# 85,000 people getting rent assistance



## Brendan Burgess

He said 85, but I assume it's 85,000


----------



## Purple

I hope it wasn't a mistake...


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Here is the Minister's speech



			https://assets.gov.ie/90851/6a8d3e0d-3f57-4a3d-bd69-ce84c382e594.pdf
		


The current expenditure allocation of €2.4 billion in 2021 will support an additional 
15,000 Housing Assistance Payment tenancies and 800 Rental Accommodation
Scheme tenancies. This means that approximately 85,000 tenancies will be
supported through these schemes next year.


----------



## faketales

I understand there is about 800,000 people renting in Ireland. 

However the 85,000 above refers to tenancies. So on the assumption that each tennancy has 2 renters about 20% of tenancies are supported. 

Interesting to understand the impact of that support on the market. There is a finite number of properties so more support will raise the cost resulting in more support required.


----------



## WolfeTone

It's one unfortunate trait of our housing system. The State is over a barrel when it comes to housing assistance. If it were to withdraw, and allow the market to do its thing, over the mid to long-term, the market price would find its equilibrium. 
However, over the short-term, increasing homelessness would shoot up. 
Unable to pay rent, evictions would multiply. With nowhere to stay and no State supports crime levels would dramatically increase, vulnerable tenants selling drugs, prostitution. More money would be spent on law enforcement rather than social assistance, prisons would be at breaking point.  
Generations will be lost in the cycle of poverty.


----------



## Purple

Yep, the State has outsourced the provision of social housing to the private sector and then legislated to force that private sector to behave like the State. The net impact is that landlords can't evict anyone who doesn't pay their rent of wrecks their property and those renting without State supports are paying way more than they should.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> Yep, the State has outsourced the provision of social housing to the private sector and then legislated to force that private sector to behave like the State.



It's a shambles alright.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> It's a shambles alright.


Yep, all the nonsense about greedy landlords as if they have some duty to provide social housing. Should people selling second hand cars have to take the financial circumstances and social needs of the purchaser into account or should they be allowed to sell to the highest bidder?


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> It's a shambles alright.


Yeah and the State does not seem to be actually building any significant numbers of properties rather they appear to want the private sector "build to rent" model to supply the housing needs of those on the housing list. 

When the private sector landlords have a large enough control of the market and can act in a concerted manner wait and see what happens. Then the State is in for a whole other type of pain in the housing sector.


----------



## jpd

I do not think the State has employed construction workers for years, if not decades.

So if it suddenly took on all the construction workers to build public housing, where would that leave the rest of the construction industry including that part of it building private houses?

We could, of course, train more construction workers but that is not something you can do in a matter of weeks or even months


----------



## Purple

jpd said:


> I do not think the State has employed construction workers for years, if not decades.
> 
> So if it suddenly took on all the construction workers to build public housing, where would that leave the rest of the construction industry including that part of it building private houses?
> 
> We could, of course, train more construction workers but that is not something you can do in a matter of weeks or even months


Builders who are public servants. I don't like the sound of that. There's a Dublin City council depot near where I work and it's a running joke watching them leave in the morning to park up down the road or be parked up nearby waiting for their shift to end so that they can go back to base.
The Local Authorities should employ contractors and subcontractors to do the building.


----------



## Purple

jpd said:


> We could, of course, train more construction workers but that is not something you can do in a matter of weeks or even months


The last building boom could only happen because we had a massive influx of building trades people from Eastern Europe when only the UK and Ireland would let them in. It helped that they are generally more highly skilled and conscientious than their Irish counterparts.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> Should people selling second hand cars have to take the financial circumstances and social needs of the purchaser into account or should they be allowed to sell to the highest bidder?



No, I wouldnt have thought so. 
It's a poor comparison however, housing is a social necessity. Even one night without a roof over the head is a cause for concern. 
Limerick family evicted
If I wanted to, I could live without a car my whole life. Many people do without any fuss.


----------



## WolfeTone

The Horseman said:


> When the private sector landlords have a large enough control of the market and can act in a concerted manner wait and see what happens.



I would have thought we are at that point already. 85,000 getting rent assistance and private rental rates at all time highs, housing waiting lists at all time highs, homelessness at all time highs.

Are you suggesting there is worse to come once the landlords concert together? What have they in store do you think?


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> No, I wouldnt have thought so.
> It's a poor comparison however, housing is a social necessity. Even one night without a roof over the head is a cause for concern.
> Limerick family evicted
> If I wanted to, I could live without a car my whole life. Many people do without any fuss.


Yes, but is that social responsibility on the Landlord or the State?


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> I would have thought we are at that point already. 85,000 getting rent assistance and private rental rates at all time highs, housing waiting lists at all time highs, homelessness at all time highs.


Maybe I'm cynical but as long as they are giving out virtually free houses there will be a waiting list for those houses.
I've no doubt that homelessness is a real issue but there was a time when people lived with their parents until they could afford a house. Now they are homeless.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> Yes, but is that social responsibility on the Landlord or the State?



