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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Take offer of housing or get struck off has to be implemented

«13

Comments

  • #2
    JustTheOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,681 ✭✭✭JustTheOne


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    This makes me really angry. I'm certain that there's plenty of people on the social housing list that would jump at the chance to be given a home, yet this article makes reference to serial offenders that turn down a number of properties. Use it or lose it, you shouldn't get carte blanche to live where you want, the average homebuyer or renter tends to have to compromise on area based on price so why should social housing recipients get the house they want funded by the taxpayer?


    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/fiasco-as-up-to-half-of-housing-offers-are-rejected-34261067.html

    Yep and then we have the usual rich boy Barret and Paul Murphy giving out about homeless families living in hotels.


  • #3
    Arbiter of Good Taste
    Registered Users Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭Arbiter of Good Taste


    I love the reference to "tribal" reasons....I wonder who pulls that stunt:rolleyes:


  • #4
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    JustTheOne wrote: »
    Yep and then we have the usual rich boy Barret and Paul Murphy giving out about homeless families living in hotels.

    And no doubt there'll be another article in the indo tomorrow about the poor single mother and children that have been made homeless by "greedy landlords".


  • #5
    JustTheOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,681 ✭✭✭JustTheOne


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    And no doubt there'll be another article in the indo tomorrow about the poor single mother and children that have been made homeless by "greedy landlords".

    Ah yeah every few days there is a sob story until they go on radio and you hear the real reasons their becoming homeless.


  • #6
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Folks can we keep discussion on the accommodation and property aspects please. The thread won't last long if it descends into social housing tenant bashing

    Mod


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    athtrasna wrote: »
    Folks can we keep discussion on the accommodation and property aspects please. The thread won't last long if it descends into social housing tenant bashing

    Mod

    Unfortunately the crux of article is the number of social housing tenants refusing to be accomodated. Yes there's a broken system but the SW tenants are more than culpable for playing that system to their advantage. Is it the councils fault? Do they have the power to remove serial refusers from their housing lists? Or does it actually need political reform?


  • #8
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    Is it the councils fault? Do they have the power to remove serial refusers from their housing lists? Or does it actually need political reform?

    I understand that councils can put people who refuse three offers down to the bottom of the list again.

    Refusal statistics are very manipulable.

    Undoubtedly some people unduly refuse a house because it's not exactly what they want.

    But it's likely that a few very undesirable properties being refused over and over again have a big impact on the numbers: You can't really blame anyone for refusing to live next to the towns' most well-known drug-dealer etc.

    Re "tribal reasons" - I also love the phrase. But from personal experience I know that it's not only people from a community with a nomadic mindset that think like this: some settled people do or don't want to live near particular families and accept or turn down based on this.


  • #9
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    If priority is governed by need, it strikes me that people aren't very needy if they're turning places down. Is the priority system correct?


  • #10
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    hmmm wrote: »
    If priority is governed by need, it strikes me that people aren't very needy if they're turning places down. Is the priority system correct?

    This keeps coming up time and time again a housing crisis and we have houses been refused .

    The funny part you can refuse two properties every 12 months and not face actions,

    We've seen excuses as gardens not big enough for a large trampoline to one person been on a long holiday in Rome
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #11
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Gatling wrote: »
    ...
    We've seen excuses as gardens not big enough for a large trampoline to one person been on a long holiday in Rome
    It's more likely that we hear about such cases than that we hear about the family with two children doing nicely in a school in Ballymun being offered a house in Ballyfermot, or about the woman separated from a violent partner being offered a place three doors away from where he lives.

    Yes, I agree with the your implication that refusals on frivolous grounds should result in an applicant being bumped down the list, but where there is a good case for refusing an offer, then the person should not be penalised.

    I am sure that it is not generally the case that if one applicant refuses an offer, the accommodation remains vacant; it is offered to the next apparently-suitable applicant. If a property is refused by a number of applicants, then a question has to be raised about the property.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,972 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    There was a guy in the radio up here in donegal a few months ago, and I think he gave a figure of something like a 40% uptake on house offers. He worked for the housing section of the council.

    That's a shocking figure.

    There were people turning down a house in a certain town simply cos they wanted a house in another part of the same town, maybe closer to their ma etc. This just can't happen. It might have been a couple of miles away, but yet they are allowed to turn down 2 offers, whilst still having the power to go around moaning about the council not housing them.

    The figures would be a lot lower if you were allowed zero refusals. How desperate are you really for a house if you are willing to turn down 2 offers? Not as desperate as some of the lefties are making out.


  • #13
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It's more likely that we hear about such cases than that we hear about the family with two children doing nicely in a school in Ballymun being offered a house in Ballyfermot, or about the woman separated from a violent partner being offered a place three doors away from where he lives.

    Yes, I agree with the your implication that refusals on frivolous grounds should result in an applicant being bumped down the list, but where there is a good case for refusing an offer, then the person should not be penalised.

