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.

Is it possible to buy house and rent it to previous owner under HAP etc?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    The Student wrote: »
    Good luck with that if or when Revenue contact you. You do realize that the RTB share all info with Revenue automatically. In the current housing situation the defense of not finding someone suitable most likely will not be accepted by Revenue.


    Well I just remembered the HAP would be less in that case anyway.

    Perhaps the best thing to do then would be to charge, at least on paper, the person near market rent even though it would be above HAP levels.

    The system is ****ed up with it can't facilitate a person trying to help someone else (and in the process potentially saving the system a lot of money)


  • #33
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well I just remembered the HAP would be less in that case anyway.

    Perhaps the best thing to do then would be to charge, at least on paper, the person near market rent even though it would be above HAP levels.

    The system is ****ed up with it can't facilitate a person trying to help someone else (and in the process potentially saving the system a lot of money)

    The figure on paper is what the tax payable would be calculated from.
    Sounds like you may be looking for ways to flaunt a system here so please thread carefully, on thread and in reality.

    Thread will be monitored and any sign of illegal advice will activate a thread lock.


  • #34
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    kceire wrote: »
    The figure on paper is what the tax payable would be calculated from.
    Sounds like you may be looking for ways to flaunt a system here so please thread carefully, on thread and in reality.

    Thread will be monitored and any sign of illegal advice will activate a thread lock.

    No. I don't know how it could be "flaunting a system".

    I gave three scenarios.

    Scenario 3 is the default
    Scenario 1 is not feasible long term
    Scenario 2 is potentially feasible due to a friend who will help out at their own cost.


    Scenario 2 saves the state money, creditors get repaid and the individual does not get their life disrupted. Asking the question is no more flaunting the system than a person coming on to say "my abusive partner beat the shite out of me. I can't afford to rent on my own. How do I get into a womens refuge". If you think it is flaunting the system, then please advise how it could be. The sick person has no income other than disability allowance and no prospect of getting off same in the foreseeable future. They have no family able or willing to help.

    There is also a good link on the first page for a charity that apparently does this for people. Perhaps they should be reported for "flaunting the system"?


  • #35
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No. I don't know how it could be "flaunting a system".

    I gave three scenarios.

    Scenario 3 is the default
    Scenario 1 is not feasible long term
    Scenario 2 is potentially feasible due to a friend who will help out at their own cost.


    Scenario 2 saves the state money, creditors get repaid and the individual does not get their life disrupted. Asking the question is no more flaunting the system than a person coming on to say "my abusive partner beat the shite out of me. I can't afford to rent on my own. How do I get into a womens refuge". If you think it is flaunting the system, then please advise how it could be. The sick person has no income other than disability allowance and no prospect of getting off same in the foreseeable future. They have no family able or willing to help.

    There is also a good link on the first page for a charity that apparently does this for people. Perhaps they should be reported for "flaunting the system"?

    You may not agree with the current system but you have to accept it. I would suggest you make yourself familiar with all aspects of property rental from RTA requirements, licensee laws and tax laws before you proceed.

    With the current housing crisis any bending of the rules no matter how worthy you may think it is on an individual basis is still wrong and with that comes quite harsh and severe penalties.

    I would suggest you heed the moderators advice.


  • #36
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    The Student wrote: »
    You may not agree with the current system but you have to accept it. I would suggest you make yourself familiar with all aspects of property rental from RTA requirements, licensee laws and tax laws before you proceed.

    With the current housing crisis any bending of the rules no matter how worthy you may think it is on an individual basis is still wrong and with that comes quite harsh and severe penalties.

    I would suggest you heed the moderators advice.


    I suggest you read my question slower and understand that nobody is talking about bending any rules. I am asking whether it is possible (i.e. what the rules are), and what would need to be done to make it possible (i.e. to abide by rules).

    If you don't know the answer, then thanks for your contribution but it is only adding noise to the thread. which you are free to do as you wish but it won't be helping me


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No. I don't know how it could be "flaunting a system".

    I gave three scenarios.

    Scenario 3 is the default
    Scenario 1 is not feasible long term
    Scenario 2 is potentially feasible due to a friend who will help out at their own cost.


    Scenario 2 saves the state money, creditors get repaid and the individual does not get their life disrupted. Asking the question is no more flaunting the system than a person coming on to say "my abusive partner beat the shite out of me. I can't afford to rent on my own. How do I get into a womens refuge". If you think it is flaunting the system, then please advise how it could be. The sick person has no income other than disability allowance and no prospect of getting off same in the foreseeable future. They have no family able or willing to help.

    There is also a good link on the first page for a charity that apparently does this for people. Perhaps they should be reported for "flaunting the system"?

    Mod Note

    This exact post is what I am referring to. You cannot flaunt the system and pretend to be renting a room.
    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Hmmmm. But surely it could be rented as a room then in a three bed where you'd "intend" to rent out the other two beds....but sure just never get around to finding suitable tenants...)

    Now, again. On thread warning for any advice that involves bending or attempting to bend the law will not be tolerated.


