# "No rent allowance tenants" now illegal



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2016)

RTE reports:

"The Irish Human Rights Commission has begun a campaign warning landlords they can no longer discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis of being in receipt of housing assistance or rent supplement

Landlords will be in breach of equality legislation if they include the words "no rent allowance accepted" in letting adverts.

Prospective tenants who are discriminated against can take a case to the Workplace Relations Commission which can make a maximum award of €15,000"

Who would want to be a landlord?

Now if a rent allowance tenant turns up at your viewing, you are going to have to be very careful. If you take on another tenant instead, you face the risk of a case against you. It will cost the tenant nothing to take the case.  So it's a shot to nothing for them. They might get €15,000, they won't lose anything. You might lose €15,000 and you won't win anything. 

Brendan


----------



## so-crates (26 Feb 2016)

The WRC? Sounds like an odd body to involve. There is no employer-employee relationship here.


----------



## jdwex (26 Feb 2016)

You'll see a lot of landlords asking for 3 month's deposit and a month's rent in advance.


----------



## moneybox (26 Feb 2016)

No doubt like the insurance scammers, they will be no shortage of takers trying to get their hands on this generous €15000, should be easy money.  Tough being a landlord these days. Its no wonder so many selling up.


----------



## ppmeath (26 Feb 2016)

Maybe I am missing something here, but it appears to me that all this really means is that landlords cannot advertise and exclude Rent Allowance recipients.

We know that Rent Allowance rates are lower (in general) then asking rents. All landlords have to do now is make sure that this remains the case, I mean if someones rent allowance is lower then the asking rent and the landlord refuses to let the property to them, then the reason cannot be because the person is in receipt of RA, clearly the reason is that they cannot pay the asking rent.

As I said, maybe I am missing something?


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Feb 2016)

ppmeath said:


> Maybe I am missing something here, but it appears to me that all this really means is that landlords cannot advertise and exclude Rent Allowance recipients.
> We know that Rent Allowance rates are lower (in general) then asking rents. All landlords have to do now is make sure that this remains the case, I mean if someones rent allowance is lower then the asking rent and the landlord refuses to let the property to them, then the reason cannot be because the person is in receipt of RA, clearly the reason is that they cannot pay the asking rent. As I said, maybe I am missing something?



I was thinking exactly along the same lines... could this be another reason why rents are going up in that sector of the market???


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Feb 2016)

moneybox said:


> No doubt like the insurance scammers, they will be no shortage of takers trying to get their hands on this generous €15000, should be easy money.  Tough being a landlord these days. Its no wonder so many selling up.



The County and City Councils came to the same conclusion a few years ago...


----------



## ppmeath (26 Feb 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I was thinking exactly along the same lines... could this be another reason why rents are going up in that sector of the market???



I wouldn't have thought so to be honest, they were already up, you have private renters out there competing for limited accommodation, they have their own money so are not restricted by RA rates (although clearly restricted by income).


----------



## Bronte (26 Feb 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Who would want to be a landlord?
> 
> Now if a rent allowance tenant turns up at your viewing, you are going to have to be very careful. If you take on another tenant instead, you face the risk of a case against you.




Speaking as a landlord this will have no effect on any ad I put on daft as I've never written no rent allowance on those ads.

I wonder will landlords still be allowed to say professionals only, (code for workers) and no students I assume is still ok.

So how to avoid social welfare tenants, now this is really tricky.  First step, rent is to be above the social welfare ceiling, then they aren't entitled to social welfare.  This cuts out every single social welfare tenant in Dublin, Cork and Galway and probably the other metrapolisis as well, ie where most social welfare tenants are.

Second step is ye old where do you work question.

Third step, already alluded to, is a very large deposit, because anyone in this business knows that most social welfare tenants will find it impossible to get a large deposit.  And then the rent up front generally will deal the killer blow.

Now we will see both tenants and landlords wasting their time vetting each other.  Expect long viewings folks. 

It's quite easy to weed out social welfare tenants.  If the government had wanted a proper solution they should have raised the ceilings, this is just a sticking plaster knee jerk nonsense solution from that nincompook Kelly.

In case anyone is wondering, I have social welfare tenants.  Some of them are currently applying to the city council for above the social housing ceiling as I've decided to increase the rents.  My first time ever.  If it doesn't work out I won't actually increase the rent as I just wouldn't feel good about that.  The tenants if they get it are going to be given a gift of two free weeks rent, that helps to incentivise them to go throught the ardous paperwork trail of following this up.  So far I've suceeded with one tenant last month.

If the government were serious, then someone like me would be willing to purchase a property and do it up to a high standard and supply extra accommodation in currently empty delelict properties.  Sadly the government doesn't care and us landlords are just the worst of the worst.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2016)

Bronte said:


> Second step is ye old where do you work question.



I would imagine that would be the equivalent of asking a woman at an interview "How many children do you have?". 

You are opening yourself wide open to a case for discrimination. 

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (26 Feb 2016)

Does the new rule mean you cannot ask someone how they are able to pay the rent.  The answer to that is I work at Specsavers.  Are you not allowed ask them are they a social welfare tenant.

This is just a new game of questions.  What will happen is that workers will now come with their payslips without being asked or equivelent and say 'here landlord, look I'm not social welfare'

Do you honestly think this will change anything.


----------



## Bronte (26 Feb 2016)

I decided to have a peek at the info, you can't put 'professionals only ' in the ads anymore.

http://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/important_changes_to_equality_law_for_rental_market.pdf

Here's an interesting idea.  Can social welfare tenants now sue Dublin council for discrimination because it's rent ceiling/cap means they cannot rent anything in Dublin  Bet they didn't think of that.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Feb 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> RTE reports:
> 
> "The Irish Human Rights Commission has begun a campaign warning landlords they can no longer discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis of being in receipt of housing assistance or rent supplement
> Brendan



The Irish Human Rights Commission should be disbanded. 

It has precious little to do with human rights, and is riddled with political insiders and hangers-on pushing their own personal political agendas.


----------



## ppmeath (26 Feb 2016)

Bronte said:


> I decided to have a peek at the info, you can't put 'professionals only ' in the ads anymore.
> 
> http://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/important_changes_to_equality_law_for_rental_market.pdf
> 
> Here's an interesting idea.  Can social welfare tenants now sue Dublin council for discrimination because it's rent ceiling/cap means they cannot rent anything in Dublin  Bet they didn't think of that.



That's interesting Bronte. But for a landlord now, all they have to do if they do not want RA tenants is to keep the asking above the threshold. 

Don't RA tenants need the LL to fill in a form and state the rent? 

Don't they need to seek accommodation within a certain rent bracket?

This is the key - a LL is not obliged to rent below the asking. Not renting to a RA tenant whose limit has been exceeded is not against any law.


----------



## Gerard123 (26 Feb 2016)

I have had good and bad private paying tenants and good and bad social welfare tenants. Simply differentiating on that basis solely, without considering all relevant factors is illogical and makes no business sense for a landlord (in my opinion). 

The question when renting a house is fundamentally about the quality of the tenant, not first and foremost about the method of payment.  Theoretically if there were two tenants of exactly equal calibre, and the only differentiating factor was one was social welfare and the other was not, I would lean towards the social welfare tenant (and have done so in practice).  This has a slight added advantage of payment being more or less guaranteed (get the social to pay the money direct to your bank account). 

Things like how long are they on social welfare, past and/or current employment record, whether they have managed to hold down employment at any stage in their life, do they move house every year (very bad sign), bank references, proof of ability to pay rent and ability to demonstrate, are you happy to have them renting your house, etc etc.  These are much more important than a simple 'are they social welfare or not', and can help in assessing the quality of a tenant.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Feb 2016)

Work place relations commission is on record that they do not have resources to handle any complaint.

This is pie in the sky if you ask me.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Feb 2016)

Simple way to avoid any such claim is to apply the same vetting criteria to all prospective tenants.

I include in that a phone call to employer (and get signed permission to do so)


----------



## Dermot (26 Feb 2016)

With all the Government interference in the private rental market such as "rent control" twisted PRTB rulings and "human rights" etc there will be a continued exodus of Landlords from the market.  The political establishment (all of them) are hell bent on screwing the landlord business between taxation policy and the aforementioned issues.

Methinks it is not a great little country to do business (being a landlord).

I am sorry for getting into it.  Planning how to extricate myself from it.  Everyone to their own problems


----------



## Palerider (26 Feb 2016)

I don't have property rented in Ireland and never will, the tax is onerous assuming you get paid per the terms of the lease, the risks of damage to furniture, repainting, refurb costs are high.

I do own property in the U.S, let unfurnished which is the norm over there, I have no sad tales to relay from my experience, tenants are vetted covering criminal and financial background checks and boy do most really respect and want to look after their credit rating, a cursory look at an episode of Judge Judy will open eyes about just how much people respect and wish to protect their credit rating.

Each to their own of course, I have nothing but respect for owners of Irish residential rental properties, a tough business needing tough sensible business people working hard to manage the asset, this news today can of course be circumvented but there will be tenants that will gain from this due to the non professional owners slipping up somewhere in the letting process.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Feb 2016)

Why on earth is it the responsibility of the *Workplace *Relations Commission to enforce this -  who seem to have only just found out it's in their remit? 
Why not the Coastguard or some other irrelevant body to tenancy?
Was it a deliberate attempt to placate the media by creating rules that won't be enforced???


