85,000 people getting rent assistance

Status
Not open for further replies.
And your saying it should be the other way round

The first prerequiste of any landlord should be to provide affordable and reasonable accommodation (all mod cons). If the landlord cannot provide this, then do not enter the market, or if already in the market, leave the market.

I offered a person a job last week, the one of the issues they had was, crikey LS, If you pay me more this will affect my Hap.... I need to weight this up..

What happened? Did they turn down the job offer? Did you not offer less to try and persuade them otherwise?

Are you suggesting that landlords should be motivated by altruism?

No. Im suggesting that being a landlord requires huge consideration before becoming one.

Oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore....

I do not think that is one of the 'reasonable' factors set out above.

The institutional landlords have the financial resources to take on the Govt through the courts. The individual landlord does not.

This is a good thing that Govt can be tackled through the courts. It offers more of a level playing field. If either party is feeling aggrieved they can take the other party to task. In the end, hopefully, you end up with an acceptable equilibrium of rights and obligations for both landlord and tenant.
If an individual cannot tackle the government in the courts then they perhaps should be minded not to become a landlord.
 
The first prerequiste of any landlord should be to provide affordable and reasonable accommodation (all mod cons). If the landlord cannot provide this, then do not enter the market, or if already in the market, leave the market.
There are strict standards controlling what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" and if people are renting it then is is affordable. I presume you mean something else when you say affordable. If the State wants to lower rents then they need to sort out the construction sector and increase supply. My suggestion for a long time has been to purchase factory built Hoff House type dwellings (something like these) from US and European suppliers. They could negotiate very competitive prices due to the volumes involved. It would solve the labour shortage issue. The main roadblock is the unwillingness of the Department of the Environment to write specifications which would allow such dwellings to pass regulations as the current ones are written for our current Victorian method of house construction.
This is yet another example of State incompetence causing vast amounts of money to be wasted and incalculable human suffering.
 
My suggestion for a long time has been to purchase factory built Hoff House type dwellings (something like these) from US and European suppliers. They could negotiate very competitive prices due to the volumes involved.

Sounds like a good idea. Cheap and quick to build, environmentally friendly. I would be hesitant however to designate them as buy-to-let properties into the private market. Unless conditions surrounding maximum rents were attached.

The main roadblock is the unwillingness of the Department of the Environment to write specifications which would allow such dwellings to pass regulations as the current ones are written for our current Victorian method of house construction.

Is it the Department, or is it political interference? Given the Green Party hold this portfolio, on the face of it is odd that such regulations are not in train?
 
WolfeTone, try being a private landlord and then come back and talk to us.

Maybe I'm cynical but as long as they are giving out virtually free houses there will be a waiting list for those houses.
Purple, you've hit the nail on the head. Take the example of a young couple I know quite well. She comes from a family with a very strong work ethos, he doesn't. They decided to have three children while he worked part-time as a musician and she had been out of work for years. She got very sick and won't be able to work again, he gave up work to take care of her and realistically due to covid he probably won't find work again any time soon. They've been in receipt of HAP in private rented accomodation, on the housing list and just got a lovely house. They were very specific in their demands about colour schemes, kitchen design, bathroom units etc - I had no idea people getting a free house could be so specific in their requirements. If they weren't getting such substantial state support now between housing, various allowances and medical cards they would be entirely dependant on family or destitute so they certainly are 'the deserving poor.' But there's no getting away from the fact that they decided to have children without being able to afford them and just trusted that the state would provide in the end and it did. The ethos of welfare dependency sets in and most likely passes on to the next generation....
 
if people are renting it then is is affordable

Well, this is the bone of contention. Just because I can afford €300 out of my €600 wage on rent, in theory this is 'affordable'. In practice, it is very unaffordable. And because it is housing, and not say, a car, then I am kind of forced to pay it or become homeless in the absence of adequate and reasonable alternative.
 
Sounds like a good idea. Cheap and quick to build, environmentally friendly. I would be hesitant however to designate them as buy-to-let properties into the private market. Unless conditions surrounding maximum rents were attached.



Is it the Department, or is it political interference? Given the Green Party hold this portfolio, on the face of it is odd that such regulations are not in train?
It's the Department. There have been specific offers made by Irish Expats who have offered, and are in a position to provide thousands of houses at cost.
The houses should be provided by the State.
 
Well, this is the bone of contention. Just because I can afford €300 out of my €600 wage on rent, in theory this is 'affordable'. In practice, it is very unaffordable. And because it is housing, and not say, a car, then I am kind of forced to pay it or become homeless in the absence of adequate and reasonable alternative.
I agree but I don't see how it is incumbent on the Landlord in any way to shoulder that social responsibility. The State, through institutional incompetence and the influence of a highly effective construction sector lobby, have utterly failed to shoulder their responsibilities and they have then punished those who end up providing housing.
 
WolfeTone, try being a private landlord and then come back and talk to us.

No thanks, I wouldnt go anywhere near that sector, its a minefield for individuals with no experience in the sector. Its the same why I wouldn't invest in an articulated lorry and set myself up doing long-distance driving across Europe, earning a nice living and setting myself up with a good pension when I sell the lorry.
I don't anything about the sector. The regulations and requirements, the licensing, the revenue streams and cash flow, any other hidden pitfalls - like government interventions and taxes etc.
No, best if you know little about a sector, and have not factored in things like non-payment of rent, rent caps, refurbishment costs, etc, then stay away from the sector unless you have some financial and legal muscle to get you through the rough times.

Take the example of a young couple I know quite well. She comes from a family with a very strong work ethos, he doesn't. They decided to have three children while he worked part-time as a musician and she had been out of work for years.

