Pros and cons of letting through social welfare

[MrMan]

The main difference apart from any perceived social differences between private and sw tenants is who pays the rent. A private tenant will have paid a deposit and will be handing over their own hard earned cash each month and therefore one could assume that they would want that deposit back at the end of the tenancy and therefore are more likely to comply with the covenants in their lease. The SW tenant generally has the deposit paid for them and subsequent rental payments paid to them so there is a higher risk of non payment and damage to property. When you decide to bring the prtb in to reimburse you, the tenant obviously can't pay you back and will no doubt have the great backing of threshold et al to ensure that they can get out of it anyway.
Financially it makes more long term sense (generally) to go with private renters and finances is what its all about.

 

[murphaph]

Hi murphaph,

I cant decide whether you are for or against letting to SW tenants.

I would be happy to let to all and sundry if their was a system of checks in place but there isn't.

I'm not for or against sw tenants per se-I take each case on its own merit and assess the people themselves. One needs to be a very good judge of character regardless of the class of tenant. I have seen apartments literally wrecked by private tenants and the LL out of pocket-there is no system of checks and balances for either sw or private tenants and the LL gets the rough end of the stick under the PRTB regardless. I'm just saying that some sw recipients receive the monies for diverse reasons-I would be unlikely (for example) to let to people who were just unemployed for years on end whereas I would have no hesitation accepting sw from a reliable existing tenant who happened to lose their job-almost the same but in fact a totally different class of sw recipient in my eyes.

 

[murphaph]

The main difference apart from any perceived social differences between private and sw tenants is who pays the rent. A private tenant will have paid a deposit and will be handing over their own hard earned cash each month and therefore one could assume that they would want that deposit back at the end of the tenancy and therefore are more likely to comply with the covenants in their lease. The SW tenant generally has the deposit paid for them and subsequent rental payments paid to them so there is a higher risk of non payment and damage to property. When you decide to bring the prtb in to reimburse you, the tenant obviously can't pay you back and will no doubt have the great backing of threshold et al to ensure that they can get out of it anyway.
Financially it makes more long term sense (generally) to go with private renters and finances is what its all about.

My latest sw tenants paid the deposit themselves and paid rent up front for a month before setting foot in the place and before receiving their sw payment (they will not be receiving the deposit from sw in any case, just the rent). They can afford the rent from their income but receive sw for some obscure reason and I'm happy to know they can get it tbh. So in summary, not all sw tenants have the deposit paid for them and not all tenants have the rent paid to them either btw, it can be deposited in the account of the LL directly in many cases. As I already alluded to about getting money out of private tenants for unpaid rent/damage-best of luck. The system will award you a judgement (eventually) but you are a long way from the money back in your pocket and unless they have real assets (property) it is likely you'll never get it back. It's too easy under our system of laws for people (not just tenants) who owe other people money to walk away and pay little or none of it back. From my looking into it and discussions with solicitors, only a judgement mortgage stands a chance of returning money owed 'someday'. People can plead allsorts (kids to feed, roof to provide, sick aunty blah blah blah) in front of a judge and regularly orders are made for debts to br repaid at silly small installments of €10 a week or something. The law (as is often the case) is an ass.

 

[DeeFox]

I agree with Auto320 - and am wary of tenants reliant on social welfare. That said, I would judge each case on its own merits. When a would-be tenant asks me if I accept rent allowance I always ask if they can explain their circumstances to me. Some are absolutely fine about this but some are defensive or vague about why they are claiming it - with the second group I just say no. With those who can give a clear explanation of why they are claiming it, I will request previous work and landlord references. I will also insist that the weekly check gets sent to me as opposed to being sent to the tenant to lodge in the account. In my experience, I have found that tenants who are not in receipt of social welfare tend to have a lot more respect for the property. It makes me angry that some people abuse this system which is so needed by others. I have noticed a lot more people on RA looking for apartments lately but that's a whole other thread.

 

[Amos63]

I think you need to realise that Social Welfare, HSE, County Councils etc who provide rent supplements for tenants will tell you that their contract is with the tenant and not the landlord. This means that if the tenant fails to pay the landlord each month/week or damages the property, none of the state bodies will work with the landlord to resolve these issues.

The County Councils also have a five year rent supplement programme but again beware as the above rules still apply. The rent paid is below the market value with accountability taken by the County Council.