Buying next to Social House MOD WARNING POST #118

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Geuze

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.

Idbatterim

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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.

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...

bubblypop

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.

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

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.

bubblypop

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.

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

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Idbatterim

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?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

L1011

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

This post is worthless and offensive and will be carded as appropriate when I'm at a PC. Do not post in this thread again. Do not reply to this moderation.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

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

Because the people who moan about it are the ones looking for free housing. The ones moaning about it are the ones who have all day to moan and complain.

Whereas the people out working haven't time to be dealing with such stuff, as they're trying to keep a roof over their head.

The insurance industry has been rampantly ripping people off for years, and a protest was organised a few years ago. It was a big issue, but how many people attended the protest? I think it was something like 10 people. Because the people paying through the nose for car insurance, are at work, and don't have time to be dealing with protests or demonstrations.

You can tell Johnathan, the Office worker, that he's gonna be getting taxed an extra 5% from now on, and he has to just swallow it.

But if you tell Jacinta, the Full Time Mad Bastard, that child benefit stops after 3 kids, you'll have the streets of dublin thronged with the usual faces complaining they need more, more, more.

Jimi H

A colleague of mine bought a house 4 or 5 years ago. There are I think 14 finished units in the estate that are occupied. I think she said 12 houses and 2 apartments. Anyway, it’s an unfinished estate as the developer went bust but another developer has taken over and is now finishing the other 26 units. Council has bought all of the unfinished units and my colleagues house value has plummeted. It looks like the council are now going to make an offer to all of the residents for their houses/apartments.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I think it makes more sense to re-assess the existing occupant first, rather then putting them out, or into a hotel room, and then making them apply as a new applicant only to then add them to back at the bottom of the list when they qualify (probably in band 1 due to being made homeless!)

If you see that as an advantage over new applicants, then fair enough, but after a established history of rent paying occupancy* I think reassessment of the existing occupant while still in situ, is warranted.

*(I think there is a requirement of 5 years on the tenancy list and income included in rent assessment, to apply for transfer to tenancy, but it may be 2. Open to correction on this).

mariaalice

Has it occurred to all you are posting here that no one is forced to purchase a new build?

As for one of the other bit of nonsense here, there are politicians and journalists and the like who have purchased in new estates with social housing there are not preaching one thing and doing another.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Has it occurred to all you are posting here that no one is forced to purchase a new build?

I don't understand that. Do you think there's a big price difference or something? A house in a decent area, built in the 80s, has no cashback offers from the government.

Im self employed and make 35k a year, so I make too much to be eligible for Social Housing. A bank will give me 122k as a mortgage. I'd be better off on the dole (and will likely wind down the business to do just that in the next 12 months).

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

The person at the end of the queue could very easily be living in emergency accommodation or they could be borrow to pay market rate rents while someone else is in a 3 bed council house while there is only one of them. how could be either reasonable or fair.
They do not own the property regardless of whatever emotional attachment they may have to it. Government must do what is best for the majority not to sustain people in the privileged positions they have become accustomed to.

Jimi H

Jimi H wrote: »

A colleague of mine bought a house 4 or 5 years ago. There are I think 14 finished units in the estate that are occupied. I think she said 12 houses and 2 apartments. Anyway, it’s an unfinished estate as the developer went bust but another developer has taken over and is now finishing the other 26 units. Council has bought all of the unfinished units and my colleagues house value has plummeted. It looks like the council are now going to make an offer to all of the residents for their houses/apartments.

The estate I linked to a few pages back was only partially finished. A housing body bought the vacant houses and moved in the usual suspects and there are anti-social problems which means that nobody wants to buy or rent privately there.

Lmkrnr

So the problem is not the housing estates, its the scum allowed live there unchecked by gardai and giving lenient sentences at court.

Lmkrnr

Lmkrnr wrote: »

So the problem is not the housing estates, its the scum allowed live there unchecked by gardai and giving lenient sentences at court.

And the council that refuse to deal with them. If they were evicted for acting the bollocks, it'd make a massive, overnight difference.