Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Social housing private estate

Options
  • 26-10-2017 9:23am
    #1
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭


    Hi all,

    A friend of mine recently bought a house in a new estate with 30 odd houses to be built for almost €400,000 each. Before he purchased the house he asked the estate agent was there going to be any social houses in the devlopment and he was told no.

    Because he was misinformed will he have any comeback at all? or is there any action he could take against the agents?

    I told him it is very hard to take anything that an estate agent says as fact and yet again they prove my point.

    Thanks in advance for any advice on this.
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Does your friend realise that the houses can be sold to anyone, buy to let/bought by the council etc. He's buying a house in an estate and will have no say in who his neighbours are or how they behave.


  • Options
    #3
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭DUB142


    Yeah fair point, people buying for buy to let is always a given, but I didnt know that the council would have bought houses in a estate for that price or that they would be able to as people had queued for these for a few days and sold out.


  • Options
    #4
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    DUB142 wrote:
    Yeah fair point, people buying for buy to let is always a given, but I didnt know that the council would have bought houses in a estate for that price or that they would be able to as people had queued for these for a few days and sold out.

    Who the buyers were is irrelevant the point is your friend by virtue of buying in an estate cannot dictate whom his neighbours are. I know a few individuals I would happily never live beside and they have the means to purchase homes in that price range and beyond.


  • Options
    #5
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    So he wants to sue the Estate Agent because he didn't know anything about who owned the neighbouring houses or who they may be sold to in the future?

    I thought he sounded like a bit of prat complaining that he didn't want to live beside social housing but that's really taking the biscuit.

    Tell him if he doesn't want to live beside social housing buy a house for a million or so.


  • Options
    #6
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭cml387


    DUB142 wrote: »
    Yeah fair point, people buying for buy to let is always a given, but I didnt know that the council would have bought houses in a estate for that price or that they would be able to as people had queued for these for a few days and sold out.

    It happens all the time that the council buys houses in private developments, either new or second hand, for people on the housing list.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭DUB142


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    So he wants to sue the Estate Agent because he didn't know anything about who owned the neighbouring houses or who they may be sold to in the future?

    I thought he sounded like a bit of prat complaining that he didn't want to live beside social housing but that's really taking the biscuit.

    Tell him if he doesn't want to live beside social housing buy a house for a million or so.

    Ah sure no need to be judgemental. The main reason why he was annoyed was because he asked the question and he felt he was lied to, but seems to just be a fact now that this happens all the time, I mean councils buying houses in private estates.


  • Options
    #8
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭DUB142


    cml387 wrote: »
    It happens all the time that the council buys houses in private developments, either new or second hand, for people on the housing list.

    Yeah seems to be the norm by the sounds of things.


  • Options
    #9
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    DUB142 wrote: »
    Ah sure no need to be judgemental. The main reason why he was annoyed was because he asked the question and he felt he was lied to, but seems to just be a fact now that this happens all the time, I mean councils buying houses in private estates.

    He may not have been lied too.

    Anyone can buy a house.

    At the time the houses may not have been bought for social housing and at that point and time the estate agent was correct.

    Since then they council have bought them and will turn them into social housing.

    Mod deletion; Offensive remark    , obviously done as he assumes a certain type of people will move in.


  • Options
    #10
    mel123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭mel123


    Im just trying to work out what 'comeback' your friend wants?
    Does he want a refund on the house? Or does he want to try and get a nice big claim off the estate agent?


  • Options
    #11
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭DUB142


    mel123 wrote: »
    Im just trying to work out what 'comeback' your friend wants?
    Does he want a refund on the house? Or does he want to try and get a nice big claim off the estate agent?

    Oh yeas a big fat claim would be nice:rolleyes: He just feelt they were not honest with him... That should be obvious by now, not everyone is looking for a hand out. As others have said it may have been that the agent had not sold any to the council when he had asked them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,316 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    DUB142 wrote: »
    Before he purchased the house he asked the estate agent was there going to be any social houses in the devlopment and he was told no.
    "Mere marketing puff". The only thing that is binding is what is included in the contract - did the contract mention there being no social housing?

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisset_v_Wilkinson also.


  • Options
    #13
    PerryB78
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭PerryB78


    The estate I'm in was built 11 years ago and I'm nearly 10 years here, it was only half finished and when things picked up it's getting completed now. Due to the new rules the builder gave 10% over to social housing, the residents have now found out he has actually given 20%, moving his 10% from another site he has started building on and this estate will be private only. I don't know how the council allowed this but I imagine brown envelopes were involved


  • Options
    #14
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭DUB142


    Victor wrote: »
    "Mere marketing puff". The only thing that is binding is what is included in the contract - did the contract mention there being no social housing?

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisset_v_Wilkinson also.

    Interesting bit of reading. I don’t think it said there would be social housing in the contact but as for saying specifically that there would not be any I have no idea, I’m sure his solicitor would have mentioned it to him if it did.


  • Options
    #15
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    DUB142 wrote:
    Interesting bit of reading. I don’t think it said there would be social housing in the contact but as for saying specifically that there would not be any I have no idea, I’m sure his solicitor would have mentioned it to him if it did.

    If your friend does not wish to live beside someone whom he may consider to be of a lower socio economic class than himself. He may want to reconsider estate .


  • Options
    #16
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,316 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    PerryB78 wrote: »
    The estate I'm in was built 11 years ago and I'm nearly 10 years here, it was only half finished and when things picked up it's getting completed now. Due to the new rules the builder gave 10% over to social housing, the residents have now found out he has actually given 20%, moving his 10% from another site he has started building on and this estate will be private only. I don't know how the council allowed this but I imagine brown envelopes were involved
    It's 10% of the land, not 10% of the properties. they still have to pay for construction.

    Councils are much more likely to take properties where they are grouped so they can be more easily managed, not 10 individual houses in 1 different estates.


  • Options
    #17
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,202 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    DUB142 wrote: »
    Interesting bit of reading. I don’t think it said there would be social housing in the contact but as for saying specifically that there would not be any I have no idea, I’m sure his solicitor would have mentioned it to him if it did.
    I find it hard to imagine that a vendor would ever agree to a contract term which would restrict his freedom to sell other properties to his own best advantage. A purchaser would have to be paying an extroardinarily high premium for the property that he is buying to have any prospect of successfully negotiating the inclusion of a clause restricting or limiting the sale of other properties.


  • Options
    #18
    rondog
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭rondog


    Mod. Offensive remark deleted


  • Options
    #19
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    rondog wrote:
    Wow!!So councils are paying 400k for social housing so someone that never did anything with their life can live in...for free?!!!


    So much wrong with this nonsense comment.


  • Options
    #20
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Builders have no choice but to give a certain % of housing for social housing now. There's no buying their way out of it now.


  • Options
    #21
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    [/B]
    rondog wrote: »
    .MOD DELETION..fo


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,865 ✭✭✭✭January


    [/QUOTE]

    People who live in local authority housing have to pay rent. The house is not free.


  • Options
    #23
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    January wrote:
    People who live in local authority housing have to pay rent. The house is not free.


    Please no place for facts such as yours on Boards.


  • Options
    #24
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    RunDOG

    Your remark here deleted. Pls do not post again on this forum

    NUAC


  • Options
    #25
    DUB142
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭DUB142


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So much wrong with this nonsense comment.

    I did think it was a bit much to pay for social housing as it’s tax payers money. I would imagine the council could build 2 if not 3 homes for that price on council land for people on the waiting list for a social house. Just would seem like a more cost effective way of providing houses for people.


  • Options
    #26
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,202 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    DUB142 wrote: »
    I did think it was a bit much to pay for social housing as it’s tax payers money. I would imagine the council could build 2 if not 3 homes for that price on council land for people on the waiting list for a social house. Just would seem like a more cost effective way of providing houses for people.
    Only if you assume that "council land" is free. But of course it's not.

    Plus, there are social considerations. Are the best outcomes for the community secured in the long term by segregating local authority tenants and private tenants in different estates?


  • Options
    #27
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The problem is not if they are local authority or privately owned.

    Its there is no protection from bad anti social behavior regardless if private or LA.


  • Options
    #28
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    beauf wrote: »
    The problem is not if they are local authority or privately owned.

    Its there is no protection from bad anti social behavior regardless if private or LA.

    Facts of life are you could buy a house in an estate mixed with social housing and have some of the nicest neighbours you'll ever meet on social housing or the estate could be entirely private owned and have a$$holes for neighbours who let their kids and themselves run riot with no consideration for anyone but themselves.

    Yes LA attracts some antisocial behaviour but so do piravtely owned houses so it's not so black and white


  • Options
    #29
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So much wrong with this nonsense comment.

    It's unbelievable how wide spread this view is. Complete ignorance and a lack of understanding of how the system works.


  • Options
    #30
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    No he can't sue. Usually a contract will say that no misreprentation by the agent forms part of the agreement. Though I think the Law Society clamp down on these kids of clauses they're usually there in some shape or form.

    Also, when your friends solicitor received the title deeds and draft contracts, there would have been a condition in the planning permission requesting a number of houses to be allocated for social affordable housing. This should have been raised with your friend by his solicitor at the stage. You can then ask where this housing will be in relation to the house you are buying, but a response is unlikely and rarely definite.

    Like someone else said, you've no idea who the other houses are being sold to and who will be occupying them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    PerryB78 wrote: »
    The estate I'm in was built 11 years ago and I'm nearly 10 years here, it was only half finished and when things picked up it's getting completed now. Due to the new rules the builder gave 10% over to social housing, the residents have now found out he has actually given 20%, moving his 10% from another site he has started building on and this estate will be private only. I don't know how the council allowed this but I imagine brown envelopes were involved

    It's not that it's brown envelope job. The planning permission for the other estate could have requested a certain portion of the estate or other agreement or arrangement to comply with Part V requirements. The other agreement would have been to offer some from another development.

    Builders have an option, they can provide the housing, or make a financial payment in lieu of it, or come to another arrangement. In the boom a lot of builders made the financial payment. I would have expected the council use the money to buy housing elsewhere, but judging by the crisis we're in now, it doesn't seem to be the case!


Advertisement