Social Housing Infinite?

Polo_Mint

As there is so many people on the housing waiting list, Do people who live in Social Housing get to live there permanently even when they find their feet and get steady incomes?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I can't imagine the council would make one family homeless to put another family in the house. Isn't the rent reflective of the income anyway?

Polo_Mint

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I can't imagine the council would make one family homeless to put another family in the house. Isn't the rent reflective of the income anyway?

But isnt this leading to the Social housing issue?

If a family fall on hard times they move into social housing.

If that family then get on there feet and receive a good income, Shouldnt they be push out to the private market so the next family who are suffering move in?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'd tend to agree to be honest, but I have no experience about living in social housing or what the requirements are. I do know there's a lot of senses of entitlement when it comes to people in this country, so why would they get out and make things better for themselves when they can have the council give them a house? I think some people end up buying their house from the council

Tasden

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'd tend to agree to be honest, but I have no experience about living in social housing or what the requirements are. I do know there's a lot of senses of entitlement when it comes to people in this country, so why would they get out and make things better for themselves when they can have the council give them a house? I think some people end up buying their house from the council

Was just about to say this. Kicking them out once they earn a certain amount would just lead to a welfare trap where people won't try to earn more for fear of homelessness- especially nowadays where even when you can afford the crazy rents you are up against 10 other families who can too. The rent is set based on your income so its not like they pay the same rent rate as someone on the dole or whatever op.

Bubbaclaus

Why would you bother trying to pay for things on your own accord in Ireland? Just make yourself completely unemployable and you will be rewarded with a house, 188 a week, child benefit for every kid you decide to pop out, medical card, free travel etc

pickarooney

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why would you bother trying to pay for things on your own accord in Ireland? Just make yourself completely unemployable and you will be rewarded with a house, 188 a week, child benefit for every kid you decide to pop out, medical card, free travel etc

You're not really addressing the actual question, are you? But indeed, why would anyone voluntarily move themselves an their family out of a cheap house and put themselves through the hassle of trying to find a more expensive one? Do you believe in altruism?

Polo_Mint

Polo_Mint wrote: »

But isnt this leading to the Social housing issue?

If a family fall on hard times they move into social housing.

If that family then get on there feet and receive a good income, Shouldnt they be push out to the private market so the next family who are suffering move in?

I think the fact that councils are not building social housing is the issue.

Polo_Mint

pickarooney wrote: »

You're not really addressing the actual question, are you? But indeed, why would anyone voluntarily move themselves an their family out of a cheap house and put themselves through the hassle of trying to find a more expensive one? Do you believe in altruism?

But isnt there a mechanism in place already where people get means tested for social welfare?

So if you live in social housing, Do you still get means tested to affirm that you still have a right to live there.

Or is it that once you get social housing, You can then get a great job paying well and you wont get means tested for the house your living in.

My second question is what if someone is provided a 4 bed house.

Children all grow up and move out. Does that parent still get to keep the 4 bed house that they received 20 years ago still paid by the state?

Polo_Mint

bubblypop wrote: »

I think the fact that councils are not building social housing is the issue.

But i would assume they are not being logically used if you can live there permanently.

If it was renamed emergency housing and you were means tested yearly, Surely the social housing would be rotated alot quicker?

c montgomery

Polo_Mint wrote: »

As there is so many people on the housing waiting list, Do people who live in Social Housing get to live there permanently even when they find their feet and get steady incomes?

Yes is the answer.
Most pay between 8-15 % of there income for the privilege. Reviewed very infrequently.
Any slight issue with the house their on the phone demanding the council come round to fix.

Lights On

Polo_Mint wrote: »

So if you live in social housing, Do you still get means tested to affirm that you still have a right to live there.

Or is it that once you get social housing, You can then get a great job paying well and you wont get means tested for the house your living in.

I grew up in a council house, rent gets rechecked at least once a year, you start earning more, or someone else in the house starts bringing in more income you pay more rent. Simple as that. Not sure where the idea that you could earn loads and pay nothing came from?

KERSPLAT!

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes is the answer.
Most pay between 8-15 % of there income for the privilege. Reviewed very infrequently.
Any slight issue with the house their on the phone demanding the council come round to fix.

What would you define as infrequent?

Asaiah

Folks, a person in social housing (Council housing or voluntary housing) can stay forever, even if they start to earn 6 figure salaries. The rent increases as a percentage of their income, 17% I believe. However this is capped, Not sure what the cap is but I used to know a taxi driver who told me his was capped at 400 euro per month (Don't know if it's changed since then, that was about 8 years ago). So in theory even if he brought in 2 grand a week he would still pay no more than 100 a week rent.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

c montgomery

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

What would you define as infrequent?

I would define it as every 2 years in this case.
My colleague has not been reviewed in over 3 years, tells us all the time.
I think review should be done every January based on p60.

KERSPLAT!

c montgomery wrote: »

I would define it as every 2 years in this case.
My colleague has not been reviewed in over 3 years, tells us all the time.
I think review should be done every January based on p60.

I don't believe your friend. I'm sure in some instances it may be more but the norm is a yearly rent review where each person listed as living in the house must supply SW slips or pay slips, rent is then reviewed accordingly.

andekwarhola

Social housing isn't supposed to be solely for the unemployed. It's subsidized housing for low income.

The rent increases if your household income rises.

Dunno what the local authority do if your income rises to a certain extent but I'm presuming few people, bar criminals, would actually elect to live in a council estate when they're earning a decent middle-class income.

c montgomery

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I don't believe your friend. I'm sure in some instances it may be more but the norm is a yearly rent review where each person listed as living in the house must supply SW slips or pay slips, rent is then reviewed accordingly.

Perhaps, this is cork cc in my friends case.

Should be done on p60 to cover the entire years earnings

Polo_Mint

So is the rent capped on social housing?

Even if you earn large sums of money later on?

If I lived in a house paying 1400 a month and the neighbour who lives in a council house earns 2X my wages, They would only be paying 1/3 of what i pay Max?

MarkAnthony

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why would you bother trying to pay for things on your own accord in Ireland? Just make yourself completely unemployable and you will be rewarded with a house, 188 a week, child benefit for every kid you decide to pop out, medical card, free travel etc

Becuase some of us, usually with the benefit of encouragement and upbringing from out parent(s)/gaurdian grow up with aspirations beyond sitting on our arse living off the state.

user2011

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes is the answer.
Most pay between 8-15 % of there income for the privilege. Reviewed very infrequently.
Any slight issue with the house their on the phone demanding the council come round to fix.

A bit like when you live in privately rented accommodation?

Polo_Mint

user2011 wrote: »

A bit like when you live in privately rented accommodation?

I would think alot of people are paying nearly 50% of there income on rent.

Is Council housing rent capped and whats the %?

FalconGirl

Polo_Mint wrote: »

But isnt this leading to the Social housing issue?

If a family fall on hard times they move into social housing.

If that family then get on there feet and receive a good income, Shouldnt they be push out to the private market so the next family who are suffering move in?

Yes they should be made to get back on their feet and pushed into the private market. A family a couple of doors up from me have never worked a day in their lives and the grown up kids are now doing the same. All living under one roof in social housing and instead of contributing to society they are reaping all the benefits through others hard work. They have been like this as long as I can remember (28yrs).

Infuriating to see take-away delivery drivers at the door most nights.

deseil

Polo_Mint wrote: »

But isnt there a mechanism in place already where people get means tested for social welfare?

So if you live in social housing, Do you still get means tested to affirm that you still have a right to live there.

Or is it that once you get social housing, You can then get a great job paying well and you wont get means tested for the house your living in.

My second question is what if someone is provided a 4 bed house.

Children all grow up and move out. Does that parent still get to keep the 4 bed house that they received 20 years ago still paid by the state?

Yes they keep the house even when the kids move out. This is a huge issue single older people living in 3/4 bedroom houses.

The council charges 15% of your earnings. So on 188 per week you pay just under 30 eur rent but if you get a job and earn 1000 per week you pay 150 eur per week which is madness imo.

I wish my mortgage was only 15% of my earnings id be loaded.

Owryan

Rent is supposed to be reviewed yearly, also if the tenant/family's income changes they are supposed to notify the council.

Most families stay in their council house for life and that's even if they get well paid jobs. They will pay more rent as it is means tested but some counties cap the max amount, others don't.

In some ways it's an unfair system, people who can afford to rent privately are let stay in a house a more needy family might be more deserving of.

I ve worked with families in council houses who are earning good money €600-700 PW and are paying a fraction in rent compared to if they were renting privately.

user2011

Polo_Mint wrote: »

I would think alot of people are paying nearly 50% of there income on rent.

Is Council housing rent capped and whats the %?

You'll still go to the person responsible for taking care of fixing stuff no matter the percentage.

c montgomery

Owryan wrote: »

Rent is supposed to be reviewed yearly, also if the tenant/family's income changes they are supposed to notify the council.

Most families stay in their council house for life and that's even if they get well paid jobs. They will pay more rent as it is means tested but some counties cap the max amount, others don't.

In some ways it's an unfair system, people who can afford to rent privately are let stay in a house a more needy family might be more deserving of.

I ve worked with families in council houses who are earning good money €600-700 PW and are paying a fraction in rent compared to if they were renting privately.

Yip completely unfair.

One big section of society subsidised by a relatively small section of society.

c montgomery

user2011 wrote: »

You'll still go to the person responsible for taking care of fixing stuff no matter the percentage.

It's small things that you should be able to deal with yourself that I was talking about. Also things that's would not be landlords responsibility but seems to fall on the council.

user2011

c montgomery wrote: »

Yip completely unfair.

One big section of society subsidised by a relatively small section of society.

You'd wonder something serious how this small section pays for housing health dole etc. So small.....

user2011

c montgomery wrote: »

It's small things that you should be able to deal with yourself that I was talking about. Also things that's would not be landlords responsibility but seems to fall on the council.

Care to give examples that can be checked?

pablo128

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why would you bother trying to pay for things on your own accord in Ireland? Just make yourself completely unemployable and you will be rewarded with a house, 188 a week, child benefit for every kid you decide to pop out, medical card, free travel etc

You might get rewarded with a house(not for free, rent must be paid) after 10 years on the waiting list alright.

Polo_Mint wrote: »

But isnt there a mechanism in place already where people get means tested for social welfare?

So if you live in social housing, Do you still get means tested to affirm that you still have a right to live there.

Or is it that once you get social housing, You can then get a great job paying well and you wont get means tested for the house your living in.

My second question is what if someone is provided a 4 bed house.

Children all grow up and move out. Does that parent still get to keep the 4 bed house that they received 20 years ago still paid by the state?

As above. Rent must be paid.

Polo_Mint wrote: »

So is the rent capped on social housing?

Even if you earn large sums of money later on?

If I lived in a house paying 1400 a month and the neighbour who lives in a council house earns 2X my wages, They would only be paying 1/3 of what i pay Max?

But they still live in a council estate. If you want to live in a council estate, put yourself on the housing list.

Owryan wrote: »

Rent is supposed to be reviewed yearly, also if the tenant/family's income changes they are supposed to notify the council.

Most families stay in their council house for life and that's even if they get well paid jobs. They will pay more rent as it is means tested but some counties cap the max amount, others don't.

In some ways it's an unfair system, people who can afford to rent privately are let stay in a house a more needy family might be more deserving of.

I ve worked with families in council houses who are earning good money €600-700 PW and are paying a fraction in rent compared to if they were renting privately.

Try getting a mortgage on that wage for a family. You would be laughed out the door. Now, try rent a house privately for that family, and see how much money you're left with at the end of the month.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Owryan

pablo128 wrote: »

Try getting a mortgage on that wage for a family. You would be laughed out the door. Now, try rent a house privately for that family, and see how much money you're left with at the end of the month.

Those figures were nett, sorry should have said that in my post. Plenty of families on good money can't afford a mortgage and have to rent but that shouldn't mean they essentially get a council house for life.

pablo128

Owryan wrote: »

Those figures were nett, sorry should have said that in my post. Plenty of families on good money can't afford a mortgage and have to rent but that shouldn't mean they essentially get a council house for life.

Ok. Well think about this then. if only the absolute poorest people in society are to be entitled to a council house without exception, you would soon find out what a ghetto looks like in Ireland.

Owryan

pablo128 wrote: »

Ok. Well think about this then. if only the absolute poorest people in society are to be entitled to a council house without exception, you would soon find out what a ghetto looks like in Ireland.

I grew up in a council estate, I ve worked helping people who still live in council estates. I know how bad they can be.

I do have issues with the idea that a council house should be for life. From my experience and what I have seen, and this is only my experience, it allows and keeps people in a poverty trap.

If one family is homeless and another family is earning enough to be able to rent privately then there is an issue over who is more deserving of state provided accommodation.

In Carlow the council was only too happy to sell off its housing stock without replacing them. Now they have a housing crisis like the rest of the country.

The simple answer would be to build more council estates but like you said they could easily become ghettos. Mixed estates have met with resistance from some quarters.

Robsweezie

that actually sounds like a good reality tv show title

''previously, on social housing infinite....''

JupiterKid

As I opined in another thread, Ireland needs to be building social housing on a huge scale. This is a key way to alleviate the housing crisis.

There are too few affordable houses for households urgently in need of housing. Housing waiting lists continue to grow to alarming levels.

The housing crisis will never be resolved until we start building significant amounts of social housing again.

Annasopra

Tasden wrote: »

Was just about to say this. Kicking them out once they earn a certain amount would just lead to a welfare trap where people won't try to earn more for fear of homelessness- especially nowadays where even when you can afford the crazy rents you are up against 10 other families who can too. The rent is set based on your income so its not like they pay the same rent rate as someone on the dole or whatever op.

Agreed pushing people out who earn more money creates much worse problems of ghettoisation, poverty, crime and welfare dependency. The Social and economic cost of all that really isn't worth it.

People should look at local authority housing estates that were built up to the 2000's.
The majority of the older estates are well kept, houses are kept well, they are in good areas, they have matured into fine estates & good places to live.

A lot of the houses have been bought, but a lot haven't. It's their home and barring them doing something anti social or not paying rent, they get to live their lives there.
It gives people a sense of community, of belonging to a neighbourhood, of pride in their area.

In most cases, if someone does very well for themselves, they will move on themselves naturally.

To allow people to lose their homes because they earn too much money, or someone else needs it, totally takes away the security. And along with it, the pride, the community spirit etc.

If anything, the government should be investing in far more social housing, it's not just for homeless, it's for low paid, and God knows we have plenty of them!

pablo128

Owryan wrote: »

I grew up in a council estate, I ve worked helping people who still live in council estates. I know how bad they can be.

I do have issues with the idea that a council house should be for life. From my experience and what I have seen, and this is only my experience, it allows and keeps people in a poverty trap.

If one family is homeless and another family is earning enough to be able to rent privately then there is an issue over who is more deserving of state provided accommodation.

In Carlow the council was only too happy to sell off its housing stock without replacing them. Now they have a housing crisis like the rest of the country.

The simple answer would be to build more council estates but like you said they could easily become ghettos. Mixed estates have met with resistance from some quarters.

I've bolded a section there. How does that work then? I come from a family with 6 children. We were raised in a council estate. 4 of us have a recognised trade. As do plenty of our friends who we grew up with.

How does the fact you live in a council house keep you in poverty?

Phoebas

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Agreed pushing people out who earn more money creates much worse problems of ghettoisation, poverty, crime and welfare dependency. The Social and economic cost of all that really isn't worth it.

It just wouldn't be practical to turf people out of social housing once they reach a certain income limit, but when council tenants are on average incomes they should have to pay market rents, like their neighbours. That would also promote social cohesion.

pablo128

Phoebas wrote: »

It just wouldn't be practical to turf people out of social housing once they reach a certain income limit, but when council tenants are on average incomes they should have to pay market rents, like their neighbours. That would also promote social cohesion.

The market rents are currently overheated. They shouldn't be anywhere near as high as they are currently. Then you have the fact that council estates are not as desireable to rent in. And finally the current short supply of rental properties.

Would you live in a council estate while paying full market rent?

fussyonion

I live in a council house and I've never been asked to submit a rent review form.
My rent has increased twice since I've been here, though, despite no changes in our circumstances.

I don't know how I feel about the possibility of council tenants being made to give up their homes and move on, but on the other hand I do think the system is being abused.

I know a girl who grew up in a three-bed council house with her younger brother.
They're now in their mid-twenties and their parents died a couple of years back; the siblings now live in that council house and pay rent.
I always wondered how they "inherited" the home and someone told me it was because their names were down on the rent book.

It seems wrong that they automatically get that house despite not being on a housing list.
They both work, too.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

What would make them less entitled to continue on living in their home now than say you fussy onion?

KERSPLAT!

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What would make them less entitled to continue on living in their home now than say you fussy onion?

I assume the thinking would be different if it were her kids or spouse inheriting her house.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Yeah but if she's working and living in a council house, and these other two were also living in the house and it was their home, then why should they be tossed out? I'd understand if they were living elsewhere and moved back in the council house when their parents died.
I don't know how the council assesses the situation but I presume their income was taken into consideration when the rent was being calculated so why would they not continue on there

KERSPLAT!

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yeah but if she's working and living in a council house, and these other two were also living in the house and it was their home, then why should they be tossed out? I'd understand if they were living elsewhere and moved back in the council house when their parents died.
I don't know how the council assesses the situation but I presume their income was taken into consideration when the rent was being calculated so why would they not continue on there

I agree with you, that probably wasn't clear in my last post

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Sorry K. I was too outraged to even read your post properly

Phoebas

pablo128 wrote: »

The market rents are currently overheated. They shouldn't be anywhere near as high as they are currently. Then you have the fact that council estates are not as desireable to rent in. And finally the current short supply of rental properties.

Would you live in a council estate while paying full market rent?

Everybody else has to deal with market rents even when the market is overheated. Why should a council tenant on the same wages as someone in in the private rental sector get a better deal?

Obviously, the rent charged would take the desirability of the area into account. It should be the same as someone in the private rented sector would pay to rent that property.
And it would still be a better deal because council tenants tend to enjoy much greater security of tenure and much greater certainty about repairs and maintenance.

PMBC

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes is the answer.
Most pay between 8-15 % of there income for the privilege. Reviewed very infrequently.
Any slight issue with the house their on the phone demanding the council come round to fix.

My experience in a rural council both designing and maintaining council housing over nearly twenty years does not support that statement. Some tenants were in houses for thirty year upwards and had never phoned in a complaint. There were people, a small proportion, who complained a lot and often there were social and contributing issues. The vast majority of tenants were 'good people' if I can use that old phrase and at the risk of seeming patronising. Cookers, burning turf again a rural issue, and chimneys were the biggest cause of complaints. 'Dampness' was also reported a lot but in all cases I came across it was condensation due to closing vent windows - very normal - and wall vents. Until recent years there was no (central) heating so bedrooms were very cold.