2000 refuse council housing

foggy_lad · 04-11-2015 2:29am

Tigger wrote: »

How much is it tho?

about €30 per adult and €12 per dependant child, any income above the basic social welfare rate is means tested and rent is increased by 20% of the amount over the basic rate. Also if there is someone in the household working their earnings are also taken into consideration as well as the main tenant/householder. someone earning €400/week living alone would be paying about €80/week rent.

pablo128 · 04-11-2015 2:42am

I live in a 2 bedroom council apartment in Tallaght, and it's tiny. There is literally no storage. A lot of our stuff is in our parents attics. The estate is a kip too, roaring and screaming into the early hours is common. Cars getting rallied etc. The only house I could Possibly get a mortgage on would be in one of the same kippy estates around here. And I'll admit, we refused our first offer because the complex was full of travellers who regularly run amok.

Tigger · 04-11-2015 3:33am

foggy_lad wrote: »

about €30 per adult and €12 per dependant child, any income above the basic social welfare rate is means tested and rent is increased by 20% of the amount over the basic rate. Also if there is someone in the household working their earnings are also taken into consideration as well as the main tenant/householder. someone earning €400/week living alone would be paying about €80/week rent.

12 more per child?
Seems backwards

Grab All Association · 04-11-2015 3:54am

Gatling wrote: »

Nothing new here except the figure of nearly 2000 people /families turned down local authority housing last /this year ,
In the supposed housing crisis we have people refusing multiple local authority houses ,

Excuses range from size ,lack of privacy, on a long holiday in Rome .

As someone currently 8 years on the sdcc list I'm seriously discusted reading the following

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/2000-offers-of-social-housing-turned-down-362579.html

But doesn't this actually benefit you?

Lets say a woman A refuses a house and it is offered to woman B who refuses it too. You could be 3rd or 4th priority on the list after these people. If A, B or C said yes to the house then you'll probably be waiting much longer to be housed.

al22 · 04-11-2015 4:17am

Stop offering any free housing at all. Increase them Social Welfare to match a minimum wages and let people to find and rent houses/accommodation where they want and quality they want themselves.

Not enough money - their own problems. Work more or move to countryside or whatever.
It is a time to stop that system of a free housing.

Atlantic Dawn · 04-11-2015 4:39am

Any criteria that initially brings you top of the housing list, ie 9 kids by 8 different men or say a drugs problem or you are as Joe Duffy would say "unwell" should be reset to back of the q if you refuse a house anywhere in the country, a house is always better than a cardboard box under a bridge unless you are a pro freeloader.

handlemaster · 04-11-2015 8:22am

foggy_lad wrote: »

about €30 per adult and €12 per dependant child, any income above the basic social welfare rate is means tested and rent is increased by 20% of the amount over the basic rate. Also if there is someone in the household working their earnings are also taken into consideration as well as the main tenant/householder. someone earning €400/week living alone would be paying about €80/week rent.

Thats terrible they have to actually pay towards their housing!!!! What next for a complaint ....

sozbox · 04-11-2015 8:44am

al22 wrote: »

Stop offering any free housing at all. Increase them Social Welfare to match a minimum wages and let people to find and rent houses/accommodation where they want and quality they want themselves.

Not enough money - their own problems. Work more or move to countryside or whatever.
It is a time to stop that system of a free housing.

You want to stop free housing but double the dole?? Every person on social welfare would stop looking for work and half the people working to get minimum wage would join the dole! Ridiculous idea!

ceannair06 · 04-11-2015 9:59am

foggy_lad wrote: »

about €30 per adult and €12 per dependant child, any income above the basic social welfare rate is means tested and rent is increased by 20% of the amount over the basic rate. Also if there is someone in the household working their earnings are also taken into consideration as well as the main tenant/householder. someone earning €400/week living alone would be paying about €80/week rent.

A DISGRACE. 400 notes a week and they only have to stump up 80 quid ???

Sickening to read that.

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 10:53am

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is not free though, all council and rent allowance/RAS people have to pay rent to the local authority that has housed them. They pay council rent rates which are set at a rate to allow for the amount of income the person/family has each week.

I'm talking about people in receipt of rent allowance and unemployed.

Caliden · 04-11-2015 10:54am

To be fair, 2000 refusals out of a waiting list of 130,000 isn't that bad considering that some were valid.

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 10:55am

Caliden wrote: »

To be fair, 2000 refusals out of a waiting list of 130,000 isn't that bad considering that some were valid.

That doesn't make sense. Not all the 130, 000 have been offered a house.

ElleEm · 04-11-2015 11:08am

Tigger wrote: »

How much is it tho?

In Dublin it is calculated at between 12%- 15% of the income of the person who applied for the house. Each other adult is assessed differently.

ElleEm · 04-11-2015 11:10am

Gatling wrote: »

How did they see and measure it ,you don't normally get to see or have access till you sign for the property .

This isn't true. Of course you get to see it before you sign for it.

04-11-2015 11:17am

ElleEm wrote: »

In Dublin it is calculated at between 12%- 15% of the income of the person who applied for the house. Each other adult is assessed differently.

But not really this. Only what they declared. My friend is on CE and housed by council. But he delivers fast foods at night for €400 per week, about.

Toots · 04-11-2015 11:24am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But not really this. Only what they declared. My friend is on CE and housed by council. But he delivers fast foods at night for €400 per week, about.

Is it cash in hand?

ceannair06 · 04-11-2015 11:37am

Toots wrote: »

Is it cash in hand?

I wouldnt doubt it. And WE pay for it!

Paulw · 04-11-2015 11:48am

Mod Note Easy on the generalisation now folks. Keep the discussion on topic.

Michael D Not Higgins · 04-11-2015 1:06pm

I wonder what proportion that 1990 refusals is of the total offered over the year, what proportion of the total council housing stock available it represents and how many refusals are on the same properties?

If the same house is refused by pretty much everyone it's offered to, it only makes sense for the councils to keep it since they have so few houses to work with in the first place. From the government's numbers, 6100 council properties were added to the stock in 2009 with the previous 5 years all being around the 6000-8000 mark. Last year it was 642.

keane2097 · 04-11-2015 2:16pm

I don't really understand why people freak out about stuff like this so much.

Some people on a housing list were offered a place and decided it wasn't suitable. They aren't then moved into the Shelbourne while the house they refused is burnt to the ground. They remain in whatever situation they're in that's obviously not particularly great, while the house is offered to the next person on the list and so on until someone thinks it's suitable.

The total number of people in social housing versus alternatives is unchanged by the fact that we decide to trust people to make the decision that they literally can't fit their family into a place and would prefer to wait in transition for something that works for them.

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 2:26pm

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't really understand why people freak out about stuff like this so much.

Some people on a housing list were offered a place and decided it wasn't suitable. They aren't then moved into the Shelbourne while the house they refused is burnt to the ground. They remain in whatever situation they're in that's obviously not particularly great, while the house is offered to the next person on the list and so on until someone thinks it's suitable.

The total number of people in social housing versus alternatives is unchanged by the fact that we decide to trust people to make the decision that they literally can't fit their family into a place and would prefer to wait in transition for something that works for them.

Well then before these people end up back in a hotel and saying their homeless and have the opposition shouting about homeless figures and the government isn't doing anything, it should be pointed out they have turned down the chance for a house.

ElleEm · 04-11-2015 2:27pm

JustTheOne wrote: »

Well then before these people end up back in a hotel and saying their homeless and have the opposition shouting about homeless figures and the government isn't doing anything, it should be pointed out they have turned down the chance for a house.

It is noted on your file. You get the chance to refuse twice before you go back down to the bottom of the list.

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 2:33pm

ElleEm wrote: »

It is noted on your file. You get the chance to refuse twice before you go back down to the bottom of the list.

I never here it or read it when people blame the government for their situation.

keane2097 · 04-11-2015 2:35pm

JustTheOne wrote: »

Well then before these people end up back in a hotel and saying their homeless and have the opposition shouting about homeless figures and the government isn't doing anything, it should be pointed out they have turned down the chance for a house.....

..... which has allowed someone else to move into the house out of the hotel, inconveniencing nobody bar themselves.

Mrs OBumble · 04-11-2015 3:06pm

jobyrne30 wrote: »

The councils should not have to be responsible for housing and rehousing the scum of the earth. The tenants should have to conform to the laws of the land and norms of society, acting criminally or anti-social should be met with a zero tolerance approach and all who engage in such activities should be removed from the house the tax payer provides. The Dutch scum town approach should be taken over here.

So who should be responsible for the scum towns, then, if it's not the council?

It's all well and fine to say "evict the scum" - but they have to go somewhere (unless you're advocating that we kill them at the same time?). That means private rental (yeah, right, how many LLs here would put their hands to take some) or council emergency housing (where their ASB is simply at closer quarters to other homeless people).

