Turn down two houses and you're off the list

RasTa

Finally.

McVery on the radio now saying he doesn't agree.

But if you turn down two houses now whilst on the social housing list. You're off the list for 5 years.

blue note

Sounds good, but I'd worry it will be abused. They might offer people completely unsuitable accommodation and now they'll have to take it.

dxhound2005

blue note wrote: »

Sounds good, but I'd worry it will be abused. They might offer people completely unsuitable accommodation and now they'll have to take it.

They won't have to take it. They can stay in whatever accommodation they are in, if they think that is better.

mikep

RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

Satta Massagana

Extreme examples were people turning down houses because the house they were being offered had a sea view, and this might cause them to be sea sick Another one refused a house because the back garden wasn't big enough for a trampolene You couldn't make this sh1t up.
The people who make these kind of ridiculous refusals need to get real & should certainly be kicked down the list.

Foweva Awone

Completely agree with this. You're being offered a very very cheap house with the security of (almost certainly) never having to move again. No one ever promised it would be the mansion of your dreams in the absolute ideal location. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

(I myself am on the housing list but doubt I'll be offered a place for years, if ever - I would jump at ANY house offered, no matter where it was or what it was like.)

mikep

mikep wrote: »

RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

Homelessness is an industry. The so called charities are worried for their jobs.

RasTa

mikep wrote: »

RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

Said some houses offered weren't suitable

NIMAN

Is this country wide?

Have you a link?

mikep

Added to this all councils need to review the list as I think when Cork City did this 50% didn't respond so if you can't be arsed to respond..off the list...they suspected that many had found a place to live and hadn't told them.

dudara

RasTa wrote: »

Finally.

McVery on the radio now saying he doesn't agree.

But if you turn down two houses now whilst on the social housing list. You're off the list for 5 years.

He didn’t say he didn’t agree. He said he wouldn’t agree if it was an inflexible system. His preference seemed to be for a choice-based system, where people near the top of the housing list can see all properties available and they make selections based on preference.

seamus

mikep wrote: »

Added to this all councils need to review the list as I think when Cork City did this 50% didn't respond so if you can't be arsed to respond..off the list...they suspected that many had found a place to live and hadn't told them.

To be fair, if you're on the housing list, there's a good chance you're moving around a lot and could easily miss any correspondence sent to you.

A good reason why they should be doing this stuff online whereever they can.

There are reasonable objections and unreasonable ones. Reasonable objections are a house that's very far from your job, or if it's far from amenities and you have no car. Or if you or your child have specialist medical needs and it's too far from them.

I thought the current process already was that they only get a certain # of refusals?

Galwayguy35

dudara wrote: »

He didn’t say he didn’t agree. He said he wouldn’t agree if it was an inflexible system. His preference seemed to be for a choice-based system, where people near the top of the housing list can see all properties available and they make selections based on preference.

If the property is in good condition let them take what's offered or tell them to clear off and get their own house.

As for McVerry he's just annoying at this stage, criticizing everything and offering no solution.

NIMAN

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, if you're on the housing list, there's a good chance you're moving around a lot and could easily miss any correspondence sent to you.

Everyone has a mobile now, no reason why they couldn't be phoned in the first instance.

NIMAN

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If the property is in good condition let them take what's offered or tell them to clear off and get their own house.

As for McVerry he's just annoying at this stage, criticizing everything and offering no solution.

He and his ilk don't want a total solution.

They'd all be out of work. And wouldn't get those millions from the Gov to solve the issue.

RasTa

dudara wrote: »

He didn’t say he didn’t agree. He said he wouldn’t agree if it was an inflexible system. His preference seemed to be for a choice-based system, where people near the top of the housing list can see all properties available and they make selections based on preference.

Nah he didn't agree but he never really commits on issues like this. As you said what he wants is him essentially disagreeing

Mrsmum

To me being homeless is like being naked in public in the sense that any coverage/shelter is better than none ie not a time to be fussy.
However there should be good faith on both sides which means having regards to children in school, needing hospital care, genuine stuff like that. But forget this nonsense of having to be near your ma. Millions of people all over the world had to leave their ma. If you're not grown up enough to leave your ma, stay at home with her.

