LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

She prob thought she was doing the right thing sending a polite response, lesson learnt she will just pick one person and ignore the others from now on.

Did anyone actually read the article? She wasn't trying to discriminate, the daughter thought that they were unable to accept hap tenants as they were not registered. The judge accepted that but indicated ignornance of the law is not an excuse.

I’ve said it till I’m blue in the face. If you’re going to be a landlord you have to be wearing your business hat from the very start. Don’t try to fool yourself or anyone else that you're entering this business to be philanthropic. You’re doing it to make money. Totally familiarise yourself with all your rights and obligations before you start and those of your tenants.
If you don’t like it then don’t start to go down that road. If you want to plough ahead then do but don’t try to say afterwards that you didn’t know what you were getting into.

gar32 wrote:

This is happening to most people on the HAP I am sure. She sent an email stating "no HAP". I am sure most LL just don't answer or say sorry place it taken.

Most, if not all of the LLs getting caught for this are that stupid as to state no HAP. Plenty get away with it by not selecting the HAP Tennant.

I don't believe that there are too many people in Ireland , first time LL or not, that don't know that you can't refuse HAP.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The Judge reduced the WRC fine precisely because he thought this was done due to ignorance and without intent no?

In my opinion the landlord appealing to the Circuit Court was the wrong decision from an business point of view. Fine the WRC loves to slap big penalties on landlords (WRC "arbitrators" break the proportionality principle many times like the RTB adjudicators, because they know that unless the money is above 8-9ks it is not worth appealing for a landlord or an employer). A Circuit Court case will cost the landlord at least 2-3ks in legal fees (between solicitor and barrister) + the possible legal fees of the tenant solicitors (I am not sure if FLAC solicitors/barristers request legal fees if they win a case). Even if the landlord had won, the unemployed had nothing to loose and would not have paid the legal fees. So it is a short term win-win for the unemployed and a loose-loose for the landlord.
Long term the unemployed and HAP recipients will loose big with this behaviour, the guy in question with all the publicity he raised around himself will probably never find again a private rented accommodation in Ireland. These news will just give more publicity to the risks of dealing with HAP recipients and more landlords will just keep the hell away from HAP recipients by keeping their mouth shut and not answering any question from candidate tenants that are not suitable.


Then you see these desperate HAP recipients coming to this forum and complaining that they are totally ignored when applying: this is the rational behaviour imposed by current rules, unless the landlord really wants to accept HAP. The politicians and the socialists have to understand that people do not like to enter into a unsound contract by coercion! If politicians and the sold out Irish press try to masquerade the word coercion with discrimination it does not change the fact that it is still a coercion. Coercion is the only thing the Irish politicians have applied to landlords since 2009, the result is lack of supply!

Pkiernan wrote: »

The lefty bleeding hearts on here

Politics Cafe, if you want to continue with that. Your post has been deleted as nothing in the linked article supports it.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i dont see why a registrar of bothersome tenants cannot be compiled.
would that be illegal i wonder?

Data protection and potential libel nightmare.

tretorn wrote:

My tenant paid a deposit when he moved in and I will give it back to him now.

There are many threads where the tenant deliberately recks the property. One LL was out of pocket 14k and this includes the deposit.

tretorn wrote: »

I am so glad my tenant has found somewhere else, the relief of getting the property back.

Every home owner should have the right to let their house to whoever they want, they are the ones at a financial loss if the tenant turns out to be a filthy dead beat and the Government wont fund your legal costs in getting them out. Lazy layabout tenant will be on free legal aid and he wont care if costs are awarded against him, he doesnt pay any bills, never has and never will.

Can you imagine any judge letting their property to someone on HAP, give me a break. If someone has a good record and is on HAP that is very different to letting your property to someone who has no employment record and no reputation to care about.

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

Since when is HAP one of the 9 discrimination laws? The government is moving the goal posts instead of fixing the issues.

A private landlord doesn't have the resources to fight these changes, but don't worry once the private landlord is driven out the professionals will challenge and then we'll see professionals evicting tenants quickly.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Renting out property is a business and if every other business is expected to follow anti-discrimination laws, then so too are landlords. If you don't like the laws, you are free to campaign to have them changed.

Your comrade BS will not go without any critic here. These coercions on landlords were a 2015 Christmas "gift" to LL from the govvie to show they were doing something instead of building or providing social housing for low income people (or long term unemployed). It was the usual smart political move of deflecting their total responsibility!
Since when discriminating on economic grounds for a loan (a rental is a loan of an asset) has been against the law! Try to go to a bank, say that you are unemployed and ask for a personal loan of 10k and see the answer you will get. Why should I be forced by utterly incompetent politicians and socialists like you to loan my assets if I don't want to!
Your easy peasy solution of lobbying to change the law is useless and it is the answer I would expect from an adolescent with a very simplistic black&white view of the world, the number of TDs against LLs in Ireland is enourmous because it is an easy vote winner to go against them (but then they complain that there is no supply: have you ever thought why???)
The only solution is an expensive legal challenge to the supreme court of all the worst rubbish rental and planning laws the jokers at the Oireachtas have passed since 2009 (sooner or later it will happen if the Irish politicians are stupid enough to p..s off the big investors).

GGTrek wrote: »

Your comrade BS will not go without any critic here. These coercions on landlords were a 2015 Christmas "gift" to LL from the govvie to show they were doing something instead of building or providing social housing for low income people (or long term unemployed). It was the usual smart political move of deflecting their total responsibility!
Since when discriminating on economic grounds for a loan (a rental is a loan of an asset) has been against the law! Try to go to a bank, say that you are unemployed and ask for a personal loan of 10k and see the answer you will get. Why should I be forced by utterly incompetent politicians and socialists like you to loan my assets if I don't want to!
Your easy peasy solution of lobbying to change the law is useless and it is the answer I would expect from an adolescent with a very simplistic black&white view of the world, the number of TDs against LLs in Ireland is enourmous because it is an easy vote winner to go against them (but then they complain that there is no supply: have you ever thought why???)
The only solution is an expensive legal challenge to the supreme court of all the worst rubbish rental and planning laws the jokers at the Oireachtas have passed since 2009 (sooner or later it will happen if the Irish politicians are stupid enough to p..s off the big investors).

I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up. All I have done is stated the law as it is. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, just that it is what it is.

As for my "adolescent" suggestion of how to effect change, that's typically been how change has been advanced in Ireland in the recent past (eg, marriage equality, change in water charges), but you're welcome to bring a legal challenge if you wish. In any case, it's pointless complaining about a law if you're not willing to challenge or change it in some form.

binana wrote: »

Why would a landlord not want a HAP tenant? It's basically guaranteed rent on time. Is it because it requires compliance from the landlord and they have to declare all the income and go through official channels? Or is it because of a prejudice against the "type" of people who get HAP?

It's really normal now to get state assistance when renting given the extent of the housing crisis in Dublin and other cities. Workers on full time wages could qualify for HAP. All different types of people from all backgrounds are entitled to HAP so it's not the same as refusing smokers (an example given in the thread) all smokers smoke, not all HAP recipients behave or live a certain way. Bang of snobbery of everyone defending HAP refusals.

There is definitely a perception that HAP tenants are more likely to cause problems.

We shouldn't assume that landlords are steering away from HAP because they are not declaring income. Of course, there are some that want to stay under the radar. But it's not that simple. IMO if they are steering away from it, it's largely because of the tenant stops paying, the council stops paying their share. From HAP.ie - "If the HAP tenant does not pay this rent contribution, HAP payments to their landlord will be suspended and eventually stopped". What you'd like to see here is that if the tenant stops paying, the council will look after it and deal with the tenant - not leave the landlord and the tenant at it.

So, rent is not guaranteed on time as you say, no more than it is with a
non-HAP rental. There are no benefits to HAP for the landlord, no matter how it's dressed up. (Don't even bother mentioning the mortgage interest relief benefit they offer - it's worth very little unless you have a brand new mortgage)

Imagine this - HAP tenant stops paying, therefore council stops paying. You have a mortgage on this rental that has to be paid. You probably also have a mortgage on your family home. You have to go to the tenant and ask for both their bit of the rent, and the council's. What chance do you think you have of getting this? You are now paying two mortgages - possible for a year or more until you can legally have them evicted. You will not get that money back.

This could of course happen with a non-HAP tenant too - but you have to assess whether you think it's more likely with a HAP or non-HAP tenant and go with the best option for you financially.

There is no deposit from the council - and HAP tenants often don't have one themselves. You'd have to be stone mad not to at least have one month's deposit.

Experienced landlords are extremely careful about who they let in because of the risks associated with renting these days. One wrong tenant could ruin you. Therefore, landlords do not like being told who they have to accept as a tenant. The "government" is not there to help you when you are paying two mortgages because a tenant has stopped paying their share of the rent, so why should they be there to tell you who to rent to? Many landlords prefer their chances with non HAP tenants.

HAP needs to be tweaked to make it more attractive to landlords. It's not the tenant's fault, but the scheme is not well designed.

The government is trying, via HAP, to outsource the "housing problem" to landlords without offering them anything in return. If they had thought about it, they might have offered a real tax benefit and a real guaranteed rent to landlords for participating in HAP to offset the risks.

I would also say that the biggest apartment owners in the country are REITs, who have no problem with HAP. They can afford to take risks that individual landlords cannot.

binana wrote: »

Why would a landlord not want a HAP tenant? It's basically guaranteed rent on time. Is it because it requires compliance from the landlord and they have to declare all the income and go through official channels? Or is it because of a prejudice against the "type" of people who get HAP?

Why would they go for HAP, there is little to no advantage to doing it but there is disadvantages some maybe just perceived such as "HAP tenants are bad tenants" but others are real, extra hassle having to deal with councils and inspections.
Even if they are only minor why bother when, especially in todays rental market, you can rent to someone else with none of the hassle.