I think there have been a few cases of welfare fraud, many involving asylum or former asylum seekers, that have created the impression that they are all at it.
Unfortunately, in my own experience there are far too many bigots willing enough to spew around rumours of more doing it. As a result its hard to say at what level fraud by foreign people is actually happening at.
It would certainly not appear to be common amongst new EU immigrants, since only a very tiny proportion of them get any social welfare at all. On the contrary, a lot of immigrants are the first to be ripped off as they don't know what the going rate is.
I agree with whoever said that the real beneficiary is the speculator or landlord: many landlords who take RA tenants hike the rent up to get the maximum amount available, and tenants go along with this.
30-50% of all rentals are to RA tenants - this is also hiking up rents overall, and if you actually look at going rents in each area, they tend in the cases of certain types of properties (manybe except in Dublin) to mirror the RA rents allowable. The only year in which rents fell in Ireland was the one year in which the health boards put restrictions on the rent allowance gravy train (2002) - and removing those restrictions a year later resulted in rents going up again.
This of course, isn't RA tenants fault, since they don't set the rents.
Its the government who set these limits and set the rules.
Why?
Because it makes more profits for landlords and property speculators.
And this pushes up the value of housing.
Which makes bigger profits for FF's friends in the building industry.
If social housing were made available to even 25% of the RA tenant population tomorrow the demand for private rented properties would collapse almost immediately - and probably end up toppling the property market.
Having lived in many properties with a lot of RA tenants, I found a lot of them were borderline if not totally substandard, but then again some of the tenants were total scum. I live in a house bought by my best friend which was formerly rented to RA tenants, and you wouldn't beieve the damage they did. So its hard really to argue a case either way.
What I do think is unfair is that its almost impossible to get social housing, yet the only requirement to get RA is to be on social welfare and either over a certain age or already living in rented accomodation. I think its particularly pernicious that a time waster of a teenager who doesn't want to work can get RA to live in a flat in town so they can socialise whereas the genuine teenager who wants to work cannot afford to move out due to high rents and low wages. And I have seen too many of the above. The same criteria applied to social housing should be applied to RA - it sems many get it just because they want it!!
Unfortunately, in my own experience there are far too many bigots willing enough to spew around rumours of more doing it. As a result its hard to say at what level fraud by foreign people is actually happening at.
It would certainly not appear to be common amongst new EU immigrants, since only a very tiny proportion of them get any social welfare at all. On the contrary, a lot of immigrants are the first to be ripped off as they don't know what the going rate is.
I agree with whoever said that the real beneficiary is the speculator or landlord: many landlords who take RA tenants hike the rent up to get the maximum amount available, and tenants go along with this.
30-50% of all rentals are to RA tenants - this is also hiking up rents overall, and if you actually look at going rents in each area, they tend in the cases of certain types of properties (manybe except in Dublin) to mirror the RA rents allowable. The only year in which rents fell in Ireland was the one year in which the health boards put restrictions on the rent allowance gravy train (2002) - and removing those restrictions a year later resulted in rents going up again.
This of course, isn't RA tenants fault, since they don't set the rents.
Its the government who set these limits and set the rules.
Why?
Because it makes more profits for landlords and property speculators.
And this pushes up the value of housing.
Which makes bigger profits for FF's friends in the building industry.
If social housing were made available to even 25% of the RA tenant population tomorrow the demand for private rented properties would collapse almost immediately - and probably end up toppling the property market.
Having lived in many properties with a lot of RA tenants, I found a lot of them were borderline if not totally substandard, but then again some of the tenants were total scum. I live in a house bought by my best friend which was formerly rented to RA tenants, and you wouldn't beieve the damage they did. So its hard really to argue a case either way.
What I do think is unfair is that its almost impossible to get social housing, yet the only requirement to get RA is to be on social welfare and either over a certain age or already living in rented accomodation. I think its particularly pernicious that a time waster of a teenager who doesn't want to work can get RA to live in a flat in town so they can socialise whereas the genuine teenager who wants to work cannot afford to move out due to high rents and low wages. And I have seen too many of the above. The same criteria applied to social housing should be applied to RA - it sems many get it just because they want it!!