Banning rent supplement recipients from complex

Gekko said:
If someone proposed the banning of rent supplement recipients from your apartment complex, would you vote for the proposal at the AGM?

On balance I think I would.

All of the antisocial behaviour in our complex has been caused by rent supplement recipients. That's not tarring all rent supplement recipients with the same brush...obviously not all are troublemakers. But there's obviously a higher concentration of troublemakers among rent supplement recipients. It'd be easier in the long run just to ban them all. The logic's similar to that of countries such as the US that ban individuals with criminal records. Most will probably never reoffend but why take the chance?
Click to expand...

Eh, all anti-social behaviour to date, and if you ban them all you are tarring all them with the same brush.

By your logic, as blacks form a larger proportion of the US prison population, it would be acceptable to ban blacks too.

Address the issue by dealing with the offending individuals, and not singling out a particular group carte blanche. I don't think you or anyone would think it fair to be judged on this basis.
 
horusd said:
Eh, all anti-social behaviour to date, and if you ban them all you are tarring all them with the same brush.

By your logic, as blacks form a larger proportion of the US prison population, it would be acceptable to ban blacks too.

Address the issue by dealing with the offending individuals, and not singling out a particular group carte blanche. I don't think you or anyone would think it fair to be judged on this basis.
Click to expand...

Invoking racial discrimination is inflammatory and not particularly helpful.

If all social problems in a private complex are caused by rent supplement recipients, it's not unreasonable to explore the idea of banning such individuals. It's not akin to banning African people. Rent supplement recipients are not a race capable of being discriminated against.
 
I'm not invoking race per se, only arbitary discrimination per se. Rent supplement receipients are a group albeit not a racial one. Yet the proposal to ban them is to not based on their individual merits/demerits, merely and unjustifiably on their membership of that particular group. I'm not aiming to be provocative, but what you suggest is inherently unjust. If you have a problem with individuals who break rules, then you should deal with them as individuals.
 
horusd said:
I'm not invoking race per se, only arbitary discrimination per se. Rent supplement receipients are a group albeit not a racial one. Yet the proposal to ban them is to not based on their individual merits/demerits, merely and unjustifiably on their membership of that particular group. I'm not aiming to be provocative, but what you suggest is inherently unjust. If you have a problem with individuals who break rules, then you should deal with them as individuals.
Click to expand...

This cannot be about ethics. To deal with trouble makers after the trouble leads to a serious loss of income and possibly reinvestment in terms of replacing damaged property. If you want a safe bet for your property, then you do decide upon which demographic is best suited to your needs. You are making a business decision and this fact often gets lost when dealing with rentals.
Regardless of the legislation that is present to deal with anti social tenants, the process for eviction is arduous and there is only one loser; the landlord.
 
MrMan I understand the OP's viewpoint, and I'm not trying to be overly dogmatic, but banning a group people as such, without any other evaluation, whether you call it applying "demographics" or excluding those on a rental supplement, is blanket discrimination without accounting for individual merits or otherwise. The OP seems to suggest this should be a policy of the management group. Can you see this pass muster with any judge?

I would imagine it would run counter to equality legislation as discriminatory and be open to legal challenge. I would also imagine that trying to force this en bloc with individual independent owners of apts who may not agree, with be next to impossible to implement, if not entirely unenforceable, and again open to legal challenge.

In this case imo the ethical runs into the legal. The OP asked for an opinion, that's my 2 cents worth.
 
MrMan said:
Regardless of the legislation that is present to deal with anti social tenants, the process for eviction is arduous and there is only one loser; the landlord.
Click to expand...

But here's the difference with what the OP is trying to achieve. The issue isn't about the landlord losing, it's about the landlord's neighbours having peace. The MC can sue the landlord for their tenants breaching the development rules, leading the ll to evict by whatever means. If that ends up costing the landlord, so what, the neighbours have peace.

Sounds heartless but we've had one set of bad tenants near us and I suspect the landlord had to pay them off when the MC threatened to sue him for breach of lease. Since then he's had lovely tenants ;) Lesson learned.

A blanket ban on RS tenants is not required.
 
Gekko said:
To be blunt all of the social problems in the complex in question (e.g vandalism, theft, drug crime, late night parties, intimidation etc) are caused by tenants in receipt of rent supplement.
Click to expand...
How do you (or the proposers of this idea) know specifically who is causing the vandalism, theft, drug crime, intimidation etc?
 
Complainer said:
How do you (or the proposers of this idea) know specifically who is causing the vandalism, theft, drug crime, intimidation etc?
Click to expand...

That's a pretty silly question.

How do you think? Observation, vigilance, reports from other residents, discussions with the Gardai etc.

Incidents have of course been reported to the Gardai and troublemakers have been evicted but as other posters have suggested, it's a tricky process. This proposal could be a vaccine rather than a cure.
 
While I wouldn't agree with an outright ban (many genuine people on rent supplement), it is a legitiamte question. We had problems with one particular couple who were dealing drugs from their apartment in the complex while in receipt of rent supplement. (Arrested and Convicted before you ask). The landlord didn't care because he was getting rent from the State. The Guards told us to contact social welfare which we did but they didn't care (Their answer was they had to live somewhere). They eventually left because to be fair to the Guards, they decided to hound them but it did amaze me at the time, how little power a neighbourhood has to protect itself. Also amazed at the fact that we were paying a rent supplement to scumbags like this while ordinary decent people are struggling. Guess that is the world we live in.
 
This is a very tricky one.

Would a multi unit development be a nicer place to live in the event that rent supplement recipients were not permitted to live there? Yes.

Would such a ban be legal? I think that it would.

Would such a ban be fair or morally acceptable? That's the $64,000 question and probably not is the answer.

But if residents' lives are being made miserable by scumbags who all seem to be in receipt of rent supplement, it's not unreasonable to at least consider and discuss a general ban. People love to invoke vague "rights" that don't actually exist. Does the right of a rent supplement recipient not to be treated as a pariah even exist and if it does does it supercede the right of a homeowner to live in an environment free of fear and harrassment?
 
The clear way around this is to ban renting of apartments in the block. That way there is no discrimination.
 
Gekko said:
That's a pretty silly question.

How do you think? Observation, vigilance, reports from other residents, discussions with the Gardai etc.
Click to expand...
If the mgmt company know specifically who caused the damage, then why don't they take action against those people or against their landlord to recover the costs incurred?

Gekko said:
it's a tricky process. This proposal could be a vaccine rather than a cure.
Click to expand...
It's by no means a vaccine. If you tried this approach based on gender, or race or sexual preference, it would indeed be specifically against equality law. As it is currently described, I don't think it would fall foul of equality law. It could possibly fall foul of competition law, as it would involve a number of service providers conspiring together about the service they provide.

But more importantly, it would fail a number of practicality tests. It is completely unenforceable. How would the management company know if any given tenant is on rent supplement? The idea of basing a legal requirement on a 'friend or a friend' info is ludicrous. You can't use information in a legal action if is has been gained illegally.

It is also very unlikely that the landlord owners in the property will pass a motion at a management company meeting. If they are renting to people on rent supplement, that is presumably because they don't have a mad rush of non-rent supplement tenants queueing up to rent the property. No landlord will vote to cut off a large portion of the rental market.

It's just a bit silly really. If particular tenants are causing problems, then you act within the law to address those problems.
 
Complainer said:
It is also very unlikely that the landlord owners in the property will pass a motion at a management company meeting. If they are renting to people on rent supplement, that is presumably because they don't have a mad rush of non-rent supplement tenants queueing up to rent the property. No landlord will vote to cut off a large portion of the rental market.

It's just a bit silly really. If particular tenants are causing problems, then you act within the law to address those problems.
Click to expand...


They wouldn't need to vote for it to be passed, if they are in the minority of the complex. You rarely need 100% agreement to pass motions within a mgmt co.

And the problem is that it isn't just individual tenants. We have the same problem in my development, its the same units being rented over and over to problem tenants. In our case one unit is only rented to tenants who have been evicted from elsewhere, and then the LL expressed surprise that they are anti-social criminals that ruin their neighbours peaceful enjoyment of their homes.
What do you do when you have got rid of one lot of tenants only for them to be replaced by new tenants as bad or worse?
 
Magpie said:
They wouldn't need to vote for it to be passed, if they are in the minority of the complex. You rarely need 100% agreement to pass motions within a mgmt co.
Click to expand...
True - though there are substantial numbers of landlords in many developments, and you still need to address the practicality issue. How will the management company know if a given tenant is on rent supplement?


Magpie said:
What do you do when you have got rid of one lot of tenants only for them to be replaced by new tenants as bad or worse?
Click to expand...
Like I said above, you take legal action against the individuals and/or the landlords for any costs incurred.
 
Gekko said:
....

Would such a ban be legal? I think that it would.
Click to expand...


The Equality Authority can act on the grounds of "civil status". Perhaps someone familiar with the term can fully explain it, but on the face of it it could be a "catchall" clause and be grounds for a case like yours. Why not discuss it with co-owners? If it's shot-down or supported then make more enquiries. Morally I think it plain wrong, but it's your call to pursue it.
 
Landlords view

I have evicted 3 tenants (2 groups)from my property for anti social behaviour and none of them were in receipt of rent supplement.

I have a few members of my family in receipt of rent supplement and none of them ever engage in antisocial behaviour.

I have rented to Rent supplement receivers and had no complaints about them.

So your suggestion seems farcical, patronising and extremely biased.
 
horusd said:
The Equality Authority can act on the grounds of "civil status". Perhaps someone familiar with the term can fully explain it, but on the face of it it could be a "catchall" clause and be grounds for a case like yours.
Click to expand...
Nope - this is a recent change from marital status to civil status, reflecting the new civil partnership legislation.
 
when they came for the rent supplement recipients i did not stand up......

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 
Complainer said:
Like I said above, you take legal action against the individuals and/or the landlords for any costs incurred.
Click to expand...

How many times can a mgmt co be expected to do this against one property? We are now at 6 tenants in a row with appalling anti-social behaviour issues and I'm tired of dealing with it.

does anyone know where one could get information on the rights of mgmt companies to control landlord/owner behavior? Can we do anything to force the LL to have tenants vetted by mgmt co? Any other suggestions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top