# Landlord ordered to pay €40,000 for discriminating against HAP tenants



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2017)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tenants-win-40-000-from-landlord-ffhpqxpdl

_A landlord has been ordered to pay more than €40,000 in compensation to three “model tenants” after discriminating against them because they received housing assistance payments (HAP).


The scope of the Equal Status Acts, which prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services, was expanded from January last year to stop landlords from refusing to accept a tenant who claims benefits from the state.


Three cases were brought against the same landlord before the Workplace Relations Commission and heard together. The landlord claimed they were not obliged to accept HAP as the new law did not apply to existing tenants._


----------



## Thirsty (21 Aug 2017)

Yet another reason to get out of the business...


----------



## The Horseman (21 Aug 2017)

This situation for landlords is becoming ridiculous. You can't even decide who you do or don't rent too now. Expect more landlords to sell up as soon as they can.

The Govt are about to reap what they sow. Expect even more pressure on the rental market and housing crisis.


----------



## LS400 (21 Aug 2017)

Thats not a reason to get out of the business, The LL was wrong to do what he did, if fact Id go so far as to say, its that type of carry-on which gives all LLs a bad name.


----------



## The Horseman (21 Aug 2017)

LS400 said:


> Thats not a reason to get out of the business, The LL was wrong to do what he did, if fact Id go so far as to say, its that type of carry-on which gives all LLs a bad name.



Lets look at this from a commercial perspective (ie as the landlord). The requirements for the HAP are higher than the Housing Regulations in force when the property was built. it should be noted that the majority of the housing stock in Ireland privately owned and live in as peoples principle private residence do not meet the HAP requirements yet people are living in them with no problems. The landlord is required to upgrade the property to meet HAP requirements but is not allowed increase rent if property is in RPZ greater than the 4%.

So now you have the situation where the landlord either does not want or can't afford to carry out the improvements. The property no doubt is habitable and of a reasonable standard ( I will however stand corrected on this but assume the properties are for the purpose of this discussion).

The landlord is now fined for making a commercial decision (ie he did not want to invest funds in the upgrade). if we had a functioning market the tenant would have said right I am going to rent somewhere else. We don't have a functioning market for those who require subsidized accommodation (failure by the Govt) so what happens, the landlord is penalized.

Why not come to a consensus and lower the HAP requirements until supply comes on board.  Also the HAP scheme needs to be changed to take all the risk away from the Landlord. The HAP scheme states that if the tenant stops making payment of their contribution to the Local Authority then the Local Authority ceases to pay the Landlord.


----------



## Thirsty (21 Aug 2017)

I'd disagree regarding the minimum standards; I think they are relatively easily met.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...intenance_and_minimum_physical_standards.html

The question for me is that the HAP payment rate is considerably lower (in my area at any rate) than the market rent - even with the rent controls in place.

So is it now the case that Landlords are expected to reduce the rent to the HAP payment level?  

And I agree, the payment system is quite daft and offers no security.


----------



## The Horseman (21 Aug 2017)

Hi Thirsty

I have a property rented via the RAS and was required to install vents in each bedroom for ventilation purposes. These bedrooms had large windows with multiple windows which could be opened. The council inspector wanted me to paint the house from top to bottom despite the fact the house had just been painted.

I would have no problem living in the property myself if I had to but yet the council inspector insisted on the vents. While I agreed to the vents I drew the line at the painting (since the property has just been repainted from top to bottom).

While the Citizen's Information board may provide a list of the requirements in practice the inspectors want more which is one of the reason's why there is a reluctance to take HAP recipient's. It is not the only one but it does not help.


----------



## Thirsty (21 Aug 2017)

> ..list of the requirements in practice the inspectors want more..


I wonder what would happen if you just refused?


----------



## The Horseman (21 Aug 2017)

They would probably blacklist your property from rental privately and if you did rent it privately and they became aware I suspect you would be fined.


----------



## Thirsty (21 Aug 2017)

> They would probably blacklist your property from rental privately


What legislation allows them to do that?


----------



## The Horseman (21 Aug 2017)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/si/17/made/en/print


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Aug 2017)

A shocking outcome.

We live in a world that is PC beyond belief.

€40k is real money.


----------



## paddyd (21 Aug 2017)

as a full time landlord, I've no doubt that landlords are exiting the marketing (most of my tenant calls are from people in houses which they can prove are currently for sale) - however, I can't seem to find the latest data on the RTB site on the numbers of active landlords? They used to publish it in each quarterly report, but appear to have stopped.
The data for 2013 'at a glance' on RTB was 156k (300k registered tenancies) and it rose to around 170k later I read somewhere (due mainly to the 20-25k letters sent to unregistered landlords), but I can't see anything for 2016, or anything in the quarterly reports for Q1 and Q2 this year, bar that there are currently 330k registered tenancies, but again that doesn't really explain if there are more landlords in the country or not, or just more unregistered landlords that are now legitimised.

also, FYI - I track the number of properties to rent on daft each week and this weekend it dropped to a record low of 3,000 for the first time. There were 23k in 2012


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Aug 2017)

Landlords need to be very careful. If they wish to discriminate against HAP tenants (which I believe they should have the right to do), they need to find and document other grounds for choosing a non-HAP tenant.


----------



## The Horseman (21 Aug 2017)

Landlords are indeed exiting the market. The majority of increases in registered tenancies I suspect are the REIT's. While most of the properties of the REITS are relatively new builds they meet the current regulations. Wait and see what happens when the Govt try take on the REITS in relation to future HAP changes.

The Govt can take on the small landlords because we are all individuals which is why we need an association which will support the landlords. The tenants have the Govt, the Local Authorities, Threshold etc.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Aug 2017)

The Horseman said:


> They would probably blacklist your property from rental privately and if you did rent it privately and they became aware I suspect you would be fined.





The Horseman said:


> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/si/17/made/en/print



Can you outline where in this statute it is possible for a property to be blacklisted from the private rental market.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Aug 2017)

LS400 said:


> Thats not a reason to get out of the business, The LL was wrong to do what he did, if fact Id go so far as to say, its that type of carry-on which gives all LLs a bad name.



Why do you think the landlord was wrong. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing not to want to accept payment from a 3rd party with no guarantees.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Aug 2017)

As a landlord I am happy to accept tenant in receipt of HAP, if they are able to pay the advertised rent. However any potential tenant I have encountered in receipt of HAP has been unable to produce a deposit on the day of viewing.


----------



## LS400 (21 Aug 2017)

40,000 Euros says he is wrong. I agree the system and hoops you are made to jump through are a joke, but it wasn't the fault of the tenants. They didnt ask to be put into the position they found themselves in, yet they were the ones who were going to be punished, not the legislators of the act.


----------



## LS400 (21 Aug 2017)

Its also unfortunate, that situations like this make you need/want to circumnavigate the rules so as not to be out done by events outside of your control.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Aug 2017)

If the landlord in question here said he would accept HAP payments, but unfortunately he did not have a tax clearance cert, could he have been fined in this way ?

Any ideas.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Aug 2017)

I wouldn't have thought so...landlords are really only on a sticky wicket when they brazenly discriminate against HAP recipients.

I have no idea what happens though if (say) I have two prospective tenants, one who's a manager in KPMG and the other who's an unemployed single mother in receipt of HAP, and I choose the former.

Surely the issue only really arises when a landlord stupidly advertises "NO HAP"?


----------



## Thirsty (21 Aug 2017)

> I am happy to accept tenant in receipt of HAP, if they are able to pay the advertised rent


This is the key question that isn't answered in the report; the allowable rent amount for HAP is significantly lower (in my neck of the woods at any event) than the market rent, even with the rent control.  

Are landlords now expected to accept a lower rent payment from HAP recipients?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Aug 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Are landlords now expected to accept a lower rent payment from HAP recipients?



I don't believe they are.

As I understand it, what's not permitted is demonstrable discrimination against tenants who are in receipt of HAP.

e.g. ads saying "No HAP" or a communication from the landlord saying "I chose the other fella 'cause he's not on HAP".


----------



## Thirsty (21 Aug 2017)

> I chose the other fella 'cause he's not on HAP".


But the net effect is the same?

Tenant A: in full employment, references checked etc., can demonstrate the ability to pay €2k a month in rent.

Tenant B: lower paid or SW income, references checked etc., offers HAP of €1,300 per month, says they will pay difference of €700 per month but cannot show income.

Landlord accepts Tenant A.

Tenant B sues for discrimination.

And Tenant B has indeed been discriminated against -  on the grounds that they cannot show the ability to pay the full rent - so will there come a time when this is actionable?


----------



## landlord (21 Aug 2017)

The last property I rented out,  I received approximately 40 emails from HAP tenants and 10 from working couples.  I rented it to a working couple for my own personal reasons.   Could I potentially now be sued by those 40 tenants on the HAP, because  I did not reply to their emails.....?  Surely this is getting ridiculous now!!!


----------



## LS400 (21 Aug 2017)

I agree, and the punishment is now a green light to become the next whiplash get rich quick scheme to be abused if the property owner gives any hint of wanting to let outside of HAP.

Let the punishment fit the crime, and stop this ridiculous Lottery culture of payment awards.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Aug 2017)

Can we stick to the facts on this one without getting into the "what if" scenarios?
As I understand it, the facts in this instance are as follows (this is based on the RTE news report so I'm hoping it's correct but please correct me if these are wrong. ).
1. These were existing tenants of the landlord who had a proven record of timely repayments.
2. They began to have difficulty meeting the rent repayments. 
3. They managed to secure HAP top up funding which together with their own money was enough to meet the monthly rent repayments.
4. The landlord refused to accept the HAP top up funding as he refused to participate in the scheme. This is what he was judged on and why he was found guilty of discrimination.

I think the case here is pretty clear and the landlord was wrong. I don't think anyone can compare this to a landlord selecting non HAP tenants in favour of HAP tenants as that was not the case here.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Aug 2017)

It's a disgrace. Landlords should not be forced to deal with higher risk tenants. Or if they are, they should receive "danger money" from the State.

i.e. Pay MORE than market rent to landlords who accept HAP.


----------



## lukas888 (21 Aug 2017)

Tenants are increasingly working the system overcoming landlords refusal to accept HAP.This is happening more and more particularly in lower rent areas.After moving in and signing a lease they then produce the HAP forms leaving the landlord with no option.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Aug 2017)

lukas888 said:


> Tenants are increasingly working the system overcoming landlords refusal to accept HAP.This is happening more and more particularly in lower rent areas.After moving in and signing a lease they then produce the HAP forms leaving the landlord with no option.



Sadly, the logical conclusion when faced with nonsense like this is to play the greedy landlord and look for (say) 3 months rent upfront as a deposit and things like a reference from the prospective tenant's employer.


----------



## Thirsty (22 Aug 2017)

Looking for a deposit and references is standard procedure.


----------



## The Horseman (22 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Can you outline where in this statute it is possible for a property to be blacklisted from the private rental market.



In the same way as Restaurants who fail inspections by Environmental Health are fined and enforcement notices issued by the environmental health dept. The same would be the case with the failures to meet the standards as set out in the Housing Standards legislation otherwise why would the legislation exist if not for enforcement purposes.


----------



## Thirsty (22 Aug 2017)

> failures to meet the standards


Being fined or having an enforcement order for not meeting the defined standards is one thing; what you have posted (if I read you correctly) is that housing inspectors can demand more than the standards laid down and can then use non-compliance with their demands to prevent you from letting your property.

edit to correct minor error


----------



## The Horseman (22 Aug 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Being fined or having an enforcement order for not meeting the defined standards one thing; what you have posted (if I read you correctly) is that housing inspectors can demand more than the standards laid down and can then use non-compliance with their demands to prevent you from letting your property.


Exactly after all it is the housing inspectors who are tasked with ensuring the property meets the standards. Just to be clear my personal experience of this was the requirement to install vents in all rooms in the house despite the fact that all rooms had windows that had multiple openings.

Why would you need vents in the rooms when you had windows? I have to assume the inspector deemed them necessary even though each window in the property had a big enough opening for an adult to get through.


----------



## Leo (22 Aug 2017)

The Horseman said:


> Why would you need vents in the rooms when you had windows? I have to assume the inspector deemed them necessary even though each window in the property had a big enough opening for an adult to get through.



Unless the frames themselves have vents of a sufficient size, then wall vents are required to meet the minimum requirements of the current building regulations. People have died from carbon monoxide poisoning in rooms with windows.


----------



## The Horseman (22 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Unless the frames themselves have vents of a sufficient size, then wall vents are required to meet the minimum requirements of the current building regulations. People have died from carbon monoxide poisoning in rooms with windows.


There is a requirement to bring the property up to current regulations. So there is a cost to the landlord to bring a property up to current regulations all while not increasing the rent. I would not be surprised if the Govt in their wisdom don't enforce min requirements for BER's forcing further costs on the landlord.

How many privately owned houses and privately rented house's don't have these vents?


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Aug 2017)

In the rental advert for a property, can you say that "The property meets all minimum legal requirements for private letting, but is not compliant with the higher HAP standards."
???


----------



## The Horseman (22 Aug 2017)

I would say no as you would be deemed to be discriminating against HAP recipients. I am however open to correction.


----------



## newirishman (22 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> In the rental advert for a property, can you say that "The property meets all minimum legal requirements for private letting, but is not compliant with the higher HAP standards."
> ???


I guess you can say what you want in the rental advert, most people do in general. Often, amazing works of fiction are to be seen in property adverts!

There is no additional (or "higher") standards for HAP: (have a read here) 
- The property must be in compliance with rental accommodation standards.
- To receive HAP payments, you must be tax compliant.

You even get the benefit of having 100% of you interest deductible, which you don't have otherwise!

There is no need to state that you meet minimum legal requirements, as this is mandatory anyways.


----------



## Firefly (22 Aug 2017)

The Horseman said:


> Just to be clear my personal experience of this was the requirement to install vents in all rooms in the house



Hi,

Were the HAP tenants in place already? If so and you refused, what would then happen? Would the HAP tenants need to move out?


----------



## The Horseman (22 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Hi,
> 
> Were the HAP tenants in place already? If so and you refused, what would then happen? Would the HAP tenants need to move out?


They were moving from one of my properties to another as I was selling one but they were great tenants so I did not mind doing the work myself. They were already RAS tenants and the Inspector made it clear that they would not agree to the move until the vents were installed.

If my current tenants move and the inspector decides they want additional upgrades I will either sell the property or do Air B&B. The only reason I agreed to the improvements was because the tenants are fantastic and was trying to be fair to them.


----------



## Starrynite9 (6 Nov 2020)

I have a tenant in a rent a room scheme in my home.  He is from abroad and works full time cleaning. He has been told he can get some HAP payment if I will agree. Does this mean I will have to register with prtb and have regulations around the tenancy which I dont have now as it a family home just letting a room ? I dont want inspections etc.


----------



## AAAContributor (6 Nov 2020)

Starrynite9 said:


> Does this mean I will have to register with prtb and have regulations around the tenancy which I dont have now as it a family home just letting a room ? I dont want inspections etc.



Lots of info here:






						Housing Assistance Payment (HAP)
					

The Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) is a social housing support provided by local authorities. Under the scheme, rent is paid directly to private landlords and you pay a weekly contribution to your local authority.




					www.citizensinformation.ie
				




Key sentence for you:

_"If you are renting a room in your landlord’s home, your tenancy is not covered by the legislation and your landlord does not have to register with the RTB."_


----------

