# Is it time for landlords to charge more for rent allowance tenants?



## minion (15 Aug 2010)

Im out of the game myself now, but i have several friends who have recently told me that they are having problems with getting rent from rent allowance tenants.  This seems to be more common lately.
Basically the health boards are insisting on paying the rent to the tenant rather than direct to the landlord like they used to if the landlord asked.

So this is a risk to the landlord now, that the tenant will spend the rent money and let arrears build up.  Now obviously not all RA tenants are doing this, but some do and something needs to be done about it.

If health boards insist on bypassing the landlords who accept RA then the landlords should charge say an extra €50 or €100 per month for the risk.  Kind of like insurance.

But the easiest answer is that the rent is paid from the health board direct to the landlord.  This allows the landlord to ensure he receives the rent or at least most of it every month.  It takes the risk out of the situation.  

I just dont understand why the health boards do not cooperate.  So  if the health board are made to pay for the risk they introduce, then they wont be long about paying the landlords direct, so as its cheaper for them.


----------



## tiger (15 Aug 2010)

I agree this would make sense.
It would also make sense to review rents, in light of recent decreases.
Standard of accomodation provided should be reviewed/inspected.
Also rents should only be paid to landlords who are tax compliant and PRTB registered.


----------



## Knuttell (15 Aug 2010)

Recently gave up accecpting R/A tenants,they are just too much hastle,I find those that earn the money to pay their deposit and rent have a far greater appreciation for their home.

Also their priorities are pay bills,rent,loans etc with R/A tenants its buy bling and tat.royal dutch(GOLD!!),John Player blue,lotto tickets,Dominos Pizza,crisps etc and what evers left over is for the Landlord...and when they leave the property,it has had significantly more wear and tear.


----------



## Howitzer (16 Aug 2010)

tiger said:


> I agree this would make sense.
> It would also make sense to review rents, in light of recent decreases.
> Standard of accomodation provided should be reviewed/inspected.
> Also rents should only be paid to landlords who are tax compliant and PRTB registered.


A recent Oireachtas Committee was told only 20% of landlords in receipt of RA had supplied their PPSNs. The other 80% must have had other priorities.


----------



## pascal12 (16 Aug 2010)

There are a lot of new landlords some not by choice in the mix those are struggling in the current turmoil created by the this stupid greedy government now adding to the large pool of rental property about I don’t think the market will support increases in rent even for tenants who are inclined not to prioritize the payment of rent. 
  [FONT=&quot]
I think RA should be paid direct to registered landlords but as this is the responsibility of the HSE whose existence is questionable could deliver on this.[/FONT]


----------



## minion (20 Aug 2010)

There would be no increase in rent to the renter.
Just to the HB as they are the ones causing the problem.
Much like a bank charging a higher interest rate for a higher risk, or Ryanair charging a handling fee.

So HB gives rent allowance of €400 PM.  Landlord charges €40 PM RA fee for signing the RA forms.  If the RA is paid directly into the landlords account then the fee is waived.


----------



## milic (20 Aug 2010)

To develop this further;

Should Social Welfare be required to pay their customers electricity bills directly to the ESB, their gas bills to Bord Gais, their TV licence to An Post, their satellite TV to SKY?

Why restrict this to housing costs? Let us require SW to pay customers home heating costs directly to ESSO and their grocery bills to TESCO.

Investors in residential property have a cheek in expecting the health board to do their legwork for them.


----------



## twofor1 (20 Aug 2010)

milic said:


> Should Social Welfare be required to pay their customers electricity bills directly to the ESB, their gas bills to Bord Gais, their TV licence to An Post, their satellite TV to SKY?
> 
> Why restrict this to housing costs? Let us require SW to pay customers home heating costs directly to ESSO and their grocery bills to TESCO.
> 
> .


 
No.

All these bills also belong to and are the responsibility of the Tenant, not the landlord.

If ESB, Board Gais and Sky are not paid, they will promptly cut off their service. An Post will prosecute the Tenant for not having a licence. Esso and Tesco will not deliver unless the Tenant pays them.

The Landlord however is obliged to follow lengthy procedures laid down by the PRTB, if the tenant refuses to hand over the rent they have received from Social Welfare.

Very often the Landlord ends up seriously out of pocket as a result.

Rent allowance is given to pay your rent, not anything else.


----------



## milic (20 Aug 2010)

All the bills including housing costs are the responsibility of the tenant.

None are the responsibility of the landlord.

Most SW recipients receive a fuel allowance in addittion to their payment for 5 or 6 months of the year. By the logic of some contributors to this thread SW should pay it directly to fuel merchants.

