# HAP to be increased by up to 35%!



## Brendan Burgess (3 Jun 2022)

The madness continues 









						HAP to be increased by up to 35% to tackle rising rents
					

Local authorities to  have discretion to increase payments above  current cap, says Darragh O’Brien




					www.irishtimes.com
				




This will push up rents even further and make it impossible for those paying privately to afford to rent. 

Brendan


----------



## Delboy (3 Jun 2022)

It's insanity. Trying to be seen to do something and only making things worse.


----------



## Greenbook (3 Jun 2022)

... and it'll be all the landlords' fault


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2022)

Greenbook said:


> ... and it'll be all the landlords' fault


Well de facto the State is by far the biggest landlord in the country.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Jun 2022)

Sinn Féin says it's not enough and that it should be increased by 50%.

The Labour Party wants the overall level of HAP to be increased and wants the income qualification for HAP to be increased too.  Apparently, it's not enough that 50% of people in private rented accommodation get help from the taxpayer to pay their rent.

Brendan


----------



## NicOir (3 Jun 2022)

Can someone clarify if the increase is allowable for someone already in receipt of HAP. From what I've read it looks like its new recipients from next month. 

I have kept the rent at the same amount  on my rental for years as I have had a very good tenant who is in receipt of maximum Hap for a single person, who I know would'nt be able to afford it but I would now like to increase the rent if HAP will cover it..


----------



## Sconeandjam (3 Jun 2022)

Hears one for you. We are putting a house up for sale. The agent looked at the house and said ‘I could get you €1950 per month for a single girl and child‘ so where is the incentive to go to work and pay your way or get a morgage? Current rent was not increased for 6 years as tenant on rent allowance. Rent €900 pm.
Why can’t the Government change policies and just build council estates? Many of us were brought up in council estates and there Is nothing wrong with them. Just make sure that tenants pay their share and if they don’t evict them.

I think the 35% if for those at risk of being homeless. The councils can already increase the threshold by I think 15%/20% but now your hearing it in the news that it is now increased by a bit more.

If the landlord increase by the allowable 2% and is over the limits there will be a team to negotiate with the landlord to help stop tenant ended up in a b and b. I think this system is already in place but it looks good .


----------



## Sconeandjam (3 Jun 2022)

NicOir said:


> Can someone clarify if the increase is allowable for someone already in receipt of HAP. From what I've read it looks like its new recipients from next month.
> 
> I have kept the rent at the same amount  on my rental for years as I have had a very good tenant who is in receipt of maximum Hap for a single person, who I know would'nt be able to afford it but I would now like to increase the rent if HAP will cover it..


If they are at risk of being homeless there is flexibility there. Increase from 20% to 35%.
You can give your tenant a notice to increase rent as in the format shown on the Rtb website and the allowable 2% increase. If the amount is well over the limit your tenant can approach the council and see what they say. More than likely you will get a call from the council. 
You do not have to follow through with the notice. You can reduce or retract it. 
many landlords have been stung by keeping the rents low.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (3 Jun 2022)

Tried to tie this into the other thread but, yep, and this is going to continue to solve nothing.  

HAP , RAS , and leasing of private property cost the State just short of €1bn 2021... now its going to be a little bit more or say 20% it becomes 1.2bn ................

And none of the recipients get closer to having a home


----------



## Sconeandjam (4 Jun 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Tried to tie this into the other thread but, yep, and this is going to continue to solve nothing.
> 
> HAP , RAS , and leasing of private property cost the State just short of €1bn 2021... now its going to be a little bit more or say 20% it becomes 1.2bn ................
> 
> And none of the recipients get closer to having a home


If half are private landlords (.6bn) then it could cost the state less than half again as paye prsi and usc would be paid to the Government as well as property tax.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jun 2022)

I think it's only applicable for new HAP tenancies


----------



## blanketyblank (4 Jun 2022)

Sinn Fein ALWAYS say it should be more!    In regards to EVERYTHING


----------



## jpd (5 Jun 2022)

Not only have they discovered the Money Tree, it seems likes it's a whole forest of Money Trees


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (5 Jun 2022)

Sconeandjam said:


> If half are private landlords (.6bn) then it could cost the state less than half again as paye prsi and usc would be paid to the Government as well as property tax.


