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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Buying next to Social House MOD WARNING POST #118

1246

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    people who own their own property are not generally not the ones causing trouble.

    Experience says otherwise ,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 310 ✭✭FromADistance


    Gatling wrote: »
    Experience says otherwise ,

    Ok :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,179 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Meanwhile, the wagon who owns the house next door is still blaring the music full blast. Its been almost four hours, now.

    Horrors: someone using their leisure time in their own house for leisure in the middle of the afternoon.

    If it was 3am, you'd have a valid complaint.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Gatling wrote: »
    Experience says otherwise ,

    are you genuinely saying that the percentage of people who live in privately owned homes who cause anti-social behaviour issues is higher than the percentage of people in social housing who cause anti-social behaviour issues ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Gatling wrote: »
    Experience says otherwise ,

    You're wrong I'm afraid.

    I have considerable professional experience in this area, and my experience, and that of anyone else I know contradicts yours.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    DubLad69 all I am going to ask you is this. How much do you like this house?

    Because no matter what new development you decide to buy in now, there is going to be minimum 10% social housing. And having grown up in a council estate, I hope you know that not everyone who lives in social housing is a multi-generational scumbag, though you will read many sweeping generalisations about social housing tenants here.

    If you feel that worried about it, see if there is another house in the development you can switch too. But if your neighbour is a private buyer, who also turns out to be an anti-social scumbag, you have even less chance of getting any type of redress than you would with council tenant next door.


    I grew up in a council estate too.
    90% of the people in it were lovely.
    The few families that were scumbags made everyones life in the whole estate a misery. Even cost lots of people their childrens lives at the end of the day. Nowadays I will stay as far away from social housing as i can possibly get.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    A country run by wasters, for wasters... robbing from the vulnerable hard working, to give to their version of " the vulnerable ". Vatadkar saying what a great generous welfare system we had the other day... I'm sure he gets loads of votes from the social housing brigade


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Erica Fleming was 8 years waiting to be housed in total, the last 22 months were spent in a hotel after losing the place she'd be renting privately due to rising rent costs.

    (eta) The two "refusals" she made were for privately rented apartments on HAP.

    are you saying that to justify her refusals.... that she turned down two perfectly fine hap apartments and cost the taxpayer more to stay in a hotel until she bullied her way into a social '4eva home' is actually disgusting.


  • Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    A country run by wasters, for wasters... robbing from the vulnerable hard working, to give to their version of " the vulnerable ". Vatadkar saying what a great generous welfare system we had the other day... I'm sure he gets loads of votes from the social housing brigade
    your contributions to any thread amount to nothing more than laying the problem at the door of Varadkar and FG even though social housing anti-social activity has been a problem for many decades and FG weren't in power for the majority of that time.
    Your preferred party's activists never let the obstacle of not being power be a hindrance to them when they wanted to moderate individuals behaviour as they'd take the matter in hand.
    When I lived adjacent to a Council Estate where there was a huge problem with anti-social behaviour and overspill the local government consisted of unelected officals and Councillors were mainly SF, Lab and Socialist Party members.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    are you genuinely saying that the percentage of people who live in privately owned homes who cause anti-social behaviour issues is higher than the percentage of people

    I'm not it's more or less I'm saying it happens ,home owners are no angels ,at least with social housing you have some chance of getting rid of a bad apple , with s bogey home owner your stuck with them unless they sell up or your forced to.
    There is bad apples in social housing and owner occupiers


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,771 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    are you genuinely saying that the percentage of people who live in privately owned homes who cause anti-social behaviour issues is higher than the percentage of people in social housing who cause anti-social behaviour issues ?

    you do know that there is no empirical evidence and that you are asking this posters opinion experience. I personally would say that my experience is that private owners who rent out their property (short and long term) have caused far more issues that social housing tenants. So i can answer you question as yes.

    The root of problem is not the social housing tenants, but the lack of consequence for anti social behaviour in ireland. Its a societal issue.

