cryingchair

Rent controls?

No.

What then?

It is common practice for rental adverts to say that rent supplement is not accepted, but the Coalition is seeking to prohibit that practice.It is expected that the measure will be enacted with an amendment of equality legislation shortly.

Well, it’s a start.

Over to you so-called landlords.

Government moves to prohibit refusal of rent supplement (Daft)

50 thoughts on “Take A Seat

  1. TomCo

    Sure landlords will just put the rent up to a level where a person would not be entitled to apply for a rent supplement.

    1. ReproBertie

      Or the DSP will cut the rent supplement and tell tenants to ask the landlords to reduce the rent but won’t go so far as telling the banks to reduce the corresponding mortgage payments.

        1. ReproBertie

          People who became accidental landlords as a result of the bust are defininetly supporting giant mortgages. I have no figures either way to say which are the minority, do you?

  2. JimmytheHead

    Great idea, no reason a landlord would avoid rent allowance unless they are trying to stay off the books tax wise. A sensible landlord would welcome it, as its far more reliable than expecting someone of a lower income to always pay rent on time.

    1. ReproBertie

      Rent supplement is paid directly to the tenant. From personal experience some tenants are perfectly happy to keep this for themselves and not bother their holes paying the rent. Even if the tenant and landlord come to an agreement that the cheque be sent directly to the landlord the tenant can change this arrangment with a simple phone call leaving the landlord with a surprisingly difficult to remove parasite. The law seems to work entirely in favour of the parasite too as the eviction process is cancelled if the landlord makes a single mistake in delivering the appropriate notification at the appropriate time. All this while the landlord is covering an extra mortgage payment every month and hoping the tenant’s attitde to rent does not extend to their respect for other’s property.

      Sensible landlords, and certainly those that have been stung in the past, wouldn’t let rent supplement tenants through the door. The risk is just too expensive.

      1. Spaghetti Hoop

        This is an unfortunate reality.

        Legislation should be fair and addressing all of the rogue practices, exploitation and out-and-out scumbaggery.

      2. scottser

        all of the problems you describe above retro, all reinforce my belief that amateur property owners should not be landlords. rental properties come with risks, which is fair enough if you’re hoping that someone else will eventually contribute to your mortgage. it’s telling that you refer to some tenants (and by extension most rent supplement applicants) as ‘parasites’.

        however, to eliminate those risks, properties should be up to scratch and tenants needs assessed. properties should then be allocated either through a local authority or voluntary housing agency. ‘for profit’ rental as a practice should be banned.

        seriously, any competent minister for housing could end homelessness within 2 years. but as has been stated many times on here, some 29% of TDs own rental properties – way too much of a conflict of interest. what we end up with is is a serious of reactive, toothless measures that in a round about way will provide more tax breaks for landlords and further entrench tenants into a world of short-term leases and easy evictions due to rent hikes.

        1. Gee-gees

          +1

          Also, I don’t have to give my landlord my pay cheque, why should people on welfare? Oh, thats right, they are all feckless scumbag idiots right? My bad..

          1. ReproBertie

            Gee Gee your pay cheque is not given to you for the sole purpose of paying your rent. A rent supplement cheque is given to recipients for that sole purpose. That’s why it should be handed over to the landlord.

          2. Gee-gees

            @Repro – so? Its patronising to assume people on welfare won’t use it on rent whereas people who work will. Your example of bad tenants doesn’t mean that all will be.

          3. ReproBertie

            You’re right, it doesn’t. And there are plenty of working tenants who delay or don’t pay rent. That said, the fact remains that the rent supplement cheque is supposed to pay the rent, nothing else. Thankfully the new HAP that’s coming means this issue is removed. Of course that removes from the tenants the ability to withold rent when landlords are dragging their feet on repairs.

            I’m under no illusions. There are plenty of bad landlords with good tenants just as there are plenty of good landlords with bad tenants.

        2. Joe the Lion

          I totally agree

          In fact I would go further

          Housing is such a basic need and health, safety and welfare standards so important in the provision of housing that the sector should be ultra-regulated and no-one should be allowed even get a mortgage if they cannot display basic competence in a ‘landlord test’ e.g. knowledge of tenant law, maybe some modicum of DIY skills, contract law, fitness for holding deposits (e.g. a bonding scheme etc). Admittedly you could not bring in all these much needed reforms the same day but over time you can easily professionalise the sector.
          I am SICK to the back teeth reading about IDIOT MIDGET PARASITE AMATEUR PROPERTY MOGULS going about ‘bad’ tenants, unable to pay bank, blah blah fupping blah when it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that MOST OF THESE SHI%BAGS do NOT KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS. This is from the First Reading of Joe the Lion, may you go in peace to love and serve the Dog.

