# Pros and cons of letting through social welfare



## izscan

i'm in the middle of buying an investment property and it was mentioned to me to let it through social welfare. is this a good idea ? how would i go about it ?


----------



## ClubMan

Anything useful among ?


----------



## Ravima

you are guarenteed weekly rental income from Dept of SW, with tenant making up balance. 

I think it is a great system for landlord as there will never be a missed payment of the larger sum. If teant does not pay his/her portion, you are not out of pocket too much.


----------



## auto320

SW tenants are the riskiest end of the market in my view. You can be lucky, but the risk is that you will get a tenant that is disfunctional and gives you loads of grief -- don't forget that the SW system caters for tenants that usually don't work and may have problems of other sorts.

It is tempting to deal with a tenancy that is long term etc, but for me anyway life is far too short for the kind of grief that this sector can give you.


----------



## DonKing

auto320 said:


> SW tenants are the riskiest end of the market in my view. You can be lucky, but the risk is that you will get a tenant that is disfunctional and gives you loads of grief -- don't forget that the SW system caters for tenants that usually don't work and may have problems of other sorts.
> 
> It is tempting to deal with a tenancy that is long term etc, but for me anyway life is far too short for the kind of grief that this sector can give you.




From personal experience I would agree with Auto320's opinion. I would be reluctant to rent to a SW tenant again particularly young mothers. 

The RAS scheme is definitely a no no for me. I had a read of a RAS contract from Dublin Co.Co. The council can put whoever they like in your property and you have no say. If the tenant recks your property, the Co.Co. will only pay 50% of cost of repair up to max of one months rent. Every time a new tenant is put into the house by the council, you have to ensure that the house is back to the condition it was when the first tenant started their tenancy. Not very fair at all. Now if you think about it where will the council put anti-social/disfunctional people who have been evicted from another area and need emergency accomodation.........

I currently have a non-EU family living in my property who are here to work hard and make money. They have every respect for my property, keep it spotlessly clean and are no bother at all. If any repair work arrises they have no problem organiseing it themselves and I fix up with them later.


----------



## Marcecie

From personal experience I have had no problems renting to SW tenants, perhaps it's easier in West of Ireland. All my properties are rented to SW tenants including one rented to a young mother. They all pay me the rent direct and never had a problem in the 5 years they are renting.


----------



## auto320

I know of someone in the west of Ireland who had an apartment let to one of these SW tenants. The apartment upstairs was vacant temporarily and the tenant seems to have broken into it and turned on all the taps, then complained that his aparment was damp and demanded to be rehoused. This happened a couple of days after the landlord had discovered that the tenant had wrecked the place (it was a relatively new apartment block). I wouldn't let a SW tenant into any property, particularly as the local authorities now have plenty of choice of vacant investor properties and can negotiate punitive contracts.


----------



## Spondulicks

The private sector and SW tenants are not a good match in urban areas. The regulation is dreadful and the risks are high. Ask the audience.

You need scale and an interventionist approach to get this to work. If you only have 1/2 properties which are single tenancies, you lack diversification if you take a hit from a troublesome tenant.


----------



## aircobra19

Spondulicks said:


> The private sector and SW tenants are not a good match in urban areas. The regulation is dreadful and the risks are high. Ask the audience.
> 
> You need scale and an interventionist approach to get this to work. If you only have 1/2 properties which are single tenancies, you lack diversification if you take a hit from a troublesome tenant.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## wexincan

I would just say, be careful, i had alot of trouble with renting my property to a sw tennant. Get good references if possible and make sure that rent is paid every week. 
I was speaking to a letting agent yesterday and she told me that the Dept no longer allow money to go directly to the landlord unless the recipient signs a form to allow it to be direct debited.
The sw tennants now receive this payment as cash on a weekly basis, I am disgusted that the government will allow this. My tennant was claiming this cash for 2 months almost without payment the rent for my house.
So just be wary, as you have read from the other posts, some people are fine and some are not. Sometimes it's just a matter of luck and having a good letting agent.


----------



## auto320

Bottom line is this, local authorities won't be in the least interested when the tenant wrecks your property. In fact, you may end up dealing with a minor clerk who not only doesn't care about your problems, but also resents that fact that you are a "wealthy" investor with more than one home! Local authorities, in Ireland or the UK in my experience, are impossible to deal with in these situations and will give you high blood pressure!

