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.

LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    The Student wrote: »
    Private renters are in fact discriminated against as the HAP scheme has put a floor on rent prices and if you are above the limits to be entitled to HAP but below earning enough to compete for properties to rent in the private sector you are affected by the HAP scheme.

    There is nothing wrong with moving out of Dublin to the commuter towns or even the midlands. That's exactly how cities and towns grow. I remember growing up in the 70's on the outskirts of Dublin when we had one bus an hour and no local shops or schools.

    Whether you accept it or not the HAP system is skewed in favour of tenants who can avail of it. Landlords may not have issues with the tenants on a personal level but it is the HAP system that is the main issue.

    We have a bizarre notion that everybody should be housed where they want and anybody who questions that is wrong.

    The housing situation is not going to improve if the Govt continues to bring out schemes like the HAP. Rather than fix the HAP scheme the Govt decided to legislate that it you could not say no to the HAP. Why not make it attractive to landlords and the Govt would have landlords competing for HAP tenants.

    What type of incentives do you think would be good.

    Personally at a minimum, it should be identical to private renting and all the admin work should be removed. All the ll should have to do is give bank details like a private rental.

    Inspections should be done away it also.

    Besides that, im not sure what else can be done

    Edit: Now that i think about, if the government stood over HAP tenants and covered rent arears and/or damage, i think you would have much larger intake of them.


  • Options
    #153
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Fol20 wrote: »
    The Student wrote: »
    Private renters are in fact discriminated against as the HAP scheme has put a floor on rent prices and if you are above the limits to be entitled to HAP but below earning enough to compete for properties to rent in the private sector you are affected by the HAP scheme.

    There is nothing wrong with moving out of Dublin to the commuter towns or even the midlands. That's exactly how cities and towns grow. I remember growing up in the 70's on the outskirts of Dublin when we had one bus an hour and no local shops or schools.

    Whether you accept it or not the HAP system is skewed in favour of tenants who can avail of it. Landlords may not have issues with the tenants on a personal level but it is the HAP system that is the main issue.

    We have a bizarre notion that everybody should be housed where they want and anybody who questions that is wrong.

    The housing situation is not going to improve if the Govt continues to bring out schemes like the HAP. Rather than fix the HAP scheme the Govt decided to legislate that it you could not say no to the HAP. Why not make it attractive to landlords and the Govt would have landlords competing for HAP tenants.

    What type of incentives do you think would be good.

    Personally at a minimum, it shoudl be identical to private renting and all the admin work should be removed. All the ll should have to do is give bak details like a private rental.

    Inspections should be done away it also.

    Besides that, im not sure what else can be done

    Inspections should imo be relatively normal in the rental market.

    It's just a case of establishing what a fair inspection regime is in terms of standards for the house been inspected.

    In the long term I think the idea of never having inspections is somewhat unrealistic.

    If I were a council and was going to be shelling out 1600 Euro a month on HAP for a place then damn right I'd like to see that it's not a total kip.


  • Options
    #154
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Inspections should imo be relatively normal in the rental market.

    It's just a case of establishing what a fair inspection regime is in terms of standards for the house been inspected.

    In the long term I think the idea of never having inspections is somewhat unrealistic.

    If I were a council and was going to be shelling out 1600 Euro a month on HAP for a place then damn right I'd like to see that it's not a total kip.

    I meant that theninspections specific to HAP would be stopped. Instead the staff that do this would be assigned to all rentals so its not segregating into two groups.


  • Options
    #155
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Fol20 wrote: »
    What type of incentives do you think would be good.

    Personally at a minimum, it should be identical to private renting and all the admin work should be removed. All the ll should have to do is give bank details like a private rental.

    Inspections should be done away it also.

    Besides that, im not sure what else can be done

    Edit: Now that i think about, if the government stood over HAP tenants and covered rent arears and/or damage, i think you would have much larger intake of them.

    I agree the Govt should stand over the HAP payment. The whole scheme is unattractive to landlords because of the additional workload for no extra income. The scheme is not attractive to landlords no matter how the HAP try to sell it to landlords.

    I would suggest inspections are carried out in advance of any tenancy commencing. These inspections are to the same standard as those in the private sector no more no less. I personally had an issue with having to put in vents in rooms that already had windows.

    Deposits should be paid similar to the private sector then at least the tenants have something to loose if they don't pay or cause damage.

    On a general note the whole eviction process needs to be overhauled. Evictions should be faster.

    The Govt need to actually start engaging with landlords to improve the housing situation rather than threatening them with legislation etc. The more difficult the Govt makes the trading environment for small time landlords the less of us there will be and the worse the housing crisis will become.


  • Options
    #156
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Inspections should imo be relatively normal in the rental market.

    It's just a case of establishing what a fair inspection regime is in terms of standards for the house been inspected.

    In the long term I think the idea of never having inspections is somewhat unrealistic.

    If I were a council and was going to be shelling out 1600 Euro a month on HAP for a place then damn right I'd like to see that it's not a total kip.

    The council while may be shelling out €1600 a month nearly half of this figure is going back to the State in taxes.

    A lot of people seem to forget that fact. For €800 a month the State has housed people and does not have any other responsibility for maintaining the house, insuring it or even the risk of non payment of rent. To me this is a great deal for the State.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    The Student wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Inspections should imo be relatively normal in the rental market.

    It's just a case of establishing what a fair inspection regime is in terms of standards for the house been inspected.

    In the long term I think the idea of never having inspections is somewhat unrealistic.

    If I were a council and was going to be shelling out 1600 Euro a month on HAP for a place then damn right I'd like to see that it's not a total kip.

    The council while may be shelling out €1600 a month nearly half of this figure is going back to the State in taxes.

    A lot of people seem to forget that fact. For €800 a month the State has housed people and does not have any other responsibility for maintaining the house, insuring it or even the risk of non payment of rent. To me this is a great deal for the State.

    Its still reasonable to actually check out what's been rented - both HAP and non HAP.

    Otherwise standards of any kind are meaningless. In another thread a poster is having to pay 13 k to fix a compliance issue that existed in his apartment from new.

    If the buildings were subject to proper inspections when been built originally then the risk of that issue arising is reduced.

    A no inspection regime isn't realistic.


  • Options
    #158
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Now the whole issue of how strict the inspection should be and the standards a home should hit relative to its age is a whole different scenario.

    We all take our cars in for NCTs when over 4 years old.

    It makes sense to me that a house might get a checkover to see if it has any urgent issues.

    It's a different issue to landlord tax and evictions both of those also need fixing.


  • Options
    #159
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Its still reasonable to actually check out what's been rented - both HAP and non HAP.

    Otherwise standards of any kind are meaningless. In another thread a poster is having to pay 13 k to fix a compliance issue that existed in his apartment from new.

    If the buildings were subject to proper inspections when been built originally then the risk of that issue arising is reduced.

    A no inspection regime isn't realistic.

    I don't have an issue with inspections on rental properties but the standards required are in my opinion are unnecessary high. I am sorry but being told you have to drill a whole in a wall for ventilation when there is a window there is ridiculous.

    I have personal experience of renting a property where the inspector told the tenant the inspector could get the internal of the house repainted if they wanted it despite the fact I had just repainted the whole house and the prospective tenant had been with me in another property and told me what the inspector had suggested.


  • Options
    #160
    steamsey
    Registered Users Posts: 686 ✭✭✭steamsey


    The Student wrote: »
    I don't have an issue with inspections on rental properties but the standards required are in my opinion are unnecessary high. I am sorry but being told you have to drill a whole in a wall for ventilation when there is a window there is ridiculous.

    I have personal experience of renting a property where the inspector told the tenant the inspector could get the internal of the house repainted if they wanted it despite the fact I had just repainted the whole house and the prospective tenant had been with me in another property and told me what the inspector had suggested.

    To make HAP more attractive:
    - clear (and reasonable) inspection expectations published for all to see
    - rent guaranteed by council with no gaps. If tenant overholds / stops paying, council will use their resources to get them out and make property whole again so landlord can get it back on the market
    - council vetting of all tenants to ensure they would be, or have been, good tenants
    - clear deposit scheme - this should be the tenant's own money. Often, the deposit of the only leverage a landlord has

    I'm sure there's a few other things that would make a difference


  • Options
    #161
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    steamsey wrote: »
    To make HAP more attractive:
    - clear (and reasonable) inspection expectations published for all to see
    - rent guaranteed by council with no gaps. If tenant overholds / stops paying, council will use their resources to get them out and make property whole again so landlord can get it back on the market
    - council vetting of all tenants to ensure they would be, or have been, good tenants
    - clear deposit scheme - this should be the tenant's own money. Often, the deposit of the only leverage a landlord has

    I'm sure there's a few other things that would make a difference

    Rent arrears covered by HAP also.

    I do believe if they implemented the above, if anything HAP would be better than private renting but as usually the government wont do the above and instead put band aid after band aid to spin something for their own agenda and votes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    The Student wrote: »
    I would suggest inspections are carried out in advance of any tenancy commencing.
    I'd say that this wont happen, as it'd be a way to not let to HAP. But I agree that it's something that should be done.

    =-=

    HAP allows the councils to ensured people are housed, and stop them from becoming homeless. With this in mind;
    steamsey wrote: »
    - council vetting of all tenants to ensure they would be, or have been, good tenants
    Why would the councils care? The councils either house the people though HAP, or house them in the homeless shelters.
    steamsey wrote: »
    - clear deposit scheme - this should be the tenant's own money. Often, the deposit of the only leverage a landlord has
    If they had the money to have their own deposit, they'd probably have the money to afford their own rent, and thus not need HAP. A lot of people who use HAP do so as they can't afford their own deposit, etc.


Advertisement