GGTrek wrote: » It is not bizarre at all, it is intentional since the govvie does not want to invest the resources to take on the risk of non-paying tenants and they know that Social Welfare tenants are at higher risk of non payment or damage. Usual Irish govvie hypocrisy.
The_Conductor wrote: » Eh, no. If the tenant stop paying the council-the landlord gets *nothing*- as in, nothing whatsoever. The landlord does not get the local authority's/council's portion of the rent- the landlords payment is stopped in full........ The risk is 100% pushed onto the landlord- there is no risk whatsoever for the council. And the icing on the cake- if the tenant stops paying the council their portion of the rent- the council won't talk to the landlord or tell them why they're not getting paid- the landlord gets told absolutely nothing- on data protection grounds. The only insurance company who were offering landlord rental insurance (as opposed to buildings cover) in Ireland- have pulled out- in light of this little stunt. Also- there are plenty of instances of rent being unilaterally decreased- normally by a set percentage- not relating to a particular property- rather, across the board (as-in, limits for areas decreased by government dictat). It has happened- its fact.
The Student wrote: » I would argue that the LA can't use the data protection act as the contract is a three way contract so the LL is entitled to be provided with details of why a payment is not made by the LA.
The_Conductor wrote: » I would too- however, the local authorities are a law unto themselves (sometimes literally- they'll come up with a by-law to justify their actions- if it can't be supported with primary legislation..........) Sigh........ Its a Friday evening- I think its time to open a bottle of vinho verde!
ZENER wrote: » The_Conductor wrote: » The only insurance company who were offering landlord rental insurance (as opposed to buildings cover) in Ireland- have pulled out- in light of this little stunt. Could be used as a way to refuse HAP applicants ?
The_Conductor wrote: » The only insurance company who were offering landlord rental insurance (as opposed to buildings cover) in Ireland- have pulled out- in light of this little stunt.
the_syco wrote: » If you are paying a mortgage, and want to do HAP, not being able to get insurance which your mortgage requires would probably cause you issues with the bank. Hrm. A rock and a hard place. I wonder are people just "forgetting" to tell their insurance provider that they have a HAP tenant?
Bandana boy wrote: » Can any landlord in receipt of Hap confirm they got their payment yesterday ? Mine did not go through and not sure if it's admin bull**** around holidays or a genuine problem
Spanish Eyes wrote: » That is really outrageous isn't it. If only Eoghan Murphy pulled up his sleeves and brought in a scheme whereby the LAs take a lease from prospective LLs for HAP tenants, then they vet, check, and bring the dwelling up to the standard they require. Then sub let it to the tenant. LA takes responsibility, LL gets paid no matter what. But as you say why would they do that, i.e. take all the risk and the LL takes none. Bizarre. No wonder LLs are leaving in their droves.
dennispenn wrote: » Spanish Eyes wrote: » That is really outrageous isn't it. If only Eoghan Murphy pulled up his sleeves and brought in a scheme whereby the LAs take a lease from prospective LLs for HAP tenants, then they vet, check, and bring the dwelling up to the standard they require. Then sub let it to the tenant. LA takes responsibility, LL gets paid no matter what. But as you say why would they do that, i.e. take all the risk and the LL takes none. Bizarre. No wonder LLs are leaving in their droves. why would a tennant refuse to pay the council their share of the rent? Could it be that an issue has occurred that was ignored to the point that the tennant was so desperate to have the problem resolved that they refused to pay anymore rent? What other reason could there be for not paying the rent? In the case of the LA inspecting properties that are suitable and up to whatever standard that has been set, I'm in a property with zero insulation, I mean nothing. The place is freezing but it has some other good benefits, like location and noise levels are very low.
dennispenn wrote: » why would a tennant refuse to pay the council their share of the rent?
dennispenn wrote: » What other reason could there be for not paying the rent?
dennispenn wrote: » In the case of the LA inspecting properties that are suitable and up to whatever standard that has been set, I'm in a property with zero insulation, I mean nothing. The place is freezing but it has some other good benefits, like location and noise levels are very low.
dennispenn wrote: » Could it be that an issue has occurred that was ignored to the point that the tennant was so desperate to have the problem resolved that they refused to pay anymore rent? What other reason could there be for not paying the rent?
dennispenn wrote: » I AM a HAP Tennant. Please don't tell me about inspections and how thorough they are. They may well be on paper but the person who is signing off on the property on behalf of the LA probably hasn't a notion of what to look for and so on. You're correct in stating I would have taken the property regardless of it's Ber rating because the alternative was sleeping under the Stars.so I had no choice.thats the reality I faced and having a Ber rating ain't worth sh1t to me when the property is freezing. It's literally just an extension with blocks with plaster and paint on the walls.
The_Conductor wrote: » The inspections are thorough- this is why there is such a high failure rate. However, what do people want? If a property fails- it comes off the market- and is classified as not-suitable for the rental market? All this will mean- is landlords sell up- lock in any capital appreciation- and its another unit gone from the rental market.........You- by your own admission- may or may not have gotten a BER cert- however, you'd have rented the property anyway. Its all well and good suggesting every rental property should comply with today's building regulations. However- the various government departments aren't talking to one another over this. The building regs come under the Department of the Environment- and the rule is any given building has to comply with the building regulations that were in force when the building was constructed- not with the building regs that are in place- were the building completed right here, right now. The Minister- by his own admission- is on the record stating that it would be prohibitively expensive to retrofit property to today's standards. Yet- if a landlord does go to the trouble of doing so- they are penalised for doing so by Revenue- as any improvement to a building is seen as a stepping stone to increasing the rent- i.e. they should be self funding......... Yet- you then have another Minister with rent-control.......... So- its a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only sane thing to do- from a business perspective, is to spend as little as possible on any rental unit- comply with the Act- and if requirements change- such as dictating units must comply with current building regs- sell the units- and buy new units that do comply- if you wish to remain in the market. This means- you have landlords actively exiting the sector. They are dumping units onto the sale market- that might not comply with current rental regs (which obviously don't apply to PPRs). They are then in competition with FTBs for new higher spec units......... This is a nutty situation- it is unsustainable- and in no-one's interests, it does a gross disservice to landlords, tenants, prospective buyers, and indeed, the hardpressed taxpayers of the country. All that is ever going to help the situation- is a massive rollout of new units, in good locations where people want to live- built to reasonable specs (I'd argue that the relaxation of building regs allowing much smaller units- should be looked at urgently and reversed- shoeboxes aren't a long term solution either). It doesn't help you- or your landlord. If there was a massive increase in supply- so that it was no longer in constraint- the landlord would presumably have to drop the rent to reflect the BER rating for the building- or take remedial action- however, the current supply constrained market- means he/she does not have to do this- and if you try to force them to- they'll simply flip the unit- and to be brutally honest, they'd be nuts to spend money in the current environment. This is a problem of the government's making- whether they are willing to admit this- or come up with reasonable ways of addressing it- is another issue entirely.
dennispenn wrote: » I took the property because I was homeless, no roof over my head, nowhere to stay. That's what I meant by sleeping under the stars, that was the reality facing me. Fat lot of good having a BER certificate would be to me to me then or even now if I ever wanted to see one. Id hazzard a guess and say if I paid for a ber certificate and the landlord paid for another we would have two different certificates with 2 different readings. Population increase in ireland is expected to average out at 30,000 net immigrants over the next number of years, not including undocumented who overstay their alloted time. Being a landlord aint all that bad with soaring rents in certain parts of the country.
dennispenn wrote: » I AM a HAP Tennant. Please don't tell me about inspections and how thorough they are. They may well be on paper but the person who is signing off on the property on behalf of the LA probably hasn't a notion of what to look for and so on.
the_syco wrote: » Had the HAP inspector done their job correctly, the place would have failed, and you'd be "back under the stars". I wonder do some of the HAP inspectors pass the sh|tholes as they know this?
dennispenn wrote: » id guess they most certainly do. I have a friend who lives in a large town and he is a HAP client. His dwelling is a kip. One window with cloths and material packed around it to reduce a draft from entering the room. But he can't move because of the lack of apartments and one particular landlord, that I know of, won't rent to Irish or other europeans. Brazilians is what she wants, Brazilians without documentation who pay cash. I know this because when a girl I know very well was moving out of her property, she put my name forward as a tenant ready to move in, but she came back to me and told me the landlord didn't want my kind there, only Brazilians.
dennispenn wrote: » I have a friend who lives in a large town and he is a HAP client. His dwelling is a kip. One window with cloths and material packed around it to reduce a draft from entering the room.
murphaph wrote: » I'm a RAS landlord but only for another month. The 5 year in-situ contract was due to expire in June and the council just this week sent their letter announcing a re-inspection before the (assumed by them!) contract is renewed. I was going to inform them that I will not be renewing (sick of dealing with them tbh) and they can find somewhere else for the tenants to live. Thankfully for all concerned my tenants have given notice themselves just today and will leave at the end of January (I've no problem releasing them early). Good riddance to that scheme.
The_Conductor wrote: » Make sure the council are aware that your contract with them is being terminated by common consent- and ensure they don't go and put a fresh tenant into the unit........... It may be in breach of your agreement with them- but it doesn't mean they won't try to pull a fast one!!!
