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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Abnormally low rent

  • 09-10-2018 8:06am
    #1
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭


    I think there was a provision in legislation in September 2017 for landlords charging abnormally low rents to seek an increase greater than 4%. Does anybody know any more about this? Thanks for any advice


Comments

  • #2
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,153 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    No. You are the only person who seems to have heard of it.


  • #3
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    I think there was a provision in legislation in September 2017 for landlords charging abnormally low rents to seek an increase greater than 4%. Does anybody know any more about this? Thanks for any advice
    You can in many cases increase more than 4% depending on the last increase. There is a formula online for this. I like to tell people because the RTB screwed over a friend of mine by telling them they could only increase the rent by 4% when they hadn't increased rent for about ten years.


  • #4
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,153 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    robp wrote: »
    You can in many cases increase more than 4% depending on the last increase. There is a formula online for this. I like to tell people because the RTB screwed over a friend of mine by telling them they could only increase the rent by 4% when they hadn't increased rent for about ten years.
    That has nothing to do with the rent being abnormally low in the first place!


  • #5
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    Surely when a landlord is accepting the very modest HAP payment the rent should not be less than that decided on by HAP for the area. People might prefer to sell the property.


  • #6
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭Fian


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    Surely when a landlord is accepting the very modest HAP payment the rent should not be less than that decided on by HAP for the area. People might prefer to sell the property.

    nope.

    And if they sell the property the new owner remains bound by the rent cap - which obviously reduces the market price/demand for the property.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    So the best solution is to serve notice according to the length of occupation, to move into your property and to let your present house at a viable rent. Seems so unnecessary, and unfair to nice tenants, but with the expenses of letting out a house being so onerous what else can you do. Ridiculous situation.


  • #8
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    The other option would be to do some significant work to the property that justified raising the rent. The criteria for what is allowed is a bit loose but potentially an attic conversion or extension would do the job. Depending on how abnormal the rent is it could well be worth doing.


  • #9
    unreg999
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭unreg999


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    Surely when a landlord is accepting the very modest HAP payment the rent should not be less than that decided on by HAP for the area. People might prefer to sell the property.

    What do you mean by that? Yes there is a cap for HAP payouts from the cc but the tenant has to cover the difference themselves ie top up...

    The cap is criminally low in most cases and the rent charged in line with the local value

    I am on Disability Allowance and my top up is almost half of my weekly allowance (on top of my weekly contribution). In Westmeath the cap for a single parent with one child is only €600 and most rents are around €1000 or more

    There is a massive shortage of rented accommodation available so the alternative for me & my daughter is homelessness


  • #10
    unreg999
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭unreg999


    unreg999 wrote: »
    What do you mean by that? Yes there is a cap for HAP payouts from the cc but the tenant has to cover the difference themselves ie top up...

    The cap is criminally low in most cases and the rent charged in line with the local value

    I am on Disability Allowance and my top up is almost half of my weekly allowance (on top of my weekly contribution). In Westmeath the cap for a single parent with one child is only €600 and most rents are around €1000 or more

    There is a massive shortage of rented accommodation available so the alternative for me & my daughter is homelessness

    To clarify- the top up goes directly to the landlord not to the cc


  • #11
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    If a landlord were being greedy or unreasonable you would have no sympathy, but when a person is willing to accept the basic HAP payment they should receive that. You regularly hear of people being served with the PRTB notice of termination on one of the legal grounds and you wonder at the morality of the decision. Many of these cases are probably not the result of greed but reflect the frustration of owners struggling with the unfavourable regulations and conditions.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    GingerLily
    Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭GingerLily


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    If a landlord were being greedy or unreasonable you would have no sympathy, but when a person is willing to accept the basic HAP payment they should receive that. You regularly hear of people being served with the PRTB notice of termination on one of the legal grounds and you wonder at the morality of the decision. Many of these cases are probably not the result of greed but reflect the frustration of owners struggling with the unfavourable regulations and conditions.

    All landlords should recieve the maximum HAP payment? That hardly makes sense? It's an upper bound not a minimum payment?


  • #13
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    The HAP payments as listed on their website are several hundred euros less per month than the market rent(admittedly the latter is ridiculously over-inflated) of properties in most locations at present. So the landlord is getting less than if she/he were not on HAP. If the government were serious about keeping private landlords on board they would ensure that the gap did not become too wide.


  • #14
    GingerLily
    Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭GingerLily


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    The HAP payments as listed on their website are several hundred euros less per month than the market rent(admittedly the latter is ridiculously over-inflated) of properties in most locations at present. So the landlord is getting less than if she/he were not on HAP. If the government were serious about keeping private landlords on board they would ensure that the gap did not become too wide.

    Of course its less than the market rate, HAP properties should be the most affordable housing, not the average rent in an area?


  • #15
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    That is true, GingerLily, and it is great to be sure of payment as one is when the local authority is in charge. Once the gap is not too wide. Rents are bordering on the immoral at present, totally ridiculous. Having said that, there is a need to recognize that it is not the responsibility of the private citizen to provide housing. Many people have sold out, moved back into their own property, had a family member do so or finally, changed the nature of the property because of the prevalent attitude to landlords and the costs involved in letting a house. 52% of rent goes back to the state in the form of income tax, USC and PRSI. Insurance, property tax, PRTB registration and repairs also need to be factored into the equation. Last but not least there is time, which would cost the state dearly if it were being expended on local authority housing.


  • #16
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    GingerLily wrote: »
    Of course its less than the market rate, HAP properties should be the most affordable housing, not the average rent in an area?


    HAP should be the average for a given area or you end up ghettoising the poor/vulnerable to certain areas and accomodation types.

    This is why HAP is flawed from the absolutel outset. The state should not be using private LL's to house people.


  • #17
    GingerLily
    Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭GingerLily


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    HAP should be the average for a given area or you end up ghettoising the poor/vulnerable to certain areas and accomodation types.

    This is why HAP is flawed from the absolutel outset. The state should not be using private LL's to house people.

    Maybe the average actual rent paid, but if your expecting the average asking rent on Daft I think your expectations are unrealistic


  • #18
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,519 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    So the best solution is to serve notice according to the length of occupation, to move into your property and to let your present house at a viable rent. Seems so unnecessary, and unfair to nice tenants, but with the expenses of letting out a house being so onerous what else can you do. Ridiculous situation.

    The first thing to do is to use the RTB calculator to figure out the maximum allowable increase. Depending on when the rent was last set, it could be a decent sum.


  • #19
    raxy
    Registered Users Posts: 820 ✭✭✭raxy


    If a property has been let for the first time then they can break the 4% rule to bring the rent inline with the current market rate in the area.
    It was talked about on the radio a while back when a state/council owned property raised the rents more than the 4% allowed.


  • #20
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    GingerLily wrote: »
    Maybe the average actual rent paid, but if your expecting the average asking rent on Daft I think your expectations are unrealistic


    I don't expect anything from HAP other than a hot mess, but if the model is to distribute social tenants over a wider area (a good policy socially) then HAP has to keep up. That includes paying HAP to a level that allows (some) people to be housed people in desirable areas.


  • #21
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If the hap is to be kept low and attractive to LL. Its should offer some other value added to the landlord. Lower risk. Many LL would be happy with a modest rent if the risk was reduced.

    But one of the cost savings of out sourcing is that the risk of over holding and repairs is borne by the landlord not the local authority.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    unreg999
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭unreg999


    GingerLily wrote: »
    Of course its less than the market rate, HAP properties should be the most affordable housing, not the average rent in an area?

    That makes no sense as there are certain standards a house has to reach to be able to be used for HAP.
    I've been renting my whole adult life, almost 30 years now and this is my first time on HAP, it's the nicest house I've ever lived in and there was an inspection done with a list of work given to the landlord to bring it up to spec or else it would have been cancelled!
    Therefore, by default you are looking at the better houses in an area for the HAP scheme and certainly not the lower end, forcing people who are already financially vulnerable to 'top up' the miserly rent cap, putting them in a much worse situation just trying to keep a roof over their heads.
    It's a REALLY messed up situation


  • #23
    unreg999
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭unreg999


    beauf wrote: »
    If the hap is to be kept low and attractive to LL. Its should offer some other value added to the landlord. Lower risk. Many LL would be happy with a modest rent if the risk was reduced.

    But one of the cost savings of out sourcing is that the risk of over holding and repairs is borne by the landlord not the local authority.

    There is no incentive to keep the rent low as the tenant is expected to top the rent up out of their social welfare payment.
    I am on Disability Allowance and my weekly top up to the landlord is almost half my weekly payment including the weekly contribution that is made to the county council.
    I know of people in even worse situations than that. If the rent increases then that comes out of the top up too, there is no increase from the cc above the cap!
    It's a very bad system in my opinion, a total poverty trap


  • #24
    Garibaldi?
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    There is a set maximum rent for each area in the country, This is considerably lower than the market rent. The local authority pays this to the landlord every month(on the last Wednesday). The tenant pays a contribution from their own income, not to the landlord, but to the authority.This contribution is based on the tenants's income. If the income is very modest, so also is the contribution. If the tenant fails to pay the contribution, the full payment to the landlord is withheld and the landlord needs to address the matter through the PRTB.


  • #25
    unreg999
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭unreg999


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    There is a set maximum rent for each area in the country, This is considerably lower than the market rent. The local authority pays this to the landlord every month(on the last Wednesday). The tenant pays a contribution from their own income, not to the landlord, but to the authority.This contribution is based on the tenants's income. If the income is very modest, so also is the contribution. If the tenant fails to pay the contribution, the full payment to the landlord is withheld and the landlord needs to address the matter through the PRTB.

    I don't know about the procedure 're. non-payment but the rest is correct.

    The minimum contribution is €26 per week but very few people are paying that as it is means tested so even as a disabled single parent I was paying €36 per week out of my payment of €220 as I was also receiving the extra €29 per week for my child. If I had been receiving maintenance it would have been discounted pound for pound.

    That did not include the extra monthly top-up of €200 (endorsed by the CC as part of the HAP scheme) making my total rent payable €82 out of €220 weekly.
    Though I am very lucky to have a roof over our heads for now, don't get me wrong, this is not a sustainable system in my opinion and nothing more than a poverty trap.


Advertisement