HAP for landlords

Kiwibear wrote: »

If a Tennant does not pay the LA their part of the rent the LA continue to pay the LL for 4 months. During them 4 months they will try contact the Tennant etc to arrange payment of arrears. If Tennant agrees to pay the arrears by 5e extra a week the LA will continue to pay the LL. The LA will also notify the LL if this situation arises, long before non payment happens.

It might depend on the LA but for KCC this is not the case. Payment to the LL was stopped when arrears went over 1 month.

circular flexing wrote: »

It might depend on the LA but for KCC this is not the case. Payment to the LL was stopped when arrears went over 1 month.

Not the case in DCC, SDCC, Fingal or Kildare.
If the tenant stops paying their contribution to the local authority- the local authority suspend the entire payment to the landlord. For good measure- there is no warning- and the LA won't discuss the reason for the payment being suspended with the landlord on data protection grounds........

Some local authority, somewhere else- may be doing a solorun on this- and not cutting off payments to landlords immediately when a tenant stops their contribution to the local authority- however, this is not the case in Kildare or the Dublin local authorities at present.

karenalot

Kildare County Council suspend HAP payments after 8 weeks. They write to the tenant after 3 weeks of non payment and then at 5 weeks to both tenant and landlord. According to them they have not had one single incidence so far of HAP payments being stopped to a landlord.

karenalot wrote: »

According to them they have not had one single incidence so far of HAP payments being stopped to a landlord.

100% false.

circular flexing wrote: »

100% false.

Unfortunately, and I wish you were wrong- you're 100% correct.
They're currently at over 40 (in Kildare) and its rising by at least 1 most weeks- occasionally 2 or 3. Fingal though has the highest absolute number among all the local authorities- of landlords who have been cut off from HAP payments- as tenants haven't made their contributions.

Someone somewhere is peddling a tale the Grimm brothers would be jealous of.

Spanish Eyes

I know this is not helping anyone,

But who would be a HAP landlord these days?

I bet ten bob the REITS will never have to involve themselves in such a scheme.

It is a lost opportunity for the CCs though. A bit of creativity, imagination and fairness and it would work fine.

quadrifoglio verde

I hazard that if the council agreed to rent house x at 80% of market rate for ten years as a bare shell and gave it back as a bare shell their hands would be bitten off by landlords.
10 years give them time to increase their stock of housing as well, instead of just replying on part V from builders while at the same time not having to pay for emergency accommodation

Spanish Eyes

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I hazard that if the council agreed to rent house x at 80% of market rate for ten years as a bare shell and gave it back as a bare shell their hands would be bitten off by landlords.
10 years give them time to increase their stock of housing as well, instead of just replying on part V from builders while at the same time not having to pay for emergency accommodation

There we are. A bit of imagination.

But I have a question, define bare shell! Are you saying that the house/flat is unfurnished, then the CC will bring it up to HAP rental standard in return for a ten year lease. I suppose you are saying this.

So when they hand it back after the ten years (guaranteed rent is a must though...), they will rip out all the enhancements.

Needs a bit of thinking.

Send that post off to all your local TD/Councillors.

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I hazard that if the council agreed to rent house x at 80% of market rate for ten years as a bare shell and gave it back as a bare shell their hands would be bitten off by landlords.
10 years give them time to increase their stock of housing as well, instead of just replying on part V from builders while at the same time not having to pay for emergency accommodation

They already do this.

e.g

http://www.fingal.ie/housing/leasing-initiative/rental-accommodation-scheme/

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I know this is not helping anyone,

But who would be a HAP landlord these days?

I bet ten bob the REITS will never have to involve themselves in such a scheme.

It is a lost opportunity for the CCs though. A bit of creativity, imagination and fairness and it would work fine.

In my opinion, if you find a good tenant under HAP scheme, it might actually work out pretty well. Almost guaranteed to be no vacancy periods (HAP tenants are not exactly able to move easily).

circular flexing wrote: »

They already do this.

e.g

http://www.fingal.ie/housing/leasing-initiative/rental-accommodation-scheme/

RAS was designed for tenants who have a short-term accommodation need- it was originally anticipated that this would be for a period of up to a year. In practice- it was determined that this was wildly optimistic (on the part of local authorities) and it was determined that a longer term scheme was needed for tenants who weren't likely to be in a position to house themselves long term- and so HAP was born. A lot of RAS tenants- are being moved over to HAP- when their contracts come up for renewal. The RAS scheme is not being abolished- but it most certainly is being wound down.

As to what you're asserting about local authorities taking bare shells under RAS- and handing back the property in a reciprochal manner (up to 10 years later)- one of the core fundamentals of the scheme is that it is supposed to be suitable for tenants from the outset. I.e. it is not anticipated that councils/local authorities will have to do a complete kit-out of properties under the scheme- other than in extreme cases.

At the initial rollout of the RAS scheme, in late 2014- over half of all properties presented for the scheme by landlords- were turned down by local authorities (for a variety of reasons- not all relating to the condition the properties were in).

