Buyer puts deposit on house, house then sold to social housing agency.

January

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

Couples put deposits on a new development in Finglas, employ solicitors, sign their side of the contract, employ surveyors etc and then the houses they have part paid for are all sold to the council for social housing.

I have to say I'd be absolutely livid, they found out through the local newspapers too, the company selling them didn't even have the decency to tell them.

What a shambles, I know we need social housing, but not when others have already put deposits on them.

Mrs OBumble

They got gazumped. Can happen to any potential buyer. The fact that the gazumper is a social housing agency is irrelevant.

And given the % of the development going to social housing, I'd say they dodged a bullet.

MarkAnthony

I'd be going balistic. You expect a personal Vendor to be about as relaible as a Lada in a thunderstorm bt a developer to pull this is pretty sh1t. I feel sorry for the buyers.

Gumbo

Absolute joke the way this happened.
All houses that were released on the open day for phase 1 were sold privately. There was people on the waiting list for phase 2 so it wasn't a case of Bovale having to sell them because of lack of interest.

He told the private buyers that they could still have their houses, but there was no way people were going to keep them considering the way the remaining 35 houses went to Tuath and add to that the immediate devaluation of their property!

DCC Housing only found out last Thursday, but local TD, Dessie Ellis was aware of the situation for a number of weeks.

I heard one of the buyers got their deposit back today, but is still out of pocket due to legal fees, furniture orders and surveys.

PS : You might want to edit the title, as the Council did not buy this development.

rubberdiddies

kceire wrote: »

Absolute joke the way this happened.
All houses that were released on the open day for phase 1 were sold privately. There was people on the waiting list for phase 2 so it wasn't a case of Bovale having to sell them because of lack of interest.

He told the private buyers that they could still have their houses, but there was no way people were going to keep them considering the way the remaining 35 houses went to Tuath and add to that the immediate devaluation of their property!

DCC Housing only found out last Thursday, but local TD, Dessie Ellis was aware of the situation for a number of weeks.

I heard one of the buyers got their deposit back today, but is still out of pocket due to legal fees, furniture orders and surveys.

Why do many social housing agencies/county councils buy up multiple houses in the one estate for Social Housing. Doesn't this go against some sort of integration policy. Didn't this type of thing fail miserably in the 60's/70's and 80's?

Gumbo

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Why do many social housing agencies/county councils buy up multiple houses in the one estate for Social Housing. Doesn't this go against some sort of integration policy. Didn't this type of thing fail miserably in the 60's/70's and 80's?

100% agree with you.
The same mistake was made in Ballymun 50 years ago.

But, the Council did not buy this. Its similar to me winning the lotto, buying all the houses and then renting them out! Its a private transaction that cannot be stopped, but I agree that it goes against a good social / private mix.

FYI, this is the first time that a housing agency has bought an entire estate from a private developer according to local TD's.

rubberdiddies

kceire wrote: »

100% agree with you.
The same mistake was made in Ballymun 50 years ago.

But, the Council did not buy this. Its similar to me winning the lotto, buying all the houses and then renting them out! Its a private transaction that cannot be stopped, but I agree that it goes against a good social / private mix.

FYI, this is the first time that a housing agency has bought an entire estate from a private developer according to local TD's.

But at the end of the day the clients of these agencies are Local Authorities. So if local authorities are happy to house people all together in one estate then they are facilitating these transactions.

rubberdiddies

kceire wrote: »

FYI, this is the first time that a housing agency has bought an entire estate from a private developer according to local TD's.

i'm aware of other estates where multiple houses (10+) were bought together by a Local Authority / agency, which seems counterproductive to me

Gumbo

rubberdiddies wrote: »

But at the end of the day the clients of these agencies are Local Authorities. So if local authorities are happy to house people all together in one estate then they are facilitating these transactions.

Tuath have their own lists, and their own rules and regulations. They facilitate the LA by taking a few from their housing waiting list but not them all.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

i'm aware of other estates where multiple houses (10+) were bought together by a Local Authority / agency, which seems counterproductive to me

That would be the Part V requirements under the P&D Act. 10% of new estates have to be social and affordable allocated to the LA. difference situation to this one here.

esforum

major bullet dodged, ****ty as it is, better to have lost the money paid out than being saddled with a mortgage for a house that immediately falls into negatice equity and will probable end up being a miserable place to live for them that they cant sell

now for all the pc brigade attacks................

MarkAnthony

You don't need to be part of the PC Brigade to call someone a biggot for simply assuming all council tenants are scum.

I like the way this was SPECIFICALLY addressed in the article. Many of those people has been brought up in social housing and where doing what most parents want for their kids, going one better than they had. They wanted to live in that area as that's where their family is.

Mrs OBumble

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Why do many social housing agencies/county councils buy up multiple houses in the one estate for Social Housing. Doesn't this go against some sort of integration policy. Didn't this type of thing fail miserably in the 60's/70's and 80's?

Cheaper estate management. One handy-person fixing stuff in every house in the estate is more efficient than one person spending half their time travelling between estates, etc.

I thought they knew better than making estates 100% social housing.

But - it maybe that some of the houses were funded under schemes that require them to be let to council tenants, and some under schemes that allow them to be let at market rate to private sector tenants. (Voluntary housing groups like Tuath can do that, but councils can't AFAIK.)

'Tis possible that while the estate is 100% agency owned, it won't be 100% social tenants.

Butters1979

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They got gazumped. Can happen to any potential buyer. The fact that the gazumper is a social housing agency is irrelevant.

And given the % of the development going to social housing, I'd say they dodged a bullet.

Are we sure this is gazumped? I'm willing to bet the houses went for less than the price the original buyers were paying for it. This is down right underhanded and dirty.

It's one thing to know not only do I pay for my mortgage, but I pay to house people who think there entitled to free housing. (i understand there is a need for this, but I believe there is a majority who take it as a free hand out, it is far too easy to get). But now they actually screw over hard working people who have saved to buy their own house to give these people an easy life.

Butters1979

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You don't need to be part of the PC Brigade to call someone a biggot for simply assuming all council tenants are scum.

I like the way this was SPECIFICALLY addressed in the article. Many of those people has been brought up in social housing and where doing what most parents want for their kids, going one better than they had. They wanted to live in that area as that's where their family is.

Please don't confuse your political views on social welfare and state support with unarguable fact. It's too easy to leach the system in this country and it's too easy to screw over those who are actually contributing to this country been able to afford to supply social housing in the first place.

This is about putting those who are paying for this economy to run, behind those who aren't.

MarkAnthony

Butters1979 wrote: »

Please don't confuse your political views on social welfare and state support with unarguable fact. It's too easy to leach the system in this country and it's too easy to screw over those who are actually contributing to this country been able to afford to supply social housing in the first place.

This is about putting those who are paying for this economy to run, behind those who aren't.

Firstly I was pretty apauled this happened, see above.

Secondly I've probably better versed in the social theory and reality of this than most. My personal political view which I have stated frequently on these forums is that many people should be moved out of Dublin to make way for people that need the space becuase they're working. Being in social housing does not preclude someone from contributing to society.

This continuos them and us attitude helps no one. For once the people involved in this pointed this out in the article.

Spanish Eyes

This is why I would not consider a new build in a development now.

Too much room for this type of acquisition by housing trusts or the council.

And of course the developer is delighted with a block purchase.

As long as the potential purchasers get their deposits back that is the best case scenario for them. Cut losses and move on gratefully.

esforum

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You don't need to be part of the PC Brigade to call someone a biggot for simply assuming all council tenants are scum.

Now where did I say that? What I said was the house as a result of now being surrounded by social housing aka council houses will see a price fall and be harder to sell and that it will probable prove to be an area the OP or whoever doesnt want to live but is stuck.

I do not believe any estate in the entire country has 100% scum. I wouldnt even say any single estate in the entire country can boast 50% scum.

