"No rent allowance tenants" now illegal

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)
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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........................
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top