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 - Rent Means Test

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    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?

    Why should they get that ahead of someone who can't afford private accommodation?

    Should everyone just go on the housing list from day one? Sure they can even pass on the house to their kids.


  • Options
    #63
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    Why is it capped? I don’t see the benefit to the tax payer there. Uncapped eventually the higher earners will move back into the private market freeing up the house for someone who is in more urgent need at the time


  • Options
    #64
    ericl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭ericl


    grahambo wrote: »
    Ballymun - Many

    Can you name any of them?


  • Options
    #65
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Why should they get that ahead of someone who can't afford private accommodation?

    Should everyone just go on the housing list from day one? Sure they can even pass on the house to their kids.

    If someone can't afford private accommodation, they are eligible for social housing.

    It's about trying to build sustainable communities, not just throwing people into ghettos.


  • Options
    #66
    fussyonion
    Registered Users Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭fussyonion


    zell12 wrote: »
    Yes it's a rigorous yearly review.
    Rent is 15-20% of income, min ~€30pw to max ~€200pw

    It is not a yearly review for everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    fussyonion wrote: »
    It is not a yearly review for everyone.

    It certainly was where I worked. Every January.


  • Options
    #68
    fussyonion
    Registered Users Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭fussyonion


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    fussyonion wrote: »
    It is not a yearly review for everyone.

    It certainly was where I worked. Every January.

    Not me. I'm in my place six years & I've only had one rent review form.


  • Options
    #69
    Chinasea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭Chinasea


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    It certainly was where I worked. Every January.

    Ohne jeez, this bull continues. He who doth protest so much.

    €73 MILLON in 2017 in arrears owed to local authorities.
    Rents of €14.00 per week for fully furnished brand new apartments. What a sham.

    Defending this kind of nonsense or another polite adverb would be : Populist dysfunction.


  • Options
    #70
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Chinasea wrote: »
    Ohne jeez, this bull continues. He who doth protest so much.

    €73 MILLON in 2017 in arrears owed to local authorities.
    Rents of €14.00 per week for fully furnished brand new apartments. What a sham.

    Defending this kind of nonsense or another polite adverb would be : Populist dysfunction.

    This was the post you claimed was incorrect:
    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.

    NOTHING in your link disproves ANY of that post.

    I never claimed that there were no rent arrears, and I never mentioned an amount for minimum rent (it was actually €15 where I worked).

    Also, your link makes no mention of fully-furnished apartments as far as I can see. The association I worked for certainly didn't provide furniture for properties, and I doubt that any local authority does now, either.


  • Options
    #71
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    If someone can't afford private accommodation, they are eligible for social housing.

    It's about trying to build sustainable communities, not just throwing people into ghettos.

    But it's not sustainable or "fair" currently. Look at the arrears and waiting lists.

    We have a finite amount of housing, why should someone who can afford to house themselves privately take up a house for someone more in need?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Ush1 wrote: »
    But it's not sustainable or "fair" currently. Look at the arrears and waiting lists.

    We have a finite amount of housing, why should someone who can afford to house themselves privately take up a house for someone more in need?

    It's hardly an incentive to go out and find work or better yourself if it means that your family home is going to be taken off of you, is it?

    We should be building more social housing units.


  • Options
    #73
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    fussyonion wrote:
    Not me. I'm in my place six years & I've only had one rent review form.


    I was in my former council house for 5 years. Rent review every January. Different councils different policies.


  • Options
    #74
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    It's hardly an incentive to go out and find work or better yourself if it means that your family home is going to be taken off of you, is it?

    We should be building more social housing units.

    But it's not yours. It's the governments.

    There is already schemes to buy council houses from the council at a discounted price but people have obvious issues with that also.

    Why should you need to be incentivised like that to better yourself? Does it discourage people to better themselves past a point where they will no longer be eligible to get a council house in the first place?


  • Options
    #75
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    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.

    The Snapper and The Van was filmed at/in the Foxhoud...


  • Options
    #76
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Ush1 wrote: »
    But it's not yours. It's the governments.
    No. It's your home.


  • Options
    #77
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,706 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Chinasea wrote: »
    Ohne jeez, this bull continues. He who doth protest so much.

    €73 MILLON in 2017 in arrears owed to local authorities.
    Rents of €14.00 per week for fully furnished brand new apartments. What a sham.

    Defending this kind of nonsense or another polite adverb would be : Populist dysfunction.

    Council houses don't usually come with flooring, much less furniture.

    The only rents i saw which were that low were for some unfortunate Brits who got only a tiny pension from there and weren't entitled to state pension here.

    That's not to say there aren't some places where therules aren't enforced. But they would be the exception, not the norm.


  • Options
    #78
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    No. It's your home.

    Grand so, it's your home and you like the area and can afford full market price, then you should pay full market price for it.


  • Options
    #79
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    The only rents i saw which were that low were for some unfortunate Brits who got only a tiny pension from there and weren't entitled to state pension here.

    Exactly. The one or two times (literally) I applied minimum weekly rent, was for elderly gentlemen who had spend most of their working lives in England and wanted to spend their final years back home. I certainly applied the maximum rent many more times than the minimum.


  • Options
    #80
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Diceicle wrote: »
    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

    Can't send around the heavies to collect it either.

    Because the people doing it ARE the heavies.

    I love small countries! :)


  • Options
    #81
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    Grand so, it's your home and you like the area and can afford full market price, then you should pay full market price for it.


    No, you should pay whatever the maximum rent the L.A. sets based on a tenants income .Don't like the rules? lobby to have them changed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Exactly. The one or two times (literally) I applied minimum weekly rent, was for elderly gentlemen who had spend most of their working lives in England and wanted to spend their final years back home. I certainly applied the maximum rent many more times than the minimum.

    Sounds like the maximum could have been extended so...


  • Options
    #83
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    No, you should pay whatever the maximum rent the L.A. sets based on a tenants income .Don't like the rules? lobby to have them changed.

    It's nothing to do with me "liking" them, it's do with what social housing is for, how it is maintained and sustained. Also what is "fair" to people genuinely in need on waiting lists and those who aren't.


  • Options
    #84
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    It's nothing to do with me "liking" them, it's do with what social housing is for, how it is maintained and sustained. Also what is "fair" to people genuinely in need on waiting lists and those who aren't.


    People living in social housing were also assessed based on their needs. Once they are paying what they are obliged to pay I see no reason to suggest they should be required to leave what has become their home and community just to soothe the outrage of a cohort of begrudgers. The government needs to build more social and affordable housing simple. If the rents are too low the council's need to review their policies taking account of income of sitting tenants.


  • Options
    #85
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    If the rents are too low the council's need to review their policies taking account of income of sitting tenants.

    Just on this, the councils and HAs have to (or at least had to) abide by Department policy when setting out their rental structure.


  • Options
    #86
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    People living in social housing were also assessed based on their needs. Once they are paying what they are obliged to pay I see no reason to suggest they should be required to leave what has become their home and community just to soothe the outrage of a cohort of begrudgers. The government needs to build more social and affordable housing simple. If the rents are too low the council's need to review their policies taking account of income of sitting tenants.

    They were assessed based upon needs at the time they were housed. This thread is about their circumstances changing, namely they improve financial income far beyond what would have made them eligible for social housing in the first place.

    As I said, if you can afford full market price, that's what you should pay, same as anybody else housed privately or publicly.


  • Options
    #87
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    They were assessed based upon needs at the time they were housed. This thread is about their circumstances changing, namely they improve financial income far beyond what would have made them eligible for social housing in the first place.


    So what? Once they are honouring the terms of their tenancy with the L.A. there is no issue except with the feelings of those who begrudge the security of tenure and favourable rent L.A. tenants have. What do you want equality of misery?


  • Options
    #88
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    As I said, if you can afford full market price, that's what you should pay, same as anybody else housed privately or publicly.


    Irrelevant, rent is set based on income to a max chargeable rent. Which varies from L.A. to L.A. Can't see a tenant willing to pay more than they are liable for just for kicks and giggles.


  • Options
    #89
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Ush1 wrote: »
    They were assessed based upon needs at the time they were housed. This thread is about their circumstances changing, namely they improve financial income far beyond what would have made them eligible for social housing in the first place.

    As I said, if you can afford full market price, that's what you should pay, same as anybody else housed privately or publicly.

    So ghettos for all the povs, yeah? Because that's what you're asking for. And we all know how well that works out.


  • Options
    #90
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So what? Once they are honouring the terms of their tenancy with the L.A. there is no issue except with the feelings of those who begrudge the security of tenure and favourable rent L.A. tenants have. What do you want equality of misery?

    No issue, apart from the huge number of people on waiting lists who ya know, actually can't afford private accommodation but I'm sure they're begrudgers anyway.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Irrelevant, rent is set based on income to a max chargeable rent. Which varies from L.A. to L.A. Can't see a tenant willing to pay more than they are liable for just for kicks and giggles.

    I'm saying what it set by the max set by the authority is obviously too low. I'm not asking tenants to overpay, I'm saying authorities should be asking for more if the tenant can afford it.


Advertisement