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

Turn down two houses and you're off the list

Options
12467…14

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »
    I believe there are many 3 beds in circulation already that have only one person in them paying the lowest rate of rent. Having a family unit with an increased rent value puts more in the pot again.

    Do you just believe it or is it a fact?

    Where do you move the one person to?

    The increased rent value comes down to a persons income, not just on how many are in a house.


  • Options
    #93
    Fiftyfilthy
    Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Fiftyfilthy


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    You do realise that there are loads of people who work who are on the housing list?



    I do realize that. I said that in my post, however, they will never be housed and kept thrown down to the bottom of the list whilst the lazy bubble to the top


  • Options
    #94
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    Fiftyfilthy wrote: »
    Disagree strongly

    The majority are lazy scroungers. People who work but can’t afford a mortgage are ignored, they have to rent privately and struggle

    They are ignored and put to the back of the list as all the lazy parasites who are in hotels are going to get priority

    Not forgetting the single mothers with their boyfriend hiding in the cupboard too that has a job

    We'll have to agree to differ then....

    There are certainly small enclaves like this spread around the country but in my experience ( and I live right alongside many council tenants in a predominantly council area) most people want to, and do, work. At a guess I'd say that 90% of those in my direct locale are working.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I’m not a bigot and I’ll thank you not to refer to me as such.

    With all due respect I’m not the deluded one here. The amount of people’s on the housing lists who have refused multiple properties is beyond a joke. The properties can’t all have been that bad.

    Never said you were a bigot, but your statement "The rest of us don’t get that kind of choice so why should these people." certainly is bigoted.

    The whole thing is that while many people may have refused multiple properties, there are many properties also that have been refused multiple times. Some properties, in some areas, have been refused tens, if not dozens of times. Let's be honest, some areas are just down and out kips and the fear is that if you take a property there then that's you off the list and you'll find it impossible to get out.

    I'd love if Councils / Local Govt would release detailed analysis of their housing lists - how many people are single / marrried / working / unemployed /disabled etc. but that's never going to happen as it would make their job of spinning the narrative so much harder.


  • Options
    #95
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,362 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »
    So your solution is to fire everyone into emergency accommodation which I believe is 100% paid for by the authorities???

    Ensure that rent is collected and they’ll be an ongoing cash flow. I believe there are many 3 beds in circulation already that have only one person in them paying the lowest rate of rent. Having a family unit with an increased rent value puts more in the pot again.

    It’s not an overnight solution but it’s better than none.

    In some emergency accommodations you are expected to pay , some deduct at source while others expect you to physically pay weekly.


  • Options
    #96
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    twowheelsonly wrote: »
    We'll have to agree to differ then....

    There are certainly small enclaves like this spread around the country but in my experience ( and I live right alongside many council tenants in a predominantly council area) most people want to, and do, work. At a guess I'd say that 90% of those in my direct locale are working.



    Never said you were a bigot, but your statement "The rest of us don’t get that kind of choice so why should these people." certainly is bigoted.

    The whole thing is that while many people may have refused multiple properties, there are many properties also that have been refused multiple times. Some properties, in some areas, have been refused tens, if not dozens of times. Let's be honest, some areas are just down and out kips and the fear is that if you take a property there then that's you off the list and you'll find it impossible to get out.

    I'd love if Councils / Local Govt would release detailed analysis of their housing lists - how many people are single / marrried / working / unemployed /disabled etc. but that's never going to happen as it would make their job of spinning the narrative so much harder.


    Once they issue analysis on who gets them first. If you are single with no kids and working you havent a chance


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Quote:
    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? "

    When I found this empty council property I was told it would take a month to get ready.

    I was needing in fast so I said I would do the cleaning and painting and got in in ten days. They then made a mess of getting the power reconnected; fast forward 5 months... then they asked for a list of work needing doing so I gave them that over a year ago eg shower not working so they promised me a bath..various other things. Nothing has been done unless I do it.. I am not bothering them any more. Had I let them take over? The workmen work only for the council here..so there is a list of work needing doing and hence the delay
    So these figures do not surprise me. just make me glad I did not wait on them.


  • Options
    #98
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,362 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    twowheelsonly wrote: »
    We'll have to agree to differ then....

    There are certainly small enclaves like this spread around the country but in my experience ( and I live right alongside many council tenants in a predominantly council area) most people want to, and do, work. At a guess I'd say that 90% of those in my direct locale are working.



    Never said you were a bigot, but your statement "The rest of us don’t get that kind of choice so why should these people." certainly is bigoted.

