Allegations regarding housing theft...

Andrea B.

http://connachttribune.ie/staff-alleged-to-have-abused-system-to-get-council-homes-for-themselves-040/


If true, it is theft and abuse of position.

This is not just about pushing a name up a list.
It is alleged that they are indirectly making profit and denying homes from those for whom they were intended!!

We, the citizens, pay these employees and put a large amount of trust in them.
We also pay for these houses.

If false, it is a damming slur on these employees.

Surely it would be a very simple process to find out if this is true?

I saw that. Shocking if it is true and poor controls and processes if it went through.

http://connachttribune.ie/staff-alleged-to-have-abused-system-to-get-council-homes-for-themselves-040/
Longer article.

Andrea B.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I saw that. Shocking if it is true and poor controls and processes if it went through.

http://connachttribune.ie/staff-alleged-to-have-abused-system-to-get-council-homes-for-themselves-040/
Longer article.

Thanks. I have updated.

Your Face

Even if true, no-one will be held accountable.

Mrs OBumble

Likely more to it than meets the eye.

The allegations are about affordable houses, not allocated social houses. Towards the end of the boom, I've heard that the councils couldn't sell some of the affordable (sic) stock because 60% of market value was still too high for people who met the income limits.

Andrea B.

The allegations are about affordable houses, not allocated social houses. Towards the end of the boom, I've heard that the councils couldn't sell some of the affordable (sic) stock because 60% of market value was still too high for people who met the income limits.

Do you know if it mean that they then became available to PS employees on a preferential basis, even if they had their own properties?

youngrun

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Likely more to it than meets the eye.

The allegations are about affordable houses, not allocated social houses. Towards the end of the boom, I've heard that the councils couldn't sell some of the affordable (sic) stock because 60% of market value was still too high for people who met the income limits.

Quite possible. And whether due process or an open sale process for example was followed may take some investigating .

Very easy to put out allegations, and as we know from other stories in the news less easy to defend and can take time to get the real story.

Whereisgalway

Galway City Council is corrupt from the top down, from what I know this is only the tip of iceberg, plenty more scandals to come out of there

marklazarcovic

Let's face it guys,it's Ireland,where power and influence can be used for profit at the cost of the more needy it always has been, sometimes they just take a while to be found out or exposed, usually because to out one would lead to a far bigger exposè

Mrs OBumble

Andrea B. wrote: »

Do you know if it mean that they then became available to PS employees on a preferential basis, even if they had their own properties?

No idea.

I'd guess there was likely no official process laid out for what to do if the situation arose.

ben.schlomo

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Galway City Council is corrupt from the top down, from what I know this is only the tip of iceberg, plenty more scandals to come out of there

Why not share what you know then, you never quit ranting and raving about gcc.

Whereisgalway

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Why not share what you know then, you never quit ranting and raving about gcc.

Getting a bit personal

StonedRaider

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Galway City Council is corrupt from the top down, from what I know this is only the tip of iceberg, plenty more scandals to come out of there

Helped my cousin build back in 2009. Site given to him by family. Some amount of hoops to jump through for planning. It was suggested that certain people needed certain amount of 'envelopes'.
Surprised how things changed then

ben.schlomo

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Getting a bit personal

Must have you mistaken with somebody else who constantly whinges about the council, my sincere apologies.

Andrea B.

StonedRaider wrote: »

Helped my cousin build back in 2009. Site given to him by family. Some amount of hoops to jump through for planning. It was suggested that certain people needed certain amount of 'envelopes'.
Surprised how things changed then

Surely just because something is "suggested" does not make it fact?
Was a name and method given?

rgace

I would love some US style dawn raids and arrests, these types feel they are untouchable in this country

Andrea B.

A bit more of same.......but then it all goes quiet again...
http://connachttribune.ie/galway-city-council-house-at-centre-of-whistleblower-claim-is-up-for-rent-002/

Red_Wake

A cautionary tale of why social housing is not something the state should get involved in.

xckjoo

Red_Wake wrote: »

A cautionary tale of why social housing is not something the state should get involved in.

How do you figure that?

Mrs OBumble

Red_Wake wrote: »

A cautionary tale of why social housing is not something the state should get involved in.

What should happen instead for people who cannot house themselves?

rgace

More detail in the Sunday Business Post today. House at 95 Boireann Beag in Roscam sold to then GCC head of I.T., Robert Curley for €220,613 in 2007.

The salary scale for the head of IT was between €60K and €80K at the time.

The council has confirmed 63 people were given affordable houses under the scheme and "estimated" one other staff member had gotten one.

Andrea B.

Read that also.
Sickening. Wonder what the taxpayer funded salary is now?

Mrs OBumble

rgace wrote: »

The council has confirmed 63 people were given affordable houses under the scheme and "estimated" one other staff member had gotten one.

Just to be clear: under affordable housing, no one was given a house. They were given the opportunity to buy a house at a percentage of the market rate, with some conditions about re-sale.