    What's wrong with having to move schools it's another example of victimisation as for a violent partner i won't bother ,
    So it's ok for working people to have to move but not people refusing perfectly fine properties .
    We all can't live around the corner from mammy or our best mates ,

    Time to stop looking at victims and people using kids as an excuse if they turn down a house do what they do in London remove you from their duty of care
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #14
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Gatling wrote: »
    What's wrong with having to move schools it's another example of victimisation as for a violent partner i won't bother ,
    So it's ok for working people to have to move but not people refusing perfectly fine properties .
    We all can't live around the corner from mammy or our best mates ,

    Time to stop looking at victims and people using kids as an excuse if they turn down a house do what they do in London remove you from their duty of care

    People should have the right to refuse a property on the grounds of personal safety without penalty. I'd certainly rather live in a hotel with my son for an indefinite period than live in a perfectly nice house nextdoor to a gang member that has been shot at/has had their house shot at/shoots at people/etc. Keeping away from a violent ex is also perfectly reasonable.


  • #15
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    A nationwide system should be implemented. At present you can't apply for housing outside of your local authority area except if can show a link to that area. This is ridiculous. How many people would happily take a home in Co. Kildare but are stuck on the Fingal list?

    Open it up, allow anyone to apply anywhere, just giving priority to those in the area at present.

    Then operate a CAO-style preference system. You can specify 3 areas in the country you'd like to live, in order of preference. The country is divided into "cells" of like 30,000 people, a bit like voting constituencies and you can apply only to be housed in specific cells. No requests for specific streets or properties. If you turn down a suitable offer you're excluded from that preference.

    So if you turn down a third preference, you may still be offered a first or second preference. If you turn down a first preference you're immediately struck off the list.

    Obviously there are going to be special cases. People who need to be on a bus route to attend dialysis. Or people who have to refuse a house because it's next door to an ex partner or their sons murderer or something.
    But these will be few and far between and can be dealt with by a special case officer who asseses anyone that refuses on special grounds and accepts or rejects that refusal.


  • #16
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    iguana wrote: »
    People should have the right to refuse a property on the grounds of personal safety without penalty. I'd certainly rather live in a hotel with my son for an indefinite period than live in a perfectly nice house nextdoor to a gang member that has been shot at/has had their house shot at/shoots at people/etc. Keeping away from a violent ex is also perfectly reasonable.

    The article makes reference to councils impatience with serial offenders, and the ones that refuse based on not liking an area or the particular house. As another poster pointed out, if a council house was located in the immediate vicinity of the local gangland kingpin, it is about the house being the problem, not the tenant. What about somebody who buys a house and the local drug lord moved in next door? They have no comeback or council to fall back on.


  • #17
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    this again?

    I only just looked at the numbers for this last month..

    I don't think they've changed..

    I added a chart to the last thread discussing it:
    367522.png


  • #18
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,972 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Why did a housing officer from Donegal CC say on radio a couple of months back that refusals were at 40%? You think he was lying?


  • #19
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    So let's say a person/family is on the RAS or RA scheme in a nice house, nice area.

    Then they get an offer of a council house in a different/worse area.

    If they don't move they are put to the bottom of the list, is that correct? But why in hell's name would they move if they like where they are? Maybe that's a reason for all the refusals. Private rented accommodation might just suit them.

    Anyway, being put to the bottom of the list solves nothing. The taxpayer is still subsidising the original accommodation that they refused to move from.

    I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt if anyone can be FORCED to move, there might be a challenge on human rights grounds or something.

    Mad altogether.


  • #20
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    So let's say a person/family is on the RAS or RA scheme in a nice house, nice area.

    Then they get an offer of a council house in a different/worse area.

    On applying for housing they choose 3 areas where they would like to be housed.
    If they don't move they are put to the bottom of the list, is that correct? But why in hell's name would they move if they like where they are? Maybe that's a reason for all the refusals. Private rented accommodation might just suit them.

    Homebuyers and renters paying their own way have to move to areas that they can afford and usually they aren't their most favourite area but a compromise based on affordability. Why should heavily subsidized SW housing recipients be treated any differently?
    Anyway, being put to the bottom of the list solves nothing. The taxpayer is still subsidising the original accommodation that they refused to move from.

    I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt if anyone can be FORCED to move, there might be a challenge on human rights grounds or something.

    Mad altogether.

    Nobody can be forced to move. But when you're living heavily subsidized off the state, as the saying goes, you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Use the opportunity you're given to have some security of tenure rather than at the behest of a private landlord who can dictate far more terms and conditions than the local council.


  • #21
    Toots
    Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,905 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Toots


    borderlinemeath wrote: »
    As another poster pointed out, if a council house was located in the immediate vicinity of the local gangland kingpin, it is about the house being the problem, not the tenant. What about somebody who buys a house and the local drug lord moved in next door? They have no comeback or council to fall back on.

    Yes, but I'm assuming when the person bought the house, it was a nice house in a nice area, and that's why they bought it. Why should somebody be made move into the house just because they're on the housing list?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    Toots wrote: »
    Yes, but I'm assuming when the person bought the house, it was a nice house in a nice area, and that's why they bought it. Why should somebody be made move into the house just because they're on the housing list?

    As pointed out earlier if the house is the "serial offender" rather than the tenant then that shouldn't effect the status of the tenant. If a particular house has been refused a number of times it should be flagged up and removed from the database until such a time it's feasible for use, or even used as an emergency short term unit. Reasons such as not being around the corner from family/friends, or if it's not as convenient as their current rental shouldn't be entertained.


  • #23
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Why did a housing officer from Donegal CC say on radio a couple of months back that refusals were at 40%? You think he was lying?

    No, I don't think he was lying.

    But Donegal is somewhat different to lots of the rest of the country due to the remoteness of many, many places.

    Say there was a need for council housing in Killybegs (picking one place off the map) - so the council acquired a house there and operated it successfully for a few years. Then a tenant died / left.

    Possibly there's no one in the village who is currently on the housing list. So they start offering it to people on the list from other villages. Some will be on welfare - but many people who qualify for council housing are low-paid workers. The rent may be cheap, but the cost of petrol to drive to a job some distance away (eg 65km each way to Letterkenny) totally skews things.


    There's also something in the back of my mind about Dongeal being one of the places where developers gave the council allocation in kind (ie of houses they'd built) rather than cash. Problem is, uninsulated places that are fine holiday cottages in summer are pretty miserable to live in during winter. (I'm not 100% sure it's one of the places - or if the work has been done to bring them all up to standard now - but suspect it may be a factor.)


  • #24
    Uncle Ben
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,843 ✭✭✭Uncle Ben


    You need to be on the council housing list to qualify for rent allowance. So as part of that application you must nominate 3 locations within the authority for housing also. I know plenty of vacant local authority housing which no one wants because those same people are already housed in 4 bed bungalows on half acres being paid for by rental allowance.
    A solution would be for the local authorities to handle those people looking after council and social housing and let those who want rental allowance state their case to dept of social protection.


  • #25
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    No, I don't think he was lying.

    But Donegal is somewhat different to lots of the rest of the country due to the remoteness of many, many places.

    Donegal isn't even the highest refusal rate, so it's not all down to distance. In fact DunLaoire/Rathdown is the same refusal rate at 42%. Why are houses being refused in one of the nicest areas in Dublin??

    These counties are the worst offenders:

    Cork 49%
    Waterford 46%
    Leitrim 42%
    Donegal 42%
    Dun Laoire/Rathdown 42%
    Roscommon 41.7%
    Monaghan 38.6%
    Galway 34.8%


  • #26
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Uncle Ben wrote: »
    You need to be on the council housing list to qualify for rent allowance. So as part of that application you must nominate 3 locations within the authority for housing also. I know plenty of vacant local authority housing which no one wants because those same people are already housed in 4 bed bungalows on half acres being paid for by rental allowance.
    A solution would be for the local authorities to handle those people looking after council and social housing and let those who want rental allowance state their case to dept of social protection.

    Or maybe rent allowance should only be temporary and once you turn down your third offer of a house (for reasons not of personal safety) you don't just go to the bottom of the list, you also lose your rent allowance. The state may have a duty to provide subsidised housing for those who need it, but as long as the house is safe and fit for purpose isn't that enough? The private rental sector should be no more than emergency back up social housing, not an ongoing solution.


  • #27
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    The system is seriously messed up. It needs root and branch reform, that's clear.

    I don't blame people for refusing houses if they think they can get something better down the line. I would do the exact same in there situation and I'm lucky enough to never have required rent allowance.

    I really think it's very easy to spout the divisive narrative about the lazy underclass but I think a lot more useful would be working on making the system as equitable and fair as we can.


  • #28
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Toots wrote: »
    Why should somebody be made move into the house just because they're on the housing list?
    Because they're not the ones paying the rent?


  • #29
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,073 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    I am waiting two years on the priority list to be housed my claim was made on medical grounds. Last month I found out I'm losing my sight due to medical complications. I'm currently stuck in a ****hole bedsit with absolutely no movement on my placing on the priority list. I would kill to be offered a proper place to live so I can get on with my life or whats left of it.


  • #30
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    RobbingBandit wrote:
    I am waiting two years on the priority list to be housed my claim was made on medical grounds. Last month I found out I'm losing my sight due to medical complications. I'm currently stuck in a ****hole bedsit with absolutely no movement on my placing on the priority list. I would kill to be offered a proper place to live so I can get on with my life or whats left of it.


    My wife's friend turned down a nice newly built apartment because it was in a social development and she didn't think she felt she fitted that category despite claiming single mothers allowance while her husband also lived with her.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,972 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I remember the donegal housing officer mentioning letterkenny as an example.

    Letterkenny is a fairly large town, with loads on the list. Yet loads were turning down houses that were still in letterkenny, but maybe a couple of miles of where they wanted to live

    There has to be a little bit of leeway by house hunters too if the lists are to work.


Advertisement