Social Housing - Rent Means Test

Diceicle

Seeing more social housing thread of late - so whats one more.....

Arguments around Social Housing (SH) tend to follow a fairly identifiable pattern -

• someone says 'free house';
• someone else says 'not free house its means tested'

and so on.

I would like to know though, preferably from current and former SH tenants - how enforced or pro-active are we about this means test?
Do you have to send a P60 in every year?

If you're shelf-stacking in Tesco when you first get your home do they then require you to submit proof of earnings as you work your way up to Area Manager (for example)?

Or is it as I suspect that once you get the home nobody bothers you for the rest of your life and you're paying a pittance for a property?

zell12

Yes it's a rigorous yearly review.
Rent is 15-20% of income, min ~€30pw to max ~€200pw

steddyeddy

Here's an even better idea. The people who start these threads complaining about the dole and such are clearly unhappy with their lives, their lot and their lifestyle. Why don't you and your ilk go out and find a job you're happy in and work towards an income you're happy with. Better yet you could even try the dole. I don't know about you but the definition of life satisfaction isn't about being on the dole. When I was doing my PhD I was on fairly low money compared to a lifestyle I could have had on rent allowance combined with the dole. That wasn't the point though. The point was that I was working towards a lifestyle I was going to enjoy. Sitting there focusing on what people on the low sum of money that is the dole were doing would be pointless.

Find a better job, happier marriage and better life and I guarantee you'll stop worrying about people on the dole.

Ubbquittious

At this point I think it would be worth handing out free houses to dole-drawers just purely for the sake of pissing off the dole bashers

El Weirdo

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

steddyeddy

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

/thread.

Padraig Mor

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

And what happens if the tenants don't pay their rent? Are they turfed out, or are they left to stay on rent free for years on end?

Diceicle

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

That's good information. Thanks.

Diceicle

steddyeddy wrote: »

Here's an even better idea. The people who start these threads complaining about the dole and such are clearly unhappy with their lives, their lot and their lifestyle. Why don't you and your ilk go out and find a job you're happy in and work towards an income you're happy with. Better yet you could even try the dole. I don't know about you but the definition of life satisfaction isn't about being on the dole. When I was doing my PhD I was on fairly low money compared to a lifestyle I could have had on rent allowance combined with the dole. That wasn't the point though. The point was that I was working towards a lifestyle I was going to enjoy. Sitting there focusing on what people on the low sum of money that is the dole were doing would be pointless.

Find a better job, happier marriage and better life and I guarantee you'll stop worrying about people on the dole.

Better still - we could try and fix a broken system.

rob316

The houses are not free. Subsidized? yes but not free. Its about 15% of your income you pay. Every December you must fill in and return a detailed rent review form.

Bubbaclaus

zell12 wrote: »

Yes it's a rigorous yearly review.
Rent is 15-20% of income, min ~€30pw to max ~€200pw

Nice cushy number for those that can get it.

My rent is currently 35% of my net income and that's for one room in a shared house!

Diceicle

Padraig Mor wrote: »

And what happens if the tenants don't pay their rent? Are they turfed out, or are they left to stay on rent free for years on end?

Councils are currently owed €65,000,000 in arrears so it would appear the approach varies at best.

Council tenants owe €65m in unpaid rent

_Kaiser_

steddyeddy wrote: »

/thread.

.. Not quite, because the arrears can just keep on building and evictions are rare.

The problem with social housing (and welfare in general) is that it doesn't encourage people to better their situations beyond a certain point. After that point, the costs spike hugely and suddenly once they pass whatever low threshold.

Welfare and indeed social housing should be there for those who need it in tough times, not a low rent house for life.

Graces7

Diceicle wrote: »

Better still - we could try and fix a broken system.

Depends what has broken it? And on your attitude to the broken people who need it.

As the OP etc show here, there is astounding ignorance re basics.

Graces7

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

.. Not quite, because the arrears can just keep on building and evictions are rare.

The problem with social housing (and welfare in general) is that it doesn't encourage people to better their situations beyond a certain point. After that point, the costs spike hugely and suddenly once they pass whatever low threshold.

Welfare and indeed social housing should be there for those who need it in tough times, not a low rent house for life.[/QUOTE]

Please read the thread? You have facts wrong

Diceicle

rob316 wrote: »

The houses are not free. Subsidized? yes but not free. Its about 15% of your income you pay. Every December you must fill in and return a detailed rent review form.

Thanks - I'm aware working tenants pay below market rates/nominal amount - if they're working - but it would technically be a free house if you're receiving free money from the state at the end of the day.

Diceicle

Graces7 wrote: »

Depends what has broken it? And on your attitude to the broken people who need it.

As the OP etc show here, there is astounding ignorance re basics.

I'm just asking a question and objectively taking on facts as they're presented. I'm open to being corrected. You've got a bit of an attitude.

rob316

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Nice cushy number for those that can get it.

