# Rights as a landlord



## wtr11 (5 Feb 2014)

I've been renting out my apartment to a couple who are receiving rent allowance.  The rent allowance doesn't cover the full months rent so they usually top it up every month.  This month they were a week late with the top up and eventually told me they could no longer afford it and were giving me four weeks notice that they were moving out?

What are my rights in this situation? As they are breaking the 1 year lease they signed are they entitled to stay for the four weeks?

Thanks


----------



## Sunny (5 Feb 2014)

wtr11 said:


> I've been renting out my apartment to a couple who are receiving rent allowance. The rent allowance doesn't cover the full months rent so they usually top it up every month. This month they were a week late with the top up and eventually told me they could no longer afford it and were giving me four weeks notice that they were moving out?
> 
> What are my rights in this situation? As they are breaking the 1 year lease they signed are they entitled to stay for the four weeks?
> 
> Thanks


 
Does it really matter what you rights are? How are you going to enforce the lease if they can't afford it. It's not worth your while. Just find a new tennent and move on.


----------



## wtr11 (5 Feb 2014)

Not trying to enforce the lease, wanted them out of there sooner than four weeks so that I could get new tenants sorted and "move on".........


----------



## WindUp (5 Feb 2014)

Have you a deposit held from them?


----------



## facetious (5 Feb 2014)

Would you rather that they break the lease because they can't afford to live there and move out in 4 weeks time 

or

Stay in the property, not paying the top-up (which, by the way is illegal), while you accumulate unpaid rent arrears for the rest of the lease, then they over-hold while you try to evict them via the PRTB which could take another year if you are lucky.

Remember, once they have been in the property for 6 months, they are entitled to remain for a total of 4 years without signing a new lease.


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2014)

facetious said:


> , not paying the top-up (which, by the way is illegal), .


 
All rent allowance payments require the tenant to pay at least 30 Euro, so that is what I imagine WTR11 is referring to when he says top up. 

Wtr11, my advice to you is not to look to your rights, which I find a pointless exercise as a landlord, hence I don't even know your actual rights on notice, but I do know what to do.  You let the tenant stay there for the next 4 weeks, they pay you, and you be glad they leave on time, with deposit intact, property in good nick and no hard feelings by either party.  You win some, you lose some with tenants.  

Alternatively, lower the rent to an amount they can afford. Very advisable if this is not too much, and if they are good tenants.


----------



## facetious (6 Feb 2014)

Bronte said:


> All rent allowance payments require the tenant to pay at least 30 Euro, so that is what I imagine WTR11 is referring to when he says top up.


Bronte, please correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding of the rent allowance system is that, the landlord furnishes the lease agreement showing the amount of rent. Once a tenant's allowance has been calculated, depending on certain factors relating to the tenant) they then deduct the tenant's contribution (minimum 30 euros) towards the rent. The tenant then receives his rent cheque to which he adds his contribution and pays the landlord. 

The rent paid to the landlord (rent allowance plus the tenant's contribution) must not be in excess of the maximum limit for the county and area as set out by the Dept of S Protection.

However, many tenants make an agreement with their landlord (either a verbal arrangement or by a second lease agreement which shows the full rent to be paid) and this is called the top-up. This is what I was referring to as being illegal.

Part of the problem of top-ups is that the department feels that if a tenant can afford to pay the top-up, then they should be getting less rent allowance.

And an interesting snippet:
Seanad Éireann criticises the practice of landlords seeking cash payments from tenants, in addition to accepting rent supplement, in breach of the legislation.


----------



## Bronte (7 Feb 2014)

facetious said:


> However, many tenants make an agreement with their landlord (either a verbal arrangement or by a second lease agreement which shows the full rent to be paid) and this is called the top-up. This is what I was referring to as being illegal.
> 
> And an interesting snippet:
> Seanad Éireann criticises the practice of landlords seeking cash payments from tenants, in addition to accepting rent supplement, in breach of the legislation.


 
Yes it is true that some tenants are paying more than the department limits in secret. Generally this is at the tenants request as they want to rent a particular flat. Landlords should not agree to this, but some tenants will literally beg. In addition some Landlords would probably happily go along with it if they are trying to hide total rent, it's a good way of doing it because the tenant won't be shopping them to revenue. 

I did not think in the case of WRT11 that is was anything more than the legitimate amount even though he called it a top up. 

It's never been clear to me the law on all of this. If a Landlord declares the full rent to revenue, but declares less rent to social welfare, is that illegal. And I've never ever heard of social welfare prosecuring a tenant or landlord over this. I actually think that social welfare try and turn a blind eye to the whole thing as they knew for some tenants it's very hard to get good accommodation and if they don't ignore it then they have to in another department house tenants. 

Social welfare do from time to time ring landlords with desparate cases trying to house people.  Even in some really bad cases they stump up the deposits for the tenants.  

I don't believe the Seanad Eireann opinion. It's just anther attack the landlord scenario. I believe that most cases are instigated by the tenants. I've had tenants at it myself, and they actually want to diddle me too. Declare max rent, pay me an agreed lower amount and the idea is that they in effect get 100% rent. 

Example, rent limit 120, actual rent 90. Declared to social welfare 120, so tenant gets 120 less the 30 basic, with this 90 pays landlord 90 as agreed. No idea why any landlord would go along with this as they are wide open to problems from revenue. 

But Seanad Eireann and official Ireland will only espouse the view that it's all the landlords who are the baddies.

For myself in relation to social welfare tenants I never sign the document with false rent, and where I suspect something going on I've contacted the CWO. They can be very helpful. They know exactly what is going on.


----------



## facetious (7 Feb 2014)

Many thanks, Bronte, for your very informative post from your perspective.

I think in many cases, a tenant already renting and loses his job or has a reduction in hours / overtime, hence a loss or reduction in income has to fall back on SW. He is reluctant to move as he likes his accommodation / location and wants to remain in that property and the only way he can do that is by having either two leases (one for the SW showing an "SW acceptable rent" and the "proper" lease with the correct rent. Whoever instigates this is irrelevant as both parties are implicated in fraud, one doing it and the other agreeing to it.

SW is meant to be a last resort and there are tenants who want to move into / live in properties, for their pleasant location etc. which are clearly outside the "last resort" situation.


----------



## smurf (19 May 2014)

Why is top up or having a double lease a fraud?


----------



## Bronte (20 May 2014)

smurf said:


> Why is top up or having a double lease a fraud?


 
You are defrauding social welfare as they have rules that state the rental ceiling. Not sure what the actual offence is though. The tenant is also defrauding social welfare as they are paying more rent than allowed. 

How is having two leases one of which is untrue not fraud? Can't even believe you need to ask the question.


----------



## Bronte (20 May 2014)

facetious said:


> I think in many cases, a tenant already renting and loses his job or has a reduction in hours / overtime, hence a loss or reduction in income has to fall back on SW.
> 
> SW is meant to be a last resort and there are tenants who want to move into / live in properties, for their pleasant location etc. which are clearly outside the "last resort" situation.


 
There are reasons for the ceilings. For example, single woman with 3 kids, ceiling is 600 Euro, but she can get a really nice place for 1,500, with the help of her non live in 'boyfriend' (there was such a case on radio yesterday - I suspect ). Really what this is about is playing the system, milking it. That's as far as I know one of the main reasons for the ceilings, that and the cost.

But the reality, currently in crisis, is that rents are higher than the ceilings, particularly in Dublin and also Cork and Galway, not sure about Limerick/Waterford/Sligo. So landlord in Dublin are putting up their rents as a) they can b) they may be struggling with large mortgages. So if you can get 1500 instead of 1000 you're going to go for it. But if you can get 1100 versus 1000 with a good tenant for the last 4 years you won't go for it (case on radio yesterday also)

In my own experience I've had tenants wanting me to declare to the ceiling when rent was less so they would make money on it, so I'm not having any of that nonsense any more and just put them at the ceiling. Easier all round. And looking forward to very soon upping the rent if the ceilings rise, and dropping back down when they do. I usn't to do that but the constant government messing around makes hassle for me and confuses the tenants.


----------



## facetious (21 May 2014)

Just heard on the radio this morning, the CEO of Don Bosco saying that there should be more apartments in the city centre for SW applicants. There are many working people who would like to live in the city centre but can't afford to, so why should an SW recipient be allowed to, being funded chiefly by the tax payer?

Same rule for everyone, if you can't afford the place you just have to move to an area where you can afford the rent.


----------



## RainyDay (21 May 2014)

facetious said:


> Same rule for everyone, if you can't afford the place you just have to move to an area where you can afford the rent.


So you want to wipe out social housing, that houses tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people in Ireland then - right?


----------



## Bronte (21 May 2014)

RainyDay said:


> So you want to wipe out social housing, that houses tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people in Ireland then - right?


 
That's not what facetious said, his point as I understood it was why should people be able to pick the city centre to live in if ordinary workers cannot afford it and don't live there.  It's a good point.


----------

