Rents forecast to rise by 17%

blanch152 · 12-04-2019 9:02am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is akin to posting about an immigrant who availed of a tax rebate in a thread about giving immigrants the vote. Not relevant in the slightest.

Well, what it shows is that providing social housing through the council is not the low-cost option that you think. The compensation culture in Ireland will feed on it, as the article shows, making the costs of social housing far higher than the proponents make it out to be.

James Brown · 12-04-2019 1:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, what it shows is that providing social housing through the council is not the low-cost option that you think. The compensation culture in Ireland will feed on it, as the article shows, making the costs of social housing far higher than the proponents make it out to be.

What has this compensation claim got to do with the housing crisis, rents rising and solutions, not limited to but including social housing? Nothing.

You are showing people who live by the rule of law are or are not okay depending on whether you approve of the law. There was nothing illegal here. If you've a problem with the laws of the land talk to your representatives. Your gymnastics here are embarrassing for you. We've a strong history of politicians acting inappropriately, but not illegally and you aren't calling for blood. Here there's no question of any wrong doing yet it's worthy of note for some reason.

James Brown · 12-04-2019 2:18pm

Interesting how the papers differ.

We've The Irish Times and RTE discussing the National Competitiveness Council report on how a mix of rising wages, rents, taxation is going to cause problems down the road economic growth wise. The Independent take is mainly about how wages are too high.

Ireland’s competitiveness under threat, NCC says
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-competitiveness-under-threat-ncc-says-1.3568788

High costs pose threat to business competitiveness - NCC report
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0412/1042180-national-competitiveness-council-report/

Rising wages will drive up costs of rent and childcare
https://www.independent.ie/ca/business/personal-finance/rising-wages-will-drive-up-costs-of-rent-and-childcare-38007836.html

On the one hand we need ease off on taxing those on upper level incomes lest we discourage any bright lights from working/remaining here, but should also quit raising the wages of the average worker because of costs to business. Never seems to go the way of the average working tax payer.

Good loser · 14-04-2019 10:36pm

Nody wrote: »

Want to fix the lack of housing in Dublin? Remove the cap on the height of buildings in and around the city center. But oh no that would ruin the scenic view for some people which can not be allowed... Second to this would be dedicated fast speed commuter lanes with trains/rail from areas outside Dublin that don't need to cross roads/get priority etc. to ensure people can live outside of Dublin and still work there with in reason (i.e. no bus BS that compete with everyone else on the road).

To Sam on why social housing does not work; because it's to expensive to build a house/apartment. Last time I checked about half the cost went away in various permits and land and not in actual materials or the construction itself. If it costs you 200k EUR to build an house you're not going to see builders selling them for 150k to get new people on to the market. Which goes back to social housing again; why are not more built? Because once built they need to be maintained but as already established by yourself people can't afford it so the state is now to not only build the house (big investment), run it (big ongoing costs since people don't own it they don't tend to care about maintenance) while at the same time telling your mid income salary couple that suck it up butter cup you get to pay 250k for your house along with higher taxes so Joe down the street there who never bothered to finish college due to smoking pot can have a free/greatly subsidized apartment which of course has to meet "normal" standards because if not it would be a social outcry of stigmatization of people in social housing.

Now compare that with your 50 million in B&B/hotel; let's be generous and say the state somehow can get things built at 100k an house; fees etc. we call left pocket/right pocket so a new house slammed up for a mere 100k using existing government land. That would still only create 500 houses in a year which would be no were near to cover the people for said 50 million and that's assuming some very generous assumptions on the cost of construction, free land etc. in the first place. Which one will go down well in an election (and that's before we talk about real life economics of it all)?

In Dublin the average cost of building a social home on land owned by the Council is €300,000.
54 social houses in Teresa's Gardens cost €500,000 per unit; half of these units were 2 bed or 1 bed.
Last year the City Council considered an infill scheme of 5 houses somewhere near the city centre; abandoned it when the price would have been €600,000 per unit.

In Dublin the average net rent to the Council for social housing is €1,000 per annum - that is after maintenance spend.

So the Teresa's Gardens units would have covered their costs in 500 years (ignoring interest) at average rents. Roll on 2519.

nice_guy80 · 14-04-2019 11:25pm

Consultants gouge money out of the public sector

We need more balanced regional development

Stop putting all the jobs into Dublin
Develop Athlone, Kilkenny, Cavan and Tullamore

We need better 3rd level colleges away from the big cities with specific industries supplying jobs locally upon graduation e.g. pharmacy, high tech, bio med,

blanch152 · 15-04-2019 1:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What has this compensation claim got to do with the housing crisis, rents rising and solutions, not limited to but including social housing? Nothing.