Rental agreements are between landlord and tenant. How tenant finances housing costs or how much state support tenant receives to cover housing costs is tenants business alone

If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen




y


----------



## becky (21 Aug 2010)

milic said:


> To develop this further;
> Should Social Welfare be required to pay their customers electricity bills directly to the ESB, their gas bills to Bord Gais, their TV licence to An Post, their satellite TV to SKY?
> Why restrict this to housing costs? Let us require SW to pay customers home heating costs directly to ESSO and their grocery bills to TESCO.
> Investors in residential property have a cheek in expecting the health board to do their legwork for them.


 plus 1.


----------



## AlbacoreA (21 Aug 2010)

The system is flawed. Its paid one month in arrears, so you should ask for two months deposit. But IMO just not worth the hassle. HSE just aren't interested in helping landlords make the system work either.


----------



## jackbetal (21 Aug 2010)

milic said:


> If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen



Firstly I do agree with you that the non payment of rent is 100% the tenants responsibility.

But to say "If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen" is like saying to a landlord "tough sh*t". Because the reality of it is that a landlord will be well and truly out of business by the time the law has dealt with the non paying tenant. And even then the chances are the landlord will never get back the majority of lost rent or legal fees.


----------



## lightswitch (21 Aug 2010)

jackbetal said:


> Firstly I do agree with you that the non payment of rent is 100% the tenants responsibility.
> 
> But to say "If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen" is like saying to a landlord "tough sh*t". Because the reality of it is that a landlord will be well and truly out of business by the time the law has dealt with the non paying tenant. And even then the chances are the landlord will never get back the majority of lost rent or legal fees.


 

Surely this is a business risk the Landlord should have considered before he entered into renting out houses.  At the end of the day if a Landlord doesn't want SW tennants then don't take them.  Simple as.  The system is what it is if you don't like it and can get non SW tennants then go that route.


----------



## jackbetal (21 Aug 2010)

lightswitch said:


> Surely this is a business risk the Landlord should have considered before he entered into renting out houses.  At the end of the day if a Landlord doesn't want SW tennants then don't take them.  Simple as.  The system is what it is if you don't like it and can get non SW tennants then go that route.



I as a landlord have had SW tenants and non SW tenants. There are good and bad in both. But I also believe if other landlords have a preference then that is their choice.

Where my problem lies is with a system which leaves a landlord totally open to abuse and loss(which could be severe in current climate) in a situation where a tenant does not pay their rent. 

Surely you are not endorsing a system which only favours one side.


----------



## lightswitch (21 Aug 2010)

I'm just not endorsing the HSE propping up anyones business. Being a landlord is running a business. Considering the state of the rental market with regard to oversupply surely landlords should be grateful for anything they get from the HSE should they choose to take on SW tennants. They do have the option of leaving their property empty.

The HSE has no obligation to any landlord, they have an obligation to house people who can not afford to house themselves. It is ultimately tax payers money, including my own, we are talking about here.

You are also open to the risk of non payment of rent, damage to property etc from a non SW tennant with the same leagal route open to you.  If you dont like SW tennants dont take them.


----------



## jackbetal (21 Aug 2010)

I think we may have our wires crossed here. I am discussing this point 
"If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen".

What I am saying includes all tenants and not just SW tenants. I believe that the system of recourse for a landlord to deal with rent not paid is completely unjust and could in effect bankrupt a large number of landlords. I for example will be in very serious trouble if a tenant does not pay their rent and I then have to try to claim it back through the legal channels and to just say that " he landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen" is being totally dismissive and ignorant to the reality of the situation.


----------



## Joe Q Public (21 Aug 2010)

What do you propose? Torture of tenants? Sticking them in the stocks in the middle of town?


----------



## Pat Bateman (21 Aug 2010)

jackbetal said:


> I as a landlord have had SW tenants and non SW tenants. There are good and bad in both. But I also believe if other landlords have a preference then that is their choice.
> 
> Where my problem lies is with a system which leaves a landlord totally open to abuse and loss(which could be severe in current climate) in a situation where a tenant does not pay their rent.
> 
> Surely you are not endorsing a system which only favours one side.


 
The rent allowance should be paid directly to the landlord as the payment is for rent and nothing else. It is not 'extra social welfare' to be spent in (for example) the pub.

And people are deluding themselves if they think landlords (and society in general) don't have more problems with 'SW tenants'. Let's call a spade a spade...if you're dealing with 'SW tenants' you're FAR more likely to be dealing with 'the lowest common denominator' of society. That isn't me being provocative...it's just reality and anyone who claims otherwise needs their head examined.


----------



## jackbetal (21 Aug 2010)

Joe Q Public said:


> What do you propose? Torture of tenants? Sticking them in the stocks in the middle of town?



Great post. Totally whats needed. 

All tenants, myself included, deserve decent accommodation but if a tenant is not paying their rent because they simply do not want to then they should be held accountable. Equally a landlord who is not charging a fair rent for a decent standard should also be brought to book. But the law stands it is wide open to abuse from bad tenants.


----------



## Joe Q Public (21 Aug 2010)

I do agree that SW should be paying RA direct to the landlord and no one else.


----------



## milic (21 Aug 2010)

My response to any landlord who considers SW tenants to be 'lowest common denominator of society' is to steer well clear of them. Deal only with nice middle class if you can find them.  If you cannot then leave your property idle

Why do property investors who rent out property consider themselves to apart from other private sector service providers. Perhaps they are not investors at all but a kind of Housing Association with charitable status who are activated by a desire to help those who cannot provide for themselves

If individuals are entitled to state support to provide for themselves then they are entitled to receive it themselves. The state has no right to hand over part of their entitlement to a third party be it the fuel merchant or the landlord.


----------



## Pat Bateman (21 Aug 2010)

milic said:


> The state has no right to hand over part of their entitlement to a third party be it the fuel merchant or the landlord.


 
That's the whole point - The State does have a right to do that.

A fuel allowance should be used to purchase fuel and a rent allowance should be used to pay rent.  If tenants are abusing the system then the landlords should receive the rent allowance directly.  Similarly, if landlords are abusing their position, there should be scope for the tenant to receive the rent allowance.  If landlords are being left hanging for rent, there should at least be a mechanism for a tenant to be 'blacklisted' and for their rent allowance to be paid directly to their landlord.

And by the way, I stand by my earlier comments.  Only an idiot would dispute the fact that 'SW tenants' are more likely than 'non SW tenants' to be troublesome.  That's not a criticism of 'tenants'.  It's merely a logical conclusion.


----------



## lightswitch (21 Aug 2010)

Pat Bateman said:


> That's the whole point - The State does have a right to do that.
> 
> A fuel allowance should be used to purchase fuel and a rent allowance should be used to pay rent. If tenants are abusing the system then the landlords should receive the rent allowance directly. Similarly, if landlords are abusing their position, there should be scope for the tenant to receive the rent allowance. If landlords are being left hanging for rent, there should at least be a mechanism for a tenant to be 'blacklisted' and for their rent allowance to be paid directly to their landlord.
> 
> And by the way, I stand by my earlier comments. Only an idiot would dispute the fact that 'SW tenants' are more likely than 'non SW tenants' to be troublesome. That's not a criticism of 'tenants'. It's merely a logical conclusion.


 
To address you last point first. In your case, with your opinions, simply don't rent to SW tennants. Let your properties lie idle if needs be and stick with your principles.

If we were to take your first point another step then maybe employers should pay their employees mortgages directly out of their wages. I'm sure the Banks would love that.

A point that has been made several times that you seem to want to ignore is that landlords are running businesses letting out houses. Like any business there are risks involved. To use your own words only an idiot would have become a landlord without being aware of those risks in the first place.

That's not a criticism of 'landlords'. It's merely a logical conclusion.


----------



## Pat Bateman (21 Aug 2010)

lightswitch said:


> To address you last point first. In your case, with your opinions, simply don't rent to SW tennants. Let your properties lie idle if needs be and stick with your principles.
> 
> If we were to take your first point another step then maybe employers should pay their employees mortgages directly out of their wages. I'm sure the Banks would love that.
> 
> ...


 
No, it's a completely illogical conclusion.  Rent allowance is specifically for paying rent.  Salaries are not specifically for paying mortgages.

You are also missing the point in relation to 'SW tenants'.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't rent to a 'SW tenant' or advising anyone else not to do so.  I'm merely stating that as a group, 'SW tenants' are more likely to be troublesome than 'non SW tenants'.  That isn't exactly a dramatic revelation.


----------



## milic (21 Aug 2010)

The point you are missing, Pat, is that any state support individuals receive is THEIR entitlement, not the landlords, the ESBs or anyone elses. It is up to each enterprise to collect their own bills

If I as a salaried worker, with mortgage interest tax relief, do not repay my mortgage on my home it is up to the AIB to pursue me. They cannot require my employer to deduct from my salary and give to them.

Landlords seem to think they are in a different category. They are not. The landlords unpaid bill is like the plumbers unpaid bill for fixing the heating. The plumber cant go to the SW office and demand payment out of the customers weekly welfare payment.


----------



## Pat Bateman (21 Aug 2010)

milic said:


> The point you are missing, Pat, is that any state support individuals receive is THEIR entitlement, not the landlords, the ESBs or anyone elses.


 
The point you are missing is that 'rent supplement' is a contribution towards paying rent.  If the tenant is choosing not to pay the rent then payment of the 'rent supplement' should either be terminated or made directly to the landlord.

