"No rent allowance tenants" now illegal

Romulan said:
They would have to supply all of this if they were applying for a mortgage.
Click to expand...
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.

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

 
Last edited:
ajapale said:
It seems bizarre but it arose because instead of simply abolishing quangos the government just amalgamated unrelated quangos
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
@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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 


Would that be the consensus opinion of private landlords?
 
Last edited:
Sophrosyne said:
Would that be the consensus opinion of private landlords?
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register