    The housing collaborative like Cluid have an ASB policy. They have a mandatory contact with their tenants which lays out what is not acceptable, and a range of penalties that are used to enforce the policy. City council also have a policy and can be contacted about ASB. They are not great at dealing with it, but at least there is a mechanism for dealing with it.

    But there is no similar code of conduct for private owned houses, and the people who live in them, owner or renter. You can call the guards for egregious behaviour but they dont tuen up half the time, as it is not a priority! Why is this? Because the politicans dont see this issue as a vote winner!

    I wish people would stop demonising social housing tenants, on scant evidence. this thread was started because the OP wished they could live as far away from the social housing crowd.

    Its a shortsighted me fein attitude, because we have learned that large estates of council only tenants, is a recipe for poverty, disadvantage, and a fertile ground for crime gangs to thrive, as the young people see the crime figures as role models! The cost of intervention in these estates once the disadvantage and poverty is endemic is far greater, then not allowing ghettos to develop in the 1st place.

    And sure as day follows night, if OP gets his way they will segregate estates, and build new moyross's and darndales and ballymuns and repeat the mistakes of the past.

    there is plenty of science to back up my assertion above - below is a snippit.
    There is considerable evidence in Ireland and internationally that high concentrations of
    poorer households bring about neighbourhood effects such as place-based stigma, poorer
    quality environment, and reduced life chances for those living in the neighbourhoods
    affected. No similar disadvantages are associated with large concentrations of households
    in private ownership. It is therefore clear that it is not housing tenure that is the issue but
    rather the income of households living in different housing tenures. Mixing tenure is seen
    to dilute the negative impacts of neighbourhood effects for low income households in social
    housing because of the presence of higher income households in owner occupied housing.

    To sum, its shortsighted and bad for society to allow the 'haves' to live in private estates far away from the 'have nots'. Being able to pick a house in an estate as far away from the social housing stock it a step in that direction, that leads towards gated communities with private security etc.

    if there is a problem with the lack of response/deterrent to antisocial behaviour this should be addressed by chaing bylaws and enforcing them. But not by dragging ireland towards americanised style of segregated housing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,739 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Its ironic.

    I'm sitting here in my privately owned living room, and I had to put my bluetooth headphones on and hook them up to my TV so I could hear it, as my next-door-neighbour who also privately owns has been blaring loud music through the living room wall since 3pm.

    She couldn't give a **** who she is disturbing. She knows I've been working from home. (but I'm off today). This is the fifth time in two weeks she has done this, and it usually lasts for at least four hours. I'm keeping a record in case I end up having to take a noise disturbance case against her.

    Yet my council neighbours on the other side? I never a peep out of them. Lovely people.

    Yeah and more often than not its the other way around.

    I made sure before I signed the dotted line on a 30 year mortgage there was no social housing in the area, been a dream to live here with decent hard working neighbours and not an ounce of trouble over the last 13 years I've been here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    you do know that there is no empirical evidence and that you are asking this posters opinion experience. I personally would say that my experience is that private owners who rent out their property (short and long term) have caused far more issues that social housing tenants. So i can answer you question as yes.

    The root of problem is not the social housing tenants, but the lack of consequence for anti social behaviour in ireland. Its a societal issue.

    The housing collaborative like Cluid have an ASB policy. They have a mandatory contact with their tenants which lays out what is not acceptable, and a range of penalties that are used to enforce the policy. City council also have a policy and can be contacted about ASB. They are not great at dealing with it, but at least there is a mechanism for dealing with it.

    But there is no similar code of conduct for private owned houses, and the people who live in them, owner or renter. You can call the guards for egregious behaviour but they dont tuen up half the time, as it is not a priority! Why is this? Because the politicans dont see this issue as a vote winner!

    I wish people would stop demonising social housing tenants, on scant evidence. this thread was started because the OP wished they could live as far away from the social housing crowd.

    Its a shortsighted me fein attitude, because we have learned that large estates of council only tenants, is a recipe for poverty, disadvantage, and a fertile ground for crime gangs to thrive, as the young people see the crime figures as role models! The cost of intervention in these estates once the disadvantage and poverty is endemic is far greater, then not allowing ghettos to develop in the 1st place.

    And sure as day follows night, if OP gets his way they will segregate estates, and build new moyross's and darndales and ballymuns and repeat the mistakes of the past.

    there is plenty of science to back up my assertion above - below is a snippit.



    To sum, its shortsighted and bad for society to allow the 'haves' to live in private estates far away from the 'have nots'. Being able to pick a house in an estate as far away from the social housing stock it a step in that direction, that leads towards gated communities with private security etc.

    if there is a problem with the lack of response/deterrent to antisocial behaviour this should be addressed by chaing bylaws and enforcing them. But not by dragging ireland towards americanised style of segregated housing.

    But if mass rentals were an issue surely we would see those apartment blocks in the likes of sandyford and kilmaignham all cause problems, but we don't . The only time I've ever really seen issues with rental properties cause issues is with students and HAP tenants.

    Everyone acknowledges that building 100% social estates leads to massive anti-social problems, there is no such finding for 100% private owner occupier or 100% private rented apartment blocks / estates.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,161 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    I made sure before I signed the dotted line on a 30 year mortgage there was no social housing in the area, been a dream to live here with decent hard working neighbours and not an ounce of trouble over the last 13 years I've been here.

    There's no guarantee that there won't be social housing/trouble in the future e.g.:

    House sold to council/housing association
    House sold to investor - rents to council/housing association
    House sold to family, who end up being nightmare neighbours
    House rented to private tenants, who end up being nightmare neighbours
    House long term rented to council/housing association

    All of these means that all the "I bought where there's no social housing" posts are only valid in the here and now. Tomorrow could be another story. The councils and housing associations are buying second hand homes too, unless you've a detached house in the middle of the country you could have social housing beside you at any time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,739 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Caranica wrote: »
    There's no guarantee that there won't be social housing/trouble in the future e.g.:

    House sold to council/housing association
    House sold to investor - rents to council/housing association
    House sold to family, who end up being nightmare neighbours
    House rented to private tenants, who end up being nightmare neighbours
    House long term rented to council/housing association

    All of these means that all the "I bought where there's no social housing" posts are only valid in the here and now. Tomorrow could be another story. The councils and housing associations are buying second hand homes too, unless you've a detached house in the middle of the country you could have social housing beside you at any time.

    Its a small estate in a rural village, I've seen the mess the ethnic minority have made in the surrounding areas so was very careful before I put my money on the table.

    Luckily for me the folks around me had the same idea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,161 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    Its a small estate in a rural village, I've seen the mess the ethnic minority have made in the surrounding areas so was very careful before I put my money on the table.

    Luckily for me the folks around me had the same idea.

    Until someone dies/has to relocate for work/needs a bigger house/hits financial difficulty/separates etc etc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Caranica wrote: »
    Until someone dies/has to relocate for work/needs a bigger house/hits financial difficulty/separates etc etc

    Unless you make friends with someone in your local council housing department, or better still, someone at AO/HEO level or above in the council moves into the estate.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Once you're on the rent book, it's your house, no matter what happens. I know of people renting privately, that still have their name down as being a tenant in their elderly parent's council houses, because it'll be their house when the parent dies. It's generally a small amount of money they have to pay to the Council, and it saves the hassle and heartache of getting a mortgage etc.

    You may tell your friends not to bother wasting their money.

    Have recently been through this exact process for a family member with SDCC.

    They lived with their parent for over 20 years, were on the tenancy list, income declared and rent assessed and paid on it.

    Parent died last year. Adult child applied for transfer of tenancy to them and had to go through the whole application process.

    They were assessed and though they qualified for social housing in their own right based on their income, they were refused the tenancy of the existing home, based on the grounds that it was too large for their needs.

    SDCC has granted them the "right to remain" until they can be relocated to a smaller unit, but they were not granted a tenancy.

    If they had not met the criteria based on income, they would have been asked to quit the property, despite having lived there and rent paid for 20+ years.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Horrors: someone using their leisure time in their own house for leisure in the middle of the afternoon.

    If it was 3am, you'd have a valid complaint.

    I have a valid complaint at any time when loud noise from the neighbour's home impacts on quality of life to the point that I cannot hear my own TV or have to wear headphones to block out their noise so I can work.

    Complaints under the EPA Act

    While the law does not specifically mention an exact level or standard of noise that is illegal, it is clear that if neighbourhood noise is affecting your quality of life, then you have a right to complain. If you plan to complain about excessive noise, it is generally recommended that you keep a detailed diary of the times when it occurred, the duration and, if possible, the levels involved.

    You should first approach the person or business causing the noise, explain that it is a nuisance and try to come to a mutually acceptable solution.

    Applying to the District Court
    If this does not work, the Act allows any person, a local authority or the EPA to complain to the District Court about a noise that is ‘so loud, so continuous, so repeated, of such duration or pitch or occurring at such times as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to a person in any premises in the neighbourhood or to a person lawfully using any public place’ and seek an order to deal with the noise nuisance.


    Disturbing your neighbours with loud music is so unnecessary these days too, all it takes is a half decent pair of bluetooth headphones, and blast it as loud as you like!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭ahnowbrowncow


    Caranica wrote: »
    There's no guarantee that there won't be social housing/trouble in the future e.g.:

    House sold to council/housing association
    House sold to investor - rents to council/housing association
    House sold to family, who end up being nightmare neighbours
    House rented to private tenants, who end up being nightmare neighbours
    House long term rented to council/housing association

    All of these means that all the "I bought where there's no social housing" posts are only valid in the here and now. Tomorrow could be another story. The councils and housing associations are buying second hand homes too, unless you've a detached house in the middle of the country you could have social housing beside you at any time.


    There is always a chance of having bad neighbours no matter where you buy, nobody has said otherwise. What people are saying to the OP that is that the risk of having bad neighbours is substantially higher when they're knowingly purchasing a house that is surrounded by social housing.

    Is it really that difficult for some people to comprehend such simple risk analysis?

    The contrarians here are the equivalent of people saying, "no, go ahead and buy the house in that floodplain because other houses also have a chance of getting flooded in a 100-year flood".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    your contributions to any thread amount to nothing more than laying the problem at the door of Varadkar and FG even though social housing anti-social activity has been a problem for many decades and FG weren't in power for the majority of that time.
    Your preferred party's activists never let the obstacle of not being power be a hindrance to them when they wanted to moderate individuals behaviour as they'd take the matter in hand.
    When I lived adjacent to a Council Estate where there was a huge problem with anti-social behaviour and overspill the local government consisted of unelected officals and Councillors were mainly SF, Lab and Socialist Party members.

    the entire system is an absolute disgrace. I get politically here, why its something non of them want to touch! IF there is another collapse, if they had any balls here, it would be the perfect time to grasp the nettle. Cant see it happening though...

    Look, we are all for integration and fairness! LOOOOOLLLLL! so cant we place these social homes, beside the local and national politicians too? I mean they are the decision makers and should lead by example... Sure they are all a great bunch of lads, the likes of pat kenny, joy duffy, throw them in beside those outrageous hypocrites too!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    are you saying that to justify her refusals.... that she turned down two perfectly fine hap apartments and cost the taxpayer more to stay in a hotel until she bullied her way into a social '4eva home' is actually disgusting.

    Yes. Because those two apartments were sought out (in very expensive areas) and offered to her specifically to try and shut her up.

    She refused them because HAP does not offer any kind of longterm security. If she had accepted one she was taking the chance that 12 months later the landlord could decide to sell the apartment or raise the rent out of her reach, and she'd be right back where she started from, bottom of the list and living in a hotel. Remember, she was working and lost her previously rented private accommodation for the same reason. The landlord raised the rent beyond her means.

    So, as far as I'm concerned, yes, she did the right thing. In her shoes, I'd have done the same.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Lmkrnr wrote: »
    Don't buy in an estate if your worried about a social tennant as a neighbor,.simple as.

    Many new builds are bought to rent out, so chances are you'll have neighbor either on Hap or in a council house. I myself own my house and I hope to rent it out in a few year's. If the potential tenant is recieving HAP ect then so be it. If my neighbor was you, you would of bought thinking the neighbors were all private owners but that would of changed in a few years. Then what?


    The difference is that you can be held accountable for the behavior of your tenants, so it would be in your interest to take control of a bad tenant..


  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You may tell your friends not to bother wasting their money.

    Have recently been through this exact process for a family member with SDCC.


    How long ago was that? Perhaps it varies from Council to Council.


    I'm in Louth, and in the past 12 months I've had the same situation you describe above, in my estate, and the daughter was given the house.




    In a separate situation about 3 years ago, a mother died, and her son, who had moved out (to different social housing) about 6 months before her death, offered the council his house back, so he could swap back to his mam's house.


    They said no, he had a house and the mam's house was going to be given to someone else. He actually went around the estate with a petition, but it got him nowhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,898 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I support social insurance.
    I support the welfare state.
    One of my parents was reared in a council house.

    I also fully understand that if you have saved for years, and paid 300-400k for a house, it may be sickening to see people who don't and/or won't work, moving in near you, and paying well below market rents.

    Yes, they don't and never will own the house.

    You would need to be a saint not to feel even a little bit disgruntled.


    People who work more and earn more should live in better houses. Surely that is the point of working more and earning more?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    How long ago was that? Perhaps it varies from Council to Council.

    Within the last six months. Parent died last May. SDCC informed in July when the adult child received the official death certificate and submitted it to the local authority. They didn't hear anything for about 3 months, then the council came back and asked them to complete an application for transfer of tenancy. (An 11 page application form which also has to be part completed by the Revenue Commissioners). They took about six weeks to assess same, and came back, declining tenancy of existing property but granting right to remain pending reallocation. I can send you a redacted copy of the letter from the council confirming the same, if you want to provide me with an email contact.


  • Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    They didn't hear anything for about 3 months, then the council came back and asked them to complete an application for transfer of tenancy. (An 11 page application form which also has to be part completed by the Revenue Commissioners). They took about six weeks to assess same, and came back, declining tenancy of existing property but granting right to remain pending reallocation.
    that sounds decidedly better than having to join the end of a very long housing queue and I can only assume they don't have dependents which would justify retention of the existing council housing.
    Are you trying to present this as a case of the Council being unfair and not giving them preferential treatment, which they most obviously are receiving, to others who aren't already within the system?
    This smacks of "entitlement" to be honest. Their rental at 15% or so of whatever income they officially receive, earned or otherwise, is a very desirable position to find themselves in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,172 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    so cant we place these social homes, beside the local and national politicians too?

    A substantial number of local and some national politicians live in council estates; take a look at the address of SF Cllrs/TDs for starters, then S/PBP, SD, Labour even.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,172 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    How long ago was that? Perhaps it varies from Council to Council.


    I'm in Louth, and in the past 12 months I've had the same situation you describe above, in my estate, and the daughter was given the house.

    If the council doesn't see any advantage to swapping, they won't. If its a 2 bed it really may not be worth the hassle, if its a 3 or more they will want it back.
    In a separate situation about 3 years ago, a mother died, and her son, who had moved out (to different social housing) about 6 months before her death, offered the council his house back, so he could swap back to his mam's house.

    The effort, hassle and cost (no matter how recently he'd moved in to the other house, it would need checks at the least) of this would mean zero reason for the council to do it. And if he'd moved in to a smaller unit, there would be no reason to even countenance it.

    The mother house is going to need similar/the same works done to it eventually so it wouldn't be saving them money there.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I can send you a redacted copy of the letter from the council confirming the same, if you want to provide me with an email contact.


    No, not at all.

    Seems like a very big inconsistency between two councils (I'm referring to Louth County Council). You'd assume the rules of social housing would be very much the same, nationally.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,172 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    You'd assume the rules of social housing would be very much the same, nationally.

    The rent calculation system isn't even always the same in the same county (former UDCs/Boroughs merged in with their own regs) let alone nationwide, basically only the core eligibility is defined nationally.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Are you trying to present this as case of the Council being unfair and not giving them preferential treatment which they most obviously are receiving to others who aren't already within the system?
    This smacks of "entitlement" to be honest. Their rental at 15% of so of whatever income they official receive, earned or otherwise is a very desirable position to find themselves in.

    I can assure you they would have preferred for their parent not to die. No, they have no dependants.

    They received no "preferential treatment". They did everything by the book. They were officially named on the tenancy list for over 20 years, they submitted their earnings for assessment every time the council asked for it, they followed procedure promptly when their parent died and they are okay with the council's decision to reallocate them to a smaller place, which the council decided they are qualified for, in their own right.

    Your post smacks of begrudgery.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No, not at all.

    Seems like a very big inconsistency between two councils (I'm referring to Louth County Council). You'd assume the rules of social housing would be very much the same, nationally.

    It seems to be an area that has been tightened up significantly in recent years. I would assume they have to assess each application on its own merits, like any application for housing. No two applications will be the same.

    The point is, many make the assumption that grown up children "inheriting" their parents' council tenancy is something that is automatic - it's not.

    The child applying to take over the tenancy has to meet the criteria on income limits, family size and any other criteria for the home they're applying for tenancy of, in the same way as any other applicant for social housing does.


  • Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I can assure you they would have preferred for their parent not to die. No, they have no dependants.

    They received no "preferential treatment". They did everything by the book. They were officially named on the tenancy list for over 20 years, they submitted their earnings for assessment every time the council asked for it, they followed procedure promptly when their parent died and they are okay with the council's decision to reallocate them to a smaller place, which the council decided they are qualified for, in their own right.

    Your post smacks of begrudgery.
    I intentionally left out the circumstances of their coming in to their situation which was the loss of a family member so that emotions wouldn't cloud the simple question which you are avoiding: Are they or are they not in a decidedly better position with regard to provision of shelter than someone added to the end of a very, very long queue for social housing. Their recent bereavement is not a factor which should be weighted to justify retention of beneficial use of a highly valuable asset which doesn't belong to them or their deceased relation but to the State.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Landords buy a private house, then the rent it out to a single mother
    who is on welfare .They don,t care as long as they get the rent every month .
    you may be living next door to a social housing tenant and have no problems at all .But if you decide to sell your house in 10 years time
    you might not get as much as someone in the estate who is not living
    next door to a social housing unit.my friend lived in a council estate in finglas , she had no problem with any neighbours at all.
    At this point the estate may as well be private ,the house,s were bought by the tenants, the average age of the owners is 40-50 years old.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I intentionally left out the circumstances of their coming in to their situation which was the loss of a family member so that emotions wouldn't cloud the simple question which you are avoiding: Are they or are they not in a decidedly better position with regard to provision of shelter than someone added to the end of a very, very long queue for social housing. Their recent bereavement is not a factor which should be weighted to justify retention of beneficial use of a highly valuable asset which doesn't belong to them or their deceased relation but to the State.

    So do you think someone who has been a registered part of an existing tenancy for over 20 years, paid rent in full and on time in all that time, should be made to quit when the lead tenant dies, and go to the end of the list like a new applicant?

    Their parent's death wasn't a factor in the application they underwent for the transfer of the tenancy. Their circumstances and means was. If they didn't qualify for housing in their own right, then the council would have served them notice to surrender the property.

    I think the process is very fair, in the circumstances. Feel free to disagree.


  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Are they or are they not in a decidedly better position with regard to provision of shelter than someone added to the end of a very, very long queue for social housing.

    It depends, as far as the media would have you believe, they are now officially homeless, as they don't have a 'forever home'. They're staring eviction in the face.

    Of course, no one is really homeless, or without shelter, unless by choice.




    There's a family that live in a street near me. The husband had his own business/van, etc. doing carpentry and roofing bits and bobs. Wife never worked, but they have 4 kids.

    He gave up work about 3-4 years ago because he wasn't making enough to make it worthwhile, and it would work against him going on the housing list. They were in a 2 bed council house.

    I just seen them posting on Facebook that their new home is lovely - they shared an ad for a new build estate around the corner from me, where they got a 4 bed house, which would be valued at about 325k.

    (I'm guessing on the valuation, because there aren't any 4 beds left for sale in the estate, but a 3 bed will set you back 'from' 275k).

    It's downright wrong.




    The only upside is that, aside from their kids running wild, they don't tend to be noisy or dirty neighbours. Not that it should matter.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Geuze wrote: »
    I support social insurance.
    I support the welfare state.
    One of my parents was reared in a council house.

    I also fully understand that if you have saved for years, and paid 300-400k for a house, it may be sickening to see people who don't and/or won't work, moving in near you, and paying well below market rents.

    Yes, they don't and never will own the house.

    You would need to be a saint not to feel even a little bit disgruntled.


    People who work more and earn more should live in better houses. Surely that is the point of working more and earning more?

    This is just bitterness.
    This rubbish of 'I paid 400,000 euro but my neighbour gets a house for nothing!'
    Who cares what your neighbour pays or doesn't pay? Why would it have any affect on you at all?

    The last house I owned I bought for nearly 400,000, my neighbours didn't pay anything like that, the family that bought my house paid a lot more than I did.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    :p
    It depends, as far as the media would have you believe, they are now officially homeless, as they don't have a 'forever home'. They're staring eviction in the face.

    Of course, no one is really homeless, or without shelter, unless by choice.




    There's a family that live in a street near me. The husband had his own business/van, etc. doing carpentry and roofing bits and bobs. Wife never worked, but they have 4 kids.

    He gave up work about 3-4 years ago because he wasn't making enough to make it worthwhile, and it would work against him going on the housing list. They were in a 2 bed council house.

    I just seen them posting on Facebook that their new home is lovely - they shared an ad for a new build estate around the corner from me, where they got a 4 bed house, which would be valued at about 325k.

    (I'm guessing on the valuation, because there aren't any 4 beds left for sale in the estate, but a 3 bed will set you back 'from' 275k).

    It's downright wrong.




    The only upside is that, aside from their kids running wild, they don't tend to be noisy or dirty neighbours. Not that it should matter.

    I understand why if you ate being honest with income etc you might be better off not working. But here is what many do and best option. Just work cash... the government have created the outrageous situation, the government allow culture funds etc pay no tax . Every man for themselves, fcuk the corrupt system


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,898 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    bubblypop wrote: »
    This is just bitterness.
    This rubbish of 'I paid 400,000 euro but my neighbour gets a house for nothing!'
    Who cares what your neighbour pays or doesn't pay? Why would it have any affect on you at all?

    It does affect me.

    I pay tax to finance HAP/RAS, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    bubblypop wrote: »
    This is just bitterness.
    This rubbish of 'I paid 400,000 euro but my neighbour gets a house for nothing!'
    Who cares what your neighbour pays or doesn't pay? Why would it have any affect on you at all?

    The last house I owned I bought for nearly 400,000, my neighbours didn't pay anything like that, the family that bought my house paid a lot more than I did.

    I'll give you a clue. Who do you think is paying for the free house? Its robbing living standards from the workers to the workshy!

    These ridiculous situation with hap, social housing is paid its harming others ability to save for a deposit and reducing their spending token the transfer of wealth here to the " workshy " is a moral disgrace...


  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bubblypop wrote: »
    This is just bitterness.
    This rubbish of 'I paid 400,000 euro but my neighbour gets a house for nothing!'
    Who cares what your neighbour pays or doesn't pay? Why would it have any affect on you at all?

    The last house I owned I bought for nearly 400,000, my neighbours didn't pay anything like that, the family that bought my house paid a lot more than I did.

    Of course it affects him. It affects everyone. My tax is going to pay for other people to get a free house, when I myself can't afford the same house.

    If I want to buy a cheaper house, the council are using my money, to bid against me.

    The country has swung way too far in favour of layabouts. You get a house paid for, money to furnish it, and money towards anything that breaks, and if you squeeze out a few kids you'll get it in no time at all.

    Whereas there are lots of people working full time jobs, the people who actually keep the country ticking over, and they're getting, what? A partial tax refund if they buy a new build house. The price of which has been inflated beyond reach for most, and they still run the risk of living next to a social tenant that will torment them, while the indifferent council shrug their shoulders.


    In my area, unemployed single mothers with 4 kids can end up in houses worth nearly half a million euro, but a single person working and saving, making an average wage, won't make enough for a bank to even lend him enough to buy in the same estate.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sorry, but you are all paying tax anyway.
    Doesn't matter if one of one hundred people are living in social housing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 310 ✭✭FromADistance


    Geuze wrote: »
    It does affect me.

    I pay tax to finance HAP/RAS, etc.

    And paying tax to finance all this whilst knowing some of these houses are in the best addresses in the country. 66 million to buy 100 apartments is the latest. That's the sickening bit.


  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Sorry, but you are all paying tax anyway.
    Doesn't matter if one of one hundred people are living in social housing.


    Do you not realise that tax money is finite?

    Unemployed people are being fired into houses left, right and centre, to the tune of millions upon millions of euro. Working people in Navan still can't get a train to Dublin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Sorry, but you are all paying tax anyway.
    Doesn't matter if one of one hundred people are living in social housing.

    Literally not even with wasting my breath, but think about it, say we didnt have to waste billions on hap and rip off social housing, believe it or not. We could reduce taxes or doba while other cheap of things with this money. Did this ever occur to you?

    You can tell the pro workshy here aren't contributing fcuk all. If you were your be singing a different tune...actually it's more obvious, you are actually the direct beneficiaries of our taxes, to find your sane living standard as the rest of us what a bloody surprise you support the current system


  • Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So do you think someone who has been a registered part of an existing tenancy for over 20 years, paid rent in full and on time in all that time, should be made to quit when the lead tenant dies, and go to the end of the list like a new applicant?

    Their parent's death wasn't a factor in the application they underwent for the transfer of the tenancy. Their circumstances and means was. If they didn't qualify for housing in their own right, then the council would have served them notice to surrender the property.

    I think the process is very fair, in the circumstances. Feel free to disagree.
    You still haven't answered the question. Are they not at a considerable advantage to someone joining the end of the queue.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Literally not even with wasting my breath, but think about it, say we didnt have to waste billions on hap and rip off social housing, believe it or not. We could reduce taxes or doba while other cheap of things with this money. Did this ever occur to you?

    You can tell the pro workshy here aren't contributing fcuk all. If you were your be singing a different tune...actually it's more obvious, you are actually the direct beneficiaries of our taxes, to find your sane living standard as the rest of us what a bloody surprise you support the current system

    Do you think I don't work?


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Do you not realise that tax money is finite?

    Unemployed people are being fired into houses left, right and centre, to the tune of millions upon millions of euro. Working people in Navan still can't get a train to Dublin.

    So why is the country so concerned with the 'homeless ' issue then?
    Seems to be the biggest problem in Ireland right now.


  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You still haven't answered the question. Are they not at a considerable advantage to someone joining the end of the queue.

    Can you explain how someone who is being removed from their home against their choice, is in a better position than someone who's willingly/actively looking for somewhere else to be provided to them?

    You are trying to portray someone "on the end of the queue" as sleeping in the doorway of a shop in the rain, whilst the person in the story is living it up in their soon to be former house? Both are living in houses, possibly similar lifestyles.

    They'll both be changing house, but only one of them wants to.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement