Appeal to landlords…consider homeless HAP

[Bronte]

Its my understanding also that the council can just decide if they feel like it that they must have a rent decrease. Then the landlord must take it or leave it, but the tenant stays regardless. You would want the possibility of this happening to you mitigated for in your contract with the council

Good to know Jamie, your own experience has been an education. This new RAS scheme is a pack of lies. Thanks to you us landlords can immediately identify them.

 

[January25]

So say a landlord has a 2 bed apartment in West Dublin. What level of HAP is achievable?
Is it negotiable and does it really depend on the tenants income ?
I thought the level was set out according to numbers in a family ?

 

[landlord]

Just a few points, I am not leasing to the council, I am leasing to a private tenant, however I am being paid (mostly) by the council.

The main reason for me choosing Homeless HAP tenants is “AFFORDABILITY”
First let’s start with Homeless HAP current Dublin rates…

One Adult Sharing	€675
Single Adult	€1215
Couple	€1350
Single/ Couple one child	€1875
Single/Couple two children	€1912
Single/Couple three children	€1950
Single/Couple four children	€2025

There is talk of these rates increasing by up to 35% soon.

If I am renting a 2 bed in Swords and asking €2400 a month (high end of market rent) and choosing a couple with 1 kid, then Dublin City council pay €1875 and the tenant only has to make up the €525 difference. If I choose a couple where both parents are employed with stable long term jobs, then affordability is not an issue.
However if instead I choose a couple from the private rental sector, €2400 between 2 may very well be unaffordable.
Legally I am not allowed to ask if tenants are employed, however in reality the placefinder officers have already done all the donkey work regarding employment/affordability and the working tenants are very keen/proud to provide all relevant references. It’s just up to you the landlord to verify these references. Someone asked if I interview these tenants personally……ABSOLUTELY!!
On the viewing day the Placefinder officer attends and brings between 5-10 groups of people and in advance of this, you are already given all the necessary details about each group, so you have an idea of who you might reject instantly. So in advance I was given in table format names, number and ages of children, employment status, current Placefinder officer, current accommodation and phone number and how much Homeless HAP they qualify for and an affordability score. All of these groups have already passed the affordability criteria homeless HAP insist on. Of course if you do not think anyone is suitable on this day then they will arrange another group of 5 or 10 another day and you can just keep going until you find someone suitable.
To be honest for both of the properties I rented recently on the first viewing day I had at least three groups that were perfectly suitable (subject to checking reference)and I found it really difficult and quite emotional to choose between them.

I won’t go into it in this thread, but there is also a new rental guarantee scheme to help protect landlords using homeless HAP.

Once again if you are someone who is a good judge of character and do your due diligence when it comes to checking references, then based if nothing else on affordability I would definitely recommend considering Homeless HAPP.

Also Placefinders are currently offering a €500 bonus for each property, you rent with their assistance.

 

[Persia]

due diligence when it comes to checking reference

Its a bit hit and miss with references. Had a couple looking at a property I was renting, knew within 5 mins they weren't for me.

Pulled the reference anyway when they were in the kitchen having a look around and rang the individual who had given them high praise indeed.

Their phone started ringing in the kitchen and she answered it. After initial embarrassment had word off, I jokingly remarked that self praise was no praise and walked them to the door.

For me the only reference I bother with is an employer reference...which I check, explaining why and if blocked by GDPR, I explain to the HR person that no confirmation of employment = no tenancy.This generally does the job.

 

[Bronte]

What is Placefinder?

Why are landlords proscribed from asking if people are employed?

 

[Greenbook]

@landlord are you happy to rent to your tenants for 6 years? It is unlikely that HAP tenants with families will move. Will you be happy with 2% maximum increase per annum even though accommodation related costs will increase at a higher rate? Are you happy to risk no significant increase in rent at year 6 via rent break or similar? Are you happy to risk further onerous anti-landlord changes to the ever changing rules here.

If you are a large landlord you will have these tenants for life and possibly their children as well who become tenants on adulthood. You can only even sell with the tenants in situ.

I would think you would be much better off with a professional private sector tenant, who again you do your due diligence on. They will likely be gone in a couple of years. You then have the option of doing your repairs and maintenance and reletting at market (if that option is still there then) or if you don't like current PRS climate selling and exiting.

 

[DannyBoyD]

landlords proscribed from asking if people are employed

And by whom?

Daft won't allow you use words like 'professional' in your adverts.

100% want an employer confirmation.

 

[stormy]

All of these groups have already passed the affordability criteria homeless HAP insist on.

Just to make sure other readers are aware, people not working at all could pass the HAP affordability tests (as social welfare payments at the time of the test are counted as income)

If I choose a couple where both parents are employed with stable long term jobs, then affordability is not an issue.