In the current climate where most towns have a surplus of "investment" property, the local authorities can afford to be very arrogant when dealing with the private-sector landlords, and rental deals are punitive in their conditions. The local authorities have managed to maintain their advantage by giving planning permission "against the run of play" to lots of developers for small units, thus creating a supply/demand imbalance that favours their rental needs for social housing. The oversold private sector are therefore providing rental housing at far lower cost than the councils could provide it for themselves, and a continuing inflow of new units provides the authorities with a stockpile of landlords who come round to believing that a social housing tenant is better than no tenant at all.

I'm not sugesting that this was some kind of "grand plan" by the cocos; they don't have that kind of collective brainpower, but they know that they now have a winning formula and are happy to exploit it.

It's a bad market folks, stay out of it.


----------



## lightswitch

Have to say I find the attitude on this thread somewhat disturbing.  I moved abroad a few years ago and let my house out to a young single parent.  Had no difficulties what so ever.  I also know several others who have let their properties to people on Social Welfare including non nationals, also without any issues.  imho this attitude is pure snobbery!


----------



## lopin10

Lightswitch i agree with you.We all have to play our part in todays society


----------



## DonKing

lightswitch said:


> .  imho this attitude is pure snobbery!



It's nothing to do with snobbery. It's business.


----------



## DonKing

lopin10 said:


> Lightswitch i agree with you.We all have to play our part in todays society



I play my part in society and pay my taxes. It's not my fault that the local authorities don't provide enough social housing.


----------



## liteweight

lightswitch said:


> Have to say I find the attitude on this thread somewhat disturbing.  I moved abroad a few years ago and let my house out to a young single parent.  Had no difficulties what so ever.  I also know several others who have let their properties to people on Social Welfare including non nationals, also without any issues.  imho this attitude is pure snobbery!



I don't understand why you would find people expressing their view on the topic disturbing. In my view, snobbery doesn't enter into it. If you read the above posts you will see that, Dublin Co. Council's contracts are not particularly fair when it comes to choice of tenant, or repair of damage done by tenant to a landlord's property.

If a landlord rents privately, they have a deposit which will go some, if not all of the way in repairing a badly damaged property. The county council seem to want landlords to carry out this work at their own expense. You might change your view if your tenant had been of a different calibre.

As Don King says, it's just business.


----------



## kiwifruit

just here to say that don king and liteweight are correct...its business ..i myself has had alot of hassle from a sw tenant..trouble getting the rent from her and the place was trashed .every week i was getting calls from management company about noise etc.. as for those folkswho called it "snobbery", shouldnt you be calling Joe Duffy?


----------



## Trustmeh

Great thread.  Makes me realise how good my SW tenant is!  Never any hassle with her - heading for three years.  Considered raising the rent this time - decided against it.  She's too good to lose.


----------



## aircobra19

yankinlk said:


> Great thread.  Makes me realise how good my SW tenant is!  Never any hassle with her - heading for three years.  Considered raising the rent this time - decided against it.  She's too good to lose.



I think its good to realise when you've a good tenant and sometime its worth losing a little money to retain a good tenant. How often should you try and rotate clients though?


----------



## hotelieur

lightswitch said:


> Have to say I find the attitude on this thread somewhat disturbing. I moved abroad a few years ago and let my house out to a young single parent. Had no difficulties what so ever. I also know several others who have let their properties to people on Social Welfare including non nationals, also without any issues. imho this attitude is pure snobbery!


 
I was a SW Tenant before. Without this assistance, I don't think I can afford to pay rent based on what I'm getting that time. And why a single mother has got to do with bad tenant rapport? I think we need to rephrase of what we want to say in here without justifying someone elses circumstances. It's all about going through a thorough process of letting a tenant be it under SW Tenant or not.


----------



## auto320

lightswitch said:


> Have to say I find the attitude on this thread somewhat disturbing.  I moved abroad a few years ago and let my house out to a young single parent.  Had no difficulties what so ever.  I also know several others who have let their properties to people on Social Welfare including non nationals, also without any issues.  imho this attitude is pure snobbery!



It has absolutely nothing to do with snobbery! The bottom line is this:

1. You are more likely to encounter problems with SW tenants than with the population as a whole, simply because the SW sector contains many people who are disfunctional to a greater or lesser degree, a sector that is more likely to have a higher percentage of problem tenants. Fact.

2. If and when you get into problems with a SW tenant, you will run up against a brick wall. The tenants won't care and won't have the wherewithall to compensate you for damage or loss of rent. The Local authority doesn't have a mechanism for sorting out landlord's problems, and they don't need to -- they can just relocate a problem tenant to another landlord's property. In addition, you may find a whole gamut of social workers and other support services ranged against you, the big bad landlord.

So while it may be simple to describe an antipathy to housing SW tenants as snobbery, I am just being pragmatic -- give me working people who have developed a sense of responsibility over tenants with a well-developed dependancy culture any day. Housing of SW tenants requires a highly-supported system that the private sector does not and can not afford to provide. If the authorities are falling down on their job, it is not the role of the private sector to replace them on a very uneven playing field.


----------



## lightswitch

Auto 320, (name says a lot really) I stand by my earlier comments.  If you were to post similar comments based on race, religion, disability etc, I am quite sure your post would be taken off the board.  It is rediculous to say the least to tar all people on social welfare with the same brush.  You have a good situation now where demand for rental propertys exceeds supply.  "The bottom line is this"You may have to eat your words in years to come!


----------



## auto320

Try reading my post again and then coment, and also consider the arguments in the context of this thread, which is about property investment. That's "investment", not "buying", "replacing the role of local government" or "altruism." It is very easy to make a personal attack on me and try to use that to put your own flat-earth views forward in the context of a discussion on investment, but you need to get into the real world.

I have nothing against social welfare tenants. I recognise that in a just society a certain percentage of people will always need to be looked after by the rest of us, either by reason of age, disability, unemployment or just general inability to cope with the world. I have absolutely no problem with my tax euros being used to take care of those who need it. That is one of the reasons why we have local authorities and the HSE, and if they are not doing their job its not my fault.

However, it is a simple fact, not an opinion, that the SW rental sector contains a higher percentage of people who are disfunctional and unable to cope than the population in general. That is why they need to be helped with housing, funds and social support networks. Conversely, if the sector was smilar in cross-section to the rest of the population, there would be no need for social welfare supports. That is also the reason why an INVESTOR should be aware that the sector is a high risk one for anyone who is looking for returns in an industry where margins are currently very low due to the inflated price of property. I don't get involved in the private rental sector in Ireland at all for all these reasons, but if I did I would certainly steer clear of the SW sector, particularly given the one-sided contracts offered by the local authorities.

As for your comment that "You have a good situation now where demand for rental propertys exceeds supply" -- where have you been lately? The towns of ireland are full of vacant properties bought by "investors" who fell for this kind of unresearched thinking. These buyers are now tempted to get involved in renting to local authority tenants, on punitive terms that would not be accepted in the private sector, and although many of them will have a good experience (read that last bit again before you attack my reasoning), a good number will live to regret their decision to prop up the shortcomings of the local authorities.

The bottom line, as I said before, is that the local authorities will not be in the least intersted when a problem family wrecks their home and then comes demanding that they do immediate repairs. The local authority will simply re-house the tenants with another gullible landlord, and the original investor will be left to sort out the mess with absolutely no redress against anyone. Worse still, the landlord will find himself or herself ranged against the whole network of social workers, officials, even elected representatives. The investor will have to fund any resulting legal battles, while the tenant and the local authority have unlimited access to legal advice and representation, with a consequent ability to go as far as they like in the court system.

If you are so convinced of the merits of renting to local authority tenants, go to your bank, borrow a few euro, and get into the business. That's the acid test of course; it's all right to preach at others, but would you risk your hard earned money (or more likely -borrowings) in a sector that is full of grief.

Whatever I might want to believe about the way society is structured, and how things might operate in an ideal world, I post here only for the benefit of would-be investors. I don't aspire to raise this discussion to the more lofty and moralistic level that you seem to want it to operate at. I just tell it like it is, not as it should be in this ideal world of yours.

Oh by the way, I have been there, gave the benefit of the doubt a few years ago in another jurisdiction to a family that relied on the state for the roof over their heads. It took a year and a lot of legal costs before I could get them out for non payment of the rent and for damage to the property and general upset to the neighbours. Even so, I would have no problem getting into the business again if the figures added up and if the local authorities indemnified landlords against loss and damages -- they don't. Once bitten!


----------



## CCOVICH

In the context of this discussion, some of what is said in this thread may be of interest.  Of course on swallow does not a summer make etc.

Please keep it civil and within the Posting Guidelines please folks, i.e. non-offensive and do not resort to personal attacks.


----------



## lightswitch

Dont really want to post too often on property invesment threads, not something I am particularly interested in but as the time was taken to respond to my short little post I will reply.



> I have nothing against social welfare tenants. I recognise that in a just society a certain percentage of people will always need to be looked after by the rest of us, either by reason of age, disability, unemployment or just general inability to cope with the world. I have absolutely no problem with my tax euros being used to take care of those who need it. That is one of the reasons why we have local authorities and the HSE, and if they are not doing their job its not my fault.
> 
> However, it is a simple fact, not an opinion, that the SW rental sector contains a higher percentage of people who are disfunctional and unable to cope than the population in general. That is why they need to be helped with housing, funds and social support networks. Conversely, if the sector was smilar in cross-section to the rest of the population, there would be no need for social welfare supports. That is also the reason why an INVESTOR should be aware that the sector is a high risk one for anyone who is looking for returns in an industry where margins are currently very low due to the inflated price of property. I don't get involved in the private rental sector in Ireland at all for all these reasons, but if I did I would certainly steer clear of the SW sector, particularly given the one-sided contracts offered by the local authorities.


 
Some conflict there between your first and second paragraphs imo!  Also, how can you be such an expert in an area that you profess to have never been involved in?



> As for your comment that "You have a good situation now where demand for rental propertys exceeds supply" -- where have you been lately? The towns of ireland are full of vacant properties bought by "investors" who fell for this kind of unresearched thinking. These buyers are now tempted to get involved in renting to local authority tenants, on punitive terms that would not be accepted in the private sector, and although many of them will have a good experience (read that last bit again before you attack my reasoning), a good number will live to regret their decision to prop up the shortcomings of the local authorities.


 
Have you heard of Holiday homes at all?  or derelict houses?  Take a look around either between the canals in Dublin or any rural town you will see plenty of property tht simply could not be rented due to its condition!!  Also try finding anyone at home in a large % of costal properties outside the Holiday season!



> The bottom line, as I said before, is that the local authorities will not be in the least intersted when a problem family wrecks their home and then comes demanding that they do immediate repairs. The local authority will simply re-house the tenants with another gullible landlord, and the original investor will be left to sort out the mess with absolutely no redress against anyone. Worse still, the landlord will find himself or herself ranged against the whole network of social workers, officials, even elected representatives. The investor will have to fund any resulting legal battles, while the tenant and the local authority have unlimited access to legal advice and representation, with a consequent ability to go as far as they like in the court system.


 
This may or may not be a fact in some cases, I wouldn't have the experience to either agree or disagree but I do think it is yet another sweeping statement!  The use of your term "the bottom line is"  implies that your stated opinion is undisputed fact!  IT IS NOT!



> If you are so convinced of the merits of renting to local authority tenants, go to your bank, borrow a few euro, and get into the business. That's the acid test of course; it's all right to preach at others, but would you risk your hard earned money (or more likely -borrowings) in a sector that is full of grief.


 
You suggested I should read your post again.  May I now suggest that you read my initial post again!  I already rented my HOME out to someone on SW with no problems what so ever.  As for your remark regarding borrowings - huge assumption, again!



> Whatever I might want to believe about the way society is structured, and how things might operate in an ideal world, I post here only for the benefit of would-be investors. I don't aspire to raise this discussion to the more lofty and moralistic level that you seem to want it to operate at. I just tell it like it is, not as it should be in this ideal world of yours.


 
Such self belief!  I am entitled to disagree with your opinions dont you think, particularly when you take such a black and white view of one section of society.  



> Oh by the way, I have been there, gave the benefit of the doubt a few years ago in another jurisdiction to a family that relied on the state for the roof over their heads. It took a year and a lot of legal costs before I could get them out for non payment of the rent and for damage to the property and general upset to the neighbours. Even so, I would have no problem getting into the business again if the figures added up and if the local authorities indemnified landlords against loss and damages -- they don't. Once bitten!


 
As you say yourself,  ONCE bitten.  Also, students have always been "known" to be difficult tenants, wrecking houses and upsetting neighbours!  Any bottom lines on them!!


----------



## auto320

I'm not going to get involved in nit-picking; you obviously have fixed and indeed well-intentioned views unrelated to the pros and cons of property investment.  I think that most people will agree however that the SW rental sector is a high risk area, compared even to students -- they can be usually made to pay for damage in my experience if you have their home addresses.

Just one last point, then you can have as many last words on this topic as you wish. This post is about property investment, not about how the world should be. Stating the facts might be unpleasant and at odds with your views (and indeed with some of mine) as to how thw world should be, but an investor who gets into this area and ignores the risks is very blinkered. You were lucky; many others get badly burned. Your belief that the local authority will sort out problems if they arise is at odds with the facts -- read the contracts they offer and then make the same statement.

As I said, this is the end of my input to this topic. I have tried to deal with the realities, you want to draw the discussion into the philosophical. I am not going there!


----------



## Trustmeh

auto320 said:


> You were lucky; many others get badly burned.


I don't see a lot of these badly burned people actually posting here tho.

Just back from my sw tenants place - 2.5 years and going strong.  everything in top shape.


----------



## Trafford

Auto 320, I have to agree with you on this subject. 

Snobbery doesn't come into this discussion - people are basing their opinions here on their own experiences, from what I can see.


----------



## lupins

my experience is stay away from S.W. From day one i had to chase for the money, It was always late as she received the checks even though i had it on the lease that it went directly into my bank.... i didn't receive her share of Rent from April,  im still waiting on the whole of  Mays rent...... rang social and haven't heard anything back.. i have given her notice so i don't hold much hope on receiving her payment from April or any of the rent for May...i just hope she leaves in june when notice is up....  but where will she be going next... Beware


----------



## sineadsx

I am utterly disgusted to read this thread. You can't judge every sw applicant just because of bad experiences. I am a single mother and of any previous properties I have rented, rent was ALWAYS paid on time, place was kept spotless, I have just recently redecorated the apartment I am currently renting.. So maybe sort out your issues before discriminating single mothers!


----------



## brian.mobile

I have a very nice gentleman in a property of mine on RA. Couldnt be happier with this person. Pays on time, keeps me posted on everything, looks after the property very well. You have to judge each on their _own_ merits.

B


----------



## johnjoda

lightswitch said:


> have To Say I Find The Attitude On This Thread Somewhat Disturbing. I Moved Abroad A Few Years Ago And Let My House Out To A Young Single Parent. Had No Difficulties What So Ever. I Also Know Several Others Who Have Let Their Properties To People On Social Welfare Including Non Nationals, Also Without Any Issues. Imho This Attitude Is Pure Snobbery!


 



Here Here


----------



## johnjoda

lightswitch said:


> have To Say I Find The Attitude On This Thread Somewhat Disturbing. I Moved Abroad A Few Years Ago And Let My House Out To A Young Single Parent. Had No Difficulties What So Ever. I Also Know Several Others Who Have Let Their Properties To People On Social Welfare Including Non Nationals, Also Without Any Issues. Imho This Attitude Is Pure Snobbery!


 




Here, Here


----------



## S.L.F

No way I would let a SW tenant into my property.

I don't need the worry!

I don't doubt there are nice SW tenants out there, but a landlord has no hold on them if they wreck the place and can't go after them because they have no money.

Plus the fact that if I was letting my place out Under SW rules I would not be able to stop them putting who ever they wanted into it.


----------



## z106

Ya.
SW tenants are more likely than non SW tenants to be troublesome.

Simple as that.

Which begs the question, if you have the choice of non SW tenants above SW tenants, then why woudl someone pick SW tenants?

You've got to go with the pecentages on this one.


----------



## aircobra19

sineadsx said:


> I am utterly disgusted to read this thread. You can't judge every sw applicant just because of bad experiences. I am a single mother and of any previous properties I have rented, rent was ALWAYS paid on time, place was kept spotless, I have just recently redecorated the apartment I am currently renting.. So maybe sort out your issues before discriminating single mothers!


