Tenant purchase scheme

HarryO

Minister Alan Kelly and his cronies seem to have changed the terms and conditions of the tenant purchase scheme tonight 10/02/16 does anyone know what is really happening are they going back on their word already before the election even begins if that's possible.
What a terrible bunch they are.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Please provide links, a description of the changes and their significance, your opinion on the issue etc as per the charter.

HarryO

With all due respect I do not have a link or any information as information is not available to me anyway and I respectfully just asked if anyone knew, it is of serious concern to a lot of people in this country among other things as it only happened this evening. Now if the post isn't to your liking just take it down

BoJack Horseman

If you can check out 'kildaretreet.ie' you may be able to find what you need there?

jimmycrackcorm

HarryO wrote:

With all due respect I do not have a link or any information as information is not available to me anyway and I respectfully just asked if anyone knew, it is of serious concern to a lot of people in this country among other things as it only happened this evening. Now if the post isn't to your liking just take it down

With all due respect you managed to say that they are a terrible bunch while admitting that you don't know.

HarryO

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

With all due respect you managed to say that they are a terrible bunch while admitting that you don't know.

great contribution

HarryO

Some info here from Councillor Grerry Warnock L.C.C. which I did not have before

facebook.com/Cllr-Gerry-Warnock-218374545029552/?fref=nf

"INCREMENTAL TENANT PURCHASE SCHEME - THE GREAT CON JOB!

At first glance at the long awaited TPS one might be forgiven for thinking that this was worth the wait for patient local authority tenants waiting for an opportunity to own their homes.

The big highlights were the massive discounts of up to 60% for qualifying applicants based on household incomes from €15k up.

The big plus for local authorities was extra capital from sales to invest in Housing and reduced maintenance demands.

But like everything else the 'devil is in the detail...'

At a presentation at our meeting this evening the veil was lifted on just how downright exclusive (with more than a whiff of discrimination) this scheme really is. The Department of EC&LG have outdone themselves in creating this veneer of progress. The reality is despicable and divisive;

The minimum household income of €15k must be over 50% funded from work related income. People whose sole income is state funded (welfare or state pension) are excluded from applying.

Tenants that do not meet the income requirements but are willing to invest a legitimately acquired single payment (legacy, lifesaving etc) cannot apply.

Tenants living in a unit acquired by the local authority under the Part 5 cannot apply.

The above constraints alone exclude a huge percentage of people being afforded the opportunity to become homeowners. This is nothing short of margalisation and class discrimination.

The members of LCC unanimously opposed the criteria and we're highly critical of the Department. We have requested a meeting with the Minister (whoever that may be) to endeavour to address this wrong."

BoJack Horseman

So, the acquisition of a property, discounted by up to 60% requires a minimum part-time employment income of €144 w (or 16hrs/pw @ minimum wage).

The word 'entitlement culture' is thrown about a lot, but this may be a Fonzy/bike/shark moment!

This is still an incredible deal!

As for nest-eggs being disallowed.... it's perhaps contradictory.
In order to apply for JSA the claimant must show all assets & savings.

The s/w dept won't grant JSA if a claimant has the kind of savings kitty that can buy property outright.

And to add.... The need for an income for council house purchase is not new.

golfwallah

HarryO wrote: »

Some info here from Councillor Grerry Warnock L.C.C. which I did not have before

facebook.com/Cllr-Gerry-Warnock-218374545029552/?fref=nf

"INCREMENTAL TENANT PURCHASE SCHEME - THE GREAT CON JOB!

At first glance at the long awaited TPS one might be forgiven for thinking that this was worth the wait for patient local authority tenants waiting for an opportunity to own their homes.

The big highlights were the massive discounts of up to 60% for qualifying applicants based on household incomes from €15k up.

The big plus for local authorities was extra capital from sales to invest in Housing and reduced maintenance demands.

But like everything else the 'devil is in the detail...'

At a presentation at our meeting this evening the veil was lifted on just how downright exclusive (with more than a whiff of discrimination) this scheme really is. The Department of EC&LG have outdone themselves in creating this veneer of progress. The reality is despicable and divisive;

The minimum household income of €15k must be over 50% funded from work related income. People whose sole income is state funded (welfare or state pension) are excluded from applying.

Tenants that do not meet the income requirements but are willing to invest a legitimately acquired single payment (legacy, lifesaving etc) cannot apply.

Tenants living in a unit acquired by the local authority under the Part 5 cannot apply.

The above constraints alone exclude a huge percentage of people being afforded the opportunity to become homeowners. This is nothing short of margalisation and class discrimination.

The members of LCC unanimously opposed the criteria and we're highly critical of the Department. We have requested a meeting with the Minister (whoever that may be) to endeavour to address this wrong."

As you say, existing tenants in local authority houses may feel hard done by because of restrictions placed on the tenant purchase scheme.

But like all issues, there’s more than one side to the story. For example, it depends on whether you are a potential beneficiary wanting to purchase a subsidised social housing unit, a struggling taxpayer in a mortgaged or privately rented property, one of the 90,000 families on the housing waiting lists, or a government minister trying to provide as much social housing as possible with limited resources.

Let’s call a spade a spade. The primary purpose of social housing is to house people who cannot afford to rent or purchase in the commercial housing sector. It is not designed to provide a subsidised route and personal gain for those in rented social housing, whose income has improved and are now looking to buy their own homes.

Social housing is funded by taxpayers at national & local levels. There is no magic pot of gold available, nor should there be, to fund the purchase of social housing at below market rates by existing tenants, whose financial circumstances have improved. There are other routes to home ownership without looking for a “good deal” from already hard-pressed taxpayers.

HarryO

golfwallah wrote: »

Let’s call a spade a spade. The primary purpose of social housing is to house people who cannot afford to rent or purchase in the commercial housing sector. It is not designed to provide a subsidised route and personal gain for those in rented social housing, whose income has improved and are now looking to buy their own homes.

Do I take it you are saying that tenants, those in rented social housing who through thick and thin have paid rent for maybe 30-40 years are out the door again same as last scheme because they are either unable to work or can't get work so therefore don't qualify and the better off do.

golfwallah

HarryO wrote: »

Do I take it you are saying that tenants, those in rented social housing who through thick and thin have paid rent for maybe 30-40 years are out the door again same as last scheme because they are either unable to work or can't get work so therefore don't qualify and the better off do.

No. I said nothing about tenants "being out the door". There are qualifying criteria for people applying for social housing, based on income, number of dependants, health, etc. Once qualified and resident in social housing, tenants have security of tenure, even if their incomes improve or they benefit from a legacy after they take up residence. Unlike those in rented or mortgaged housing, they can't be put out and benefit from below cost, subsidized rents.

If they are unable or can't get work, they would not be in a position to buy the council house they are renting, unless they have savings or a legacy. I see no reason why people in such situations should have the option to buy their subsidized council house (no matter how long they have been paying rent), as this will gives them an unearned profit in the form of equity or when the house is eventually sold. This is simply unfair to the majority, who have been paying taxes to provide various forms of social security, housing, health and other government services. Taxes are not paid to provide windfall profits to people in social housing.

The "better off" people have the option of turning to the commercial sector for their housing needs, unlike those on the housing list, who are unable to do so.

Social housing for those who can't afford market rates is one thing, but I think you are looking for jam on it - free money at the expense of the taxpayer!

HarryO

golfwallah wrote: »

No. Social housing for those who can't afford market rates is one thing, but I think you are looking for jam on it - free money at the expense of the taxpayer!

Absolutely opinionated response I am not looking for anything

"The above constraints alone exclude a huge percentage of people being afforded the opportunity to become homeowners. This is nothing short of marginalisation and class discrimination." Votes will decide this issue.

mjv2ydratu679c

HarryO wrote: »

Absolutely opinionated response I am not looking for anything

"The above constraints alone exclude a huge percentage of people being afforded the opportunity to become homeowners. This is nothing short of marginalisation and class discrimination." Votes will decide this issue.

Sorry contradictory post. You say you are not looking for anything but then say that the above constraints alone exclude a huge percentage of people being afforded the opportunity to become homeowners.

So are you looking for them to be included in the scheme or not?

HarryO

Plain to be seen what I mean.

Nothing contradictory about it what I am looking for with an election coming up especially, is clarity, which doesn't appear to be the case as in 7, and I have read the documents.

The terms and conditions under which this scheme operates seem to be changed somewhat or at least when looked at in detail as above post. Application documents will be available soon so that should clear it all up, I'll bet it will be after the election though.

People who have worked all their life, paid their tax, probably had their retirement pension confiscated and are now unemployed and in local authority housing for a period of time, and this is only one example, should have every right to purchase their house. Should that not be the case.

Anyone in that situation should know that there is more than a whiff of discrimination involved.
Although the pattern emerging here seems to be, don't let them have the opportunity to buy.

HarryO

golfwallah wrote: »

No.
If they are unable or can't get work, they would not be in a position to buy the council house they are renting, unless they have savings or a legacy.

Legacy, Lifesavings is excluded

golfwallah

HarryO wrote: »

Absolutely opinionated response I am not looking for anything

"The above constraints alone exclude a huge percentage of people being afforded the opportunity to become homeowners. This is nothing short of marginalisation and class discrimination." Votes will decide this issue.

HarryO wrote: »

Plain to be seen what I mean.

Nothing contradictory about it what I am looking for with an election coming up especially, is clarity, which doesn't appear to be the case as in 7, and I have read the documents.

The terms and conditions under which this scheme operates seem to be changed somewhat or at least when looked at in detail as above post. Application documents will be available soon so that should clear it all up, I'll bet it will be after the election though.

People who have worked all their life, paid their tax, probably had their retirement pension confiscated and are now unemployed and in local authority housing for a period of time, and this is only one example, should have every right to purchase their house. Should that not be the case.

Anyone in that situation should know that there is more than a whiff of discrimination involved.
Although the pattern emerging here seems to be, don't let them have the opportunity to buy.

What you are proposing would result in a diminution in the stock of social housing to provide subsidized home ownership to existing tenants. The consequences would be far greater discrimination against the 100,000 families waiting for social housing, some of whom are homeless.

It is not discrimination to expect people to buy or rent in the open market, when they have the financial resources. That's what the great majority of working people in this state have or had to do, including myself and my own adult children. The majority of people have no opportunity to buy or rent at subsidized rates but they are required to pay taxes, part of which goes towards housing those without the resources to buy or rent at market rates.

If you want to talk about discrimination, you should look at the majority who have to conform to the system. It's certainly not discrimination to retain as much as possible of the existing social housing stock for the purpose for which it was built, rather than allow it to be sold for the financial gain of a relatively small number of tenants and those who will benefit from legacies when these former tenants pass away.

What you are proposing is to benefit a small number of people at the expense of the majority, simply because the proposed beneficiaries are existing tenants.

In my view, it would be better by far for the great majority in this country to resist such sales of social housing. Elected representatives should insist that, on the death of existing tenants, such houses pass back to the local authorities for re-allocation to families on the waiting lists rather than be sold to a small number of existing tenants (who are still living) for the financial gain of both tenants and their decendants.

Agreed that votes will count - but how many will vote along the lines you are proposing, to the detriment of 100,000 families on council housing lists?

HarryO

golfwallah wrote: »

What you are proposing is to benefit a small number of people at the expense of the majority

Is that not what the last government were doing all along

"In my view, it would be better by far for the great majority in this country to resist such sales of social housing. Elected representatives should insist that, on the death of existing tenants, such houses pass back to the local authorities for re-allocation to families on the waiting lists rather than be sold to a small number of existing tenants (who are still living) for the financial gain of both tenants and their decendants."

What terrible thing to suggest.



Did you read my posts at all

"The big plus for local authorities was extra capital from sales to invest in Housing and reduced maintenance demands" among other things

What I wanted to point out in the first place is that the tenant purchase scheme is not what it appears to be no matter what your opinion may be about who should be entitled to it or who should not, that was not my point in the first place. The actual proper terms and conditions will not be realized until the application forms are made available and I can safely say that won't be until after the election and there's a reason for that too which should be quite apparent to you.

The minority have every right to benefit and be supported as well as the majority do you not agree.

golfwallah

HarryO wrote: »

"The big plus for local authorities was extra capital from sales to invest in Housing and reduced maintenance demands" among other things

..................

The minority have every right to benefit and be supported as well as the majority do you not agree.

Like all propaganda, these are half-truths. Selling off capital housing assets at large discounts, will indeed produce marginal additional cash flow. But, here’s the unmentioned other side of the story - this marginal and temporary additional cash flow will be insufficient to “invest in Housing” that is needed to replace the units sold.

The minority (i.e. of existing council tenants) have rights to the housing they occupy but not the right to make windfall profits financed by the taxpayer and to the detriment of the 100,000 families currently on the housing waiting lists.

It’s really quite simple. Reducing the stock of council houses means that the near 100,000 families on the waiting list will have to wait a lot longer to be housed, while the small minority of existing tenants and their decendants profit from the sell-off.

Unfortunately, a policy of selling-off council houses seems to fit with the populist auction type election promises coming from the large political parties, whereas, fixing the country’s housing crisis does not.

Here’s what economist, Colm McCarthy, has to say on the issue in today’s Sunday Independent:

Local authority tenants have been sold 26,000 units in the past 20 years at substantial discounts. These homes are permanently removed from the available social housing stock.

The policy of sell-off at large discounts was temporarily phased down some years back, but the outgoing government is committed to its restoration, as are all of the opposition parties. There is a hole in the bucket of available public housing and politicians are hell-bent on making it bigger, even on forcing the voluntary housing associations to join the sell-off. In the UK, a cross-party committee of MPs recently revealed that more than 40pc of sold-off council houses around Britain are being offered for private rental, and there has been widespread fraudulent abuse of the system.

One of the biggest housing associations has expressed publicly its opposition to the sell-off policy. Writing in the Irish Times last year, the head of policy at Cluid, Simon Brooke, informed readers that: "I have spoken to many politicians about this, and most admit privately that tenant purchase at a discount is a disastrous policy - yet only a tiny number are prepared to say publicly what they believe. There is nothing wrong with tenants having the right to buy their homes at the full value; and Cluid would support a modified shared-ownership scheme that would enable people on lower incomes to purchase a proportion of their home. But while tenant purchase at a discount is very good news for a very small minority, it is very bad news for other tenants, the taxpayer and the State."