You are showing people who live by the rule of law are or are not okay depending on whether you approve of the law. There was nothing illegal here. If you've a problem with the laws of the land talk to your representatives. Your gymnastics here are embarrassing for you. We've a strong history of politicians acting inappropriately, but not illegally and you aren't calling for blood. Here there's no question of any wrong doing yet it's worthy of note for some reason.

Where did I mention a law or illegality? I talked about the compensation culture.

That culture has already seen child play centres close because of insurance costs, I am pointing out that the fact of that culture pushes up the cost of social housing provided by local authorities.

James Brown · 15-04-2019 2:02pm

The average monthly rent in Ireland is over €1,300 - €300 higher than the 2008 peak.

https://www.thejournal.ie/cost-of-renting-in-ireland-4485911-Feb2019/

LAST YEAR, SOCIAL housing tenants paid almost €351 million to local authorities in rent.

According to Mary Hayes, administrative officer for Dublin City Council housing allocations, getting a local authority home is “not as easy as people think”.

And she said no one is simply handed a ‘free house’.

...Last year, there were 24,000 Dublin City Council tenants paying more than €78 million in rent. On average, tenants paid €272 per month.

https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-rents-4399149-Dec2018/

The concept seems to escape people. The whole point of social housing is being able to charge rents people can afford based on their income. Cribbing about how good they have it or how low their rent is is futile. We can always look at the way the system works, are we charging enough? Are the people still eligible? and so on.

Again, we can pay towards 1000+ to put people up privately or charge them rent in houses we own.
What we are doing with PPP and the like is not working, has not worked. To continue with same expecting it to turn around on its own is insane.
Crying about people getting cheap rent off a council and preferring we put them up in hotels or subsidise private rentals is as close to cutting your nose to spite your face a tax payer can get IMO.
Do people actually think private concerns are building homes to rent to council at a loss? We're paying for the build and the profits.
We need enough social housing to cool the market enough so working tax payers can in the least afford rent, never mind buy a home those days are leaving us. The majority will be tenants to the few.

blanch152 · 15-04-2019 2:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The average monthly rent in Ireland is over €1,300 - €300 higher than the 2008 peak.

https://www.thejournal.ie/cost-of-renting-in-ireland-4485911-Feb2019/

The concept seems to escape people. The whole point of social housing is being able to charge rents people can afford based on their income. Cribbing about how good they have it or how low their rent is is futile. We can always look at the way the system works, are we charging enough? Are the people still eligible? and so on.

Again, we can pay towards 1000+ to put people up privately or charge them rent in houses we own.
What we are doing with PPP and the like is not working, has not worked. To continue with same expecting it to turn around on its own is insane.
Crying about people getting cheap rent off a council and preferring we put them up in hotels or subsidise private rentals is as close to cutting your nose to spite your face a tax payer can get IMO.
Do people actually think private concerns are building homes to rent to council at a loss? We're paying for the build and the profits.
We need enough social housing to cool the market enough so working tax payers can in the least afford rent, never mind buy a home those days are leaving us. The majority will be tenants to the few.

There is a huge gap between the average of €1,300 a month and the €272 paid by council tenants.

At those rents, it is easy to see why social housing is not being built by local authorities. There is a large capital cost and little or no return. Rents at those levels would barely cover administration and upkeep. That is without taking into account compensation claims or wilful damage.

There is a TD in Wicklow - think it is John Brady - who is living in a council house and paying rent like that. That is a nice handy subsidy from the taxpayers to add to his salary and expenses. Someone like him should be paying market rents - that would do a lot to increase the funding available to local authorities.

James Brown · 15-04-2019 3:41pm

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a huge gap between the average of €1,300 a month and the €272 paid by council tenants.

At those rents, it is easy to see why social housing is not being built by local authorities. There is a large capital cost and little or no return. Rents at those levels would barely cover administration and upkeep. That is without taking into account compensation claims or wilful damage.

There is a TD in Wicklow - think it is John Brady - who is living in a council house and paying rent like that. That is a nice handy subsidy from the taxpayers to add to his salary and expenses. Someone like him should be paying market rents - that would do a lot to increase the funding available to local authorities.

