Buying next to Social House MOD WARNING POST #118

iColdFusion

DubLad69 wrote: »

They agree a price between them. Its usually given at a discount, but the developer will still make a profit from them.

mloc123 wrote: »

My sisters works in a solictors and said with the ones they have dealt with, it is usually a charity that come in and buy the houses and then hand them over to the council. She said she expected them to look for a discount... but that they usually just offer full price.

Well I suppose at least the developer isn't adding a margin onto the price of the normal houses to make up for lost profit on the social houses but some money to be spending, surely the council should be buying two 250k houses...

Eric Cartman

DubLad69 wrote: »

They are assigned to Kildare CC. I'm not sure if they are obliged, but I found out from planning documents which they have since deleted.

especially if its a semi-d or terrace - run.

Atleast if people were moved in you could gauge it . With nobody in there chances are the person at the top of the list is a single mother with a few kids who's young enough, you're looking at 5 years of welfare day sessions then when the kids become teens the noise starts all over again.

the new thing is "I'm a responsible mother, id rather the kids were drinking and smoking weed in the house where I can keep an eye on them rather than out in a field" which of course you'd have to be smoking some real strong sh*t yourself to see as responsible.

cgcsb

I've been considering this while looking to buy in Dublin, I can only afford (in fact whether I can afford it or not is questionable as prices seem to be inflating past my reach) to buy in an area dense with social housing, I'm a single person with no interest in marriage, children or cohabitation so I'm in competition with double income couples.

Social housing policy probably needs to be more transparent, at the moment anybody earning under €35k net (circa €50k gross depending on your deductions), can apply for social housing but basically the rule of thumb is that if you are a working person with no dependents (say a nurse earning €26k gross) you are put into the 'band 3' priority housing. This basically means that due to the social housing shortage you will never be housed by the council. However if you have multiple dependents and are yourself a dependent(on the state) you are considered 'band 1', effectively you're sure of a forever home in a number of months, certainly less than 2 years. It's certainly not a fair system and not one which is compatible with a capitalist economy. The message to young females is remain single and produce offspring.

It also seems to be at odds with the social housing policy of my parents generation which seemed to favour those with regular employment. That being said single women with children were stuffed into institutions in those days(the other extreme). Some sustainable middle ground has to be found for the small minority who aren't interested in employment, perhaps a co-living solution sharing kitchens with other families would be a good low cost answer and there'd still be a clear incentive to become economically active, with regular social housing reserved for those working and earning less than €50k.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

However if you have multiple dependents and are yourself a dependent(on the state) you are considered 'band 1', effectively you're sure of a forever home in a number of months, certainly less than 2 years.

What county are you in?!?!

Because the average waiting time in Dublin for a council house is closer to 12 years, not 2 or anywhere like it!

Months? You're dreaming.

Gatling

Housed in months seriously do people actually believe the ****e they post

melekalikimaka

I personally know people whore went applied to keys within months

Patrick2010

Wait until direct provision closes down and you'll see who gets priority then.

Gatling

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I personally know people whore went applied to keys within months

Unless there is a terminal illness or similar dire medical situation it doesn't happen ,there is litterally thousands off applicants for every one property that becomes available ,

I've heard plenty of claims on here from 1st time posters aka rereg trolls .

Jinglejangle69

iColdFusion wrote: »

What are the requirements for this, does the developer have to give the council 10% of the houses for free, at cost price or what?

Seems crazy to be using 500k houses for social housing and also denying them to actual hard working people willing to pay that

Think I read the cost of the social houses is added onto the initial private house cost.

Jinglejangle69

Gatling wrote: »

Housed in months seriously do people actually believe the ****e they post

6 months is the average from going "homeless" to being housed.

Gatling

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

6 months is the average from going "homeless" to being housed.

And yet families are sitting in hotels years .
Also it doesn't mean you get a permanent social housing usually it's hap housing essentially long term lets

Good explanation on how houses are allocated in this article.

No one gets housed in months unless there is a dire medical need.

mloc123

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

6 months is the average from going "homeless" to being housed.

I think this may have been a loophole a few years ago that was closed out.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

What county are you in?!?!

Because the average waiting time in Dublin for a council house is closer to 12 years, not 2 or anywhere like it!

Months? You're dreaming.

The average across all lists. There's 3 priority bands. I'm talking about 'band 1'

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What county are you in?!?!

