Tenants to be levied with Household Charge:IPOA


Just saw this … (apologies if it’s already up here I couldn’t find a thread)
I actually think it is unethical to write such a letter, allegedly levying their tenants, when legally the landlord is responsible for the charge (but presumably not mentioning this in the letter? It appears to suggest you just write and tell them they have to pay a levy) If the tenant didn’t pay it, the Landlord would be liable anyway, or am I missing something??

That is some website, written as if to speak for all private landlords, they wish!!

The article should read:

“It is our opinion that Landlords in the private rental sector will be trying to levy the Household Charge on their tenants. This charge is per dwelling being provided to the tenant and therefore, because we don’t like it, they will be required to pay on the basis of the “user pays when we say so” principle. This is not a rent increase, it is simply a pass along charge, similar to what we plan to propose with mortgage interest. The IPOA are aware that most landlords absorbed the NPPR charge, or at least hose with any sense of business acumen, and did not pass it on to their tenants, but in the current financial climate, we say they can no longer afford to do so or they shouldn’t be doing it anyhow. The property owner will be liable to pay the Household Charge on their own home where the services are provided for themselves, but we repeat not on their homes where the services are provided for themselve’s tenants.
The advice to landlords is to write to their tenants and outline that the service charge of €25 will be levied on a monthly basis, even though it’s not that much, as that way it will bring in €300, the amount being charged by the NPPR and the Household Charge for the services provided to the landlord’s property, but again only for the tenant. Tenants will also have the choice of paying it in full up front if they so choose, or not at all, but don’t tell them.
This charge is expected to be increased and water charges are also expected to be introduced shortly. The user pays and the legislation should be brought in on that basis, if that makes any sense at all it’s not supposed to. Property owners should not be expected to collect this charge, it is unfair and unacceptable and not right to expect at all, at all. Next thing them tenants will want rights and stuff.”

Is anyone really surprised that landlords are so keen to have their tenants pay? It’s called a “Household Charge”, which to me, says the household should pay, not the owner of the property, unless he/she lives in the house. In the UK both the Poll Tax (Community Charge) and the Council Tax which replaced it, are paid by the occupiers of the property, whether they own it or not. And unlike here, people on welfare have to pay it too (albeit at a reduced amount.) It makes logical sense that everyone should contribute to the local services that they use. Seems to be the way it works in most countries.

I agree that a “household charge” implies the household should pay, however, the bill clearly states the owner not the tenant is liable, so to to send a letter levying your tenants is pointless - they have no legal basis to apply the levy. Plus, if a tenant refuses to pay, the arrears will be registered against the landlords name. Why would tenants voluntarily pay this when they dont need to? And if they do, on the basis that the aforementioned letter implies they have to, is that not fraudulent?

that is the bill.

I know that is the bill, so what is the point in proposing what the IPOA is?

The legalisation clearly states it is not a charge against tenants.
There is no provision for any such charges in my lease, they do not have a leg to stand on.

In Joe Higgins style, I would rather see my landlord have his day in court and wages garnished rather than pay, :nin

I think the key issue here is the fact that this is being described as a “Household Charge”. Despite the legislation and the wording of the bill etc., I would have thought that the word, “household” has a very clear and definite meaning in an Irish context. We hear all the time about the “household budget” etc., which is clearly the responsibility of those living in the property, not that of the landlord. If someone owns, say five rental properties that are let out, is he/she the equivalent of five households? I don’t think so.

(My instincts tell me they shied away from using the words “Property Tax” for historical reasons. A “Household Charge” sounds so much more benign!)

What about next year when it becomes a site valuation tax?

But there will be in the lease on your next place. Once the big letting agents start inserting the clause that the household charge gets recharged to tenants then all landlords will follow.

That is the bill as presently formulated. Don’t be surprised to see it changed for next year.

In the long run its debatable whether the tax will be paid by tenants as council tax is in the UK. A property tax based purely on value of houses is slightly different to a council tax.

In the UK position, the local authority sets the charge for each property based on its rateable value. Houses with a higher rateable value (rateable value is based on some hoary old valuations prepared years ago (1993) btw) pay more. Two houses, of equal value but in different boroughs will pay different amounts. The justification for this is that the services which each house enjoys is a function, not of the inherent value of the house, but of the area they are in and therefore the services they enjoy. Because it is a service charge, it makes it easier to justify it to people as, if you are a tenant, the council is collecting your bins, cleaning your roads etc. If fewer people live in the property, or it is a second home, you generally pay less, because you use less services.

In Ireland, this measure has little to do with services. They seem to just envisage bringing in a tax based on the value of the property. There is no suggestion that it would vary widely between local authority areas. This means that it is a wealth tax, tied to the value of the asset, not directly linked to the services. Two houses in different local authority areas may enjoy different levels of service, but will pay the same amount of tax because the houses are just worth the same. An empty, but valuable, house would be charged the same as a fully occupied house. This has two consequences:

(i) it becomes a tax which will be predominantly urban in nature, as the majority of valuable property is in those locations. Yes, there are houses worth €500,000 in the Wexford countryside, but one Dublin area, e.g. Sandymount, should easily exceed them in number (and value); and

(ii) unless you start changing rental agreements, I think it should be borne by the landlord directly. They will try to force it onto the tenants through higher rent. However, given that a landlord may have a choice between a tenanted or untenanted property, but no choice as to whether they have to pay the tax, it might not be too difficult to resist this.

If I was renting, I would be quickly reading my rental agreement. It generally won’t say anything about the initial €100 tax and therefore there will be no legal basis for the landlord to impose the charge. However, suspect many tenants will pay it for a quiet life.

There is no “next place” I will buy back in shortly after the bankruptcy legalisation is enacted and we see real fire sales.

Note, they don’t want the €100 household charge, they want €300. Isn’t the greed obvious? Besides paying extra taxes and forgoing services in order bail out “the landed class” who rode the property bubble to infinity and beyond, tenants should be expected to pay their landlord’s household tax AND their landlord’s second property tax. Go ahead IPOA, spread the greed until sensible tenants are forced to do what they did to Charles Boycott. If you’ve been watching daft.ie, you’d know that the number of available ROI rentals has leveled off and is beginning to rise again. See if you can breech your contract with the tenant and your legal obligation to our government and draw money out of those who played no part in the mess that we’re in. (Seriously, what benefit did renters get out of the “tiger”, higher rents? Substandard accommodations?)

This must be a typo, with rare exceptions Irish landlords don’t provide services to tenants, most don’t even meet minimal legal safety and habitability standards such as a permanently wired smoke alarm, fire extinguisher, BER rating…

How generous that IPOA members are allowing tenants to pay the owner’s taxes on the installment plan. Ireland struggled for centuries to evict the British class system from this isle, but for the landed class, a short asset bubble almost brought it back. Smart landlords treat their tenants as they would want to be treated. Smart tenants treat their landlords in the same way. IPOA is not helping matters.


To be honest, I’d have no problem paying the 100 euro charge on behalf of my landlord.

If my rent was reduced by 10 euros a month.

This is as bad as the outrage from the IPOA about the ECB cutting rates resulting in lower mortgage repayments for members, but not passing them as lower rents to tenants…Oh wait.

It’s how business is done in Ireland now. When you make a profit you keep it, when you make a loss you organise a national campaign to push your costs onto someone else.

Landlords will begin to try their arm by charging tenants 25euro a month to pay for the non PPR & household charges.

It’s up to tenants then on educating themselves and saying they do not have to pay it.

It will lead inevitably to problems, such as ruining a good relationship you have built up with your landlord/agent, which could have knock on effects like future rent increases, unheeded requests for new/repair of appliances, etc, etc.

Who are the IPOA hey. Who are they. To be issuing levies. The IPOA. :unamused:

Like it or not, and by whatever mechanism it comes about, it seems likely to me that upward pressures on the costs of ownership will at least in part be passed on to tenants and cause upward pressures on rent. Whether it happens because the “IPOA” (I never heard of them either) urge landlords to do so, or because letting agents specify it in the lease, or because over time rents begin to reflect the additional charges associated with ownership, it will happen. I don’t find it surprising. Tenanthood does not deliver protection from the pains of taxation…

Can transfer easily transfer rising costs onto tenants like other commercial sectors? Its not like Tesco where there are only a handful of supermarket chains and a limited number of shops in each area. Exit and entry out of the business has nearly come to a halt so those landlords remaining are really stuck with the market rate.