You have to balance cost to money accrued. We could be getting little or no profit or spending massive amounts on private rents. I'd rater the little to no profit. Not to mention providing a service to the tax payer with tax payer money. Barely covering is better than just spending IMO.
These are averages also. We could/should be renting to people on traditionally good incomes. It's not all about people on welfare who contribute little.

Agree. We should be making assessments yearly and turfing out those capable of paying market rates.

blanch152 · 15-04-2019 4:15pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You have to balance cost to money accrued. We could be getting little or no profit or spending massive amounts on private rents. I'd rater the little to no profit. Not to mention providing a service to the tax payer with tax payer money. Barely covering is better than just spending IMO.
These are averages also. We could/should be renting to people on traditionally good incomes. It's not all about people on welfare who contribute little.

Agree. We should be making assessments yearly and turfing out those capable of paying market rates.

Barely covering the costs, or more likely not even covering the costs, doesn't provide anything to the cost of the capital investment. Where does that money come from? Should we cancel the Metro or the Children's Hospital to pay for more social housing?

We are renting to people on traditionally good incomes, including a Sinn Fein TD. We should be charging closer to market rents to people like him.

The numbers need to add up, that is why the average rent needs to increase.

Spanish Eyes · 15-04-2019 4:42pm

I smell another crash coming. These rents are unsustainable for the private renter, and also for Councils paying market rate on HAP.

Sorry, I don't have any solution, but maybe a thorough analysis of why people are on housing lists would be a start, particularly those who use hotels but live elsewhere most of the time.

I think the tide is turning now, particularly when stats were released recently about the number of people turning down housing offers over and over (I know there is a cap on the number of times, but still...). And of course we have the homeless charities backing them up.

If only those out working and commuting had a similar choice. The whole thing stinks to me, and is slightly manufactured I think, when you look at the propaganda machines of the homeless charities and the Hard Left.

Go on, shoot me now!

James Brown · 15-04-2019 5:15pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I smell another crash coming. These rents are unsustainable for the private renter, and also for Councils paying market rate on HAP.

Sorry, I don't have any solution, but maybe a thorough analysis of why people are on housing lists would be a start, particularly those who use hotels but live elsewhere most of the time.

I think the tide is turning now, particularly when stats were released recently about the number of people turning down housing offers over and over (I know there is a cap on the number of times, but still...). And of course we have the homeless charities backing them up.

If only those out working and commuting had a similar choice. The whole thing stinks to me, and is slightly manufactured I think, when you look at the propaganda machines of the homeless charities and the Hard Left.

Go on, shoot me now!

They would be criminals IMO. We cannot use such people as a gauge for society. It's worth noting people don't choose the hotel option it's put upon them due to a lack of social housing.
You are mistaken. The housing crisis effects all walks. We have working people in social housing, HAP, rent subsidised and the like as is.

Spanish Eyes · 15-04-2019 5:18pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They would be criminals IMO. We cannot use such people as a gauge for society. It's worth noting people don't choose the hotel option it's put upon them due to a lack of social housing.
You are mistaken. The housing crisis effects all walks. We have working people in social housing, HAP, rent subsidised and the like as is.

We possibly have an entitlement crisis fuelled by a multitude of homeless charities

Anyway if you, in your naivety think that NO ONE is gaming the system, I suggest you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Edgware · 15-04-2019 6:29pm

The much maligned De Valera and Fianna Fail managed to build thousands of council houses during tough economic times. People paid what rent they could afford. Now their sons and daughters having inherited the family home after it being bought cheaply from the council see their own kids struggling

James Brown · 15-04-2019 6:37pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We possibly have an entitlement crisis fuelled by a multitude of homeless charities

Anyway if you, in your naivety think that NO ONE is gaming the system, I suggest you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Entitlement? People need a roof that's a fact of life. Anyone choosing hotels over social housing on the tax payers coin is the oddity.

You're making things up now. Where did I deny anyone was gaming the system? All I said was anyone doing what you allege would be criminals IMO. But makes a good strawman fair play.

Edgware wrote: »

The much maligned De Valera and Fianna Fail managed to build thousands of council houses during tough economic times. People paid what rent they could afford. Now their sons and daughters having inherited the family home after it being bought cheaply from the council see their own kids struggling

Worse is we've families who bought council houses looking down on genuine tax paying workers with no home and would deny them the same opportunity.
De Valera was an unpatriotic fraudster but that's another thread.

Edgware · 15-04-2019 7:13pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Entitlement? People need a roof that's a fact of life. Anyone choosing hotels over social housing on the tax payers coin is the oddity.

You're making things up now. Where did I deny anyone was gaming the system? All I said was anyone doing what you allege would be criminals IMO. But makes a good strawman fair play.

Worse is we've families who bought council houses looking down on genuine tax paying workers with no home and would deny them the same opportunity.
De Valera was an unpatriotic fraudster but that's another thread.

Why not wheel out the comely maidens stereotype while you are at it?

salonfire · 15-04-2019 8:45pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You have to balance cost to money accrued. We could be getting little or no profit or spending massive amounts on private rents. I'd rater the little to no profit. Not to mention providing a service to the tax payer with tax payer money. Barely covering is better than just spending IMO.
These are averages also. We could/should be renting to people on traditionally good incomes. It's not all about people on welfare who contribute little.

Agree. We should be making assessments yearly and turfing out those capable of paying market rates.

Ah, but you see that can't happen you see.

Otherwise, we'll have the Paul Murphy and is gang of mega-phone protesters comparing it to the Evictions of famine era.

Therefore, it's far easier to limit the spend on social housing before any eviction has to happen in the first place. Which is exactly what's happening.

James Brown · 15-04-2019 8:56pm

salonfire wrote: »

Ah, but you see that can't happen you see.

Otherwise, we'll have the Paul Murphy and is gang of mega-phone protesters comparing it to the Evictions of famine era.

Therefore, it's far easier to limit the spend on social housing before any eviction has to happen in the first place. Which is exactly what's happening.

I don't see why not. Social housing on need that fits a criteria. Easy to justify, more homes for 'the welfare brigade' surely?

We are wasting good tax money on private profits/rents is all. It can't go on for ever.

blanch152 · 16-04-2019 11:25am

Edgware wrote: »

The much maligned De Valera and Fianna Fail managed to build thousands of council houses during tough economic times. People paid what rent they could afford. Now their sons and daughters having inherited the family home after it being bought cheaply from the council see their own kids struggling

And it was the selling off of council houses cheaply that contributed to the problem by creating an expectation that everyone could own a house and that it would be cheap to do so, while also reducing the supply of council houses for rent.

blanch152 · 16-04-2019 11:27am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Entitlement? People need a roof that's a fact of life. Anyone choosing hotels over social housing on the tax payers coin is the oddity.

You're making things up now. Where did I deny anyone was gaming the system? All I said was anyone doing what you allege would be criminals IMO. But makes a good strawman fair play.

Gaming a system is not illegal. If a system can be gamed, then it should be changed.

James Brown · 16-04-2019 3:05pm

blanch152 wrote: »

And it was the selling off of council houses cheaply that contributed to the problem by creating an expectation that everyone could own a house and that it would be cheap to do so, while also reducing the supply of council houses for rent.

Everyone working should be able to afford a house within reason. It shouldn't be the fantasy, which unfortunately it has become. We're not talking luxury yachts. The councils should do it all again IMO. If a family paid rent to the council for 20/30 years, they should get a discount IMO. As you say we can amend any rates.

blanch152 wrote: »

Gaming a system is not illegal. If a system can be gamed, then it should be changed.

Carrying on the strawman. He cited people in hotels only using but living elsewhere most of the time, you thanked him. I said anyone doing so would be a criminal in my opinion. He then suggested I was naive if I didn't think people were gaming the system. You thanked him.
Read the posts you thank.

anyone doing what you allege would be criminals IMO

Using a hotel paid for the state under false pretenses, that being you're not needing or even living there most of the time would be criminal IMO. If you want to get pedantic on this have at it I'll leave you to it.

blanch152 · 16-04-2019 3:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Carrying on the strawman. He cited people in hotels only using but living elsewhere most of the time, you thanked him. I said anyone doing so would be a criminal in my opinion. He then suggested I was naive if I didn't think people were gaming the system. You thanked him.
Read the posts you thank.

Using a hotel paid for the state under false pretenses, that being you're not needing or even living there most of the time would be criminal IMO. If u want to get pedantic on this have at it I'll leave you to it.

If it is your opinion that it would be criminal, you will be able to point to which section of whatever criminal legislation is being breached. Otherwise, your argument has no merit and devalues the debate.

I could come along here and say that anyone who posts meaningless nonsense on this forum is a criminal in my opinion, but unless I can produce credible links to relevant legislation, I am guilty of similarly posting meaningless nonsense.

There is nothing criminal in gaming the system (i.e. administrative rules either in statute or legislation), unless there is a specific provision in the specific legislation making it a criminal offence to game that particular set of administrative rules.

For example, consider the Residential Tenancies Act 2004

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/pdf

Section 6 (4) provides that "A person shall not, at any time during the period of 3 months after a notice is affixed under subsection (1)(d) remove, damage or
deface the notice without lawful authority."

Section 6 (5) provides that "A person who contravenes subsection (4) is guilty of an offence."

There are a couple of things to note here. Firstly, the Act sets out where the breach of a subsection constitutes an offence. Secondly, in Section 6, only a breach of subsection (4) is an offence. A breach of subsection (1) or subsections (2) or (3) are not an offence.

To give a second example, Section 15 states that "15.—(1) A landlord of a dwelling owes to each person who could be potentially affected a duty to enforce the obligations of the tenant under the tenancy." Nowhere in the Act is it provided that if a landlord fails to do this, he is a criminal or committing an offence. In fact, the Act says that he can't even be sued for breaching this provision!!!!

To sum up, stating that something is criminal or that doing something makes a person a criminal isn't an opinion, it is either true or false. Sure, there may be a grey area where you can quote the law and the law is unclear, but stating that something is criminal and not being able to point to the piece of law that backs up your statement, turns your post into meaningless nonsense.

James Brown · 16-04-2019 3:34pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If it is your opinion that it would be criminal, you will be able to point to which section of whatever criminal legislation is being breached. Otherwise, your argument has no merit and devalues the debate. .......

Devalues? You persist in a strawman.
IMO, obtaining a hotel under the pretense you are homeless and not living there most of the time would be criminal. IMO. That's it Blanch.
Do you really want to divert the discussion to whether or not that would be truly criminal?
We've not even any evidence beyond the anecdotal that there even is such a thing. Maybe it wouldn't be criminal, it doesn't matter Blanch. It wasn't an argument, it was my opinion. It's wrong either way.
My argument is for social housing over paying private rents to companies and individuals.

blanch152 · 17-04-2019 4:59pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Devalues? You persist in a strawman.
IMO, obtaining a hotel under the pretense you are homeless and not living there most of the time would be criminal. IMO. That's it Blanch.
Do you really want to divert the discussion to whether or not that would be truly criminal?
We've not even any evidence beyond the anecdotal that there even is such a thing. Maybe it wouldn't be criminal, it doesn't matter Blanch. It wasn't an argument, it was my opinion. It's wrong either way.
My argument is for social housing over paying private rents to companies and individuals.

There is no opinion over whether a particular act is criminal or not, there is only fact. Either there is legislation that makes something a criminal offence, or there is no legislation.

Acts of murder, manslaughter, theft etc. are crimes because of legislation. You can have an opinion about whether a particular specific defined occurence is a crime or not, in the context of relevant legislation, but an opinion that something would be criminal without any reference to supporting legislation is misleading at best or misinformation at worst.

Sam Russell · 17-04-2019 6:27pm

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no opinion over whether a particular act is criminal or not, there is only fact. Either there is legislation that makes something a criminal offence, or there is no legislation.

Acts of murder, manslaughter, theft etc. are crimes because of legislation. You can have an opinion about whether a particular specific defined occurence is a crime or not, in the context of relevant legislation, but an opinion that something would be criminal without any reference to supporting legislation is misleading at best or misinformation at worst.

Murder and manslaughter are common law offences, not statute created.

James Brown · 17-04-2019 6:42pm

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no opinion over whether a particular act is criminal or not, there is only fact. Either there is legislation that makes something a criminal offence, or there is no legislation.

Acts of murder, manslaughter, theft etc. are crimes because of legislation. You can have an opinion about whether a particular specific defined occurence is a crime or not, in the context of relevant legislation, but an opinion that something would be criminal without any reference to supporting legislation is misleading at best or misinformation at worst.

The example given would be fraudulent. Giving false information, knowingly, to avail of services dishonestly. That's criminal in my opinion.
As a point of courtesy I am telling you I've no interest in this pointless, irrelevant rabbit hole and won't be engaging further on it. You might enjoy ignoring inconvenient and troublesome topics by jumping on minor comments to divert discussion, I don't.

Social housing, better deal for the tax payer and would actually work IMO.

blanch152 · 18-04-2019 10:33am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The example given would be fraudulent. Giving false information, knowingly, to avail of services dishonestly. That's criminal in my opinion.
As a point of courtesy I am telling you I've no interest in this pointless, irrelevant rabbit hole and won't be engaging further on it. You might enjoy ignoring inconvenient and troublesome topics by jumping on minor comments to divert discussion, I don't.

Social housing, better deal for the tax payer and would actually work IMO.

In my opinion, abuse of the housing system is widespread, whether it takes the form of people with alternative accommodation presenting as homeless or under-declaration of income or other means (e.g. Johnathan Corrie). Because such abuse is not criminal (that is a fact, not an opinion), it is impossible to prevent and it is gaming of the system. Furthermore, you have the situation that someone like John Brady earning over €100k when you include expenses can retain a council house.

Such considerations make the provision of social housing to be a less desirable policy option. A precondition to increased investment in social housing should be the elimination of such gaming. I wouldn't go as far as you in criminalising people only out to take advantage of the system. What needs to happen is that the criteria for social housing need to be tightened up so that abuse and system-gaming are not possible. This is a common problem across our public services - half the population on medical cards, and the highest disability rates in Europe are two other examples where the system is being gamed and/or abused.

James Brown · 18-04-2019 2:55pm

blanch152 wrote: »

In my opinion, abuse of the housing system is widespread, whether it takes the form of people with alternative accommodation presenting as homeless or under-declaration of income or other means (e.g. Johnathan Corrie). Because such abuse is not criminal (that is a fact, not an opinion), it is impossible to prevent and it is gaming of the system. Furthermore, you have the situation that someone like John Brady earning over €100k when you include expenses can retain a council house.

Such considerations make the provision of social housing to be a less desirable policy option. A precondition to increased investment in social housing should be the elimination of such gaming. I wouldn't go as far as you in criminalising people only out to take advantage of the system. What needs to happen is that the criteria for social housing need to be tightened up so that abuse and system-gaming are not possible. This is a common problem across our public services - half the population on medical cards, and the highest disability rates in Europe are two other examples where the system is being gamed and/or abused.

Falsely stating you are homeless to get a higher placing on the housing list, to avail of a hotel, while not living there would fall under this:

4. TYPE OF OFFENCES MOST LIKELY TO BE PROSECUTED
4.1 Scheme

Failure to notify the Department of changes in means, marital status or other circumstances which affect entitlement to payment;
False statements, declarations or representations for the purpose of establishing entitlement to a social welfare payment or to a higher rate of payment than that to which a customer is entitled;
Produces a false document to establish entitlement to payment;
Mis-use of a Personal Public Service Number (PPSN).
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Prosecution-Criteria.aspx

I do not believe abuse of the housing system is widespread. I guess we're at an impasse.
I agree all fraud should be routed out, and we could look at tackling any 'gaming' also but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Do you think a few developers and suppliers of HAP may be availing of loopholes or 'gaming' the system? Should we knock all that on the head? We know politicians commit fraud and 'game' the system, should we forget the whole democratic model?

Social housing is less desirable than what? And why? I'd be interested on your take outside of merely critcising social housing.
What we currently do does not work and things become worse.

blanch152 · 18-04-2019 3:52pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Falsely stating you are homeless to get a higher placing on the housing list, to avail of a hotel, while not living there would fall under this:

I do not believe abuse of the housing system is widespread. I guess we're at an impasse.
I agree all fraud should be routed out, and we could look at tackling any 'gaming' also but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Do you think a few developers and suppliers of HAP may be availing of loopholes or 'gaming' the system? Should we knock all that on the head? We know politicians commit fraud and 'game' the system, should we forget the whole democratic model?

Social housing is less desirable than what? And why? I'd be interested on your take outside of merely critcising social housing.
What we currently do does not work and things become worse.

The housing list is not a social welfare payment and any criminal provisions of the Social Welfare Acts would not apply to it.

How many politicians have been convicted for fraud?

James Brown · 18-04-2019 3:57pm

blanch152 wrote: »

How many politicians have been convicted for fraud?

So you've no solutions, just attacking? Fair enough, enjoy.

Rents forecast to rise by 17%

Comments