And what do you do in cases when one member of a family is doing anti-social stuff but the others aren't (eg 17 year old kid is dealing drugs, parents who are the tenants aren't, and their younger kids aren't either). Evicting the parent to living under a hedge-row or in a container in an industrial estate is pretty much going to guarantee that the other kids act out too.

Mr McBoatface · 04-11-2015 3:19pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So who should be responsible for the scum towns, then, if it's not the council?

It's all well and fine to say "evict the scum" - but they have to go somewhere (unless you're advocating that we kill them at the same time?). That means private rental (yeah, right, how many LLs here would put their hands to take some) or council emergency housing (where their ASB is simply at closer quarters to other homeless people).

And what do you do in cases when one member of a family is doing anti-social stuff but the others aren't (eg 17 year old kid is dealing drugs, parents who are the tenants aren't, and their younger kids aren't either). Evicting the parent to living under a hedge-row or in a container in an industrial estate is pretty much going to guarantee that the other kids act out too.

Certainly not the private sector, I said that social housing needs need to be re-examined. Scum towns should be under government control maybe an extension of probation service. As for criminal children they should be in youth offender services and the parent who failed to do their job raising them should face some sanctions. The tax payer provides them with social housing, child benefit and most likely other welfare payments the least they can do is raise their kids right.

foggy_lad · 04-11-2015 3:43pm

Tigger wrote: »

12 more per child?
Seems backwards

Not really when you consider that someone on social welfare only gets €29 per child per week. Try and feed and cloth and put a child through school on less than €30 a week!

handlemaster wrote: »

Thats terrible they have to actually pay towards their housing!!!! What next for a complaint ....

My post was a direct response to a specific question asked and should not be seen as any kind of complaint or otherwise biased towards either side of the debate.

JustTheOne wrote: »

I'm talking about people in receipt of rent allowance and unemployed.

The people getting rent allowance have to pay the same rate as those on RAS or in council accommodation, it works out at about 20% of all income with an initial disregard of the basic social welfare rate for each adult and child.

ElleEm wrote: »

In Dublin it is calculated at between 12%- 15% of the income of the person who applied for the house. Each other adult is assessed differently.

20% of all income less the initial disregard of the basic social welfare amount.

Sleepy · 04-11-2015 4:13pm

I've done a fair bit of work for the housing department in one of the local authorities. Brave people, I wouldn't do their job for twice the money, some of the roles involve having to strap on a stab vest!

Knowing a bit about the data underlying these figures, they really need to be taken in context. Particularly in relation to the number of properties refused. There are council properties that have been refused 10 or 20 times even though they've been fully refurbished to a good standard within the past year.

Some estates are simply no-go zones for those of us who weren't unfortunate enough to be born into them. Our justice system is simply too lenient and the 17 year old drug dealer in Mrs OBumble's hypothetical is left for his parents to deal with (and his neighbours to suffer) instead of sent to some form of young offenders reform unit to be handled by professionals.

Dr.Internet · 04-11-2015 7:00pm

People are taking the piss. Oh, your free house doesn't suit me. I'll remain homeless thanks.

Just watching the news there. Some lad and his partner homeless for years. On he comes with the big whinge about how hard life is and it's all societies fault. Then he announces that the partner is 3 months pregnant. Where Is the personal responsibility?

Feck off whinging about society and get up off your arise and so something. Too many people being babyied by the state can't fend for themselves.

God forbid they would have to make a life for themselves in a different area.
Pathetic

Pretzill · 04-11-2015 7:06pm

What happened to people who work but are on the list for council housing? Once a upon a time many hard working families started out either renting or mortgaging a council house at an affordable price. Now it seems that everyone believes every person/family on the list is an unemployed layabout, with a high sense of entitlement.

No matter how many refused a house/flat on the list there will be someone else who'll take it. The problem with the housing list particularly on the East Coast is there isn't enough affordable estates being constructed to match the population increase. Not everyone waiting to be housed is out of work, I'm sure. And where they are unemployed not all are dossers.

However people need to cut their cloth a bit - I was raised in a 2 up 2 down with six living there - there were no problems with two sets of bunk beds in 1 room - we didn't need a play room ( we had garden, local feilds) or a massive kitchen diner, double glazed windows, heating on a switch - and all that is seen now, that if missing, means the house is below the appropriate proper living conditions.

You make a house a home first. It's hard to do either nowadays when you are on a low income or unemployed.

As for anti social behaviour - that's really a matter for civics and more of a political issue at the moment - but like many I wouldn't want to live in an estate with a high crime rate or anti social behaviour. I'd rather live in a glorified shed.

ShaShaBear · 04-11-2015 7:19pm

Pretzill wrote: »

What happened to people who work but are on the list for council housing? Once a upon a time many hard working families started out either renting or mortgaging a council house at an affordable price. Now it seems that everyone believes every person/family on the list is an unemployed layabout, with a high sense of entitlement.

No matter how many refused a house/flat on the list there will be someone else who'll take it. The problem with the housing list particularly on the East Coast is there isn't enough affordable estates being constructed to match the population increase. Not everyone waiting to be housed is out of work, I'm sure. And where they are unemployed not all are dossers.

However people need to cut their cloth a bit - I was raised in a 2 up 2 down with six living there - there were no problems with two sets of bunk beds in 1 room - we didn't need a play room ( we had garden, local feilds) or a massive kitchen diner, double glazed windows, heating on a switch - and all that is seen now, that if missing, means the house is below the appropriate proper living conditions.

You make a house a home first. It's hard to do either nowadays when you are on a low income or unemployed.

As for anti social behaviour - that's really a matter for civics and more of a political issue at the moment - but like many I wouldn't want to live in an estate with a high crime rate or anti social behaviour. I'd rather live in a glorified shed.

Exactly. Plenty of hard working individuals on the council housing list. We went on it when I had my first baby 15 months ago as my partner was just forced to leave his job due to illegal activity and dreadfully abusive working conditions. He's now working two part-time jobs and volunteering in the community.
As I said before, if we got offered something, we'd gladly take it within reason. Obviously with a toddler and another baby on the way, taking a one-bed apartment in the same complex that all of my town's known alcoholics and drug abusers are living would be utterly absurd. But does that make us miserable free-loaders? Or does it make us people who are working very hard to stay in accommodation that somewhat suits our needs at present? I wouldn't sacrifice what we have in our current home to live in squalor because I was offered what I should be grateful for. I'd politely decline (with only very good reason) and let someone next on the list who might have a greater need than me avail of the opportunity.

Wanderer78 · 04-11-2015 8:08pm

Dr.Internet wrote: »

People are taking the piss. Oh, your free house doesn't suit me. I'll remain homeless thanks.

Just watching the news there. Some lad and his partner homeless for years. On he comes with the big whinge about how hard life is and it's all societies fault. Then he announces that the partner is 3 months pregnant. Where Is the personal responsibility?

Feck off whinging about society and get up off your arise and so something. Too many people being babyied by the state can't fend for themselves.

God forbid they would have to make a life for themselves in a different area.
Pathetic

god forbid if they had mental health problems etc, oh wait!

Dr.Internet · 04-11-2015 8:17pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

god forbid if they had mental health problems etc, oh wait!

Possibly they do, why else would they decide to bring a child in to that situation. But there was no mention of mental heath on the report.

If they can't even look after themselves perhaps the child should be removed after birth if they have that many mental health issues.

Either way society didn't make the girl pregnant

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 8:23pm

Dr.Internet wrote: »

People are taking the piss. Oh, your free house doesn't suit me. I'll remain homeless thanks.

Just watching the news there. Some lad and his partner homeless for years. On he comes with the big whinge about how hard life is and it's all societies fault. Then he announces that the partner is 3 months pregnant. Where Is the personal responsibility?

Feck off whinging about society and get up off your arise and so something. Too many people being babyied by the state can't fend for themselves.

God forbid they would have to make a life for themselves in a different area.
Pathetic

There is no responsibility, they expect the state to pay for their mistakes.

It seems to be accepted that its ok to have children and not have to worry about the financial aspect as others will take care of it.

Its rampant and draining finances that could be put into better areas to improve the country for our future and our kids future.

Wanderer78 · 04-11-2015 8:26pm

Dr.Internet wrote: »

Possibly they do, why else would they decide to bring a child in to that situation. But there was no mention of mental heath on the report.

If they can't even look after themselves perhaps the child should be removed after birth if they have that many mental health issues.

Either way society didn't make the girl pregnant

jasus, do we really need to explain this one on this thread!

looks like we do....

i ll take a stab at it...

why do people become homeless?

my answer: a major part of it is mental health issues.....

.....maybe, just maybe!

unfortunately, people with mental health issues dont exactly think logically at the best of times. their lives have the tendency to spiral out of control due to poor judgment and decisions etc.

id highly recommend people to sit down and have a cuppa tea with somebody working in the mental health services. you d learn a lot about life with mental health issues! very complicated stuff with no easy solutions!

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 8:29pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

jasus, do we really need to explain this one on this thread!

looks like we do....

i ll take a stab at it...

why do people become homeless?

my answer: a major part of it is mental health issues.....

.....maybe, just maybe!

unfortunately, people with mental health issues dont exactly think logically at the best of times. their lives have the tendency to spiral out of control due to poor judgment and decisions etc.

id highly recommend people to sit down and have a cuppa tea with somebody working in the mental health services. you d learn a lot about life with mental health issues! very complicated stuff with no easy solutions!

Are you saying the 600 families in emergency accommodation have mental problems?

I don't get your point. Of course a few will have mental health issues but its a minority.

Dr.Internet · 04-11-2015 8:33pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

jasus, do we really need to explain this one on this thread!

looks like we do....

i ll take a stab at it...

why do people become homeless?

my answer: a major part of it is mental health issues.....

.....maybe, just maybe!

unfortunately, people with mental health issues dont exactly think logically at the best of times. their lives have the tendency to spiral out of control due to poor judgment and decisions etc.

id highly recommend people to sit down and have a cuppa tea with somebody working in the mental health services. you d learn a lot about life with mental health issues! very complicated stuff with no easy solutions!

I agreed it may play a part. There was no mention of it in the report. Are we just diagnosing people over the telly now. Could just be as likely he couldn't be bothered.

Some people in this thread have explained they have had children while 'homeless'. Are you diagnosing all of them with mental health issues too?

Wanderer78 · 04-11-2015 8:41pm

JustTheOne wrote: »

Are you saying the 600 families in emergency accommodation have mental problems?

I don't get your point. Of course a few will have mental health issues but its a minority.

very good point. their situation will more than likely induce mental health problems if its not corrected asap. anybody would become mentally ill due to the fact.

i find it very odd that people dont see that homeless people have mental health issues! very odd!

Dr.Internet wrote: »

I agreed it may play a part. There was no mention of it in the report. Are we just diagnosing people over the telly now. Could just be as likely he couldn't be bothered.

Some people in this thread have explained they have had children while 'homeless'. Are you diagnosing all of them with mental health issues too?

hmmm, so you need a media report to say something is or maybe is without coming to your own conclusions!

not a professional so i cant diagnose but....

JustTheOne · 04-11-2015 8:45pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

very good point. their situation will more than likely induce mental health problems if its not corrected asap. anybody would become mentally ill due to the fact.

i find it very odd that people dont see that homeless people have mental health issues! very odd!

hmmm, so you need a media report to say something is or maybe is without coming to your own conclusions!

not a professional so i cant diagnose but....

Eh we know some homeless people can have mental health issues just as people who aren't homeless can have too.

You are making out every homeless person has mental health problems.

Actually I don't even know what point youre trying to make anymore.

Teyla Emmagan · 04-11-2015 9:51pm

People on housing lists are human beings too. No-one wants to live somewhere dodgy, or out of the way, and why should they? It's very hard to move when you've been given a council house, choose wrongly and you could be stuck there for life.

On the other hand, there is a house on my street that the Council own. It has just been made vacant. It will be empty for at least another year because most Council tenants won't want it. Even though it is the same as my house, which I pay a mortgage on. So even though I believe people should have a choice, some of them are terribly, terribly (often unjustifiably) picky.

Lux23 · 04-11-2015 10:01pm

I would like to see what some of these houses are like before casting judgement on those who refused them.

CollyFlower · 04-11-2015 10:24pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I would like to see what some of these houses are like before casting judgement on those who refused them.

The houses are fine, all done up to standard, DCC standards. It's the area that's the problem for some people.

Tigger · 05-11-2015 12:05am

foggy_lad wrote: »

Not really when you consider that someone on social welfare only gets €29 per child per week. Try and feed and cloth and put a child through school on less than €30 a week!

My post was a direct response to a specific question asked and should not be seen as any kind of complaint or otherwise biased towards either side of the debate.

The people getting rent allowance have to pay the same rate as those on RAS or in council accommodation, it works out at about 20% of all income with an initial disregard of the basic social welfare rate for each adult and child.

20% of all income less the initial disregard of the basic social welfare amount.

i ment 12 more to pay per child is wrong because i'd think the more kids the less rent

Mrs OBumble · 05-11-2015 12:58am

Tigger wrote: »

i ment 12 more to pay per child is wrong because i'd think the more kids the less rent

Why would you think that?

The more kids someone has, the more income they have (benefit topup, child-allowance). And the more wear-and-tear there will be on the house.

foggy_lad · 05-11-2015 1:34am

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why would you think that?

The more kids someone has, the more income they have (benefit topup, child-allowance). And the more wear-and-tear there will be on the house.

You must not have kids if you believe this!

School is not free!

Shoes cost €50+, Clothes are not really much cheaper!

Kids cost a bloody fortune!

Even a small bottle of calpol costs a fortune!

There is no way that someone on welfare ends up with more disposable income or indeed any actual disposable income by having one or more extra children!

JustTheOne · 05-11-2015 1:37am

foggy_lad wrote: »

You must not have kids if you believe this!

School is not free!

Shoes cost €50+, Clothes are not really much cheaper!

Kids cost a bloody fortune!

Even a small bottle of calpol costs a fortune!

There is no way that someone on welfare ends up with more disposable income or indeed any actual disposable income by having one or more extra children!

I'm sorry kids shoes cost 50 Euro?

Tigger · 05-11-2015 1:39am

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why would you think that?

The more kids someone has, the more income they have (benefit topup, child-allowance). And the more wear-and-tear there will be on the house.

you think kids create income?
i'm lost child allowance is what 32
dependant child is 29.80
so 60 a week
less 12 for rent thats 48/7 or 6 euros and 85c a day
if i was gonna budget for a kid i'd need more

ShaShaBear · 05-11-2015 2:02am

JustTheOne wrote: »

I'm sorry kids shoes cost 50 Euro?

We just bought our daughter's first pair of walking shoes and they were €36 on sale, so I'd say so. I had a bad turn in my foot from cheap footwear before I was walking, and definitely didn't want the same for my baby.

Yawns · 05-11-2015 2:21am

CollyFlower wrote: »

The houses are fine, all done up to standard, DCC standards. It's the area that's the problem for some people.

Bollox to that. I was offered a house last year. It was in one of the worst areas of the town going and was tiny with a lot of anti-social problems in the area. That didn't phase me. What annoyed me was the mould all over the walls and ceiling in every upstairs room. Talked to the neighbour and before I even mentioned it, they said it to me about the mould as that was why the last tennant moved out. The council never sorted the problem out. It also had no functioning heating in place but they'd "fix it". Needless to say I refused it. Best thing was, the reason for refusal was put down as "Too small for family" despite the real refusal was place was a dump and you wouldn't leave a stray animal in there without calling the ISPCA. But everyone please continue to believe goverment reports as they wouldn't lie about anything would they.

Oh and no I'm not a dosser dole scrounger either. Working away happily enough and was lucky to even get offered a place. Apparently I was way down the list and the same house had been offered to a lot of people ahead of me but all turned it down for some "unknown" reason. It wasn't up to standard and the council didn't want to fix it.

Grand tho for some people to jump on a high horse and look down on everyone down, assuming we're all dole scrounging dossers who are refusing the houses due to a lack of playroom or it's less than 6 bedrooms etc etc.

Just remember half the bull**** reports released by goverment departments are just that, bull****.

CollyFlower · 05-11-2015 2:31am

Yawns wrote: »

Bollox to that. I was offered a house last year. It was in one of the worst areas of the town going and was tiny with a lot of anti-social problems in the area. That didn't phase me. What annoyed me was the mould all over the walls and ceiling in every upstairs room. Talked to the neighbour and before I even mentioned it, they said it to me about the mould as that was why the last tennant moved out. The council never sorted the problem out. It also had no functioning heating in place but they'd "fix it". Needless to say I refused it. Best thing was, the reason for refusal was put down as "Too small for family" despite the real refusal was place was a dump and you wouldn't leave a stray animal in there without calling the ISPCA. But everyone please continue to believe goverment reports as they wouldn't lie about anything would they.

Oh and no I'm not a dosser dole scrounger either. Working away happily enough and was lucky to even get offered a place. Apparently I was way down the list and the same house had been offered to a lot of people ahead of me but all turned it down for some "unknown" reason. It wasn't up to standard and the council didn't want to fix it.

Grand tho for some people to jump on a high horse and look down on everyone down, assuming we're all dole scrounging dossers who are refusing the houses due to a lack of playroom or it's less than 6 bedrooms etc etc.

Just remember half the bull**** reports released by goverment departments are just that, bull****.

The insist on high standards when it comes to private landlords renting out their property...... If that was your experience it seems they have double standard!

2000 refuse council housing

Comments