Sorry, I couldnt read much further than this.
You are a relatively new poster here? I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
This is a good thing that Govt can be tackled through the courts. It offers more of a level playing field. If either party is feeling aggrieved they can take the other party to task. In the end, hopefully, you end up with an acceptable equilibrium of rights and obligations for both landlord and tenant.
If an individual cannot tackle the government in the courts then they perhaps should be minded not to become a landlord.
But that is the point. Individual landlords do not have the financial resources to take the State to court. The institutional landlords do which is why they are receiving the favourable treatment from the State.
 
I don't see how it is incumbent on the Landlord in any way to shoulder that social responsibility. The State, through institutional incompetence and the influence of a highly effective construction sector lobby, have utterly failed to shoulder their responsibilities

I agree, it is a shambles.
I don't agree with the punishment part. In my opinion, too many people entered the sector of being a landlord without really knowing what they were letting themselves in for. It was great during the Celtic Tiger, everybody had cash so non-payment of rent was not really an issue. But being a landlord is a long-term, often multi-generational task, it is not something suited for any individual to set up on their own on the basis that it is their retirement fund. For sure, it may work out that way, and good luck to those who succeed, but it can be a precarious and detrimental role if that is the aim.
 
Well, this is the bone of contention. Just because I can afford €300 out of my €600 wage on rent, in theory this is 'affordable'. In practice, it is very unaffordable. And because it is housing, and not say, a car, then I am kind of forced to pay it or become homeless in the absence of adequate and reasonable alternative.
Herein lies the crux of the issues we have. While something is not affordable to you does not mean it is not affordable to someone else. There are always alternatives be it move to a lower cost area, earn more money or reevaluate your spending priorities.

This is something we all have to do on a daily basis. Why is it somebody else's responsibility to solve what a person can or can't afford to pay in rent?
 
There are always alternatives be it move to a lower cost area, earn more money or reevaluate your spending priorities.

This is something we all have to do on a daily basis. Why is it somebody else's responsibility to solve what a person can or can't afford to pay in rent?

In the main, and on an individual basis I agree with you. But the issue is not deciding what one person or other can or cannot afford etc. The issue is that in general, there have been an increasing number of people who are either homeless, or adding to the waiting list for a suitable home. Now if we were talking about the latest product from Apple, or whatever, no problem. But we are talking about housing which is a social necessity for development of civilised societies to develop and prosper.

So the reasons why there is increasing numbers of homeless needs to be investigated. One of the reasons is, that given the level of housing stock, relative to the incomes of those on housing lists, houses have become unaffordable to them. Digging deeper, even those who can afford to pay rent, have been finding it increasingly difficult to save, let alone save enough for a deposit on their own home.
This may be very detrimental to the overall well-being and fabric of our society. Couples with basic human behavioural tendencies to start families may delay doing so. Those that do start a family, may only be a pay cheque or two away from State dependency. Imagine if one was ill, unable to work and the partner gave up work to look after the healthcare? Suffering the ignominy of being labelled as someone in receipt of a 'free house', with the audacity to choose a colour scheme for furnishings. God forbid, the children have a home with wallpaper!

So it is not that person A or person B cannot afford, or choose to pay, high rents, it is that increasing numbers of people cannot pay the rent or afford a home of their own. When that is occuring, there is an structural deficit within the economy - a housing market failure, and that needs to be addressed.
 
Is it the Department, or is it political interference? Given the Green Party hold this portfolio, on the face of it is odd that such regulations are not in train?
We all love to look to the Nordic Countries as embracing best in practice in all sorts of areas. In Sweden 45% of homes are factory built with the modules assembled onsite.
 
We all love to look to the Nordic Countries as embracing best in practice in all sorts of areas. In Sweden 45% of homes are factory built with the modules assembled onsite.

Sounds great. Just need the political backbone to get it done now.
 
Sounds great. Just need the political backbone to get it done now.
And the realisation that the Construction Industry will fight tooth and nail to stop that level of disruption within their sector... and the realisation that the Construction Industry are some of the biggest advertisers in our national newspapers.
 
No. Im suggesting that being a landlord requires huge consideration before becoming one.

The goalposts were shifted significantly for many already in the business, others were forced into the business through circumstance. The only winners from the continued exodus of small time landlords from the business is the big corporates who will be far more effective at sweating their assets and protecting their interests.

I do not think that is one of the 'reasonable' factors set out above.

You may not, but that's all it takes.
 
others were forced into the business through circumstance.

And I get if someone made any significant investment into it they need to see a return on that. But there is nothing stopping a landlord selling up and exiting the sector if they consider no longer worth their while.

The only winners from the continued exodus of small time landlords from the business is the big corporates who will be far more effective at sweating their assets and protecting their interests.

Perhaps, but a lot of small landlords are quite effective at 'sweating' their assets too.
In the end, again, if it is corporate landlords the State primarily has to deal with, then what is needed is a robust system of rights and obligations for both tenant and landlord with adequate supports for tenants against unwarranted evictions, rent hikes, inadequate maintenance and furnishings etc.
Corporate landlords should have protections insofar as rent payment and protection of property etc.

Instead what we have at the moment is citizen landlord v citizen tenant, a no-win situation for the government, particularly when one party is as bad as the other.

You may not, but that's all it takes.

No it does not. There is a difference between having a fight and presenting yourself as homeless claiming you can no longer live with someone, and presenting yourself with a black-eye, broken nose because your drunken partner beat you up and threatened to kill the kids.

If you present yourself as homeless at any local authority or homeless shelter they are going to want to know the circumstances of your situation before classing you as homeless. They will also want to know where, without any intervention from them or other authorities, you intend to spend the night. It may occur in rare, extreme cases, but only an idiot will choose the streets over a bed waiting for them at home - empty just because 'we had a fight'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top