Is it time for landlords to charge more for rent allowance tenants?

My response to any landlord who considers SW tenants to be 'lowest common denominator of society' is to steer well clear of them. Deal only with nice middle class if you can find them. If you cannot then leave your property idle

Why do property investors who rent out property consider themselves to apart from other private sector service providers. Perhaps they are not investors at all but a kind of Housing Association with charitable status who are activated by a desire to help those who cannot provide for themselves

If individuals are entitled to state support to provide for themselves then they are entitled to receive it themselves. The state has no right to hand over part of their entitlement to a third party be it the fuel merchant or the landlord.
 
milic said:
The state has no right to hand over part of their entitlement to a third party be it the fuel merchant or the landlord.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point - The State does have a right to do that.

A fuel allowance should be used to purchase fuel and a rent allowance should be used to pay rent. If tenants are abusing the system then the landlords should receive the rent allowance directly. Similarly, if landlords are abusing their position, there should be scope for the tenant to receive the rent allowance. If landlords are being left hanging for rent, there should at least be a mechanism for a tenant to be 'blacklisted' and for their rent allowance to be paid directly to their landlord.

And by the way, I stand by my earlier comments. Only an idiot would dispute the fact that 'SW tenants' are more likely than 'non SW tenants' to be troublesome. That's not a criticism of 'tenants'. It's merely a logical conclusion.
 

To address you last point first. In your case, with your opinions, simply don't rent to SW tennants. Let your properties lie idle if needs be and stick with your principles.

If we were to take your first point another step then maybe employers should pay their employees mortgages directly out of their wages. I'm sure the Banks would love that.

A point that has been made several times that you seem to want to ignore is that landlords are running businesses letting out houses. Like any business there are risks involved. To use your own words only an idiot would have become a landlord without being aware of those risks in the first place.

That's not a criticism of 'landlords'. It's merely a logical conclusion.
 

No, it's a completely illogical conclusion. Rent allowance is specifically for paying rent. Salaries are not specifically for paying mortgages.

You are also missing the point in relation to 'SW tenants'. I'm not saying that I wouldn't rent to a 'SW tenant' or advising anyone else not to do so. I'm merely stating that as a group, 'SW tenants' are more likely to be troublesome than 'non SW tenants'. That isn't exactly a dramatic revelation.
 
The point you are missing, Pat, is that any state support individuals receive is THEIR entitlement, not the landlords, the ESBs or anyone elses. It is up to each enterprise to collect their own bills

If I as a salaried worker, with mortgage interest tax relief, do not repay my mortgage on my home it is up to the AIB to pursue me. They cannot require my employer to deduct from my salary and give to them.

Landlords seem to think they are in a different category. They are not. The landlords unpaid bill is like the plumbers unpaid bill for fixing the heating. The plumber cant go to the SW office and demand payment out of the customers weekly welfare payment.
 
milic said:
The point you are missing, Pat, is that any state support individuals receive is THEIR entitlement, not the landlords, the ESBs or anyone elses.
Click to expand...

The point you are missing is that 'rent supplement' is a contribution towards paying rent. If the tenant is choosing not to pay the rent then payment of the 'rent supplement' should either be terminated or made directly to the landlord.

The payment isn't the tenant's to keep - You don't seem to understand this point. It's the tenant's to then pay to the landlord and if they're not doing that then remedial action should be taken. No tenant should be in receipt of 'rent allowance' if they're not actually paying their rent.

It's called 'rent supplement' rather than 'few bob extra for whatever' for a reason.
 
Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Is it time for landlords to take more taxpayers' money for rent allowance tenants"?
 
Pat Bateman said:
The point you are missing is that 'rent supplement' is a contribution towards paying rent.
Click to expand...

The point you seem to be missing Pat is that "Mortgage Intrest Relief" is a contribution towards the payments made on a Mortgage, whether the payments are actually made or not, very similar thing.

On another note there are a lot of ex professionals such as Architects and Solicitors unemployed now. Are you suggesting that they are being troublesome now that they are unable to find work?
 

As I said in the first post there is another option. Charge extra for the risk.
So now the landlord

a - can refuse RA tenants and steer well clear of them. No risk.
b - Take them on but be compensated for the added risk of the HB not paying the rent directly. The landlord is, afterall, taking on someone who cannot pay their rent themselves. This is a big risk.

If the HB paid directly to the landlord then this risk is largely irrelevant. No extra risk, no extra charge. Simple.
 

You clearly don't understand how these things work.

Mortgage interest relief is NOT received if the mortgage isn't paid. If it's receivable at source (i.e. TRS) and an individual doesn't make their (say) monthly mortgage repayment, the individual doesn't get the relevant TRS. Similarly, if the individual claims the relief through their income tax return, they claim relief against interest paid. If they've paid no interest, they get no relief.

Instead of making a valid point, all you've done is illustrate the logic of my point and destroy your own credibility.
 

Rent supplement is payable to those who are paying for their housing needs.

If a person is not paying for housing needs, whether because he already owns his home or because he lives with his parents or because he refuses to pay the landlord then no rent supplement is payable to that person.

To Minion: It is the right of the landlord to seek such rent payments as he thinks the market will bear. It would be foolish of him to do otherwise.
 
You know that many landlords are charging € 50 to € 100 more than the maximum RA .

Is this the risk money mentioned by OP ?
 
I'm only guessing, but IMO a landlord is going to rent at the market rate. Unless there are no other tenants, (unlikely in most cases) they won't target RA tenants specifically. In fact they'd target non RA tenants first. Maybe in certain areas of very high unemployment, the % of RA tenants is much higher then the landlord would lower the rent accordingly.

100 isn't going to cover a months rent if a tenant skips. After a year of good tenancy a tenant is unlikely to skip, so it makes no sense to take 10~12 months to collect it. A bigger deposit would make more sense. It would suit everyone if a independent regulated 3rd party held this deposit, that wasn't bias to either side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register