Landlords refusing HAP


:(

It is clear that in this case the landlord was an idiot.

"However, in March of this year, the couple allege that they received a letter from their landlord with “there is your HAP” written on the envelope.

After opening the envelope the couple discovered that it was an eviction letter."


There is a lot of idiocy about.

Mike Allen from Focus Ireland said.

“The judgement is particularly welcome because it shows that the WRC will not accept secondary issues – such as failure to have a tax clearance cert – as an excuse for not accepting HAP tenants,” he said.

Which brings idiocy to a whole new level.
 
It is unbelievable that the landlord wrote them a letter stating :

After the ‘termination’ letter in March of this year, the landlord wrote to the couple to state that he did not refuse to facilitate the HAP assistance application but was not in a position to do so as a result of not having a Tax Clearance Certificate.

1. You don't need the certificate for HAP to commence. The landlord has 5 months to produce the certificate.
2. I know this because I have the form right here and that's what it states, plus I didn't hav ethe TCC becuase I'd never needed it before and it took a while (couple of weeks) for my accountant to get it from the revenue system for me (problem in my case was not that my tax affairs weren't in order, but that I was a non resident)
2. 5 months is more than enough time to get your tax affairs in order, if that had been an issue. And of course I'm not suggesting that any landlord might refuse HAP because they are under the tax radar and trying to stay under it.
 
Imagine sending an empty envelope to the tenants. That's not nice. In fact it's nasty.
I agree its nasty alright but I am becoming concerned with the developments in the rental sector.

Landlords are being forced to adhere to HAP standards which in my eyes are too high. At the end of the day the property is mine to do with as I please. My properties exceed the min standards for rental but fall below the HAP standards (for insulation purposes and windows etc).

I don't accept the Govt's interference in the rental sector. As a landlord I am left with all of the risk and if the HAP tenants stops paying the HAP people wont even tell you.
 
Landlords are being forced to adhere to HAP standards which in my eyes are too high. At the end of the day the property is mine to do with as I please. My properties exceed the min standards for rental but fall below the HAP standards (for insulation purposes and windows etc).

I don't accept the Govt's interference in the rental sector. As a landlord I am left with all of the risk and if the HAP tenants stops paying the HAP people wont even tell you.

You'll know immediately surely because they will cut off the HAP?

As regards HAP standards, nobody has inspected any of my properties. Ever. And I'm into my third decade. And the first one into HAP was April 2016. I wouldn't mind getting inspected as I'd like a list of what I should do.
 
You'll know immediately surely because they will cut off the HAP?

As regards HAP standards, nobody has inspected any of my properties. Ever. And I'm into my third decade. And the first one into HAP was April 2016. I wouldn't mind getting inspected as I'd like a list of what I should do.

They may cut off HAP but they wont engage with you as the landlord because they are not party to the tenancy agreement and as such would be in breach of Data Protection legislation if they disclosed anything to you about the tenants situation etc.

You would be left dealing with the tenant and if the tenant refuses then you will be in for a long drawn out process via the RTB. The HAP was introduced to do away the RAS. With the RAS the tenancy agreement was between the landlord and the Council. So the Council was liable for the rent (even if the tenant did not pay their contribution to the council).

The RAS scheme was closed specifically because the council were responsible for the rent so the landlord had no risk and the council had all the risk.
 
and it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the business owner takes the financial risk rather than a LA or other state agency.
 
You would be left dealing with the tenant and if the tenant refuses then you will be in for a long drawn out process via the RTB. The HAP was introduced to do away the RAS. With the RAS the tenancy agreement was between the landlord and the Council. So the Council was liable for the rent (even if the tenant did not pay their contribution to the council).

The RAS scheme was closed specifically because the council were responsible for the rent so the landlord had no risk and the council had all the risk.

I'm not seeing this as any worse. By RAS do you mean the rent allowance that the councils and corporations paid to the tenants and then the tenant paid the landlord this plus their own portion. That was worse. Because sometimes tenant's would pocket the rent and not pay the landlord. So I think HAP is way better. Money is coming in directly and the tenant never gets to see it. They never build up arrears, or more importantly don't build up unmanageable arrears.

So for either of those schemes the landlord as property owner takes the financial risks, which is right and proper. And deals with the tenant as you would any other tenant.

And in my case I got more from HAP then I did under the old scheme so I'm delighted with it. Prior to this I didn't put up the rents as I didn't think the tenants could afford it. And for this the other day on here I was told I was leeching and parasitic.
 
While the landlord was foolish - he mustn't have known the rules - I think the award amount was excessive. It seems also that the tenants took on a property initially that they just couldn't afford - they were struggling almost straight away.
 
I'm not seeing this as any worse. By RAS do you mean the rent allowance that the councils and corporations paid to the tenants and then the tenant paid the landlord this plus their own portion. That was worse. Because sometimes tenant's would pocket the rent and not pay the landlord. So I think HAP is way better. Money is coming in directly and the tenant never gets to see it. They never build up arrears, or more importantly don't build up unmanageable arrears.

So for either of those schemes the landlord as property owner takes the financial risks, which is right and proper. And deals with the tenant as you would any other tenant.

And in my case I got more from HAP then I did under the old scheme so I'm delighted with it. Prior to this I didn't put up the rents as I didn't think the tenants could afford it. And for this the other day on here I was told I was leeching and parasitic.


No the RAS is the Rental Accommodation Scheme not the Rent Allowance.
 
I took a happer as a tenant about 3 years ago. I was immediately contacted by DCC for an inspection. The property was 2 story in 6 flats and totally upgraded so I had no problem.

Their findings were :
1. I had to provide 24 hour emergency lighting on the stairways and 24 hour emergency EXIT lighting signs above the front and back doors.
2. I had to provide emergency evacuation plans and to place them on the inside of each flat door.

I protested to the inspector that I was also living in a 2 story house and I deemed both conditions unnecessary - I had no choice as the tenant was in situ.

Fortunately the happer liked to play his guitar at around 3am ( he was unemployed ) and he was removed rather briskly from the property.

For the reasons given by "The Horseman" and the above I will NEVER deal with happers and DCC again.
 
No the RAS is the Rental Accommodation Scheme not the Rent Allowance.

Ok, they moved my tenants from the rent allowance onto the HAP. Nothing to do with the RAS then. Didn’t like that as you lose control and accept lower rents was my understanding of it, but you got the upside of guaranteed rent no matter what, plus repairs I think. As in property back in the same condition.
 
Only upside is guaranteed rent but is lower than market rate. You don't choose tenants and you are responsible for repairs. Had existing tenant so was happy for them to go on RAS and stay. Best tenants I have ever had and they are with me 8 years.
 
Landlords are being forced to adhere to HAP standards which in my eyes are too high. At the end of the day the property is mine to do with as I please. My properties exceed the min standards for rental but fall below the HAP standards (for insulation purposes and windows etc

In terms of the HAP standards for rented accommodation, is there a minimum standard or point on the BER scale required to be met?
 
I am not aware of the min BER requirements but I know you can increase your BER rating by simply changing light bulbs to energy efficient ones (yes I know its crazy).

Some councils have different rules. I know one of my properties when I first rented under the RAS it had single glazed windows and no insulation in the attic and it passed the inspection (with the exception of needing vents in the bedrooms and wanting the place repainted). The BER would have been an F at that point.
 
In terms of the HAP standards for rented accommodation, is there a minimum standard or point on the BER scale required to be met?

I've no clue as I don't have BER certs. It wasn't a requirement for HAP. I just certified whatever was on the form. In other words housing standards Acts.

---

I had a look at the HAP form looing for BER and I noticed that about the tax clearance cert that you are supposed to supply within 5 month, that:

however, if within the 5 months, a further payment by the authority falls due which, if paid would result in total payments by the authority to the landlord in any period of 12 months exceeding 10K that payment will not be made without the landord producting a Valid TCC.

that doesn't make sense to me, because it's confusing the 5 months with 12 months. I'm guessing they don't bother with this. As it's more trouble than it's worth for them to be trying to monitor this. In my own case they only asked for the TCC initially and not annually.

---

Also I notice that the tenant's who get HAP declare that they will be removed from the Housing list. That's a neat way of removing people from that isn't it. Government playing with numbers. So I guess my rent allowance tenants were on the list, were renting, then were moved to HAP and are magically no longer on the lists.
 
I've no clue as I don't have BER certs. It wasn't a requirement for HAP. I just certified whatever was on the form. In other words housing standards Acts.

---

I had a look at the HAP form looing for BER and I noticed that about the tax clearance cert that you are supposed to supply within 5 month, that:

however, if within the 5 months, a further payment by the authority falls due which, if paid would result in total payments by the authority to the landlord in any period of 12 months exceeding 10K that payment will not be made without the landord producting a Valid TCC.

that doesn't make sense to me, because it's confusing the 5 months with 12 months. I'm guessing they don't bother with this. As it's more trouble than it's worth for them to be trying to monitor this. In my own case they only asked for the TCC initially and not annually.

---

Also I notice that the tenant's who get HAP declare that they will be removed from the Housing list. That's a neat way of removing people from that isn't it. Government playing with numbers. So I guess my rent allowance tenants were on the list, were renting, then were moved to HAP and are magically no longer on the lists.


You are required to have a BER cert for rental. (cant post links)

"From 1st January 2009, a BER Certificate is compulsory for all homes being renting (with a few exceptions – however, you should consult the SEAI website for further information)."

You should be supply yearly TCC certs as once you pass €10k in payments from the council they should automatically request an up to date TCC.

Correct regarding the HAP and the housing list as you are deemed housed. You may go on a transfer list once you are in HAP to transfer to a council owned property.
 
I'm aware I'm supposed to have a BER, just don't see the point of the expense for zero benefit to anybody.
 
Back
Top