Because the average waiting time in Dublin for a council house is closer to 12 years, not 2 or anywhere like it!

Months? You're dreaming.

Well a lad I know got his missus pregnant and it was twins so he was delighted.
Stopped working and they got a house within 2 months so it can definitely
happen.
Triple Micky money too

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

The average across all lists. There's 3 priority bands. I'm talking about 'band 1'

Read the article I linked to above.

BrownFinger

BrownFinger wrote: »

Well a lad I know got his missus pregnant and it was twins so he was delighted.
Stopped working and they got a house within 2 months so it can definitely
happen.
Triple Micky money too

Oh lord, here come the anecdotes.

oceanman

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

6 months is the average from going "homeless" to being housed.

what planet are you living on?...

Bargain_Hound

I've posted about our experience several times on boards. We bought a new build in a very large new development in Co. Meath 2017/2018. The developer & EA hid the fact the 3 houses attached to us were social houses and the 4 directly behind us. We sold (luckily) and moved less than a year after we bought. Ultimately we lost a lot of cash between sale costs/legal fees but I count my self very lucky that we even managed to sell so quickly and bought elsewhere in an already established estate in Dublin. The whole process caused an awful lot of heartache as fundamentally we loved the house but the neighbors started to become a bit of an issue. Members of a certain ethnicity. I'll say no more. Mightn't bother some people, but after going through what we did, no way would I give the thumbs-up and say risk it.

Edit: there is several social houses in the estate we live in now, no where near our doorstep so the fact rarely enters my head. However, when your attached to a bad egg, it is a different story. A lifetime commitment.

Eric Cartman

Gatling wrote: »

And yet families are sitting in hotels years .
Also it doesn't mean you get a permanent social housing usually it's hap housing essentially long term lets

Almost all families in hostels over 9 months have declined an offer

The posters timeline are woefully optimistic, but the hotel for uears crowd are not a good anecdote to rebut that

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Almost all families in hostels over 9 months have declined an offer

The posters timeline are woefully optimistic, but the hotel for uears crowd are not a good anecdote to rebut that

Nearly everything on the topic is antidotal claims .

A little less generalisation would help ,we know not all social tenants are unemployed or lazy layabouts ,
Record House prices across the board suggest social tenants don't effect house prices much

Timeline all depends on circumstance. Mostly, it depends on how much of a thorn in the side of the Council you can be.

A girl I know (related to me) has 2 kids, and lived in a really rough area. They wanted to move to a nicer estate for a long time. Then the mother got a cancer diagnosis (lifelong chain smoker, so didn't exactly catch anyone by surprise). Literally (and i mean literally) within 3 days of the diagnosis, they had the forms filled in and they were down to the council. Took about 6 months, but they got moved to another area.

Unfortunately, the other area wasn't a whole lot nicer. So they settled there for about a year, and then decided to go again. The council pretty much said 'lol no' and ignored them. For about a fortnight after that, they were in the newspapers, on the radio, the mother was about to die and she needed somewhere with no stairs (their thinking was that if they went for a bungalow, they'd be in an area more geared towards older people or small families, less likely to be in a sh/thole). After about 2 months of complaining and moaning, they got moved to a bungalow, in a private-build estate. Really nice area, one of the kinda 'premium' areas in the town.

Mother died about 3 years later and now the two kids have the house to themselves.

I should point out though, that although this family suffered from sticky mattresses, they don't really cause any outward issues (not gonna be joyriding or breaking into houses).

But it's still demonstrable that you can indeed move very quickly, if you have 1) the right sob story, and 2) the time to pester and torment the council.

mariaalice

Deleted User wrote: »

Timeline all depends on circumstance. Mostly, it depends on how much of a thorn in the side of the Council you can be.

A girl I know (related to me) has 2 kids, and lived in a really rough area. They wanted to move to a nicer estate for a long time. Then the mother got a cancer diagnosis (lifelong chain smoker, so didn't exactly catch anyone by surprise). Literally (and i mean literally) within 3 days of the diagnosis, they had the forms filled in and they were down to the council. Took about 6 months, but they got moved to another area.

Unfortunately, the other area wasn't a whole lot nicer. So they settled there for about a year, and then decided to go again. The council pretty much said 'lol no' and ignored them. For about a fortnight after that, they were in the newspapers, on the radio, the mother was about to die and she needed somewhere with no stairs (their thinking was that if they went for a bungalow, they'd be in an area more geared towards older people or small families, less likely to be in a sh/thole). After about 2 months of complaining and moaning, they got moved to a bungalow, in a private-build estate. Really nice area, one of the kinda 'premium' areas in the town.

Mother died about 3 years later and now the two kids have the house to themselves.

I should point out though, that although this family suffered from sticky mattresses, they don't really cause any outward issues (not gonna be joyriding or breaking into houses).

But it's still demonstrable that you can indeed move very quickly, if you have 1) the right sob story, and 2) the time to pester and torment the council.

Are you really saying terminal cancer is a sob story?

The Phantom Jipper

DubLad69 wrote: »

So I have been thinking about this all night. And I got a friend who works for Kildare CC to check out the plans for the social house. And I've decided to pull out.

It turns out that it is no longer just the house attached me that is going to the council. It is also the house on the other side, and the two houses across the street. So it would be social housing on all sides. The ones either side of me are also 4 beds which I wouldn't have thought would be given as social housing, only 3 beds.

We are buying another house in a different section of the same development, there is no social housing at all in this part.

It's a 3 bed instead of a 4 bed, but is a good 50k cheaper. Won't be ready until November though.

The funny thing is, I would have no problem buying a house in a council estate from the 70s/80's. But I feel like it is different with a new build.

Out of curiosity, is checking the extent of social housing something that anybody can do or do you need a source somewhere like the council?

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Record House prices across the board suggest social tenants don't effect house prices much

The thing is, let's say a new build estate is going up tomorrow, and we're all living in it. Boards Avenew we'll call it, and we'll deliberately spell Avenue wrong, to be pretentious.

There are 200 houses, 20 of them are social (10%). I live in 1 Boards Avenew, and you live in 42 Boards Avenew. We both paid the same, and both our houses are the same 'type', a 3 bed semi-d.

It turns out 40, 41, 43, 44 and 45 are social houses. Meaning you're surrounded, but I'm nowhere near them. Me and you fall in love, and decide we'll sell up, combing our money and buy a house together.

The estate itself might not have a bad name, or a dreadful reputation, so people will be interested in purchasing there.

When people come to view my house, and they see a row of houses with nobody about the place, a few new-ish, well maintained cars in the drives and a fella out cutting the grass, or talking to a tradesman about getting a new bathroom, they don't pass any remarks.

When the estate agent brings them around the corner to your house, and there's a garden with two cars and parts of them all over the place, with a lad working away on one of them, Jacinta and all her friends are sitting in the garden in their pyjamas chain smoking and littering, the kids are drawing all over the paths and roads with chalk and running through everyone's gardens playing 'tag', and johnny is having a back garden beer with a few friends and Tiesto at full volume.

Which of those houses, less than 200 meters from each other, do you think the potential buyer is going to make an offer on? Your house will not get the same money as my house. Social housing may not affect the entire estate's pricing, but it does have a local impact on the immediate surrounding houses.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Are you really saying terminal cancer is a sob story?

Good job of completely missing the point.


I'm highlighting that a single family, managed to get not one, but two moves, within two years, by playing a sob story.


If she had been put in a wheelchair and needed to get her house extended so she could live in it, I'd say good on her. But they played the 'poor me' card and managed to push their way past others on the list, two times, to ensure that they got a nicer estate.

Typical boards thread on social housing.
If there was a thread discussing any other type of minorities the way posters discuss social housing residents, it would be closed.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good job of completely missing the point.


I'm highlighting that a single family, managed to get not one, but two moves, within two years, by playing a sob story.


If she had been put in a wheelchair and needed to get her house extended so she could live in it, I'd say good on her. But they played the 'poor me' card and managed to push their way past others on the list, two times, to ensure that they got a nicer estate.

The woman had terminal cancer, that is exactly who social housing should be available to.

Eric Cartman

bubblypop wrote: »

The woman had terminal cancer, that is exactly who social housing should be available to.

absolutely. Its a massive shame that we keep prioritising those who choose to not work or contribute for social housing over the tiny minority who genuinely need it, 100% agreed.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

The woman had terminal cancer, that is exactly who social housing should be available to.

They already had social housing. They'd been living in the same house for over 20 years. There was no issue with the house, they just wanted a nicer area (and got it).