The glacial progress on the DCC housing list.

Internet Ham

This may be a fairly well trodden spot for Boards but I thought I would lend a tiny bit of perspective on the waiting list for housing at the moment. I find myself to be fortunate enough to be in the top ten places in band one (apparently highest priority) for DCC housing. However in the three months since I have gotten into the top ten spots on the list, I am saddened at the apparent lack of progress, not for myself but for those who are one hundredth or more.

I have moved up one spot in three months. How are they planning to make any progress on these massive lists if someone in my band moves once in three months? Just throwing it out for discussion.

intheclouds

Internet Ham wrote: »

I have moved up one spot in three months. How are they planning to make any progress on these massive lists if someone in my band moves once in three months? Just throwing it out for discussion.

I heard a piece on the radio this morning whereby some TD or counciller is suggesting that the housing waiting lists are being distorted by those who only want rent allowance (as you have to be on a housing list to get rent allowance). This then distorts the real figures for those with a housing need meaning that there is no way of telling how many people are waiting on council at any one point.

His suggestion was to remove the need to be on a housing list from an application for rent allowance.

Internet Ham

intheclouds wrote: »

I heard a piece on the radio this morning whereby some TD or counciller is suggesting that the housing waiting lists are being distorted by those who only want rent allowance (as you have to be on a housing list to get rent allowance). This then distorts the real figures for those with a housing need meaning that there is no way of telling how many people are waiting on council at any one point.

His suggestion was to remove the need to be on a housing list from an application for rent allowance.

That makes perfect sense.

MarkAnthony

Personally I think they should start doubling up. Pop a couple of families in together if the house is large enough and start moving people around as their housing needs change.

For example an adult need a room but there's no reason you couldn't have two adults/couples in two bedrooms and kids to a certain age in bunks in another.

Stheno

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Personally I think they should start doubling up. Pop a couple of families in together if the house is large enough and start moving people around as their housing needs change.

For example an adult need a room but there's no reason you couldn't have two adults/couples in two bedrooms and kids to a certain age in bunks in another.

I think there are child protection issues with such an approach iirc

Internet Ham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Personally I think they should start doubling up. Pop a couple of families in together if the house is large enough and start moving people around as their housing needs change.

For example an adult need a room but there's no reason you couldn't have two adults/couples in two bedrooms and kids to a certain age in bunks in another.

We could save money and just reestablish tenements under that logic.

MarkAnthony

Stheno wrote: »

I think there are child protection issues with such an approach iirc

Fair point. We seriously need to start moving people who've famlies have grown up though.

MarkAnthony

Internet Ham wrote: »

We could save money and just reestablish tenements under that logic.

Excellent idea.

Purpose built small form factor accommodation with shared facilities.

intheclouds

I have an issue with the concept of a council house being for life.

I know someone in a council house who got it after being on the housing list for many years but who subsequently went on to go back to college, get a good degree, a well paying job and is now earning 80k+ a year - but is still living in a council house paying well below market rent.

Why is this person allowed to remain in a council property? They do not have a housing need and earn enough to pay their own way? So they are holding up a property and the taxpayer is subsidising their rent.

Mrs OBumble

MarkAnthony wrote: »

start moving people around as their housing needs change.

This plus lots.

No reason why an old person should be entitled to keep a 3br just because they needed one when they were first allocated a house.

That would move a good few along.

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

I have an issue with the concept of a council house being for life.

I know someone in a council house who got it after being on the housing list for many years but who subsequently went on to go back to college, get a good degree, a well paying job and is now earning 80k+ a year - but is still living in a council house paying well below market rent.

Why is this person allowed to remain in a council property? They do not have a housing need and earn enough to pay their own way? So they are holding up a property and the taxpayer is subsidising their rent.

I believe the rent increases as you earn more. I'm not sure how much though but over the average wage it should be market rate.