RAS didn't suit a lot of landlords- because, while the landlord was guaranteed up to 92% of the open market rent for the property- and given a lease (normally of up to 10 years)- they were still responsible for maintaining the property and managing the day-to-day needs of the tenant- this was not taken on the council/local authority.

Allied to the RAS scheme- was a different approach- the long term leasing scheme- which was sold as a preferable option to landlords who wanted to hand off the day-to-day management of the tenancy to the local authority. Under this scheme, a landlord signed over a property to a local authority for a period of up to 20 years- at 80% of the open market rent- however, the local authority took over the management of the day-to-day tenancy- and returned the property freshly painted at the end of the fixed term lease. The local authority was wholly responsible for sourcing tenants, managing their needs and maintaining the property in an appropriate manner- and taking care of all fees/costs associated with the property.

The long-term rental scheme- was attractive for many landlords- but it never really took off- the limits put on the rent levels for various areas- and the nominal 80% of market rent- esp. when rent-control came in- meant legally, many landlords found it financially onerous- esp. as the market value of the property was effectively cut by letting at below market rates to the council.

The councils have been imaginative- yes, but their schemes were setup in the expectation that they were the renter of last resort for a significant cohort of landlords- i.e. that landlords would have no option but to let to them- when the facts on the ground did not, and continue not to, support this hypothesis. Landlords are spoilt for choice with a bewildering array of prospective tenants for any lettings that come up. There is no need for most landlords to accept below market value from local authorities- and allied to this- the paperwork, and the appalling communication from local authorities to landlords- have been fatal for the scheme.

Local authorities could do an awful lot to make these schemes (we now have 3 schemes running concurrently) more attractive for landlords- the most fundamental and basic thing they could do- is employ a couple of clerical officers to manage communication with landlords and let them know whats happening- as basic as this might seem- its simply not happening.

davo10

Looks like pre-existing tenancy contracts/agreements mean nothing now.

I assume the adjudication should be RTB rather than WRC, maybe it's right?

http://www.thejournal.ie/tenants-discrimination-housing-assistance-payment-3556497-Aug2017/

jamesthepeach

It's clear to see that the minute you rent out a property in Ireland you don't actually own it anymore.
The only thing you own after letting it out is any trouble that comes up.
It might as well not be your property anymore.
I got out and have one left in short term.
I'll more than likely be getting out of that too just in case more govt interference takes that from me too.

It's a total mugs game renting property out in Ireland. Stick.tp.short term and I'd the govt start messing with that just bail out pronto.

I wonder how many will see those fines and just sell up.

jamesthepeach

beauf wrote: »

I wonder how many will see those fines and just sell up.

It's not even the fines it's the total loss of any sort of control over your investment. Once you hand it over to any sort of tenant then that's it. It's not yours anymore.
Yet you continue to have responsibility for any headaches involved.

There's a point at which the fines make it impossible to risk staying in the business.

irelandrover

What happens if you were renting above the limits for HAP. Are you still obliged to accept it from current tenants if they apply?

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Looks like pre-existing tenancy contracts/agreements mean nothing now.

I assume the adjudication should be RTB rather than WRC, maybe it's right?

http://www.thejournal.ie/tenants-discrimination-housing-assistance-payment-3556497-Aug2017/

Looks like anything under the Equal Status Acts is the remit of the WRC, which is odd considering the scope of the Equal Status Acts goes well beyond the workplace. Maybe the WRC should be renamed, similar to how the PRTB became the RTB when the scope of the RTA was increased in 2015 to include housing bodies.

The article mentions the landlord wouldn't be at any financial loss which is where I think they come to the conclusion that it's discrimination. I'm wondering what would happen if an inspection then required costly renovations, or perhaps renovations that the management company couldn't allow since it would affect the structure of the building. I think this could be a can of worms that the WRC aren't prepared for.

Michael D Not Higgins

irelandrover wrote: »

What happens if you were renting above the limits for HAP. Are you still obliged to accept it from current tenants if they apply?

No, the Equal Status Act doesn't cover you if you can't afford the rent. It would be discrimination to set the rent at a level above the market rate to ensure that social welfare schemes wouldn't qualify, but that's much harder to prove and likely that the landlord has already rented it out for that price in the meantime.

Mrs Shuttleworth

jamesthepeach wrote: »

It's not even the fines it's the total loss of any sort of control over your investment. Once you hand it over to any sort of tenant then that's it. It's not yours anymore.
Yet you continue to have responsibility for any headaches involved.

Not to mention the rent controls. My tenant told me last night he's moving out. I have never been a greedy or avaricious landlord and kept the rent at 1000 a month (busy Dublin location). Now I can't rent for more than 1,053 a month to a new tenant whereas other units in the complex are going for 1,400.:mad:

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Not to mention the rent controls. My tenant told me last night he's moving out. I have never been a greedy or avaricious landlord and kept the rent at 1000 a month (busy Dublin location). Now I can't rent for more than 1,053 a month to a new tenant whereas other units in the complex are going for 1,400.:mad:

Good opportunity for a revamp so.