My rent is currently 35% of my net income and that's for one room in a shared house!

There's a housing list feel free to add your name to it.

Beta Ray Bill

Diceicle wrote: »

Seeing more social housing thread of late - so whats one more.....

Arguments around Social Housing (SH) tend to follow a fairly identifiable pattern -

• someone says 'free house';
• someone else says 'not free house its means tested'

and so on.

I would like to know though, preferably from current and former SH tenants - how enforced or pro-active are we about this means test?
Do you have to send a P60 in every year?

If you're shelf-stacking in Tesco when you first get your home do they then require you to submit proof of earnings as you work your way up to Area Manager (for example)?

Or is it as I suspect that once you get the home nobody bothers you for the rest of your life and you're paying a pittance for a property?

The problem isn't social housing itself. There has to be a net to catch people that aren't doing to well.

There are 2 problems as I see it:
1: Said net is to coarse. There are people deliberately banging out lots of kids to get a free house off the council. It should be done on a first come, first served basis with means testing. You shouldn't be bumped up the ladder because you've had a bunch of kids. Wait til you have the house, then have the kids.
It's also extremely sexist, a single man has absolutely no chance of getting a council house.
2: Council estates are kips, name me one council estate that is a good area. Generally speaking they are housing a lot of people that don't work and have many kids. A lot of the parents (Not all) are not great parents (and how can they be when they've got 4+ kids to look after). This breeds serious social/anti-social/crime issues.
This begs the question, what kind of people would want to live in a place like that?

The councils used to build estates but that's been stopped as the estates were a disaster and it actually works out cheaper for them to go to the market to buy a 2nd hand house.
These end up being proxy council estates IE the council owns or is paying for rent for at least 40% of the residents living in an estate.
Dublin's latest Proxy Council estate (Clongriffen) is already on it's way to sh*thole central. Gangs of local youths vandalising Trains and the train station is only the begining

Social housing should only be for those who cannot work or have a serious impairment or are trying to go back to college to study, not people who are happy to work in a local shop there whole life doing 15 hours a week on min wage.

Just to add to this, Pubs in council estates are busiest on weekdays that the Dole is paid out. What does that say?

Bubbaclaus

And lets not forget a lot of the 'income' in these situations is a welfare handout from the state. They are simply giving the taxpayer back 15% of the money the taxpayer just gave to them and claiming they have paid that themselves.

Diceicle

rob316 wrote: »

There's a housing list feel free to add your name to it.

income thresholds?

Hitman3000

I rented a local authority house from 1999 to 2004. My circumstances and income improved during that time. My last weekly rent was 114 euro in 2004 before I left based on a % of my wages and a flat amount due to my wife working. We had a rent review every year requiring proof of earnings to be supplied. If not the rent was increased by 10% on the previous years figures. My mortgage now is 640 a month.

CrankyHaus

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

But people don't get removed if their income increases right?
The just move up the rent scale, all the way to the maximum and then stay there.

I dealt with an engineer earning around €80,000 who was in social housing (administered by a housing agency). When he had come to Ireland he earned far less and got on social housing but was never removed when his circumstances improved.

No hard feelings, the man was a hard working contributing member of society. However it seems perverse to have many people earning less than him subsidising his housing while facing the vagaries of the private rental market themselves.

Diceicle

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I rented a local authority house from 1999 to 2004. My circumstances and income improved during that time. My last weekly rent was 114 euro in 2004 before I left based on a % of my wages and a flat amount due to my wife working. We had a rent review every year requiring proof of earnings to be supplied. If not the rent was increased by 10% on the previous years figures. My mortgage now is 640 a month.

Thanks.
Am I taking you up wrong or did you have to leave as you earned too much?

Bubbaclaus

rob316 wrote: »

There's a housing list feel free to add your name to it.

Nice idea, but unfortunately in my stupidity all the hard work i put in in my education and career up to this point has put me above the income threshold.

I'm one of those mugs that pays 35% of my income for a room in a house I'm never in because i spend over 50 hours a week working.

Hitman3000

grahambo wrote:

Just to add to this, Pubs in council estates are busiest on weekdays that the Dole is paid out. What does that say?

What council estates in Ireland have Pubs?

zell12

Diceicle wrote: »

Thanks.
Am I taking you up wrong or did you have to leave as you earned too much?

You simply cannot earn too much in social housing.

Hitman3000

Diceicle wrote:

Thanks. Am I taking you up wrong or did you have to leave as you earned too much?

No I left when I had enough saved to buy my own home. However I had made a lot of friends in the area I lived in as had my children tough leaving but it was our choice. I would not like to see a situation where people were forced to leave their home just because their income had improved. Charge them a market rent based on circumstance.

rob316

CrankyHaus wrote: »

But people don't get removed if their income increases right?
The just move up the rent scale, all the way to the maximum and then stay there.

I dealt with an engineer earning around €80,000 who was in social housing (administered by a housing agency). When he had come to Ireland he earned far less and got on social housing but was never removed when his circumstances improved.

No hard feelings, the man was a hard working contributing member of society. However it seems perverse to have many people earning less than him subsidising his housing while facing the vagaries of the private rental market themselves.

Maybe the man bought the house.

I'm in a council house the last 8 years, I'll be moving soon and buying a house. Why? because I want a house, with a garden and more bedrooms. I am massively grateful for the council home I got in a city centre block full of good hard working tenants.

Why would you remove someone because their circumstance improved? what if they were removed and lost their high paying job then? Whatever hogwash your reading there isn't many people on €80-€100k willing living in a council house.

Beta Ray Bill

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What council estates in Ireland have Pubs?

Edenmore - Concorde
Kilbarrack - Foxhound and Madigans
Donaghmede - Donaghmede Inn <= Obviously not all of Donaghmede is council estate (In fact a lot was bought back from the council)
Darndale - Newtown House and Martins
Ballymun - Many
Finglas - Many <= Obviously not all of Finglas is council estate
Jobstown Inn - Jobstown
etc
etc

I don't know many council estates on the south side of the city.

But the absolute best of the lot is the Furry Bog in White church
I think the Viper owns that bar, it's a scary place.
I went in there a few times and I was very nervous in there.

CrankyHaus

rob316 wrote: »

Maybe the man bought the house.

I'm in a council house the last 8 years, I'll be moving soon and buying a house. Why? because I want a house, with a garden and more bedrooms. I am massively grateful for the council home I got in a city centre block full of good hard working tenants.

Why would you remove someone because their circumstance improved? what if they were removed and lost their high paying job then? Whatever hogwash your reading there isn't many people on €80-€100k willing living in a council house.

This isn't hogwash I read. It's something I encountered personally. The man had not bought the home.

I agree that such circumstances are rare, although we cannot know how rare. I agree that removing someone from the list in such cases may be bad for a lot of reasons. However giving subsidised houses to people earning twice the average full time wage is a poor way to spend the social housing budget and not fair on the lower earners subsidising it.

Perhaps an incentivised home purchase scheme may be best to move such people onto the property ladder and provide a social housing space to someone in greater need.

Best of luck with your future purchase.

Hitman3000

grahambo wrote:

I don't know many council estates on the south side of the city.

I just looked at the Foxhound in Kilbarrack on Google maps. It's looks like a nice area, do you mean the council estates are near pubs. There is a logic to having a pub near a large population whether it's private or council housing.

El Weirdo

CrankyHaus wrote: »

But people don't get removed if their income increases right?
The just move up the rent scale, all the way to the maximum and then stay there.

And what's the issue there?

Surely it's better to have people staying in their homes long term where they can raise their families and build communities?

Hitman3000

Bubbaclaus wrote:

I'm one of those mugs that pays 35% of my income for a room in a house I'm never in because i spend over 50 hours a week working.

168 hours in a week, where do you spend the other 118 if you are never in your room?

CrankyHaus

El Weirdo wrote: »

And what's the issue there?

Surely it's better to have people staying in their homes long term where they can raise their families and build communities?

As I said later in the post you quoted:

CrankyHaus wrote: »

it seems perverse to have many people earning less than him subsidising his housing while facing the vagaries of the private rental market themselves.

El Weirdo

CrankyHaus wrote: »

As I said later in the post you quoted:

Where's the benefit to turfing people out when they reach a certain income level?

Does it benefit society when social housing estates become ghettos only for the people who can't or won't work?

Hitman3000

CrankyHaus wrote:

I agree that such circumstances are rare, although we cannot know how rare. I agree that removing someone from the list in such cases may be bad for a lot of reasons. However giving subsidised houses to people earning twice the average full time wage is a poor way to spend the social housing budget and not fair on the lower earners subsidising it.

'Blame the game not the player'. Would you give up your home and community if nothing required you too especially if you were honouring the agreement you have with your landlord ? Social housing is valuable to people due to the security of tenure. I know if I were still a council tenant I would not willingly give up that security because of the whinging of certain sections of society. Lobby your local councillor to change the rent system if you feel it's so unfair.

El Weirdo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

'Blame the game not the player'. Would you give up your home and community if nothing required you too especially if you were honouring the agreement you have with your landlord ? Social housing is valuable to people due to the security of tenure. I know if I were still a council tenant I would not willingly give up that security because of the whinging of certain sections of society. Lobby your local councillor to change the rent system if you feel it's so unfair.

It's also obviously better for the housing provider (and ultimately, the taxpayer) to have some people paying the higher level of rent.

CrankyHaus

El Weirdo wrote: »

Where's the benefit to turfing people out when they reach a certain income level?

Does it benefit society when social housing estates become ghettos only for the people who can't and won't work?

Where's the benefit in providing social housing to high-earners?


The rationale of social housing is to house those who cannot afford any or adequate housing. This rationale arose from the private slum conditions that preceded social housing. Clearly a high earner can afford accomodation and subsidising his housing is poor value to the taxpayer and diverts resources from the more needy.



I agree that disincentivising the socially housed from increasing their income and being successful is poor policy. That is why in my other post above I suggested a home purchase incentive scheme to move high-earners off social housing. This would have the effect of improving social housing estates by keeping high earners with an interest in the condition of the estate there while providing funds for further social housing for the more needy.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

'Blame the game not the player'. Would you give up your home and community if nothing required you too especially if you were honouring the agreement you have with your landlord ? Social housing is valuable to people due to the security of tenure. I know if I were still a council tenant I would not willingly give up that security because of the whinging of certain sections of society. Lobby your local councillor to change the rent system if you feel it's so unfair.

If you read my first post you'd see I said no hard feelings for the man. I am "blaming the game", or rather discussing how it may be improved to better serve its purpose. If you want to call that whinging fair enough but I thought this was a discussion site. I feel like people on this thread are not reading all of my posts and are selectively quoting them. Just like you ignored the next line of my post that you quoted where I suggested a home purchase incentive scheme.

Hitman3000

CrankyHaus wrote:

Where's the benefit in providing social housing to high-earners?

They are not high earners when approved for Social Housing. Circumstances change. Would you throw yourself and your family on the mercy of the private rental market if you didn't have too?

El Weirdo

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Where's the benefit in providing social housing to high-earners?


The rationale of social housing is to house those who cannot afford any or adequate housing. This rationale arose from the private slum conditions that preceded social housing. Clearly a high earner can afford accomodation and subsidising his housing is poor value to the taxpayer and diverts resources from the more needy.



I agree that disincentivising the socially housed from increasing their income and being successful is poor policy. That is why in my other post above I suggested a home purchase incentive scheme to move high-earners off social housing. This would have the effect of improving social housing estates by keeping high earners with an interest in the condition of the estate there while providing funds for further social housing for the more needy.

Yeah, because Thatcher's same policy worked so well in the UK. They're really reaping the benefits now.

Why would someone not have an interest in the condition of their estate just because they're a "high earner"? Surely the fact that they have security of tenure and can conceivably even leave their tenancy to their children would be incentive enough?

padd b1975

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

Could you give a brief timeline of how long it takes to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent please?

weldoninhio

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

What is the maximum weekly rent??

El Weirdo

padd b1975 wrote: »

Could you give a brief timeline of how long it takes to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent please?

Honestly, it was rare enough that it got to that stage.

It was far easier (and cheaper) to engage with a tenant in arrears and place them on a repayment plan.

El Weirdo

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the maximum weekly rent??

I haven't worked in the sector for about 10 years now, and I think it depends on the housing provider (local authority or housing association), but it was around €120 per week iirc.

ETA: I have a recollection of some people paying more than that, but that was probably due to having someone with an additional income staying in the house (possibly an adult child who wasn't named as an actual tenant).

Hitman3000

weldoninhio wrote:

What is the maximum weekly rent??

Each council operates it's own scheme. When I was a tenant it was differential rent based on my income. 23% of my income and a flat rate due to my wife working. The income of children under 17 living with you was not counted.

weldoninhio

El Weirdo wrote: »

I haven't worked in the sector for about 10 years now, and I think it depends on the housing provider (local authority or housing association), but it was around €120 per week iirc.

So little or nothing to someone working.

padd b1975

El Weirdo wrote: »

Honestly, it was rare enough that it got to that stage.

It was far easier (and cheaper) to engage with a tenant in arrears and place them on a repayment plan.

Yeah, that's what I suspected to be honest, although with arrears currently running around 70,000,000 I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest it's past time that policy was revisited.

Mrs OBumble

Diceicle wrote: »

Thanks - I'm aware working tenants pay below market rates/nominal amount - if they're working .

I worked in social housing for a while too. Same deal re rent assessments.

We had some tenants paying more than market rate, because their income had gone up and there wasn't a strong demand in their location.

As noted, rent arrears are the issue. My sense (not based on statistics) is that working tenants were less likely to be in arrears than non-working ones.

El Weirdo

weldoninhio wrote: »

So little or nothing to someone working.

That was what I was paying at the time.

Ginger83

weldoninhio wrote: »

So little or nothing to someone working.

I know of a guy who was an only child, his mam passed away and he was let take over the house for 15 quid a week.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone who has to live in these places, absolute dives and kips, my own parents turned down a council house years ago and were taken off the list.

As my mam used to say some nice people but alot of bow-wows.