----------



## T McGibney (26 Feb 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Was it a deliberate attempt to placate the media by creating rules that won't be enforced???



Yes, the modern equivalent of Ray Burke having trees planted on a road of the eve of an election, and removed a few days later.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Feb 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Why on earth is it the responsibility of the *Workplace *Relations Commission to enforce this -  who seem to have only just found out it's in their remit?
> Why not the Coastguard or some other irrelevant body to tenancy?
> Was it a deliberate attempt to placate the media by creating rules that won't be enforced???



Apparently this is news to the WRC...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0226/770891-landlords-rent-supplement/


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2016)

Thirsty said:


> Simple way to avoid any such claim is to apply the same vetting criteria to all prospective tenants.
> 
> I include in that a phone call to employer (and get signed permission to do so)



I would say that if you do this, you would be opening yourself up to a case. 

If there is anything which a group of  potential employees or tenants can't comply with, then it's probably discrimination. 

It will do nothing for Rent Allowance tenants generally. But it will allow a few  of them to take cases for compensation.

Brendan


----------



## Dermot (26 Feb 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It will do nothing for Rent Allowance tenants generally. But it will allow a few of them to take cases for compensation.



That is about it

Strange but a car hire firm can probably can do more checks than a landlord when they are renting out a car.


----------



## 44brendan (26 Feb 2016)

The treatment of landlords in this country is absolutely discriminatory in an era where additional properties for rent were never more needed. I am not a landlord but I am at a loss as to why after all the "think tanks" etc into the shortage of available rental properties the Government continues to treat landlords as some lesser class of business owners. AFAIK not one politician or party has brought this up as an issue that needs addressing!!


----------



## cremeegg (26 Feb 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If there is anything which a group of  potential employees or tenants can't comply with, then it's probably discrimination.



Like an ability to pay the rent ?


----------



## Andy836 (26 Feb 2016)

Can folks not just ask for copies of bank statements and P60's? 
We've always sought and received work references.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2016)

Yes, you can certainly ask for bank statements. 

You certainly should not be asking for work references. And I don't think you should ask for P60s either.  It could be interpreted as discrimination. Or does the Dept of Social Welfare give out P60s?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2016)

There was a guy on the News at One from the [broken link removed]  I think.

They have a meeting on the issue for members in Wood Quay on Tuesday night. 

But no mention of it on their website.

Brendan


----------



## Andy836 (26 Feb 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Yes, you can certainly ask for bank statements.
> 
> You certainly should not be asking for work references. And I don't think you should ask for P60s either.  It could be interpreted as discrimination. Or does the Dept of Social Welfare give out P60s?



I don't think it's discriminatory. I want to know they've enough income to cover the rent and have a cushion to deal with unforeseen events.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Feb 2016)

Andy836 said:


> I don't think it's discriminatory. I want to know they've enough income to cover the rent and have a cushion to deal with unforeseen events.



I have to agree with this. Basic credit checks and other background checks are an essential facet of business and a pre-requisite to most business relationships.  

I suspect IHREC (who have previously misrepresented "human rights" to advance their own political agenda) are talking through their collective behind here too and that their threat of having equality legislation frustrate landlords' background checks of tenants is an empty one.


----------



## Romulan (26 Feb 2016)

They would have to supply all of this if they were applying for a mortgage.

It does not make sense.

As an (accidental) landlord, it's a business decision and I have nothing against RA tenants, I just need to protect myself against bad tenants and financial loss.
I consider myself a good landlord, I treat it as a business and aim to be professional.

So what are the issues that affect my risk;

RA tenants not passing on rent and DSW do not care.
Unable to easily track back on tenants history.
Unable to agree longer leases due to the extra rights conferred on the tenant.
No comeback if the tenant is bad, forced to go through the PRTB for absolutely no outcome.

Govt. policy will effectively hand over a large swarth of the rental market to big companies owning large amounts of stock.
they should be careful what they wish for........................


----------



## T McGibney (26 Feb 2016)

mathepac said:


> Despite all the bleating about landlords being discriminated against, a number of members of the current Dáil are landlords, estate agents, property managers, landlord agents, etc.



If your little conspiracy theory holds any water, please explain how exactly these nasty members of the current Dail (and the one before it) have permitted both successive Finance Acts and tenancy legislation to impose an array of tax deduction restrictions, other costs and compliance obligations onto landlords?



mathepac said:


> If they don't see it necessary to change the laws to feather their own nests and ease their financial lives further, things can't be too bad for landlords.



How do you propose that the current abysmal housing shortages and almost total extinction of new investment in for-rental residential property are to be addressed?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2016)

I don't think it's discriminatory either. 

