kceire wrote: » I put my tennant on HAP. Got full market rate and got deposit and 2 months rent in advance. Payment is the last Wednesday of every month. I got deposit and May and June's payment up front so my next payment will be last Wednesday in July. Processed quick enough through dublin council.
Askthe EA wrote: » I had a client who accepted Hap from an existing tenant. Everything went fine till the inspectors arrived. The house was perfect in my opinion but the bill to bring it up to their standards came in at 1800. Stupid stuff. Existing fire alarms not 10 year ones. No vent in sitting room. No extractors in ensuite. The extractor in the bathroom was wired to the lights. Had to be separated which required rewiring. All this despite the fact that this was how the house was built.
gizmo81 wrote: » I know that landlords cannot discriminate against HAP tenants but just wondering when it comes to existing tenants, does the landlord have to accept? Specifically, If as you outline the house had to meet certain standards above the minimum standards for Private rented accommodation does the landlord have to carry out the work? Are there grants to help landlords meet HAP requirements? As you have experience of this I thought I'd ask, if you don't mind. Thanks.
Askthe EA wrote: » I honestly don't know. I'd suspect a LL wouldn't be allowed refuse to accept HAP though and with a tenant already in place he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The problem is that the minimum standards now often exceed the standards a house was built to originally. If a property doesn't meet basic standards, as far as I am aware, it shouldn't be rented. If the LL can't afford to put it right, well his choices are to sell or leave it empty. Tenant is out of a home. I've never heard of any grants, no.
kceire wrote: » House must have been built many many years ago as those standards have been on place since 1992 (Building Regulations). My 11 year old house was built like this.
gizmo81 wrote: » Thanks very much for getting back to me. I don't understand why the difference in minimum standards for HAP and non-HAP tenants. If they want landlords to accept HAP there should be support for these extra requirements in my opinion.
Askthe EA wrote: » There is no difference except the council rarely inspect non Hap properties unless a complaint is made.
lucernarian wrote: » Exactly. And when I was a tenant in a normal private letting, Dublin City Council inspected our apartment. They insisted on action to be taken for a vent in one bedroom that didn't have it, fire blanket and extinguisher to be provided in the kitchen, and something to modify the electrical supply for a fan heater in the bathroom. Not exactly onerous or "bizarre".
The_Conductor wrote: » Ventilation requirements have evolved though- in the 1990s- it was the norm, and perfectly acceptable, to have ventillation built into windows and window frames- it was not necessary for separate ventillation. Getting Holemasters out to retrofit current build specs into a 1990s apartment- will set you back a minimum of 2k (depending on the number of rooms- possibly up to 8-9k)- and thats for ventilation alone. If there is an extractor fan in a bathroom- on the same circuit as the light in the bathroom (perfectly allowable in the 1990s)- that'll need to be removed onto its own subsystem- etc etc etc. Its very easy to spend 20k to bring a dwelling up to current building specs- and there is absolutely no reason for a building to comply with current buildnig specs- it just had to meet the specs in place when it was actually built.
lucernarian wrote: » It was a Georgian building, renovated in the 2000s. I can say the cost for putting in a vent (there was none, not in the window frames etc), was far less than 2k, that was a good couple of years ago now. Maybe prices have indeed shot up by 6x... Or maybe there's an element of scaremongering going on about this HAP scheme? A LA could easily inspect any private tenancy also and the standards for either are the same.
circular flexing wrote: » I have a tenant under HAP. Getting about 250 euro below market rate. It's better than the RA where the top-up would come from the tenant, getting one payment is much easier. I could see it getting quite messy if the tenant stopped paying rent to the LA, as it's quite clear in the contract that the LA will not take any action in this case.
The_Conductor wrote: » Depends on how many holes are being drilled- and whether its being done professionally or by Bob the builder up the street......... I've gotten a few jobs done by Holemasters- at the insistence of an apartment management company (ventilation for a kitchen, living room, 3 bedrooms and a bathroom- 7 x 6" holes, ducting and cowling- its not cheap (though however they do it- there is no dust etc involved).
The_Conductor wrote: » Thats a bit nutty- so the tenant stops paying rent to the LA. The LA in turn- stop paying rent to you. No-one will talk to you, as they don't have to- yet, you're left with all the risk- and in this instance, an actionable disincentive- as the rent is 250 a month below market rates? Does not compute.
lucernarian wrote: » You said it was a minimum 2k cost, presumably for one room. One hole was drilled with the requisite sealing and ventilation covers. This was to the satisfaction of the city council. You mention an exorbitant cost, and then put a caveat on the number of holes drilled. Well, a single bore was made through a thick dry-lined Georgian exterior wall and it cost far less than 2000 euro. So where exactly does this huge discrepancy come from? Forgive my scepticism but it sounds like scaremongering to me.