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

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

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

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

Surely the issue only really arises when a landlord stupidly advertises "NO HAP"?
 
I am happy to accept tenant in receipt of HAP, if they are able to pay the advertised rent
Click to expand...
This is the key question that isn't answered in the report; the allowable rent amount for HAP is significantly lower (in my neck of the woods at any event) than the market rent, even with the rent control.

Are landlords now expected to accept a lower rent payment from HAP recipients?
 
Thirsty said:
Are landlords now expected to accept a lower rent payment from HAP recipients?
Click to expand...

I don't believe they are.

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

e.g. ads saying "No HAP" or a communication from the landlord saying "I chose the other fella 'cause he's not on HAP".
 
I chose the other fella 'cause he's not on HAP".
Click to expand...
But the net effect is the same?

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

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

Landlord accepts Tenant A.

Tenant B sues for discrimination.

And Tenant B has indeed been discriminated against - on the grounds that they cannot show the ability to pay the full rent - so will there come a time when this is actionable?
 
The last property I rented out, I received approximately 40 emails from HAP tenants and 10 from working couples. I rented it to a working couple for my own personal reasons. Could I potentially now be sued by those 40 tenants on the HAP, because I did not reply to their emails.....? Surely this is getting ridiculous now!!!
 
I agree, and the punishment is now a green light to become the next whiplash get rich quick scheme to be abused if the property owner gives any hint of wanting to let outside of HAP.

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

I think the case here is pretty clear and the landlord was wrong. I don't think anyone can compare this to a landlord selecting non HAP tenants in favour of HAP tenants as that was not the case here.
 
It's a disgrace. Landlords should not be forced to deal with higher risk tenants. Or if they are, they should receive "danger money" from the State.

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

Sadly, the logical conclusion when faced with nonsense like this is to play the greedy landlord and look for (say) 3 months rent upfront as a deposit and things like a reference from the prospective tenant's employer.
 
cremeegg said:
Can you outline where in this statute it is possible for a property to be blacklisted from the private rental market.
Click to expand...

In the same way as Restaurants who fail inspections by Environmental Health are fined and enforcement notices issued by the environmental health dept. The same would be the case with the failures to meet the standards as set out in the Housing Standards legislation otherwise why would the legislation exist if not for enforcement purposes.
 
failures to meet the standards
Click to expand...
Being fined or having an enforcement order for not meeting the defined standards is one thing; what you have posted (if I read you correctly) is that housing inspectors can demand more than the standards laid down and can then use non-compliance with their demands to prevent you from letting your property.

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

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

Unless the frames themselves have vents of a sufficient size, then wall vents are required to meet the minimum requirements of the current building regulations. People have died from carbon monoxide poisoning in rooms with windows.
 
Leo said:
Unless the frames themselves have vents of a sufficient size, then wall vents are required to meet the minimum requirements of the current building regulations. People have died from carbon monoxide poisoning in rooms with windows.
Click to expand...
There is a requirement to bring the property up to current regulations. So there is a cost to the landlord to bring a property up to current regulations all while not increasing the rent. I would not be surprised if the Govt in their wisdom don't enforce min requirements for BER's forcing further costs on the landlord.

How many privately owned houses and privately rented house's don't have these vents?
 
In the rental advert for a property, can you say that "The property meets all minimum legal requirements for private letting, but is not compliant with the higher HAP standards."
???
 
I would say no as you would be deemed to be discriminating against HAP recipients. I am however open to correction.
 
odyssey06 said:
In the rental advert for a property, can you say that "The property meets all minimum legal requirements for private letting, but is not compliant with the higher HAP standards."
???
Click to expand...
I guess you can say what you want in the rental advert, most people do in general. Often, amazing works of fiction are to be seen in property adverts!

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

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

There is no need to state that you meet minimum legal requirements, as this is mandatory anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register