    The whole thing is that while many people may have refused multiple properties, there are many properties also that have been refused multiple times. Some properties, in some areas, have been refused tens, if not dozens of times. Let's be honest, some areas are just down and out kips and the fear is that if you take a property there then that's you off the list and you'll find it impossible to get out.

    I'd love if Councils / Local Govt would release detailed analysis of their housing lists - how many people are single / marrried / working / unemployed /disabled etc. but that's never going to happen as it would make their job of spinning the narrative so much harder.

    Local authorities do release stats that give limited details on their housing lists.

    Some give amounts of people housed successfully and the type of housing.

    It's also possible to check in some local authorities where you are in your areas of choice.


  • Options
    #99
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Boggles wrote: »
    Well that's not true.

    One of the reasons was during the boom all developments had to be either 10 or 20% social housing stock.

    This was more or less completely ignored because developers paid a relatively small fine to get around it.

    We have always had social housing and we have always had people who availed of buying it.

    Any evidence to back this up?

    Even if it was the case, if the houses weren't sold in the first place they wouldn't be relying on the builders as much.


  • Options
    #100
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    If you were homeless and offered this house, would you take it?


    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3814...7i16384!8i8192


    A few considerations besides the condition of the house.
    1. There was a shooting here recently
    2. Remember the video last year of cars joyriding in an estate and crashing into everything...that was here.
    3. The locals don't accept new people into the neighbourhood and force them out

    4. There is open drug dealing on the street
    5. There is open drug use on the street
    6. There are scramblers and quad on the go here night and day
    7. There is a litter problem - that normally comes with rodent problems

    ****************************************************

    No I would not take it. hence the reasons I stayed off council lists and in private rental so many years.


  • Options
    #101
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Quote:
    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? "

    When I found this empty council property I was told it would take a month to get ready.

    I was needing in fast so I said I would do the cleaning and painting and got in in ten days. They then made a mess of getting the power reconnected; fast forward 5 months... then they asked for a list of work needing doing so I gave them that over a year ago eg shower not working so they promised me a bath..various other things. Nothing has been done unless I do it.. I am not bothering them any more. Had I let them take over? The workmen work only for the council here..so there is a list of work needing doing and hence the delay
    So these figures do not surprise me. just make me glad I did not wait on them.


    Sorry i dont know your situation but the cheek of some people giving out about the time it takes the council to renovate their whole house for free.

    Working people who buy their own house can work for 40 years and never have the money to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Boggles wrote: »
    Do you just believe it or is it a fact?

    Where do you move the one person to?

    The increased rent value comes down to a persons income, not just on how many are in a house.

    I remember reading it on a thread here before. I’ll have to do some searching but happy to research it more. May take a while.

    Talking about taking a while, moving people to smaller units isn’t an overnight thing. We’re talking years and years but surely it has to be better than the current plan of there being no plan? We’ll always need social housing but I just don’t agree that that one house should ever be someone’s forever home. Provide them with a social house more suitable as the years go on.

    If you have a pensioner on the lowest tier of rent living in a 3 bed, you are not utilising what you could make in rent if that 3 bed we’re giving to a family with 1-2 working parents. Yes, both parents could be unemployed too but not in all cases.


  • Options
    #103
    bri007
    Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭bri007


    It’s still a roof over your head though!

    I’m buying a house at the moment (trying to) and paying crazy money yet have come across drug dealing, anti social behavior etc in the areas we are looking.

    I just have to accept that, or just put up and shut up. I’ve no other choice as that’s all I can afford. So yeah if I was homeless and offered a place of course I’d take it no matter how bad the area was, I’m sure it’s better than sleeping on the street no?


    Graces7 wrote: »
    If you were homeless and offered this house, would you take it?


    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3814...7i16384!8i8192


    A few considerations besides the condition of the house.
    1. There was a shooting here recently
    2. Remember the video last year of cars joyriding in an estate and crashing into everything...that was here.
    3. The locals don't accept new people into the neighbourhood and force them out

    4. There is open drug dealing on the street
    5. There is open drug use on the street
    6. There are scramblers and quad on the go here night and day
    7. There is a litter problem - that normally comes with rodent problems

    ****************************************************

    No I would not take it. hence the reasons I stayed off council lists and in private rental so many years.


  • Options
    #104
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    bri007 wrote: »
    It’s still a roof over your head though!