The payment isn't the tenant's to keep - You don't seem to understand this point.  It's the tenant's to then pay to the landlord and if they're not doing that then remedial action should be taken. No tenant should be in receipt of 'rent allowance' if they're not actually paying their rent.

It's called 'rent supplement' rather than 'few bob extra for whatever' for a reason.


----------



## canicemcavoy (22 Aug 2010)

Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Is it time for landlords to take more taxpayers' money for rent allowance tenants"?


----------



## lightswitch (22 Aug 2010)

Pat Bateman said:


> The point you are missing is that 'rent supplement' is a contribution towards paying rent.


 
The point you seem to be missing Pat is that "Mortgage Intrest Relief" is a contribution towards the payments made on a Mortgage, whether the payments are actually made or not, very similar thing.

On another note there are a lot of ex professionals such as Architects and Solicitors unemployed now.  Are  you suggesting that they are being troublesome now that they are unable to find work?


----------



## minion (22 Aug 2010)

milic said:


> My response to any landlord who considers SW tenants to be 'lowest common denominator of society' is to steer well clear of them. Deal only with nice middle class if you can find them.  If you cannot then leave your property idle
> 
> Why do property investors who rent out property consider themselves to apart from other private sector service providers. Perhaps they are not investors at all but a kind of Housing Association with charitable status who are activated by a desire to help those who cannot provide for themselves
> 
> If individuals are entitled to state support to provide for themselves then they are entitled to receive it themselves. The state has no right to hand over part of their entitlement to a third party be it the fuel merchant or the landlord.



As I said in the first post there is another option.  Charge extra for the risk.
So now the landlord 

a - can refuse RA tenants and steer well clear of them.  No risk.
b - Take them on but be compensated for the added risk of the HB not paying the rent directly.  The landlord is, afterall, taking on someone who cannot pay their rent themselves.  This is a big risk.  

If the HB paid directly to the landlord then this risk is largely irrelevant.  No extra risk, no extra charge.  Simple.


----------



## Pat Bateman (22 Aug 2010)

lightswitch said:


> The point you seem to be missing Pat is that "Mortgage Intrest Relief" is a contribution towards the payments made on a Mortgage, whether the payments are actually made or not, very similar thing.
> 
> On another note there are a lot of ex professionals such as Architects and Solicitors unemployed now. Are you suggesting that they are being troublesome now that they are unable to find work?


 
You clearly don't understand how these things work.

Mortgage interest relief is NOT received if the mortgage isn't paid. If it's receivable at source (i.e. TRS) and an individual doesn't make their (say) monthly mortgage repayment, the individual doesn't get the relevant TRS. Similarly, if the individual claims the relief through their income tax return, they claim relief against interest paid. If they've paid no interest, they get no relief.

Instead of making a valid point, all you've done is illustrate the logic of my point and destroy your own credibility.


----------



## milic (22 Aug 2010)

Pat Bateman said:


> The point you are missing is that 'rent supplement' is a contribution towards paying rent. If the tenant is choosing not to pay the rent then payment of the 'rent supplement' should either be terminated or made directly to the landlord.
> 
> The payment isn't the tenant's to keep - You don't seem to understand this point. It's the tenant's to then pay to the landlord and if they're not doing that then remedial action should be taken. No tenant should be in receipt of 'rent allowance' if they're not actually paying their rent.
> 
> It's called 'rent supplement' rather than 'few bob extra for whatever' for a reason.


 
Rent supplement is payable to those who are paying for their housing needs. 

If a person is not paying for housing needs, whether because he already owns his home or because he lives with his parents or because he refuses to pay the landlord then no rent supplement is payable to that person.

To Minion: It is the right of the landlord to seek such rent payments as he thinks the market will bear. It would be foolish of him to do otherwise.


----------



## allthedoyles (22 Aug 2010)

You know that many landlords are charging € 50 to € 100 more than the maximum RA .

Is this the risk money mentioned by OP ?


----------



## Joe Q Public (23 Aug 2010)

No doubt about that.


----------



## AlbacoreA (23 Aug 2010)

I'm only guessing, but IMO a landlord is going to rent at the market rate. Unless there are no other tenants,  (unlikely in most cases) they won't target RA tenants specifically. In fact they'd target non RA tenants first. Maybe in certain areas of very high unemployment, the % of RA tenants is much higher then the landlord would lower the rent accordingly.

100 isn't going to cover a months rent if a tenant skips. After a year of good tenancy a tenant is unlikely to skip, so it makes no sense to take 10~12 months to collect it. A bigger deposit would make more sense. It would suit everyone if a independent regulated 3rd party held this deposit, that wasn't bias to either side.


----------