Just before the crash in 2008, councils in high property value areas faced a real problem: even with the discounted purchase price, people on salaries low enough to qualify for affordable housing simply could not afford to pay the prices.

I'd expect that this is NOT the only instance around the country of this problem.

Don't forget, many are waiting over a decade on these lists. Giving the benefit of the doubt without more info

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't forget, many are waiting over a decade on these lists. Giving the benefit of the doubt without more info

No one's arguing that.

But many of the people on the lists simply could not afford to buy a so-called "affordable house", so the whole scheme (which was stood down in 2011 - more info here) was no use to them.


The bit I don't know about is whether local authorities could switch houses between being social, voluntary and affordable housing, if the demand changed after the the initial decision had been made. I suspect they couldn't, but don't have any definite info about it.

TerrorFirmer

It's now being rented out which is the worst part I think. The guy in question already had a home when he bought that one back in 2007.

GerardKeating

rgace wrote: »

More detail in the Sunday Business Post today. House at 95 Boireann Beag in Roscam sold to then GCC head of I.T., Robert Curley for €220,613 in 2007.

By that time, some of the "affordable" homes were more expensive than the open market price for the same estates, to be fair, the story should also indicate what real discount (if any) the purchaser got for the house,

rgace wrote: »

The salary scale for the head of IT was between €60K and €80K at the time.

That is/was with in the salary guide lines for married people at the time.

rgace wrote: »

The council has confirmed 63 people were given affordable houses under the scheme and "estimated" one other staff member had gotten one.

Council staff were not excluded from the schemes, if the met the salary guidelines, they were entitled to apply.

rgace

GerardKeating wrote: »

By that time, some of the "affordable" homes were more expensive than the open market price for the same estates, to be fair, the story should also indicate what real discount (if any) the purchaser got for the house,



That is/was with in the salary guide lines for married people at the time.



Council staff were not excluded from the schemes, if the met the salary guidelines, they were entitled to apply.

According to the article I read, it was not based on income but rather on if the mortgage payments exceeded 35% of your net income.

I assume that means mortgage payments on a non discounted house. I would find it odd if he bought the house without a discount to the open market value, otherwise he would not have bothered to purchase through the scheme

Whatever happened, the property was purchased, not stolen, thread title is misleading

Mrs OBumble

rgace wrote: »

According to the article I read, it was not based on income but rather on if the mortgage payments exceeded 35% of your net income.

I assume that means mortgage payments on a non discounted house.

Nope.

People were only allowed to buy affordable houses if their income was high enough so that the cost of mortgage on the affordable house was within the limits.

rgace wrote: »

I would find it odd if he bought the house without a discount to the open market value, otherwise he would not have bothered to purchase through the scheme

He may have actually been doing the council a favour, by helping them get rid of a property which they were required to sell but couldn't find an eligible buyer for. I don't know if this is the case - all I'm saying is that it's possible, and I do know that things like this happened around the country.

rgace

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Nope.

People were only allowed to buy affordable houses if their income was high enough so that the cost of mortgage on the affordable house was within the limits.

A person was eleigible for an affordable house as long as the mortgage payments on the full market value of the house would exceed 35 percent of their after tax income. So they would be sold the house at a discounted price which brought their mortgage payments under 35 percent of their income after tax.

Yes or nope?

Obviously, they would have to be able to afford the mortgage payments also.

Andrea B.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever happened, the property was purchased, not stolen, thread title is misleading

Agreed. Will let mods adjust as they see fit.
Situation smells though and if a case that they evaded correct payment due to position and/or insider knowledge let it be changed back.

Mrs OBumble

rgace wrote: »

A person was eleigible for an affordable house as long as the mortgage payments on the full market value of the house would exceed 35 percent of their after tax income. So they would be sold the house at a discounted price which brought their mortgage payments under 35 percent of their income after tax.

Yes or nope?

Obviously, they would have to be able to afford the mortgage payments also.

Nope.

It's all in the link I provided earlier.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/help_with_buying_a_home/affordable_housing.html

A person had to be
1) eligible for social housing, AND
2) eligible for affordable housing (the first 35% criteria), AND
3) able to afford the affordable house (the second 35% criteria: " subject to repayments being no more than 35% of the household's net income after tax and social insurance (PRSI)."

I've been told (don't have evidence) that the third point was sticky for lots of potential applicants: as house prices rose, so did the amount they would have to pay to service a loan. So affordable houses became unaffordable, and thus empty.

rgace

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Nope.

It's all in the link I provided earlier.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/help_with_buying_a_home/affordable_housing.html

A person had to be
1) eligible for social housing, AND
2) eligible for affordable housing (the first 35% criteria), AND
3) able to afford the affordable house (the second 35% criteria: " subject to repayments being no more than 35% of the household's net income after tax and social insurance (PRSI)."

I've been told (don't have evidence) that the third point was sticky for lots of potential applicants: as house prices rose, so did the amount they would have to pay to service a loan. So affordable houses became unaffordable, and thus empty.

I am not sure what you are saying nope to.