Rent changing from advance to arrears with HAP

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The link definitely does not say the above.

We’ve been here before, can you show me a link that says HAP changes the terms of a tenancy agreement?

The tenancy agreement is between a tenant and LL, not between LA and LL.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

We’ve been here before, can you show me a link that says HAP changes the terms of a tenancy agreement?

The tenancy agreement is between a tenant and LL, not between LA and LL.

Yes, we did and as I remember the last time you referred to the "date of application" in the document you linked as being the basis for that statement the last time.

You posted some very specific advice not given from any reputable source and cannot back it up and it just sounds ridiculous.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Yes, we did and as I remember the last time you referred to the "date of application" in the document you linked as being the basis for that statement the last time.

You posted some very specific advice not given from any reputable source and cannot back it up and it just sounds ridiculous.

Show me a link that shows HAP changes the terms of a tenancy agreement,

You weren’t able to post it on the last thread, post it in this one please.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Show me a link that shows HAP changes the terms of a tenancy agreement,

You weren’t able to post it on the last thread, post it in this one please.

I insist you post your backup please, you posted the advice, you need to show you didn't fabricate what you posted. Thank you.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

I insist you post your backup please, you posted the advice, you need to show you didn't fabricate what you posted. Thank you.

Are you disputing that the LA does not pay a deposit, that the acceptance of HAP does not change the term that rent be paid a month in advance, that HAP is an agreement between the LA and the tenant, not between the LA and LL?

Davindub, you claim to be a solicitor, it should be easy for you to link to the legislation that allows HAP to change the terms of a tenancy agreement, please show me, I genuinely want to see it.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Are you disputing that the LA does not pay a deposit, that the acceptance of HAP does not change the term that rent be paid a month in advance, that HAP is an agreement between the LA and the tenant, not between the LA and LL?

Davindub, you claim to be a solicitor, it should be easy for you to link to the legislation that allows HAP to change the terms of a tenancy agreement, please show me, I genuinely want to see it.

Well, I used to be a solicitor but I am not your solicitor, therefore I am not going to give you a lengthy legal dissertation of an assertion you have deduced with no reasonable context to base it on.

Here is the legislation that refers to the Housing assistance payment:
https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/EN_ACT_2000_0008.HTM

Anyway, the important aspect to consider, would the measure be held as discriminatory on the housing assistance ground? To answer no and give specific advice that you can refuse to accept payment in arrears from HAP (I don't see why you think refusal of any of the terms of HAP would equate to accepting HAP), you would need to see a similar case in this listing here:

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/search/?decisions=1&from=01/03/2018&to=10/03/2020&legislation=27&body=15376&pageNumber=2

Other than that, look at earlier decisions dealing with indirect discrimination. Note your own personal usage of discrimination may not be the same as the meaning of the act.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Well, I used to be a solicitor but I am not your solicitor, therefore I am not going to give you a lengthy legal dissertation of an assertion you have deduced with no reasonable context to base it on.

Here is the legislation that refers to the Housing assistance payment:
https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/EN_ACT_2000_0008.HTM

Anyway, the important aspect to consider, would the measure be held as discriminatory on the housing assistance ground? To answer no and give specific advice that you can refuse to accept payment in arrears from HAP (I don't see why you think refusal of any of the terms of HAP would equate to accepting HAP), you would need to see a similar case in this listing here:

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/search/?decisions=1&from=01/03/2018&to=10/03/2020&legislation=27&body=15376&pageNumber=2

Other than that, look at earlier decisions dealing with indirect discrimination. Note your own personal usage of discrimination may not be the same as the meaning of the act.

Im not asking for a dissertation, I'm just asking you for a link to back up your assertion that HAP changes the terms of the tenancy agreement.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Im not asking for a dissertation, I'm just asking you for a link to back up your assertion that HAP changes the terms of the tenancy agreement.

My precise assertion is that your assertion is baseless and I have given you the means to provide such evidence to the contary if it exists.

And the change in terms you are seeking is irrelevant to the matter entirely. The crux of the matter is not whether accepting HAP changes the contract but whether the LL can safely ignore the possibility that change to the contract may be required to satisfy the requirement not to discriminate directly or indirectly against a tenant on the housing assistance ground.

Fact of the matter is, there no context to believe you can force payment by the tenant and the LA for the first month and I've also heard that stupid argument that the LL refunds the tenant when moving out. None of which are conditions HAP mention when a LL accepts HAP. So where are these coming from?

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split

davindub

davindub wrote: »

My precise assertion is that your assertion is baseless and I have given you the means to provide such evidence to the contary if it exists.

And the change in terms you are seeking is irrelevant to the matter entirely. The crux of the matter is not whether accepting HAP changes the contract but whether the LL can safely ignore the possibility that change to the contract may be required to satisfy the requirement not to discriminate directly or indirectly against a tenant on the housing assistance ground.

Fact of the matter is, there no context to believe you can force payment by the tenant and the LA for the first month and I've also heard that stupid argument that the LL refunds the tenant when moving out. None of which are conditions HAP mention when a LL accepts HAP. So where are these coming from?

Ok, this has gone on long enough, you haven't been able to show any regulations/legislation that state that HAP changes a tenancy agreement, maybe there are some, maybe you will link to them, but you haven't so far, so the wait goes on.


RTB site:

Agreeing Rent

"Tenants and landlords should be clear on the rent that is payable in the tenancy and when it is due to be paid. Normally rents are paid one month in advance unless the lease agreement sets out a different rent payment schedule."


The HAP tenant leaflet says this:

"f) Your tenancy will be covered under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (RTA) (as amended). This means that the tenancy agreement is, or will be, between you and your landlord. The local authority is not your landlord. Your landlord is the person you made the rental agreement with and who the local authority pays the HAP payment to. You can find further information about this on the RTB website www.rtb.ie"


The HAP landlord leaflet says this:

"8) You don’t have a contract with the local authority. The local authority makes payments on behalf of the HAP tenant."

and this:

"The tenant pays the rental deposit. Under HAP, the local authority does not pay the deposit"

HAP website: http://hap.ie/landlords/payments/

"You do not have a contract with the local authority. The local authority makes payments on behalf of the HAP tenant."

The RTA: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/16/enacted/en/html#sec16

Obligations of Tenant:

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—

(a) pay to the landlord or his or her authorised agent (or any other person where required to do so by any enactment)—

(i) the rent provided for under the tenancy concerned on the date it falls due for payment, and


So please, show me something that states HAP alters the terms of a tenancy agreement. Can you show any evidence that a LL is required to change the terms of the tenancy agreement?

Again, for the umpteenth time, show a link that says the tenancy agreement terms in relation to payment in advance have to be changed. Is there a RTB/WRC case you are aware of taken by a tenant claiming discrimination because the LL refused to change from rent in advance to rent in arrears?

What you are claiming is very important to any LL renting to a tenant in receipt of HAP, if they are discriminating by refusing to do so, the WRC should be full of cases, as rent payment in advance is the norm for most if not all tenancies I would suspect.

davindub

It certainly has gone on long enough. You have no basis to state what you have stated, despite the amount of material available on HAP, and you want a link to say what exactly? That something that makes no difference to the matter does not apply.....

You need to accept that and move on.

RTA, HAP on deposits, the rest of what you posted is irrelevant to this.

It is very important to LL's, hence I don't think too many would actually follow something crazy posted online. But if you are a HAP tenant reading this who has paid the LL for a period covered by HAP, contact FLAC, they will be looking for test cases like this.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

The crux of the matter is not whether accepting HAP changes the contract but whether the LL can safely ignore the possibility that change to the contract may be required to satisfy the requirement not to discriminate directly or indirectly against a tenant on the housing assistance ground.

You appear to be suggesting a landlord is obligated to offer HAP tenants more favourable terms than any other type of tenant.

I honestly don't see anything anywhere to support that viewpoint.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting a landlord is obligated to offer HAP tenants more favourable terms than any other type of tenant.

I honestly don't see anything anywhere to support that viewpoint.

Objectively the tenant is paying 1 payment more than intended but anyway....

I am saying simply this:

"HAP is paid in arrears"

You either accept tenants who will have their rent paid in arrears or you do not.

If you don't, and that includes rejecting payment in arrears what is the defence?

So far the arguments are just irrelevant....

Graham

davindub wrote: »

I am saying simply this:

"HAP is paid in arrears"

HAP is paid in arrears, that is not disputed.