Gumbo

The problem is that DCC are not building any new homes on a major level at present. There's 22 in Poppintree due for hand over soon as they have just received their Completion Certs from Building Control but that's one site.

There theres the issue with current stock, theres not enough to go around and when they get destroyed they have to be refurbished. And for the refurbishment they have to go to tender I believe and this all takes time, but that's the way public procurement works and if it was as simple as just appointing Contractor A to do the works, then the public would scream bribe bribe bribe, so due process has to be followed, and due process takes time.

It baffles me sometimes when I see single people being allocated 3 bed houses etc

screamer

If that's slow try saving the deposit needed to buy a house whilst renting privately too. Seriously it's time to realise that social housing is not sustainable and people will have to start fending for themselves.

MarkAnthony

kceire wrote: »

The problem is that DCC are not building any new homes on a major level at present. There's 22 in Poppintree due for hand over soon as they have just received their Completion Certs from Building Control but that's one site.

There theres the issue with current stock, theres not enough to go around and when they get destroyed they have to be refurbished. And for the refurbishment they have to go to tender I believe and this all takes time, but that's the way public procurement works and if it was as simple as just appointing Contractor A to do the works, then the public would scream bribe bribe bribe, so due process has to be followed, and due process takes time.

It baffles me sometimes when I see single people being allocated 3 bed houses etc

That's another thing I don't get - why not keep a staff on board that can go and sort these things? Presumably it was more efficient to do it privately due to woeful management?

MarkAnthony

screamer wrote: »

If that's slow try saving the deposit needed to buy a house whilst renting privately too. Seriously it's time to realise that social housing is not sustainable and people will have to start fending for themselves.

We've tried that - it was pretty terrible for all concerned. There is a need for social housing but it needs to be a stop gap measure, not a long term solution.

Internet Ham

screamer wrote: »

If that's slow try saving the deposit needed to buy a house whilst renting privately too. Seriously it's time to realise that social housing is not sustainable and people will have to start fending for themselves.

I take exception to that. There is certainly a need for it and as much as I would love to be fending for myself, it isn't a realistic possibility for me at the moment.

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I believe the rent increases as you earn more. I'm not sure how much though but over the average wage it should be market rate.

The rent does increase as you earn more but it is still well below private rental market rate.

In the example I used my friends rent is under 700 euro a month for a 3 bed house. An private 2 bed apartment round the corner is renting at 1200 per month.

Internet Ham

intheclouds wrote: »

I have an issue with the concept of a council house being for life.

I know someone in a council house who got it after being on the housing list for many years but who subsequently went on to go back to college, get a good degree, a well paying job and is now earning 80k+ a year - but is still living in a council house paying well below market rent.

Why is this person allowed to remain in a council property? They do not have a housing need and earn enough to pay their own way? So they are holding up a property and the taxpayer is subsidising their rent.

My ex's neighbour is a well known criminal who lives in social housing but was driving a 2015 Merc. The woman a BMW M5. The DCC didn't seem to mind too much. The theory was the super was too scared to report anything or paid off. It's more common than you think too.

screamer

Internet Ham wrote: »

I take exception to that. There is certainly a need for it and as much as I would love to be fending for myself, it isn't a realistic possibility for me at the moment.

Lots of people would love a free house. Lots of people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads rented or otherwise. There's too much reliance on councils to provide social housing and it simply can't be done to provide everyone with a house..... hence the lists get longer. One is a consequence of the other. Exception or not it's just the truth of it.

Internet Ham

screamer wrote: »

Lots of people would love a free house. Lots of people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads rented it otherwise. There's too much reliance on councils to provide social housing and it simply can't be done to provide everyone with a house..... hence the lists get longer. One is a consequence of the other. Exception or not it's just the truth of it.

So your solution is, as I read it, scrap social housing and let everyone fight over the three or four thousand available rental properties at the moment?

screamer

Internet Ham wrote: »

So your solution is, as I read it, scrap social housing and let everyone fight over the three or four thousand available rental properties at the moment?

No it's not to scrap it but it needs to be phased out to the point where it is no longer reliance upon it as a means to get a house. like any change it will take time but there is a serious over reliance and expectation that a house will be provided by councils so really it disincentivises some people from even trying to provide for themselves. This by the way OP is not aimed at you it's the system that's broken and needs an overhaul.

Mrs OBumble

screamer wrote: »

Lots of people would love a free house. Lots of people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads rented or otherwise. There's too much reliance on councils to provide social housing and it simply can't be done to provide everyone with a house..... hence the lists get longer. One is a consequence of the other. Exception or not it's just the truth of it.

There will always be come people who cannot house themselves.

Some are unlucky: they get sick or injured, or are born with a disability or limited intellectual capacity, which limits their ability to earn money thru working.

Some are just lazy: they are well-able to provide for themselves, but cannot be arsed doing so.

Some are bad, and clock up such impressive criminal records that no one is going to hire them anyways.

Pretty much everyone agrees that we need to look after the first group. We hate housing the third group - but the alternative is to give them ever-more incentives to steal etc.

Ideally we would like to not help the 2nd group. But the challenge is that it can be hard to distinguish them from the 1st group (eg is X a chronic alcoholic who can't keep a job because he cannot be bothered going straight - or is it because he was abused while growing up so deserves help).

So we end up helping some who don't deserve it, because not doing so would mean hurting some who do.

Hence - we have social housing.

newacc2015

intheclouds wrote: »

I have an issue with the concept of a council house being for life.


Why is this person allowed to remain in a council property? They do not have a housing need and earn enough to pay their own way? So they are holding up a property and the taxpayer is subsidising their rent.

Every few years a council decides to pawn off their housing stock for a heavily discounted price to the occupants. So someone living in a €200k house gets it for €60-80k. They end up living there after all their children move out. The logically thing would be to move them into a complex of 1 bed apartments built for ageing people eg lifts, access for wheelchairs etc.

Alan Kelly now thinks their should be another round of pawning off council houses to save councils on maintenance cost, as the tenants will now own them. I know someone who used to do a ton of a work for a certain Dublin authority. They are pretty much refusing to do any external maintenance on houses and take an age on internal maintenance.

Local authorities should be banned from selling housing stock. Allowing tenants to buy their homes is nothing more than trying to buy votes off low income voters.

Gatling

Suppose op depends on how long you've actually been waiting on the list,and if people become more of a priority than you

Idbatterim

I have an issue with the concept of a council house being for life.

I know someone in a council house who got it after being on the housing list for many years but who subsequently went on to go back to college, get a good degree, a well paying job and is now earning 80k+ a year - but is still living in a council house paying well below market rent.

Why is this person allowed to remain in a council property? They do not have a housing need and earn enough to pay their own way? So they are holding up a property and the taxpayer is subsidising their rent.

so you dont go out, better yourself and you are expected to pay through the nose like hundreds of thousands in Dublin, so others can get the same place for virtually nothing?

Earn enough to pay their own way, yeah at 80k gross, that person comes out with just under 51k, I think its safe to say that at 29k in income tax, that person is more than paying their "fair share" versus others who arent contributing 29c a year in income taxes...

avalon68

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

This plus lots.

No reason why an old person should be entitled to keep a 3br just because they needed one when they were first allocated a house.

That would move a good few along.

Its not really that clear cut though - if someone has lived for most of their life in a community, I don't think it would be right to turf them out just like that - forcing them to leave life long friends and support networks - most people would find it devastating to be forced out of their home. The solution is to build more houses/apartments - not to be playing musical houses with people.

Mrs OBumble

avalon68 wrote: »

Its not really that clear cut though - if someone has lived for most of their life in a community, I don't think it would be right to turf them out just like that - forcing them to leave life long friends and support networks - most people would find it devastating to be forced out of their home. The solution is to build more houses/apartments - not to be playing musical houses with people.

Actually, it is that clear cut. It's not "their home". It's a house that the government has provided because they cannot meet their own needs. It is simply quite wrong to set up an expectation that this is a house-for-life whether you still need it or not.

People would not be "turfed out of their community". They would simply be provided with a more appropriately-sized property in the same community, or one very close. (or even one far away, if that was there preference).

stoplooklisten

The re-furbishing nonsense needs to stop, it's holding up the whole show. They should be rented bare and let the tenant furnish them themselves. Leave the kitchen and bathroom fixtures. There is enough second hand trade to furnish the house for 100 euro.

bigpink

Whats does getting a house from the council mean?
Also how do you get on it?

Gatling

You have to be accessed as having a long term housing need

Mrs OBumble

stoplooklisten wrote: »

The re-furbishing nonsense needs to stop, it's holding up the whole show. They should be rented bare and let the tenant furnish them themselves. Leave the kitchen and bathroom fixtures. There is enough second hand trade to furnish the house for 100 euro.

They are rented bare.

The refurbishing is about making sure the electrics and plumbing are safe, and repairing structural damage (holes in walls, missing doors, broken windows etc) - and removing drug contamination.

stoplooklisten

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They are rented bare.

The refurbishing is about making sure the electrics and plumbing are safe, and repairing structural damage (holes in walls, missing doors, broken windows etc) - and removing drug contamination.

Ah, ok. I was under the impression for some reason that furniture was provided.


Where are the tenants that cause all this damage gone and have they paid for it?

MarkAnthony

stoplooklisten wrote: »

... and have they paid for it?

Thanks Stoploo... I needed a good laugh.

No they won't have paid for it. Once you're bottlefeeding (and I'm in NO WAY aiming that at the OP or the majority of people in social housing) you have to be looked after either way. It's one of my biggest bug bears that people aren't taught personal responsibility.

Gatling

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Ah, ok. I was under the impression for some reason that furniture was provided.


Where are the tenants that cause all this damage gone and have they paid for it?

You get it bare but you can get a grant from the local cwo to provide for furniture and white goods .

Probably moved to another council house ,transfer or evicted and they rarely ever have to pay for any damage

4ensic15

Skerries wrote: »

what's the difference?

The birth record are the notes the hospital makes. The birth cert is the document in the GRO recording the fact of birth and names of parents etc. The birth record is key for getting social housing.

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

The birth record are the notes the hospital makes. The birth cert is the document in the GRO recording the fact of birth and names of parents etc. The birth record is key for getting social housing.

No you just need a birth cert, passport ,pps number and an address

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

No you just need a birth cert, passport ,pps number and an address

No. You need a birth record marked H.O.

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

No. You need a birth record marked H.O.

No my wife worked for a few months in a housing department no need for a birth record at all .
Passports ,pps,numbers ,birth certs ,bank statements, and an address is what your asked for been through the process myself

Mrs OBumble

Gatling wrote: »

No my wife worked for a few months in a housing department no need for a birth record at all .
Passports ,pps,numbers ,birth certs ,bank statements, and an address is what your asked for been through the process myself

I'm pretty sure that different councils ask for different items - you are likely both right in your own neighbourhoods.

The birth record one sounds strange - what if someone was born overseas or born at home or whatever. But it may be enforced in some areas to fix particular problems.

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

No my wife worked for a few months in a housing department no need for a birth record at all .
Passports ,pps,numbers ,birth certs ,bank statements, and an address is what your asked for been through the process myself

Did you get a house? It is impossible without the birth record marked H.O. If it is not marked H.O. forget it..

athtrasna

Let's not get hung up on a detail. Birth cert or birth record is not the reason for the delays on the housing list.

Gatling

athtrasna wrote: »

Let's not get hung up on a detail. Birth cert or birth record is not the reason for the delays on the housing list.

Apologies for the off topicness.