    I’m buying a house at the moment (trying to) and paying crazy money yet have come across drug dealing, anti social behavior etc in the areas we are looking.

    I just have to accept that, or just put up and shut up. I’ve no other choice as that’s all I can afford. So yeah if I was homeless and offered a place of course I’d take it no matter how bad the area was, I’m sure it’s better than sleeping on the street no?

    Not really much better when every window in the house is smashed in and now it's raining on the inside, your door has been kicked in and your bed and other furniture set alight.

    You've clearly never been the target of anti social behaviour. People think the problems these places have are kids playing knick knack or something it's a joke.

    I know a man who lived in an area like this, it was a corner bungalow adapted for his disabled son, the fckers made his life hell. He was going down the country one time with the son for a break and had to come back as they had put a brick through every window in the house. He finally got out of there only to drop dead about a month after moving, the stress fculing killed hin.


  • Options
    #105
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Any evidence to back this up?

    Legislation from 2000

    Part V

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/30/enacted/en/html

    Plenty news paper articles on it if you want to read up on it.

    They are trying to introduce further legislation to plug it AFAIK.

    Ush1 wrote: »
    Even if it was the case, if the houses weren't sold in the first place they wouldn't be relying on the builders as much.

    They didn't have to rely on the builders at all, they chose to near completely privatize social housing, that's why the stock is fooked, not because some people chose to buy them.

    You do understand this isn't just my opinion right, it's the reality of the situation?


  • Options
    #106
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Witcher wrote: »
    Not really much better when every window in the house is smashed in and now it's raining on the inside, your door has been kicked in and your bed and other furniture set alight.

    You've clearly never been the target of anti social behaviour. People think the problems these places have are kids playing knick knack or something it's a joke.

    It's always the extream on both side of the debate people quote, there are thousands of people houses in social housing each year and they neither refuse it or become a target but I suppose that just too mundane to talk about.


  • Options
    #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Witcher wrote: »
    Not really much better when every window in the house is smashed in and now it's raining on the inside, your door has been kicked in and your bed and other furniture set alight.

    You've clearly never been the target of anti social behaviour. People think the problems these places have are kids playing knick knack or something it's a joke.

    And it’s high time those scumbags were ****ed out of the place to live in the B&Bs. Too much pandering going on.


  • Options
    #108
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    I’ll never understand how that waster in school who used to disrupt your class everyday and dropped out at 15 gets a house for 40 euro a week and you have to pay rent of 1300 after working hard in school college etc

    Some message we send to our kids there.


  • Options
    #109
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    I’ll never understand how that waster in school who used to disrupt your class everyday and dropped out at 15 gets a house for 40 euro a week and you have to pay rent if 1300 after working hard in school college etc

    Some message we send to our kids there.


    And they still moan and moan


  • Options
    #110
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Boggles wrote: »
    Legislation from 2000

    Part V

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/30/enacted/en/html

    Plenty news paper articles on it if you want to read up on it.

    They are trying to introduce further legislation to plug it AFAIK.

    I meant evidence for builders not fulfilling an obligation as opposed to the councils selling off stock to explain the shortages?
    Boggles wrote: »
    They didn't have to rely on the builders at all, they chose to near completely privatize social housing, that's why the stock is fooked, not because some people chose to buy them.

    You do understand this isn't just my opinion right, it's the reality of the situation?

    You don't need to keep moving goalposts. The fact is selling the houses to tenants reduces the stock.

    You believe this is a rising tide or something, I believe it's against the spirit of what social housing is and should be.

    HAP etc... is a different discussion.


  • Options
    #111
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It's always the extream on both side of the debate people quote, there are thousands of people houses in social housing each year and they neither refuse it or become a target but I suppose that just too mundane to talk about.

    People are putting up examples of absolute shtholes and people who have never even been to a social housing estate are saying 'why can't someone move in..it's only a bit of trouble?'

    This isnt't directed at you mariaalice but some people here should get down out of your middle class ivory towers for one fcking moment, not everyone lives the life you do.

    Imagine being a decent person..emergency accomodation/friends sofa whatever and you get offered these places? Then you refuse because you dont want to be run out of the place only to find...that was your one chance too bad. Not everyone encounters that granted...but as someone who grew up in these areas I can tell you a lot do..these are people's lives ffs..give them a chance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Witcher wrote: »
    People are putting up examples of absolute shtholes and people who have never even been to a social housing estate are saying 'why can't someone move in..it's only a bit of trouble?'

    This isnt't directed at you mariaalice but some people here should get down out of your middle class ivory towers for one fcking moment, not everyone lives the life you do.

    Imagine being a decent person..emergency accomodation/friends sofa whatever and you get offered these places? Then you refuse because you dont want to be run out of the place only to find...that was your one chance too bad. Not everyone encounters that granted...but as someone who grew up in these areas I can tell you a lot do..these are people's lives ffs..give them a chance.


    Entitlement culture.

    You want a free house and then want to pick a leafy suburb.

    Its got to the stage that middle income earners live in working class areas and people who dont work live in middle class areas

    Mad oul country


  • Options
    #113
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »
    And it’s high time those scumbags were ****ed out of the place to live in the B&Bs. Too much pandering going on.

    Exactly, if people would put the same efforts into pushing for offenders to be punished as they have in gleefully sh1tting on social housing tenants we might get somewhere.

    Target the right people.


  • Options
    #114
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Entitlement culture.

    You want a free house and then want to pick a leafy suburb.

    Its got to the stage that middle income earners live in working class areas and people who dont work live in middle class areas

    Mad oul country

    Who said anything about leafy suburbs...in the main people just want to close their door and know that it's not going to be smashed in as soon as they turn their back on it. But sure since some people abuse it..we'll have a hard and fast rule and push even those who do work and try hard back under the waves..let them drown.

    You're putting everyone in the same bag now as usual in these threads 'people who don't work' ffs...what about those who do..sure fcuk them..throw them to the dogs?


  • Options
    #115
    downtheroad
    Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    mikep wrote: »
    RasTa why did PMcV think it was a bad idea??

    I heard McVerry on the radio saying that a 3 bedroom house might be offered to a family that has 4 or 5 kids and therefore it isn't acceptable.

    Of course the reporter didn't think to ask why have the couple in this example had such a large when they can't afford to accommodate the children.


  • Options
    #116
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    downtheroad wrote: »
    I heard McVerry on the radio saying that a 3 bedroom house might be offered to a family that has 4 or 5 kids and therefore it isn't acceptable.

    Of course the reporter didn't think to ask why have the couple in this example had such a large when they can't afford to accommodate the children.


    They may have been grand when they had the kids but then things turned bad??


  • Options
    #117
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I meant evidence for builders not fulfilling an obligation as opposed to the councils selling off stock to explain the shortages?

    There was no obligation, it was a "request" that could be got out of.

    Anyway article from 11 years ago with warnings. But I mean you didn't have to be mystic meg to see where it was going.

    Developers splurge €78m to avoid building social housing


    Ush1 wrote: »
    You don't need to keep moving goalposts. The fact is selling the houses to tenants reduces the stock.

    Yes, but you replenish the stock by building more.

    Also the house just doesn't seize to exist, it eventually makes it's way back into the housing stock.
    Ush1 wrote: »
    You believe this is a rising tide or something,
    I believe it's against the spirit of what social housing is and should be.

    What's your interpretation of the spirit of social housing?


  • Options
    #118
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,905 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    Im ok with this as long as there is an independent arbiter who can decide whether the refusal is on reasonable grounds. Yes that will probably allow for a certain amount of people to screw the system, but equally, it will stop the housing officers from abusing the rule.


  • Options
    #119
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Witcher wrote: »
    Who said anything about leafy suburbs...in the main people just want to close their door and know that it's not going to be smashed in as soon as they turn their back on it. But sure since some people abuse it..we'll have a hard and fast rule and push even those who do work and try hard back under the waves..let them drown.

    You're putting everyone in the same bag now as usual in these threads 'people who don't work' ffs...what about those who do..sure fcuk them..throw them to the dogs?

    You just backed up my point. It entitlement . What a joke of a country. If i could do it all again i would have been gone at 21.


  • Options
    #120
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,518 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    You just backed up my point. It entitlement . What a joke of a country. If i could do it all again i would have been gone at 21.

    Yes..entitled not to have a petrol bomb put though the window or their door kicked in and their possessions robbed.

    Why don't you go now? I think we'd all be better off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    One of the reasons was during the boom all developments had to be either 10 or 20% social housing stock.

    Is what you said, that sounds like more than a request. Is largely irrelevant anyway for the reasons I've already listed. Also from that article:

    "Local authorities, it emerged, are not allocating the builders’ funds into social and affordable schemes. Now the Department of Environment is warning local authorities that budgets will be cut if they continue to hoard payments from developers."

    I've also already posted what I believe social housing should be and should provide and should not provide.


Advertisement