Is this clear? Isn't it a requirement of HAP that the tenants earn less than 43k per year. What happens if they earn over this and the HAP payment is withdrawn? They tenants liable to pay you 28.8k per year for rent and support the family of three with an income of say 45k.

What if a future government changes the HAP supports? There is precedent of this with the Rent Supplement being significantly curtailed in 2011 and many renters lost the support entirely (if their rent exceeded the lowered cap).

You as an accommodation provider have no guarantees / contract with HAP. If HAP is withdrawn (for whatever reason) you have no comeback on the council / HAP administrator, but the tenants tenue remains.

Even with the hap, the top up to you of 6.3k is taking up a significant portion of their 43k, considering it needs to support two adults and a child.

 

[Luternau]

What happens if they earn over this and the HAP payment is withdrawn?

I don't think the review process is very robust and it relies on the benificiary to notify the council. Your income could double/far exceed HAP thresholds and you will keep HAP., but may have to make a larger contribution.

Meanwhile, someone that is just above the threshold for HAP, has to fully fund rent (unless another benefit can be claimed). This second person/family could well be earning less than a HAP beneficiary that qualified for HAP on low income, but is now on higher income.

That's my understanding of how it's administered. Maybe someone will contradict the above.

 

[stormy]

So a tenant's income can rise well past the qualifying threshold and they keep HAP indefinitely - the only thing that changes is their own contribution goes up. If that's right, it's an extraordinary loophole, and one I'd expect to be closed sooner or later.

Follow it to its logical end: you could stop working for a year, qualify, take up the tenancy, then walk straight back into your old job and keep the support. The State ends up paying up to €1,875 a month - €22,500 a year - to house that household, with no income retest once you're in the door. That sounds far too good to be true, and the Exchequer would want its head examined handing out subsidies on that basis.

And if it is true, the perverse incentive hits squarely on the accommodation provider. Once a tenant's income rises they can't get HAP on a new property - so they've every reason never to move. You're left with a tenant locked in for the long haul, on a rent capped at 2% a year that can only fall in real terms, exactly as FF/FG have legislated. The tenant is insulated and the accommodation provider carries the decline.

Just another example of the disdain shown by the state to the people actually providing the accommodation.

 

[Luternau]

Just another example of

...wasting tax payers money.

HAP appears to be the gift that keeps giving. I was amazed when I was told there was no routine review process..

 

[landlord]

What is Placefinder?

Why are landlords proscribed from asking if people are employed?

Placefinder is a service used by many Irish local authorities to source accommodation for households in need of housing support. They work with landlords to identify suitable rental properties and can help facilitate tenancies, often involving HAP or other housing supports.

Apologies. You can actually ask someone their employment status but can’t (((“openly”))) be seen to be discriminating against those who are unemployed or on HAP.

@landlord are you happy to rent to your tenants for 6 years? It is unlikely that HAP tenants with families will move. Will you be happy with 2% maximum increase per annum even though accommodation related costs will increase at a higher rate? Are you happy to risk no significant increase in rent at year 6 via rent break or similar? Are you happy to risk further onerous anti-landlord changes to the ever changing rules here.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think €2400 a month is affordable for most couples in the private rental sector, so I think, hope that I might be achieving above market average rent. Yes at max of 2% rental increase a year this may mean a slight deterioration of profit for 6 years and at the 6 year mark the possibility of increasing rent back up to market average rent (according to the rent register) is a big unknown. I also agree that anti landlord sentiment/policy’s is a serious concern. All of these points are valid and would definitely sway the average potential property investor to steer clear of this sector.

Once again I don’t see these HAP payments reducing any time soon when the rumours are for a 35% increase.

Also as previously mentioned 2 homeless HAP families voluntarily vacated 2 of my properties recently and I was surprised/relieved at how easy it was putting in “valid” claims to the entire rental deposits.

Based on all the changes that came in March 2026 I considered selling everything, but finally decided I was going to be a landlord for life and to just make the best of it. For what it’s worth only approximately half my portfolio is HAP.

 

[Shakespeare]

And if it is true, the perverse incentive hits squarely on the accommodation provider. Once a tenant's income rises they can't get HAP on a new property - so they've every reason never to move. You're left with a tenant locked in for the long haul, on a rent capped at 2% a year that can only fall in real terms, exactly as FF/FG have legislated. The tenant is insulated and the accommodation provider carries the decline

I have direct experience of this - facilitated Homeless HAP in 2018, tenant worked for the State ironically, thus guaranteed increments and security of income and not once over the 8years the person and child stayed, did anyone assess whether a single person with a child should be in a large 3 bed apt 90% funded by the State - we did discover that contributions were required from the individual but basically a 3-bed duplex in Dublin beside a train line to the City for Eur300/mth - we were absolutely gobsmacked when we got notice of termination of the tenancy...from the tenant!

