LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

binana · 20-03-2019 3:23pm

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

amcalester · 20-03-2019 3:30pm

binana wrote: »

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

Inspections aside (inspections that go above and beyond what is expected in privately rented accommodation) I don't think there's too much extra hassle once it's all set up, but getting it set up is a lot more bureaucracy and the rent is payed in arrears.

A lot of little reasons can amount to a big reason to say no to HAP tenant.

If you want more landlords to accept HAP, make it more attractive for them to do so.

binana · 20-03-2019 3:36pm

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

cruizer101 · 20-03-2019 4:09pm

binana wrote: »

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

Any extra work even it was just one extra form is hassle when you don't get any advantage.

Say I'm need milk, two shops identical price, one is 5 min away the other is 7.
Which do i go to? the 5 min away one, there is nothing wrong with the other its only 2 min more walk away but humans are lazy so for the same outcome (and in the case of HAP a lot would perceive it to be a worse outcome) they will take the easy option. Its as simple as that.

I'm not saying it is right but it is the reality. If the government want LL to accept HAP there needs to be an incentive.

steamsey · 20-03-2019 4:29pm

binana wrote: »

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

No.

The reason landlords might not too fond of the HAP scheme is because there is no benefit to it from the landlord's perspective. That's it. I made the point that if they wanted more uptake, they should have incentivized it for landlords, which they didn't. The point here is that landlords are expected to take on additional risks, work and cost with no upside. You'd have to be a mug to do this. Surely that's very understandable.

Ray Palmer · 20-03-2019 4:48pm

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

cruizer101 · 20-03-2019 4:52pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

Off topic I know but how are you in breach of GDPR by holding onto email communication sent to you

amcalester · 20-03-2019 4:54pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

Tenants can make up the difference between the HAP limit and the actual rent charged.

binana · 20-03-2019 5:14pm

steamsey wrote: »

No.

The reason landlords might not too fond of the HAP scheme is because there is no benefit to it from the landlord's perspective. That's it. I made the point that if they wanted more uptake, they should have incentivized it for landlords, which they didn't. The point here is that landlords are expected to take on additional risks, work and cost with no upside. You'd have to be a mug to do this. Surely that's very understandable.

("So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork.")

Yes. Same thing in different words. The perceived extra risk is the stereotype about people who get HAP, the extra work and costs are presumably the paperwork involved and keeping the property to a set standard for inspections.

beauf · 20-03-2019 5:33pm

binana wrote: »

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

You've stereotyped reasons as a counter to stereotypes.

binana · 20-03-2019 5:36pm

I asked a question in the thread, and was summarising the replies I got.

Fol20 · 20-03-2019 5:43pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Some people just don't respect the rights of others. You cannot define people by their socio economic status. Many well-off people have proven to be problematic tenants. And whether a tenant has assets or not , it is very difficult to get compensation/damages from someone if that person does not want to give it. It's not a good idea to be prejudiced against HAP.

People are not defined by their socio econmic status as a whole however if someone is attempting to rent, they should be defined by their wealth. Its pure maths and nothing else. If 2 people are applying for the same place, i would prefer to take on the person that has better affordability. Other factors do come into also if they are equal on their finances and your opinion of the the person however right now the government are saying, you cant judge someone based on affordability which this is. Another person brought up a interesting point as to why banks are also not forced into this? What gives banks the right to stop someone taking a loan of a 100k all because they have a job that doesnt pay too well and cant afford the repayments :rolleyes:

Yes, it can be difficult to get compensation from someone however its much easier if a person has an asset in their name or has saving in their account. Not sure why your really fighting this point..

Ray Palmer · 20-03-2019 5:45pm

amcalester wrote: »

Tenants can make up the difference between the HAP limit and the actual rent charged.

No they can't as they pay part of the rent to the state based on means test basis. The rent limits are the entire amount they are allowed pay. There are people who do it but they are committing fraud both the tenant and the landlord.

GDPR requires you to have a legitimate reason to retain details. You dont have a legitimate reason to keep emails of somebody you aren't renting to.

beauf · 20-03-2019 5:45pm

binana wrote: »

I asked a question in the thread, and was summarising the replies I got.

