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
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
Rents forecast to rise by 17%
Comments
-
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »So you've no solutions, just attacking? Fair enough, enjoy.
It was a serious question.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-welfare-fraud-totalled-38-4m-in-2017-report-shows-1.3707438
" During the year, eligibility checks were made on 325,000 children.
It was found that payment should no longer be made in respect of almost 10,000 children, with the main reason being that they were no longer resident in the State."
That is a fraudulent rate of 3% in respect of child benefit found in a single year - and that is only those who were caught.
There are over 200 TDs and Senators in the Dail which means a similar rate of fraud means that there are 6-7 of them committing fraud every year. That simply isn't the case, because we have only seen occasional occurences at intervals of years.
So, it is very easy to come on here and whenever someone mentions fraud and social welfare, to glibly respond sure aren't all politicians committing fraud. The statistics show otherwise as I have shown. I would expect that kind of thinking and talking from a Mick Wallace or Paul Murphy, all soundbite and no substance, but I would expect a higher level of engagement here.
I am all for evidence-based policy-making rather than make-it-up ideas.
I do have solutions for the housing problems. Firstly, Dublin City Council needs to stop blocking high-rise, high-density housing provision by private and public developers. Even their own proposals for housing in Inchicore are not dense enough. Secondly, the planning process needs to be made easier so that NIMBYism stops ruling the day. Thirdly, Dublin City Council needs to match available social housing to actual needs. The single person living in a three-bedroom house needs to downsize to a smaller unit. Otherwise existing provision is being wasted. Fourthly, the housing list needs to be seriously investigated for people who are gaming the system. They are not criminals as you might think, but they are exploiting the generousity of the taxpayer when they have alternatives available. Fifthly, and linked to the last point, choice of social housing should not be a factor. Many people, who do not qualify for social housing, have to live many miles away from family, friends and support networks.
There are other points I have made similar to those above in many many posts on this subject.0 -
...
I do have solutions for the housing problems. Firstly, Dublin City Council needs to stop blocking high-rise, high-density housing provision by private and public developers. Even their own proposals for housing in Inchicore are not dense enough. Secondly, the planning process needs to be made easier so that NIMBYism stops ruling the day. Thirdly, Dublin City Council needs to match available social housing to actual needs. The single person living in a three-bedroom house needs to downsize to a smaller unit. Otherwise existing provision is being wasted. Fourthly, the housing list needs to be seriously investigated for people who are gaming the system......
Fifthly, and linked to the last point, choice of social housing should not be a factor. Many people, who do not qualify for social housing, have to live many miles away from family, friends and support networks.
There are other points I have made similar to those above in many many posts on this subject.
I agree with much of what you say. And you seem to think fixing the way Social housing is operated and allocated is needed, fair enough. But you offer no alternative yet spend an inordinate amount of time and energy knocking social housing when raised in any capacity. Again, do you see it as a less favourable solution to the road we are on currently?
Both Leo Varadkar and I do not believe a sizable number of people are pretending to be homeless to get on the housing list. To clarify, lying on an application is beyond 'gaming' IMO.
Places like Inchicore had massive problems with crime and drugs. Came out the other side only to find it's public lands much sought after and had communities moved to less fashionable areas. It actually had high density social housing before 'regeneration' A.K.A. getting public land ready for market.
Availing of the option of where you would like to live is not on the person looking for a home, that's on the LA/State. It's policy. Adhering to policy is not wrong. I think people should have options when options are available. Cherry picking which areas are ripe for selling to private concerns has us, in part, where we are.0
Advertisement