But so what?  It really doesn't matter what you or I think. 

If you refuse a Rent Allowance tenant after asking for a work reference, you will waste a huge amount of time defending yourself against his claim. 

And if the Workplace Commission thinks it's discriminatory, you will be paying them €15,000.

Brendan


----------



## Thirsty (26 Feb 2016)

But again, I would ask how is the Workplace commission getting involved in landlord/tenant disputes; they are clearly saying they are unable to do so.

Re the idea of being sued for discrimination by checking work references, then by the same token if I take up references for a prospective employee I could be sued for discrimination?

Its only discriminatory if you only apply the rule to one section and also if it is irrelevant.

I could ask everyone what their hair colour is and use that as my criteria; it is of course totally irrelevant and completely discriminatory.

I could ask male applicants only for bank statements and not female applicants. Relevant information, but again its discrimination.

If all applicants are asked the same relevant questions in the same way, it is not discrimination.

As an employer I am allowed to select the best applicant for the job.

The same applies to selecting the best tenant for my property.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Feb 2016)

What has happened is that “housing assistance” has been added to the list of discriminatory grounds in section 3(2) of the Equal Status Act.

This means that one cannot discriminate between two tenants purely on the basis that one receives housing assistance and the other does not.

It is the same as not discriminating on the basis of gender, nationality, religion et seq.

However, there is nothing in the Act that would prevent a landlord carrying out prudent financial checks.

Moreover, section 15 describes certain activities which are not to be considered as discrimination.

*Certain activities not discrimination*
15.—(1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prohibiting discrimination shall be construed as requiring a person to dispose of goods or premises, or to provide services or accommodation or services and amenities related to accommodation, to another person (“the customer”) in circumstances which would lead a reasonable individual having the responsibility, knowledge and experience of the person to the belief, on grounds other than discriminatory grounds, that the disposal of the goods or premises or the provision of the services or accommodation or the services and amenities related to accommodation, as the case may be, to the customer would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour or damage to property at or in the vicinity of the place in which the goods or services are sought or the premises or accommodation are located.


----------



## Dermot (26 Feb 2016)

So I conduct interviews for Tenants and potential tenants arrive at the house. Some of them are social welfare recipients and some are professionals. Some of the professionals have their documents that I need to satisfy me and I let to one of the professional tenants.
I make sure my add for the property complies with the law.  I make sure I am careful legally with my interviews.
What is to stop a free loader making a complaint that their human rights were breached.  It can be said you looked for this that and the other and all you can say is the truth.  
It will cost them nothing to complain and follow it through.
At best I am in a 50/50 situation and as I am a landlord in reality I am in a no win situation.
We are in dangerous grounds here.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Feb 2016)

You are perfectly within your rights to reject a prospective tenant on the basis that they cannot afford the rent.

It would be up to the “free loader” to prove to the WRC that he or she could at the time of the interview.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Feb 2016)

> the “free loader”


Now that I have a problem with.  Getting assistance with rent does not make you a free loader.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Feb 2016)

Thirsty said:


> Now that I have a problem with.  Getting assistance with rent does not make you a free loader.



I agree, but I was quoting Dermot.


----------



## mathepac (26 Feb 2016)

Romulan said:


> They would have to supply all of this if they were applying for a mortgage.


But they are not making a mortgage application. This is akin to saying I must supply a NCT cert, pilot's licence and a completed HP / loan agreement if I want to rent a car!!

46% of the membership of the outgoing Dáil are involved in renting property, managing properties, etc. so it must be a lucrative business. The scarcity of rental property and social housing is what keeps rents artificially high, adding to the returns available to private landlords. I don't have numbers yet for councillors, but I'll look for them.

I have no idea why my last post was deleted but it hasn't stopped posters quoting it. I've been told to "*Please refresh your knowledge of the **Posting** Guidelines", *which unfortunately leaves me none the wiser. Maybe an admin could help me here please.



T McGibney said:


> If your little conspiracy theory holds any water, please explain how exactly these nasty members of the current Dail (and the one before it) have permitted both successive Finance Acts and tenancy legislation to impose an array of tax deduction restrictions, other costs and compliance obligations onto landlords?


 I could of course point out that a private landlord renting directly does not need a licence from the local council to operate. A rented property is not subject to inspection by the authorities prior to renting or during a tenancy to be passed as fit by the local authority. Both of these are necessary in England and Wales.

The additional costs / charges implemented  were in an attempt to raise additional Government finance, but they stopped short of licensing or closing down unsuitable accommodations.

PRTB is just a fund-raising quango. I'm not sure it benefits landlords or tenants.



T McGibney said:


> How do you propose that the current abysmal housing shortages and almost total extinction of new investment in for-rental residential property are to be addressed?


I have no proposal to resolve the housing shortage but I would point out that it raises the returns being made by those already invested in rental property or the management thereof.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Feb 2016)

The really stupid thing about this nonsense is that there's a very, very simple solution for RA tenants.  

1. Have SW pay the rent *direct *to Landlord.  
2. 6 weeks deposit becomes the norm, and SW will assist SW recipients where necessary
3. Sort out PRTB nonsense - take a look at the Australian model.

Result? Everybody happy!


----------



## Dermot (26 Feb 2016)

I will not go into a lot of statistics other than to quote from the statistics of one of the leading auctioneering firms who are nationwide.  The statistics show that for every one property they sold for renting almost 2 were sold out of the rental market.
I am not too sure that you need a license prior to renting in England.  Have you a link.  It maybe for a multi unit development but they are practically all stopped here.  
I have near enough annual inspections by Co. Co.
The returns when you pay loans, maintenance, Insurance, taxes and various fees are quite low regardless of what other people may think.
I know of several landlords who have actually lost their own homes as a result of over committing in the rental market.
There are some who have done quite well
The in between have generally struggled and will continue to do so.
It may fall to the big funds in the future to provide the rental accommodation but I would be careful about wishing for this.
The big funds generally bought a lot of apartment blocks in bulk as a property play.  They have all done well and the property has appreciated and they are getting a good return on their capital given the price they initially paid for them.
I would fear that some of them will sell off the properties in the next 4 years and move to the next country where they feel the can get a better return.


----------



## Bronte (27 Feb 2016)

Mathepac you said there that rental properties don't have to be inspected as to suitability.  There is a system of inspections, and these do take place as we've had posters on here who were required to do some work following same.  As for myself, despite being a landlord for over 20 years I've never been inspected.  And that's in two cities.  I have a few social welfare tenants, I think the council or social welfare do call out to check the place exists before they get rent allowance.  But this is not apparently an inspection of standards as far as I know.

Also I too take issue with people on social welfare being called freeloaders.  My experience of them is that they are down on their luck, or incapable, or unlucky in life.  Some we have had to help fill out the form for rent allowance.


----------



## Bronte (27 Feb 2016)

T McGibney said:


> How do you propose that the current abysmal housing shortages and almost total extinction of new investment in for-rental residential property are to be addressed?



As I said on here about bed sits the timing of their abolition was all wrong, and it should have been looked more closely at, increase standards sure, but that market suited in particular a housing need for single men in particular.

My other solution is to bring back 100% mortgage interest relief and abolish use and president on rent.  The figures don't add up to incentivise investors.

Thirdly allow investors who do conversions of delict or unoccupied properties to write off the renovation cost against rental income.  Overnight you'd see a revolution in the cities with properties being rejuvenated, work created, and added rental spaces.

Lastly, to improve the housing stock, bring back the Countrywide Refurbishment Scheme, which allowed capital improvements to be written off.


----------



## Bronte (27 Feb 2016)

Dermot can you pm me your location or post it on here would be better as I'm absolutely shocked you have annual inspections.  Can you tell us what they look for, did they make you do work?


----------



## ajapale (29 Feb 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Why on earth is it the responsibility of the *Workplace *Relations Commission to enforce this -  who seem to have only just found out it's in their remit?
> Why not the Coastguard or some other irrelevant body to tenancy?



It seems bizarre but it arose because instead of simply abolishing quangos the government just amalgamated unrelated quangos.



> The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) now deals with all complaints of discrimination in employment and access to goods and services. These complaints (formerly handled by the Equality Tribunal whose functions were transferred to the WRC on 1 October 2015) come under the following equality legislation:
> 
> 
> The Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015, which outlaw discrimination at work including as regards: recruitment and promotion; equal pay; working conditions; training or experience; dismissal; and harassment, including sexual harassment. You can find out more about this legislation in our document, Equality in the workplace.
> The Equal Status Acts 2000–2015, which outlaw discrimination outside the workplace, in particular in the provision of goods and services; in selling, renting or leasing property (including the [broken link removed]) and in certain aspects of education.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Feb 2016)

ajapale said:


> It seems bizarre but it arose because instead of simply abolishing quangos the government just amalgamated unrelated quangos



That makes a certain amount of sense, in light of that they are the relevant body but it would have been clearer if they had renamed it to something more generic, and allocated it resources commensurate with its additional responsibilities.


----------



## ajapale (29 Feb 2016)

Out of interest if a landlord or housing charity restricts rentals to people on housing assistance are the in breach of the act?


----------



## Sophrosyne (1 Mar 2016)

ajapale said:


> Out of interest if a landlord or housing charity restricts rentals to people on housing assistance are the in breach of the act?



