Banning rent supplement recipients from complex

G

Gekko

Registered User
Messages
410
Hi Folks

I'd be interested to hear people's views on the banning of rent supplement recipients from a multi unit development.

There are obviously social and economic arguments involved.

Personally I'm undecided. To be blunt all of the social problems in the complex in question (e.g vandalism, theft, drug crime, late night parties, intimidation etc) are caused by tenants in receipt of rent supplement. However, such a move might be viewed as extreme and morally questionable by some. It may also irritate landlords who happily accept social welfare recipients.

I've seen ads on Daft which specifically state that "rent supplement recipients need not apply" but perhaps a more formal and general exclusion would cause legal issues?

The above isn't my idea but I'm interested to hear people's thoughts.

Thanks.
 
What happens to existing tenants if they lose their jobs and apply for Rent Supplement? Will they be asked to leave if the ban is introduced and enforced?
 
What about the situation where a property is rented to a couple working for a big company . Then 3 months into their contract both lose their jobs.

DO you kick them out? or sign the welfare forms? Can you carry the cost of the loss of rent till you evict them, redecorate and then look for working tenants.

Im caused to remember the situation prior to the celtic tiger when landlords would demand "no babys" but would want a 12 month lease. If a tenant concieved during the first month of tenancy there would be a baby nine months later - did the tenant break the contract?
 
Like I said, not my proposal but I would have thought that your points would be easy enough to provide for. Existing tenants becoming entitled to rent supplement would be okay. However, prospective tenants in receipt of rent supplement would not be allowed into the complex.
 
I just don't know how this could be implemented (leaving aside the ethics and morals of it all) - every owner of the apartment legally signs to pay their fees and to obey the clauses of their lease & development rules. While it might somehow be possible to insert a clause (before purchase) that units may not be rented out, I don't see how you could dictate who the unit could be rented to legally.

There is ZERO chance of being able to bring this in retrospectively.

And what of the developments where a certain % had to be built as social housing? No way could this be done.
 
It would obviously be difficult to implement but I'm struggling to identify any specific legal impediment.

Conditions are regularly changed in multi unit developments (e.g. owners can effectively be denied access to a complex in the event of their non payment of service charges with the introduction of fobs which may be deactivated).

Also, a lot of developments don't have social housing as they're from the era when developers could avoid providing social housing by paying money to the relevant local authority.

It's morally dubious to tar all rent supplement recipients with the same brush but if all of a development's social problems are being caused by such people, surely residents and owners are entitled to take action to protect their homes?

This is a tricky one.
 
Rent supplement is really a matter between the tenant, welfare (or HSE) and the landlord.

How does the management company propose to find out who is in receipt of rent supplement?
 
Mrs Vimes said:
Rent supplement is really a matter between the tenant, welfare (or HSE) and the landlord.

How does the management company propose to find out who is in receipt of rent supplement?
Click to expand...

I don't know - It's not my proposal.

Presumably it would be some kind of self assessment system and if a landlord or tenant were found to be in breach of the rules, their access to the complex could be restricted.

I understand that a number of complexes have introduced electronic fob systems for access to properties and that these fobs can be deactivated by the management company for breaches of their lease (e.g. non payment of service charges or breaches of house rules).

In practice, I would have thought that someone on a residents committee will "have a mate" who can find these things out.
 
I would have thought "mates" in Dept of Social Protection are thinner on the ground since the Dolores McNamara googling got a few of them disciplined. Data protection is generally taken more seriously than it used to be.
 
I thought there was provision for a swift eviction in the case of anti-social behavior? I can't find any links to it now though...
 
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

"The length of notice depends on the length of the tenancy.

...

Landlords can give less notice if the tenants are not keeping their obligations (28 days) or if there is serious anti-social behaviour (7 days). Anti-social behaviour includes violence, threats or intimidation as well as any persistent behaviour that interferes with neighbours."

Obviously I appreciate that it not as easy to actually get somebody out of the apartment but the legislation is there
 
Gekko said:
It would obviously be difficult to implement but I'm struggling to identify any specific legal impediment.

Conditions are regularly changed in multi unit developments (e.g. owners can effectively be denied access to a complex in the event of their non payment of service charges with the introduction of fobs which may be deactivated).

Also, a lot of developments don't have social housing as they're from the era when developers could avoid providing social housing by paying money to the relevant local authority.

It's morally dubious to tar all rent supplement recipients with the same brush but if all of a development's social problems are being caused by such people, surely residents and owners are entitled to take action to protect their homes?

This is a tricky one.
Click to expand...

The first legal impediment is that owners are only legally bound by the conditions detailed in their lease unless agreed at an AGM, under the articles of association of the company (ours requires 70% agreement of all owners) to add a new lease condition.

The access issue you refer to has to do with membership of the management company. An owner who has not paid their fees may not (again depending on original docs) be entitled to any benefits of the management company, including insurance, access to common areas etc. Choosing one type of tenant over another could not affect their membership of a management company.

To protect your investment and home, the most important thing is to be active in the management company, become a director etc. THEN you need to start documenting all the issues, bearing in mind it is SO much easier for a MC to take legal action against a landlord to evict problem tenants, than to deal with a difficult owner occupier.

It should be in your deeds that if you sublet you are responsible for ensuring that your tenants comply with the development rules. If not, the landlord is open to legal action and I recommend encouraging the management company to follow this path. This is how we've gotten rid of some difficult tenants where the landlord was just happy to collect the rent and retreat home.
 
shesells said:
The first legal impediment is that owners are only legally bound by the conditions detailed in their lease unless agreed at an AGM, under the articles of association of the company (ours requires 70% agreement of all owners) to add a new lease condition
Click to expand...

That's what's being proposed (to have this put in place at the AGM).

My query is whether such an addendum to the lease would stand up legally (i.e. from an equality/discrimination perspective) and whether people would be for or against such a move.

How would you feel about rent supplement recipients being excluded from your complex?
 
We were recently 8 months evicting an anti social neighbour (in receipt of rent allowance) in our apartment block.

They caused a lot of damage to fixtures and fittings in the common areas and yet we are left with the bill.

I think if it was easier to evict anti social people then landlords may be more willing to accept rent allowance. And as an apartment owner I wouldnt have a problem with such people beside me as I believe innocent till proven guilty - as long as they could be gotten rid of quickly if problems arose.
 
flattea2 said:
We were recently 8 months evicting an anti social neighbour (in receipt of rent allowance) in our apartment block.

They caused a lot of damage to fixtures and fittings in the common areas and yet we are left with the bill.

I think if it was easier to evict anti social people then landlords may be more willing to accept rent allowance. And as an apartment owner I wouldnt have a problem with such people beside me as I believe innocent till proven guilty - as long as they could be gotten rid of quickly if problems arose.
Click to expand...

If someone proposed the banning of rent supplement recipients from your apartment complex, would you vote for the proposal at the AGM?

On balance I think I would.

All of the antisocial behaviour in our complex has been caused by rent supplement recipients. That's not tarring all rent supplement recipients with the same brush...obviously not all are troublemakers. But there's obviously a higher concentration of troublemakers among rent supplement recipients. It'd be easier in the long run just to ban them all. The logic's similar to that of countries such as the US that ban individuals with criminal records. Most will probably never reoffend but why take the chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top