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

Rental agency only HAP clients offered

2»

Comments

  • #32
    tvjunki
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭tvjunki


    alias no.9 wrote: »
    My recent experience in vetting tennants was that most respondents who said that they were on HAP were also working. It was an eye-opener for me.

    It seems to be a significant step forward over RA where taking up employment would have meant losing RA in many cases. It still doesn't address the root of the problem which is a lack of supply but takes away one of the unfortunate side effects.

    Not when the tenant can pay 700 but chooses to apply for hap so they only pay I think a minimum of 12.5% of their income. I had a tenant on RA and wanted hap as she would only have to pay 325 instead of 700.
    so 325 for a 3bed house.

    Funny thing is many in Ireland are paying more than 50% in rent or mortgage..
    The landlord still pays a minumum of 50% of the rent in tax...

    Say rent was 1200 landlord pays 600 in tax and USC. Then has to pay mortgage insurance repairs maintenance etc so more than likely in the negative cashflow.
    Tenant gives 350 on hap balance paid by the council.

    so 1200-600 tax and usc leaves 600. Tenant pays 350 balance to landlord and the government is 250.

    The figures do not stack up at all.Basically the landlord is subsiding the housing.
    Reits pay little or no tax and they are now the largest holders of properties for rent in Ireland.

    Sorry going off point here.


  • #33
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,772 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    I think it is more accurate to say that when you take tax into account the government is getting tremendous value. The local authority can house a family in Dublin for around 600 euros a month net.

    Hard to justify spending 200k building a house when you can get that sort of price including maintenance and service charges. It is easy to see why the government doesn’t build much housing.


  • #34
    ShaneC93
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭ShaneC93


    AlanG wrote: »
    If your asking rent is particularly high then it is likely that only HAP people will be able to afford it. Most outside of HAP cannot come close to funding the rents many properties are seeking. Homeless HAP in particular will pay rents that no one on the average wage could fund. Plenty of hard working good tenants are on HAP so you should consider them.

    I disagree and say the the more expensive the rent, the less HAP tenants you will attract. HAP is capped to a certain amount per month depending on area, amount in the household etc. whereas in the Dublin rental market right now even properties considerably over the market rate get snapped up sharpish.

    All ranges of earners are facing the lack of available properties, there's plenty of people earning over the average struggling to find a place to that will snap up essentially anything that comes up even if it ends up being more than they wanted to pay.


  • #35
    tvjunki
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭tvjunki


    ShaneC93 wrote: »
    I disagree and say the the more expensive the rent, the less HAP tenants you will attract. HAP is capped to a certain amount per month depending on area, amount in the household etc. whereas in the Dublin rental market right now even properties considerably over the market rate get snapped up sharpish.

    All ranges of earners are facing the lack of available properties, there's plenty of people earning over the average struggling to find a place to that will snap up essentially anything that comes up even if it ends up being more than they wanted to pay.

    There is flexibility.
    If the tenant has a family and is at risk of being homeless the council are allowed increase the hap ceiling or allows the tenant pays over the limit.


  • #36
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    power pants wrote: »
    That’s disgusting that the government are paying 500 to letting agents, absolutely disgusting


    Yes, but its disgusting that landlords won't rent to people on HAP and so desperate measures are needed so that people on HAP are not all homeless.

    I hate the bonus too but I'd hate even more that landlords refuse everyone on HAP and nothing happens.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    power pants wrote: »
    Well if you are NOT working and on hap , yes you are lazy

    Obviously I don’t include pensioners and some people with disabilities. Then again so many wasters claim disability with their impossible to prove mental issues

    Just think it’s wrong that there should be any incentive to be paid to estate agents to house these

    Renting is tough for everyone not just the lazy

    So you know everyone on HAP personally? I see :rolleyes:


  • #38
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Yes, but its disgusting that landlords won't rent to people on HAP and so desperate measures are needed so that people on HAP are not all homeless.

    I hate the bonus too but I'd hate even more that landlords refuse everyone on HAP and nothing happens.

    And it is a total discrimination that gives no quarter to pensioners and disableds... I was refused on those grounds. The naysayers maybe need to respect the decisions of those in charge of granting HAP.


  • #39
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    Most people on HAP are working anyway. They aren't lazy, they are poor. It's not their fault they can't pay out 2k a month to house their families when they don't earn much more than that.


  • #40
    power pants
    Registered Users Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭power pants


    Graces7 wrote: »
    So you know everyone on HAP personally? I see :rolleyes:

    I don't nor wish too.

    I will say no more on the matter as we have polar opposite views of contributing to society via work.


  • #41
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    power pants wrote: »
    I don't nor wish too.

    I will say no more on the matter as we have polar opposite views of contributing to society via work.

    But you don't seem to understand that most people claiming HAP are in work and contributing to society, and many more have done so but are now unable to via illness or age, so your view is an uninformed and therefore invalid one.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    power pants
    Registered Users Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭power pants


    I understand fully. My initial post said people who ARE not working on HAP.

    What about people who are just over the threshold to claim HAP but are now marginalised even further from securing rented accommodation due to this incentive scheme?

    my anger and frustration is directed towards the long term unemployed on HAP and NOT the ones that are working on HAP.


  • #43
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Yes, but its disgusting that landlords won't rent to people on HAP and so desperate measures are needed so that people on HAP are not all homeless.

    I hate the bonus too but I'd hate even more that landlords refuse everyone on HAP and nothing happens.


    There is nothing disgusting about it.


    It is not the job of private landlords to supply nor have anything to do with social housing. Thats the governments job.


  • #44
    Klonker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Klonker


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Most people on HAP are working anyway.

    Got any stats to prove that?


  • #45
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,781 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    tvjunki wrote: »
    Not when the tenant can pay 700 but chooses to apply for hap so they only pay I think a minimum of 12.5% of their income. I had a tenant on RA and wanted hap as she would only have to pay 325 instead of 700.
    so 325 for a 3bed house.

    Funny thing is many in Ireland are paying more than 50% in rent or mortgage..
    The landlord still pays a minumum of 50% of the rent in tax...

    Say rent was 1200 landlord pays 600 in tax and USC. Then has to pay mortgage insurance repairs maintenance etc so more than likely in the negative cashflow.
    Tenant gives 350 on hap balance paid by the council.

    so 1200-600 tax and usc leaves 600. Tenant pays 350 balance to landlord and the government is 250.

    The figures do not stack up at all.Basically the landlord is subsiding the housing.
    Reits pay little or no tax and they are now the largest holders of properties for rent in Ireland.

    Sorry going off point here.

    How would the tenant paying 700 euros instead of 325 allow the situation to be better for you.

    And why is "what someone can pay" never an issue when rent is too high in relation to their income.

    But only when it's perceived she's paying too little


  • #46
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    power pants wrote: »
    I understand fully. My initial post said people who ARE not working on HAP.

    What about people who are just over the threshold to claim HAP but are now marginalised even further from securing rented accommodation due to this incentive scheme?

    my anger and frustration is directed towards the long term unemployed on HAP and NOT the ones that are working on HAP.

    So you are averring that Social Welfare are paying false claimants?


  • #47
    power pants
    Registered Users Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭power pants


    Graces7 wrote: »
    So you are averring that Social Welfare are paying false claimants?


    It’s not that difficult to understand what my point is.

    I do believe we have a large proportion of lazy work shy people. It is a disgrace that there is now a government incentive to house these over people who work and contribute.

    I feel like we are going in circles here.


  • #48
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    power pants wrote: »
    It’s not that difficult to understand what my point is.

    I do believe we have a large proportion of lazy work shy people. It is a disgrace that there is now a government incentive to house these over people who work and contribute.

    I feel like we are going in circles here.

    It is VERY difficult to see your point. Or rather to validate it. Your anger comes across but not the validity or reasonableness or humanity of it.

    Everyone needs a roof over their heads. Whoever and whatever they are. That is the basis of our welfare state. If the applicants fill the requirements they qualify. Not a question of deserving simply of need.

    So you do think Social Welfare pay out wrongly? So why not tackle that aspect? Everyone needs a house, whoever and whatever they are and this provision may help even out the cracks.

