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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin City Council rent arrears

  • 08-01-2020 7:47pm
    #1
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭


    To those who advocate the need to increase the numbers of social houses what would you do in respect of the following.

    In my view if you are in arrears because your income has increased and the tenant has not advised the council then the tenant should be fined and given a max of one year to discharge the arrears.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/


«13

Comments

  • #2
    X111111111111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭X111111111111


    The Student wrote: »
    To those who advocate the need to increase the numbers of social houses what would you do in respect of the following.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    Build more social housing.


  • #3
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Student wrote: »
    To those who advocate the need to increase the numbers of social houses what would you do in respect of the following.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    Provide your own suggestion or this is just link dumping


  • #4
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    The Student wrote: »
    To those who advocate the need to increase the numbers of social houses what would you do in respect of the following.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    nail on the head! We could build a lot more social housing, if those in it, actually paid a REASONABLE rent, not the pittance that they do and secondly, deduct any arrears at source, plus interest!

    These social housing tenants pay no LPT, nothing!


  • #5
    enricoh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭enricoh


    Average weekly rent for a council house in Dublin is e69 a week!
    If I've any kids turning 18 stick them on the housing list, best pressy ever!


  • #6
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    also, you would now be a lunatic to be a young woman of a certain background, and not pop out a kid or two and there is a million euro plus windfall! except you have zero debt, total security! no need to save for a deposit, pay LPT!

    This is the system those morons in power have created, hard working people cannot afford to live in areas they want or have to make massive sacrifices to do so or just emigrate!

    Given this reality, I think its safe to say the current situation is obscene. DLRCC have rented an entire apartment block from a cuckoo fund for 25 years at obscene cost. The market rent for some of them, could be nearly 3k for a 3 bed!

    Meanwhile the taxpayer fools in blocks within spitting distance, can you imagine what they would need to earn BEFORE tax to pay for the same apartment!

    <SNIP>


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    L1011 wrote: »
    Provide your own suggestion or this is just link dumping

    In fairness I am trying to encourage posters to offer different views to see how people feel about those who do not pay their full rent despite the fact it is heavily subsidized.


  • #8
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    60% of tenants are in arrears. That is madness.


  • #9
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    X111111111111 wrote: »
    Build more social housing.

    So how does this deal with the culture of rent arrears?


  • #10
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    60% of tenants are in arrears. That is madness.

    is it though, what about when there is no consequence?!


  • #11
    katiek102010
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭katiek102010


    It's easy to sort. The government needs to put in place legislation that allows all government and local authorities the power to pursue money owed through the courts and secure the debt by means of attachment of earnings.

    All local authorities should have the ability to secure this


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    The Student wrote: »
    To those who advocate the need to increase the numbers of social houses what would you do in respect of the following.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    Quite simple really deduct rent at source,cuts not rocket science. Oh and yes we need to build more social housing. Low paid workers and frontline workers need homes too.


  • #13
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    katiek102010 wrote: »
    It's easy to sort. The government needs to put in place legislation that allows all government and local authorities the power to pursue money owed through the courts and secure the debt by means of attachment of earnings.

    All local authorities should have the ability to secure this

    This legislation already exists. No politician will use it. Remember a lot of councilors sit on local authority boards.


  • #14
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Quite simple really deduct rent at source,cuts not rocket science. Oh and yes we need to build more social housing. Low paid workers and frontline workers need homes too.

    I agree with you but nobody is willing to do it. Yet we have those on the left who seem to not have an issue with non payment of arrears.


  • #15
    handlemaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    60% of tenants are in arrears. That is madness.

    That is why they are happy for the private sector to house social tenants.


  • #16
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Student wrote: »
    In fairness I am trying to encourage posters to offer different views to see how people feel about those who do not pay their full rent despite the fact it is heavily subsidized.

    Without giving any view yourself, which is still considered linkdumping.


  • #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    L1011 wrote: »
    Provide your own suggestion or this is just link dumping
    I can see the point being made by the poster. Why can't you?


  • #18
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can see the point being made by the poster. Why can't you?

    Attempting a veiled point does not satisfy the requirements here.

    They need to give their suggestion, or they are just link dumping.


  • #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sorry, but it isn't so subtle as to be beyond the comprehension of most people.
    Both the point and their opinion of same is easily divined. Stop treating contributors like we are children and let the discussion progress.


  • #20
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sorry, but it isn't so subtle as to be beyond the comprehension of most people.
    Both the point and their opinion of same is easily divined. Stop treating contributors like we are children and let the discussion progress.

    You're completely missing the point here


    Its not allowed - anywhere on boards - to link dump and not contribute to the discussion. That is what the opening post is, veiling point or not. The OP can very easily give their own suggestion; if they have one.

    If you want to do a "this is a disgrace!" style post for a link and go no further in your contribution, that's what your Twitter account is for.


  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd normally say "we'll agree to disagree" but you are going to continue stymying free and open discussion so long as you maintain your viewpoint.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭DubCount


    This is why HAP is so popular with Local Authorities !!

    Individual contributions should be deducted at source, as a deduction from welfare payments or wages.
    No chance of non-payment if its done that way.


  • #23
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd normally say "we'll agree to disagree" but you are going to continue stymying free and open discussion so long as you maintain your viewpoint.

    You are still, wildly and I suspect wilfully, missing the point.

    The OP has not made a suggestion relating to what they claim they want to discuss, but is instead making veiled political points about it instead. That's not even discussion to begin with.


  • #24
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    L1011 wrote: »
    You're completely missing the point here


    Its not allowed - anywhere on boards - to link dump and not contribute to the discussion. That is what the opening post is, veiling point or not. The OP can very easily give their own suggestion; if they have one.

    If you want to do a "this is a disgrace!" style post for a link and go no further in your contribution, that's what your Twitter account is for.

    I have offered my viewpoint in my post at 8.20. I find it a bit unfair that one moderator has an issue with my original post where as another moderator is happy to engage in the thread.


  • #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    L1011 wrote: »
    You are still, wildly and I suspect wilfully, missing the point.

    The OP has not made a suggestion relating to what they claim they want to discuss, but is instead making veiled political points about it instead. That's not even discussion to begin with.
    now you are reading something in to it which isn't there. Which Party would admit that their mandate comes from the sponger element of society.


  • #26
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Student wrote: »
    I have offered my viewpoint in my post at 8.20. I find it a bit unfair that one moderator has an issue with my original post where as another moderator is happy to engage in the thread.

    a: nothing is being posted as a moderation instruction here
    b: the other moderator that has posted doesn't moderate this forum!

    If your suggestion is that they bring in automatic attachment orders, you can make that more clearly and should do so by editing it in to your opening post so that those coming on to the thread can find it.


  • #27
    Arthur Daley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,498 ✭✭✭Arthur Daley


    Sure why pay your rent now. Various RTE 'celebrities' don't make much effort to pay mortgages, so this is just follow the leader. It was inevitable. It's openly, officially endorsed.


  • #28
    ED E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,170 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    katiek102010 wrote: »
    It's easy to sort. The government needs to put in place legislation that allows all government and local authorities the power to pursue money owed through the courts and secure the debt by means of attachment of earnings.

    All local authorities should have the ability to secure this
    The Student wrote: »
    This legislation already exists. No politician will use it. Remember a lot of councilors sit on local authority boards.

    It "exists".


    If you're working they can take say €100/week until your debt is paid. If you're on a DSFW payment they can take €1-2/week. Youll die before paying anything off. The rest of your dole is protected.


  • #29
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    The Student wrote: »
    I agree with you but nobody is willing to do it. Yet we have those on the left who seem to not have an issue with non payment of arrears.
    By the left do you mean FG/Independents which make up the present government? Who is in a position to tackle this.


  • #30
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Deleted User wrote: »
    now you are reading something in to it which isn't there. Which Party would admit that their mandate comes from the sponger element of society.

