This chapter details further analysis relating to properties being used for HAP tenancies.
There was a high concentration of HAP properties in Dundalk, West Dublin, North Cork city, Letterkenny and Navan, see Map 3.1. This data, for years 2015 to 2019, can be found in statbank table HAP10.
There are high clusters of properties registered with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) around North and West Dublin and in East Cork, see Map 3.2. These areas also have large numbers of properties with tenants receiving rent supplement and social housing owned by a local authority, see Maps 3.3 and 3.4.
The number of HAP tenancies as a proportion of active RTB rental properties was highest in Louth at 41.8% in Q2 2019, followed by Donegal at 28.9% and Offaly at 26.7%, (see Map 3.5). The lowest rates were in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown (4.7%) and Dublin City (7.5%).
The number of tenants with a rent supplement as a proportion of active RTB rental properties in Q2 2019 was highest in Fingal (17.3%) and Wicklow (15.5%), (see Map 3.6), while the lowest proportion was just 1.5% in Waterford.
The proportion of properties either in HAP or with a rent supplement as a proportion of RTB rental properties is similar in pattern to the proportions in HAP only, see Map 3.7. This is because the numbers with a HAP tenancy are much higher than those with rent supplement.
Data from these maps can be found in statbank table HAP12.
The maps below detail the proportion of RTB rental properties which were in HAP and/or Rent Supplement in Q2 2016 (in comparison with the 2019 maps above). The first map shows that for a number of local authorities there was none or very few HAP properties at this time as the scheme was being trialled gradually throughout the country. This proportion of HAP rental properties was highest in Donegal at 18.5%. See Map 3.8.
The second map shows much higher percentages for Rent Supplement properties. This is highest in Fingal (28.8%) and Laois (26.2%). See Map 3.9.
Louth (36.5%) and Cork County (35.3%) have the highest percentage of RTB rental properties in either HAP or Rent Supplement in 2016. See Map 3.10.
Local Electoral Areas (LEAs) with a high number of HAP tenants as a percentage of RTB properties were scattered around the country in Q2 2019. The highest proportions were in Dundalk South (49.5%), Dundalk-Carlingford (43.4%) and Kilrush (42.7%) while the lowest three were in all Dublin – South East Inner City (1.5%), Pembroke (1.6%) and Stillorgan (2.2%). The proportion of RTB properties with HAP tenants was generally low around cities, with the exception of some areas around West Dublin. The data within this map can be found in statbank table HAP11.
About one in five (19.2%) HAP properties were in a rent pressure zone (RPZ) in 2016, (see Figure 3.1). RPZ’s have expanded since 2016 to cover more areas. Based on the expanded coverage of RPZs at the end of 2019, the proportion of HAP properties in a RPZ in 2016 nearly trebles to 55.9%. By 2019, 64.1% of all HAP properties were in a RPZ. Data from this graph can be found in statbank table HAP13.
|% of HAP properties in end of year Rent Pressure Zones||% of HAP properties in end of 2019 Rent Pressure Zones|
Over four-fifths (85.7%) of HAP landlords have one HAP rental property in 2019. This compares with 79.9% of all landlords from the RTB. See Figure 3.2.
|Number_of_props_per_ll||HAP Landlords||All RTB Landlords|
About two-thirds (66.2%) of HAP properties in 2019 belonged to a landlord where this is their only HAP property while 14.1% were owned by landlords with two HAP properties. See Figure 3.3.
|Landlord Size||Percentage of HAP Properties|
Just over one in ten (10.2%) of residential landlords with one property have this as a HAP property. The percentage of landlords who have at least one property in HAP increases with the number of RTB properties the landlord has but the percentage who have all their properties in HAP becomes very small for larger landlord sizes. See Figure 3.4.
|Percentage of Landlords with HAP Properties||Percentage of Landlords with only HAP properties|
|10 or more properties||41.7||0.2|
The median residential rental income - from annual self-assessed tax return - in 2018 was €15,084 for landlords with HAP tenancies compared with €14,400 for all landlords with residential tenancies in 2018. The higher median annual earned income (€45,585) for all residential landlords is higher than that for the cohort of HAP landlords (€39,017). However, the percentage of landlords with any earned income is higher for the HAP cohort (72.7%) than all landlords (66.9%). See Table 3.1.
|Table 3.1: Information on landlords of properties with HAP tenancies and all RTB landlords (with tenancies in 2018)|
|HAP Landlords||RTB Landlords|
|Median residential rental income (from self-assessed tax return) (€)||15,084||14,400|
|Median annual earned income (€)||39,017||45,685|
|Percentage with any earned income||72.7||66.9|
|Median age of landlord||51||50|
In Louth the number of HAP properties as a proportion of all RTB rental properties increased 16.5 percentage points between 2017 and 2019 while rent prices of new tenancies increased by 20.0% over this time period. Donegal is at the other end of the graph, with a small rise of 2.9 percentage points in the proportion of HAP properties and an increase of just 5.8% in median rent between 2017 and 2019. Some local authorities, such as Wicklow, have a relatively low rental increase coupled with a high increase in the proportion of HAP tenants. See Figure 3.5. The data within this graph can be found in statbank table HAP14.
A similar varying of relationship between rent change and change in proportion of HAP tenancies is seen at a Local Electoral Area level. Kells is an example of an area where both of these have increased by relatively large amounts. Glenties and Cahir are two areas where there has been little change in the rent and the proportion of HAP properties. see Figure 3.6. The data within this graph can be found in statbank table HAP15.
Link to all interactive tables for this publication: Statbank
Go to next chapter: Background Notes and Methodology