  • #38
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I suggest you read my question slower and understand that nobody is talking about bending any rules. I am asking whether it is possible (i.e. what the rules are), and what would need to be done to make it possible (i.e. to abide by rules).

    If you don't know the answer, then thanks for your contribution but it is only adding noise to the thread. which you are free to do as you wish but it won't be helping me

    I have offered you assistance on your post. You suggested charging rent on paper that was not the actual rent. This is bending the rules.

    I highlighted the issues you need to be aware of and the risks associated. Your condescending tone of "read my question slower" is enough for me to bow out of this thread.


  • #39
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Unless op you are renting to a sibling or similar (arms length rules) there is no CAT charge for the beneficiary by charging less than market rate.


  • #40
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    The Student wrote: »
    I have offered you assistance on your post. You suggested charging rent on paper that was not the actual rent. This is bending the rules.

    I highlighted the issues you need to be aware of and the risks associated. Your condescending tone of "read my question slower" is enough for me to bow out of this thread.


    It cannot be a "benefit in kind". That is when your employer gives you something in addition to, or lieu of, salary. Forgive my tone as I was annoyed by earlier posters.

    I assume you meant to say they might be liable for a "gift tax" however the poster above says that there would be no CAT due.


  • #41
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Go to bed if you can't understand simple logic and don't have anything constructive to contribute.


    You are not asking a question anymore you just want everyone to agree with you. Read up on the law regarding HAP and in general how someone can obtain social housing . Breaking the law is not permitted no matter how you want to twist it. The aggressive replies you give show you are of poor character, try and be more civil in your replies.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    RiseToMe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,272 ✭✭✭RiseToMe


    In respect to the poster who asked about if the property would be in a condition suitable for HAP. There are strict criteria for social housing that must be met with respect to minimum renting standards, so you would need to bring the property in line with these, if not already, in order to make your preferred option work


  • #43
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    handlemaster wrote: »

    You are not asking a question anymore you just want everyone to agree with you. Read up on the law regarding HAP and in general how someone can obtain social housing . Breaking the law is not permitted no matter how you want to twist it. The aggressive replies you give show you are of poor character, try and be more civil in your replies.

    As I said there are three scenarios. The person is ill and disabled and unable to work. They only have disability allowance. That is fact and isn't going to change. They won't own their house in a few years regardless of what else happens.

    The first scenario (that some kind soul is located who pays the ill persons mortgage for the rest of their life) is unrealistic.

    The third scenario is the default - that as the ill person has nowhere to go, they stay in the house until they are dragged, or as I said - wheeled, out of the house by bailiffs after a few years of not paying mortgage. Under this scenario there will be no equity to pay existing unsecured creditors and they can eat their losses. After eviction, the state will necessarily need to provide safe accommodation - lets say a conservative 1500 a month. (Or maybe you'd protest against that too....perhaps you'd want the ill person to be wheeled in under a bridge and left there with a cardboard box?)

    The second scenario is that some kind soul buys the house now, the equity is used to pay off creditors and the new owner allows the ill person to stay in their home for HAP rent which would cost the state about 500 a month.

    But for you, you won't want to pay your own mortgage if scenario 2 happens. It's kind of weird to be honest. So the current creditors lose their money. And it will cost the state 1k more per month compared to scenario 2 to house the ill person.
    The question then springs to mind as to how much extra you'd be willing to have the state pay just so you could know that an ill and disabled person lost some of the last remnants of their dignity by being dragged out of their home? Is there even a price to it for you? If scenario 3 was going to cost the state a million a month more would it still be worth it to you?

    "of poor character". Good man. We'll buy you a mirror


  • #44
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    I thought you were the home owner, but are you the kind soul looking to buy the house and checking to see if the state will pay the rent afterwards?

    Surely this is a conversation to be had with the relevant local authority, I’m sure the current owner’s mind would be more at ease if the LA confirmed their stance before the house sale. Any advice here is just opinion, it’s up to the LA to decide.


  • #45
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,816 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    He might be covered under his mortgage protection insurance.

    It would be great if he was, I'd feel like a superhero.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • #46
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Rows Grower wrote: »
    He might be covered under his mortgage protection insurance.

    .

    Good call, OP has your "friend " checked this out?


  • #47
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Rows Grower wrote: »
    He might be covered under his mortgage protection insurance.

    It would be great if he was, I'd feel like a superhero.

    To the best of my knowledge that was exhausted years ago. I think that it was limited to 6 months.


  • #48
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,869 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    The person would need to be on the housing list to get HAP and you can't get on that when you own a home. Where will the person live while they are out of the house and waiting for HAP to be provided, if they qualify for it?

    As other have said HAP requires the property to meet current building regulations, everything else requires the property to meet regulations when it was built, so if the house is anyway old the cost to get it up to HAP standard will be massive. Will the house even be suitable for them if they do stay there?

    The person needs to see their community welfare officer to see what support they'll get.


  • #49
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,602 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    So someone gets to live in 'their' house and their friend gets a mortgage paid off by the state.