Fkall

jamesthepeach wrote: »

It's clear to see that the minute you rent out a property in Ireland you don't actually own it anymore.
The only thing you own after letting it out is any trouble that comes up.
It might as well not be your property anymore.
I got out and have one left in short term.
I'll more than likely be getting out of that too just in case more govt interference takes that from me too.

It's a total mugs game renting property out in Ireland. Stick.tp.short term and I'd the govt start messing with that just bail out pronto.

This ruling will fall if appealed.

The key point overlooked/ignored is HAP imposes additional obligations on the landlord over and above a RAS or private arrangement. Until such time as HAP terms and conditions match those of a private lease the landlord will always have the option to refuse.

The easiest option is for him/her to complete the HAP form but align it with the current lease terms (adding and deleting clauses as required). The State than has the option to accept or reject the terms offered.

Fkall wrote: »

...Until such time as HAP terms and conditions match those of a private lease the landlord will always have the option to refuse.

The easiest option is for him/her to complete the HAP form but align it with the current lease terms (adding and deleting clauses as required). The State than has the option to accept or reject the terms offered.

Well the LL can't refuse it, or risk a business closing fine. The suggestion to modify the form is an interesting one.

uck51js9zml2yt

I read this morning that a LL was fined €42k for refusing HAP to existing tenants.
Seems the Equality legislation was exetended to prohibit the refusal of HAP tenants

Rachel Broad Sternum wrote: »

I read this morning that a LL was fined €42k for refusing HAP to existing tenants.
Seems the Equality legislation was exetended to prohibit the refusal of HAP tenants

However- can a landlord accept HAP from tenants- on the basis they would accept rent from a private tenant? I.e. what happens if, for example, the three tenants in the existing case, stay on as tenants, and the property undergoes a HAP inspection (as it is supposed to)- and it fails the inspection- but it compliant with building regs as they apply to the building. Is the landlord then excluded from one arm of the state- from accepting HAP tenants- and forbidden from excluding them- by another?

If it takes 20-30k to bring a property up to HAP spec- who is liable- and what happens if its simply unaffordable for the landlord (as its not tax deductible- Revenue classify it as a property improvement).

The Local Authorities, the RTB, the WRC and Revenue- all need to sit down around a table on this one- as they're all contradicting one another- and stomping on each other's toes. The loser in this- is any landlord caught up in the mess- the landlord quite simply can't win- it doesn't matter what they do, or don't do- they can't win.

Fkall

Once the forms are aligned with the current lease terms it is the state rather than the landlord who is exposed.

The landlord in theory can request the tenants to make the alterations

Mrs Shuttleworth

beauf wrote: »

Good opportunity for a revamp so.

Having looked at all the options that's exactly how I'm thinking.

Fkall

The_Conductor wrote: »

However- can a landlord accept HAP from tenants- on the basis they would accept rent from a private tenant? I.e. what happens if, for example, the three tenants in the existing case, stay on as tenants, and the property undergoes a HAP inspection (as it is supposed to)- and it fails the inspection- but it compliant with building regs as they apply to the building. Is the landlord then excluded from one arm of the state- from accepting HAP tenants- and forbidden from excluding them- by another?

If it takes 20-30k to bring a property up to HAP spec- who is liable- and what happens if its simply unaffordable for the landlord (as its not tax deductible- Revenue classify it as a property improvement).

The Local Authorities, the RTB, the WRC and Revenue- all need to sit down around a table on this one- as they're all contradicting one another- and stomping on each other's toes. The loser in this- is any landlord caught up in the mess- the landlord quite simply can't win- it doesn't matter what they do, or don't do- they can't win.

Again it is the landlord choice to sign up to HAP terms and conditions. If the landlord alters the form to reflect the current lease arrangements the problem than falls back onto the State & tenant to resolve.

Duncanwooly

The_Conductor wrote: »

1. Replacement of all fire alarms and CO2 detectors- with an interlinked system on 10 year batteries
2. Multiple holes drilled in walls for ventillation purposes
3. Electrical subsystems to be rewired (such as extractor fans in bathrooms- put on their own power supplys and isolated from the lighting for the bathroom).
4. Separate CO2 and dry powder fire extinguishers (sometimes they even specify a wet extinguisher) and proof that these are recharged annually.
5. Commercial fireblanket for the kitchen
6. Some replumbing- to reflect queries over potable water and/or water heating subsystems
7. Heating controls (mind you there is an SEAI grant available to assist with this one)
8. Replacement of some white goods that are working and have not been flatlined to zero as per Revenue guidelines

I don't understand why LLs, who have clearly spent a lot of their hard earnt money acquiring a property, would not want appropriate ventilation and fire prevention tools. Surely it would be cheaper than replacing a parts of a bathroom due to mould or waiting for a rebuild after a fire.