This is the text of section 3(b) of the Act:

(3B) For the purposes of section 6(1)(c), the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (2)) include the ground that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of rent supplement (within the meaning of section 6(8)), housing assistance (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014) or any payment under the Social Welfare Acts and the other is not (the “housing assistance ground”).

In other words, a landlord cannot discriminate _either positively or negatively._

The Equal Status Act is silent regarding charities, mainly because receipt of a charitable bequest is not a human right.


----------



## Sophrosyne (1 Mar 2016)

Thirsty said:


> The really stupid thing about this nonsense is that there's a very, very simple solution for RA tenants.
> 
> 1. Have SW pay the rent *direct *to Landlord.



If that is your wish, what is there to prevent you making it a condition of the tenancy that the Rent Supplement is paid directly to you?


----------



## 44brendan (1 Mar 2016)

Bronte said:


> As I said on here about bed sits the timing of their abolition was all wrong, and it should have been looked more closely at, increase standards sure, but that market suited in particular a housing need for single men in particular.
> 
> My other solution is to bring back 100% mortgage interest relief and abolish use and president on rent. The figures don't add up to incentivise investors.
> 
> ...


Bronte you should know better than to put forward very sensible solutions on the basis that politicians might think of implementing them. Next thing you'll be expecting the politicians to actually work towards resolving this problem rather than perpetuating it for their own unfathomable reasons. Some people at a high level have an agenda here which precludes any reasonable solutions to the rental property shortfall being implemented. The only other rational implication for a failure to act as per your suggestions is that they are all complete idiots. Surely that can't be true


----------



## Thirsty (1 Mar 2016)

@Sophrosyne - once your RA tenant has the keys they can swap back the Rent Allowance to be paid direct to themselves with no reference to you as landlord; and there goes your guaranteed rent.


----------



## Sophrosyne (1 Mar 2016)

Thirsty said:


> @Sophrosyne - once your RA tenant has the keys they can swap back the Rent Allowance to be paid direct to themselves with no reference to you as landlord; and there goes your guaranteed rent.



How likely is it that this would happen if it were a condition in the lease that the RA be paid directly to the landlord?

Besides, it would only matter if the tenant were in rent arrears, in which case you could contact the Community Welfare Officer to have the RA for that tenant temporarily suspended and/or issue a notice of termination.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Mar 2016)

Item 1: Very likely. And theres nothing you can do about it. Without proper provision to back it up lease isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Item 2: Ok so now your tenant has no money to pay rent, lives rent free at your expense while you spend the next 12 months trying to get them out of your house.


----------



## Sophrosyne (2 Mar 2016)

Thirsty said:


> Item 1: Very likely. And theres nothing you can do about it. Without proper provision to back it up lease isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
> 
> Item 2: Ok so now your tenant has no money to pay rent, lives rent free at your expense while you spend the next 12 months trying to get them out of your house.





Dermot said:


> So I conduct interviews for Tenants and potential tenants arrive at the house. Some of them are social welfare recipients and some are professionals. Some of the professionals have their documents that I need to satisfy me and I let to one of the professional tenants.
> 
> I make sure my add for the property complies with the law.  I make sure I am careful legally with my interviews.
> What is to stop a free loader making a complaint that their human rights were breached.  It can be said you looked for this that and the other and all you can say is the truth.



Would that be the consensus opinion of private landlords?


----------



## Bronte (2 Mar 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Would that be the consensus opinion of private landlords?



I think what is going to happen is that working tenants will be smart and realise, without being asked, that they should bring their employment record with them.  The social welfare tenants need not know this is even happening as they will not be there when the vetting takes place.  So how will they have grounds for taking a case.  We might have one or two headline cases if a landlord is stupid enough, for example there were two recent cases where the PRTB got judgements and hefty enough costs because despite numerous reminders they didn't register, now that's stupid.

This new rule is not solving the problem, that the real issue is the rent allowance ceilings basically mean there is no property available for those in Dublin, Cork and Galway.  And I'd imagine any that might even fit the ceiling are slums.  (I see Dublin CC started a campaign on cleaning this up recently, hard to believe that level of property still exists but it does, particularly Dublin)


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Mar 2016)

Bronte said:


> This new rule is not solving the problem, that the real issue is the rent allowance ceilings basically mean there is no property available for those in Dublin, Cork and Galway.  And I'd imagine any that might even fit the ceiling are slums.



Is that the real issue? That would be the real issue if properties are lying idle in Dublin, Cork and Galway because landlords won't rent either to RA tenants, or at that level of rent. If properties are not lying idle, and instead landlords are renting that pool of properties to workers for higher rents, then the real issue is that there just aren't enough properties in the main cities for all the people living in it. Properties that 3-5 years again were not slums, ie perfectly livable, were within the RA threshold have now gone up in rent. Would an increase in RA bring more properties onto the market in the main cities? I'm doubtful given the supply side constraints. 

A lot of landlords don't want RA tenants, the lower rent is a secondary issue. 
So is there a significant number of potential landlords out there, or properties lying currently idle, that would come into the market if RA was increased?


----------



## Bronte (2 Mar 2016)

That's another issue, supply, but not all landlords are anti rent allowance tenants, that's what I'm talking about, they are not even at the table in ability to view never mind rent what is available.  I've also commentated on how to increase supply.  Not just on this thread but a couple of years ago, a bedsit thread if I can remember properly.  Right now if I asked for market rent people would be inable to rent in the city where my property is.  People like to bash landlords but the truth is the problem would be a lot less if we demanded market rent.  That is why the government has a 'secret' scheme to increase the ceiling if the landlords threaten eviction.  My own tenants when we asked them to try and break the ceiling had already known about this from other tenants.


----------



## Bronte (2 Mar 2016)

44brendan said:


> Bronte you should know better than to put forward very sensible solutions on the basis that politicians might think of implementing them. Next thing you'll be expecting the politicians to actually work towards resolving this problem rather than perpetuating it for their own unfathomable reasons. Some people at a high level have an agenda here which precludes any reasonable solutions to the rental property shortfall being implemented. The only other rational implication for a failure to act as per your suggestions is that they are all complete idiots. Surely that can't be true



You're going to flip when you hear the latest, now of all Ministers to preside over a housing fiasco at every turn in office, he actually got back in and he's total crazy scheme of putting people into caravans, called modular housing, don't you know, which is right up their with 'fiscal space' well that scheme,  it's now cancelled, because nobody wants to build them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...cels-20m-tender-for-modular-housing-1.2556153

Would you live in a glorified garden shed?  Shambles from beginning to end.  And reams and reams of newprint because they were building the grand sum of 22 units.  I mean 22 units.

I actually looked at more than one property in the last three months, to convert into two or three flats, but the figures are not adding up.  These are properties that are empty, in a city center.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Mar 2016)

Bronte said:


> That's another issue, supply, but not all landlords are anti rent allowance tenants, that's what I'm talking about, they are not even at the table in ability to view never mind rent what is available.  I've also commentated on how to increase supply.  Not just on this thread but a couple of years ago, a bedsit thread if I can remember properly.  Right now if I asked for market rent people would be inable to rent in the city where my property is.  People like to bash landlords but the truth is the problem would be a lot less if we demanded market rent.  That is why the government has a 'secret' scheme to increase the ceiling if the landlords threaten eviction.  My own tenants when we asked them to try and break the ceiling had already known about this from other tenants.



I'm not in the bashing landlords game, I see a game of musical chairs where there just are not enough properties to go around. Secret schemes and boosting rent allowance helps a particular subset of people chasing the number of chairs. But will boosting rent allowance bring more chairs into play?
If the RA tenant is evicted, is the landlord letting the property go idle? Is it being rented out to professionals or sold on to someone as their PPR? I think that's the key question. Just because the property is no longer let to an RA tenant, it doesn't mean it's no longer lived in.

We need to bring more capacity into play - totally agree with you on the bedsits and any similar regulations that have been OTT in taking safe livable properties off the market.


----------



## rebeccahealy (3 Mar 2016)

I have represented landlords in front of the Equality Tribunal (now WRC) and honestly landlords don't have much to worry about. First of all, only about 1 in 5 Equal Status Act cases win and that would include much serious cases like a handicapped child not let into a school etc. Awards tend to very small. €15,000 is the max. The only time I remember the ET giving a maximum award is when a wheelchair user was a patient in the Mater and she could not  use the wheelchair-accessible toilet as  it was being used as a store room.

Looking for work references is fine. You are not obliged to rent your place to somebody on rent allowance. In all these cases the burden of proof falls on the person taking the case. Fair play to the poster that included the risk of disorderly conduct defence. 

Just be sensible. Be aware that conversations can be recorded. Don't say things like ' the last crowd of dolies wrecked the place. i am not taking your type again'.


----------



## Thirsty (3 Mar 2016)

I agree this is more about newspaper headlines than anything useful to tackle the housing supply issue.

What I would say though to the last poster is that €15k could easily wipe out a small landlord; leaving out the time and legal bills.

What concerns many people are the chancers who will demand a pay-off on threat of taking an equality case. 

I didnt realise they had renamed the Equality Tribunal; I thought this Work Place Commission was a new set up.


----------



## mathepac (3 Mar 2016)

Just as an aside, there's a new quango that is furiously renaming and amalgamating older quangos (NRA + RSA = Some new abbreviated thing). The newly abbreviated thing will be another quango with a fully staffed Mammy quango at the top feeding the baby quangos under her umbrella.


----------



## 44brendan (3 Mar 2016)

Wow that's great mathepac. I always wanted a quango of my own. Soon we'll all be able to breed them and keep them as pets. I'll lrt the kids know that we're not getting that new dog!!


----------



## rebeccahealy (4 Mar 2016)

Thirsty said:


> I agree this is more about newspaper headlines than anything useful to tackle the housing supply issue.
> 
> What I would say though to the last poster is that €15k could easily wipe out a small landlord; leaving out the time and legal bills.
> 
> ...


I know that 15k would wipe out a landlord. The point I was trying to make is that I am willing to put money that no landlord will ever have to pay an award that high or anything close to it. It is only the very serious cases that attract the maximum award. There will be compo merchants but that does not mean that they will win!

The WRC is an amalgamation of employment rights bodies. It was recommended by An Bord Snip nua and as a lawyer I am not cynical about it. There was a lot of forum shopping and this will prevent that. Anything that saves the taxpayer money is good news in my book


----------



## sunnydonkey (4 Mar 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I would imagine that would be the equivalent of asking a woman at an interview "How many children do you have?".
> 
> You are opening yourself wide open to a case for discrimination.
> 
> Brendan



Just look at the prospective tenant and say "Now, tell me about yourself..." and shut up.   If they don't tell you about their job, cross them off the list. If you stay quiet long enough, they'll probably tell you their whole life story.


----------



## Firefly (7 Mar 2016)

I think an option here is to use a letting agency and let them know what your target market is.


----------



## Marigold77 (4 Apr 2016)

As a pensioner on RA..Thankfully I have a current tenancy which is fine but if the landlord decides, as he has mentioned, that he "might" need the house, I will be in considerable difficulties. Some of the tactics suggested here no longer shock me but ...I have never reneged on rent and do not trash the house. As a kind person here rightly says, we are often simply people who need the help we are entitled to. And to be seen as future tenants. And i am sure rents went up to raise them above the level eg myself can afford, If you read some of the threads on the Irish landlord forum you will see what I mean. NB I am careful re my landlord and ask little but the washing machine died three months ago and I get frequent promises. At least the electricity  bill will be lower this month....


----------



## moneybox (4 Apr 2016)

Marigold 77 - you sound like a model tenant,   not like some of the people reported on here and on boards.ie who delight in trashing other people's houses and refuse to pay rent for up to two years until a court order is eventually received to kick them out.  Many landlords are destroyed after two years without rent. There was an article in one of the papers this past sunday citing the lack of rental properties.in the country. I wonder how many vacant properties are sittung idly out there,  lamdlords are too scared to let them out that coupled with the high taxes is killing the rental market.


----------



## Marigold77 (6 Apr 2016)

moneybox said:


> Marigold 77 - you sound like a model tenant,   not like some of the people reported on here and on boards.ie who delight in trashing other people's houses and refuse to pay rent for up to two years until a court order is eventually received to kick them out.  Many landlords are destroyed after two years without rent. There was an article in one of the papers this past sunday citing the lack of rental properties.in the country. I wonder how many vacant properties are sittung idly out there,  lamdlords are too scared to let them out that coupled with the high taxes is killing the rental market.


Thank you and totally agree.. but it is very hard to be penalised for the sins of others at my age. At present I am needing to relocate later this year and finding anywhere? I have been blessed to find houses withing the ra limits because of my age etc so hoping the same will apply. When I viewed this house I had had a nightmare landlord and my new landlord had had nightmare tenants who left owing rent, did damage, and left an ESB bill he thought he had to pay. We sat at the kitchen table and i taught him re the laws and rules so that no one can ever do that to him again. Would love the washing machine though! But he is deep in lambing and calving etc... respect and you will be respected.


----------



## Marigold77 (8 Apr 2016)

We


Marigold77 said:


> Thank you and totally agree.. but it is very hard to be penalised for the sins of others at my age. At present I am needing to relocate later this year and finding anywhere? I have been blessed to find houses withing the ra limits because of my age etc so hoping the same will apply. When I viewed this house I had had a nightmare landlord and my new landlord had had nightmare tenants who left owing rent, did damage, and left an ESB bill he thought he had to pay. We sat at the kitchen table and i taught him re the laws and rules so that no one can ever do that to him again. Would love the washing machine though! But he is deep in lambing and calving etc... respect and you will be respected.


Well, the good news is that the new washing machine will be here Sunday morning! The hold up has been that the only plumber my landlord trusted is no longer around..country folk are like that. a neighbour who is a builder called today to check where the machine will go. Grand SO ...Only been three months!


----------