    Let me guess. The house will be sold at below market value too


    Dreamer


  • #50
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    listermint wrote: »
    So someone gets to live in 'their' house and their friend gets a mortgage paid off by the state.

    Let me guess. The house will be sold at below market value too


    Dreamer


    Are you another one who'd prefer to see the disabled person dragged out of their house
    Weird people on here alright!

    I'll ask you the same question that I asked the other poster then - how much of an extra cost to the state would it be worth to you to see it happen? 1k a month, 2k a month or would the schadenfreude just be priceless.


    The person same who will buy the house can buy it anyway afterward the eviction and instead rent it for the full rent. Do you understand the concept of how renting works? A person buys a piece of property and then allows another person to use it in exchange for money.


  • #51
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Del2005 wrote: »
    The person would need to be on the housing list to get HAP and you can't get on that when you own a home. Where will the person live while they are out of the house and waiting for HAP to be provided, if they qualify for it?

    The first bit was the reason I posted here as I thought someone would know if things would need to be done in a certain order to be more streamlined.

    The second bit was included in what I outlined in that I thought I said that the new owner would allow the person to stay there while being assessed.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Thoie
    Registered Users Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    OP, as the future potential landlord, have you read the landlord's guide to HAP leaflet? That sets out a lot of the things that must happen - including what the landlord needs to do to be compliant.

    The question of the suitability of the property that a few others have brought up is not negligible. Even though the person may have been living in the house fine for years, the fact that it will now be a rented property means that there are minimum requirements that must be met. For example, window restrictors fitted on windows above a certain height. You might need to add smoke/carbon monoxide alarms. If the house is generally in good repair, none of these should be very expensive. However, you can't say "sure, person A has lived there for years without a smoke alarm, he's not fussed about having one".

    This page sets out the tenant's obligations.


  • #53
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Thoie wrote: »
    OP, as the future potential landlord, have you read the landlord's guide to HAP leaflet? That sets out a lot of the things that must happen - including what the landlord needs to do to be compliant.

    The question of the suitability of the property that a few others have brought up is not negligible. Even though the person may have been living in the house fine for years, the fact that it will now be a rented property means that there are minimum requirements that must be met. For example, window restrictors fitted on windows above a certain height. You might need to add smoke/carbon monoxide alarms. If the house is generally in good repair, none of these should be very expensive. However, you can't say "sure, person A has lived there for years without a smoke alarm, he's not fussed about having one".

    This page sets out the tenant's obligations.

    No, thanks for that but I will explain why I am not focusing on that for now.

    The reason I am not worried or asking about standards is that that could be sorted later and not a show stopper. As I tried to say to another poster earlier, once it is not an inherent characteristic of the property - such as being in the wrong location - then it is secondary. If it is just bringing it to standards then if it can be done it will be.

    If it needs a carbon monoxide alarm and there isn't one there now I am not concerned because it is a relatively easy fix. Not because I think it can be ignored should the "suggested plan" actually materialize. The person who would buy the house is doing it to help the ill person. And those standards are there for a reason. So if it's something that makes the place more comfortable or safer, it would be done.


    I'm getting an awful lot of snarky replies (not yours). I don't understand it. I fail to see how it could be perceived as somehow playing the system or a scam. The only real winners under my scenario are the state and other unsecured creditors who get repaid. The big loser financially is the person who purchases the house and rents it back at HAP rates. The ill person will have to be accommodated at the states expense in any case, although it might be nicer for their dignity to stay where they are and don't have to publicly suffer the embarrassment of being turfed out of their home.


  • #54
    sunnysoutheast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,072 ✭✭✭sunnysoutheast


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No, thanks for that but I will explain why I am not focusing on that for now.

    The reason I am not worried or asking about standards is that that could be sorted later and not a show stopper. As I tried to say to another poster earlier, once it is not an inherent characteristic of the property - such as being in the wrong location - then it is secondary. If it is just bringing it to standards then if it can be done it will be.

    If it needs a carbon monoxide alarm and there isn't one there now I am not concerned because it is a relatively easy fix. Not because I think it can be ignored should the "suggested plan" actually materialize. The person who would buy the house is doing it to help the ill person. And those standards are there for a reason. So if it's something that makes the place more comfortable or safer, it would be done.


    I'm getting an awful lot of snarky replies (not yours). I don't understand it. I fail to see how it could be perceived as somehow playing the system or a scam. The only real winners under my scenario are the state and other unsecured creditors who get repaid. The big loser financially is the person who purchases the house and rents it back at HAP rates. The ill person will have to be accommodated at the states expense in any case, although it might be nicer for their dignity to stay where they are and don't have to publicly suffer the embarrassment of being turfed out of their home.

    Person A might be able to establish their eligibility to join the housing list, and hence qualify for HAP, on the basis that the mortgage is unsustainable, prior to any potential sale of their house.

    If it was me I would investigate that option and get it answered before making any decisions regarding any sale, however noble the intentions might be.


Advertisement