 
Whats this got to do with Single mothers ????


----------



## murphaph

S.L.F said:


> No way I would let a SW tenant into my property.


My new tenants are social welfare. Foreign married couple with very quiet exceptionally well mannered little boy, mid 30's. One works full time, the other attends college full-time and gets a full SW allowance towards rent for some reason-not my business tbh. Sound like people you wouldn't let near your property? Or do you prefer 6 polish labourers drinking till the cows come home and falling through the plasterboard? See how it's easy to twist things. There are many classes of sw rent supp recipients-they aren't all the dregs of society baying to strip the copper wiring out of your property is all I'm saying. 



S.L.F said:


> I don't doubt there are nice SW tenants out there, but a landlord has no hold on them if they wreck the place and can't go after them because they have no money.


If they wreck the place you have as much 'hold of them' as any other tenant. You won't get money out of anyone that easy-getting a court judgement is painfully slow and expensive) and even when you have it, it's just a piece of paper! The only half decent thing you can do with it is get a judgement mortgage registered against any property they own, but wait-they're renting! 



S.L.F said:


> Plus the fact that if I was letting my place out Under SW rules I would not be able to stop them putting who ever they wanted into it.


Are you refering to RAS participants or just sw tenants? 

To be honest, there's so many LL's point blank refusing sw tenants that it has created a very greatful bunch of sw recipients who genuinely thank the LL (and act accordinly) who takes them.


----------



## Lollix

You don't have to be a snob or anything else to understand that local authorities have a housing arm to look after people who are not able to do it for themselves. It therefore stands to reason that the percentage of people with lower coping skills is higher within SW tenants than in the population as a whole.
That is NOT to say that all Sw tenants are bad; far from it. Just that you run a higher risk with SW tenants than with the private rental sector. In addition, if a LL runs into problems with a SW tenant, the tenant has recourse to a battery of suports from free legals to social workers, all ranged agains the landlord (who must pay all his or her own costs).
So, on balance, I would avoid this source of tenants; I have been once bitten, never again!


----------



## murphaph

Sure with our 'wonderful' PRTB even a private tenant can make a complaint against you without going near a solicitor or putting their hand in their pocket! If a tenant stops paying rent (probably the worst thing apart from committing criminal damage, that they can do) then you can't legally do anything to them outside of the PRTB procedures except maybe seek an injunction in court (€€€€€€€€). If you sling a private tenant out for not paying rent for 3 months he can just go to the PRTB who will see this as an urgent case and seek an injunction (€€€€€€, even to defend yourself!) on his behalf to get him back in to your house (and possibly fine you too). The PRTB in my opinion has somewhat levelled the playing field between sw and private tenants-the landlord still gets shafted in either case when you have a bad 'un. If the PRTB never came into existence and all legal disputes between LL's and tenants still had to go through he courts then I'd see your point entirely-private tenants would have been more likely to walk away and pester someone else, but not anymore.


----------



## S.L.F

murphaph said:


> Sure with our 'wonderful' PRTB even a private tenant can make a complaint against you without going near a solicitor or putting their hand in their pocket! If a tenant stops paying rent (probably the worst thing apart from committing criminal damage, that they can do) then you can't legally do anything to them outside of the PRTB procedures except maybe seek an injunction in court (€€€€€€€€). If you sling a private tenant out for not paying rent for 3 months he can just go to the PRTB who will see this as an urgent case and seek an injunction (€€€€€€, even to defend yourself!) on his behalf to get him back in to your house (and possibly fine you too). The PRTB in my opinion has somewhat levelled the playing field between sw and private tenants-the landlord still gets shafted in either case when you have a bad 'un. If the PRTB never came into existence and all legal disputes between LL's and tenants still had to go through he courts then I'd see your point entirely-private tenants would have been more likely to walk away and pester someone else, but not anymore.



Hi murphaph,

I cant decide whether you are for or against letting to SW tenants.

I would be happy to let to all and sundry if their was a system of checks in place but there isn't.


----------



## MrMan

The main difference apart from any perceived social differences between private and sw tenants is who pays the rent. A private tenant will have paid a deposit and will be handing over their own hard earned cash each month and therefore one could assume that they would want that deposit back at the end of the tenancy and therefore are more likely to comply with the covenants in their lease. The SW tenant generally has the deposit paid for them and subsequent rental payments *paid to them* so there is a higher risk of non payment and damage to property. When you decide to bring the prtb in to reimburse you, the tenant obviously can't pay you back and will no doubt have the great backing of threshold et al to ensure that they can get out of it anyway. 
Financially it makes more long term sense (generally) to go with private renters and finances is what its all about.


----------



## murphaph

S.L.F said:


> Hi murphaph,
> 
> I cant decide whether you are for or against letting to SW tenants.
> 
> I would be happy to let to all and sundry if their was a system of checks in place but there isn't.


I'm not for or against sw tenants per se-I take each case on its own merit and assess the people themselves. One needs to be a very good judge of character regardless of the class of tenant. I have seen apartments literally wrecked by private tenants and the LL out of pocket-there is no system of checks and balances for either sw or private tenants and the LL gets the rough end of the stick under the PRTB regardless. I'm just saying that some sw recipients receive the monies for diverse reasons-I would be unlikely (for example) to let to people who were just unemployed for years on end whereas I would have no hesitation accepting sw from a reliable existing tenant who happened to lose their job-almost the same but in fact a totally different class of sw recipient in my eyes.


----------



## murphaph

MrMan said:


> The main difference apart from any perceived social differences between private and sw tenants is who pays the rent. A private tenant will have paid a deposit and will be handing over their own hard earned cash each month and therefore one could assume that they would want that deposit back at the end of the tenancy and therefore are more likely to comply with the covenants in their lease. The SW tenant generally has the deposit paid for them and subsequent rental payments *paid to them* so there is a higher risk of non payment and damage to property. When you decide to bring the prtb in to reimburse you, the tenant obviously can't pay you back and will no doubt have the great backing of threshold et al to ensure that they can get out of it anyway.
> Financially it makes more long term sense (generally) to go with private renters and finances is what its all about.


My latest sw tenants paid the deposit themselves and paid rent up front for a month before setting foot in the place and before receiving their sw payment (they will not be receiving the deposit from sw in any case, just the rent). They can afford the rent from their income but receive sw for some obscure reason and I'm happy to know they can get it tbh. So in summary, not all sw tenants have the deposit paid for them and not all tenants have the rent paid to them either btw, it can be deposited in the account of the LL directly in many cases. As I already alluded to about getting money out of private tenants for unpaid rent/damage-best of luck. The system will award you a judgement (eventually) but you are a long way from the money back in your pocket and unless they have real assets (property) it is likely you'll never get it back. It's too easy under our system of laws for people (not just tenants) who owe other people money to walk away and pay little or none of it back. From my looking into it and discussions with solicitors, only a judgement mortgage stands a chance of returning money owed 'someday'. People can plead allsorts (kids to feed, roof to provide, sick aunty blah blah blah) in front of a judge and regularly orders are made for debts to br repaid at silly small installments of €10 a week or something. The law (as is often the case) is an ass.


----------



## DeeFox

I agree with Auto320 - and am wary of tenants reliant on social welfare.  That said, I would judge each case on its own merits.  When a would-be tenant asks me if I accept rent allowance I always ask if they can explain their circumstances to me.  Some are absolutely fine about this but some are defensive or vague about why they are claiming it - with the second group I just say no.  With those who can give a clear explanation of why they are claiming it, I will request previous work and landlord references.  I will also insist that the weekly check gets sent to me as opposed to being sent to the tenant to lodge in the account.  In my experience, I have found that tenants who are not in receipt of social welfare tend to have a lot more respect for the property.  It makes me angry that some people abuse this system which is so needed by others.  I have noticed a lot more people on RA looking for apartments lately but that's a whole other thread.


----------



## Amos63

I think you need to realise that Social Welfare, HSE, County Councils etc who provide rent supplements for tenants will tell you that their contract is with the tenant and not the landlord.  This means that if the tenant fails to pay the landlord each month/week or damages the property, none of the state bodies will work with the landlord to resolve these issues.

The County Councils also have a five year rent supplement programme but again beware as the above rules still apply.  The rent paid is below the market value with accountability taken by the County Council.


----------

