Homelessness on the rise

Vizzy

Vizzy wrote: »

Joe Duffy - sensationalist prat.

I heard the interview myself and the woman said she sold the house last October ( not a year ago, but anyway :rolleyes:).

Not condoning the delay, but there must be some reason why the house is not yet tenanted..

Obviously it’s not in the right area, near Mammy, daddy, school, too small/ big/draughty, etc...

Vizzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obviously it’s not in the right area, near Mammy, daddy, school, too small/ big/draughty, etc...

In fairness it probably isn't that, although it could be.

More likely to be that it doesn't comply with building regs even though it is only 10 years old, or it may have been bought for a specific family with particular needs (disability possibly ) and needs alterations

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Obviously it’s not in the right area, near Mammy, daddy, school, too small/ big/draughty, etc...

You really believe the council couldn't find a willing tenant in 9 months?

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Obviously it’s not in the right area, near Mammy, daddy, school, too small/ big/draughty, etc...

You didn't hear the show. The cc hasn't housed anyone in the new houses bought almost a year ago. The point is that they don't appear to have been offered to anyone.

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

More likely to be that it doesn't comply with building regs even though it is only 10 years old, or it may have been bought for a specific family with particular needs (disability possibly ) and needs alterations

The council won't buy a property that doesn't meet the regs. It's not just one house. They bought several houses at the same time. No work is being carried out.

Vizzy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The council won't buy a property that doesn't meet the regs. It's not just one house. They bought several houses at the same time. No work is being carried out.

Yes they will.

The new regs put ridiculous obligations on anyone who buys a house that they want to let, but they still need to be met.


BTW, there were apparently 4 houses bought but there was no mention of whether works were being carried out

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

BTW, there were apparently 4 houses bought but there was no mention of whether works were being carried out

Yes there was. Listen to the podcast

Vizzy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes there was. Listen to the podcast

Don't need to - I heard it live

Hitman3000

Vizzy wrote:

The new regs put ridiculous obligations on anyone who buys a house that they want to let, but they still need to be met.

Actually those regs are in relation to HAP. They don't apply to social housing.

Vizzy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually those regs are in relation to HAP. They don't apply to social housing.

So is HAP not social housing?

News to me

Hitman3000

Vizzy wrote:

So is HAP not social housing?

HAP is a payment. My brother let's a house through this scheme. It's his house, he is the owner, it's not social housing. If the tenant misses their share of the rent to the council my brother gets no rent. Social housing is totally different.

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

Don't need to - I heard it live

So did I. You sure you didn't hear anything about renovations? You sure the lady didn't mention that there seems to be no renovation?

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

The new regs put ridiculous obligations on anyone who buys a house that they want to let, but they still need to be met.

I've sold properly to dcc before. It takes twice as long & I can assure you that they will not buy houses that have anything wrong with them. Even on a private sale your solicitor won't let you or will do anything in their power to stop you buying a house with anything wrong with it. Bank won't loan a penny for it either

Vizzy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

HAP is a payment. My brother let's a house through this scheme. It's his house, he is the owner, it's not social housing. If the tenant misses their share of the rent to the council my brother gets no rent. Social housing is totally different.

You need to check the Dept site in relation to HAP.

To qualify you need to be in need of social housing support ie on a Council list.

Hitman3000

Vizzy wrote:

To qualify you need to be in need of social housing support ie on a Council list.

You need to be on the list but a council house is not subject to a HAP payment. Mayne do some checking yourself.

Vizzy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've sold properly to dcc before. It takes twice as long & I can assure you that they will not buy houses that have anything wrong with them. Even on a private sale your solicitor won't let you or will do anything in their power to stop you buying a house with anything wrong with it. Bank won't loan a penny for it either

Know nothing about DCC.
You say it takes twice as long.

Twice as long as what?

Of course you can buy a substandard house, otherwise half the houses in the country wouldn't get sold!!

Councils don't need to go to a bank, it is financed by the Department so long as it represents good value for money

Wanderer78

Vizzy wrote:

Councils don't need to go to a bank, it is financed by the Department so long as it represents good value for money

Would some sort of financial institution be backing the finance?

Vizzy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You need to be on the list but a council house is not subject to a HAP payment. Mayne do some checking yourself.

Check the Dept site- HAP is just one way of providing social housing

As I said earlier, everyone in a HAP house is on a Council list ie one of the 99000 who are looking for housing.

Are you suggesting that they should be excluded from the figures?

Vizzy

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Would some sort of financial institution be backing the finance?

Housing Agency - not sure where they get the finance

Wanderer78

Vizzy wrote:

Housing Agency - not sure where they get the finance

Thank you, that would be interesting to know

Hitman3000

Vizzy wrote:

Are you suggesting that they should be excluded from the figures?

Nope, but private dwellings are not social housing.

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

Twice as long as what?

Anyone who has sold or bought a house to the council will tell you that the sale takes twice as long as selling to a private buyer. Usually over 6 months. This isn't that they move slowly but because they don't buy substandard houses. They dot every i and cross every t. I can guarantee that the houses bought in Cork were in perfect condition. Only 10 years old but regardless the council don't buy property with structural defects. If there is a hairline crack where two plasterboard meet it has to be fully inspected.

Gatling

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You really believe the council couldn't find a willing tenant in 9 months?

It's cork home of the excuse the Garden isn't big enough for a trampoline excuse for refusals amongst others

Vizzy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Nope, but private dwellings are not social housing.

OK, I'll simplify it for you, people who would normally need to be housed by the Council are now housed in HAP ( and a large proportion are happy to stay there).
Are these people social housing applicants or not?

Cos if they are ( and they are particularly of the 99000) then HAP is social housing

Vizzy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Anyone who has sold or bought a house to the council will tell you that the sale takes twice as long as selling to a private buyer. Usually over 6 months. This isn't that they move slowly but because they don't buy substandard houses. They dot every i and cross every t. I can guarantee that the houses bought in Cork were in perfect condition. Only 10 years old but regardless the council don't buy property with structural defects. If there is a hairline crack where two plasterboard meet it has to be fully inspected.

Not suggesting that there are structural issues or any hairline cracks.

Simple fact is that if a house represents good value for money(even with extra works), then the Council would be foolish not to buy

Vizzy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The houses in the scheme are not social housing despite your claim to the contrary. They are still owned by a private landlord.

Doesn't matterwho owns them, they are still tenanted by social housing applicants.

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

Simple fact is that if a house represents good value for money(even with extra works), then the Council would be foolish not to buy

Foolish maybe but they don't buy them. They have to be perfect. This particular house passed two different inspections by two different engineers. The council brought several of these houses at the same time. Not a single one has a tenant. Remember they are 10 year old houses. No work required. Have a look at the photos of the house on liveline twitter account.
This is clearly a case of the council just sitting on these houses. I bet anyone a tenner that all four will have tenants within days now that it is out in the open

Hitman3000

Vizzy wrote:

Doesn't matterwho owns them, they are still tenanted by social housing applicants.

I never disputed the status of the tenants just the dwellings status.

Vizzy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I never disputed the status of the tenants just the dwellings status.

So, if they are tenanted by social housing tenants, are they social houses ?

Hitman3000

Vizzy wrote:

So, if they are tenanted by social housing tenants, are they social houses ?

No, they are not social houses. You can claim otherwise all you want but you would still be wrong. Goodnight.