But despite this belief that even in the very worst area theres more good than bad people the areas are still viewed as undesirable, working people are still victimised and good honest people trying to raise their families well are desperate to move but cant as a result of the low house values.

as an example, if I were to run a poll and ask who would like to buy a house in Sheriff Street or Neilstown or Roxboro or Moyross for the same equal value to an equal spec house in hmm, lets say Tallaght or Swords or Blanchardstown or Castletroy, how many would vote yes? If I added in that despite paying the same amount, the houses in these areas by virtue of their surroundings and public opinion, will in fact be worth approximately half of what you paid, would anyone vote yes?

Please note that I have avoided picking areas that would be considered upmarket or posh and the scenario I just painted is in my opinion, what the OP would be facing

MarkAnthony

esforum wrote: »

Now where did I say that? What I said was the house as a result of now being surrounded by social housing aka council houses will see a price fall and be harder to sell and that it will probable prove to be an area the OP or whoever doesnt want to live but is stuck.

I do not believe any estate in the entire country has 100% scum. I wouldnt even say any single estate in the entire country can boast 50% scum.

But despite this belief that even in the very worst area theres more good than bad people the areas are still viewed as undesirable, working people are still victimised and good honest people trying to raise their families well are desperate to move but cant as a result of the low house values.

as an example, if I were to run a poll and ask who would like to buy a house in Sheriff Street or Neilstown or Roxboro or Moyross for the same equal value to an equal spec house in hmm, lets say Tallaght or Swords or Blanchardstown or Castletroy, how many would vote yes? If I added in that despite paying the same amount, the houses in these areas by virtue of their surroundings and public opinion, will in fact be worth approximately half of what you paid, would anyone vote yes?

Please note that I have avoided picking areas that would be considered upmarket or posh and the scenario I just painted is in my opinion, what the OP would be facing

To be fair my post was general enough and deliberately worded to avoid leveling those accusations at you, as was not quoting directly. However I can see where it would come across that way so apologies.

I have to disagree with your point though. The people featured should have been given the option. It's a very bad idea ghettoising social housing and if people where happy to stay they should have been allowed to. I hope they get some form of payment from the developer legally entitled or not. Furthermore it's about time this stupid house purchase system was changed.

Gumbo

MarkAnthony wrote: »

To be fair my post was general enough and deliberately worded to avoid leveling those accusations at you, as was not quoting directly. However I can see where it would come across that way so apologies.

I have to disagree with your point though. The people featured should have been given the option. It's a very bad idea ghettoising social housing and if people where happy to stay they should have been allowed to. I hope they get some form of payment from the developer legally entitled or not. Furthermore it's about time this stupid house purchase system was changed.

They did get the option. Most, if not all choose to give the houses back to the developer and thus onto Tuath.

MarkAnthony

kceire wrote: »

They did get the option. Most, if not all choose to give the houses back to the developer and thus onto Tuath.

Whats you're source on this - I got the impression that's not what the article was trying to suggest but I'm fully willing to admit one article in the Jurno does not a confirmed story make.

pablo128

Can I remind people that not all social housing tenants don't work. In fact, isn't the jobless rate at 9% or something? I am in the situation where we both work and are in social housing, but would find it difficult to get a mortgage with the price of houses.

Coupled to that, the area of Tallaght we would be looking at has almost no houses for sale, and it's far from upmarket.

the_syco

kceire wrote: »

I heard one of the buyers got their deposit back today, but is still out of pocket due to legal fees, furniture orders and surveys.

Silly people. Until you have the keys, you shouldn't buy anything for the house.

IMO, bullet dodged. The estate has a high chance of becoming a ghetto, with problem families moved into it.

Butters1979

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Firstly I was pretty apauled this happened, see above.

Secondly I've probably better versed in the social theory and reality of this than most. My personal political view which I have stated frequently on these forums is that many people should be moved out of Dublin to make way for people that need the space becuase they're working. Being in social housing does not preclude someone from contributing to society.

This continuos them and us attitude helps no one. For once the people involved in this pointed this out in the article.

Just because you have decided you are 'better versed than most' it doesn't mean your opinion is any more right than anyone else's.

My issue is not with social housing as we need that to an extent, although it feels like a large amount of this is taken as a right instead of a privilege.
My issue is with people who have, through hard work, paid for their own house (while their taxes pay for others) have been gazumped at a government level to pander to the voters while screwing over anyone who can pay for themselves. Anyone has a problem with this and it goes straight into 'biggot' and 'homeless crisis' and 'wont someone please think of the children'

Gumbo

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Whats you're source on this - I got the impression that's not what the article was trying to suggest but I'm fully willing to admit one article in the Jurno does not a confirmed story make.

I'm the source

I know 3 people that put deposits down, and I'm dealing directly with the builder for another reason and am on the site every week. I've been in every house and have seen its construction from the ground up.

MarkAnthony

Butters1979 wrote: »

Just because you have decided you are 'better versed than most' it doesn't mean your opinion is any more right than anyone else's.

My issue is not with social housing as we need that to an extent, although it feels like a large amount of this is taken as a right instead of a privilege.
My issue is with people who have, through hard work, paid for their own house (while their taxes pay for others) have been gazumped at a government level to pander to the voters while screwing over anyone who can pay for themselves. Anyone has a problem with this and it goes straight into 'biggot' and 'homeless crisis' and 'wont someone please think of the children'

You posted in a completely condescending manner and reaped a reply based on that to a degree. While there is a lot of emotional investment in this, and indeed many people do jump up and down screaming, surely you realise you're just as bad or worse in that regard? Going straight to the 'free houses OMG freeloaders'.

Putting that aside for a moment, there is a huge need for social housing, there is a huge need for reform of the social welfare system. That we know, there are no simple solutions.

MarkAnthony

kceire wrote: »

I'm the source

I know 3 people that put deposits down, and I'm dealing directly with the builder for another reason and am on the site every week. I've been in every house and have seen its construction from the ground up.

So why did the article put it across that many people were surprised at this development? Was everyone given the choice?

Genuine questions - Irish journalism is pretty biased and lazy at the best of times. That said you're also just some randomer on the interweb, no offence intended we all are.

Mrs OBumble

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So why did the article put it across that many people were surprised at this development? Was everyone given the choice?

Because that kind of spin sells more newspapers, or in this case gets more eyeballs looking at their advertising.

Newspapers tell the truth (ish). But rarely the whole truth.

MayBea

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They got gazumped. Can happen to any potential buyer. The fact that the gazumper is a social housing agency is irrelevant.

And given the % of the development going to social housing, I'd say they dodged a bullet.

I'd be inclined to agree it's a better outcome than to the one of Waterville where a similar number of units went to the council after the first 50 houses was privately sold.

jd

kceire wrote: »

DCC Housing only found out last Thursday, but local TD, Dessie Ellis was aware of the situation for a number of weeks.

Did Dessie go public on this or sit on it?

Gumbo

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So why did the article put it across that many people were surprised at this development? Was everyone given the choice?

Genuine questions - Irish journalism is pretty biased and lazy at the best of times. That said you're also just some randomer on the interweb, no offence intended we all are.

I don't know tbh, you'd have to ask the reporter that wrote the article. I gain nothing from this so it doesn't bother me if people believe me or the paper. The news actually first broke by a FF councillor that was furious at the procedure on Wednesday in Facebook. The local news and then other papers picked up on it from that news feed and from people ringing the papers.

The private buyers were surprised, of course they were as they assumed the remaining units would be privately purchased too.

jd wrote: »

Did Dessie go public on this or sit on it?

He came to a residents meeting on Monday and he said he first heard of the proposal 6 weeks ago and he supported the purchase. He lost a lot of local votes that evening.

athtrasna

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You posted in a completely condescending manner and reaped a reply based on that to a degree. While there is a lot of emotional investment in this, and indeed many people do jump up and down screaming, surely you realise you're just as bad or worse in that regard? Going straight to the 'free houses OMG freeloaders'.

Putting that aside for a moment, there is a huge need for social housing, there is a huge need for reform of the social welfare system. That we know, there are no simple solutions.

Report don't retort!

athtrasna

MayBea wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree it's a better outcome than to the one of Waterville where a similar number of units went to the council after the first 50 houses was privately sold.

