Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Landlord Fined for Refusing HAP
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Since you like quoting, I shall quote directly from the case to show how devious and scandalous the tenants in the case were and how well they played the system (since the system is built for players):Cuddlesworth wrote: »but the case I posted shows the deviousness of the current legislation and how it can be abused by "smart" tenants playing the system
In the summary of the landlords argument, he made it clear that he had every intention of discriminating against welfare tenants at the very beginning.
In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.
What would you like the arbitrator to do? Say sure its grand you dicked your tenants around for 7 months cause you "didn't fully understand how HAPS worked". Or that its the WRC's problem that it didn't "suit his circumstances"(ie: no income declared)? Or its fine because HAP would have been a "complication" for him.
Your calling a couple devious who followed the correct channels, were granted government aid and paid their rent for 7 months while their landlord messed them around.
Your making up arguments for a landlord who quite frankly should not be in that business and wasn't even capable of making them himself.
"According to the Complainants’ evidence, in June 2017, they contacted the Respondent again by phone. The Complainants stated that they tried to explain to the Respondent how the HAPS arrangement could benefit him as a landlord [this is a known lie coming from politicians and tenants' organizations, since HAPs is definetely not adding any benefit to a landlord, just problems]. However, the Complaint stated that the Respondent again refused to engage unless there was a financial gain for him [probably a rent increase to market rate to cover the upgrade costs]. In further evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent suggested that he would visit the rented property and would discuss with them how much money they have coming in and, then, they could come up with a “new figure” which they could pay him." So the landlord was willing to further reduce rent in order to avoid HAP even though rent was 17% below market already, but the tenants did not want that, because they wanted to pay almost nothing from their money, they wanted the state to pay.
"According to the Complainants, because of their difficult financial situation" caused entirely by their lack of employment in a country with almost no unemployment for graduates, then they continue to say a lot of "he say, they say" with no evidence whatsoever (just the usual tactic used by tenants in a pro-tenant forum like the RTB, they try to throw garbage hearsay to see if it sticks), all this hearsay was denied by the landlord, however the Arbitrator on the "balance of probabilities" totally accepted the hearsay of the tenants in order to add a penalty to the damages.
And this is how they really gamed the dumb landlord and won their case following a strategy suggested by the good old Threshold suggestions (always champions of the poor me tenants): "They further informed the Respondent in this correspondence that, if he did not reply, they would take this to be a continual failure to accept a HAPS payment from them. The Complainants stated that they received no reply to this correspondence. According to the Complainants’ evidence, they received correspondence on 23 October 2017 from MABS, informing them that they had spoken with the Respondent and he confirmed that he would not agree to the HAPS application." u]They got a witness this was the key to the case[/u. The landlord fell into their game beautifully. It shows that the university educated tenants really played well their hands against the obstinate but dumb landlord.
Finally I disagree that the landlord did not understand what HAP entailed, he understood perfectly how negatively it would affect his situation, but was dumb to write it down in reply to the players tenants: "However, in this correspondence, the Respondent stated that he noted house inspections were part of the HAPS arrangements. The letter, which was presented in evidence at the Hearing, went on to state that the Respondent presumed the house in question would fail such an inspection.
In addition, the letter stated that, in the event that the Complainants wished to remain in the house and that he (the Respondent) could obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate, they (the Complainants) would have to look after whatever work would be required in the house following on from any HAPS inspection. The Complainants stated that they considered it unfair, unreasonable and unlawful to require them to look after the repairs that may be needed." They were right to say the upgrade costs and repairs were not their responsibility and the landlord was very dumb to state it in written form, but the landlord would be right to refuse performing any upgrade because of the HAP inspection or would be right to request a rent increase to market in order to recoup the costs of the upgrade, while this was instead negatively described in the hearsay reported by the tenants. So the tenants knew that they were paying below market, but they wanted an upgraded property without paying for the upgrade with higher rent! The Complainants stated that the Respondent informed them he was going to raise the rent substantially at the end of the 12-month lease. The Complainants stated that they requested this in writing from the Respondent but they never received it. Again hearsay and even if it was true of course they never received it, a rent increase notice cannot be sent out during a fixed term, again trying to play out the victims.
Finally the victim/superiority complex beauty at the very end of the report: "The Complainants described themselves as educated individuals with degree and postgraduate qualifications. However, they now find themselves temporarily out of work and with four young children to support, are finding it very difficult to manage." 8 months out of work is not temporarily out of work! Both of them out of work! Both of them with degrees and postgraduate qualifications in a country with almost no unemployment! Even worse with four children to support, I would go out and get any type of job offered instead of playing games for state handouts! For me these two are the definition of smart top gamers of the system! If I had time I would fish other top gamers from RTB tribunal and High Court appeals to show to the readers this forum how a top gamer plays. It would be very instructive: they all play the victim card. I like to show to the readers in this forum how a law drafted very cunnilly from the legal advisors of the irish govvie is playing into real cases for gamers who really do not deserve it, so that it is not just a question of ideas, but of facts. I shall stop on this thread since I believe my objective of showing landlords reading in this forum how the law can been used by players has been achieved.
I can also see the usual socialist poster coming out today on how tenancy law should work in Ireland according to his socialist view (which had really great results so far
) and I am not talking about the poster I am quoting. Thank God in Ireland a person can still express his own opinions on matters of public interest, unlike in the socialist/communist "paradises". 0 -
-
Since you like quoting, I shall quote directly from the case to show how devious and scandalous the tenants in the case were and how well they played the system (since the system is built for players):Cuddlesworth wrote: »but the case I posted shows the deviousness of the current legislation and how it can be abused by "smart" tenants playing the system
In the summary of the landlords argument, he made it clear that he had every intention of discriminating against welfare tenants at the very beginning.
In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.
What would you like the arbitrator to do? Say sure its grand you dicked your tenants around for 7 months cause you "didn't fully understand how HAPS worked". Or that its the WRC's problem that it didn't "suit his circumstances"(ie: no income declared)? Or its fine because HAP would have been a "complication" for him.
Your calling a couple devious who followed the correct channels, were granted government aid and paid their rent for 7 months while their landlord messed them around.
Your making up arguments for a landlord who quite frankly should not be in that business and wasn't even capable of making them himself.
"According to the Complainants’ evidence, in June 2017, they contacted the Respondent again by phone. The Complainants stated that they tried to explain to the Respondent how the HAPS arrangement could benefit him as a landlord [this is a known lie coming from politicians and tenants' organizations, since HAPs is definetely not adding any benefit to a landlord, just problems]. However, the Complaint stated that the Respondent again refused to engage unless there was a financial gain for him [probably a rent increase to market rate to cover the upgrade costs]. In further evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent suggested that he would visit the rented property and would discuss with them how much money they have coming in and, then, they could come up with a “new figure” which they could pay him." So the landlord was willing to further reduce rent in order to avoid HAP even though rent was 17% below market already, but the tenants did not want that, because they wanted to pay almost nothing from their money, they wanted the state to pay.
"According to the Complainants, because of their difficult financial situation" caused entirely by their lack of employment in a country with almost no unemployment for graduates, then they continue to say a lot of "he say, they say" with no evidence whatsoever (just the usual tactic used by tenants in a pro-tenant forum like the RTB, they try to throw garbage hearsay to see if it sticks), all this hearsay was denied by the landlord, however the Arbitrator on the "balance of probabilities" totally accepted the hearsay of the tenants in order to add a penalty to the damages.
And this is how they really gamed the dumb landlord and won their case following a strategy suggested by the good old Threshold suggestions (always champions of the poor me tenants): "They further informed the Respondent in this correspondence that, if he did not reply, they would take this to be a continual failure to accept a HAPS payment from them. The Complainants stated that they received no reply to this correspondence. According to the Complainants’ evidence, they received correspondence on 23 October 2017 from MABS, informing them that they had spoken with the Respondent and he confirmed that he would not agree to the HAPS application." u]They got a witness this was the key to the case[/u. The landlord fell into their game beautifully. It shows that the university educated tenants really played well their hands against the obstinate but dumb landlord.
Finally I disagree that the landlord did not understand what HAP entailed, he understood perfectly how negatively it would affect his situation, but was dumb to write it down in reply to the players tenants: "However, in this correspondence, the Respondent stated that he noted house inspections were part of the HAPS arrangements. The letter, which was presented in evidence at the Hearing, went on to state that the Respondent presumed the house in question would fail such an inspection.
In addition, the letter stated that, in the event that the Complainants wished to remain in the house and that he (the Respondent) could obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate, they (the Complainants) would have to look after whatever work would be required in the house following on from any HAPS inspection. The Complainants stated that they considered it unfair, unreasonable and unlawful to require them to look after the repairs that may be needed." They were right to say the upgrade costs and repairs were not their responsibility and the landlord was very dumb to state it in written form, but the landlord would be right to refuse performing any upgrade because of the HAP inspection or would be right to request a rent increase to market in order to recoup the costs of the upgrade, while this was instead negatively described in the hearsay reported by the tenants. So the tenants knew that they were paying below market, but they wanted an upgraded property without paying for the upgrade with higher rent! The Complainants stated that the Respondent informed them he was going to raise the rent substantially at the end of the 12-month lease. The Complainants stated that they requested this in writing from the Respondent but they never received it. Again hearsay and even if it was true of course they never received it, a rent increase notice cannot be sent out during a fixed term, again trying to play out the victims.
Finally the victim/superiority complex beauty at the very end of the report: "The Complainants described themselves as educated individuals with degree and postgraduate qualifications. However, they now find themselves temporarily out of work and with four young children to support, are finding it very difficult to manage." 8 months out of work is not temporarily out of work! Both of them out of work! Both of them with degrees and postgraduate qualifications in a country with almost no unemployment! Even worse with four children to support, I would go out and get any type of job offered instead of playing games for state handouts! For me these two are the definition of smart top gamers of the system! If I had time I would fish other top gamers from RTB tribunal and High Court appeals to show to the readers this forum how a top gamer plays. It would be very instructive: they all play the victim card. I like to show to the readers in this forum how a law drafted very cunnilly from the legal advisors of the irish govvie is playing into real cases for gamers who really do not deserve it, so that it is not just a question of ideas, but of facts. I shall stop on this thread since I believe my objective of showing landlords reading in this forum how the law can been used by players has been achieved.
I can also see the usual socialist poster coming out today on how tenancy law should work in Ireland according to his socialist view (which had really great results so far) and I am not talking about the poster I am quoting. Thank God in Ireland a person can still express his own opinions on matters of public interest, unlike in the socialist/communist "paradises".
Oh get off your soapbox, I'm not a socialist just saying your uneducated dodgy legal advice on how to break the law won't work.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement