Social Housing - Rent Means Test

Here's an even better idea. The people who start these threads complaining about the dole and such are clearly unhappy with their lives, their lot and their lifestyle. Why don't you and your ilk go out and find a job you're happy in and work towards an income you're happy with. Better yet you could even try the dole. I don't know about you but the definition of life satisfaction isn't about being on the dole. When I was doing my PhD I was on fairly low money compared to a lifestyle I could have had on rent allowance combined with the dole. That wasn't the point though. The point was that I was working towards a lifestyle I was going to enjoy. Sitting there focusing on what people on the low sum of money that is the dole were doing would be pointless.

Find a better job, happier marriage and better life and I guarantee you'll stop worrying about people on the dole.

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

And what happens if the tenants don't pay their rent? Are they turfed out, or are they left to stay on rent free for years on end?

zell12 wrote: »

Yes it's a rigorous yearly review.
Rent is 15-20% of income, min ~€30pw to max ~€200pw

Nice cushy number for those that can get it.

My rent is currently 35% of my net income and that's for one room in a shared house!

steddyeddy wrote: »

/thread.

.. Not quite, because the arrears can just keep on building and evictions are rare.

The problem with social housing (and welfare in general) is that it doesn't encourage people to better their situations beyond a certain point. After that point, the costs spike hugely and suddenly once they pass whatever low threshold.

Welfare and indeed social housing should be there for those who need it in tough times, not a low rent house for life.

Diceicle wrote: »

Seeing more social housing thread of late - so whats one more.....

Arguments around Social Housing (SH) tend to follow a fairly identifiable pattern -

• someone says 'free house';
• someone else says 'not free house its means tested'

and so on.

I would like to know though, preferably from current and former SH tenants - how enforced or pro-active are we about this means test?
Do you have to send a P60 in every year?

If you're shelf-stacking in Tesco when you first get your home do they then require you to submit proof of earnings as you work your way up to Area Manager (for example)?

Or is it as I suspect that once you get the home nobody bothers you for the rest of your life and you're paying a pittance for a property?

The problem isn't social housing itself. There has to be a net to catch people that aren't doing to well.

There are 2 problems as I see it:
1: Said net is to coarse. There are people deliberately banging out lots of kids to get a free house off the council. It should be done on a first come, first served basis with means testing. You shouldn't be bumped up the ladder because you've had a bunch of kids. Wait til you have the house, then have the kids.
It's also extremely sexist, a single man has absolutely no chance of getting a council house.
2: Council estates are kips, name me one council estate that is a good area. Generally speaking they are housing a lot of people that don't work and have many kids. A lot of the parents (Not all) are not great parents (and how can they be when they've got 4+ kids to look after). This breeds serious social/anti-social/crime issues.
This begs the question, what kind of people would want to live in a place like that?

The councils used to build estates but that's been stopped as the estates were a disaster and it actually works out cheaper for them to go to the market to buy a 2nd hand house.
These end up being proxy council estates IE the council owns or is paying for rent for at least 40% of the residents living in an estate.
Dublin's latest Proxy Council estate (Clongriffen) is already on it's way to sh*thole central. Gangs of local youths vandalising Trains and the train station is only the begining

Social housing should only be for those who cannot work or have a serious impairment or are trying to go back to college to study, not people who are happy to work in a local shop there whole life doing 15 hours a week on min wage.

Just to add to this, Pubs in council estates are busiest on weekdays that the Dole is paid out. What does that say?

rob316 wrote: »

There's a housing list feel free to add your name to it.

Nice idea, but unfortunately in my stupidity all the hard work i put in in my education and career up to this point has put me above the income threshold.

I'm one of those mugs that pays 35% of my income for a room in a house I'm never in because i spend over 50 hours a week working.

Diceicle wrote: »

Thanks.
Am I taking you up wrong or did you have to leave as you earned too much?

You simply cannot earn too much in social housing.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

But people don't get removed if their income increases right?
The just move up the rent scale, all the way to the maximum and then stay there.

I dealt with an engineer earning around €80,000 who was in social housing (administered by a housing agency). When he had come to Ireland he earned far less and got on social housing but was never removed when his circumstances improved.

No hard feelings, the man was a hard working contributing member of society. However it seems perverse to have many people earning less than him subsidising his housing while facing the vagaries of the private rental market themselves.

Maybe the man bought the house.

I'm in a council house the last 8 years, I'll be moving soon and buying a house. Why? because I want a house, with a garden and more bedrooms. I am massively grateful for the council home I got in a city centre block full of good hard working tenants.

Why would you remove someone because their circumstance improved? what if they were removed and lost their high paying job then? Whatever hogwash your reading there isn't many people on €80-€100k willing living in a council house.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

But people don't get removed if their income increases right?
The just move up the rent scale, all the way to the maximum and then stay there.

And what's the issue there?

Surely it's better to have people staying in their homes long term where they can raise their families and build communities?

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Where's the benefit in providing social housing to high-earners?


The rationale of social housing is to house those who cannot afford any or adequate housing. This rationale arose from the private slum conditions that preceded social housing. Clearly a high earner can afford accomodation and subsidising his housing is poor value to the taxpayer and diverts resources from the more needy.



I agree that disincentivising the socially housed from increasing their income and being successful is poor policy. That is why in my other post above I suggested a home purchase incentive scheme to move high-earners off social housing. This would have the effect of improving social housing estates by keeping high earners with an interest in the condition of the estate there while providing funds for further social housing for the more needy.

Yeah, because Thatcher's same policy worked so well in the UK. They're really reaping the benefits now.

Why would someone not have an interest in the condition of their estate just because they're a "high earner"? Surely the fact that they have security of tenure and can conceivably even leave their tenancy to their children would be incentive enough?

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the maximum weekly rent??

I haven't worked in the sector for about 10 years now, and I think it depends on the housing provider (local authority or housing association), but it was around €120 per week iirc.

ETA: I have a recollection of some people paying more than that, but that was probably due to having someone with an additional income staying in the house (possibly an adult child who wasn't named as an actual tenant).

Diceicle wrote: »

Thanks - I'm aware working tenants pay below market rates/nominal amount - if they're working .

I worked in social housing for a while too. Same deal re rent assessments.

We had some tenants paying more than market rate, because their income had gone up and there wasn't a strong demand in their location.

As noted, rent arrears are the issue. My sense (not based on statistics) is that working tenants were less likely to be in arrears than non-working ones.