nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

HAP for landlords

L1985

Hi All

i was hoping for some advice here. We have had tenants the past three years and have had no problem with them. v helpful, rents always paid on time and the tenant looks after small fixes himself which suits both of us.
Now they came to me last week and advised they were eligible for the HAP Scheme and wanted to go on it. now rent wise it would actually be an increase (we haven't increased the tenants rent since they moved in as they are good tenants but they are definitely paying under the market rate.) by €50. I wouldnt mind helping the tenants out but there are a couple of drawbacks that I can see.
firstly as its paid by DD (Currently we collect it each month) we wont see the property and whats happening with it.....we got badly burned with this before. we can just implement regular inspections of course.
secondly does the council get involved and is there a certain level of compliance we have to abide by? the house is old and could do with some fixing up but anything the tenant has needed we have done but there is deff some issues with it. nothing major but i know there are some issues there.
thirdly is there other disadvantages that we arent aware of that we should consider? anything i find on here is all from the tenants side not from the landlords so would like to hear from some landlords that are in this situation.

thanks in advance

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Michael D Not Higgins

Duncanwooly wrote: »

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.

It's not that they don't want to comply with standards. It's that the standards are higher than that for regular renting which means that it could be costly to retrofit things into a building to support the higher standards. This doesn't leave HAP tenants on equal footing as other renters and thus how can they force landlords to accept HAP payments on a different footing?

beauf

Duncanwooly wrote: »

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.

Ventilation is not an easy thing to solve if there is an inherent design fault with with regard to ventilation. Though mould can either be a physical fault, or poor living habits by the occupier. Something like a frequently used shower in a room with no windows, will always struggle with mould.

jamesthepeach

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:

If you read my previous posts on boards you'll see I had exactly the same issues as yourself.
I've now got out of anything controlled by rtb. Sold one rental, bought a foreign one, have another Irish one in short term let.
Just so important to get out from under the thumb of the rtb and tenancy laws now. They are designed to suck the life out of a landlord.

I find the short term let is much better for me and a lot more money to be made too. The maintenance is almost non existent and no such thing as an over holding or any other sh1t that is just going to crucify the owner. Everything is simple agreement between you and the person renting.

I can't stress enough how much I think every landlord should just get out of the long term letting business. You would even be better off just leaving a place vacant in some cases, but the government want to Wade in and fcuk you there too.

Mrs Shuttleworth

jamesthepeach wrote: »

If you read my previous posts on boards you'll see I had exactly the same issues as yourself.
I've now got out of anything controlled by rtb. Sold one rental, bought a foreign one, have another Irish one in short term let.
Just so important to get out from under the thumb of the rtb and tenancy laws now. They are designed to suck the life out of a landlord.

I find the short term.let is much better for me and a lot more money eyeballs to be made too. The maintenance is almost non existent and no such thing as an over holding or any other sh1t that is just going to crucify the owner. Everything is simple agreement between you and the person renting.

I can't stress enough how much I think.everyblandlord should just get out of the long term letting business. You would even be better off just leaving a place vacant in some cases, but the government want to Wade in and fcuk you there too.

Really appreciate the help mate and I'll read your posts and check that website out.

Is it any wonder there is so little available on the rental market. I wish I'd been a greedy SOB and jacked that rent up on the sitting tenant last December. But I wasn't and now I'm going to pay the price.

worded

Today's news - see link - HAP declined and compensation awarded to people

Perhaps this has new posted already, I didn't read all the thread

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

Duncanwooly

beauf wrote: »

Ventilation is not an easy thing to solve if there is an inherent design fault with with regard to ventilation. Though mould can either be a physical fault, or poor living habits by the occupier. Something like a frequently used shower in a room with no windows, will always struggle with mould.

I'm sure it isn't an easy thing to fix. Especially in a house that was poor designed and/or built. Whilst it might be an unfair burden. One of the advantages of this is that it safeguards property and helps ensure it stays in a habitable state.

With regards to financing the repairs. Maybe the corporation should extend interest free finance to LLs.

Bushmanpm

davo10 wrote:

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

davo10 wrote:

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

...and in a bittersweet twist of irony, what's stopping the LL now selling those three properties to pay the fines thus rendering the tenants homeless?
Careful what you wish for.

NinjaTruncs

worded wrote: »

Today's news - see link - HAP declined and compensation awarded to people

Perhaps this has new posted already, I didn't read all the thread

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

That compensation is ridiculous, firstly what loss did the tenants incur to justify such a large compensation, it seems like they are all still living in the properites. There really needs to be a process in place to mediate these kinds of disputes and given that this was the first time the new law has been challenged, seems incredibly harsh on the landlord.

beauf

Bushmanpm wrote: »

...and in a bittersweet twist of irony, what's stopping the LL now selling those three properties to pay the fines thus rendering the tenants homeless?
Careful what you wish for.

You can sell the property but that doesn't end their tenancy the new owner becomes the LL.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

You can sell the property but that doesn't end their tenancy the new owner becomes the LL.

No prospective purchaser can get a mortgage to buy the property unless they are given vacant possession of the property.

the_syco

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

She ordered the landlord to take the required action to enable each of the tenants to participate in the HAP scheme.

