Turn down two houses and you're off the list

Sweet.Science

Boggles wrote: »

I have feeling you are typing that from the attic of the social house you grew up in.

Have a good one.

They now have attic coversions. No wonder so many get turned down until they get the real offer .

blanch152

Boggles wrote: »

Who are they and which ones?

The Peter McVerry Trust gets over €14m from the State in grants.

https://www.pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

Page 24 details the salary of the CEO who is paid €102,314. Elsewhere it is stated that he gets an additional 16% pension contribution, which would bring him up to €118,684.

https://reports.focusireland.ie/consolidated-statement-of-financial-accounts/


Focus Ireland CEO got paid €115,000, with €5,000 medical insurance on top of that. Can't find exact amount of pension contribution, but think it is 7%.

They also got €13m from the state.

It is actually quite difficult to locate accounts on most charity websites. They tend to be hidden away unless you know where to look. However, they make for illuminating reading and certainly support the view that there is a homelessness industry.

Boggles

blanch152 wrote: »

The Peter McVerry Trust gets over €14m from the State in grants.

https://www.pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

Page 24 details the salary of the CEO who is paid €102,314. Elsewhere it is stated that he gets an additional 16% pension contribution, which would bring him up to €118,684.

https://reports.focusireland.ie/consolidated-statement-of-financial-accounts/


Focus Ireland CEO got paid €115,000, with €5,000 medical insurance on top of that. Can't find exact amount of pension contribution, but think it is 7%.

They also got €13m from the state.

It is actually quite difficult to locate accounts on most charity websites. They tend to be hidden away unless you know where to look. However, they make for illuminating reading and certainly support the view that there is a homelessness industry.

So when you said a significant number.

That number was 2?

NIMAN

Isn't there close to 80 charities 'helping' the homeless?

blanch152

Boggles wrote: »

So when you said a significant number.

That number was 2?

Those were the first two I looked at.

I can't be bothered going through all of the rest for you.



https://www.cluid.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Cl%C3%BAid-Annual-Report-2017-WEB.pdf

The next one I have looked at is Cluid. Their CEO is paid €120k and they have two other employees earning over €100k.

How many homeless charities with CEOs earning more than €100k is too many for you?

twowheelsonly

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Yes but not at a discount. Why should they be given 20+% off the market value and at the same time lived for years with rent well below market value.

It reduces the available council housing stock and costs the council money so they can't replace the house.

'Market Value' is another great spin. Market value is determined by builders, developers, estate agents et al. All of whom have a vested interest in keeping it high.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, Councils and Local government built their own housing stock. This not only kept thousands of builders in work but also kept housing prices down. A maximum mortgage at the time was two and a half to three times your earnings. They then stopped building and entered Public / Private partnership, laying off all their own builders and stopping using contractors to build for them. What happened next ??? House prices started to rocket and mortgages started to sky rocket leading to an unsustainable bubble which culminated in the last crash. Yet here we are again, off on the same journey again making all the same mistakes again. Overpriced houses and an overheated market.

Historically, Councils sold some of their housing stock to generate funds to build the next ones. A discount was applied based on how many years / how much rent was paid but whilst generous, it wasn't exactly giving the houses away either. The sale of one house gave them the funds to build two or three more and the fact that a lot of these houses were older stock meant less maintenance for the council.

As an aside... Council tenants can still buy their houses today (in most cases) but if the house has had work done under the Housing Adaption Grant then they can't. i.e. disabled council tenants are actually discriminated against in this instance.

Boggles

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Yes but not at a discount. Why should they be given 20+% off the market value and at the same time lived for years with rent well below market value.

Again you are looking at it purely as cost and not value.

It's far better socially and far cheaper in the long run if someone is allowed buy their own home even at a discount.

Affordable Housing did not cause the homeless crisis.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It reduces the available council housing stock and costs the council money so they can't replace the house.

Yes it does.

But do you know what is reducing the available council housing stock far quicker?

Boarded up houses.

What is causing that?

Boggles

blanch152 wrote: »

How many homeless charities with CEOs earning more than €100k is too many for you?

I suppose a "significant amount".

Spanish Eyes

Is it really true that people in Social Housing can still buy their council property eventually?

Well I am sorry, you can all call me any name you wish, but that is absolute madness.

Ush1

twowheelsonly wrote: »

'Market Value' is another great spin. Market value is determined by builders, developers, estate agents et al. All of whom have a vested interest in keeping it high.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, Councils and Local government built their own housing stock. This not only kept thousands of builders in work but also kept housing prices down. A maximum mortgage at the time was two and a half to three times your earnings. They then stopped building and entered Public / Private partnership, laying off all their own builders and stopping using contractors to build for them. What happened next ??? House prices started to rocket and mortgages started to sky rocket leading to an unsustainable bubble which culminated in the last crash. Yet here we are again, off on the same journey again making all the same mistakes again. Overpriced houses and an overheated market.

Historically, Councils sold some of their housing stock to generate funds to build the next ones. A discount was applied based on how many years / how much rent was paid but whilst generous, it wasn't exactly giving the houses away either. The sale of one house gave them the funds to build two or three more and the fact that a lot of these houses were older stock meant less maintenance for the council.

As an aside... Council tenants can still buy their houses today (in most cases) but if the house has had work done under the Housing Adaption Grant then they can't. i.e. disabled council tenants are actually discriminated against in this instance.

Biggest driver for the increase in house prices was dual incomes. Property and land are for the majority the biggest purchases of their lives. People will naturally try and stretch themselves and it's a competitive market. Some overstretched hence the crash.

The current lending limits laid down by CBI are 3.5 times your salary.

Deebles McBeebles

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose a "significant amount".

Good number to choose, not too vague at all.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Is it really true that people in Social Housing can still buy their council property eventually?

Well I am sorry, you can all call me any name you wish, but that is absolute madness.

Portugese Ears!

blanch152

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose a "significant amount".

I suppose when we have over 80 homeless charities in the homelessness industry, you wouldn't consider 3 of them with 5 people earning over €100k to be too many or significant. I would, and I have only dipped my toe into the accounts.

How many homeless charities do we need, and how many of them need to pay people over €100k?

Spanish Eyes

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Good number to choose, not too vague at all.



Portugese Ears!

Ha Ha, love a bit of humour

Dakotabigone

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Is it really true that people in Social Housing can still buy their council property eventually?

Well I am sorry, you can all call me any name you wish, but that is absolute madness.

Why would you want to buy a house that you pay €10 a week rent for?

Boggles

blanch152 wrote: »

I suppose when we have over 80 homeless charities in the homelessness industry, you wouldn't consider 3 of them with 5 people earning over €100k to be too many or significant.

5 of them out of 3 is very high.

But

5 of them out of 80+ is roughly 6%.

No that is not significant at all by any metric.

Have they the required skill set and do they offer enough value in their job to command their wage?

I think that is what anyone should be judged on IMO.

twowheelsonly

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Is it really true that people in Social Housing can still buy their council property eventually?

Well I am sorry, you can all call me any name you wish, but that is absolute madness.

Why would a council NOT sell off a house that may be 20/30/40 years old ? Take the money and let someone else look after the maintenance.

Ush1 wrote: »

Biggest driver for the increase in house prices was dual incomes. Property and land are for the majority the biggest purchases of their lives. People will naturally try and stretch themselves and it's a competitive market. Some overstretched hence the crash.

The current lending limits laid down by CBI are 3.5 times your salary.

Councils stopped building themselves in late 80s' early 90s'. House prices started to increase then at a faster rate than ever before. Banks ( who had loans out to builders) started offering higher ratio loans and loans up to 100% which fuelled the craziness. Bubble burst and the rate was brought back down but banks can still 'make exceptions' - which is how it all started off in the first place..

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Why would you want to buy a house that you pay €10 a week rent for?

I'd love to see that place !! Council rents start at €30 for someone on €171 a week. It might be worth your while to check out the differential rent scheme to get a proper idea of how much these 'free' houses cost. All councils work off pretty much the same formula.

Spanish Eyes

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Why would a council NOT sell off a house that may be 20/30/40 years old ? Take the money and let someone else look after the maintenance.

Selling them to existing tenants reduces the stock for the future.

twowheelsonly

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Selling them to existing tenants reduces the stock for the future.

Conversely, it reduces the maintenance for the future and provides funds for the council to provide more accommodation. I doubt that councils make a nett loss on too many houses!!
It also helps with settling an area. Many older council estates would have been seen as trouble spots in their early days but calmed down as time went on and kids grew up. People also bought their houses as time went on which helps with creating a settled community in an area.

freshpopcorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Selling them to existing tenants reduces the stock for the future.

I heard of somebody purchasing a council house a few years ago. They essentially had to purchase the building.I don't think the location came into it.
It was an old run down house. Not really because of the tenants but it was just an old poorly insulated, no fitted kitchen(jsut s sink),
single glazed windows, just a standard bathroom,etc.
It would have cost a fortune to bring it up to standards to rent it out again. So in some cases they'd nearly he better off selling it.

.G.

People always come to these threads to complain about people getting "free" houses while you struggle with a mortgage, the reason why is because you all keep selling houses to and buying houses from each other for stupidly exorbitant prices while the bankers, the developer's and the builders get rich off your back.

Anyone can apply for a council house if their income limits comply so perhaps don't moan about the situation you landed yourself in and maybe question why you didn't just apply for a council house and wait it out like every else who did seeing as you all think it's such a great deal.

nice_guy80

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Why would you want to buy a house that you pay €10 a week rent for?

So you have an asset to pass onto children or grandchildren

Spanish Eyes

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I heard of somebody purchasing a council house a few years ago. They essentially had to purchase the building.I don't think the location came into it.
It was an old run down house. Not really because of the tenants but it was just an old poorly insulated, no fitted kitchen(jsut s sink),
single glazed windows, just a standard bathroom,etc.
It would have cost a fortune to bring it up to standards to rent it out again. So in some cases they'd nearly he better off selling it.

I was referring to current rules, you know, new builds in the last ten years or so, run by HAs etc, full compliance with rules and regs, insulated, good BER ratings etc.

We need a good stock of social housing. Selling it off ain't helping.

And WRT so called dilapidated housing, it is a good investment for the Councils to bring them up to standard for future (even current) needs. Once sold, it is gone forever.

blanch152

Boggles wrote: »

5 of them out of 3 is very high.

But

5 of them out of 80+ is roughly 6%.

No that is not significant at all by any metric.

Have they the required skill set and do they offer enough value in their job to command their wage?

I think that is what anyone should be judged on IMO.

I looked at 3 charities, I found 5 people earning over €100k.

I am not going to look at the other 77, someone else can do that. However, even if the next seven found nobody earning over €100k, that would still imply 40 people earning over €100k working for the homelessness charity industry.

I doubt that there are 40 people earning over €100k in the Department of Housing.

corner of hells

blanch152 wrote: »

Those were the first two I looked at.

I can't be bothered going through all of the rest for you.



https://www.cluid.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Cl%C3%BAid-Annual-Report-2017-WEB.pdf

The next one I have looked at is Cluid. Their CEO is paid €120k and they have two other employees earning over €100k.

How many homeless charities with CEOs earning more than €100k is too many for you?

Cluid is not a homeless charity.
It's a housing association run like a business.

It provides housing to people nominated by their local authorities.

You must pay your rent , effectively Cluid is your landlord.

If you fcuk around with antisocial behavior and get into arrears they will evict you.

blanch152

corner of hells wrote: »

Cluid is not a homeless charity.
It's a housing association run like a business.

It provides housing to people nominated by their local authorities.

From the link I provided:

"Clúid Housing is an independent, not-for-profit
charity, leading the way in delivering high quality,
affordable rented homes to people in housing
need"

Spanish Eyes

Yet another charity associated with housing people.

How many are there now? But at least (IMO) Cluid and other HAs actually provide homes to vetted tenants. Well via the Councils I presume.

I have often wondered why McVerry and all the other homeless charities are not involved in actually providing homes for people. What exactly do they do with all their charitable donations and grants from Government does anyone know?

eviltwin

blanch152 wrote: »

From the link I provided:

"Clúid Housing is an independent, not-for-profit
charity, leading the way in delivering high quality,
affordable rented homes to people in housing
need"

The rest of his points stand. You are subject to checks before you move in and throughout your stay. Any messing and your out, you sign a contract to that effect and they have a waiting list so they won't be long getting rid of messers.

I think this is overall a good idea, I work in the homeless sector and I've met people who turn down property over ridiculous reasons. Most refusals are for valid reasons and I'd hope they would not be included as refusals under this scheme.

corner of hells

blanch152 wrote: »

From the link I provided:

"Clúid Housing is an independent, not-for-profit
charity, leading the way in delivering high quality,
affordable rented homes to people in housing
need"

Once it describes itself as a housing association , it using the landlord tenant wording , it moves away from charity.
I'd nearly bet it doesn't fundraise at any level.

More and more charities are changing their status to housing association and in some cases building , buying or sourcing property through legacy.

As far as I know , they were never a homeless charity .

Local Authorities do not want the trouble of maintaining large scale developments anymore and are quite happy to let housing associations do it.

I don't doubt your link but in that's what Cluid is now.

Sophia is a registered charity too. Majority of income comes from councils

https://www.sophia.ie/images/documents/Directors-Report-and-Financial-Statements-2018-.pdf

Near the end it states that 40% of the CEOs remuneration is paid for by Simon, would that mean that Sophia only show on their accounts what they pay the CEO?

freshpopcorn

I actually can't stand McVerry. I remembering him making statements before and it was basically saying if you worked hard and did well for yourself. You shouldn't have nice things because of the homeless crises.