I can find nothing to suggest a landlord cannot ask for their normal terms. E.g. 1 month deposit and 1 month rent up front.

I can find nothing that corroborates your opinion that not offering HAP tenants more favourable terms is discriminatory.

DubCount

Graham wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting a landlord is obligated to offer HAP tenants more favourable terms than any other type of tenant.

I honestly don't see anything anywhere to support that viewpoint.

Its a government catch 22.

HAP has a specific set of rules which you must accept for a HAP tenant. This includes rent in arrears, having a tax clearance cert etc.

You cant refuse HAP or discriminate against a prospective tenant in receipt of HAP or you get done for discrimination in the WRC.

Regardless of what terms you wanted to obtain or what you agree with the tenant in a lease, when you accept HAP (which you have to), you are landed with the HAP conditions.

Graham

DubCount wrote: »

Regardless of what terms you wanted to obtain or what you agree with the tenant in a lease, when you accept HAP (which you have to), you are landed with the HAP conditions.

Agreed.

None of the conditions state a landlord cannot ask for usual rent/deposit up-front.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

HAP is paid in arrears, that is not disputed.


I can find nothing to suggest a landlord cannot ask for their normal terms. E.g. 1 month deposit and 1 month rent up front.

I can find nothing that corroborates your opinion that not offering HAP tenants more favourable terms is discriminatory.

Look the HAP scheme comes as a whole. You reject a term, you are rejecting it. There is no discussion on this anywhere else because it is pretty clear that you receive payment in arrears.

Anyway. Ignoring the above, the remedy you suggest is discriminatory. From the tenants point of view, they are paying for the first month in advance and in arrears, which is not required by other tenants.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Look the HAP scheme comes as a whole. You reject a term, you are rejecting it. There is no discussion on this anywhere else because it is pretty clear that you receive payment in arrears.

Anyway. Ignoring the above, the remedy you suggest is discriminatory. From the tenants point of view, they are paying for the first month in advance and in arrears, which is not required by other tenants.

You are giving a legal interpretation without any evidence to support it.

There is a discussion on this somewhere else, Minister Murphy was asked about it last year. In his written reply he acknowledged that LLs ask for rent to be paid in advance, he did not however say that the LL needed to change the terms of the tenancy for a HAP tenant, nor that it is discriminatory not to do so.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-02-20/66/

Graham

davindub wrote: »

Look the HAP scheme comes as a whole. You reject a term, you are rejecting it. There is no discussion on this anywhere else because it is pretty clear that you receive payment in arrears.

So you should have no problem linking to the terms which dictate the deposit, and state a landlord cannot ask for rent up front.

davindub wrote: »

the remedy you suggest is discriminatory. From the tenants point of view, they are paying for the first month in advance and in arrears, which is not required by other tenants.

Landlords aren't generally asking for the part in arrears, it is foisted upon them.

Landlords are generally applying exactly the same terms to HAP/non-HAP tenants which clearly is not discriminatory.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

You are giving a legal interpretation without any evidence to support it.

There is a discussion on this somewhere else, Minister Murphy was asked about it last year. In his written reply he acknowledged that LLs ask for rent to be paid in advance, he did not however say that the LL needed to change the terms of the tenancy for a HAP tenant, nor that it is discriminatory not to do so.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-02-20/66/

No I am following the scheme = no WRC because well there is no issue.

Your version = ?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

No I am following the scheme = no WRC because well there is no issue.

Your version = ?

My version, HAP is an agreement between tenant and LA, not LA and LL, and nothing you have posted supports/links to HAP altering the terms of a tenancy. My version is supported by the RTA which says rent must be paid on the agreed date, it is supported by the HAP website which states there is no agreement between LA and LL, it is supported by Minister Murphy’s written responce in relation to a question tabled about this.

What have you to support your version?

davindub

Graham wrote: »

So you should have no problem linking to the terms which dictate the deposit, and state a landlord cannot ask for rent up front.



Landlords aren't generally asking for the part in arrears, it is foisted upon them.

Landlords are generally applying exactly the same terms to HAP/non-HAP tenants which clearly is not discriminatory.

HAP is foisted on LL's but that your solution is not what regular tenants expect. Have you examples of leases that require payments for a period in advance and in arrears? Deposits are something else entirely, I am not sure why these are mentioned.

But anyway I cannot be clearer on this, the rent payments are covered by the scheme, which is in arrears. Anything you do to modify that is not accepting the scheme. Would you agree with that much?

davindub

Davo: Which words in your link support your version?

Graham

davindub wrote: »

Have you examples of leases that require payments for a period in advance and in arrears?

Of course not because I've never heard of a landlord that asks for, or expects such a thing.

Why are you pretending otherwise?

You know as well as I do, the norm is X month/s deposit and first months rent up-front.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

Of course not because I've never heard of a landlord that asks for, or expects such a thing.

Why are you pretending otherwise?

You know as well as I do, the norm is X month/s deposit and first months rent up-front.

Good.

Well if HAP were to start in January for the tenant:

Tenant pays for January on the 1st. HAP pays the LL for January on the 29th.

January is paid for twice at that point of time. That is treatment different to regular tenants.

For the tenant they have paid this additional month and they are not refunded even though the scheme should have covered this period.

This is not normal, therefore it is particular to HAP tenants. It is not simply treating tenants the same, is it?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Good.

Well if HAP were to start in January for the tenant:

Tenant pays for January on the 1st. HAP pays the LL for January on the 29th.

January is paid for twice at that point of time. That is treatment different to regular tenants.

For the tenant they have paid this additional month and they are not refunded even though the scheme should have covered this period.

This is not normal, therefore it is particular to HAP tenants. It is not simply treating tenants the same, is it?

You still have not shown any link/evidence/case that supports your view.

In relation to my link, if it was discriminatory and the LL has to accept rent in arrears, Minister Murphy had the ideal opportunity to address this in his reply, instead he confirmed that LL’s charge rent in advance, as allowed in the RTA.

If legislation existed to support your viewpoint, no doubt Murphy would have referenced it in his reply.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

You still have not shown any link/evidence/case that supports your view.

In relation to my link, if it was discriminatory and the LL has to accept rent in arrears, Minister Murphy had the ideal opportunity to address this in his reply, instead he confirmed that LL’s charge rent in advance, as allowed in the RTA.

I would agree with you HOWEVER (note that word) EM said some landlords prefer payment in advance however HAP offers the benefit of payment security.

Note the word however.

Davo thus far you are stating the following reasons:

1. RTA - it is the equal status act that is dealt with exclusively at the WRC, if you cannot understand that, you shouldn't be commenting at all.

2. Hap booklet - you are claiming text in the booklet telling tenants they are not council tenants is justification for modifying the HAP scheme.

3. Lack of specific exact instructions in legislation / other documentation on what is not discrimination proves your case, despite it stating clearly what is HAP and not dealing with the EQ act at all.

4. Em didn't say something, that means you are right. You ignore the meaning of however and continue on.

Any of the above sound like legal arguments? It sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

I would agree with you HOWEVER (note that word) EM said some landlords prefer payment in advance however HAP offers the benefit of payment security.

Note the word however.

Davo thus far you are stating the following reasons:

1. RTA - it is the equal status act that is dealt with exclusively at the WRC, if you cannot understand that, you shouldn't be commenting at all.

2. Hap booklet - you are claiming text in the booklet telling tenants they are not council tenants is justification for modifying the HAP scheme.

3. Lack of specific exact instructions in legislation / other documentation on what is not discrimination proves your case, despite it stating clearly what is HAP and not dealing with the EQ act at all.

4. Em didn't say something, that means you are right. You ignore the meaning of however and continue on.

Any of the above sound like legal arguments? It sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.

The word "however" used in this context to outline a benefit of HAP to the LL, does not in any way indicate that the LL has to accept changes in the terms of the rental agreement.

Does the RTA say a rental agreement has to be altered to benefit one tenant over another? If so, where?

In relation to the booklet and HAP website, it is clearly stated that there is no agreement between the Local Authority and LL, why are you stating the HAP agreement between a tenant and Local Authority affects the tenancy agreement between tenant and LL? Could you provide a link to support this.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

Good.

Well if HAP were to start in January for the tenant:

Tenant pays for January on the 1st. HAP pays the LL for January on the 29th.

January is paid for twice at that point of time. That is treatment different to regular tenants.

For the tenant they have paid this additional month and they are not refunded even though the scheme should have covered this period.

This is not normal, therefore it is particular to HAP tenants. It is not simply treating tenants the same, is it?

Absolutely the same. Rent & deposit up-front for most tenancies.

You have not offered one iota of supporting evidence for your claim that treating HAP tenants the same way as private tenants is automatic discrimination.

Nothing.

Bass Reeves

HAP pays in arrears. However no LL signs a HAP firm before they get a tenancy agreement signed. Tenancy agreement is between LL and tenant.
HAP do not provide a tenancy agreement they look for details of property and that LL is tax compliant. After that they pay in arrears. Neither do they pay any rent for time before agreement is approved.

LL has an agreement for rent and deposit in advance. Tenant get house on January 1st pay LL deposit and a month rent in advance, on 31th LL get paid one month in arrears by LA. Technically he can refund the rent and then look for February payment in advance. So the month's payment in advance always stays in place

davindub

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely the same. Rent & deposit up-front for most tenancies.

You have not offered one iota of supporting evidence for your claim that treating HAP tenants the same way as private tenants is automatic discrimination.

Nothing.

But you aren't treating them the same you already admitted as much.

Now you are complaining about lack of evidence but have nothing but your opinion, nothing. What you are saying doesn't even match the scheme.

Anyway, I vote we park this unless anyone has legislation or a case to refer to. When it is resolved the persons who are wrong can apologise to the person who is correct?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

But you aren't treating them the same you already admitted as much.

Now you are complaining about lack of evidence but have nothing but your opinion, nothing. What you are saying doesn't even match the scheme.

Anyway, I vote we park this unless anyone has legislation or a case to refer to. When it is resolved the persons who are wrong can apologise to the person who is correct?

The “scheme” Is not an agreement between a LA and a LL, for some reason you think it is, despite both the HAP website and their brochures clearly stating this. HAP is an agreement between a tenant and a LA to pay rent.

Nothing you have posted here, or an any other thread has shown that not to be the case, or that HAP tenants are required to be treated differently to other tenants.

HAP website states that tenancies are covered by the RTA, the RTA makes no mention of having to change the date on which rent is to be paid , to accommodate a tenant.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

The “scheme” Is not an agreement between a LA and a LL, for some reason you think it is, despite both the HAP website and their brochures clearly stating this. HAP is an agreement between a tenant and a LA to pay rent.

Nothing you have posted here, or an any other thread has shown that not to be the case, or that HAP tenants are required to be treated differently to other tenants.

HAP website states that tenancies are covered by the RTA, the RTA makes no mention of having to change the date on which rent is to be paid , to accommodate a tenant.

Yeah, you keep making the same strange arguments, no recognition of the fact that the RTA does not deal with HAP for some reason. No recognition of the fact HAP tenants are treated differently, you receive rent from a someone other than the tenant, provide tax clearance, self certify the property is compliant, etc etc.

But anyway that is your position....

Agreement on the apology if you are incorrect?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Yeah, you keep making the same strange arguments, no recognition of the fact that the RTA does not deal with HAP for some reason. No recognition of the fact HAP tenants are treated differently, you receive rent from a someone other than the tenant, provide tax clearance, self certify the property is compliant, etc etc.

But anyway that is your position....

Agreement on the apology if you are incorrect?

The RTA does not distinguish between a HAP tenant and any other tenant, all must be treated equally, yet you are convinced that HAP tenants are due benefits not extended to others, what are you basing this on?

I receive payments at work from the State, therefore I am required to submit a tax compliance certificate, that does not mean I have to treat people who are entitled to benefit through that scheme differently to those that aren’t.

LL recieve rent from the LA on BEHALF of the tenant, the LA is neither the tenant nor the LL.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

The RTA does not distinguish between a HAP tenant and any other tenant, all must be treated equally, yet you are convinced that HAP tenants are due benefits not extended to others, what are you basing this on?

I receive payments at work from the State, therefore I am required to submit a tax compliance certificate, that does not mean I have to treat people who are entitled to benefit through that scheme differently to those that aren’t.

LL recieve rent from the LA on BEHALF of the tenant, the LA is neither the tenant nor the LL.

Not sure why you keep mentioning the RTA.

Equal Status Act is the relevant legislation.

Anyway, nothing new here? Are you going to agree to the apology or not?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Not sure why you keep mentioning the RTA.

Equal Status Act is the relevant legislation.

Anyway, nothing new here? Are you going to agree to the apology or not?

Because the HAP website clearly states the tenancies are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act.

While the Equal Status Act is relevant in the discrimination of tenants in receipt of HAP, up to now you have shown nothing to back up your claim that rent being paid in advance is discriminatory.

Apologise for? You haven’t been able to substantiate your claims, if you can, do.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Because the HAP website clearly states the tenancies are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act.

While the Equal Status Act is relevant in the discrimination of tenants in receipt of HAP, up to now you have shown nothing to back up your claim that rent being paid in advance is discriminatory.

Apologise for? You haven’t been able to substantiate your claims, if you can, do.

If you won't risk an apology for what you know but will happily cause someone to risk a fine of thousands, well that is not saying much for what you posted.

But it will be proved, cases come up and it is only a matter of time before some idiot will have tried this. Always happens when you see some crackpot advice posted online. So this will be resolved then

Graham

davindub, did you manage to find a single link to backup your assertion?

Anything?

davindub

Graham wrote: »

davindub, did you manage to find a single link to backup your assertion?

Anything?

What assertion is that Graham? I am content to wait for a case here to prove conclusively.

Are you agreeing to the apology?

Graham

davindub wrote: »

What assertion is that Graham?

That standard rental terms are automatically discriminatory.

Do post when you can back that up

davindub

Graham wrote: »

That standard rental terms are automatically discriminatory.

Do post when you can back that up

I never stated that Graham. What I did state is that requiring two payments in respect of the same month from a HAP tenant but not a normal tenant is discriminatory. Nothing is automatic, you need to make your case to the WRC.

But anyway:

This respondent refused to change his lease conditions and later relented:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/december/adj-00019284.html

This case the respondent served notice on the foot that the lease would need to be changed:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/october/adj-00019245.html

This case the respondent specifically would not alter the payment date
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/june/adj-00025781.html

It resolves Davo's and your argument that HAP tenants are not entitled to pay in arrears in a fashion, close enough for you?

We can resolve the specific example of forcing a tenant to pay 2 payments for the same period when a case arises.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

What I did state is that requiring two payments in respect of the same month

Find one example where a landlord has asked for such an arrangement as oppose to having it enforced by HAP.

I'll wait.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

I never stated that Graham. What I did state is that requiring two payments in respect of the same month from a HAP tenant but not a normal tenant is discriminatory. Nothing is automatic, you need to make your case to the WRC.

But anyway:

This respondent refused to change his lease conditions and later relented:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/december/adj-00019284.html

This case the respondent served notice on the foot that the lease would need to be changed:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/october/adj-00019245.html

This case the respondent specifically would not alter the payment date
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/june/adj-00025781.html

It resolves Davo's and your argument that HAP tenants are not entitled to pay in arrears in a fashion, close enough for you?

We can resolve the specific example of forcing a tenant to pay 2 payments for the same period when a case arises.

Not close enough for me.

In the first case, the LL/agent refused to provide the correct bank account details due to financial issues, in the other two the LLs refused to sign the HAP forms because they didn’t want HAP tenants

In none of the cases has a LL asked for two payments in respect of the same month.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

Not close enough for me.

In the first case, the LL/agent refused to provide the correct bank account details due to financial issues, in the other two the LLs refused to sign the HAP forms because they didn’t want HAP tenants

In none of the cases has a LL asked for two payments in respect of the same month.

Read them carefully. I pointed out the case where the LL refused to sign the forms because it was payment in arrears. But in each of them they refused to change the terms of the lease to suit HAP which actually was your and Grahams specific argument. So you were both incorrect.

All that remains to be conclusively proven is does the tenant will have a course of action if forced to pay. I shouldn't have to go that far but hopefully for the meantime you desist from giving legal advice to someone which is very probable to result in a fine.

davindub

Graham wrote: »

Find one example where a landlord has asked for such an arrangement as oppose to having it enforced by HAP.

I'll wait.

That's a weird statement, what do you actually mean here, it wouldn't be an issue if HAP wasn't involved?