          1. ReproBertie

            So banks should refuse all mortgages until applicants pass a landlord test just in case they find themselves acting as landlords of the property at some point in the future?

            Also, if that “idiot midget parasite amateur property moguls” rant is aimed at me you’re way off. As I said below, the property was wrecked while under the stewardship of professionals.

        3. ReproBertie

          Believe it or not Scottser the people that wrecked my house were the third set of tenants into the house but the first that I had hired a management company to handle. The management comapny were responsible for finding tenants, rent collection, house inspection and everything else. In this case welfare payments turned out to be the only income they had.

          These people (my ex-tenants) are parasites. They don’t seem to have paid a single bill in the time I was there. It looks as though they just stopped opening bills after a while. The stack of M50 tolls and unpaid motor tax forms would fill a filing cabinet. If I listed the things they had broken or the crap they had collected and stashed in the house I’d be here until midnight.

          Since then, and before then, I’ve had rent supplement tenants in the house but only when a partner or co-renter has an income.

          1. ReproBertie

            It’s in Tyrrelstown fluffy and it’s currently rented. I’m hoping to sell it this year as I have no interest in being a landlord and have even less interest in the hassle it entails.

          2. scottser

            i absolutely hear ya repro – don’t get me started on estate agents and management companies. they are another crowd of unaccountable shysters. they operate in the grey area between unbridled greed and both tenant and landlord’s vulnerabilities. there should be no place for them in a properly functioning rental market.

            joe – to my mind, you shouldn’t be given a second mortgage unless you commit that property to be rental for the duratiion of the mortgage term – none of this ‘my daughter needs to move into the house next month so you have to go’.

            clampers – i got the 29% figure from the PBP site and it was parroted on the journal somewhere but i have no source. no harm to ask the clerk dealing with the register of member’s interest directly:
            clerk@oireachtas.ie

  3. FK

    All a landlord will have to do is say that they will accept rent allowance but all prospective rent allowance tenants will be somehow deemed unsuitable without a reason ever being stated. It solves nothing.

    1. ReproBertie

      “The local authority will pay your rent directly to your landlord on your behalf”

      Well this is definietly a step in the right direction. With that in place the risk is massively reduced.

      1. scottser

        yep, and a HAP recipient can work without the hassle of the whole lot being deducted from a rent supplement payment – they just pay a few extra bob to the council.

  4. eamonn clancy

    The rent supplement helps keep prices up. Controls are also needed to stop over crowding. 6-8 people staying in a 2 bed apt can afford to pay the ridiculous rent. Enforce some new rules and prices will fall.

  5. eric cartman

    landlords only rent to RA/RS tenants once. The houses always come back dirty, lots of neighbour complaints, mouldy , appliances broken etc…

    Welfare tenants simply can’t afford the upkeep of a house, even if the government is paying their rent.

    1. My Daddy is bigger than Yours

      eh, it’s not the “upkeep” that the problem.

      Polish Immigrants scan generally afford a wipe down with a J-Cloth/not smashing the gaff to bits

    2. ollie

      Not true in my experience, I’ve let to several rent allowance tenants and all but one were excellent tenants.

  6. ollie

    any law to make landlords accept rent allowance tenants is unconstitutional and illegal under European law. it’s just more fg bluster.

  7. Ppads

    I would never look at a flat from someone who states working only. Pay your taxes then I’ll consider renting from you?

    1. ollie

      Ppads, your’e obviously blessed with a choice of rented accommodation to choose from in which case you don’t live in Ireland, or in any par of Ireland that’s worth living in.

  8. Ppads

    The rental market is renowned for tax evasion and is one of the primary reasons why the PTSB was setup. When an advert states working only it includes all of these cowboys because the last thing they want is state involvement.
    Also, if you accept a working only policy then you also accept that you are probably only a couple of pay cheques away from being homeless. No one knows when redundancy could strike and losing your job is bad enough, without your home too.
    That is why I avoid such adverts.

Comments are closed.