The bottom line, it is the State who is responsible. Housing is a social necessity, without which the fabric and development of civilised societies would never have emerged. We have adopted a policy to outsource the provision of housing to the private market, where unfortunately, some landlords see the provision of housing as an investment for their own pension first, the provision of shelter second.



Purple said:


> I've no doubt that homelessness is a real issue but there was a time when people lived with their parents until they could afford a house. Now they are homeless.



You are only classed as homeless if

There is no accommodation available that, in the opinion of the local authority, you and any other person who normally lives with you or who might reasonably be expected to live with you, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of, or
You are living in a hospital, county home, night shelter or other such institution, and you are living there because you have no suitable accommodation or
You are, in the opinion of the local authority, unable to provide accommodation from your own resources
If you are living with your parents and have resources to save, or to rent elsewhere, your are not classed as homeless.


----------



## LS400

WolfeTone said:


> some landlords see the provision of housing as an investment for their own pension first, the provision of shelter second.



And your saying it should be the other way round.... Seriously, Get real. 

I offered a person a job last week, the one of the issues they had was, crikey LS, If you pay me more this will affect my Hap.... I need to weight this up..

An absolute joke.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> ome landlords see the provision of housing as an investment for their own pension first, the provision of shelter second.



Are you suggesting that landlords should be motivated by altruism? When the state taxes them more than many other business type?

The state outsourced this as they are incapable of providing value for money in the provision of housing, and then incapable of collecting rent on what they do own. In fairness though, you have to admire the outsource it and tax it heavily model!



WolfeTone said:


> If you are living with your parents and have resources to save, or to rent elsewhere, your are not classed as homeless.



Oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore....


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> I would have thought we are at that point already. 85,000 getting rent assistance and private rental rates at all time highs, housing waiting lists at all time highs, homelessness at all time highs.
> 
> Are you suggesting there is worse to come once the landlords concert together? What have they in store do you think?


the vast majority of landlords own one or two properties. They are forced to continue providing a service knowing full well the State has changed the law to protect the tenant at all costs. Even if a landlord can evict a tenant for non payment of rent the chances of recouping the lost rent is non existent. 

The State is giving favourable treatment to the institutional landlords which is why they are the only ones increasing the rental stock. Once they get a large enough control of the market and if the State tries to treat them the way the State is currently treating the small landlord then expect the landscape to change. 

The institutional landlords have the financial resources to take on the Govt through the courts. The individual landlord does not. The institutional landlords don't need to take the State on at the moment because of their
 preferential treatment.

Do you honestly think they will let the State dictate their terms of business and just sit back and take it.


----------



## WolfeTone

LS400 said:


> And your saying it should be the other way round



The first prerequiste of any landlord should be to provide affordable and reasonable accommodation (all mod cons). If the landlord cannot provide this, then do not enter the market, or if already in the market, leave the market.



LS400 said:


> I offered a person a job last week, the one of the issues they had was, crikey LS, If you pay me more this will affect my Hap.... I need to weight this up..



What happened? Did they turn down the job offer? Did you not offer less to try and persuade them otherwise?



Leo said:


> Are you suggesting that landlords should be motivated by altruism?



No. Im suggesting that being a landlord requires huge consideration before becoming one.



Leo said:


> Oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore....



I do not think that is one of the 'reasonable' factors set out above.



The Horseman said:


> The institutional landlords have the financial resources to take on the Govt through the courts. The individual landlord does not.



This is a good thing that Govt can be tackled through the courts. It offers more of a level playing field. If either party is feeling aggrieved they can take the other party to task. In the end, hopefully, you end up with an acceptable equilibrium of rights and obligations for both landlord and tenant.
If an individual cannot tackle the government in the courts then they perhaps should be minded not to become a landlord.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> The first prerequiste of any landlord should be to provide affordable and reasonable accommodation (all mod cons). If the landlord cannot provide this, then do not enter the market, or if already in the market, leave the market.


There are strict standards controlling what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" and if people are renting it then is is affordable. I presume you mean something else when you say affordable. If the State wants to lower rents then they need to sort out the construction sector and increase supply. My suggestion for a long time has been to purchase factory built Hoff House type dwellings (something like these) from US and European suppliers. They could negotiate very competitive prices due to the volumes involved. It would solve the labour shortage issue. The main roadblock is the unwillingness of the Department of the Environment to write specifications which would allow such dwellings to pass regulations as the current ones are written for our current Victorian method of house construction.
This is yet another example of State incompetence causing vast amounts of money to be wasted and incalculable human suffering.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> My suggestion for a long time has been to purchase factory built Hoff House type dwellings (something like these) from US and European suppliers. They could negotiate very competitive prices due to the volumes involved.



Sounds like a good idea. Cheap and quick to build, environmentally friendly. I would be hesitant however to designate them as buy-to-let properties into the private market. Unless conditions surrounding maximum rents were attached.



Purple said:


> The main roadblock is the unwillingness of the Department of the Environment to write specifications which would allow such dwellings to pass regulations as the current ones are written for our current Victorian method of house construction.



Is it the Department, or is it political interference? Given the Green Party hold this portfolio, on the face of it is odd that such regulations are not in train?


----------



## Silvius

WolfeTone, try being a private landlord and then come back and talk to us.



Purple said:


> Maybe I'm cynical but as long as they are giving out virtually free houses there will be a waiting list for those houses.


Purple, you've hit the nail on the head. Take the example of a young couple I know quite well. She comes from a family with a very strong work ethos, he doesn't. They decided to have three children while he worked part-time as a musician and she had been out of work for years. She got very sick and won't be able to work again, he gave up work to take care of her and realistically due to covid he probably won't find work again any time soon. They've been in receipt of HAP in private rented accomodation, on the housing list and just got a lovely house. They were very specific in their demands about colour schemes, kitchen design, bathroom units etc - I had no idea people getting a free house could be so specific in their requirements. If they weren't getting such substantial state support now between housing, various allowances and medical cards they would be entirely dependant on family or destitute so they certainly are 'the deserving poor.'  But there's no getting away from the fact that they decided to have children without being able to afford them and just trusted that the state would provide in the end and it did. The ethos of welfare dependency sets in and most likely passes on to the next generation....


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> if people are renting it then is is affordable



Well, this is the bone of contention. Just because I can afford €300 out of my €600 wage on rent, in theory this is 'affordable'. In practice, it is very unaffordable. And because it is housing, and not say, a car, then I am kind of forced to pay it or become homeless in the absence of adequate and reasonable alternative.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> Sounds like a good idea. Cheap and quick to build, environmentally friendly. I would be hesitant however to designate them as buy-to-let properties into the private market. Unless conditions surrounding maximum rents were attached.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the Department, or is it political interference? Given the Green Party hold this portfolio, on the face of it is odd that such regulations are not in train?


It's the Department. There have been specific offers made by Irish Expats who have offered, and are in a position to provide thousands of houses at cost. 
The houses should be provided by the State.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> Well, this is the bone of contention. Just because I can afford €300 out of my €600 wage on rent, in theory this is 'affordable'. In practice, it is very unaffordable. And because it is housing, and not say, a car, then I am kind of forced to pay it or become homeless in the absence of adequate and reasonable alternative.


I agree but I don't see how it is incumbent on the Landlord in any way to shoulder that social responsibility. The State, through institutional incompetence and the influence of a highly effective construction sector lobby, have utterly failed to shoulder their responsibilities and they have then punished those who end up providing housing.


----------



## WolfeTone

Silvius said:


> WolfeTone, try being a private landlord and then come back and talk to us.



No thanks, I wouldnt go anywhere near that sector, its a minefield for individuals with no experience in the sector. Its the same why I wouldn't invest in an articulated lorry and set myself up doing long-distance driving across Europe, earning a nice living and setting myself up with a good pension when I sell the lorry.
I don't anything about the sector. The regulations and requirements, the licensing, the revenue streams and cash flow, any other hidden pitfalls - like government interventions and taxes etc.
No, best if you know little about a sector, and have not factored in things like non-payment of rent, rent caps, refurbishment costs, etc, then stay away from the sector unless you have some financial and legal muscle to get you through the rough times.



Silvius said:


> Take the example of a young couple I know quite well. She comes from a family with a very strong work ethos, he doesn't. They decided to have three children while he worked part-time as a musician and she had been out of work for years.



Sorry, I couldnt read much further than this. 
You are a relatively new poster here? I will give you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> This is a good thing that Govt can be tackled through the courts. It offers more of a level playing field. If either party is feeling aggrieved they can take the other party to task. In the end, hopefully, you end up with an acceptable equilibrium of rights and obligations for both landlord and tenant.
> If an individual cannot tackle the government in the courts then they perhaps should be minded not to become a landlord.


But that is the point. Individual landlords do not have the financial resources to take the State to court. The institutional landlords do which is why they are receiving the favourable treatment from the State.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> I don't see how it is incumbent on the Landlord in any way to shoulder that social responsibility. The State, through institutional incompetence and the influence of a highly effective construction sector lobby, have utterly failed to shoulder their responsibilities



I agree, it is a shambles.
I don't agree with the punishment part. In my opinion, too many people entered the sector of being a landlord without really knowing what they were letting themselves in for. It was great during the Celtic Tiger, everybody had cash so non-payment of rent was not really an issue. But being a landlord is a long-term, often multi-generational task, it is not something suited for any individual to set up on their own on the basis that it is their retirement fund. For sure, it may work out that way, and good luck to those who succeed, but it can be a precarious and detrimental role if that is the aim.


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> Well, this is the bone of contention. Just because I can afford €300 out of my €600 wage on rent, in theory this is 'affordable'. In practice, it is very unaffordable. And because it is housing, and not say, a car, then I am kind of forced to pay it or become homeless in the absence of adequate and reasonable alternative.


Herein lies the crux of the issues we have. While something is not affordable to you does not mean it is not affordable to someone else. There are always alternatives be it move to a lower cost area, earn more money or reevaluate your spending priorities. 

This is something we all have to do on a daily basis. Why is it somebody else's responsibility to solve what a person can or can't afford to pay in rent?


----------



## LS400

WolfeTone said:


> What happened? Did they turn down the job offer? Did you not offer less to try and persuade them otherwise?




No, decided, I've enough dramas in my life, don`t need to add to them. The search continues...


----------



## Silvius

WolfeTone said:


> I will give you the benefit of the doubt.


Not sure what you mean wolfetone? If you mean that's an invented story to support a particular agenda, it's not.


----------



## WolfeTone

The Horseman said:


> There are always alternatives be it move to a lower cost area, earn more money or reevaluate your spending priorities.
> 
> This is something we all have to do on a daily basis. Why is it somebody else's responsibility to solve what a person can or can't afford to pay in rent?



In the main, and on an individual basis I agree with you. But the issue is not deciding what one person or other can or cannot afford etc. The issue is that in general, there have been an increasing number of people who are either homeless, or adding to the waiting list for a suitable home. Now if we were talking about the latest product from Apple, or whatever, no problem. But we are talking about housing which is a social necessity for development of civilised societies to develop and prosper. 

So the reasons why there is increasing numbers of homeless needs to be investigated. One of the reasons is, that given the level of housing stock, relative to the incomes of those on housing lists, houses have become unaffordable to them. Digging deeper, even those who can afford to pay rent, have been finding it increasingly difficult to save, let alone save enough for a deposit on their own home. 
This may be very detrimental to the overall well-being and fabric of our society. Couples with basic human behavioural tendencies to start families may delay doing so. Those that do start a family, may only be a pay cheque or two away from State dependency. Imagine if one was ill, unable to work and the partner gave up work to look after the healthcare? Suffering the ignominy of being labelled as someone in receipt of a 'free house', with the audacity to choose a colour scheme for furnishings. God forbid, the children have a home with wallpaper!

So it is not that person A or person B cannot afford, or choose to pay, high rents, it is that _increasing _numbers of people cannot pay the rent or afford a home of their own. When that is occuring, there is an structural deficit within the economy - a housing market failure, and that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> Is it the Department, or is it political interference? Given the Green Party hold this portfolio, on the face of it is odd that such regulations are not in train?


We all love to look to the Nordic Countries as embracing best in practice in all sorts of areas. In Sweden 45% of homes are factory built with the modules assembled onsite.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> We all love to look to the Nordic Countries as embracing best in practice in all sorts of areas. In Sweden 45% of homes are factory built with the modules assembled onsite.



Sounds great. Just need the political backbone to get it done now.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> Sounds great. Just need the political backbone to get it done now.


And the realisation that the Construction Industry will fight tooth and nail to stop that level of disruption within their sector... and the realisation that the Construction Industry are some of the biggest advertisers in our national newspapers.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> No. Im suggesting that being a landlord requires huge consideration before becoming one.



The goalposts were shifted significantly for many already in the business, others were forced into the business through circumstance. The only winners from the continued exodus of small time landlords from the business is the big corporates who will be far more effective at sweating their assets and protecting their interests.  



WolfeTone said:


> I do not think that is one of the 'reasonable' factors set out above.



You may not, but that's all it takes.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> others were forced into the business through circumstance.



And I get if someone made any significant investment into it they need to see a return on that. But there is nothing stopping a landlord selling up and exiting the sector if they consider no longer worth their while.



Leo said:


> The only winners from the continued exodus of small time landlords from the business is the big corporates who will be far more effective at sweating their assets and protecting their interests.



Perhaps, but a lot of small landlords are quite effective at 'sweating' their assets too. 
In the end, again, if it is corporate landlords the State primarily has to deal with, then what is needed is a robust system of rights and obligations for both tenant and landlord with adequate supports for tenants against unwarranted evictions, rent hikes, inadequate maintenance and furnishings etc.
Corporate landlords should have protections insofar as rent payment and protection of property etc. 

Instead what we have at the moment is citizen landlord v citizen tenant, a no-win situation for the government, particularly when one party is as bad as the other.



Leo said:


> You may not, but that's all it takes.



No it does not. There is a difference between having a fight and presenting yourself as homeless claiming you can no longer live with someone, and presenting yourself with a black-eye, broken nose because your drunken partner beat you up and threatened to kill the kids.

If you present yourself as homeless at any local authority or homeless shelter they are going to want to know the circumstances of your situation before classing you as homeless. They will also want to know where, without any intervention from them or other authorities, you intend to spend the night. It may occur in rare, extreme cases, but only an idiot will choose the streets over a bed waiting for them at home - empty just because 'we had a fight'.


----------



## LS400

WolfeTone said:


> Corporate landlords should have protections insofar as rent payment and protection of property etc.




"All landlords" should have had this protection, and if they had, more would have stayed in the game.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> No it does not. There is a difference between having a fight and presenting yourself as homeless claiming you can no longer live with someone, and presenting yourself with a black-eye, broken nose because your drunken partner beat you up and threatened to kill the kids.



Who's talking about domestic splits / violence? That's a tiny fraction of the bigger picture, vastly outweighed by those finishing full-time education and going on the housing lists. The former head of the housing agency got a lot of headlines a couple of years back when he spoke of the levels of gaming he saw going on in the system as he was preparing to hand on the baton.


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> In the main, and on an individual basis I agree with you. But the issue is not deciding what one person or other can or cannot afford etc. The issue is that in general, there have been an increasing number of people who are either homeless, or adding to the waiting list for a suitable home. Now if we were talking about the latest product from Apple, or whatever, no problem. But we are talking about housing which is a social necessity for development of civilised societies to develop and prosper.
> 
> So the reasons why there is increasing numbers of homeless needs to be investigated. One of the reasons is, that given the level of housing stock, relative to the incomes of those on housing lists, houses have become unaffordable to them. Digging deeper, even those who can afford to pay rent, have been finding it increasingly difficult to save, let alone save enough for a deposit on their own home.
> This may be very detrimental to the overall well-being and fabric of our society. Couples with basic human behavioural tendencies to start families may delay doing so. Those that do start a family, may only be a pay cheque or two away from State dependency. Imagine if one was ill, unable to work and the partner gave up work to look after the healthcare? Suffering the ignominy of being labelled as someone in receipt of a 'free house', with the audacity to choose a colour scheme for furnishings. God forbid, the children have a home with wallpaper!
> 
> So it is not that person A or person B cannot afford, or choose to pay, high rents, it is that _increasing _numbers of people cannot pay the rent or afford a home of their own. When that is occuring, there is an structural deficit within the economy - a housing market failure, and that needs to be addressed.


But the State is not allowing the market find its equilibrium. By pandering to the demands of those who want to live somewhere they can't afford is fuelling the rental prices. 

Have you ever considered who benefits the most from the rental market? Its actually the State. They receive in most instances 50% of the rent, they don't have the hassle of dealing with the tenant. They don't have the risk of non payment of rent and to top it all they make it virtually impossible to evict an errand tenant. 

Then we have people saying the rental market is dysfunctional. Ever wondered why? Maybe the State needs to treat tenants as adults rather than treating them with kid gloves and let them face the harsh realities of life.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> That's a tiny fraction of the bigger picture, vastly outweighed by those finishing full-time education and going on the housing lists. The former head of the housing agency got a lot of headlines a couple of years back when he spoke of the levels of gaming he saw going on in the system as he was preparing to hand on the baton.



Whatever about people 'gaming' the system, it is not as simple as 'oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore'.


----------



## WolfeTone

LS400 said:


> "All landlords" should have had this protection, and if they had, more would have stayed in the game.



Landlords grounds for ending a tenancy


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> But the State is not allowing the market find its equilibrium. By pandering to the demands of those who want to live somewhere they can't afford is fuelling the rental prices.
> 
> Have you ever considered who benefits the most from the rental market? Its actually the State. They receive in most instances 50% of the rent, they don't have the hassle of dealing with the tenant. They don't have the risk of non payment of rent and to top it all they make it virtually impossible to evict an errand tenant.
> 
> Then we have people saying the rental market is dysfunctional. Ever wondered why? Maybe the State needs to treat tenants as adults rather than treating them with kid gloves and let them face the harsh realities of life.


While I have sympathies for much of what you are saying it's a bit glib to say  that the State is pandering to the demands of those who want to live somewhere they can't afford. I think that in most cases they are more "pandering" to the needs of people who want to live somewhere. That doesn't mean there isn't fast abuses of the system by tenants.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> Landlords grounds for ending a tenancy


The reality is that if the Tenant just refuses to move out there is little the landlord can do other than bring them to court. that will be a lengthy process where the tenant will get lots of support from agencies like Threshold (paid for using the RTB charge the landlord made) and the landlord will get nothing. It will take years and tens of thousands to get them out.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> The reality is that if the Tenant just refuses to move out there is little the landlord can do other than bring them to court



This is from the Threshold website 

"_If you have been given a valid notice and do not dispute it then you should leave upon the expiry date unless you and the landlord mutually agree otherwise. If you do not leave your landlord cannot remove you or your belongings from the property. They have to refer a dispute to the RTB and the RTB can order you to vacate and you could face having to pay damages to the landlord for not leaving."_


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> This is from the Threshold website
> 
> "_If you have been given a valid notice and do not dispute it then you should leave upon the expiry date unless you and the landlord mutually agree otherwise. If you do not leave your landlord cannot remove you or your belongings from the property. They have to refer a dispute to the RTB and the RTB can order you to vacate and you could face having to pay damages to the landlord for not leaving."_


Could and will are two different things. In theory could end up sleeping with Emma Stone but will it happen?


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> Could and will are two different things.



True, but the point is, there are options there. Anyone thinking of becoming a landlord should be aware of potential pitfalls, particularly when it comes to the issue of housing. As stated numerous times, housing is clearly not just another commodity to be bought and sold for profit. So when I hear people complaining of the "hassle of dealing with the tenant", I have to wonder what did they expect? 
The mechanic complaining about the hassle of dealing with car repairs, the barman complaining about dealing with drunken customers, doctors complaining about dealing with sick people, to me, it all sounds like people not suited or out of their depth. But unlike the car mechanic or the barman, the Sate has a social duty and obligation to serve the ill, and many, many good doctors would continue to abide by that ethos during a health crisis even if it meant loss of income. Many working excessive hours to the point of near exhaustion. 

There was a surge of new landlords during Celtic Tiger times, it is clear that many were just jumping on the bandwagon without knowing what they were getting in to, riding off the back of an era with abundant cash with few issues relating to non-payment of rent. But they didnt look at the bigger picture. Its good, in the long-term, that these landlords are being flushed out.


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> True, but the point is, there are options there. Anyone thinking of becoming a landlord should be aware of potential pitfalls, particularly when it comes to the issue of housing. As stated numerous times, housing is clearly not just another commodity to be bought and sold for profit. So when I hear people complaining of the "hassle of dealing with the tenant", I have to wonder what did they expect?
> The mechanic complaining about the hassle of dealing with car repairs, the barman complaining about dealing with drunken customers, doctors complaining about dealing with sick people, to me, it all sounds like people not suited or out of their depth. But unlike the car mechanic or the barman, the Sate has a social duty and obligation to serve the ill, and many, many good doctors would continue to abide by that ethos during a health crisis even if it meant loss of income. Many working excessive hours to the point of near exhaustion.
> 
> There was a surge of new landlords during Celtic Tiger times, it is clear that many were just jumping on the bandwagon without knowing what they were getting in to, riding off the back of an era with abundant cash with few issues relating to non-payment of rent. But they didnt look at the bigger picture. Its good, in the long-term, that these landlords are being flushed out.


The mechanic can refuse to deal with the car repairs, the barman can refuse to deal with the drunk. Answer me this does the car mechanic continue to fix a persons car even though they did not get paid for the last time they fixed it? Does the barman serve the drunk the next time he enters the bar
This basic right is not afforded to the landlord.

You hit the nail on the head it's the States responsibility to house those who can't be house themselves. But the State should be doing this with the States assets not the landlords assets.


----------



## WolfeTone

The Horseman said:


> The mechanic can refuse to deal with the car repairs, the barman can refuse to deal with the drunk. Answer me this does the car mechanic continue to fix a persons car even though they did not get paid for the last time they fixed it? Does the barman serve the drunk the next time he enters the bar
> This basic right is not afforded to the landlord.



You have missed the point. The point is, a landlord who treats housing like any other commodity like car repairs, or serving beer, should not be a landlord in the first place. They are out of their depth. 



The Horseman said:


> You hit the nail on the head it's the States responsibility to house those who can't be house themselves. But the State should be doing this with the States assets not the landlords assets.



I agree. The State has made a dogs dinner of housing. It is overly reliant on the private sector to deliver it. For 20yrs or more we have never had a stable functioning housing market - not enough houses, prices too high, excessive lending and borrowing, too many units, units built in wrong places, bankruptcy, price crashes, excessive rents correlating with increasing homelessness - its all a bit of a shambles.


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> You have missed the point. The point is, a landlord who treats housing like any other commodity like car repairs, or serving beer, should not be a landlord in the first place. They are out of their depth.


Everything is a commodity. The only difference is who and how it is provided.


----------



## WolfeTone

The Horseman said:


> Everything is a commodity.



Housing is a human right, not a commodity. It is not comparable to commodities such as cars or beer. Anyone who holds them as comparable is not fit to be a landlord.
Types of houses, size, location, furnishings etc are commodities, but housing itself is not.


----------



## The Horseman

WolfeTone said:


> Housing is a human right, not a commodity. It is not comparable to commodities such as cars or beer. Anyone who holds them as comparable is not fit to be a landlord.
> Types of houses, size, location, furnishings etc are commodities, but housing itself is not.


A commodity is anything that is consumed. Where did I say people should not be housed. What I did say is that why should those who have something that others don't be treated less favourable than those who don't have something. 

If you feel so passionate about housing then maybe you should supply same rather than expecting others too!


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> many good doctors would continue to abide by that ethos during a health crisis even if it meant loss of income.


Just on that specific point, doctors are absolutely coining it at the moment.They get €30 for every Covid phone call that they receive (or they say they receive) and now get €25 for every non-Covid phone call they get from a medical card patient.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> You have missed the point.


In fairness he actually made a very good point.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> Just on that specific point, doctors are absolutely coining it at the moment.They get €30 for every Covid phone call that they receive (or they say they receive) and now get €25 for every non-Covid phone call they get from a medical card patient.



I don't doubt. The ethos that pervades that profession is slowly being ebbed away in this country for a culture of cash-cow, grab-all while you can. 
Similarily our rental culture here, albeit it is far worse, because many of the landlords in the system have no ethos at all. 
Rents have been increasing to record highs over the last number of years. It stands to reason that if you increase rents on tenants, the probability of non-payment increases and with it eviction notices. There is clearly too much cash-cow, grab-all while you can landlords in the system. It is self-defeating. Landlords, who have respectable rent paying tenants are hiking up rents for no other reason other than to maximise returns, and in turn increasing the probability of non-payment. They are searching for the market that will give them higher returns when in fact the market they have is already occupying their property.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> The ethos that pervades that profession is slowly being ebbed away in this country


I think it's more their self aggrandising nonsense is being seen for what it is. Doctors are no more or less greedy or ethical than plumbers or taxi drivers.


----------



## WolfeTone

The Horseman said:


> If you feel so passionate about housing then maybe you should supply same rather than expecting others too!



Outside of the State, I don't expect anyone to provide housing - and a derisory effort they have made.

If others wish to stand forward and offer a better service than the State, and on a commercial basis, let them. But they need to be cognizant of the sector they are getting into, the regulations, the nature of the service, the pitfalls - (in a period of increasing rents, increasing levels of non-payment of rent). 
Then they need to weigh up if they think it is worth the risk. If they proceed and it works out for them, fine, that is their entrepreneurial nous at play in making wise investments. But if it doesn't work out - blame the government?


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> Whatever about people 'gaming' the system, it is not as simple as 'oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore'.



It actually is once you're of adult age, that's all you need to put on the form. It has been spoken about as an issue in the social housings system for years to the extent that the prioritisation of homeless for social housing was  being questioned. Owen Keegan spoke about it as still being a problem last year.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> The point is, a landlord who treats housing like any other commodity like car repairs, or serving beer, should not be a landlord in the first place. They are out of their depth.



Why? You need to decide whether being a landlord is a business or a social service. If it's a business, then it should be strictly treated as such. It is entirely unreasonable to expect any private business to prioritise social need over the financial health of that business.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> It actually is once you're of adult age, that's all you need to put on the form. It has been spoken about as an issue in the social housings system for years to the extent that the prioritisation of homeless for social housing was being questioned. Owen Keegan spoke about it as still being a problem last year.



We are in danger of splitting hairs here. Keegan was involved with, and referring to, emergency accommodation as far as I recall. If you need emergency accommodation, yes, presenting yourself as having nowhere to stay is enough to get you a bed in a hostel or wherever. It does not automatically place you on the social housing list. You still have to meet the criteria above to qualify. Presenting yourself as homeless because "we had a fight...." is not a reasonable factor. It would have to be based on something more substantive like "we had a fight...and I fear for my safety" followed by an account of the fight and the reason to fear for ones safety. In which case Gardai should be called to investigate the claims. While such an investigation is occuring you can take up a bed in 12 person dormitory with the junkies and winos, if this is preferrable - in which case, adds substantive weight to the claim of fearing for safety at home and places you on the social housing list if your safety fears are substantiated - I don't think this is an issue?

Or, perhaps, you may consider on reflection, that the fight wasn't so bad after all, and that the benefits of the comfortable bed back home outweighs the hassle of squabbling siblings and their parents?


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> You need to decide whether being a landlord is a business or a social service



Its a social service, derived from social policy over the decades. Its why we have government departments dealing with it. The State has failed over the last 20yrs and more, to meet its obligations to provide adequate and affordable housing to meet the demands of the population. This is a consequence of public policy derived from successive governments that bought into the notion that the markets would be the most efficient and effective way to supply housing for the population.




Leo said:


> If it's a business, then it should be strictly treated as such. It is entirely unreasonable to expect any private business to prioritise social need over the financial health of that business.



It is a business, but it is not a comparable business to most other commodities for sale, like cars or beer. As such cannot be strictly treated as such.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> Its why we have government departments dealing with it.



We have government departments dealing with the licensed trade, does that make the pubs a social service? How about the banks? 



WolfeTone said:


> Its a social service,





WolfeTone said:


> It is a business



It can't be both without significant issues for providers and consumers.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> We are in danger of splitting hairs here. Keegan was involved with, and referring to, emergency accommodation as far as I recall.



Nope, he was talking about the permanent allocation of social housing. Remember the authorities being ordered to allocate no less than 50% of their long-term social housing spots to those registering as homeless?


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> We have government departments dealing with the licensed trade, does that make the pubs a social service? How about the banks?



Ok, my err. My intention was to say that the provision of housing is a social service, not the act of being a landlord as I implied. 
The issuing and granting of licensing, consumer protections, regulation of alcohol products and banking services is providing a social service. 
The State has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient and adequate housing. The consequences being landlords feel they have no protections against rogue tenants, and tenants demanding protections against rent hikes that threatens their ability to live and work in a peaceful stable environment.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> Remember the authorities being ordered to allocate no less than 50% of their long-term social housing spots to those registering as homeless?



No I dont recall.

Either way, to be registered as homeless and qualify for social housing, it takes more than "We had a fight...". Here is a summary from Focus Ireland about the make-up of homeless in the State.

_"In the past, most people using emergency accommodation were single adults. But in the last three years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of families becoming homeless, and in August 2020, there were 1,120 families accessing emergency accommodation. This includes 2,620 children. Focus Ireland publishes regular insights into family homelessness reports which aim to further our understanding in developing effective responses to the problem. "_

And an excerpt from* Insight into family homelessness 2019*

_"Families in private rented accommodation bear brunt of crisis. While the roots of the current family homeless crisis are complex, implicating general housing policy and social housing policy, the consequences of the crisis continue to be experienced primarily by families living in the private rented sector (PRS). Seven out of every ten families becoming homeless rented their last stable home from a private landlord and this has remained remarkably consistent since our first study in 2015. It is also notable that virtually all of the families living in the private rented sector (94% n=151) had been in those private rented homes for over a year, and 26% of families (n=42) had lived in those rented homes for over six years. In other words, these families were stably housed for long periods of time, suggesting that their tenancy agreements were successfully maintained and that, until the current crisis, the private rental sector had provided many families with what appeared to be a stable place to make their home. Fifty-eight per cent of all the 237 families reported that their tenancies ended due to issues specifically related to their rental tenancies, such as rent affordability issues, landlords selling up, landlords giving property to family member, renovation, etc. This consistent finding validates government attention to measures to increase the security of private rented tenancies and to control rents" _


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> My intention was to say that the provision of housing is a social service



I'd argue that the provision of social housing is a social service, and that is the government's responsibility. I think most would agree successive governments have failed in this regard. 

But it isn't right to classify all housing as a social service. What social need is the €14k/ month house in D4 serving?


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> Either way, to be registered as homeless and qualify for social housing, it takes more than "We had a fight...".



I think Owen Keegan & Conor Skehan are far better placed than either of us, so I'll take their word over yours. I'd also be wary of the homelessness industry that spends such significant amounts of their funding on payroll.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> I think Owen Keegan & Conor Skehan are far better placed than either of us, so I'll take their word over yours



Ditto.

I think this IT report summarizes the point very well, including reference to 50% allocation to registered homeless you mentioned earlier.

Keegans inflammatory homeless service comments mask hard facts


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> think this IT report summarizes the point very well, i



Yeah, it agrees he was stating facts when talking about people gaming the system to obtain social housing. That a 50% minimum quote was ever allocated goes to show how disfunctional the whole system is.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> it agrees he was stating facts when talking about people gaming the system to obtain social housing.



Well, not really.

Its an eye-catching, click-baiting headline for sure, but the article clearly quotes Keegan as saying "_I never said people were gaming the system_. _I went out of my way to say I wasn’t questioning the motives of people_"

It attributes, correctly, the "gaming the system" quote to Conor Skeehan, who elaborated somewhat in front of the Oireachtas Housing Committee.

Im careful with my words

_While he admitted that the issue was likely to be fairly minor, he largely stood by his initial comments. 

“I’m careful with my words. I was extremely careful *not* to say that it was happening, just that *it may* be happening and that it should be investigated further.”    _

That the title of this thread highlights that 85,000 getting rent assistance demonstrates what the major issue at hand is and where the focus should be, rather than some minor unsubstantiated claim.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

No proper explanation given for almost €1bn going to landlords in budget, Green TD says
					

Neasa Hourigan seeks fuller detail on where €218m allocated for homeless services will go




					www.irishtimes.com
				





_No proper explanation has been given for almost €1 billion going to landlords for private rental accommodation, a Government TD has said.
Chairwoman of the Oireachtas Budgetary Oversight Committee Neasa Hourigan told the Dáil that the State was spending 30 per cent of housing budget in this way .“That is current, not capital expenditure that the taxpayer will need to fund every year,” the Green Party TD said._

She is right. It's a disgrace subsidising landlords like this. And while we are at it. Why are paying huge amounts of pensions and social welfare to supermarkets and pubs (off-licenses) . That is current expenditure too. All social welfare payments should be stopped to halt this profiteering by the likes of Tescos.

That will teach the landlords and the supermarkets and pubs!


----------



## WolfeTone

Brendan Burgess said:


> She is right. It's a disgrace subsidising landlords like this.



Agreed.

We subsidise Tesco and pubs?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Brendan Burgess said:


> ....
> She is right. It's a disgrace subsidising landlords like this. ....



Whatever about the argument about it being poor value for money. There is some validity in that. 

But "subsidizing" Landlords needs some context. The state outsourced its housing obligations to private market. 
The private market didn't want this business. It was forced to take it, and indeed legislation was changed to force the private rental market to take this business. The Govt doesn't want this business because its difficult (not least because of the changes below) but also it doesn't have to carry the risk or the cost or difficulties with bad tenants.  

The state has also distorted the market, not least through the RPZ, to make it less advantageous for small LLs, and those LL who keep rents low. It favours new LLs, and those that max out the rent, and REITs. That is because the state (along with many other countries) has commoditized housing as an investment vehicle to bring investment into the country and drive the recovery. 

You also have to question way the stats on this, RTB, evictions, LL leaving the market, not transparent, and shifting metrics. Anyone would think, they don't want to look in case hard questions are asked. Maybe they just aren't interested. Also we've voted in these Govts in over and over again. No one can be surprised by any of this.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Leo said:


> ....What social need is the €14k/ month house in D4 serving?



Exactly. Most discussions fail to recognize that its not one market. The market for social housing is not the same as high end. But the legislation is the same for both. Its like the discussions around supply. They talk about supply as if its all the same. But the supply of one type of housing demographic maybe very different to another housing demographic .


----------

