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

Current landlord refusing HAP

Enbee92

Hi all,

I've been living at this address for 7 years, on rent supplement for 5. I've been asked by the council to apply for HAP (as they are phasing out RS). I filled in my part of the application, sent the landlord his part to fill in, and last night received a text in reply saying:

"If you wish to take on another fixed term lease we would expect the same payment terms and conditions as per the previous lease. Can you please let me know as soon as possible if you wish to proceed"

Which I have interpreted as no hap or pack your bags. I've done my research, and as far as I can tell, he cannot refuse HAP. I have contacted the council, Threshold and the PRTB and am awaiting response, but after an entirely sleepless night worrying about the possibility of having to house hunt in this current climate, I would appreciate hugely if anyone could give me some peace of mind.

TIA

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

Your replacement tenant was on Rent allowance too?????.

Yes tenants in that house have always been on Rent allowance. Generally single mums, currently retired travellers. A lovely family , no hassle in 7 years so far.

FishOnABike

karenalot wrote: »

Paying full rents directly to tenants was proven to be a disaster. Too much temptation to not pass on to the landlord.

ted1 wrote: »

Agreed, I had a tenant move out and several months later had a call from the council asking how it was that they were paying for two different tenants.
Turns out the tenant who moved out, moved back to her parents , never told the council and was pocketing the money.

Rent supplement did not pay the full rent, the recipient had to pay a means assessed amount of their rent, with a minimum contribution of €30.

As a tenant has an interest in keeping a roof over their head I can't see the logic in saying there's too much temptation not to pass it on to the landlord.

We don't insist groceries are paid for directly by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection in case a person walks out of a shop without paying for them.

Neither do we insist that an employer pays rent or mortgage payments directly to a landlord or bank in case their employee decides to spend their money on something else.

Why should rent support be treated any different?

As it stands HAP appears to be she worst of both worlds. It introduces a third party to the landlord tenant relationship but the rental agreement remains solely between the landlord and tenant. In doing so it introduces a layer of inflexible bureaucracy that seems to suit neither.

As a tenant no longer directly pays their landlord there may be a time lag before the tenant becomes aware of any problem with payment. The first indication might be a fourteen day notice to pay rent due. If the problem cannot be resolved within that fourteen days it can be followed immediately by a twenty eight day notice of termination.

Burocracies seldom move fast. As the tenant has more at stake they have a greater incentive to resolve matters than done anonymous bureaucrat in an office or call centre somewhere.

HAP might be more attractive (or less unattractive) to landlords if rent payment was guaranteed by the council. If a tenant is so irresponsible as to not pay their contribution then this should be managed between the council and tenant either by agreement or by order garnishing their wages or social welfare payment not by failing to pay the landlord multiples of this amount.

YFlyer

Having a tenant on HAP in a shared accommodation is a disaster. Especially during Autumn and Winter when they have the heating on for the day.

FishOnABike

Just check where you are in your part four tenancy cycle. You don't need to renew a lease in a part four tenancy but notice of termination can be given without any other reason other than coming to the end of your part four tenancy term.

How many years are in your current part four tenancy and where you are in that cycle might depend on when your tenancy commenced, how long you are there and when you last renewed or signed a lease.

If your rent hasn't been increased by the maximum allowed under the residential tenancy act / rent pressure zone legislation each year, your landlord might apply the maximum increase allowed at the next rent review. It might be worth getting advice on the specifics of your situation about this.

[Deleted User]

Enbee92 wrote: »

Just an update:

LL has since officially refused to renew lease if I pursue HAP, I have this in writing. However, when I asked for his reasons he went quiet and have heard nothing since. My feeling is that he has sought advice and been told by that person that he's not allowed to refuse HAP and is thinking of a way to back pedal. I've been advised by the council, the prtb and the WRC to notify him of my intent to make a formal complaint to the WRC. He then has a month to respond before I make the complaint and if he doesn't respond or the response is unsatisfactory then I am to make the complaint and take things from there.

My landlord lives a very comfortable life we'll say. Lives in one of the biggest houses in one of the nicest areas of South Dublin. I'm not exaggerating when I say he has a cinema in his house. He has multiple properties that he lets, all of which the mortgage has been paid off on as he has bragged about in the past, so I have a feeling he is just slightly out of touch with social welfare and its rules. Hopefully once he knows he'll change his tune and this can all be dealt with without too much conflict.

Thanks everyone for your help

The letter actually states that he is refusing HAP, as opposed to your interpretation that he does not want to accept it?

As previous poster said, if you are coming to the end of your part 4 cycle, the LL can end your tenancy at the end of the cycle. You are expected to stay in your HAP accommodation for 2 years, is he refusing it based on the fact that he is entitled to end your tenancy sooner than that?

lawrencesummers

There is a downside to HAP for landlords, but there is also a major upside.

It’s possible that you can avoid all the legal issues and complaints and get him onside by explaining the advantages to him.

HAP is guaranteed to be paid, the landlord doesn’t have to worry about the tenant missing work because they are sick or losing their job. It offers a lot of security for the landlord as the state is footing the bill.

If you are approved then they will pay it. It may take a few weeks but they will backdate the payments from when the application goes in, so if you can cover the first month and agree that once he gets back paid he can refund you what you paid it will work out and he won’t be short.

You could also agree to an increase in the rent, if your not at the limit then you can agree to increase the rent to the limit and what landlord doesn’t love more rent.

The downside, which you might need to not mention is that a council engineer can call around and audit the house to ensure it is up to scratch, so the landlord might have to spend some money to ensure boilers are serviced, electrics are certified, windows upstairs have safety latches, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, but all theses costs are tax detectable anyway.

HAP is good for landlords once they are legitimate in declaring their taxable income and registered with PRTB, if hey are not then they will avoid it like the plague.

[Deleted User]

lawrencesummers wrote: »

HAP is guaranteed to be paid, the landlord doesn’t have to worry about the tenant missing work because they are sick or losing their job. It offers a lot of security for the landlord as the state is footing the bill.

If you are approved then they will pay it. It may take a few weeks but they will backdate the payments from when the application goes in, so if you can cover the first month and agree that once he gets back paid he can refund you what you paid it will work out and he won’t be short.
.

I don’t think this is entirely correct.

Payment from the Council is not guaranteed, if the tenant stops paying their portion to the LA, the Council very quickly cease paying the Landlord.

Also, someone more informed might confirm this, I think HAP payments are backdated to application date only in certain situations , payment typically begins from the date of approval.

It appears there is more to this story, OP has other issues with the LL, a new thread has been opened.

[Deleted User]

Enbee92 wrote: »

Yes, I now have in writing that he is refusing to accept HAP and that if I want to stay in the property then I can't apply for it. I have a year left of the part 4 tenancy..

Your LL could be in the running for idiot LL of the year for putting that in writing, unless there is a reason for refusing it as a result of being unable to commit to 2 year agreement, like his intention to end your tenancy next year at end of cycle, as is his right.

[Deleted User]

<SNIP>

ted1

<SNIP>

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

I don’t think this is entirely correct.

Payment from the Council is not guaranteed, if the tenant stops paying their portion to the LA, the Council very quickly cease paying the Landlord.

Also, someone more informed might confirm this, I think HAP payments are backdated to application date only in certain situations , payment typically begins from the date of approval.

It appears there is more to this story, OP has other issues with the LL, a new thread has been opened.

Sure if the tenant stops paying it can cause problems, but with Hap they pay less and it’s based on their income, so if their income drops what they pay drops. You have a far far higher chance of getting the rent paid with hap tenant experiencing income trouble than without.

lawrencesummers

Enbee92 wrote: »

I've explained all of this to him and he won't budge. I'm not sure what his issue is as when I asked him for his reasons (so I could try to ease his concerns) he wouldn't give me any. I'm guessing that he thinks if I leave he can get more money off someone else, which is probably true as we're in a rent controlled area so he can't increase the rent more than 4% every two years, so if he were to start a new agreement with another tenant he could ask for more from the onset. However, I share this house with a montessori, it's far from an ideal situation as there is no privacy and the downstairs is a shared space, so we share the kitchen and garden. We're used to it now, but they would struggle to find someone else who is willing to share their house with 25 children during the week. But I guess in the rental crisis at the minute people will take anything.

Did you offer to increase the rent? It won’t cost you anything, or very very little

Graham

MOD WARNING

Anyone attempting to identify the OP and/or the location of the property will be met with a swift forum ban.

OP, if there are aspects of your housing which you would like to keep private or which you think may identify you or the property. STOP POSTING THEM

machalla

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The downside, which you might need to not mention is that a council engineer can call around and audit the house to ensure it is up to scratch, so the landlord might have to spend some money to ensure boilers are serviced, electrics are certified, windows upstairs have safety latches, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, but all theses costs are tax detectable anyway.

HAP is good for landlords once they are legitimate in declaring their taxable income and registered with PRTB, if hey are not then they will avoid it like the plague.

I don't think any of that is tax deductible if it's a first letting. Pre letting expenses like these are not allowable. Estate agent fees and solicitors would be I think.

The_Conductor

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You have a far far higher chance of getting the rent paid with hap tenant experiencing income trouble than without.

In theory.
In practice- the tenant reduces, or stops the payment to the local authority- and the landlord suddenly, without any notice, has the entirety of the rent stopped- and no-one in the local authority will talk to him/her on GDPR grounds.
While you may imagine its rare- unfortunately, the stats at the RTB speak otherwise.

lawrencesummers

machalla wrote: »

I don't think any of that is tax deductible if it's a first letting. Pre letting expenses like these are not allowable. Estate agent fees and solicitors would be I think.

You think or you know?

lawrencesummers

The_Conductor wrote: »

In theory.
In practice- the tenant reduces, or stops the payment to the local authority- and the landlord suddenly, without any notice, has the entirety of the rent stopped- and no-one in the local authority will talk to him/her on GDPR grounds.
While you may imagine its rare- unfortunately, the stats at the RTB speak otherwise.

And if the tenant was paying the full rent themselves the same would happen. That’s just part of the risk of being a landlord

machalla

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You think or you know?

Dependent on whether it's a first letting or not it will or if it's a vacant letting under the definition.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/rental-income/irish-rental-income/what-expenses-are-not-allowed.aspx

Please point out where the above is wrong and add to the discussion.

[Deleted User]

lawrencesummers wrote: »

And if the tenant was paying the full rent themselves the same would happen. That’s just part of the risk of being a landlord

But you’d know about it a month earlier as the tenant would have been paying in advance. If the tenant didn’t pay on 1st of month, a letter could go out around 15th giving 14 days to pay. This would bring them near time of when next months rent is due. If they don’t pay, you can issue notice to quit and probably looking at 2 months rent owing.

Now, if the last Wednesday of the month when HAP pays is the 30th of that month, you’re looking at 3 months rent owing based on when you can issue notices. Landlord is losing out more.

lawrencesummers

machalla wrote: »

Dependent on whether it's a first letting or not it will or if it's a vacant letting under the definition.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/rental-income/irish-rental-income/what-expenses-are-not-allowed.aspx

Please point out where the above is wrong and add to the discussion.

What the OP is taking about isn’t a first letting. Those expenses are deductible.

lawrencesummers

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

But you’d know about it a month earlier as the tenant would have been paying in advance. If the tenant didn’t pay on 1st of month, a letter could go out around 15th giving 14 days to pay. This would bring them near time of when next months rent is due. If they don’t pay, you can issue notice to quit and probably looking at 2 months rent owing.

Now, if the last Wednesday of the month when HAP pays is the 30th of that month, you’re looking at 3 months rent owing based on when you can issue notices. Landlord is losing out more.

Has this happened you or are you speculating?

[Deleted User]

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Has this happened you or are you speculating?

It’s basic maths. You said it’s part of the risk of being a landlord so a landlord would want to reduce that risk as much as possible. HAP will cost the landlord another months rent should the tenant stop paying.

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

And if the tenant was paying the full rent themselves the same would happen. That’s just part of the risk of being a landlord

So your one major advantage of hap, less risk of not getting paid actually isn't true.

So it's really about anticipating risk. At best there's no difference according to you.

The govt could work out the risk of they wanted since they have all the figures. Instead they outsourced it to the private sector. Then it was so unpopular that they have to force the private sector to take it on.

The_Conductor

lawrencesummers wrote: »

What the OP is taking about isn’t a first letting. Those expenses are deductible.

Post letting expenses, other than under strict repairs or replacing of furniture, fixtures and fittings on a like for like basis- are not allowable expenses.
Claim them to your hearts content- if you get audited, you'll get a nice fat penalty for your troubles.

You cannot upgrade a property in any manner- other than general repairs- and claim it back as an expense- its simply not allowable (unless its under a specific tax scheme- such as Section 18 or 22- but I think they're all wound up at this stage).

Its spelt out here:

beauf

You'd think the govt could set this up to be less unpopular.. If they wanted. That they haven't suggests they don't want to..

lawrencesummers

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

It’s basic maths. You said it’s part of the risk of being a landlord so a landlord would want to reduce that risk as much as possible. HAP will cost the landlord another months rent should the tenant stop paying.

So your speculating. My first hand experience of reviving HAP and having issues with tenants and payments is that the HAP office have rang me about any issue that would mean payments would stop, and I have had plenty of time to sort them out. This has happened on a few occasions.

lawrencesummers

The_Conductor wrote: »

Post letting expenses, other than under strict repairs or replacing of furniture, fixtures and fittings on a like for like basis- are not allowable expenses.
Claim them to your hearts content- if you get audited, you'll get a nice fat penalty for your troubles.

You cannot upgrade a property in any manner- other than general repairs- and claim it back as an expense- its simply not allowable (unless its under a specific tax scheme- such as Section 18 or 22- but I think they're all wound up at this stage).

Its spelt out here:

So of all the expenses I listed which are not deductible?

lawrencesummers

beauf wrote: »

So your one major advantage of hap, less risk of not getting paid actually isn't true.

So it's really about anticipating risk. At best there's no difference according to you.

The govt could work out the risk of they wanted since they have all the figures. Instead they outsourced it to the private sector. Then it was so unpopular that they have to force the private sector to take it on.

Which advantage are you on about?

[Deleted User]

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So your speculating. My first hand experience of reviving HAP and having issues with tenants and payments is that the HAP office have rang me about any issue that would mean payments would stop, and I have had plenty of time to sort them out. This has happened on a few occasions.

Ok. So can you issue a 14 day notice to the tenant based on the phone call from HAP office advising you that you won’t be paid on the last Wednesday of the month?

10pennymixup

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There is a downside to HAP for landlords, but there is also a major upside.

It’s possible that you can avoid all the legal issues and complaints and get him onside by explaining the advantages to him.

HAP is guaranteed to be paid, the landlord doesn’t have to worry about the tenant missing work because they are sick or losing their job. It offers a lot of security for the landlord as the state is footing the bill.

If you are approved then they will pay it. It may take a few weeks but they will backdate the payments from when the application goes in, so if you can cover the first month and agree that once he gets back paid he can refund you what you paid it will work out and he won’t be short.

You could also agree to an increase in the rent, if your not at the limit then you can agree to increase the rent to the limit and what landlord doesn’t love more rent.

The downside, which you might need to not mention is that a council engineer can call around and audit the house to ensure it is up to scratch, so the landlord might have to spend some money to ensure boilers are serviced, electrics are certified, windows upstairs have safety latches, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, but all theses costs are tax detectable anyway.

HAP is good for landlords once they are legitimate in declaring their taxable income and registered with PRTB, if hey are not then they will avoid it like the plague.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Which advantage are you on about?

I'm guessing they meant that advantage you claimed in your first post.

In that post you've claimed rent is guaranteed to be paid under HAP.....since shown to you as false.

Also that capital expenses can be treated the same as rental expenses, not my forte but others have shown you to be wrong.

Legitimate LL's are right to have a concern about HAP inspections. The standards for HAP inspections are on a par with current building regulations and not with the building regulations governing the property when it was first built and they also exceed the minimum standards for rental accommodation.