Not true. The cluster in Waterville is 100% social housing. No privately owned units.

MarkAnthony

athtrasna wrote: »

Report don't retort!

Apologies. To be fair it wasn't rude per se but sorry no need to point it out in my own posts. Apologies to butters also.

MayBea

athtrasna wrote: »

Not true. The cluster in Waterville is 100% social housing. No privately owned units.

Formally, it is not true. However, I would persist that it is only nominally different to Brandon Square - there is zero visual difference between two clusters and they are yards from each other.
I will rephrase it slightly, "a similar number of units (to An Riasc estate) went to the council in Rossan Court in Waterville after the first 50 houses was privately sold by the developer in a neighbouring cluster named Brandon Square".

athtrasna

MayBea wrote: »

Formally, it is not true. However, I would persist that it is only nominally different to Brandon Square - there is zero visual difference between two clusters and they are yards from each other.
I will rephrase it slightly, "a similar number of units (to An Riasc estate) went to the council in Rossan Court in Waterville after the first 50 houses was privately sold by the developer in a neighbouring cluster named Brandon Square".

All the clusters are independent, with their own management companies. And they're more than yards apart. I've lived in Waterville for 11 years. Neighbouring clusters have next to no interaction

Victor

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Why do many social housing agencies/county councils buy up multiple houses in the one estate for Social Housing. Doesn't this go against some sort of integration policy. Didn't this type of thing fail miserably in the 60's/70's and 80's?

It's not like they are creating a new West Tallaght or Darndale. There is a certain sense in buying a sufficient number of properties such that they can minimise acquisition and estate management costs. It means they can hire someone to supervise construction. Buying 35 houses in random estates would mean lots of different designs, built to different specifications and potentially requiring different maintenance methods. It also means they have one set of neighbours to deal with, not 35.

esforum

pablo128 wrote: »

Can I remind people that not all social housing tenants don't work. In fact, isn't the jobless rate at 9% or something? I am in the situation where we both work and are in social housing, but would find it difficult to get a mortgage with the price of houses.

The unemployment rate is 9% as you say, social housing makes up less than 9% of homes so it is mathematically possible for all social housing tenents to be unemployed. I know they arent, just saying.

pablo128 wrote: »

I am in the situation where we both work and are in social housing, but would find it difficult to get a mortgage with the price of houses.

First off, I completely agree that house prices are getting plain silly all over again, thanlkfully for people who bought when they peaked in 2006 / 2007 but yeah, theres no way my house is worth what the going rate in the area is.

May I ask if yourself and partner are working fulltime and if you have kids? My wife lost her job in 2008 and we have 2 kids but dont qualify for any form of welfare based on my income.

pablo128 wrote: »

Coupled to that, the area of Tallaght we would be looking at has almost no houses for sale, and it's far from upmarket.

Afraid have to take issue here, beggers cant be choosers. I live a fair bit away from my parents, wifes parents, etc. You buy where you can afford.

MayBea

athtrasna wrote: »

And they're more than yards apart.

They are 280 meters or 3 minutes moderate walk (Google Maps) from the very first house in Brandon Square to the one in Rossan Court.
So sure, they aren't wall to wall, but having been built by the same developer and having identical look they are, from my outsider's point of view, visually constituting the same estate.

pablo128

esforum wrote: »

May I ask if yourself and partner are working fulltime and if you have kids? My wife lost her job in 2008 and we have 2 kids but dont qualify for any form of welfare based on my income.


Afraid have to take issue here, beggers cant be choosers. I live a fair bit away from my parents, wifes parents, etc. You buy where you can afford.

One child, one part time and one full time working.

The area we want to live in, the general Tymon North area, would be kinda within our means, if there were any suitable houses for sale. There are very few for sale unfortunately.

esforum

pablo128 wrote: »

One child, one part time and one full time working.

The area we want to live in, the general Tymon North area, would be kinda within our means, if there were any suitable houses for sale. There are very few for sale unfortunately.

Thanks for anwering. I know the area, brother was looking at some there during his search, ended up down in Springfield