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

eviltwin

Cina wrote: »

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

It's not a realistic comparison so why make it

Boggles

NIMAN wrote: »

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.

I wasn't talking about "We". I was asking a very specific question to a very specific person.

Obviously I am not talking about a neighbour you don't like or get on with, because they sing loudly in the shower or park their care arséways.

I'm talking about the ones that would break into your house every time you aren't there.

Personally I wouldn't jump at that.

Cina

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not a realistic comparison so why make it

I think it's quite obvious why I made it, to highlight the shocking situation whereby these people are actually allowed to turn down houses when so many hard working people cannot even buy one of their own.

[Deleted User]

Evey where has some value, there are houses for sale to the side of somewhere I occasionally use as a short cut, now this place is rough rubbish blowing around neglected gardens, the occasional horse some houses nicely keep. The point is the houses sell quickly and if a corner site comes up for sale its gone very quickly.

Mrsmum

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

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

Would I fook!

Is it not partly because people have been accommodated so much to live among their own, that we have fiefdoms in lots of places now where people think they get to say who gets to move into the house next door. Time to mix it up.

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

Is it not partly because people have been accommodated so much to live among their own, that we have fiefdoms in lots of places now where people think they get to say who gets to move into the house next door. Time to mix it up.

I have no idea, but you don't cure that by throwing some poor family to the wolves so to speak.

KrustyUCC

Satta Massagana wrote: »

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.

Those stories make me so mad

'Sea-sickness' cited as one of many 'spurious' reasons for turning down council houses

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sea-sickness-cited-as-one-of-many-spurious-reasons-for-turning-down-council-houses-393972.html

professore

seamus wrote: »

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.

Text message.

Dakotabigone

Everyone is entitled to turn down a house, it’s not a pair of jeans or deciding what to buy for dinner. It’s a lifetime move.

BrokenArrows

It's an easy enough solution.

They get 2 standard refusals.

If they make a refusal then the reason for refusal is considered before accepting it as a standard refusal.

1. If it's for a stupid reason like "garden not big enough" or "too far from family" then it's a standard refusal and they have to take the next offer or they are off the list.

2. If it's a legitimate refusal like a 2+ hour commute to work or house not suitable for disabled child then the reason should be reviewed and if deemed legitimate then it doesn't result in a reduction in the number of refusals.

Edit: 2 hour commute is my cut off point. Anything less than this is in the standard commute times for modern society. If xyz had to buy/rent a house 2 hours commute from Dublin because that's all he could afford then there is no reason a council tenant should be given city centre accommodation.

[Deleted User]

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to turn down a house, it’s not a pair of jeans or deciding what to buy for dinner. It’s a lifetime move.

It shouldn’t be a lifetime move. It’s rented.

Boggles

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Those stories make me so mad

'Sea-sickness' cited as one of many 'spurious' reasons for turning down council houses

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sea-sickness-cited-as-one-of-many-spurious-reasons-for-turning-down-council-houses-393972.html

Anyone that turns down a house because of a trampoline should not only be fooked off the housing list they should be fired out of a canon.

Fortunately those idiots are the thin edge of the wedge.

But what is baffling from the above article is.

Details of the refusals were highlighted after it emerged it can take more than a year to get social houses ready for new tenants after they are vacated. In Cork, it can take up to 66 weeks to turn the house around; in Kerry it can take up to 55 weeks and up to 44 weeks in Donegal.

It wouldn't take that long to completely knock a house and rebuild it, WTF are they doing?

Huntergonzo

Sounds good in theory but having worked in a housing authority it's hard to see how it would work in practice.

I know specifically of a case where a woman has literally thrown the keys of 3 different houses back at the council. She has a 1 bedroom need and is insisting on 3 bedroom accommodation, for some reason she believes that her and her husband (both in their 50s, with no dependents) are owed this by the state.

Now she was supposed to be taken off the list and barred from re-applying for 1 year after she fired back the 3rd house. But what happened? several months later the council bought her a new house, which she is waiting to move into.

You see, she caused a **** storm, constant abuse and badgering of staff, all day protests (she never worked a day in her life so she has plenty of time/experience in this field). She threw herself at the mercy of the state and the state said 'ah sure go on'.

Now this is only 1 case of course, most people behaive better than that but a lot of bullshít does go on that's for sure.

BrokenArrows

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Sounds good in theory but having worked in a housing authority it's hard to see how it would work in practice.

I know specifically of a case where a woman has literally thrown the keys of 3 different houses back at the council. She has a 1 bedroom need and is insisting on 3 bedroom accommodation, for some reason she believes that her and her husband (both in their 50s, with no dependents) are owed this by the state.

Now she was supposed to be taken off the list and barred from re-applying for 1 year after she fired back the 3rd house. But what happened? several months later the council bought her a new house, which she is waiting to move into.

You see, she caused a **** storm, constant abuse and badgering of staff, all day protests (she never worked a day in her life so she has plenty of time/experience in this field). She threw herself at the mercy of the state and the state said 'ah sure go on'.

Now this is only 1 case of course, most people behaive better than that but a lot of bullshít does go on that's for sure.

In cases like this they need to send her to jail for harassment. Giving her a house only encourages all the scummers that know about this to do the same.

Call me Al

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to turn down a house, it’s not a pair of jeans or deciding what to buy for dinner. It’s a lifetime move.

Social housing is a finite resource, paid for through our tax system. If people want to be able pick and choose where they live then they need to put themselves in a position financially to be able to do so.

Grayson

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

Huntergonzo

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Sounds good in theory but having worked in a housing authority it's hard to see how it would work in practice.

I know specifically of a case where a woman has literally thrown the keys of 3 different houses back at the council. She has a 1 bedroom need and is insisting on 3 bedroom accommodation, for some reason she believes that her and her husband (both in their 50s, with no dependents) are owed this by the state.

Now she was supposed to be taken off the list and barred from re-applying for 1 year after she fired back the 3rd house. But what happened? several months later the council bought her a new house, which she is waiting to move into.

You see, she caused a **** storm, constant abuse and badgering of staff, all day protests (she never worked a day in her life so she has plenty of time/experience in this field). She threw herself at the mercy of the state and the state said 'ah sure go on'.

Now this is only 1 case of course, most people behaive better than that but a lot of bullshít does go on that's for sure.

In cases like this they need to send her to jail for harassment. Giving her a house only encourages all the scummers that know about this to do the same.

Well this is true but honestly, this woman probably wouldn't even know why she was being sent to jail, she's on a different planet to rest of us. Also it has to be noted that she's a traveller so she can play the discrimination card very well.

klaaaz

There are genuine refusals that the sensationalist Indo tabloid never highlighted. There are streets in our country where no-one would live, it's not safe for any family. No-one here on this thread would live on those streets either so why should housing applicants? That's a genuine refusal.

BrokenArrows

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

Yes, it means they will be putting themselves onto the street. They will be doing this of their own free will.

They could also be perfectly fine paying private rent. Most council house people pay privately until they are offered council accommodation.

They have been offered accommodation and have decided that they are better off without it. It's their choice.

Huntergonzo

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

Very few people end up on the street in fairness, most people take the houses they are offered. Now they might have a list of demands that any Die Hard villain would be proud of before moving in but a compromise is usually met and favourably so for the tenant.

People who refuse the house (some for legitimate reasons such as disability works being required etc) usually just stay in their rented accommodation.

A small minority of people do declare themsleves homeless though as they believe it will speed up the housing process.

Yer Da sells Avon

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

It shouldn’t be a lifetime move. It’s rented.

Why shouldn't a rented home (publicly or privately owned) be a long-term move?

Foweva Awone

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

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

Would I fook!

Yeah I would to be honest. I don't have any material possessions of any value.

As a recovering addict I'd probably be considered a "choice" neighbour myself ... like I said, beggars can't be choosers!

I've spent my share of time in shared bedrooms in homeless hostels etc, as a rule people won't bother you if you keep to yourself, I find.

iamwhoiam

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Why shouldn't a rented home (publicly or privately owned) be a long-term move?

Well lets say a family of six get a three or four bedroom house from the council . Years later there are two or even one adults still in that house . Would it not be sensible to swap that house for a smaller on nearby and give the bigger house to a family ? Afterall its the council who pay the rent

Fiftyfilthy

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

No, they are kicking themselves and their family on to the street

I couldn’t care less and the person refusing shares my thoughts too about their own family

NIMAN

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Why shouldn't a rented home (publicly or privately owned) be a long-term move?

Example.

A couple have 2 young kids under 5 years old.
Boy and girl.

Requirements for them will be a 3 bed. Cos with a boy and girl they will need seperate bedrooms.

Thats all fair enough, no complaint there.

Fast forward 25 years, both kids are moved out, got their own lives.

This couple should now have to give up that 3 bed house as there will be other families with young kids on the list. There is no way it makes sense to let a middle aged couple with no kids have a 3 bed house thats too big for them.

Boggles

NIMAN wrote: »

Example.

A couple have 2 young kids under 5 years old.
Boy and girl.

Requirements for them will be a 3 bed. Cos with a boy and girl they will need seperate bedrooms.

Thats all fair enough, no complaint there.

Fast forward 25 years, both kids are moved out, got their own lives.

This couple should now have to give up that 3 bed house as there will be other families with young kids on the list. There is no way it makes sense to let a middle aged couple with no kids have a 3 bed house thats too big for them.

That makes complete sense, in the cold heart of logistics, all though I would argue there might be other factors why a couple who have lived in an area so long may want to stay there and these may be perfectly valid.

But, your assuming there will be suitable accommodation to move them onto.

NIMAN

Boggles wrote: »

That makes complete sense.

But, your assuming there will be suitable accommodation to move them onto.

But I'm sure its near impossible to get these tenants to move out.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mikep wrote: »

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

I've yet to hear that man agree with any initiatives concerning housing.

Ush1

Boggles wrote: »

That makes complete sense, in the cold heart of logistics, all though I would argue there might be other factors why a couple who have lived in an area so long may want to stay there and these may be perfectly valid.

But, your assuming there will be suitable accommodation to move them onto.

They can pay the market rate if they'd like to stay.

seamus

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone turns down a house, then what? If they have a family are we kicking them out onto the street?

I understand that people are pissed that someone is turning down a house because of lack of trampoline space. I'm pissed too. I'm just wondering what comes after that. Are we saying that the family is kicked out of the temporary accommodation? Or are they living in hotel rooms forever after?

I guess the short answer here is that you assign them a house and kick them out of the hotel.

"There's the keys, feel free to reapply to get back on the housing list, kthxbye".

Or just give them a list of 3 houses, and tell them they have to pick one or one will be picked for them. Then they'll pick the one that suits best.

No, it may not be the perfect house, but either is a hotel and beggars can't be choosers.

There'll always be edge cases and sob stories. But they're the exception. The majority can make any property work for them. But if they're allowed to pick and choose, then they will. As long as you put reasonable safeguards in place (i.e. all 3 properties can't be rural cottages in the backarse of Donegal), then it would work.