He has turned in to a caricature of himself at this stage such a pity because he really did have something to say at one stage. He gets wheeled out as sort of click bate on the issue of homelessness. It says a lot about the media.


As for the actual issue, it's perfectly reasonable to get two choices nobody gets an endless choice.

seamus

NIMAN wrote: »

Everyone has a mobile now, no reason why they couldn't be phoned in the first instance.

Phone calls are very time consuming for the staff, lots of people won't answer a call from a number they don't know, and may not even check their voicemail any more.

Email is faster and people are more likely to click a link in an email than respond to a phone call.

Fiftyfilthy

I used to always agree 100% about the refuse 2 homes and tough luck

I have little time for the unemployed etc etc but I know of someone who was offered a house in darndale

Beggars can’t be choosers and all that but when she arrived to see the house, a welcoming committee were there telling her if she took the house they would burn her out of there , these houses are for their own etc

Would be quite brave to accept that one

So that’s I offer refused

LirW

Good step to take, given People are offered suitable accommodation. I'm not talking about garden sizes or locations but that elderly or people with mobility issues have access to one-level accommodation and won't be offered unsuitable houses just to be fecked off the list.
It's not easy getting suitable housing if you're disabled with a mobility issue.

NIMAN

Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

I used to always agree 100% about the refuse 2 homes and tough luck

I have little time for the unemployed etc etc but I know of someone who was offered a house in darndale

Beggars can’t be choosers and all that but when she arrived to see the house, a welcoming committee were there telling her if she took the house they would burn her out of there , these houses are for their own etc

Would be quite brave to accept that one

So that’s I offer refused

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

Fiftyfilthy

NIMAN wrote: »

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

That’s true actually

Yeah, I agree 2 offers and if not stay in the hotel or wherever you are

Sir Oxman

NIMAN wrote: »

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

Indeed.
that works both ways.

Cina

Two houses is still too many.

I wonder would anyone working, has kids, paying extortionate rent, and can't save for a mortgage turn down two houses, let alone one?

Boggles

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I myself am on the housing list but doubt I'll be offered a place for years, if ever - I would jump at ANY house offered, no matter where it was or what it was like.

Really?

Let's say the house is sandwiched in between some 'choice' neighbors, you'd jump at it?

Would I fook!

An overhaul of the entire social housing system should happen but I’m just kidding myself thinking someone will do it.

A social house should be provided that suits your needs. When the kids grow up and move out, your needs no longer require you to have a 3 bed.

eviltwin

Cina wrote: »

Two houses is still too many.

I wonder would anyone working, has kids, paying extortionate rent, and can't save for a mortgage turn down two houses, let alone one?

People who buy or rent don't turn down houses, they just don't bother viewing ones they have no desire to live in.

topper75

Deleted User wrote: »

Homelessness is an industry. The so called charities are worried for their jobs.

Yes there is a bit of this going on yes.

The media wont' highlight - because they are tangentially part of this industry. It is a great topic to move over to when there is nothing else new.

The army lads sleeping out in tricolour bags (to raise AWARENESS if you don't mind :pac: helping us to be aware) was carried in all major organs yesterday though it was really a non-story.

NIMAN

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

Let's say the house is sandwiched in between some 'choice' neighbors, you'd jump at it?

Would I fook!

If we continue to allow people to turn down houses for this reason, that reason, I don't like that neighbour, this neighbour, then we will never solve this crisis, or even make a dent in it.

Sometimes we have sh1t neighnours or ones we don't like, even people who are paying mortgages, thats life.

Cina

eviltwin wrote: »

People who buy or rent don't turn down houses, they just don't bother viewing ones they have no desire to live in.

I don't recall saying they did. Clearly it was a hypothetical scenario.

eviltwin

Cina wrote: »

I don't recall saying they did. Clearly it was a hypothetical scenario.

It's not a realistic comparison so why make it

Boggles

NIMAN wrote: »

If we continue to allow people to turn down houses for this reason, that reason, I don't like that neighbour, this neighbour, then we will never solve this crisis, or even make a dent in it.

Sometimes we have sh1t neighnours or ones we don't like, even people who are paying mortgages, thats life.

I wasn't talking about "We". I was asking a very specific question to a very specific person.

Obviously I am not talking about a neighbour you don't like or get on with, because they sing loudly in the shower or park their care arséways.

I'm talking about the ones that would break into your house every time you aren't there.

Personally I wouldn't jump at that.

Cina

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not a realistic comparison so why make it

I think it's quite obvious why I made it, to highlight the shocking situation whereby these people are actually allowed to turn down houses when so many hard working people cannot even buy one of their own.

Evey where has some value, there are houses for sale to the side of somewhere I occasionally use as a short cut, now this place is rough rubbish blowing around neglected gardens, the occasional horse some houses nicely keep. The point is the houses sell quickly and if a corner site comes up for sale its gone very quickly.

Mrsmum

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

Let's say the house is sandwiched in between some 'choice' neighbors, you'd jump at it?

Would I fook!

Is it not partly because people have been accommodated so much to live among their own, that we have fiefdoms in lots of places now where people think they get to say who gets to move into the house next door. Time to mix it up.

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

Is it not partly because people have been accommodated so much to live among their own, that we have fiefdoms in lots of places now where people think they get to say who gets to move into the house next door. Time to mix it up.

I have no idea, but you don't cure that by throwing some poor family to the wolves so to speak.

KrustyUCC

Satta Massagana wrote: »

Extreme examples were people turning down houses because the house they were being offered had a sea view, and this might cause them to be sea sick Another one refused a house because the back garden wasn't big enough for a trampolene You couldn't make this sh1t up.
The people who make these kind of ridiculous refusals need to get real & should certainly be kicked down the list.

Those stories make me so mad

'Sea-sickness' cited as one of many 'spurious' reasons for turning down council houses

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sea-sickness-cited-as-one-of-many-spurious-reasons-for-turning-down-council-houses-393972.html

professore

seamus wrote: »

Phone calls are very time consuming for the staff, lots of people won't answer a call from a number they don't know, and may not even check their voicemail any more.

Email is faster and people are more likely to click a link in an email than respond to a phone call.

Text message.

Dakotabigone

Everyone is entitled to turn down a house, it’s not a pair of jeans or deciding what to buy for dinner. It’s a lifetime move.

BrokenArrows

It's an easy enough solution.

They get 2 standard refusals.

If they make a refusal then the reason for refusal is considered before accepting it as a standard refusal.

1. If it's for a stupid reason like "garden not big enough" or "too far from family" then it's a standard refusal and they have to take the next offer or they are off the list.

2. If it's a legitimate refusal like a 2+ hour commute to work or house not suitable for disabled child then the reason should be reviewed and if deemed legitimate then it doesn't result in a reduction in the number of refusals.

Edit: 2 hour commute is my cut off point. Anything less than this is in the standard commute times for modern society. If xyz had to buy/rent a house 2 hours commute from Dublin because that's all he could afford then there is no reason a council tenant should be given city centre accommodation.

Dakotabigone

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to turn down a house, it’s not a pair of jeans or deciding what to buy for dinner. It’s a lifetime move.

It shouldn’t be a lifetime move. It’s rented.

Boggles

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Those stories make me so mad

'Sea-sickness' cited as one of many 'spurious' reasons for turning down council houses

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sea-sickness-cited-as-one-of-many-spurious-reasons-for-turning-down-council-houses-393972.html

Anyone that turns down a house because of a trampoline should not only be fooked off the housing list they should be fired out of a canon.

Fortunately those idiots are the thin edge of the wedge.

But what is baffling from the above article is.

Details of the refusals were highlighted after it emerged it can take more than a year to get social houses ready for new tenants after they are vacated. In Cork, it can take up to 66 weeks to turn the house around; in Kerry it can take up to 55 weeks and up to 44 weeks in Donegal.

It wouldn't take that long to completely knock a house and rebuild it, WTF are they doing?

Huntergonzo

Sounds good in theory but having worked in a housing authority it's hard to see how it would work in practice.

I know specifically of a case where a woman has literally thrown the keys of 3 different houses back at the council. She has a 1 bedroom need and is insisting on 3 bedroom accommodation, for some reason she believes that her and her husband (both in their 50s, with no dependents) are owed this by the state.

Now she was supposed to be taken off the list and barred from re-applying for 1 year after she fired back the 3rd house. But what happened? several months later the council bought her a new house, which she is waiting to move into.

You see, she caused a **** storm, constant abuse and badgering of staff, all day protests (she never worked a day in her life so she has plenty of time/experience in this field). She threw herself at the mercy of the state and the state said 'ah sure go on'.

Now this is only 1 case of course, most people behaive better than that but a lot of bullshít does go on that's for sure.

BrokenArrows

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Sounds good in theory but having worked in a housing authority it's hard to see how it would work in practice.

I know specifically of a case where a woman has literally thrown the keys of 3 different houses back at the council. She has a 1 bedroom need and is insisting on 3 bedroom accommodation, for some reason she believes that her and her husband (both in their 50s, with no dependents) are owed this by the state.

Now she was supposed to be taken off the list and barred from re-applying for 1 year after she fired back the 3rd house. But what happened? several months later the council bought her a new house, which she is waiting to move into.

You see, she caused a **** storm, constant abuse and badgering of staff, all day protests (she never worked a day in her life so she has plenty of time/experience in this field). She threw herself at the mercy of the state and the state said 'ah sure go on'.

Now this is only 1 case of course, most people behaive better than that but a lot of bullshít does go on that's for sure.

In cases like this they need to send her to jail for harassment. Giving her a house only encourages all the scummers that know about this to do the same.

Call me Al

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to turn down a house, it’s not a pair of jeans or deciding what to buy for dinner. It’s a lifetime move.

Social housing is a finite resource, paid for through our tax system. If people want to be able pick and choose where they live then they need to put themselves in a position financially to be able to do so.

Grayson

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

Huntergonzo

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Sounds good in theory but having worked in a housing authority it's hard to see how it would work in practice.

I know specifically of a case where a woman has literally thrown the keys of 3 different houses back at the council. She has a 1 bedroom need and is insisting on 3 bedroom accommodation, for some reason she believes that her and her husband (both in their 50s, with no dependents) are owed this by the state.

Now she was supposed to be taken off the list and barred from re-applying for 1 year after she fired back the 3rd house. But what happened? several months later the council bought her a new house, which she is waiting to move into.

You see, she caused a **** storm, constant abuse and badgering of staff, all day protests (she never worked a day in her life so she has plenty of time/experience in this field). She threw herself at the mercy of the state and the state said 'ah sure go on'.

Now this is only 1 case of course, most people behaive better than that but a lot of bullshít does go on that's for sure.

In cases like this they need to send her to jail for harassment. Giving her a house only encourages all the scummers that know about this to do the same.

Well this is true but honestly, this woman probably wouldn't even know why she was being sent to jail, she's on a different planet to rest of us. Also it has to be noted that she's a traveller so she can play the discrimination card very well.

klaaaz

There are genuine refusals that the sensationalist Indo tabloid never highlighted. There are streets in our country where no-one would live, it's not safe for any family. No-one here on this thread would live on those streets either so why should housing applicants? That's a genuine refusal.

BrokenArrows

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

Yes, it means they will be putting themselves onto the street. They will be doing this of their own free will.

They could also be perfectly fine paying private rent. Most council house people pay privately until they are offered council accommodation.

They have been offered accommodation and have decided that they are better off without it. It's their choice.

Huntergonzo

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

Very few people end up on the street in fairness, most people take the houses they are offered. Now they might have a list of demands that any Die Hard villain would be proud of before moving in but a compromise is usually met and favourably so for the tenant.

People who refuse the house (some for legitimate reasons such as disability works being required etc) usually just stay in their rented accommodation.

A small minority of people do declare themsleves homeless though as they believe it will speed up the housing process.