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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Homelessness on the rise

  • 04-09-2016 10:44pm
    #1
    Slydice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    I saw we have this website:
    http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/homelessness/other/homelessness-data
    Official homelessness data is produced by local authorities through the Pathway Accommodation & Support System

    Homelessness on the rise. I've done up two charts based on the totals they give.

    Homelessness (Adults)
    396177.png

    Family Homelessness
    396178.png

    I'm guessing that the 4177 total Adults less the 1510 Family Adults leaves: 2,667 Adults (who not included in family numbers).

    Homelessness Report July 2016
    http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_july_2016.pdf
    The root cause of increased homelessness is the supply shortage across the housing sector, which in turn is a result of the recent economic collapse and the associated damage to the construction sector. Accordingly the long-term solution to the current homeless issue is to increase the supply of homes.

    :(


«134567…22

Comments

  • #2
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Id be really interested to see the root causes though.

    People who have turned down any council property / HAP , should not be looked on as homeless.

    People with alcohol, gambling or drug addiction problems should not really be on the figures either, they have other hurdles to battle to get a roof back over their heads.


  • #3
    Slydice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    It was supply when I looked at Refusals last.

    Housing waiting list size Versus Refusals
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97606025&postcount=36
    367522.png


  • #4
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Slydice wrote: »
    It was supply when I looked at Refusals last.

    Housing waiting list size Versus Refusals
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97606025&postcount=36
    367522.png
    I don't think the housing waiting list is the same as homeless. What I would actually like to know how does Ireland compare internationally in homelessness frequency.


  • #5
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,084 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    People with alcohol, gambling or drug addiction problems should not really be on the figures either, they have other hurdles to battle to get a roof back over their heads.

    Because they're not homeless???

    There's one approach "Housing first" which argues that people with mental health issues (including addictions) need to be housed first, and then have their problems treated. And that if you treat the health problem, but them move the person into a new home, you can actually make the treatment go backwards.


  • #6
    myshirt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Is it correct that we set up our economy (mostly through borrowing which the current generation are paying off) to allow baby boomers and generation X to buy property at average wages even, but today we still permit them to focus on the more profitable side of the market only, ie working professionals, couples without kids, or room by room rentals to professionals in order to get more from the property.

    Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

    At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    myshirt wrote: »
    Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

    At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.

    I think you'll find that this is not a communist country and people are free to rent their properties (handing over the keys to something routinely worth in excess of 100 times the deposit) to whoever they want.


  • #8
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    My brother was granted the hap scheme. He was granted a figure to comfortably cover a 3 bed house/apt in north dublin. He rang a couple dozen places and none were interested in accepting the hap scheme. It was just for him and his son. Crazy! I don't understand why most landlords don't jump at this.


  • #9
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    goz83 wrote: »
    My brother was granted the hap scheme. He was granted a figure to comfortably cover a 3 bed house/apt in north dublin. He rang a couple dozen places and none were interested in accepting the hap scheme. It was just for him and his son. Crazy! I don't understand why most landlords don't jump at this.

    How can you not get it? A host of problems, namely you could get stuck with a tenant who is anti social and can not be assured let alone assisted by the Hse/SW of any effort to get rid of them, infact if a tenant didn't pay their share,the SW cut off their contribution which they might be quite happy to do and the tenant could still not be gotten rid of, without being accused of being insulting, that's the tip of the iceberg and what encouraged but pushed me financially to get out of renting, has the govt\council added a house to fill that small gap, doubt it, and I believe it's been recreated many times over, and then you get someone saying landlords should be hammered, jeez


  • #10
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    goz83 wrote: »
    My brother was granted the hap scheme. He was granted a figure to comfortably cover a 3 bed house/apt in north dublin. He rang a couple dozen places and none were interested in accepting the hap scheme. It was just for him and his son. Crazy! I don't understand why most landlords don't jump at this.

    How can you not get it? A host of problems, namely you could get stuck with a tenant who is anti social and can not be assured let alone assisted by the Hse/SW of any effort to get rid of them, infact if a tenant didn't pay their share,the SW cut off their contribution which they might be quite happy to do and the tenant could still not be gotten rid of, without being accused of being insulting, that's the tip of the iceberg and what encouraged but pushed me financially to get out of renting, has the govt\council added a house to fill that small gap, doubt it, and I believe it's been recreated many times over, and then you get someone saying landlords should be hammered, jeez

    What is disgusting is the govt aren't doing a damn thing about it, not in years, keep floating the responsibility onto individuals, even though we are skttig on a stockpile of housing, many have probably gone to rot by now, maybe by design, maybe some are in useless locations but that might appeal to someone waiting years, even then they might be able to afford a car to compensate for distance or regular private bus services to specific locations identified, but Nada, zilch,nothing but talk and then move onto the next topic.


  • #11
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    myshirt wrote: »

    Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

    At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.

    And that opens a bunch of other problems. We'll be selling eventually. The option is there to keep and rent the current property, but we don't want the hassle, particularly if it comes to problem tenants. So the house will go on the market, out of reach from those who can't buy a house on their own.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    myshirt wrote: »
    Is it correct that we set up our economy (mostly through borrowing which the current generation are paying off) to allow baby boomers and generation X to buy property at average wages even, but today we still permit them to focus on the more profitable side of the market only, ie working professionals, couples without kids, or room by room rentals to professionals in order to get more from the property.

    Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

    At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.

    Why should the private sector be dealing with the government's lack of social housing? Why should they be punished for not wanting to deal with it?

    There's already laws preventing discrimination for renting and now social welfare recipient is one of the discrimination criteria. If you want to go more aggressively to get private landlords to take social welfare tenants, then you need to have some assurances for the landlord.

    Firstly, any damage above wear and tear should be covered by the DSP. The payments should be automatic to the landlord with any top up payment made to the DSP so the landlord doesn't have to chase the tenant for it. Eviction proceedings on non-payment should be expedited in some way, e.g. bypassing RTB and going straight to court for eviction. Only after those changes would landlords agree to any forced acceptance of social welfare tenants.

    Time and again we get the same issues on the forum about problem tenants, both private and social welfare. The difference is that the private tenants usually have a job and there are earnings that can be chased on any damage or unpaid rent. If you chased a welfare tenant through the court, they'd shrug their shoulders and say they have no money. You'd be lucky to get a €5 a week docked from their benefit payment.


  • #13
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Because they're not homeless???

    There's one approach "Housing first" which argues that people with mental health issues (including addictions) need to be housed first, and then have their problems treated. And that if you treat the health problem, but them move the person into a new home, you can actually make the treatment go backwards.

    The reason most addicts are homeless is due to either not paying to stay in their homes or being kicked out by partner / family for stealing to fund the addiction. By all means, we should be running support centres and supervised, isolated accomodation for these people , but to count them on the general homeless figures is a mistake.

    Giving a heroin addict a house is just going to see a house destroyed (selling wiring, copper pipe, fireplace etc..)


  • #14
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    I'd also hasten to add, if the private landlords are forced to rent to welfare tenants, you're left with nothing for the private renters. If we take the homeless figures above and say there's 1130 families and 2667 adults and each family gets a rental at the highest possible RA limit (1300/month) and each adult gets a shared house at the highest amount (430/month), there's not enough sharing places available in the whole country below the max limit for Dublin so we'll have to take those 1539 and put them in rentals (660/month max) which leaves you with 809 people who are still homeless. Let's say they're all couples and take up couples rentals (900/month max), now we've housed them all.

    That took 2265 private rentals out of the entire country's available stock of 3315 (2/3 of the total) and all of the sharing stock below 430/month (roughly half of the total). The remaining private rentals on the market are sharing rooms above 430/month and private rentals above 1300/month. Is that fair on the private renter?


  • #15
    _kookie
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭_kookie


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    Why should the private sector be dealing with the government's lack of social housing? Why should they be punished for not wanting to deal with it?

    There's already laws preventing discrimination for renting and now social welfare recipient is one of the discrimination criteria. If you want to go more aggressively to get private landlords to take social welfare tenants, then you need to have some assurances for the landlord.

    Firstly, any damage above wear and tear should be covered by the DSP. The payments should be automatic to the landlord with any top up payment made to the DSP so the landlord doesn't have to chase the tenant for it. Eviction proceedings on non-payment should be expedited in some way, e.g. bypassing RTB and going straight to court for eviction. Only after those changes would landlords agree to any forced acceptance of social welfare tenants.

    Time and again we get the same issues on the forum about problem tenants, both private and social welfare. The difference is that the private tenants usually have a job and there are earnings that can be chased on any damage or unpaid rent. If you chased a welfare tenant through the court, they'd shrug their shoulders and say they have no money. You'd be lucky to get a €5 a week docked from their benefit payment.

    I would go further and have it so that the local authority are responsible for the rent plus penalties until such a time that the property is handed back to the owner in the same condition that it was given to them. Local authority should be responsible for the behaviour of their tenant and the removal of them if necessary, and should bear the whole cost of a trouble making tenant. That would make landlords feel a bit safer, but unfortunately wouldnt do much for the poor neighbors of the trouble makers while the loval authority try to remove them.


  • #16
    riclad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    The problem is lack of supply,no new social housing being built.
    Only a small no of private houses being built,
    if one person refuses a house the next person on the list will take it .
    most council houses were sold in the 90s to council tenants .
    The tax system we have now doe,s not encourage new landlords to come into the market or buy a house to rent out .


  • #17
    _kookie
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭_kookie


    riclad wrote: »
    The problem is lack of supply,no new social housing being built.
    Only a small no of private houses being built,
    if one person refuses a house the next person on the list will take it .
    most council houses were sold in the 90s to council tenants .
    The tax system we have now doe,s not encourage new landlords to come into the market or buy a house to rent out .

    You are right.
    The tax system and the general treatment of landlords is causing a lot of landlords to leave the market.
    Im trying one more thing with my properties. If it doesnt work out then or if taxes dont improve, or even more control of my properties gets taken away from me, then i am quitting the market too and will never be returning to it.
    I know a lot of LLs who have just given up and bailed out altogether.


  • #18
    riclad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    No other private business is treated like landlords ,
    the only ones making money are those who bought houses, before the boom,
    When you could buy a house for 100k.
    The revenue can tax a landlord even if he makes no profit,
    as they only give tax credits on part of the cost of the mortgage,
    eg 75 per cent of loan interest.
    Landlords need a tax incentive ,eg 4k tax allowance . if you take on a rent allowance tenant.
    there,s hardly any reason to take on a rent allowance tenant at the moment ,


  • #19
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    riclad wrote: »
    No other private business is treated like landlords ,
    the only ones making money are those who bought houses, before the boom,
    When you could buy a house for 100k.
    The revenue can tax a landlord even if he makes no profit,
    as they only give tax credits on part of the cost of the mortgage,
    eg 75 per cent of loan interest.
    Landlords need a tax incentive ,eg 4k tax allowance . if you take on a rent allowance tenant.
    there,s hardly any reason to take on a rent allowance tenant at the moment ,

    Mortgage repayments (principal and interest) should be 100% tax deductable at the end of the year, all maintainence, repairs etc... , and an unvouched 1000 a year (50 hours at 20 an hour of the labdlord doing work to the property) should be taken out before profit is calculated for tax. Simplify the tax code on it and you would get lower rents and more landlords back in the game.

    Also for welfare tenants , the system should be completely overhauled , the council should rent directly from the landlord and have to do everything to maintain the property and police tenants, the council should be providing the insurance etc.. , and in the even of serious damage (>25% of value of property) , the council should have to pay the landlord over the market value for the property to purchase it.


  • #20
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Mortgage repayments (principal and interest) should be 100% tax deductable at the end of the year, all maintainence, repairs etc... , and an unvouched 1000 a year (50 hours at 20 an hour of the labdlord doing work to the property) should be taken out before profit is calculated for tax. Simplify the tax code on it and you would get lower rents and more landlords back in the game.

    Also for welfare tenants , the system should be completely overhauled , the council should rent directly from the landlord and have to do everything to maintain the property and police tenants, the council should be providing the insurance etc.. , and in the even of serious damage (>25% of value of property) , the council should have to pay the landlord over the market value for the property to purchase it.

    Your first paragraph doesn't work as it promotes the transfer of wealth to those who already have wealth. It's a regressive tax break for those with capital and ability to invest in the property market which will cause an enormous bubble in property. It would cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro a year at present and into the billions if it were implemented.


  • #21
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    Your first paragraph doesn't work as it promotes the transfer of wealth to those who already have wealth. It's a regressive tax break for those with capital and ability to invest in the property market which will cause an enormous bubble in property.


    So , it would work like any other profit making business on this isle.

    Why is it that you can sell anything you like for a profit and it makes you a success, but if you dare make a cent of profit in property your treated like dirt


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    starshine1234
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭starshine1234


    Because the dysfunctional nature of the property market is destroying our society.

    People have a tendency to blame greedy and avaricious landlords for that.

    Many people have contributed to the dysfunction in the property market, including the government.

    We need to build social houses, legalise drugs, and provide a universal income. It's the only way.

    Of course, instead of doing that we'll leave drugs illegal, we'll jack up the price of everything, we'll interfere in the property market and sell off huge amounts of housing stock on the cheap to rich investors who will screw us.

    Pathetic performance from the government.


  • #23
    _kookie
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭_kookie


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    Because the dysfunctional nature of the property market is destroying our society.

    People have a tendency to blame greedy and avaricious landlords for that.

    Many people have contributed to the dysfunction in the property market, including the government.

    We need to build social houses, legalise drugs, and provide a universal income. It's the only way.

    Of course, instead of doing that we'll leave drugs illegal, we'll jack up the price of everything, we'll interfere in the property market and sell off huge amounts of housing stock on the cheap to rich investors who will screw us.

    Pathetic performance from the government.

    Where do I apply for that universal income?
    I wouldnt mind it at all.


  • #24
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    So , it would work like any other profit making business on this isle.

    Why is it that you can sell anything you like for a profit and it makes you a success, but if you dare make a cent of profit in property your treated like dirt

    No one is stopping landlords from setting up a property company and paying corporation tax rates on their business. Bear in mind they will also have to pay tax on money or assets they remove from the business.


  • #25
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    So , it would work like any other profit making business on this isle.

    Why is it that you can sell anything you like for a profit and it makes you a success, but if you dare make a cent of profit in property your treated like dirt

    There is no business where you get capital allowances like that. It is important to understand that a capital repayment is not an expense and it just does not figure in calculating profit anywhere in any industry.

    If there were a full capital allowance on residential property the price of property would go crazy.

    Maybe this would be a good thing because it would stimulate new development. But it would make a lot more sense to have significant capital allowances in new construction.

    In a lot of ways renting has become easier in the last 30 years. The proportion of problem tenants is actually much smaller. The increase in standards does mean the margins are certainly tight and being a landlord does take a lot of knowledge and skill.


  • #26
    PierreLeCake
    Registered Users Posts: 29 ✭PierreLeCake


    The real problem here is the lack of Social Housing. The councils abdicated their responsibilities and pushed the problem on to Private Landlords. It was insane selling council houses at a discount to council tenants. If they were in a position to buy houses then they should have bought privately freeing up social housing for those who could n't. With a bit of imagination the councils could have offered low cost mortgages to council tenants to buy privately. Its a whole different ballgame now with the Central Bank rules affecting everyone and that opportunity has passed.
    I for one am sick of hearing of the Lefty Politicians calling Landlord's "Profiteers" and "Price Gougers". I have a rental for the last number of years which I am subsidising in the hope I will eventually pay off the mortgage and be able to generate some income for my old age. The Government steals half my rent in tax whilst giving me no real protections against an undesirable tenant yet somehow I am enemy number 1 . Ronan Lyons has stated that between 2011 and 2012 there was 17500 properties to rent at anytime nationwide but today there is only 3800.
    Why has there been a mass exodus of landlords when rents have been at their highest. I believe its the high taxation, the lack of reliefs , poor protection for landlords and an anti landlord PRB which is slow to act.
    Add to this the additional bureaucracy involved with a RA or HAP tenant over taking a private tenant and its not hard to see why people who are not working are going to find themselves in trouble finding suitable housing.
    If the authorities are to make Social Welfare tenants attractive to Private Landlords they have to make any scheme simple and attractive not the dogs dinner approach we have now.


  • #27
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    and provide a universal income. It's the only way.

    The famously pragmatic Swiss voted on a universal income in a recent referendum and overwhelmingly opposed it.
    It's an idiotic idea spouted by money tree fantasists who actually believe that money rains like manna from above, without any concept whatsoever of where it would come from or the effect it would have on inflation, etc.


  • #28
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    There are lots of people who have no interest in working. We should accept that and provide for them. The alternative is chaos.

    Why on earth should we accept that?


  • #29
    Dr.Rieux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 674 ✭✭✭Dr.Rieux


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    I said
    There are lots of people who have no interest in working. We should accept that and provide for them. The alternative is chaos.



    Because working is not glorious.

    The people who do not want to work are making the correct decision. We should accept that.

    We should tax company's profits, not worker's wages.

    If I could not work, and still be provided very well for, why in God's name would I work? Now substitute the entire population in instead of me, no-one works and there's no company profits to tax, and no money for anyone.

    No-one should be able to choose not to work and then sponge off the state.

    Edit: On the accommodation side of this, if one chooses not to work in this fantasy state, should they also choose to be able to live on Shrewsbury road at the expense of the state?


  • #30
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    I said
    There are lots of people who have no interest in working. We should accept that and provide for them. The alternative is chaos.



    Because working is not glorious.

    The people who do not want to work are making the correct decision. We should accept that.

    We should tax company's profits, not worker's wages.

    No we shouldn't accept it, if someone just simply doesn't want to work for no good reason they should have their dole totally removed and any other benefits and if they end up on the street then tough luck they made their choice by being too useless and lazy to work.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    There are lots of people who have no interest in working. We should accept that and provide for them. The alternative is chaos.

    Those people should not be provided for, they do not contribute in any way to society, and should not be helped by tye state. There are social responsibilities for human beings, if you want to live, you must earn your keep. If you cant find a job there are safety nets. If you don't want a job , you are a leech and do not deserve to live in civilised society.


  • #32
    utmbuilder
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭utmbuilder


    working should be a choice. however when landlords want to own housing for 1% deposit to make a return, this system makes it vital every working bee in the colony hits the grind stone till age 68 :D


  • #33
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    utmbuilder wrote: »
    working should be a choice.

    It is, but if you choose not to work you can go live in a forest and hunt/ beg for food and build your own shelter.

    If you want a roof over your head and food from shops and heating etc... You have to work. Theres no such thing as a free lunch, nor should there be.


  • #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    Completely wrong.

    You can contribute to society in many ways, not just by being a meek economic unit for the rich to exploit.

    You can observe the law for example, or take your place on a jury, or act like a civil minded person. You can co-operate with police enquiries.

    All of those things are positive. You seek to deny that.

    They are all irrelavent if you are a leech on the finances of working people and those who are in genuine need. Refusal to work should result in zero state benefits no housing, no dole, no medical care etc.
    starshine1234 wrote: »

    You advocate for a lawless society, where the weak and disadvantaged are left to fend for themselves. That will result in a huge crime wave, and workers and businesses would be preyed upon.

    People who refuse to work for no good reason are not week or disadvantaged they are useless leeches on society.


  • #35
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Mod: back to the property angle, please. The politics forum is a more appropriate place to discuss basic income.


  • #36
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Bit of a mad thread this.

    With regard to social welfare tenants it can be difficult. Our next door neighbour in the semi-D that we lived in and now rent out was a social welfare tenant. She was pretty alright herself, not the sharpest tool in the shed but fine. The problem was the people she attracted. Her ex was a bit of a scumbag and known to Gardai (one of the people in the estate was a detective and knew him well in a professional capacity). Cue several bust-ups. One morning at around half 8 when I was away he came and smashed in her windows. The windows were replaced and some sort of plastic barrier put onto them. This estate would be known to be a very quiet, family estate so this was very out of place. There were several other incidents with exes and the Gardai were around.

    As I said she wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. One Sunday we were outside and noticed a smell of gas. After 3 of us confirmed that we believed there was a smell and we called the emergency hotline. The plumber called and found that the issue was that her meter was leaking gas. She came out to see what was going and said she had smelled the gas herself but didn't think the gas company would be working on a Sunday! The plumber in fairness set her straight on the dangers and went out of his way to thank me for ringing it in.

    Recently she moved out and the house was put on the market. I wonder how much she came into the landlords decision to get out of the game.

    I now rent out my own semi-D there and am very selective on who I let in.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Slydice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    The August figures have been released:
    http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_august_2016.pdf

    Homelessness on the rise. I've updated the two charts based on the totals they give.

    Homelessness (Adults)
    397534.png

    Family Homelessness
    397533.png

    The latest report repeats:
    The root cause of increased homelessness is the supply shortage across the housing sector, which in turn is a result of the recent economic collapse and the associated damage to the construction sector. Accordingly the long-term solution to the current homeless issue is to increase the supply of homes.


  • #38
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,618 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    The problem as I see it is that those who are choosing to make them selves "homeless" are pushing the genuinely homeless people down the que and so they are not getting sufficient resources..

    People are being offered houses and turning them down because they are not in preferred locations or close to family. This has to end. For such people there should be a limit of offers, two maybe, after that all supports is withdrawn and the resources are directed to the next person on the list.

    I feel the resources are there, but these selfish individuals are clogging up the system with their petty notion that they are entitled to the perfect home at the states expense.

    For some now homelessness is a lifestyle choice and they should be ASHAMED !


  • #39
    Slydice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    I'm kinda surprised the first reply to these figures is the same as when I posted the first set of figures.
    Slydice wrote: »
    It was supply when I looked at Refusals last.

    Housing waiting list size Versus Refusals
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97606025&postcount=36
    367522.png


  • #40
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,549 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Slydice wrote: »
    I'm kinda surprised the first reply to these figures is the same as when I posted the first set of figures.

    Are you?

    Simple minded responses abound!

    :pac:

    We have a real serious problem on our hands re: housing in this country and no political will to tackle it. There are also a cadre of "I'm alright Jacks" that just don't care (about anyone worse off than them) and never will care, so long at they're fine. They only open their traps when something happens on their doorstep.

    Such people are best ignored.

    The simple facts are that we need more social housing and serious rent controls to stop leech landlords gouging stupid amounts of money out of people for their shitty properties.

    We've let things get waaaay too out of control on this island and frankly it's unsustainable.


  • #41
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    myshirt wrote: »
    Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.
    EVERY SINGLE LANDLORD WILL STOP BEING A LANDLORD.

    And then what will you do?

    Actually, better idea; how about you force the social welfare tenants into the houses that they turn down?
    riclad wrote: »
    if one person refuses a house the next person on the list will take it
    No. They just stay empty.
    Tony EH wrote: »
    The simple facts are that we need more social housing and serious rent controls to stop leech landlords gouging stupid amounts of money out of people for their shitty properties.
    We need laws to evict people who don't pay their rent. Currently there is no laws at all. Landlord rent out crap places because they fear that the people who rent them out will destroy them.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Tony EH wrote: »

    The simple facts are that we need more social housing and serious rent controls to stop leech landlords gouging stupid amounts of money out of people for their shitty properties.

    Can you point me to any analysis to suggest that capping the income received by landlords will lead to an improvement in the accommodation they provide?

    Do you consider all other service providers you use as a "leech" because they invest their money and expect a return from it?

    Do you know how much base costs have increased for landlords in the past 6 years and who has imposed these costs?


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The simple facts are that we need more social housing and serious rent controls to stop leech landlords gouging stupid amounts of money out of people for their shitty properties.
    .

    Landlords in trying to make money from their business shocker. Honestly even after reading the terrible time so many LLs have and how tenants rights basically makes them untouchable even if they aren't paying rent how can you come out with statememnts like this. Letting property is a business why should it be interfered with with rent controls, sure why would anyone be involved if they are prevented from asking what the market is willing to pay.

    Contrary to what you and another poster is saying, its LLs rights that need to be increased a lot not tenants rights or rent controls.


  • #44
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,618 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    It is possible that in Dublin homelessness is at a tipping point, where it is not just those with addiction problems, mental health issues, anti social tendencies or issues in general that are at risk of homelessness or are actuley homeless that is why it needs to be tackled now before it become embedded in the system.


  • #45
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Vanessa Billions Strapless wrote: »
    Contrary to what you and another poster is saying, its LLs rights that need to be increased a lot not tenants rights or rent controls.
    Actually, this should be reworded to "tenancy laws". I find any time "LL rights" are mentioned, the "800 years of occupation"/LL's make money (WTF?)/pictures of tenants under british rule tend to pop up.

    Specifically the ability to boot people out for non payment of rent. Such laws would decrease homelessness, as more landlords would enter the market.


  • #46
    Slydice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    Hrmm, it looks like it might be possible to make a total homelessness chart.

    I see the Peter McVerry Trust adds the dependents to the total adults to reflect their figure for 6,611.
    https://twitter.com/PMVTrust/status/779282754575949824


  • #47
    appfry
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭appfry


    I know for a fact (CWO sister) that there is no landlord who will not rent to SW if they were offered an attractive deal.
    Always when they talk to a landlord about renting their property from them it fals down at the part where the landlord asks them if they will take full responsibility for the running of the property.
    The SW are not allowed to make a deal on this.
    The landlords biggest problem is that they are responsible for everything that goes wrong and the SW will wash their hands of it when it goes wrong.

    Its easy to solve the housing crisis.
    You offer the landlord the market rate for 5 or 10 years, but you also offer to take on full responsibility for the tenants and pay rent for that 5 or 10 years, whatever happens. So the landlord is happy to have it rented. He/She hands SW the keys and forgets about it for 5 or 10 years, being guaranteed that they get the property back after that period of time in the same state they handed it over in.
    That one thing alone would ensure that SW could rent all the properties they ever needed.
    Any landlord would got for that deal. But the sw are not allowed to deal on that basis.


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    appfry wrote: »

    Its easy to solve the housing crisis.
    You offer the landlord the market rate for 5 or 10 years, but you also offer to take on full responsibility for the tenants and pay rent for that 5 or 10 years, whatever happens. So the landlord is happy to have it rented. He/She hands SW the keys and forgets about it for 5 or 10 years, being guaranteed that they get the property back after that period of time in the same state they handed it over in.
    That one thing alone would ensure that SW could rent all the properties they ever needed.
    Any landlord would got for that deal. But the sw are not allowed to deal on that basis.

    This may suit some LLs but a lot would not like to have their property tied up in such a long term deal in case they wanted to move back in or move in a family member, sell the place or if the rent increased further they would be tied to the deal. Even LLs who would plan to continue renting long term many like to have a change of tenant every few years.


  • #49
    appfry
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭appfry


    No reason why that deal wouldnt work out exactly the same with a one or two year contract either.
    The big problem is the that the landlord take all of the risk and the SW doesnt. If the SW want the properties they need to step up.
    I put another thread up about this so probably best for me not to keep it going in this thread too.
    Maybe the mods can move this over ? If they think it necessary.


  • #50
    Electric Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    Vanessa Billions Strapless wrote: »
    This may suit some LLs but a lot would not like to have their property tied up in such a long term deal in case they wanted to move back in or move in a family member, sell the place or if the rent increased further they would be tied to the deal. Even LLs who would plan to continue renting long term many like to have a change of tenant every few years.

    This is why Ireland needs professional landlords instead of amateur gombeens.


  • #51
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Electric Sheep wrote: »
    This is why Ireland needs professional landlords instead of amateur gombeens.
    Ireland only has the amateurs, as professional landlords will have realised that it's not a business where they can make a profit long term, as people can stop paying rent with absolutely no repercussions.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement