Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2000 refuse council housing

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    I would like to see what some of these houses are like before casting judgement on those who refused them.


  • Options
    #93
    CollyFlower
    Registered Users Posts: 6,024 ✭✭✭CollyFlower


    Lux23 wrote: »
    I would like to see what some of these houses are like before casting judgement on those who refused them.

    The houses are fine, all done up to standard, DCC standards. It's the area that's the problem for some people.


  • Options
    #94
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Not really when you consider that someone on social welfare only gets €29 per child per week. Try and feed and cloth and put a child through school on less than €30 a week!

    My post was a direct response to a specific question asked and should not be seen as any kind of complaint or otherwise biased towards either side of the debate.

    The people getting rent allowance have to pay the same rate as those on RAS or in council accommodation, it works out at about 20% of all income with an initial disregard of the basic social welfare rate for each adult and child.

    20% of all income less the initial disregard of the basic social welfare amount.
    i ment 12 more to pay per child is wrong because i'd think the more kids the less rent


  • Options
    #95
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Tigger wrote: »
    i ment 12 more to pay per child is wrong because i'd think the more kids the less rent

    Why would you think that?

    The more kids someone has, the more income they have (benefit topup, child-allowance). And the more wear-and-tear there will be on the house.


  • Options
    #96
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Why would you think that?

    The more kids someone has, the more income they have (benefit topup, child-allowance). And the more wear-and-tear there will be on the house.

    You must not have kids if you believe this!

    School is not free!

    Shoes cost €50+, Clothes are not really much cheaper!

    Kids cost a bloody fortune!

    Even a small bottle of calpol costs a fortune!

    There is no way that someone on welfare ends up with more disposable income or indeed any actual disposable income by having one or more extra children!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JustTheOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,681 ✭✭✭JustTheOne


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    You must not have kids if you believe this!

    School is not free!

    Shoes cost €50+, Clothes are not really much cheaper!

    Kids cost a bloody fortune!

    Even a small bottle of calpol costs a fortune!

    There is no way that someone on welfare ends up with more disposable income or indeed any actual disposable income by having one or more extra children!

    I'm sorry kids shoes cost 50 Euro?


  • Options
    #98
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Why would you think that?

    The more kids someone has, the more income they have (benefit topup, child-allowance). And the more wear-and-tear there will be on the house.

    you think kids create income?
    i'm lost child allowance is what 32
    dependant child is 29.80
    so 60 a week
    less 12 for rent thats 48/7 or 6 euros and 85c a day
    if i was gonna budget for a kid i'd need more


  • Options
    #99
    ShaShaBear
    Registered Users Posts: 5,528 ✭✭✭ShaShaBear


    JustTheOne wrote: »
    I'm sorry kids shoes cost 50 Euro?

    We just bought our daughter's first pair of walking shoes and they were €36 on sale, so I'd say so. I had a bad turn in my foot from cheap footwear before I was walking, and definitely didn't want the same for my baby.


  • Options
    #100
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    CollyFlower wrote: »
    The houses are fine, all done up to standard, DCC standards. It's the area that's the problem for some people.

    Bollox to that. I was offered a house last year. It was in one of the worst areas of the town going and was tiny with a lot of anti-social problems in the area. That didn't phase me. What annoyed me was the mould all over the walls and ceiling in every upstairs room. Talked to the neighbour and before I even mentioned it, they said it to me about the mould as that was why the last tennant moved out. The council never sorted the problem out. It also had no functioning heating in place but they'd "fix it". Needless to say I refused it. Best thing was, the reason for refusal was put down as "Too small for family" despite the real refusal was place was a dump and you wouldn't leave a stray animal in there without calling the ISPCA. But everyone please continue to believe goverment reports as they wouldn't lie about anything would they.

    Oh and no I'm not a dosser dole scrounger either. Working away happily enough and was lucky to even get offered a place. Apparently I was way down the list and the same house had been offered to a lot of people ahead of me but all turned it down for some "unknown" reason. It wasn't up to standard and the council didn't want to fix it.

    Grand tho for some people to jump on a high horse and look down on everyone down, assuming we're all dole scrounging dossers who are refusing the houses due to a lack of playroom or it's less than 6 bedrooms etc etc.

    Just remember half the bull**** reports released by goverment departments are just that, bull****.


  • Options
    #101
    CollyFlower
    Registered Users Posts: 6,024 ✭✭✭CollyFlower


    Yawns wrote: »
    Bollox to that. I was offered a house last year. It was in one of the worst areas of the town going and was tiny with a lot of anti-social problems in the area. That didn't phase me. What annoyed me was the mould all over the walls and ceiling in every upstairs room. Talked to the neighbour and before I even mentioned it, they said it to me about the mould as that was why the last tennant moved out. The council never sorted the problem out. It also had no functioning heating in place but they'd "fix it". Needless to say I refused it. Best thing was, the reason for refusal was put down as "Too small for family" despite the real refusal was place was a dump and you wouldn't leave a stray animal in there without calling the ISPCA. But everyone please continue to believe goverment reports as they wouldn't lie about anything would they.