 

[Greenbook]

Based on all the changes that came in March 2026 I considered selling everything, but finally decided I was going to be a landlord for life and to just make the best of it. For what it’s worth only approximately half my portfolio is HAP.

It seems that you are a large landlord. Those tenants are with you for life so, as possibly are their children. They will have been removed from the Housing list and now have zero incentive to move due to the life long nature of the tenancy after 6 months.

That is something I would be extremely uncomfortable with. All sorts of changes and requirements could be brought it by the government and you will just have to suck them up.

Specific types of HAP payments may drift downwards or may just not be increased. The government can recategorise HAP any way it wants, so you could have existing HAP at one level and new HAP at a higher level. The government is very anxious for obvious reasons to get large landlords into the HAP system. Once the landlord is there, the government no longer cares as the landlord can't leave.

 

[JamieB_]

Once again if you are someone who is a good judge of character and do your due diligence when it comes to checking references, then based if nothing else on affordability I would definitely recommend considering Homeless HAPP.

Good due diligence would immediately exclude homeless HAP as far as im concerned. Too many variables and potential issues, rule changes, extra expenses, all totally out of your control once your tenant is in the property.

 

[Greenbook]

Good due diligence would immediately exclude homeless HAP as far as im concerned. Too many variables and potential issues, rule changes, extra expenses, all totally out of your control once your tenant is in the property.

And once the tenant is in the property, they are housed and likely there for life.

 

[Greenbook]

Just as they have cut the ARP rates, they could decide to cut certain HAP rates in the future. This might be at year 6 on the basis that the quality of the property has declined so its market rent to include both HAP and the contribution should be lower. We've seen how the RTB would support this interpretation. An alternative might be that as the tenants are now permanently housed, homeless HAP is no longer appropriate, so ordinary HAP or a lower HAP rate applies.

We've all seen how they can arbitrarily change the rules out of the blue. They'll be very anxious to get landlords locked into the HAP system, but once they are locked in, they'll be fair game. The government know that with large landlords there is no way out after 6 months. They have the landlord and the landlord's heirs within the HAP system potentially forever.

If you don't have a way out of an investment, you really shouldn't involve yourself with it.

 

[Bronte]

That sounds far too good to be true, and the Exchequer would want its head examined handing out subsidies on that basis.

My ex tenant, currently my siblings, so I could sell, has been on HAP about 15 years now, lives elsewhere with his wife and children.. He comes the odd time to have a shower there, and I sublet it back off him for 6 months a year ago for one of my children ! Most people think we make this up, and there's worse I could tell !

 

[Bronte]

I don't think the review process is very robust and it relies on the benificiary to notify the council. Your income could double/far exceed HAP thresholds and you will keep HAP., but may have to make a larger contribution.

Meanwhile, someone that is just above the threshold for HAP, has to fully fund rent (unless another benefit can be claimed). This second person/family could well be earning less than a HAP beneficiary that qualified for HAP on low income, but is now on higher income.

One of these days the entire thing is going to crumble down. It seems to me the government is paying :

a) part of the amount borrowed to buy in a scheme of help to buy
b) paying the rent via HAP for working people
c) paying the rent via Ras
d) paying another organisation the likes of Placefinders to find landlords for tenants (with the latest being a 500 Euro sign on bonus, which clearly means either they have too much money or they are desperate for landlords to sign up, which in turn means we should stay well away)
e) paying 'Housing bodies' (charities) to buidl, then the government is
f) not taxing the large institutional landlords (REIT's) as the favoured class
g) paying the scheme to convert shops into flats
h) giving grants to bring back housing stock
i) paying councils to inspect rentals, then the council pays someone else to do the admin and the admin contract private organisations to 'inspect', whose staff wouldn't know a screw from a nail, but will insist you use a nail instead of a screw when the screw is perfectly adequate

Where did this all go wrong, the whole thing is absolutely bonkers. There are too many people taking a piece of the pie and the taxpayer is on the hook for all of it. Meanwhile we have a - all together now: Housing Crisis

 

[Greenbook]

d) paying another organisation the likes of Placefinders to find landlords for tenants (with the latest being a 500 Euro sign on bonus, which clearly means either they have too much money or they are desperate for landlords to sign up, which in turn means we should stay well away)

The €500 signing on bonus would be a red flag with me as well. They are obviously hoping to distract you with the juicy sign on the dotted line fee so that you won't think the thing through.

Specifically, a large landlord taking on a homeless HAP tenant has probably reduced the value of their asset by about 50%. The tenant will likely never leave so if you sell it must be with the homeless HAP tenant in situ. There will not be many keen purchasers for a deal like that.