Actually there is more subtlety in the answers but you've simplified it as stereotype.

Be nice if there were some stats around RTB disputes and similar with HAP vs everything else. But there aren't.
Even if there were the Govt has long history of distorting housing stats to tell a story that doesn't reflect the truth.
So their credibility would be in question.

deandean · 20-03-2019 5:48pm

I'm not a landlord. But another reason I'd see for landlords to be wary of HAP tenants is that tenants paying rent from their earnings are likely to look after the house better.

beauf · 20-03-2019 5:51pm

Fol20 wrote: »

People are not defined by their socio econmic status as a whole however if someone is attempting to rent, they should be defined by their wealth.....

I think its more if the Govt should be commercialising their social housing and affordable housing almost solely to private rental market driven by profit. They are fundamentally incompatible.

The Govt should be providing social housing and low cost housing as competition to the private market. Competition and supply would drive down prices and increase supply. Instead they are restricting it and driving prices upwards.

Which tells its own story.

beauf · 20-03-2019 5:53pm

deandean wrote: »

I'm not a landlord. But another reason I'd see for landlords to be wary of HAP tenants is that tenants paying rent from their earnings are likely to look after the house better.

If we had stats on deposit retention that were upheld by the RTB we would know if this was true or not.

Garibaldi? · 20-03-2019 5:58pm

deandean wrote: »

I'm not a landlord. But another reason I'd see for landlords to be wary of HAP tenants is that tenants paying rent from their earnings are likely to look after the house better.

How a person treats a house has everything to do with the way they were brought up and the habits learned at home. Some HAP tenants are bound to be reliable, others not. The same goes for non-HAP. Some people, irrespective of means, are incapable/disrespectful/awkward to deal with.:(

tretorn · 20-03-2019 6:03pm

I dont see it as discrimination, I see it as the landlord making sure the rental property makes as much money as possible with the least hassle. This may and should involve placing the property with experienced letting agents who can spot trouble a mile off and who more than likely have a black list of troublesome tenants to be avoided. Some will be HAP tenants and some wont but why put yourself out with all the hassle of HAP when you have any number of tenants to choose from.

The main problem with HAP as far as I understand is if the tenant doesnt pay his share to the council the council with hold the HAP payment from the landlord, this means very quickly the property is losing money and the council will be of no help at all in getting the tenant out.

the_syco · 20-03-2019 6:05pm

binana wrote: »

Snot wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections

Said standard is unknown. It's not the same for all councils.
It's unknown if or when the inspection will take place.
If the landlord doesn't have the money to upgrade to the new standards, they can get fined for not allowing a HAP tenant to stay at their house.
If they do upgrade to the new standards, they don't make their money back.
Why is making their money back important? Because it's a business. If the business is unprofitable, or may be unprofitable, why take the chance? Just don't rent to HAP tenants.

Fol20 · 20-03-2019 6:14pm

binana wrote: »

But what's the "hassle"? Having your property inspected to make sure it's fit for purpose?

You are viewing this from the outside in. There is extra admin and hassle in this.
Lets say you have 2 perspective tenants. Tenant A is HAP and tenant B is not.

Tenant A:
-You have to sign several documents along with a tax cert to the county council.
-In my case i didnt feel comfortable giving this info to the tenant so i physically had to go to my local county council to provide this info.
-It can take several months for HAP to be setup and from my experience, it generally isnt back dated to application date so you are hoping the tenant can AFFORD the payments until HAP application has been completed.
-In my case, some parts of the documentation was not filled in correctly and i had to go to the county council a second time a month or two later. They are only open on weekdays so its great taking a day off for something like this.
-Now my payment is split where tenant pays x amount and HAP pay balance, I incur more transaction charges on my bank account and more admin work to ensure i receive payment from both sources.
-my tenant has been there much longer than a year and have yet to have the inspection but if you dont know already, the inspection goes above the minimum standards an there have been threads on boards and where the colour of paint has not be acceptable.

Tenant B:
-Give them your IBAN details and your done.