"If " being the word.

Most or a least a sizeable majority will not be giving 52% as they would have legitimate write offs, interest, insurance,  maintenance and capital Allowances management fees if the employ and agent. 

Older landlords might not have a mortgage but they might have the property as " additional income " plus say the state pension their income wouldn't justify the higher tax bracket and PRSI might be zero and USC very low .

This has been said before and while I understand the premise I am confident that its not more than 30% what's the figure no idea and I doubt Revenue break it out.

But not matter what's spent on these schemes it's the taxpayer who pays for it, where ever that money comes from .


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2022)

Sconeandjam said:


> Why can’t the Government change policies and just build council estates?


Because there's nobody to build them. 


Sconeandjam said:


> Many of us were brought up in council estates and there Is nothing wrong with them.


Ah there is. I was born in one, I spent much of my childhood with friends in others and I work near a few and there's loads wrong with them. If there's one positive in the State's housing policy over the last 30 years it's that they aren't building vast housing estates. 


Sconeandjam said:


> Just make sure that tenants pay their share and if they don’t evict them.


Virtually nobody gets evicted for not paying their rent.... or their mortgage. I agree with you though, I'd evict them.


----------



## Sconeandjam (10 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Because there's nobody to build them.
> 
> Ah there is. I was born in one, I spent much of my childhood with friends in others and I work near a few and there's loads wrong with them. If there's one positive in the State's housing policy over the last 30 years it's that they aren't building vast housing estates.
> 
> Virtually nobody gets evicted for not paying their rent.... or their mortgage. I agree with you though, I'd evict them


In the Uk you sign a tenancy agree to keep the property in order and pay your rent. If you do not pay your council rent you are deemed to have made yourself homeless and you will be out in a hostel or b and b. You will be taken off the housing list. The risk is enough.
In the case of non payment of mortgage you will be evicted. Definitely different here where you can live in a house for 6years and never pay a penny and you can stay in the house. That does need to change.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2022)

According to the Irish Times today 95% of apartments in Dublin are purchased by investment funds. That means these HAPS increases are just improving the yields for those investors.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jun 2022)

The HAP payment is, I think, being used cynically to mask the true housing need.

Once a tenant accepts a HAP payment, he/she is removed from the housing list and so their housing needs are considered "met".

But the person may have accepted HAP to get _some _kind of accommodation, which might not be remotely suitable, but is better than being homeless.

The HAP tenant can go on the transfer list, but there is no information regarding how many HAP tenants are on that list.


----------



## jpd (13 Jun 2022)

While it may be cynical, they are certainly not homeless if they are livng in rented accomodation

The only way to solve the housing crisis is to build more houses in areas where people want to live


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (13 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> The HAP payment is, I think, being used cynically to mask the true housing need.
> 
> Once a tenant accepts a HAP payment, he/she is removed from the housing list and so their housing needs are considered "met".
> 
> ...


And the biggest cohort getting HAP are single people, and that has been the way since its introduction in 2014, and the national rollout in 2018 , the next biggest is single parents.

HAP, RAS, etc cost just shy of a billion last year 2021 with another increase in the number of people availing of it.

So, in total approx 250k people are living in accommodation that are subsidised by HAP, etc  which really isnt going to get smaller in fact I would suggest that it's highly probable that 300,000 will be getting HAP by 2028 the 10th anniversary of its national roll out.

And despite being off the housing list they certainly aren't homeowners,  it's a terrible strategy and needs to be stopped, with the money used to either refurbish or build country council properties.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (13 Jun 2022)

jpd said:


> While it may be cynical, they are certainly not homeless if they are livng in rented accomodation
> 
> The only way to solve the housing crisis is to build more houses in areas where people want to live


But the budget for building is minuscule now in comparison to what it was 20 years ago.
At least the funds the CCs were getting was nearly all capital expenditure now its HAP, RAS, and the other one.

Edit,  I should have added that the strategy in the main appears to get people off the housing list and allow Housing Associations to build along with Nama and as everyone knows having too many chefs doesn't improve the quality of anything except take home salary.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jun 2022)

jpd said:


> While it may be cynical, they are certainly not homeless if they are livng in rented accomodation


That is hardly helpful.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> But the budget for building is minuscule now in comparison to what it was 20 years ago.


Between 2000 and 2007 we were building an average of 6250 social housing units a year. Source. We built 8,842 in 2019, the last year pre-pandemic. 
We certainly don't want to go back to the 50's and 60's when we were using a large proportion of our national income to produce vast estates of badly built houses with no social infrastructure while massively under investing in education and health. It is only since we moved away from that heavy investment in housing and instead invested in human capital (education and health) that we have been able to fully engage in the global economy and become a rich and successful country. Our current problems are down to a combination of that success, global financial policies since the great recession and, to a far lesser extent, the structural inefficiencies within our construction industry and Public Sector. 


Paul O Mahoney said:


> At least the funds the CCs were getting was nearly all capital expenditure now its HAP, RAS, and the other one.


I'm generally not a fan of the State permanently providing things for people which they can and should provide for themselves. State intervention in the market, be it sucking up properties for rent or sucking up labour to build units, is never efficient.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> Edit,  I should have added that the strategy in the main appears to get people off the housing list and allow Housing Associations to build along with Nama and as everyone knows having too many chefs doesn't improve the quality of anything except take home salary.


I agree with you there. There must be massive duplication within the homelessness industry.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> That is hardly helpful.


It's true though. If you live in a home you aren't homeless.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> It is only since we moved away from that heavy investment in housing and instead invested in human capital (education and health) that we have been able to fully engage in the global economy and become a rich and successful country. Our current problems are down to a combination of that success, global financial policies since the great recession and, to a far lesser extent, the structural inefficiencies within our construction industry and Public Sector.


It is only the growth of multi-nationals that have allowed us to become a rich and successful country.
Subtract their effect on Corporation Tax, Income tax, VAT, Property Tax, etc and we are little more than 3rd world.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> It is only the growth of multi-nationals that have allowed us to become a rich and successful country.
> Subtract their effect on Corporation Tax, Income tax, VAT, Property Tax, etc and we are little more than 3rd world.


The multinationals wouldn't be here if we hadn't brought our education system up to a reasonable standard. The change in the type of investment from MNC's we have seen in the last 40 years is remarkable. We've moved from mid-tech manufacturing in the 70's and 80's to high tech manufacturing (mainly medical devices and Pharma), ITC and FinTech. That requires a well educated workforce, supplemented by highly skilled immigrants.
I do agree that the MNC's are the engine of our economy. We certainly couldn't have a highly paid State Sector and the services they provide without them.
That all points to the fact that our housing problem is a problem of success. If we still had 50,000 people leaving the country every year, a far less generous welfare system and lots of cheap labour we'd still have cheap houses.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (13 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Between 2000 and 2007 we were building an average of 6250 social housing units a year. Source. We built 8,842 in 2019, the last year pre-pandemic.
> We certainly don't want to go back to the 50's and 60's when we were using a large proportion of our national income to produce vast estates of badly built houses with no social infrastructure while massively under investing in education and health. It is only since we moved away from that heavy investment in housing and instead invested in human capital (education and health) that we have been able to fully engage in the global economy and become a rich and successful country. Our current problems are down to a combination of that success, global financial policies since the great recession and, to a far lesser extent, the structural inefficiencies within our construction industry and Public Sector.
> 
> I'm generally not a fan of the State permanently providing things for people which they can and should provide for themselves. State intervention in the market, be it sucking up properties for rent or sucking up labour to build units, is never efficient.
> ...


Since the state is the provider of all the financial backing for the ," builds " my fear is that there is no accountability on where that money is being spent.  We have between 450 and 520 Housing Associations,  real figure to be determined, who are in receipt of hundreds of millions in direct funding additionally we know that the larger ones are tapping further funding from our Banks and those amounts are underwritten by the State 100% .

Whether these amounts find their way to governmental accounts or national debt has been beyond my capabilities to find out definitely. 

Then theres Nama the mythical monster of everything since inception. They are described as "the largest land owner and independent property developer in the country " ? , but the funds that it uses are again State funds.

There is no doubt duplication is present but it's the accountability of using taxpayers money in a very opaque way and while I would imagine the reality is many billions are kept off the " official books" we are still as a State liable and that needs to be investigated to ascertain exactly how big the hook is.

I agree to an extent of keeping the state away from certain aspects of the economy, but this is one area that needs scrutiny the figures are simply huge and having " legal entities " mostly CLGs where financial reporting isn't as arduous as say GAAP especially for smaller entities we may never know the true figures and that might bite us in the future. 


Regulator, especially for AHBs is now set up it will be interesting to see what type of reporting they use, but having experienced the Charity Regulator , who will also regulate many AHBs , I'm not expecting detailed reporting,  just headlines and a lot of back slapping saying the same thing.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2022)

@Paul O Mahoney , the problem is that in a supply constrained market the more the State spends on housing the more expensive housing becomes, the more the State needs to spend on housing. It's a socialists wet dream.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (13 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> @Paul O Mahoney , the problem is that in a supply constrained market the more the State spends on housing the more expensive housing becomes, the more the State needs to spend on housing. It's a socialists wet dream.


Absolutely and no political party of any hue won't be saying they are cutting the housing budget. 

If we leave the construction to commercial concerns the social media howls will be " vulture funds now run our social housing construction " blah blah blah 

Despite the CCs owing huge sways of good land in urban areas, they've washed their hands of actually building anything. 

The Health Service might be described as Angola,  The Social housing industry could be described as The Sudan .......all knocking the lard out of each other and reaching stalemate to the detriment of the citizens. 

100 years of independence and nothing achieved


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> The multinationals wouldn't be here if we hadn't brought our education system up to a reasonable standard.


Hardly! That’s just TV soundbite speak. They have well-educated workforces in their own countries.

It wasn’t our brilliant education system that attracted multinationals here in the 1950s and 1960s such as, inter alia, Liebherr (1958) Leo Laboratories (1959), Warner-Lambert (1960), General Electric (1963) and Pfizer (1969).

It was _and still is_ incentives offered by the IDA, lack of “red tape” and low corporate taxes.

In the 1960s, FDI delivered 70% of new employment and 90% of increased exports in transportable goods.

The MNCs came and better education followed.

People often regard the future as the same as today or the same as the past. Social housing doesn’t have to be as it was in the past.

Because of the chronic shortage of social housing people are forced into the private market, where they cannot afford to either buy or rent.
Ever-increasing government subsidies completely distorts the property market.

Privatizing what is a social obligation _never_ works.

The housing budget whatever it might be, has to have a purpose.  At the moment it is like the proverbial eight-legged camel with little direction and insupportable gaps in both knowledge and accountability.

With such a paucity of _basic _information, one wonders about the value of Dáil debates and Oireachtas committees. What can they possibly be talking about and how can they possibly arrive at appropriate solutions?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (13 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Privatizing what is a social obligation _never_ works.
> 
> The housing budget whatever it might be, has to have a purpose.


These are key points and now its really important that whatever Governments we have over the next decade the decision must be made , current expenditure or capital expenditure.

Capital expenditure is clearly the longest route but is imo the most favourable , as more houses are built more people should come off the housing list, and those  on the subsidies should be also considered for these. In the interim keep the HAPS etc but start lowering the budget year on year .

I read somewhere that CCs received €350m in rent from existing stock so money is coming in, I'll dig out the stock figure when I can, but more stock more income. 

These existing and new houses must be held by the State via CCs they must be maintained by the CCs and they must never be sold, even to existing tenants.

The latter was Margaret Thatchers policy and it literally wrecked huge swaths of the economy especially outside of London,  miners and shipbuilders bought their modest homes to end up on the dole, houses get repossessed and homeless increases and 40 years later , those homes are now being bought by Londoners and the home counties chaps as second homes for the summer and lay idle for 8/9 months,  even Grimsby is holding a " local referendum " on local housing for local people.......non binding of course. 

We haven't gone that far yet but that doesn't mean it won't happen,  look at Wexford town,  full of 2 up 2 down with enough garden to extend the prices are very high, my wife is from one of those and we sold her mother's 18 years for a pittance in comparison. 

We can't keep throwing money at this and see no improvement and sometimes it takes courage to say " well that's a bust" and go back and try again.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Jun 2022)

Look at the figures for uncollected rents and debts in Dublin City council in the region of 30 - 40 million euros. The councils ran away from it for a reason and were only too happy to have a burden taken off them via HAP and private landlords, dealing with tenants and expensive maintenance of older housing stock.


----------



## Mocame (13 Jun 2022)

Council to take legal action against 22 tenants who owe more than €20,000 in rent arrears
					

Over 20 tenants in one local authority area owe more than €20,000 each in rent arrears, new figures show.




					m.independent.ie


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> Look at the figures for uncollected rents and debts in Dublin City council in the region of 30 - 40 million euros. The councils ran away from it for a reason and were only too happy to have a burden taken off them via HAP and private landlords, dealing with tenants and expensive maintenance of older housing stock.


That is why rent should be garnished.


----------



## Mocame (13 Jun 2022)

To my knowledge the government passed legislation ten years ago to allow coincils to deduct rents from social welfare benefits but it was never commenced.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jun 2022)

Mocame said:


> To my knowledge the government passed legislation ten years ago to allow coincils to deduct rents from social welfare benefits but it was never commenced.



Yes, that it is absolutely correct – section 53 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, which provides for the deduction of rent at source from welfare entitlements.

However, you can see from this that the Housing Minister has not enacted section 53.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (14 Jun 2022)

Wow another tentacle of the mess appears. 10% of household income and you can bet your bottom dollar " household income " is probably understated. 

I'll wager that nobody will be turfed out on the street even if they are told to repay the arrears itll be reset with €5 more to cover the arrears..


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (14 Jun 2022)

From Social Justice Ireland

*"Social Housing*
While the targets for overall housing provision are based on future demand only as underpinned by research, the targets for social housing don’t appear have any foundation at all. Housing for All commits to delivering 90,000 social homes by 2030, with an average of 9,500 new-build social homes per year to 2026.
If the strategy commits to building 47,500 by 2026, with guaranteed funding, how are the remaining 42,500 homes to be delivered? The reality is that almost half of the 90,000 homes will likely be delivered through the private sector using subsidies such as the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) and Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS).
But are the 90,000 socials homes sufficient? The short answer is no. There are currently 61,880 households on the social housing waiting lists, as of November 2020[5]. A further 59,821 households were in private rented tenancies supported by HAP as at Q4 2020[6]. With a failure rate of 26 per cent, HAP tenancies can hardly be classified as secure or sustainable[7]. Therefore the overall existing need for social housing is 121,701, more than the social housing provision target set out in Housing for All."

The above is a cut and paste from a report issued by Social Justice Ireland issued in January 22.

This is one of a plethora of reports from multiple sources that I have been accumulating,  about 21 now,  all published in the last 7 years and each contains its own level of bias in the narrative.

Trying to develop a cohesive factual analysis of all this data is way beyond my capabilities, there are more contradictions in the "facts" than a Trump rally, but as we all know it's a mess,  its expensive, and based on the strategic plans the government has its never going to be solved.

And its not only due to the political system, it appears our society has developed an uneducated understanding of the issue and only expect solutions eventhough the behaviour of renters both in public and private owned households are simply adding to the abyss. I genuinely believe that a majority of the population believes that social housing should be free whatever the cost.

No political party is going to introduce any policy that is deemed to be pragmatic with all stakeholders needs addressed. They have developed an industry where nothing is solved and salaries are high, and vested interests taken care of. And however frustrating this is to the taxpayer it's not gonna change in my lifetime nor in my children's either. 

A modern country we aren't despite the perception we have created by shiny buildings in Dublin,  Cork etc we have an attitude that really hasn't changed for hundred of years where moaning and shovelling money at problems is better than solving problems.


----------



## Mocame (14 Jun 2022)

Social Justice Ireland seem to assume that all of the people on the social housing waiting list and in receipt of HAP want social housing.  This isn't the case, or at least they don't want a good deal of the the housing they are offered by councils:








						Refusal of Cork housing offers doubles in four years
					

While the number of properties available for letting by Cork City Council increased last year, there was also a significant increase in the number of refusals last year compared to previous years




					www.irishexaminer.com


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (14 Jun 2022)

Mocame said:


> Social Justice Ireland seem to assume that all of the people on the social housing waiting list and in receipt of HAP want social housing.  This isn't the case, or at least they don't want a good deal of the the housing they are offered by councils:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its not the narrative that Government wants but in reality most of those would like to have their own home.

My sister after divorce was in a HAP rent house,  she couldn't wait until she got her albeit,  social housing" home ",  so yes I think its perfectly logical to include them failing any proper analysis that shows that people on hap are happy renting in such a way.

Edit,  yes Cork seems to have an issue with not letting out of social housing,  excuses from children getting sea sick because of sea views etc are legendary,  but I assure you many are grateful including my sister.

Anyone who refuses should be struck off the list that would soften a cough or two.


----------



## Purple (14 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Hardly! That’s just TV soundbite speak. They have well-educated workforces in their own countries.


Yes, and they are employed there too. 


Sophrosyne said:


> It wasn’t our brilliant education system that attracted multinationals here in the 1950s and 1960s such as, inter alia, Liebherr (1958) Leo Laboratories (1959), Warner-Lambert (1960), General Electric (1963) and Pfizer (1969).


Tiny levels of employment and output in comparison to what we have now and those companies, as I pointed out previously, were generally lower tech than the ones we have now. What we had then was very cheap labour relative to the mainland and Britain. 


Sophrosyne said:


> It was _and still is_ incentives offered by the IDA, lack of “red tape” and low corporate taxes.


Yes, but without the workforce they couldn't come here. We certainly don't have a "world class" education system but it's generally sufficient for our needs. 


Sophrosyne said:


> In the 1960s, FDI delivered 70% of new employment and 90% of increased exports in transportable goods.


Yes, again, in a much smaller country with low levels of employment growth. 


Sophrosyne said:


> The MNCs came and better education followed.


True. 


Sophrosyne said:


> People often regard the future as the same as today or the same as the past. Social housing doesn’t have to be as it was in the past.
> 
> Because of the chronic shortage of social housing people are forced into the private market, where they cannot afford to either buy or rent.
> Ever-increasing government subsidies completely distorts the property market.


People should be in the private market. Social housing and welfare in general is a necessary evil. If the economy and society was functioning properly people could afford to buy or rent their own home. The need for social housing is a symptom of a different problem.


Sophrosyne said:


> Privatizing what is a social obligation _never_ works.


Yes it does, as long as the State can regulate and enforce standards properly. If it doesn't work that's a reflection of dysfunctionality by the State. An efficient and well run State can ensure the efficient delivery of services. Belgium has the best public healthcare system in Europe. It is publicly funded and  largely privately delivered. Whether the State delivers housing directly or by funding private delivery is irrelevant. What matters is the structures and standards they use and their ability to enforce and police those standards. 


Sophrosyne said:


> The housing budget whatever it might be, has to have a purpose.  At the moment it is like the proverbial eight-legged camel with little direction and insupportable gaps in both knowledge and accountability.
> 
> With such a paucity of _basic _information, one wonders about the value of Dáil debates and Oireachtas committees. What can they possibly be talking about and how can they possibly arrive at appropriate solutions?


Out State sector is structurally incompetent. That's at the root of many of our issues, be it healthcare or housing. No amount of money will fix those structural inefficiencies.


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Jun 2022)

Further to @Mocame's point regarding a deduction of rent at source, this is the reply dated 8 February 2022 from the Private Secretary to the Housing Minister relating to this letter from Louise Ryan DCC Audit Committee regarding the accumulation of €37m rent arrears and the commencement of section 53.

“The Department is cognisant of the consistent problems arising as a result of rent arrears across the country. While it is acknowledged that a (direct) deduction at source facility would have the potential to prevent rent arrears arising in the first instance, such a facility relies on the development and implementation of a national standardised rents system.

Housing for All and the Programme for Government commit to introducing a standardised national differential rents system to ensure, among other things, fairness for tenants across all local authority areas. The Department is currently considering several alternatives to the current system of the different local authority rent schemes and expects to bring proposals to Government for consideration in Q2 2022.

 A working group has been established, with representatives from the Department, the Department of Social Protection, the LGMA and the CCMA, to examine the feasibility of introducing a system of direct deduction from source for local authority rent payments. The matter is still being considered by the working group.”


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Jun 2022)

While the aspiration to achieve a standardized national differential rents system is laudable, it should not prevent the commencement of section 53. Without that section, local authorities cannot effectively manage arrears.


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Jun 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Trying to develop a cohesive factual analysis of all this data is way beyond my capabilities, there are more contradictions in the "facts" than a Trump rally, but as we all know it's a mess, its expensive, and based on the strategic plans the government has its never going to be solved.


Perhaps if you concentrate on what if knowable first and then attack what is not as yet known.
If you try to do both, you will melt your brain.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (14 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Perhaps if you concentrate on what if knowable first and then attack what is not as yet known.
> If you try to do both, you will melt your brain.


Thanks Dude,I'll take a bit of time to un- scramble my brain and perhaps do " highlights " but business analysis is my skill and I'd never walk into a presentation or meeting without knowing the reality of a situation.

And your 100% correct its head wrecking,  last week between Graduation dinners etc didn't get a clear run at it .

I have learnt a lot about the issue but it does seem worthless given the narrative that isn't going to change.

Anyhoo shes away on business for 10 days so, I'll only have me and the cat to feed......and I'll start the  amalgamation of the "known knows "

Again thanks for the encouragement


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> Look at the figures for uncollected rents and debts in Dublin City council in the region of 30 - 40 million euros. The councils ran away from it for a reason and were only too happy to have a burden taken off them via HAP and private landlords, dealing with tenants and expensive maintenance of older housing stock.


Further to this point.

In South Dublin 56% of all tenants in arrears, at an average rent of 55 euro per week.









						Council to take legal action against 22 tenants who owe more than €20,000 in rent arrears
					

Over 20 tenants in one local authority area owe more than €20,000 each in rent arrears, new figures show.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## blanketyblank (15 Jun 2022)

It shouldn't happen that any tenant could owe that much _   take the payment at source or if you cant do that evict for non payment!    It's a small enough amount they're asked for!    Should be dealt with straight away once arrears start


----------

