rent allowance tenants - reduction in rent

M

mellaw

Registered User
Messages
18
Hi, I have a 3 bed semi rented out to a rent allowance tenant. Her community welfare officer did a rent review and she is now looking for a second rent reduction mid lease. This would take the rent back from 750 last year to 600 this year. It is not covering costs. It is a 3 bed semi in very good shape. I see the advice re redoing the lease from the date of rental reduction which I think is a good idea. Any advice appreciated. The property is in Sligo town
 
Only you can decide. If you refuse, how soon can you re let and at what price? If you can re let quickly with little cosmetic touching up and at the rent you require, then refuse. if you cannot re let quickly and/or need a lot of touching up, then you might be better taking the reduction. Its a question of maths (and euros in pocket)
 
Hmmm. Its not the RAS scheme - in that scenario you have a 2 year contract with rent reviews only at the end. They are currently looking for 20% reductions in rent in the RAS scheme.

I guess CWO can reduce rent anytime they want? I wasn't aware they could do that. They certainly wont ever INCREASE the rent. However, as the lease is with the tenant and not CWO it matters not what they reduce it to - the tenant still owes you the difference.

You could be fair about it and split the difference with the tenant, or for fear of losing a good tenant you could take the entire burden (i have done before) to save the hassle of having to get a new tenant.

IM glad im with RAS - much fairer system all around.
 
The CWO does not reduce rent any time they want. The maximum rent limits are set by SW legislation and the CWO must implement that legislation. The rent review that the OP's tenants have just had are probably implementing the changes which were announced in the April budget and came into effect at the beginning of June.

Rent Supplement is not payable if the rent charged exceeds the maximum limit for the area and family size. If, in the OP's case, the rent isn't reduced, it's likely that the supplement being paid will cease so the tenants will have to move anyway.
 
Thanks for replies. I am beginning to think that the last poster is on the right track and pressure is being put on the tenant to find accommodation where the rent meets with rent supplement
 
gipimann said:
Rent Supplement is not payable if the rent charged exceeds the maximum limit for the area and family size. If, in the OP's case, the rent isn't reduced, it's likely that the supplement being paid will cease so the tenants will have to move anyway.
Click to expand...

This is not true in all cases. There are many many people using rent supplement and paying more themselves. Sometimes a tenant wants to live in a nicer area than normal RS can afford, sometimes this is because of problems with neighbors or for job/personal reasons, sometimes its to get their kids into better schools.
 

This makes sense - probably the reason RAS is under review right now as well. However, I would prefer RAS as it can also be negotiated upwards in certain cases. (maybe not in the current market, but in 2 or 4 years time).
 

The legislation states that rent supplement isn't payable if the rent exceeds the max rent limit. However, some discretion may be applied at local level depending on the circumstances of the case - if, for example there was additional income in the household which could support a higher rent without causing hardship, or if there were specific accommodation needs for disability. Just wanting to live in a nicer area wouldn't be considered enough of a reason on its own.

And there are a minority of landlords who declare a lower rent to the HSE than they charge the tenant - which means by default that the tenant has to stump up the balance.
 
gipimann said:
And there are a minority of landlords who declare a lower rent to the HSE than they charge the tenant - which means by default that the tenant has to stump up the balance.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity where do you get your facts? How do you know its only a minority?? You were wrong when you stated "Rent Supplement is not payable if the rent charged exceeds the maximum limit for the area and family size." as it clearly is paid in many cases.,,so I recon you are just stating an opinion, but claiming them as facts.
 
I work for the Community Welfare Service. I quoted legislation when I said that rent supplement is not payable if the rent charged exceeds the max limit. SW who set the legislation are monitoring claims where the amount paid exceeds the limits, and are asking for detailed information on such cases with a view to reducing the numbers paid.

I am aware that some landlords under-declare rent to facilitate their tenants, but not all do, so I said a "minority" rather than "most".
 
gipimann said:
I work for the Community Welfare Service.

I am aware that some landlords under-declare rent to facilitate their tenants, but not all do, so I said a "minority" rather than "most".
Click to expand...

So you have counted them then? its quite possible that ALL landlords that accept RS are under-declaring. Its also possible that a majority do - I dont know - just cause you work for CWO, you sure dont. Have you ever seen a copy of the lease that is signed between LL and tenant? - its not asked for in my jurisdiction. Are you aware that the CWO in different counties have different ways of dealing with the limits? Just because you work in one CWO in one county does not make you knowledgable of the entire country.

An aside...I remember a few short years back in the "good times" when the classifides were filled with rent ads stating "RA NOT ACCEPTED" - - funny now how that has reversed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register