    There is a complaint about "those on the left" in post 14 after one about the inactions of councillors in post 13. That's using the thread to make a political point.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    L1011 wrote: »
    a: nothing is being posted as a moderation instruction here
    b: the other moderator that has posted doesn't moderate this forum!

    If your suggestion is that they bring in automatic attachment orders, you can make that more clearly and should do so by editing it in to your opening post so that those coming on to the thread can find it.

    I have amended my original post as you suggested.


  • #32
    noodler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,595 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Need to start charging based on ability to pay.


  • #33
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Student wrote: »
    I have amended my original post as you suggested.

    Thanks

    For the record, I would agree with automatic attachment from DSP payments as its state money coming in and going back - it would reduce overheads and complexity; and with wage attachment orders for those with incomes that aren't paying
    noodler wrote: »
    Need to start charging based on ability to pay.

    That is what the rent structure actually is; it just caps out at a quite low amount. More money coming in to the household, be it DSP or income and the rent goes up but only to a point.

    I believe that this should be revised with the max cap being market rate. I suspect some very high earners would chose to quit to either buy or rent in a nicer location in that case; but there aren't that many very high earners in social housing anyway


  • #34
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    noodler wrote: »
    Need to start charging based on ability to pay.

    right, this is ireland though! ability to pay, means you need to be a worker, even a very poor one, no amount is too much. If you are unemployed, free pass! Limited means, give it to them for nothing!


  • #35
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    By the left do you mean FG/Independents which make up the present government? Who is in a position to tackle this.

    Actually it is the politicians who stop what should be happening. The council should be allowed deal with these defaulters.

    Remember our property tax is going towards this. We have plenty of people on the housing list who would be only to glad of a property and would not go into rent arrears.


  • #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    point 14 is statement of fact.
    point 13 is also correct. Politicians of every hue will shy away from this topic for fear of alienating their grassroots, be they scrounger or anti-scrounger, and any soundbites they make will be used by their adversaries to undermine them.
    This really is a case of the Housing Departments' dereliction of duty leaving those who secure funding for social housing feeling unwilling to provide further funding due to waste and abuse of social housing schemes.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    The Student wrote: »
    Actually it is the politicians who stop what should be happening. The council should be allowed deal with these defaulters.

    Remember our property tax is going towards this. We have plenty of people on the housing list who would be only to glad of a property and would not go into rent arrears.

    Well then you should be lobbying which ever government TD is relevant to you to address the issue.


  • #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    noodler wrote: »
    Need to start charging based on ability to pay.

    Er, that’s what already happens. Trouble is that such a huge number are UNWILLING to pay.


  • #39
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Well then you should be lobbying which ever government TD is relevant to you to address the issue.

    I will be trust me on that.


  • #40
    X111111111111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭X111111111111


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    nail on the head! We could build a lot more social housing, if those in it, actually paid a REASONABLE rent, not the pittance that they do and secondly, deduct any arrears at source, plus interest!

    These social housing tenants pay no LPT, nothing!

    They pay a reasonable amount of their earnings already. It's the ones who don't work and refuse to that are taking the piss.


  • #41
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    I re-read the article and seen 7 tenants were in arrears of over €27k and the last tenant evicted was in 2014.

    No tenant should still be housed by DCC owing this type of money. How many years did it take to accumulate €27k of arrears. That is ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Student wrote: »
    I re-read the article and seen 7 tenants were in arrears of over €27k and the last tenant evicted was in 2014.

    No tenant should still be housed by DCC owing this type of money. How many years did it take to accumulate €27k of arrears. That is ridiculous.

    4, if assessed at the max rate and paying 0.


  • #43
    Klonker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Klonker


    L1011 wrote: »
    4, if assessed at the max rate and paying 0.

    7.4 years if taking average rent, probably a fairer assumption.


  • #44
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    60% of tenants are in arrears. That is madness.

    Yeah when this was raised with local councillor's the usual oh were looking at this on a case by case basis was replaced with were taking this estate by estate basis ,
    Seems a lot of council estates are on rent strike at the moment,

    Mass evictions should be enforced and move families capable and willing to pay rents
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #45
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭The Student


    L1011 wrote: »
    4, if assessed at the max rate and paying 0.

    But that's more than renting a three bed semi in Dublin for a whole year. Surely the max rate for council tenants is well below market rate.

    This would suggest that these tenants have paid no rent at all for at least one year or have never paid their full rent for more than a year.

    Either way no tenant should be allowed have this level of arrears. The article also states the council have employed 19 people to deal specifically with all the areas yet more costs to the tax payer.


  • #46
    X111111111111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭X111111111111


    Target the low amount of tenents not paying anything and move on.


  • #47
    Klonker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Klonker


    Over 55% of households 'principle earners' are receiving social welfare. That's a crazy statistic.

    This country is such a welfare state that its actually unbelievable. The system really has to be looked at where a lot of people on the dole are better off financially than people working low to middle paying jobs. Nobody on the dole should be financially than anyone working, no matter how low paid the job.

    If a political party targeted something like this and make it a part of their mandate to make the system fairer I really think they'd do very well as there is a lot of anger about this out there among the workers of the country. Its just strange that nobody seems to have the will to do it. Had a little hope with Leo's 'for the people who get up for work in the morning' but alas, it was just a soundbite.


  • #48
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Student wrote: »
    But that's more than renting a three bed semi in Dublin for a whole year. Surely the max rate for council tenants is well below market rate.

    This would suggest that these tenants have paid no rent at all for at least one year or have never paid their full rent for more than a year.

    Either way no tenant should be allowed have this level of arrears. The article also states the council have employed 19 people to deal specifically with all the areas yet more costs to the tax payer.

    I had an old figure, or possibly the Kildare figure in my head when I calculated 4 years - that was on a 130/week max I'd got from somewhere

    The max DCC charge anyone is 265/week, so 12k/year but I suspect that could be as little as one specific tenancy on that much - the average is far less and comes to the 7 and a half years as stated upthread.

    But the article states that all people on the huge debts are on higher incomes ("The 25 tenants who have allowed their debts to exceed €27,000 were in this higher-earning bracket, she said."), so its probably somewhere in between, or as a total stab in the dark is that people are paying partial amounts and disputing the increase for higher income / extra earners in the house. No actual evidence for that.


  • #49
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    also, you would now be a lunatic to be a young woman of a certain background, and not pop out a kid or two and there is a million euro plus windfall! except you have zero debt, total security! no need to save for a deposit, pay LPT!

    This is the system those morons in power have created, hard working people cannot afford to live in areas they want or have to make massive sacrifices to do so or just emigrate!

    Given this reality, I think its safe to say the current situation is obscene. DLRCC have rented an entire apartment block from a cuckoo fund for 25 years at obscene cost. The market rent for some of them, could be nearly 3k for a 3 bed!

    Meanwhile the taxpayer fools in blocks within spitting distance, can you imagine what they would need to earn BEFORE tax to pay for the same apartment!

    Varadkar, you are some FCUKING fraud! Looking forward to all of the political parasites to come knocking on my door!


    but but but but but but

    varadkar is a thatcherite - right winger - horrible conservative


  • #50
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Klonker wrote: »
    Over 55% of households 'principle earners' are receiving social welfare. That's a crazy statistic.

    This country is such a welfare state that its actually unbelievable. The system really has to be looked at where a lot of people on the dole are better off financially than people working low to middle paying jobs. Nobody on the dole should be financially than anyone working, no matter how low paid the job.

    If a political party targeted something like this and make it a part of their mandate to make the system fairer I really think they'd do very well as there is a lot of anger about this out there among the workers of the country. Its just strange that nobody seems to have the will to do it. Had a little hope with Leo's 'for the people who get up for work in the morning' but alas, it was just a soundbite.

    nothing will change anytime soon , FF under michael martin are as left wing as labour or the greens when it comes to appeasing freeloaders

    add to that the media will crucify any politician or party who puts the tax payer first .


  • #51
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,280 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Politics forum is here for the non-housing related stuff.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement