scheme remains successful which it can't if they don't have some understanding/empathy for the landlords plight as well as the tenants.

arctictree

I think the situation here is different. The tenant is already in the house. Now they are registering for the HAP scheme. So it's not a case of choosing a tenant. It's a case of me not being able to comply with the scheme and thus being forced to sell the house.

Bikerman2019

arctictree wrote: »

I think the situation here is different. The tenant is already in the house. Now they are registering for the HAP scheme. So it's not a case of choosing a tenant. It's a case of me not being able to comply with the scheme and thus being forced to sell the house.

A different way of looking at it is to accept the HAP arrangement, sign the forms and send them off. If it is HAP that then declines YOU, due to inability to meet their requirements, then you are not at fault. It will be down to the tenant to pay up.



If they go into arrears due to HAP not paying up, then follow procedures..

Rows Grower

arctictree wrote: »

I think the situation here is different. The tenant is already in the house. Now they are registering for the HAP scheme. So it's not a case of choosing a tenant. It's a case of me not being able to comply with the scheme and thus being forced to sell the house.

Massive fine and or jail coming your way I'd say, you haven't a leg to stand on.

I read that somewhere, some expert said it.

Dav010

Rows Grower wrote: »

Massive fine and or jail coming your way I'd say, you haven't a leg to stand on.

I read that somewhere, some expert said it.

Jail? I don’t think you getting to grips with this thread.

There are two different scenarios being discussed, one where the LL refuses a HAP tenant based on not being able to obtain a TCC. This leave the LL open to an accusation of discrimination and the WRC has handed down judgements/fines to LLs as a result. The second is where the LL accepts the HAP tenant, or an existing tenant changes over to HAP, but the LL is subsequently unable to provide a TCC because Revenue refused to issue one. I am not aware of any rulings against a LL in this scenario, but that is not to say one doesn’t exist.

I hope this makes it clearer.

L1011

Rows Grower wrote: »

Massive fine and or jail coming your way I'd say, you haven't a leg to stand on.

I read that somewhere, some expert said it.

Your posting in this thread is needlessly aggressive, sniping and attacking. Stop posting in this thread. Do not reply to this instruction on-thread