Anyway, same answer as Davo.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

Read them carefully. I pointed out the case where the LL refused to sign the forms because it was payment in arrears. But in each of them they refused to change the terms of the lease to suit HAP which actually was your and Grahams specific argument. So you were both incorrect.

All that remains to be conclusively proven is does the tenant will have a course of action if forced to pay. I shouldn't have to go that far but hopefully for the meantime you desist from giving legal advice to someone which is very probable to result in a fine.

In each case the LL refused to sign the forms/provide bank details, the adjudicator concluded that the LLs did not want HAP tenants and found against the Respondant.

The LL discriminated against the tenant by not/delaying signing, none of these cases show discrimination in the part of a LL who wants rent paid in advance for his/her property.

Show me a case for discrimination based on a LL asking for rent in advance rather than arrears, linking to cases where LLs refuse to return HAP forms signed does not substantiate your viewpoint.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

In each case the LL refused to sign the forms/provide bank details, the adjudicator concluded that the LLs did not want HAP tenants and found against the Respondant.

The LL discriminated against the tenant by not/delaying signing, none of these cases show discrimination in the part of a LL who wants rent paid in advance for his/her property.

Show me a case for discrimination based on a LL asking for rent in advance rather than arrears, linking to cases where LLs refuse to return HAP forms signed does not substantiate your viewpoint.

ALL the cases are involve discrimination otherwise they would not be at the WRC.

Anyway, I have provided links that should determine the matter if you were competent in the area. If you cannot read them or realise that all your arguments have been addressed, your problem.

davindub

davindub wrote: »

ALL the cases are involve discrimination otherwise they would not be at the WRC.

Anyway, I have provided links that should determine the matter if you were competent in the area. If you cannot read them or realise that all your arguments have been addressed, your problem.

Again, if you read them, the discrimination was determined based on the EA/LL refusing to supply bank account details and two where the LLs refused to sign and return the HAP forms. You have not shown discrimination based on rent being paid in advance. The adjudicator concluded the LLs did not want HAP tenants, this of course is discrimination.

Show me a case where the LL accepted HAP and signed the forms, then a tenant brought a case for discrimination based on rent being paid in advance.

stinkbomb

Lads, its fun watching you argue, but are either of you on HAP? Or actually deal with HAP?

Leaving aside the rules and regulations, what actually happens in reality is simple. HAP pay in arrears at the end of the month. Landlords (in the main) only take in advance at the beginning of the month. So the tenant pays the first month up front and then the HAP that comes at the end of the month is treated by the landlord as a payment in advance for the next month. If a tenant switches on to HAP mid tenancy, then they pay an extra month and the same thing happens. In both cases, when the last month comes around and HAP pays, the LL gives that back to the tenant.

Council HAP departments are well aware of this system and advise that LL's have every right to do so, and the RTB agrees.

Graham

stinkbomb wrote: »

what actually happens in reality is simple. HAP pay in arrears at the end of the month. Landlords (in the main) only take in advance at the beginning of the month. So the tenant pays the first month up front and then the HAP that comes at the end of the month is treated by the landlord as a payment in advance for the next month. If a tenant switches on to HAP mid tenancy, then they pay an extra month and the same thing happens. In both cases, when the last month comes around and HAP pays, the LL gives that back to the tenant.

Council HAP departments are well aware of this system and advise that LL's have every right to do so, and the RTB agrees.

Nail -> Head

davindub

stinkbomb wrote: »

Lads, its fun watching you argue, but are either of you on HAP? Or actually deal with HAP?

Leaving aside the rules and regulations, what actually happens in reality is simple. HAP pay in arrears at the end of the month. Landlords (in the main) only take in advance at the beginning of the month. So the tenant pays the first month up front and then the HAP that comes at the end of the month is treated by the landlord as a payment in advance for the next month. If a tenant switches on to HAP mid tenancy, then they pay an extra month and the same thing happens. In both cases, when the last month comes around and HAP pays, the LL gives that back to the tenant.

Council HAP departments are well aware of this system and advise that LL's have every right to do so, and the RTB agrees.

Do you?

Without being smart, you seem to have the same problem as Davo. The RTB do not rule on HAP discrimination and someone I spoke to yesterday in HAP did not agree with it, but that they were only administrating the scheme.