I wonder does this include bringing the houses up to HAP standard, and if it does, it sets a VERY dangerous precedent.

fg1406

beauf wrote: »

You can sell the property but that doesn't end their tenancy the new owner becomes the LL.

Why is that so? Myself and husband were evicted from an apartment a few years ago as it was being sold. There's nothing we could do. The LL required vacant possession. Do HAP tenants not have to vacate their property if the LL wants to sell?

Askthe EA

fg1406 wrote: »

Why is that so? Myself and husband were evicted from an apartment a few years ago as it was being sold. There's nothing we could do. The LL required vacant possession. Do HAP tenants not have to vacate their property if the LL wants to sell?

Yes they do, once provided with appropriate notice.

fg1406

Askthe EA wrote: »

Yes they do, once provided with appropriate notice.

I thought as much. Thanks. The LL in this case may have to sell to fund the compensation payment

Askthe EA

fg1406 wrote: »

I thought as much. Thanks. The LL in this case may have to sell to fund the compensation payment

40K is a lot to come up with if hes a one off landlord!

The_Conductor

Askthe EA wrote: »

40K is a lot to come up with if hes a one off landlord!

+1
There appears to be no cognisance of this whatsoever- if the landlord has to sell to fund the compensation- the three of them are out of accommodation anyway- so they're right back at step 1......... Sort of a which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Either way- the landlord is being treated by the LRC- as a business- while they are treated by Revenue as a generator of 'unearned income' (such as share dividends). The government really wants to have its cake and eat it..........

beauf

The_Conductor wrote: »

No prospective purchaser can get a mortgage to buy the property unless they are given vacant possession of the property.

I was more thinking of when a bank takes over ownership. But I assume it also applies even if the purchaser is not a bank, say a cash buyer.

..
As I noted in my original reply, when a buy to let is sold, the rights of the tenants continue. They do not lose any of their rights because of a change of ownership. In circumstances where a receiver is appointed to manage a landlord's interest in a dwelling, it is essential that the rights of tenants are protected. While the circumstances of each case may vary depending on the terms of the mortgage or charge under which a receiver is appointed, the policies and procedures of banks in appointing receivers cannot affect the statutory or contractual rights of tenants. The tenant continues to enjoy the same security of tenure. The appointment of a receiver does not mean that a tenant loses his or her rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Security of tenure under the 2004 Act is based on a rolling four year tenancy cycle. Where a tenant has been in occupation of a dwelling for a continuous period of six months and no notice of termination has been served in respect of that tenancy prior to the expiry of the six months, the tenancy is established for the remainder of the four year period and it becomes a Part 4 tenancy.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015050700007?opendocument

http://www.thejournal.ie/eviction-landlord-difficulty-lease-problems-issues-2111486-May2015/

jamesthepeach

Very important question when getting tenants in future.
Ask their last 3 landlords have they ever taken you to rtb or even threatens to do it.
Add the second to that now too.

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Very important question when getting tenants in future.
Ask their last 3 landlords have they ever taken you to rtb or even threatens to do it.
Add the second to that now too.

Is asking whether a tenant has threatened to bring a landlord to the RTB- discrimination though? Aka- if you turn a prospective tenant down- even without an explanation- and they discover you've checked out their past history- is this discrimination?

By rights- any sane person would just say its a landlord being prudent- however, the way things are after going- is checking out a prospective tenant's history- tantamount to discrimination?

the_syco

fg1406 wrote: »

Why is that so? Myself and husband were evicted from an apartment a few years ago as it was being sold. There's nothing we could do. The LL required vacant possession. Do HAP tenants not have to vacate their property if the LL wants to sell?

Depends on what you have to lose. If you've nothing to lose, then overholding isn't risking anything.

fg1406

the_syco wrote: »

Depends on what you have to lose. If you've nothing to lose, then overholding isn't risking anything.

That's crazy. I've always obliged our LLs over the years ( to my detriment more than once), even when my best friend and housemate was in receipt of rent allowance and we were evicted many years ago. I'm a renter and have been for 20 years and I find this ruling to be madness.

jamesthepeach

The_Conductor wrote: »

Is asking whether a tenant has threatened to bring a landlord to the RTB- discrimination though? Aka- if you turn a prospective tenant down- even without an explanation- and they discover you've checked out their past history- is this discrimination?

By rights- any sane person would just say its a landlord being prudent- however, the way things are after going- is checking out a prospective tenant's history- tantamount to discrimination?

Absolutely every selection criteria is discrimination. As long as you don't say you are selection based on any of the named criteria you are ok. In fact take a leaf out of any companies book these days and give no reasons whatsoever why you either chose or denied an applicant.

Thargor

8. Replacement of some white goods that are working and have not been flatlined to zero as per Revenue guidelines

What does that mean?

1874

Duncanwooly wrote: »

I'm sure it isn't an easy thing to fix. Especially in a house that was poor designed and/or built. Whilst it might be an unfair burden. One of the advantages of this is that it safeguards property and helps ensure it stays in a habitable state.

With regards to financing the repairs. Maybe the corporation should extend interest free finance to LLs.

Thats one hell of a big maybe for something that doesnt exist!

the_syco wrote: »

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

I wonder does this include bringing the houses up to HAP standard, and if it does, it sets a VERY dangerous precedent.

What if there simply isnt the finances to bring a unit up to the mighty HAP codes?? or what if there is a fall in rental being offered?

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Very important question when getting tenants in future.
Ask their last 3 landlords have they ever taken you to rtb or even threatens to do it.
Add the second to that now too.

References arent worth a jot, sure you could be ringing anyone, a mate, a relative, and you could be getting recorded, Id word your enquiries very carefully.

mrslancaster

1874 wrote: »

What if there simply isnt the finances to bring a unit up to the mighty HAP codes?? or what if there is a fall in rental being offered?.

+1 and another question

The HAP leaflet says the LA stop paying the LL if the tenant does not pay their contribution or because the property does not meet the HAP standards.

If the tenancy agreement is between the LL and the tenant, does that mean the tenant is responsible for the full amount and if it's not paid then they are in arrears?

Would LL issue standard arrears letter etc in that case.

The_Conductor

Thargor wrote: »

What does that mean?

White goods are flatlined @ 12.5% per annum by Revenue- i.e. you can't deduct them as a cost when the cost is incurred. Yet- if a HAP inspection decides that the fridge or the washer isn't A rated- despite it only being 3-4 years old- it can fail, and there is an onus on the landlord to replace it with a new unit, with the more modern rating- and to dump the old one, despite it not having been flatlined by Revenue (who insist all white goods are flatlined over 8 years).

I.e. local authorities are using it as a mechanism to replace the white goods in a HAP property- regardless of whether or not the landlord has had an opportunity to write them off or not- and wholly aside from Revenue rules on flat-lining them.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Headline on RTE News this morning.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0822/899045-daft_rents/

jamesthepeach

1874 wrote: »

Thats one hell of a big maybe for something that doesnt exist!

What if there simply isnt the finances to bring a unit up to the mighty HAP codes?? or what if there is a fall in rental being offered?

References arent worth a jot, sure you could be ringing anyone, a mate, a relative, and you could be getting recorded, Id word your enquiries very carefully.

When you do enough you get feel for them and tend to reject any you even mildy suspect aren't provinding a real reference. Thats also a reason why you need last 3 landlords . Ignore the current one totally anyway.

Simple questions like.

Would you ever rent to them again?
Did they ever threaten to withhold the rent or take you to the rtb.
Did they ask to use the deposit as the last months rent.
Did they ever miss a rent payment.
Did you have to keep any of their deposit.if so how didn't they react.
What we're their refs like from previous landlords before they came to you.
And loads more simple questions to get started.

Those questions are all conversation starters about the subjects. And you can carry on from there.

I had a call only a few weeks ago about a tenant I had some trouble with. Looks like they split up and need to rent seperarley so are moving again. I answered every question honestly and told how when they were asked to leave they turned from the nicest people to the tenants from hell. I told him honestly about all the rtb threats and non cooperation etc and that if either of them ever called again to rent a place off me i would shut the door in their faces.

When I got called about them when they were finally leaving my place I have gave them glowing references. It was a bit mean but I had to be rid of them. That's why you never trust a ref from a current landlord, but ring him anyway. You might find out something else from him.

I also got a call about 2 months ago about a lovely tenant i had a couple of years ago and said that he would do well to take him on because he was a tenant from heaven and I'd rent to him in a heartbeat if I ever was renting again.

It's hard vetting potential tenants but you get a system in place and you get hopefully good enough at it to.protect yourself, but as you say, it's never 100%. Risk is always there.

jamesthepeach

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Headline on RTE News this morning.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0822/899045-daft_rents/

Not surprised. All they have done is forced the supply out of the market.

Next they'll ty to name Airbnb. Or pass a law to stop a landlord even selling his property. They won't stop until they take every last bit of control a property owner has. What will be the unintended consequences of that then?

They should just fcuk off and let the market settle and remove all this rent control and other rubbish they've tagged on to a simple rental agreement between too parties.

Every time the govt interference it all.goes.up in the air and the pieces just call all over the place, never having their desired effect but making the market worse than it was before . And the. They do it again, and again and never learn.

Renting property is too risky as an investment in Ireland. Landlords are leaving in huge numbers.
Government totally anti landlord and interfering in the market at every opportunity.

And dont let Coveny off the hook on this one. This one is his brainchild and then he just fcks off and leaves the whole thing in a mess like people will forget he did it.

Duncanwooly

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Not surprised. All they have done is forced the supply out of the market.

They should just fcuk off and let the market settle and remove all this rent control and other rubbish they've tagged on to a simple rental agreement between too parties.

Every time the govt interference it all.goes.up in the air and the pieces just call all over the place, never having their desired effect but making the market worse than it was before . And the. They do it again, and again and never learn.

Self regulation of the market doesn't work. There are properties in Dublin that are now renting at more than twice what they were 3 years ago. This thread has seen landlord crying about having to change fire alarms and ventilation. Can you imagine what houses would look like on the rental market without minimum standards?