    Oh and no I'm not a dosser dole scrounger either. Working away happily enough and was lucky to even get offered a place. Apparently I was way down the list and the same house had been offered to a lot of people ahead of me but all turned it down for some "unknown" reason. It wasn't up to standard and the council didn't want to fix it.

    Grand tho for some people to jump on a high horse and look down on everyone down, assuming we're all dole scrounging dossers who are refusing the houses due to a lack of playroom or it's less than 6 bedrooms etc etc.

    Just remember half the bull**** reports released by goverment departments are just that, bull****.

    The insist on high standards when it comes to private landlords renting out their property...... If that was your experience it seems they have double standard!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Of all those 2000 houses refused we need to know how many were refused by multiple applicants and we will most likely see that a portion of housing stock is unusable!


  • Options
    #103
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    There is no way that someone on welfare ends up with more disposable income or indeed any actual disposable income by having one or more extra children!

    No one's talking about disposable income. Only actual income. In actual income terms, more kids = more cash. That's why rent goes up with each extra child, because you get more cash for them.


  • Options
    #104
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    No one's talking about disposable income. Only actual income. In actual income terms, more kids = more cash. That's why rent goes up with each extra child, because you get more cash for them.

    How do you know that have you a link?


  • Options
    #105
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    No one's talking about disposable income. Only actual income. In actual income terms, more kids = more cash. That's why rent goes up with each extra child, because you get more cash for them.

    Nonsense! rent goes up because there is more people in the property! the rent is reduced from the adult rate because they are children without incomes.


  • Options
    #106
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    jobyrne30 wrote: »
    Certainly not the private sector, I said that social housing needs need to be re-examined. Scum towns should be under government control maybe an extension of probation service. As for criminal children they should be in youth offender services and the parent who failed to do their job raising them should face some sanctions. The tax payer provides them with social housing, child benefit and most likely other welfare payments the least they can do is raise their kids right.

    Some savage generalisations going on in this thread.!!!

    You can't always blame the parents for kids going astray, in particular in this day and age with drugs etc being so rampant. Working in a prison I see dozens, if not hundreds, of kids from decent families running into trouble. To a lesser degree the same applies conversely, some of the kids of the 'criminal fraternity' are perfectly decent citizens. Any parents of teenage children that thinks their kids are immune to the whole drug culture are simply delusional IMO, regardless of where they live or how they were brought up.

    Secondly, not all council estates are 'scum towns' or anywhere close to it. In fact, even within these 'scum towns' I'd be confident that in most cases the majority of tenants are regular people trying to get on with their lives but being plagued by these undesirables.

    Finally, the fact that there's some of these houses/flats/apartments that have been turned down 10-20 times should set alarm bells ringing within the council ?? Why should someone be bumped to the bottom of the list on a first refusal if a place is obviously a kip not worthy of housing animals or an area is going to lead to a serious decline in your living standards or chance of improving your lot.

    The worst of these estates should be absolutely flooded with Gardai 24/7, if needs be for a couple of years, and life made uncomfortable for the vermin that drag these places down. It would give ordinary people confidence and the chance to go about living their own lives in peace. Eventually the ordinary people would win out and the Gardai could move on to the next place.


  • Options
    #107
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,170 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    ShaShaBear wrote: »
    Exactly. Plenty of hard working individuals on the council housing list. We went on it when I had my first baby 15 months ago as my partner was just forced to leave his job due to illegal activity and dreadfully abusive working conditions. He's now working two part-time jobs and volunteering in the community.
    As I said before, if we got offered something, we'd gladly take it within reason. Obviously with a toddler and another baby on the way, taking a one-bed apartment in the same complex that all of my town's known alcoholics and drug abusers are living would be utterly absurd. But does that make us miserable free-loaders? Or does it make us people who are working very hard to stay in accommodation that somewhat suits our needs at present? I wouldn't sacrifice what we have in our current home to live in squalor because I was offered what I should be grateful for. I'd politely decline (with only very good reason) and let someone next on the list who might have a greater need than me avail of the opportunity.

    What's your thought process for going on the housing list vs renting for however long that's necessary and then hopefully some day buying a home for yourselves (assuming that's what you want to do as you had mentioned possibly being in a house for the rest of your life)


  • Options
    #108
    Dr.Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭Dr.Internet


    Wompa1 wrote: »
    What's your thought process for going on the housing list vs renting for however long that's necessary and then hopefully some day buying a home for yourselves (assuming that's what you want to do as you had mentioned possibly being in a house for the rest of your life)
    Don't have to save for a deposit or take on the real responsibility of home ownership, don't even have to clean the place if it gets too dirty/ starts getting mouldy, just demand a new house


  • Options
    #109
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    rent goes up because there is more people in the property! the rent is reduced from the adult rate because they are children without incomes.
    sounds more likley


  • Options
    #110
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Mod Note: There has been a lot of harsh generalisation in this thread. So, for now the thread is being closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement