LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

Garibaldi? wrote: »

A tenant may damage property, overhold, or decide to leave before a tenancy is over, causing a landlord expense and inconvenience No matter what that person's financial situation may be, it is very difficult to get compensation over and above the deposit if a person is unable/reluctant to pay it. The risk in HAP is no greater than any other. It depends on the individual tenant.

For all the many reasons already outlined here ad nauseum, HAP tenancies are more risky from the landlord's perspective than non-HAP tenancies. Of course you can find great HAP tenants, but as has already been pointed out - why would a landlord bother? There is no benefit to it. Only additional risk over a non-HAP tenancy.

What I would say is that some of the attitudes on here towards HAP tenants are vile. I've a problem with the scheme, how it's set up, cost to taxpayer, how there is no incentive or additional help from the government to compensate for the additional risks and work. But it's madness to start making sweeping generalizations about HAP tenants. There are some horror stories I directly know of, and some of these are HAP related but the key thing to keep in mind is that for each of those stories, there is a landlord who didn't do their homework and picked bad tenants. They probably would have picked a bad tenant whether HAP or not.

I feel bad for any genuine people on HAP who are having a hard time finding a place because of negative views on HAP but unfortunately you are in the HAP scheme with a very mixed bunch.

IMHO I think HAP tenants could approach landlords a bit more positively - fewer problems from the outset and a more pro active, positive approach - and be well informed about the scheme, deposits, inspections etc. What I have seen are people approaching landlords with problems from the get go, limited understanding of the scheme, and it doesn't come across well. I remember asking one lady who had HAP about whether she had a deposit, and she suggested that I go and talk to the council. It's just one little example, but I always remember it - it's not an endearing attitude.

As I think was already said in this thread the council should guaranteed landlords 100% of the rent if the tenant is HAP.

Tenant pays council their % of the rent.
Council pays landlord 100% of the rent.

If the Tenant fails to pay the rent to the council than it should be on the council to chase them and make a decision whether the tenancy should be cancelled or not. If the council wants to cancel the tenancy then they need to pay for the legal cost of eviction. The council should continue to pay the rent until the tenant has been removed.

Council needs to be 100% responsible for any damage to properties as a result of a HAP tenant.

These are the conditions that will make it attractive for Landlords to house HAP tenants and are the only things that make sense if you want to pub the social housing responsibilities on the private rental sector.

Without these conditions HAP tenants will always be discriminated against, and this is perfectly natural because a HAP tenant by definition cannot afford to rent privately.

If you know they cannot afford to rent privately then they are obviously a higher risk tenant than say a single professional on 50k a year.

There is also the problem that its almost impossible to reclaim damages from someone who has nothing. If someone with nothing destroys a property and they are on permanent social welfare the best case scenario for a landlord is for their social welfare to be deducted by a tiny amount over a decade or two. Thats not going to help a landlord who has to pay out 5k+ in damages to get the property back into legal rentable condition, nevermind the lose of earnings while getting them evicted and time to repair the property.

tretorn wrote: »

At the moment if the tenant stops paying their portion of the rent the council stops paying their portion too.

This means the landlord is left with no rent and a tenant sitting in the property for free.

It's my understanding, that due to data laws, the council can't tell the landlord that they've stopped paying them, or why?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The councils don't want this. They want it to be the private landlords problem, so they have to go down the eviction process. Because they already have huge problems with rent arrears in council housing.

I see people here that are shocked that landlords hate social welfare tenants, while the system is set up in such a way to foist all the risk onto the private landlord deliberately.

They want free social housing in certain areas apparently

It's a shame, the only way to get property in Ireland is to pay the first few months, then spring the HAP on the LL... Telling a LL you'll be using HAP is a dead certain no no pretty much.

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.

There are plenty of people out there who are decent and pay and take good care of their homes, even if they are renting. Some of them have fallen on hard times. There are also pigs with excellent references and plenty of money but no self respect. There are also the HAP fraudsters who sublet the apartment at a tidy profit.... The problem is that society no longer values personal interaction and decisions are made by who has the most impressive paperwork.

I would be interested to see what the stats are for people than rent via HAP or privately. Would HAP be 20-30pc of market or less?

duskyjoe wrote: »

Is anyone listening to the dire experiences a lot of decent well meaning non profit gouging landlords have had with HAP tenants. My dealings with the dept of soc protection is they are snowed over and once they get a tenant in is another “roof over a head” off the list and they move onto the next .... that minister for housing is pure useless and that’s where the buck stops imo. The whole experience for me and i’m in the renting game over 40years has left me very very bitter and am now walking away from the business. Anyone buying from me now is either funded by the bank of mum and da or a property fund- leaving less units for to rent and for good reason. The current situation is leaving an exodus of landlords from the rental market.

If it's a property fund the property would likely go back on rental market no?????.

duskyjoe wrote: »

Is anyone listening to the dire experiences a lot of decent well meaning non profit gouging landlords have had with HAP tenants. My dealings with the dept of soc protection is they are snowed over and once they get a tenant in is another “roof over a head” off the list and they move onto the next .... that minister for housing is pure useless and that’s where the buck stops imo. The whole experience for me and i’m in the renting game over 40years has left me very very bitter and am now walking away from the business. Anyone buying from me now is either funded by the bank of mum and da or a property fund- leaving less units for to rent and for good reason. The current situation is leaving an exodus of landlords from the rental market.

No we're not listening, because you are not saying true things. The dept of social protection has nothing to do with HAP, so if you are going to make up lies about HAP tenants, at least work out who it is you would have been dealing with, had you actually done so. Which you obviously did not.

Try harder

duskyjoe wrote: »

you obviously one of those souls that believes the word entitled means freebies and expecting g society owes you a favor

Nope I'm just one who knows that HAP has nothing to do with the DSP and you are clearly lying.
Nice try though

FelaniaMump wrote: »

Further out is still expensive, and then you can't get to work and so you have no job and can't rent anywhere at all. Good plan man, good plan.

Why do we need cooking facilities in homes for families? Is that a joke? Sure give them a pan over a bonfire, good enough for them, right?

What do you think private renters do?
What do you think private purchasers do when they are house hunting?

You seem to want other people to pay for you instead of owning up to your situation and managing it yourself.

Take a look at the european model, 2 hob is min standard which should be the same here. A microwave is optional imo and people got by in the past without one. You can still cook using the hob so dont see this as a necessity.

FelaniaMump wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Private renters aren't discriminated against, thats the point. They aren't told they aren't allowed to rent homes.

I want other people to pay for me? In what respect? I'm a homeowner, and LL. You seem to think only people on HAP care about people on HAP.

Your desire to see all HAP renters driven out to the midlands cooking on a baby beling from the 70's is, luckily for all of us, shamefully outdated and fortunately against the law.
So move on and grow up.

Your words here are vey emotionally charged by the way your talking to me. its just a debate back and fourth

I think the point is that LL will pick the best candidate for their property. If other candidates that earn more money and can afford the property without the headaches that come from admin work and complications with payment, they pick them. Its that simple, you say your a ll so your afforded the choice to pick the tenant you think is most suitable for YOU - HAP or Private. Why cant other ll pick the best candidate in their eyes.

Im not driving anyone anywhere, i have some friends that rented privately in dublin and due to rental costs and purchase costs they moved to Galway and Cork in search for a better life. Its not just HAP that are being "being pushed to the midlands"

They are not quite baby bellings, its just a standard 2 ring HOB, dont know why its so bad as i have used them when i was overseas and found to do the job just like a 4 ring hob. How many hobs do you need turned on at the same time?

FelaniaMump wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Private renters aren't discriminated against, thats the point. They aren't told they aren't allowed to rent homes.

I want other people to pay for me? In what respect? I'm a homeowner, and LL. You seem to think only people on HAP care about people on HAP.

Your desire to see all HAP renters driven out to the midlands cooking on a baby beling from the 70's is, luckily for all of us, shamefully outdated and fortunately against the law.
So move on and grow up.

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.