nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Turn down two houses and you're off the list

RasTa

Finally.

McVery on the radio now saying he doesn't agree.

But if you turn down two houses now whilst on the social housing list. You're off the list for 5 years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

blue note

Sounds good, but I'd worry it will be abused. They might offer people completely unsuitable accommodation and now they'll have to take it.

dxhound2005

blue note wrote: »

Sounds good, but I'd worry it will be abused. They might offer people completely unsuitable accommodation and now they'll have to take it.

They won't have to take it. They can stay in whatever accommodation they are in, if they think that is better.

mikep

RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

Satta Massagana

Extreme examples were people turning down houses because the house they were being offered had a sea view, and this might cause them to be sea sick

Another one refused a house because the back garden wasn't big enough for a trampolene

You couldn't make this sh1t up.
The people who make these kind of ridiculous refusals need to get real & should certainly be kicked down the list.

Foweva Awone

Completely agree with this. You're being offered a very very cheap house with the security of (almost certainly) never having to move again. No one ever promised it would be the mansion of your dreams in the absolute ideal location. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

(I myself am on the housing list but doubt I'll be offered a place for years, if ever - I would jump at ANY house offered, no matter where it was or what it was like.)

[Deleted User]

mikep wrote: »

RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

Homelessness is an industry. The so called charities are worried for their jobs.

RasTa

mikep wrote: »

RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

Said some houses offered weren't suitable

NIMAN

Is this country wide?

Have you a link?

mikep

Added to this all councils need to review the list as I think when Cork City did this 50% didn't respond so if you can't be arsed to respond..off the list...they suspected that many had found a place to live and hadn't told them.

dudara

RasTa wrote: »

Finally.

McVery on the radio now saying he doesn't agree.

But if you turn down two houses now whilst on the social housing list. You're off the list for 5 years.

He didn’t say he didn’t agree. He said he wouldn’t agree if it was an inflexible system. His preference seemed to be for a choice-based system, where people near the top of the housing list can see all properties available and they make selections based on preference.

seamus

mikep wrote: »

Added to this all councils need to review the list as I think when Cork City did this 50% didn't respond so if you can't be arsed to respond..off the list...they suspected that many had found a place to live and hadn't told them.

To be fair, if you're on the housing list, there's a good chance you're moving around a lot and could easily miss any correspondence sent to you.

A good reason why they should be doing this stuff online whereever they can.

There are reasonable objections and unreasonable ones. Reasonable objections are a house that's very far from your job, or if it's far from amenities and you have no car. Or if you or your child have specialist medical needs and it's too far from them.

I thought the current process already was that they only get a certain # of refusals?

Galwayguy35

dudara wrote: »

He didn’t say he didn’t agree. He said he wouldn’t agree if it was an inflexible system. His preference seemed to be for a choice-based system, where people near the top of the housing list can see all properties available and they make selections based on preference.

If the property is in good condition let them take what's offered or tell them to clear off and get their own house.

As for McVerry he's just annoying at this stage, criticizing everything and offering no solution.

NIMAN

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, if you're on the housing list, there's a good chance you're moving around a lot and could easily miss any correspondence sent to you.

Everyone has a mobile now, no reason why they couldn't be phoned in the first instance.

NIMAN

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If the property is in good condition let them take what's offered or tell them to clear off and get their own house.

As for McVerry he's just annoying at this stage, criticizing everything and offering no solution.

He and his ilk don't want a total solution.

They'd all be out of work. And wouldn't get those millions from the Gov to solve the issue.

RasTa

dudara wrote: »

He didn’t say he didn’t agree. He said he wouldn’t agree if it was an inflexible system. His preference seemed to be for a choice-based system, where people near the top of the housing list can see all properties available and they make selections based on preference.

Nah he didn't agree but he never really commits on issues like this. As you said what he wants is him essentially disagreeing

Mrsmum

To me being homeless is like being naked in public in the sense that any coverage/shelter is better than none ie not a time to be fussy.
However there should be good faith on both sides which means having regards to children in school, needing hospital care, genuine stuff like that. But forget this nonsense of having to be near your ma. Millions of people all over the world had to leave their ma. If you're not grown up enough to leave your ma, stay at home with her.

[Deleted User]

He has turned in to a caricature of himself at this stage such a pity because he really did have something to say at one stage. He gets wheeled out as sort of click bate on the issue of homelessness. It says a lot about the media.

As for the actual issue, it's perfectly reasonable to get two choices nobody gets an endless choice.

seamus

NIMAN wrote: »

Everyone has a mobile now, no reason why they couldn't be phoned in the first instance.

Phone calls are very time consuming for the staff, lots of people won't answer a call from a number they don't know, and may not even check their voicemail any more.

Email is faster and people are more likely to click a link in an email than respond to a phone call.

Fiftyfilthy

I used to always agree 100% about the refuse 2 homes and tough luck

I have little time for the unemployed etc etc but I know of someone who was offered a house in darndale

Beggars can’t be choosers and all that but when she arrived to see the house, a welcoming committee were there telling her if she took the house they would burn her out of there , these houses are for their own etc

Would be quite brave to accept that one

So that’s I offer refused

LirW

Good step to take, given People are offered suitable accommodation. I'm not talking about garden sizes or locations but that elderly or people with mobility issues have access to one-level accommodation and won't be offered unsuitable houses just to be fecked off the list.
It's not easy getting suitable housing if you're disabled with a mobility issue.

NIMAN

Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

I used to always agree 100% about the refuse 2 homes and tough luck

I have little time for the unemployed etc etc but I know of someone who was offered a house in darndale

Beggars can’t be choosers and all that but when she arrived to see the house, a welcoming committee were there telling her if she took the house they would burn her out of there , these houses are for their own etc

Would be quite brave to accept that one

So that’s I offer refused

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

Fiftyfilthy

NIMAN wrote: »

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

That’s true actually

Yeah, I agree 2 offers and if not stay in the hotel or wherever you are

Sir Oxman

NIMAN wrote: »

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

Indeed.
that works both ways.

Cina

Two houses is still too many.

I wonder would anyone working, has kids, paying extortionate rent, and can't save for a mortgage turn down two houses, let alone one?

Boggles

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I myself am on the housing list but doubt I'll be offered a place for years, if ever - I would jump at ANY house offered, no matter where it was or what it was like.

Really?

Let's say the house is sandwiched in between some 'choice' neighbors, you'd jump at it?

Would I fook!

[Deleted User]

An overhaul of the entire social housing system should happen but I’m just kidding myself thinking someone will do it.

A social house should be provided that suits your needs. When the kids grow up and move out, your needs no longer require you to have a 3 bed.

eviltwin

Cina wrote: »

Two houses is still too many.

I wonder would anyone working, has kids, paying extortionate rent, and can't save for a mortgage turn down two houses, let alone one?

People who buy or rent don't turn down houses, they just don't bother viewing ones they have no desire to live in.

topper75

Deleted User wrote: »

Homelessness is an industry. The so called charities are worried for their jobs.

Yes there is a bit of this going on yes.

The media wont' highlight - because they are tangentially part of this industry. It is a great topic to move over to when there is nothing else new.

The army lads sleeping out in tricolour bags (to raise AWARENESS if you don't mind :pac: helping us to be aware) was carried in all major organs yesterday though it was really a non-story.

NIMAN

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

Let's say the house is sandwiched in between some 'choice' neighbors, you'd jump at it?

Would I fook!

If we continue to allow people to turn down houses for this reason, that reason, I don't like that neighbour, this neighbour, then we will never solve this crisis, or even make a dent in it.

Sometimes we have sh1t neighnours or ones we don't like, even people who are paying mortgages, thats life.

Cina

eviltwin wrote: »

People who buy or rent don't turn down houses, they just don't bother viewing ones they have no desire to live in.

I don't recall saying they did. Clearly it was a hypothetical scenario.