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

M

minion

Registered User
Messages
504
Im out of the game myself now, but i have several friends who have recently told me that they are having problems with getting rent from rent allowance tenants. This seems to be more common lately.
Basically the health boards are insisting on paying the rent to the tenant rather than direct to the landlord like they used to if the landlord asked.

So this is a risk to the landlord now, that the tenant will spend the rent money and let arrears build up. Now obviously not all RA tenants are doing this, but some do and something needs to be done about it.

If health boards insist on bypassing the landlords who accept RA then the landlords should charge say an extra €50 or €100 per month for the risk. Kind of like insurance.

But the easiest answer is that the rent is paid from the health board direct to the landlord. This allows the landlord to ensure he receives the rent or at least most of it every month. It takes the risk out of the situation.

I just dont understand why the health boards do not cooperate. So if the health board are made to pay for the risk they introduce, then they wont be long about paying the landlords direct, so as its cheaper for them.
 
I agree this would make sense.
It would also make sense to review rents, in light of recent decreases.
Standard of accomodation provided should be reviewed/inspected.
Also rents should only be paid to landlords who are tax compliant and PRTB registered.
 
Recently gave up accecpting R/A tenants,they are just too much hastle,I find those that earn the money to pay their deposit and rent have a far greater appreciation for their home.

Also their priorities are pay bills,rent,loans etc with R/A tenants its buy bling and tat.royal dutch(GOLD!!),John Player blue,lotto tickets,Dominos Pizza,crisps etc and what evers left over is for the Landlord...and when they leave the property,it has had significantly more wear and tear.
 
tiger said:
I agree this would make sense.
It would also make sense to review rents, in light of recent decreases.
Standard of accomodation provided should be reviewed/inspected.
Also rents should only be paid to landlords who are tax compliant and PRTB registered.
Click to expand...
A recent Oireachtas Committee was told only 20% of landlords in receipt of RA had supplied their PPSNs. The other 80% must have had other priorities.
 
There are a lot of new landlords some not by choice in the mix those are struggling in the current turmoil created by the this stupid greedy government now adding to the large pool of rental property about I don’t think the market will support increases in rent even for tenants who are inclined not to prioritize the payment of rent.
[FONT=&quot]
I think RA should be paid direct to registered landlords but as this is the responsibility of the HSE whose existence is questionable could deliver on this.[/FONT]
 
There would be no increase in rent to the renter.
Just to the HB as they are the ones causing the problem.
Much like a bank charging a higher interest rate for a higher risk, or Ryanair charging a handling fee.

So HB gives rent allowance of €400 PM. Landlord charges €40 PM RA fee for signing the RA forms. If the RA is paid directly into the landlords account then the fee is waived.
 
To develop this further;

Should Social Welfare be required to pay their customers electricity bills directly to the ESB, their gas bills to Bord Gais, their TV licence to An Post, their satellite TV to SKY?

Why restrict this to housing costs? Let us require SW to pay customers home heating costs directly to ESSO and their grocery bills to TESCO.

Investors in residential property have a cheek in expecting the health board to do their legwork for them.
 
milic said:
Should Social Welfare be required to pay their customers electricity bills directly to the ESB, their gas bills to Bord Gais, their TV licence to An Post, their satellite TV to SKY?

Why restrict this to housing costs? Let us require SW to pay customers home heating costs directly to ESSO and their grocery bills to TESCO.

.
Click to expand...

No.

All these bills also belong to and are the responsibility of the Tenant, not the landlord.

If ESB, Board Gais and Sky are not paid, they will promptly cut off their service. An Post will prosecute the Tenant for not having a licence. Esso and Tesco will not deliver unless the Tenant pays them.

The Landlord however is obliged to follow lengthy procedures laid down by the PRTB, if the tenant refuses to hand over the rent they have received from Social Welfare.

Very often the Landlord ends up seriously out of pocket as a result.

Rent allowance is given to pay your rent, not anything else.
 
All the bills including housing costs are the responsibility of the tenant.

None are the responsibility of the landlord.

Most SW recipients receive a fuel allowance in addittion to their payment for 5 or 6 months of the year. By the logic of some contributors to this thread SW should pay it directly to fuel merchants.

Rental agreements are between landlord and tenant. How tenant finances housing costs or how much state support tenant receives to cover housing costs is tenants business alone

If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen




y
 
milic said:
To develop this further;
Should Social Welfare be required to pay their customers electricity bills directly to the ESB, their gas bills to Bord Gais, their TV licence to An Post, their satellite TV to SKY?
Why restrict this to housing costs? Let us require SW to pay customers home heating costs directly to ESSO and their grocery bills to TESCO.
Investors in residential property have a cheek in expecting the health board to do their legwork for them.
Click to expand...
plus 1.
 
The system is flawed. Its paid one month in arrears, so you should ask for two months deposit. But IMO just not worth the hassle. HSE just aren't interested in helping landlords make the system work either.
 
milic said:
If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen
Click to expand...

Firstly I do agree with you that the non payment of rent is 100% the tenants responsibility.

But to say "If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen" is like saying to a landlord "tough sh*t". Because the reality of it is that a landlord will be well and truly out of business by the time the law has dealt with the non paying tenant. And even then the chances are the landlord will never get back the majority of lost rent or legal fees.
 
jackbetal said:
Firstly I do agree with you that the non payment of rent is 100% the tenants responsibility.

But to say "If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen" is like saying to a landlord "tough sh*t". Because the reality of it is that a landlord will be well and truly out of business by the time the law has dealt with the non paying tenant. And even then the chances are the landlord will never get back the majority of lost rent or legal fees.
Click to expand...


Surely this is a business risk the Landlord should have considered before he entered into renting out houses. At the end of the day if a Landlord doesn't want SW tennants then don't take them. Simple as. The system is what it is if you don't like it and can get non SW tennants then go that route.
 
lightswitch said:
Surely this is a business risk the Landlord should have considered before he entered into renting out houses. At the end of the day if a Landlord doesn't want SW tennants then don't take them. Simple as. The system is what it is if you don't like it and can get non SW tennants then go that route.
Click to expand...

I as a landlord have had SW tenants and non SW tenants. There are good and bad in both. But I also believe if other landlords have a preference then that is their choice.

Where my problem lies is with a system which leaves a landlord totally open to abuse and loss(which could be severe in current climate) in a situation where a tenant does not pay their rent.

Surely you are not endorsing a system which only favours one side.
 
I'm just not endorsing the HSE propping up anyones business. Being a landlord is running a business. Considering the state of the rental market with regard to oversupply surely landlords should be grateful for anything they get from the HSE should they choose to take on SW tennants. They do have the option of leaving their property empty.

The HSE has no obligation to any landlord, they have an obligation to house people who can not afford to house themselves. It is ultimately tax payers money, including my own, we are talking about here.

You are also open to the risk of non payment of rent, damage to property etc from a non SW tennant with the same leagal route open to you. If you dont like SW tennants dont take them.
 
I think we may have our wires crossed here. I am discussing this point
"If a tenant defaults on rental payments, the landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen".

What I am saying includes all tenants and not just SW tenants. I believe that the system of recourse for a landlord to deal with rent not paid is completely unjust and could in effect bankrupt a large number of landlords. I for example will be in very serious trouble if a tenant does not pay their rent and I then have to try to claim it back through the legal channels and to just say that " he landlord has recourse to the law of the land like every citizen" is being totally dismissive and ignorant to the reality of the situation.
 
What do you propose? Torture of tenants? Sticking them in the stocks in the middle of town?
 
jackbetal said:
I as a landlord have had SW tenants and non SW tenants. There are good and bad in both. But I also believe if other landlords have a preference then that is their choice.

Where my problem lies is with a system which leaves a landlord totally open to abuse and loss(which could be severe in current climate) in a situation where a tenant does not pay their rent.

Surely you are not endorsing a system which only favours one side.
Click to expand...

The rent allowance should be paid directly to the landlord as the payment is for rent and nothing else. It is not 'extra social welfare' to be spent in (for example) the pub.

And people are deluding themselves if they think landlords (and society in general) don't have more problems with 'SW tenants'. Let's call a spade a spade...if you're dealing with 'SW tenants' you're FAR more likely to be dealing with 'the lowest common denominator' of society. That isn't me being provocative...it's just reality and anyone who claims otherwise needs their head examined.
 
Joe Q Public said:
What do you propose? Torture of tenants? Sticking them in the stocks in the middle of town?
Click to expand...

Great post. Totally whats needed.

All tenants, myself included, deserve decent accommodation but if a tenant is not paying their rent because they simply do not want to then they should be held accountable. Equally a landlord who is not charging a fair rent for a decent standard should also be brought to book. But the law stands it is wide open to abuse from bad tenants.
 
I do agree that SW should be paying RA direct to the landlord and no one else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top