    And I am sure that - or hoping that- landlords do not quiz prospective tenants along dubious lines .


  • #49
    power pants
    Registered Users Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭power pants


    Graces7 wrote: »
    It is VERY difficult to see your point. Or rather to validate it. Your anger comes across but not the validity or reasonableness or humanity of it.

    Everyone needs a roof over their heads. Whoever and whatever they are. That is the basis of our welfare state. If the applicants fill the requirements they qualify. Not a question of deserving simply of need.

    So you do think Social Welfare pay out wrongly? So why not tackle that aspect? Everyone needs a house, whoever and whatever they are and this provision may help even out the cracks.

    And I am sure that - or hoping that- landlords do not quiz prospective tenants along dubious lines .


    They have a roof over their heads. Hostels. Don’t like it? Get a job? Stop breeding .

    Keep the HAP scheme going but stop the incentive scheme of favouring them over working people.

    Yes , I’m angry as I hate, actually I despise lazy people who choose not to work

    I’m a single parent, no family here, average wage but I make it work

    I get up at 5:45 and home for 7:30 mon to fri, nothing in life is easy.

    How can I when others won’t and use their circumstances as an excuse not to work

    That’s my point

    I don’t care about the long term unemployed that are not pensioners or genuinely, genuinely unable to work

    The rest can live in hostels and either better themselves and contribute or carry on living in hostels

    I’m ****ed to see why I should be taxed any more . Be thankful of your hostel.


  • #50
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    Graces7, power pants, take it to PM.


  • #51
    stinkbomb
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭stinkbomb


    power pants wrote: »
    They have a roof over their heads. Hostels. Don’t like it? Get a job? Stop breeding .

    Keep the HAP scheme going but stop the incentive scheme of favouring them over working people.

    Yes , I’m angry as I hate, actually I despise lazy people who choose not to work

    I’m a single parent, no family here, average wage but I make it work

    I get up at 5:45 and home for 7:30 mon to fri, nothing in life is easy.

    How can I when others won’t and use their circumstances as an excuse not to work

    That’s my point

    I don’t care about the long term unemployed that are not pensioners or genuinely, genuinely unable to work

    The rest can live in hostels and either better themselves and contribute or carry on living in hostels

    I’m ****ed to see why I should be taxed any more . Be thankful of your hostel.

    Yet AGAIN, most people on HAP are WORKING. You yet again allege they are all lazy non workers. You might be happy with everyone shoved into hostels but what about all the children that come with them? Put them in a cupboard under the stairs?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    i would ignore the letting agency (waste of space imho), and place a advert and show the apartment yourself.

    you'll get a chance to see and meet with prospects. interview them. you'll be able to whittle them down based on your preferred criteria (eg no pets, nonsmokers only etc.) invite interested parties to leave their name & mobiles. ask questions. interview them.

    insist on references and make sure to follow them up. if in any doubt file in the round cabinet.
    be prepared to leave it unlet and go through this process all over again, until you get the tenant you are happy with.

    trust me as someone who has been letting property hassle-free for almost 20 years, it's the best way to do it.


  • #53
    power pants
    Registered Users Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭power pants


    stinkbomb wrote: »
    Yet AGAIN, most people on HAP are WORKING. You yet again allege they are all lazy non workers. You might be happy with everyone shoved into hostels but what about all the children that come with them? Put them in a cupboard under the stairs?


    YET again I have stated several times I’m referring to the long term unemployed

    Not the ones working on hap

    You keep posting that one argument and I keep posting that that’s not the case

    Yes, unfortunately the children live in hostels too or in care.


    I wasn’t going to reply any more on this thread but if other posters are going to quote and ask me a question, I’ll answer.


  • #54
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- if you want to discuss HAP (in general, and within the remit of the charter that governs posting in this forum)- please start a new thread, to narrowly discuss HAP- and avoid wild generalisations or drifting into areas other than those specific to HAP as a topic. I do not want a wild meandering discussion where people het up under the collar, which is impossible for both forum members and moderators to follow- it is on HAP- period, and it is to be civil.

    As the original poster in this thread has not come back- and has a broad example of people's thoughts on what is happening- threads closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement