Buying next to Social House MOD WARNING POST #118

Gatling

FromADistance wrote: »

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

Experience says otherwise ,

FromADistance

Gatling wrote: »

Experience says otherwise ,

Ok :rolleyes:

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

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 ?

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.

JimmyVik

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

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

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Idbatterim

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.

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

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.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Eric Cartman

Xterminator wrote: »

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.

Caranica

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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.

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.

Caranica

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

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!

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".

Idbatterim

Deleted User wrote: »

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!

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

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..

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

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?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

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.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.