Take offer of housing or get struck off has to be implemented

athtrasna

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My wife's friend turned down a nice newly built apartment because it was in a social development and she didn't think she felt she fitted that category despite claiming single mothers allowance while her husband also lived with her.

Social welfare fraud can be reported here https://www.welfare.ie/en/pages/secure/reportfraud.aspx

Butters1979

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But it's likely that a few very undesirable properties being refused over and over again have a big impact on the numbers: You can't really blame anyone for refusing to live next to the towns' most well-known drug-dealer etc.

This is actually a really good point. Yes we need to look at serial refuser’s and come up with a system where they use it or lose it after a few attempts. Beggars cannot be choosers and all that. But it would also be interesting to look at specific properties that keep getting refused and consider if there is a genuine issue with the property that may need to be addressed.

We should look at both sides of the refusals.

Cuddlesworth

borderlinemeath wrote: »

In fact DunLaoire/Rathdown is the same refusal rate at 42%. Why are houses being refused in one of the nicest areas in Dublin?

Just guessing here, but could it be the exact opposite problem to Donegal. The only houses left are the ones that nobody will take for a very specific reason. Hence the high rate of refusals as the same small number of houses get offered over a over again.

keane2097

I never understand the outrage at stuff like this.

If people are deciding the houses they are being offered are so unsuitable for them that they're willing to stay living in a hotel room with their families for an unknown further length of time then I'm willing to believe most of them. The alternative seems to be believing that these people have it so good in their temporary accommodation that they're refusing to move into acceptable houses in a calculated attempt to annoy working class people.

In any case, who do the people freaking out about this think is being inconvenienced? If a person decides to refuse the offer of a house it literally makes no difference to anyone bar themselves. They refuse the house so are stuck in temporary accommodation for longer than they might have been, while the next person on the list gets to move into a house instead of them.

The number of people on the housing list decreases by exactly the same number regardless of whether or not we force people to accept the first offer of a house they get or whether we allow them to decide a place isn't suitable, so why does it matter whether family 1 on the list says 'no' allowing family 2 on the list to move in?

<mod snip>

hmmm

keane2097 wrote: »

It really seems the issue here is peasants needing to know their place with some people.

The issue here is that the media keeps spinning stories about the "homelessness crisis" and how we need to build a 100,000 social houses, while at the same time we find out that many of the people on the social housing list are happy to turn down multiple offers of housing. Meanwhile we have the poster above who is losing their sight seemingly well down the priority list, and who hasn't been offered anything.

Who is deciding the priorities, and why should people pay tax to provide free houses for people who turn their noses up at them.

keane2097

It comes down to what your opinion of something like this is I believe:

If someone is offered a house that's pretty nice in, say, Harold's Cross and they decide to turn it down for some reason or other because they would prefer a house in Drumcondra, and are willing to stay in temporary accommodation for six months in the hope of getting one there. The house is then offered to the next family on the list, who are delighted to get the house in Harold's Cross and move in straight away.

The above scenario to my mind is totally grand. Some family was going to move into the house in Harold's Cross, some other family was going to be stuck in a hotel. The first crowd said, we'll stay in the hotel for a while and take our chances for our own reasons, the second family says brilliant and gets a new home.

Allowing people to make these decisions is bound to lead to better outcomes than forcing everyone into the first place that comes up, because you're going to have many instances of a place suiting family 2 on the list perfectly while it would have been a disaster for family 1.

<mod snip>

Michael D Not Higgins

I said it last time, how many of these places are repeat refusals.

40% is misleading since let's say they had 5,000 houses offered that year, we have approx 2,000 refusals (1,990 from the official figures). If for example 90% of the 1,990 refusals are represented by 100 houses, something's wrong with those houses. Removing the problem houses then shows 4,900 houses with 199 refusals (some legit, some not) and a refusal rate of 4%.

Now the above is exaggerated for effect, but it shows how the figures can be misleading. We've heard here about families with 3 kids being offered 2 bed flats, wholly inadequate and rightfully refused. So there are a number of unsuitable properties just being offered to the next on the list rather than the most suitable property.

Granted, there are spurious refusal reasons. Some of those listed in the old article include "there's too many dogs barking in the area" and "the man died and didn't have a Mass so I'd be superstitious about the house". These should be addressed but can hardly make up the majority of the refusals. The real issue is the lack of stock and being left with mostly the dregs of the social housing.

keane2097

I'm not even going to bother reading your post since I can see it pulls out a couple of words from a few fairly involved posts I made. Enjoy your cherries.

hmmm

keane2097 wrote: »

The above scenario to my mind is totally grand. Some family was going to move into the house in Harold's Cross, some other family was going to be stuck in a hotel. The first crowd said, we'll stay in the hotel for a while and take our chances for our own reasons, the second family says brilliant and gets a new home.

The problem is with your comment that "we'll stay in a hotel". Putting people up in temporary accommodation costs a fortune.

You're absolutely right that if I'm someone staying in a hotel, or getting rent allowance, I'm not going to want to leave a nice neighbourhood to move into a council house in a rougher area - but we don't have unlimited amounts of taxpayers money to support people who want to live only in the areas they feel entitled to live in.

<mod snip>

leanonme

This year i purchased a house, i could not afford one in the area my family live, instead i purchases one where I could afford one which is a 30 minute drive from them. Why didn't someone give me a house where I want to live.

Uncle Ben

leanonme wrote: »

and on top of that we also made the decision not to have children until we could afford to look after them. Seems kind of alien to some people.

I'd say there's some on here who thinks that everyone on the housing list are either unemployed, or single mothers or both. What do you think?

...And Justice

Myself and my partner applied for a council house in 2005, we got the house in 2006, because houses were so expensive at that time, even though I was working.

We took the house because we had a vision to buy our own. They put us in a shíthole , but I didn't care, for me it was a means to an end. 3 years after (2010) I. Bought a house in a "normal" area, after years of saving our asses off.

Uncle Ben

You don't have to be on sw to be on the housing lists. I think you can earn up to 38k to qualify for Dublin. Approx 34k for Galway. Some people have a jaundiced view also that everyone on the housing list is also looking for a council house. Again not necessarily so. It is however a condition of rental allowance that a person is on the housing list.

April 73

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You don't have to be on sw to be on the housing lists. I think you can earn up to 38k to qualify for Dublin. Approx 34k for Galway. Some people have a jaundiced view also that everyone on the housing list is also looking for a council house. Again not necessarily so. It is however a condition of rental allowance that a person is on the housing list.

If that's the case I wonder how many people genuinely want a council house & how many are happy to continue with rent allowance in the private sector?
I can see the attraction to staying in private rented accomodation rather than some of the potential houses/areas that might be offered as social housing.

I'm guessing that people being housed in emergency accomodation like hotels are probably less likely to refuse the offer of a house. Giving up a nice rented house in a nice area is going to result in a refusal more often than not.

quadrifoglio verde

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You don't have to be on sw to be on the housing lists. I think you can earn up to 38k to qualify for Dublin. Approx 34k for Galway. Some people have a jaundiced view also that everyone on the housing list is also looking for a council house. Again not necessarily so. It is however a condition of rental allowance that a person is on the housing list.

Sorry but if you want the tax payer to house you, you shouldn't get to chose.
Want to remain renting, you can pay for it yourself

I used to work with a man who moved from Dublin 5 to portlaoise because he could no longer afford the rent.

Their children had to move schools, away from their friends, they've a 90 minute plus commute to work each day, on a good one.

So tell me how that's fair or just while others, with their hands in the tax payers pocket scream I wanna be housed here and nowhere else.

...And Justice

For me I was renting before I got the council house. Back in 2006 rent was the same as it is now, so the backup plan was to apply for a council house to save up for a house. Nothing wrong with that, we qualified under the rules. The plan worked out for me because of the recession. I bought a house which was previously out of my reach.

What annoys me now is flippant feckers with no future planning looking for the house of their dreams from the council, believe me I have a few in-laws like that, makes me sick that I work so hard and they don't give a monkeys.

athtrasna

Thread closed temporarily to allow for clean up

athtrasna

athtrasna wrote: »

Folks can we keep discussion on the accommodation and property aspects please. The thread won't last long if it descends into social housing tenant bashing

Mod

Here it is again in case you missed it. It's not social housing list people v everyone else. A lot of posts have been deleted and the thread is being reopened in the hope that it can stay on topic. There will be no more warnings.

the_syco

borderlinemeath wrote: »

yet this article makes reference to serial offenders that turn down a number of properties.

I'm uncertain how to discuss this issue, as any criticism of the people on the social housing list and/or the serial offenders is not allowed.

Gatling

...And Justice wrote: »

Myself and my partner applied for a council house in 2005, we got the house in 2006,

Done well to get a council house with less than 12 months on the list even in 2006 the lists were bad ,
What part of the country

Stheno

the_syco wrote: »

I'm uncertain how to discuss this issue, as any criticism of the people on the social housing list and/or the serial offenders is not allowed.

I think the councils should draw up a list of acceptable criteria for refusal, such as danger to oneself due to an ex/known criminal, but also use that as pre selection criteria.

Then if it's a case that refusal is not part of pre sanctioned approvals, people should be removed from the list.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

I never understand the outrage at stuff like this.

If people are deciding the houses they are being offered are so unsuitable for them that they're willing to stay living in a hotel room with their families for an unknown further length of time then I'm willing to believe most of them. The alternative seems to be believing that these people have it so good in their temporary accommodation that they're refusing to move into acceptable houses in a calculated attempt to annoy working class people.

In any case, who do the people freaking out about this think is being inconvenienced? If a person decides to refuse the offer of a house it literally makes no difference to anyone bar themselves. They refuse the house so are stuck in temporary accommodation for longer than they might have been, while the next person on the list gets to move into a house instead of them.

The number of people on the housing list decreases by exactly the same number regardless of whether or not we force people to accept the first offer of a house they get or whether we allow them to decide a place isn't suitable, so why does it matter whether family 1 on the list says 'no' allowing family 2 on the list to move in?

<mod snip>

It's more ime that while turning down vacant properties they are registered and getting heavily subsidised as having a "housing need"

High refusal rates demonstrate the lie in this. The cost to the taxpayer is high. People without a genuine need of public housing are seen to be blatantly gaming the system in the hope that they can hold on for a more valuable asset for themselves, all the while taking up tightly stretched resources in housing depts and clogging waiting lists. Govt subvention of rent in desirable areas drives up already too-high demand.

Frankly I'm surprised anyone could profess surprise or confusion at the myriad ways evidence of a high refusal rate would irritate quite a large number of people.

borderlinemeath

the_syco wrote: »

I'm uncertain how to discuss this issue, as any criticism of the people on the social housing list and/or the serial offenders is not allowed.

I suppose we're allowed to discuss how to fix the problem, and what measures can be implemented to ensure that the right housing goes to the right people.

I think that if you refuse a council house based on weak enough reasoning (personal danger and problem houses aside) then you get either struck off the list or your RA is immediately up for review. If you're not on RA, then FIS or any other state subsidy you are receiving. It's that simple, if you qualify for state housing you should grab it with both hands, don't forget, the recipients chose the particular area based on their needs when registering. Turning down a home in an area that was in your top 3 areas to live on registering speaks volumes about a recipients actual needs.

Graces7

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So let's say a person/family is on the RAS or RA scheme in a nice house, nice area.

Then they get an offer of a council house in a different/worse area.

If they don't move they are put to the bottom of the list, is that correct? But why in hell's name would they move if they like where they are? Maybe that's a reason for all the refusals. Private rented accommodation might just suit them.

Anyway, being put to the bottom of the list solves nothing. The taxpayer is still subsidising the original accommodation that they refused to move from.

I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt if anyone can be FORCED to move, there might be a challenge on human rights grounds or something.

Mad altogether.

This is a worry I had. I am well over 70 and need for health reasons a quiet place and am totally happy renting privately on RA permanently. When I moved south several years ago, the CWO told me i HAD to be on the housing list to get RA ( I had been on RA several years elsewhere) . It took them 7 months over that very cold winter to do the home visit and no RA during that time. I chatted with a welfare officer at a craft fair and she told me that there was no need for me to be on the housing list and that I should complain. I got RA immediately and fought them for the back monet. When I chanegd county again, they tried to make me go on the housing list so I checked with Threshold and they backed me up. I was dreading being put in a council flat in a town. So now I am renting privately and getting RA as long as I need it. I have no idea why the CWOs in some counties do that and it clearly inflates the housing list. But for that welfare officers kindness I would have been worrying knowing I could not cope in town.

Graces7

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I suppose we're allowed to discuss how to fix the problem, and what measures can be implemented to ensure that the right housing goes to the right people.

I think that if you refuse a council house based on weak enough reasoning (personal danger and problem houses aside) then you get either struck off the list or your RA is immediately up for review. If you're not on RA, then FIS or any other state subsidy you are receiving. It's that simple, if you qualify for state housing you should grab it with both hands, don't forget, the recipients chose the particular area based on their needs when registering. Turning down a home in an area that was in your top 3 areas to live on registering speaks volumes about a recipients actual needs.

Please see my other post. When I had to fill in the forms that time I chose rural areas where i knew there was hardly any council stock.. When my RA came up for review I called Threshold who were dealing with other similar queries. If you have been renting privately I think for a year that qualifies for RA. When I wrote that to the CWO here they went quiet.

borderlinemeath

Graces7 wrote: »

Please see my other post. When I had to fill in the forms that time I chose rural areas where i knew there was hardly any council stock.. When my RA came up for review I called Threshold who were dealing with other similar queries. If you have been renting privately I think for a year that qualifies for RA. When I wrote that to the CWO here they went quiet.

So you're admitting to playing the system? Choosing an area where you know that potentially there will never be a house suitable for your needs?

Threshold are very good at telling people what they want to hear rather than telling people what they are obligated to do. They have been known to tell tenants to illegally overhold on properties they are living in so I wouldn't really hold much stock in what they say.

I hope your landlord doesn't go through with his indication that he wants the property back for himself. It's no longer a renters market, very few landlords are willing to take rent allowance and you're in limbo if you've refused to be accommodated by state housing. Not a position I would like to be in when I'm over 70.:(

JustTheOne

http://www.thejournal.ie/finglas-an-riasc-2503050-Dec2015/

Working people put deposits on houses only to find they have now been bought to be used as social housing.

What a kick in the nuts.

And people moan and whinge the that we live in some 3rd world hell hole where the government is starving their people and would rather see them on the streets.

Socialists paradise this country is.

Graces7

borderlinemeath wrote: »

So you're admitting to playing the system? Choosing an area where you know that potentially there will never be a house suitable for your needs?

Threshold are very good at telling people what they want to hear rather than telling people what they are obligated to do. They have been known to tell tenants to illegally overhold on properties they are living in so I wouldn't really hold much stock in what they say.

I hope your landlord doesn't go through with his indication that he wants the property back for himself. It's no longer a renters market, very few landlords are willing to take rent allowance and you're in limbo if you've refused to be accommodated by state housing. Not a position I would like to be in when I'm over 70.:(

No, not playing the system! Defending my very poor health. I do not want council housing. Threshold are grand. And I was simply confirming what I already knew. The council are in the wrong telling everyone they HAVE to be on the housing list to get RA... I am not worried. I have been renting many years now. Always find a home and I am a good tenant. And you omit that the law is there; that you do not have to be on the council housing list to get RA. that was the point of my post. It is either or and the council know this. So no way am I " playing the system." REALLY!

borderlinemeath

Graces7 wrote: »

No, not playing the system! Defending my very poor health. I do not want council housing. Threshold are grand. And I was simply confirming what I already knew. The council are in the wrong telling everyone they HAVE to be on the housing list to get RA... I am not worried. I have been renting many years now. Always find a home and I am a good tenant. And you omit that the law is there; that you do not have to be on the council housing list to get RA. that was the point of my post. It is either or and the council know this. So no way am I " playing the system." REALLY!

And there's plenty of people claiming they're good tenants who have rented for years screaming for housing because they can no longer afford to rent. Having a self belief in being a good tenant doesn't prove much as there is no tenant database to prove your claims and most landlords don't want to know as soon as they hear the words "Rent Allowance" - references or not.

I hope your current situation continues for as long as you need it because if you were like others who have been forced to move out of their homes due to rising rents and RA that is no longer sufficient to cover the costs then you would be in a situation where you could possibly be homeless and accommodated in a hotel at a far greater expense than RA.

Graces7

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And there's plenty of people claiming they're good tenants who have rented for years screaming for housing because they can no longer afford to rent. Having a self belief in being a good tenant doesn't prove much as there is no tenant database to prove your claims and most landlords don't want to know as soon as they hear the words "Rent Allowance" - references or not.

I hope your current situation continues for as long as you need it because if you were like others who have been forced to move out of their homes due to rising rents and RA that is no longer sufficient to cover the costs then you would be in a situation where you could possibly be homeless and accommodated in a hotel at a far greater expense than RA.

The point I was making was that people do not have to be on the council list to get RA. Period. it is either/or and I qualify without seeking council accommodation. And that there are as others have said, many like myself. That is the only aspect of this matter I posted on and the only relevant matter. The side effect of course is that the lists may well be inflated by those happy in private rented accommodation. And yes I would refuse any offer if it were in a town etc.