I have not mentioned the other aspects of HAP behaviour at all and as you can see its only human to go with the easier option

Fol20 · 20-03-2019 6:19pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

With HAP, tenants can legally pay the difference between the HAP limit and what the ll is charging. That is what is happening in my case and everything was declared correctly.

amcalester · 20-03-2019 6:21pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No they can't as they pay part of the rent to the state based on means test basis. The rent limits are the entire amount they are allowed pay. There are people who do it but they are committing fraud both the tenant and the landlord.

After I wrote that I checked citizens advice and it says there are exceptions allowed but this is dealt with in case by case basis and limited to 20%.

Speaking from experience at least one council is happy for tenants to top up.

Edgware · 20-03-2019 7:33pm

If a landlord doesnt know how to work the system then he/she deserves what they get

Ray Palmer · 20-03-2019 7:36pm

amcalester wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No they can't as they pay part of the rent to the state based on means test basis. The rent limits are the entire amount they are allowed pay. There are people who do it but they are committing fraud both the tenant and the landlord.

After I wrote that I checked citizens advice and it says there are exceptions allowed but this is dealt with in case by case basis and limited to 20%.

Speaking from experience at least one council is happy for tenants to top up.

There is a limit the rent was above the entire limit including the 20% which I considered. I was being asked to lie on the form

L1011 · 20-03-2019 9:04pm

Anyone who continues to post potentially libelous material about the plantiff will be carded. Boards.ie is not going to carry the can for you in a court action

steamsey · 20-03-2019 9:55pm

If you take the tenant out of the equation completely and just look at the HAP scheme itself - it's not worth it. Then, add in a little bit of reasonable worry and doubt about some HAP tenants and you're at a place where it makes no sense.

There have been cases where the tenant is approved for more than the asking rent and uses this as an edge to get ahead of other tenants - for example tenant has €1,280 HAP. The rent is €1,200. Tenant, to get ahead of the queue so to speak, tells the landlord they may as well jack the rent up to €1,280. It's not their money after all.....I wonder just how often this actually happens and how much taxpayer money is spent in this way. It's a nice edge to have - especially when it's costing the individual nothing directly.

GGTrek · 21-03-2019 12:10am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

I believe you are taking massive risks answering by email to these HAP people. They are trigger happy people with nothing to loose and as you have experienced they will not think twice before going to WRC since they have nothing to loose. I do not want tenants with nothing to loose, I have got a lot to loose for every tenancy and such an asymetric business relationship is too risky. The rational behaviour is not answering any email to applications that are not interesting for whatever reason. In this way all the political and media BS goes down the drain and it is completely bypassed, since no evidence is created. There are a lot of would be buyers that complain to politicians that their mortgages are not approved (I believe more than half), the hypocrite Murphy replied that the banks are finally making solid lending decisions and limiting risks (but he does not accept it for a landlord refusing tenants based on economic circumstances!) The politicians and their friends in the media would love thought control, but it is not possible yet

Eric Cartman · 21-03-2019 12:28am

1000 euro is the cheapest price ive seen somebody get rid of a HAP tenant for :pac:

Graham · 21-03-2019 12:54am

Mod Note

GGTrek, please read the forum charter before posting again. Specifically "Bashing of particular demographics is not allowed here".

Garibaldi? · 21-03-2019 8:33am

I know of one case where a landlord(acquaintance of mine) decided not to renew a rent allowance type tenancy (before HAP was conceived). His new tenants guaranteed a higher rent, had good references etc. They left after three months leaving him to pay a further PRTB fee, change the name on the utilities again, and at a considerable loss of income incurred while finding new tenants. They claimed inability to pay the rent. Too dodgy and troublesome to pursue legally! He was sorry he had let down his previous reliable tenants whose rent was paid by the local authority. I'd be willing to bet that there are other similar stories out there.

2Mad2BeMad · 21-03-2019 9:53am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I had an ad up recently and the rent was above the limit for HAP. Still got people with HAP asking to see the place. I explained that the rent was more than HAP so they couldn't rent the place to more than one person.
Some of them came back saying I couldn't refuse HAP. Explained that with HAP they couldn't afford it not that I was not refusing HAP. One person went on about how they would pay the difference if I filled out the forms with a lower rent. I explained that would be illegal and I had rented the place anyway. They made a complaint to WRC. Had to send them on details of emails but technically if I hang on to those emails I am breaking GDPR. If they waited to complain I would have deleted the emails and no evidence

You would want to hope your not taken to court.

HAP in my case covers 1250. I can make up the rest to cover the rent.
Hap doesn't have to cover the whole of rent.

It's obvious you don't want anyone on HAP anyway so better off not replying to questions when people ask you.

overkill602 · 21-03-2019 10:54am

when letting i only want the least hassle but will take the time to get a good tenant no hap here to much paper work and probably the bottom of the barrel imo.
A friend of mine ended up paying 1 of these leeches 7K he was at fault, but these fines are turning private LLs more against HAP

Ray Palmer · 21-03-2019 3:02pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

You would want to hope your not taken to court.

HAP in my case covers 1250. I can make up the rest to cover the rent.
Hap doesn't have to cover the whole of rent.

It's obvious you don't want anyone on HAP anyway so better off not replying to questions when people ask you.

You really should not make assumptions. I have a tenant for over 30 years who receives HAP after being on other forms of rent allowance. The place I recently rented had a HAP tenant but the rent went above the limit so another HAP tenant couldn't take it as it was above the limit including the 20% discretionary amount.
A case has been brought but it will never go to court as the complainant asked for me to forge the form. Another one asked me to reduce the rent so it would be within limits and go mad that I refused. Lots of people feel they are entitled to make demands o private landlords and make silly assumptions. The rent is above HAP limits so I am not discriminating anyone want to say how it is discrimination?

Fol20 · 21-03-2019 3:21pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You really should not make assumptions. I have a tenant for over 30 years who receives HAP after being on other forms of rent allowance. The place I recently rented had a HAP tenant but the rent went above the limit so another HAP tenant couldn't take it as it was above the limit including the 20% discretionary amount.
A case has been brought but it will never go to court as the complainant asked for me to forge the form. Another one asked me to reduce the rent so it would be within limits and go mad that I refused. Lots of people feel they are entitled to make demands o private landlords and make silly assumptions. The rent is above HAP limits so I am not discriminating anyone want to say how it is discrimination?

You would be surprised at how the law works and how some people can win a case when i would have thought he would 100pc loose. I would echo what other people are saying and its safer just to ignore their emails than to say anything at all.

Thoie · 22-03-2019 1:10pm

binana wrote: »

My question was really WHY are HAP recipients considered higher risk? A very broad spectrum qualify for the relief.

binana wrote: »

So I've gathered the reasons some landlords want to discriminate against prospective HAP tenants are 1) stereotpyes about people with low income or those receiving social welfare 2) not wanting to be expected to provide a set standard of accomodation and/or be subject to inspections, and 3) paperwork. I certainly understand more now, thanks everyone

In the old days of Rent Allowance, I was a private, employed, tenant for a few years in one place. I was temporarily out of work for about 10 months at one point, and asked the landlord if he'd take rent allowance while I was job searching. He did, but it really was a PITA for him.

He was all above board (rent books, receipts, the lot), but there was a bunch of extra paperwork/forms that he then had to fill in. I can't remember the figures, but RA was paying the bulk of the rent, and I was paying the rest, so now he had to double check his bank statements to ensure that the right total had come in.

For no known reason, the second payment from the council didn't turn up in his account (though the first had), so he had to call me, to call the council to figure out what was happening. This happened again a few months later.

Then there was an inspection, where the woman from the council "failed" the place because there was no microwave. I pointed out that I didn't want a microwave, and the kitchen was very small and it would take up space. She insisted. In the end I borrowed a microwave from a friend, didn't even plug it in, and showed it to her. The landlord would have provided one if I'd asked, but I didn't even want one, and it would just have been more hassle for him.

By the time I got a new job, I, the tenant, was bloody sick of the RA hoops, and the messing that went with it (they got very snotty when I told them they couldn't come inspect because I had an interview at the time). I'm sure the landlord was too. He knew me already, and put up with the messing because he knew I was a good tenant, and wouldn't see him lose out, but I can totally understand why taking on an unknown tenant who might not be as assiduous with following up on HAP paperwork would be daunting.

2Mad2BeMad · 22-03-2019 1:14pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You really should not make assumptions. I have a tenant for over 30 years who receives HAP after being on other forms of rent allowance. The place I recently rented had a HAP tenant but the rent went above the limit so another HAP tenant couldn't take it as it was above the limit including the 20% discretionary amount.
A case has been brought but it will never go to court as the complainant asked for me to forge the form. Another one asked me to reduce the rent so it would be within limits and go mad that I refused. Lots of people feel they are entitled to make demands o private landlords and make silly assumptions. The rent is above HAP limits so I am not discriminating anyone want to say how it is discrimination?

I'm not making assumptions.
Don't reply to emails regarding HAP tenants if you don't want them.
I didn't ask for a life story I'm telling you one of them hap tenants will sue you and win the way your going on.

Sleeper12 · 22-03-2019 3:45pm

Thoie wrote:

Then there was an inspection, where the woman from the council "failed" the place because there was no microwave. I pointed out that I didn't want a microwave, and the kitchen was very small and it would take up space. She insisted. In the end I borrowed a microwave from a friend, didn't even plug it in, and showed it to her. The landlord would have provided one if I'd asked, but I didn't even want one, and it would just have been more hassle for him.

I've seen them insist that tiny cracks in the paint be filled & repainted before passing a place as fit to live. My own personal belief is that the government needs to improve the minimum standards but the RA inspectors took it to a level I wouldn't demand in my own privately owned home.

Overholding is the biggest fear of HAP imo.

Garibaldi? · 22-03-2019 4:29pm

In fairness, a good HAP tenant is a godsend. The rent is reasonable and he/she is conscious of that. The landlord knows the money is going to be paid at the right time. There is less fear of resentment, which can happen when a tenant feels he is paying over the odds. The Hap tenant is less likely to walk out before the landlord has the chance to find someone else and do all the paperwork. About half of the rent is going back to the state anyway, no matter who is living in the house.

Fol20 · 22-03-2019 6:56pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

In fairness, a good HAP tenant is a godsend. The rent is reasonable and he/she is conscious of that. The landlord knows the money is going to be paid at the right time. There is less fear of resentment, which can happen when a tenant feels he is paying over the odds. The Hap tenant is less likely to walk out before the landlord has the chance to find someone else and do all the paperwork. About half of the rent is going back to the state anyway, no matter who is living in the house.

I think the whole point though is that if you have a new tenant who you dont know if they are good or bad, its hard to pick a HAP tenant not because of behaviour, but because you have the extra workload, uncertainty of what the inspection might hold for you also.

FelaniaMump · 23-03-2019 2:44pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

as a LL i think it's only right and proper that you decide who you wish to let your property. although i can see certain lefty politicans in this country trying to take that right from LLs if they had their way.
certainly she was foolish to state "No HAPs"

Fortunately for society you are no longer allowed to discriminate against people so unfairly. Happy days.

FelaniaMump · 23-03-2019 2:46pm

godtabh wrote: »

I dont mind HAP per say but what I dont like is that the inspection happens after agreeing to HAP. If the inspection fails (and I've heard some horror stories) the LL doen't get paid.

The whole system is a mess.

I have said this many times: the inspection is merely to check your property meets the MINIMUM standards for ALL rental properties. If it fails, you are illegally renting to ALL tenants.
It has nothing at all to do with HAP. If you fail the inspection your property does not meet the rather low minimum standards for all properties in Ireland.

Why are landlords so afraid of having to meet the minimum legal standards? How bad are your rentals that you are all so worried?

FelaniaMump · 23-03-2019 2:50pm

GGTrek wrote: »

I believe you are taking massive risks answering by email to these HAP people. They are trigger happy people with nothing to loose and as you have experienced they will not think twice before going to WRC since they have nothing to loose. I do not want tenants with nothing to loose, I have got a lot to loose for every tenancy and such an asymetric business relationship is too risky. The rational behaviour is not answering any email to applications that are not interesting for whatever reason. In this way all the political and media BS goes down the drain and it is completely bypassed, since no evidence is created. There are a lot of would be buyers that complain to politicians that their mortgages are not approved (I believe more than half), the hypocrite Murphy replied that the banks are finally making solid lending decisions and limiting risks (but he does not accept it for a landlord refusing tenants based on economic circumstances!) The politicians and their friends in the media would love thought control, but it is not possible yet

"these HAP people"?? They are just people. Normal everyday people, mostly with jobs and kids and lives. Much nicer people than you from the sounds of it.
I bet most of them can even spell LOSE.

FelaniaMump · 23-03-2019 3:11pm

deandean wrote: »

I'm not a landlord. But another reason I'd see for landlords to be wary of HAP tenants is that tenants paying rent from their earnings are likely to look after the house better.

Rubbish. If anything its the exact opposite, tenants who have somehow managed to be able to get a rental on HAP despite the obvious rampant discrimination against them are going to do everything they can to hold onto it, knowing that they are unlikely to get another one.
They're likely to be the best tenants, especially if they have children.

tretorn · 23-03-2019 3:19pm

In fairness though if she was new to renting she wouldnt be aware of pitfalls and how much rights tenants have and how much their rights are increasing.

Its impossible to get bad tenants out so its much safer to just go for professionals in fulltime employment who can afford to pay the rent out of their own income, someone probably advised this property owner not to go for HAP tenants and in an ideal world a landlord should be able to choose you they rent their house to so many people probably think they can just decline HAP tenants without penalty.

This is why its better to get a local letting agent take care of vetting tenants, they can weed out the ones that come with extra baggage and pick the ones least likely to cause trouble. The letting agent will just ignore emails from HAP tenants if there are other options and then owner of property wont find themselves having to compensate someone they just didnt want to have in their property.

I would rather just pay the fine that have to let the house to someone who might be a problem, getting a troublesome non paying tenant out will cost thousands and there will be no help from any source if you find yourself in this situation, your life will be a total misery.

FelaniaMump · 23-03-2019 3:30pm

In an ideal world all LL's should be able to choose not to rent to low paid families? Erm, housing crisis? You may have heard of it. People with professional jobs can't afford to pay the massive rents now asked for normal family homes.

It's depressing we needed to bring in laws to make you people not cause all low paid workers to be homeless, but thankfully we did. " I didn't know I wasn't allowed to discriminate against people" is not an excuse or a defence.

Troublesome non paying tenants are as likely, more likely even, to be private renters. Stop conflating "HAP reciepient" with "bad tenant", its idiotic, untrue and offensive.

beauf · 23-03-2019 3:35pm

FelaniaMump wrote: »

.... If you fail the inspection your property does not meet the rather low minimum standards for all properties in Ireland. ...

The minimum standards are open to interpretation. A few have reported that HAP inspections have failed properties that had previously passed other inspections. No idea how true or onerous this is. I seem to remember one saying they didn't accept window as ventilation but requires a mechanical fan etc. Again I don't know how true this is.

FelaniaMump · 23-03-2019 3:38pm

beauf wrote: »

The minimum standards are open to interpretation. A few have reported that HAP inspections have failed properties that had previously passed other inspections. No idea how true or onerous this is. I seem to remember one saying they didn't accept window as ventilation but requires a mechanical fan etc. Again I don't know how true this is.

I'll help you out: it's not true. It's a standard checklist and the council employees that do it (usually a clerk of works) all have the same training for it.
the minimum standards are low and the inspection takes 15 mins in total.

beauf · 23-03-2019 3:47pm

FelaniaMump wrote: »

...
It's depressing we needed to bring in laws to make you people not cause all low paid workers to be homeless, ....

What caused the crisis is govt policy. Both in not building social housing and in over heating the market.

beauf · 23-03-2019 3:53pm

FelaniaMump wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

The minimum standards are open to interpretation. A few have reported that HAP inspections have failed properties that had previously passed other inspections. No idea how true or onerous this is. I seem to remember one saying they didn't accept window as ventilation but requires a mechanical fan etc. Again I don't know how true this is.

I'll help you out: it's not true. It's a standard checklist and the council employees that do it (usually a clerk of works) all have the same training for it.
the minimum standards are low and the inspection takes 15 mins in total.

Well lots of complaints about it, from different sources. They can't all be fake. They should block the properties from being rented of they are the bad. End of problem.

LL fined for refusing HAPs tenant.

Comments