Turn down two houses and you're off the list

Boggles · 12-02-2019 12:15pm

NIMAN wrote: »

But I'm sure its near impossible to get these tenants to move out.

Even harder if there is no where to move them out to.

Even harder again I imagine if they have been model tenants who have paid their rent on time and established roots in the community.

Also in Cork it may take up to 66 weeks to turn that house around, so move them into a hotel and let the house sit idle for over a year would be mental at every turn.

Eod100 · 12-02-2019 12:18pm

Offer two houses in the middle of nowhere. No public transport. Miles from kids schools and friends and families. List reduced but demand not being met. Another example of government massaging figures.

NIMAN · 12-02-2019 12:19pm

Boggles wrote: »

Even harder if there is no where to move them out to.

Even harder again I imagine if they have been model tenants who have paid their rent on time and established roots in the community.

Also in Cork it may take up to 66 weeks to turn that house around, so move them into a hotel and let the house sit idle for over a year would be mental at every turn.

But it shouldn't be open for them to refuse.

It should be written into the initial contract that once the house is too big for them, they have to leave.

What can be done about community roots? This will happen if someone lives a long time in a certain area. It happens with the old couples now sitting in 5 bed family homes in Dublin too cos their kids left years ago.

Its a difficult debate to have. The difference in the latter case is that they paid for their house and own it. In the former, its the states property.

Ush1 · 12-02-2019 12:21pm

NIMAN wrote: »

But it shouldn't be open for them to refuse.

It should be written into the initial contract that once the house is too big for them, they have to leave.

What can be done about community roots? This will happen if someone lives a long time in a certain area. It happens with the old couples now sitting in 5 bed family homes in Dublin too cos their kids left years ago.

Its a difficult debate to have. The difference in the latter case is that they paid for their house and own it. In the former, its the states property.

It's the whole reason councils started to sell houses to tenants. The bit that I don't agree with is that it is sold to the tenant at a big discount.

Boggles · 12-02-2019 12:31pm

NIMAN wrote: »

But it shouldn't be open for them to refuse.

It isn't AFAIK. Well it isn't now.

It might of been 30 years ago when they signed their "lease". I don't know.

There is absolutely nothing preventing a local authority from not renewing a tenancy after a rolling period.

There is plenty valid reasons why they wouldn't do it though.

Boggles · 12-02-2019 12:34pm

Ush1 wrote: »

The bit that I don't agree with is that it is sold to the tenant at a big discount.

Why not?

Someone buying a Local Authority house is an absolute fantastic idea, a scheme that should be rolled out and encouraged more.

Ush1 · 12-02-2019 12:39pm

Boggles wrote: »

Why not?

Someone buying a Local Authority house is an absolute fantastic idea, a scheme that should be rolled out and encouraged more.

Why should they get a discount to buy a house? If they like the area and want to own a home they should pay full market price, otherwise keep renting from the council.

Not only does it remove a house from the councils housing stock(which a lot of people have issue with to begin with) but it does do so at a loss to the market value.

Dakotabigone · 12-02-2019 12:40pm

Eod100 wrote: »

Offer two houses in the middle of nowhere. No public transport. Miles from kids schools and friends and families. List reduced but demand not being met. Another example of government massaging figures.

Is their not a grant for a car?

twowheelsonly · 12-02-2019 12:41pm

Satta Massagana wrote: »

Extreme examples were people turning down houses because the house they were being offered had a sea view, and this might cause them to be sea sick Another one refused a house because the back garden wasn't big enough for a trampolene You couldn't make this sh1t up.
The people who make these kind of ridiculous refusals need to get real & should certainly be kicked down the list.

That was actually a joke that someone made when viewing a house in Cobh (which was actually totally unsuitable for their needs) but somehow ended up on the list of reasons that they turned down that particular house.

NIMAN wrote: »

you can't let incredibly rare examples like this dictate policy.

Except they're not incredibly rare examples. One look at some places and no way that you're taking a house there.

Cina wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious why I made it, to highlight the shocking situation whereby these people are actually allowed to turn down houses when so many hard working people cannot even buy one of their own.

You do realise that in most cases these are one and the same people ? Not all people looking for Social Housing are scroungers, in fact the vast majority are not and are hard working decent people who just can't afford or get a mortgage for whatever reason.

Boom_Bap · 12-02-2019 12:44pm

If you were homeless and offered this house, would you take it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3814776,-6.2938524,3a,75y,261.34h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBJrRMkNryzK4uBCpuQH4Fw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A few considerations besides the condition of the house.
1. There was a shooting here recently
2. Remember the video last year of cars joyriding in an estate and crashing into everything...that was here.
3. The locals don't accept new people into the neighbourhood and force them out

4. There is open drug dealing on the street
5. There is open drug use on the street
6. There are scramblers and quad on the go here night and day
7. There is a litter problem - that normally comes with rodent problems

Skylinehead · 12-02-2019 12:45pm

Boggles wrote: »

Why not?

Someone buying a Local Authority house is an absolute fantastic idea, a scheme that should be rolled out and encouraged more.

Because now there's nowhere near enough social housing left because they were all sold?

Boggles · 12-02-2019 12:45pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Why should they get a discount to buy a house? If they like the area and want to own a home they should pay full market price, otherwise keep renting from the council.

What if they can't or will never be able to afford a house?

It's successive governments that have fooked the housing market with their constant meddling.

Why should everyone suffer because of political ineptness.

Ush1 wrote: »

Not only does it remove a house from the councils housing stock(which a lot of people have issue with to begin with) but it does do so at a loss to the market value.

The value of something is far different from the cost of something.

In the long run the benefits to society are far greater if someone buys their home even discounted.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Boggles · 12-02-2019 12:49pm

Nixonbot wrote: »

Because now there's nowhere near enough social housing left because they were all sold?

Well that's not true.

One of the reasons was during the boom all developments had to be either 10 or 20% social housing stock.

This was more or less completely ignored because developers paid a relatively small fine to get around it.

We have always had social housing and we have always had people who availed of buying it.

Sweet.Science · 12-02-2019 12:49pm

Boom_Bap wrote: »

If you were homeless and offered this house, would you take it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3814776,-6.2938524,3a,75y,261.34h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBJrRMkNryzK4uBCpuQH4Fw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A few considerations besides the condition of the house.
1. There was a shooting here recently
2. Remember the video last year of cars joyriding in an estate and crashing into everything...that was here.
3. The locals don't accept new people into the neighbourhood and force them out

4. There is open drug dealing on the street
5. There is open drug use on the street
6. There are scramblers and quad on the go here night and day
7. There is a litter problem - that normally comes with rodent problems

Ha . So who are these houses left for ? People that are actually working and want to buy their own home. Very fair . Another example of how mad this country is

Eod100 · 12-02-2019 12:53pm

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Is their not a grant for a car?

Never heard of one. Is there?

AudreyHepburn · 12-02-2019 12:54pm

It’s about time this was implemented. There are too many people taking advantage of the system.

Just because a house lacks a large garden or isn’t next door to Mammy doesn’t mean it’s not suitable.

The rest of us don’t get that kind of choice so why should these people.

Sweet.Science · 12-02-2019 12:56pm

Eod100 wrote: »

Never heard of one. Is there?

Yes you just dont pay for insurance,tax or a valid nct.

Auguste Comte · 12-02-2019 1:00pm

I'd have no problem with this as long as the property being turned down is appropriate to the families needs. There should be a clear well thought out criteria published as to what is appropriate and if someone turns down two offers then tough but offering something completely wrong for the needs of a family shouldn't count for anything.

Dakotabigone · 12-02-2019 1:02pm

Eod100 wrote: »

Never heard of one. Is there?

They have to do something.

Fiftyfilthy · 12-02-2019 1:06pm

twowheelsonly wrote: »

You do realise that in most cases these are one and the same people ? Not all people looking for Social Housing are scroungers, in fact the vast majority are not and are hard working decent people who just can't afford or get a mortgage for whatever reason.

Disagree strongly

The majority are lazy scroungers. People who work but can’t afford a mortgage are ignored, they have to rent privately and struggle

They are ignored and put to the back of the list as all the lazy parasites who are in hotels are going to get priority

Not forgetting the single mothers with their boyfriend hiding in the cupboard too that has a job

twowheelsonly · 12-02-2019 1:09pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s about time this was implemented. There are too many people taking advantage of the system.

Just because a house lacks a large garden or isn’t next door to Mammy doesn’t mean it’s not suitable.

The rest of us don’t get that kind of choice so why should these people.

The amount of bigotry on here is just incredible. You're not the first people to refer to these people.

If you think that the only reason that people are turning down houses is because they don't have a large garden or are not next door to Mammy then you're either deluded or buying into the spin that authorities have put out. Those reasons might exist but I'd bet that they're in the region of one in a thousand refusals.

The whole thing of 'affordable housing' makes me laugh. Firstly, it was an easy option for Government / Councils to theoretically be seen to do something and secondly housing should be affordable, or pretty close to affordable, for everyone that works for a living. It's not, and that's the problem. This whole homelessness crisis started when councils stopped building their own stocks and more or less left it to private enterprise to dictate housing prices. Those prices are not so far out of reach for some people that they have no choice but to go on a local authority housing list.

AudreyHepburn · 12-02-2019 1:13pm

twowheelsonly wrote: »

The amount of bigotry on here is just incredible. You're not the first people to refer to these people.

If you think that the only reason that people are turning down houses is because they don't have a large garden or are not next door to Mammy then you're either deluded or buying into the spin that authorities have put out. Those reasons might exist but I'd bet that they're in the region of one in a thousand refusals.

The whole thing of 'affordable housing' makes me laugh. Firstly, it was an easy option for Government / Councils to theoretically be seen to do something and secondly housing should be affordable, or pretty close to affordable, for everyone that works for a living. It's not, and that's the problem. This whole homelessness crisis started when councils stopped building their own stocks and more or less left it to private enterprise to dictate housing prices. Those prices are not so far out of reach for some people that they have no choice but to go on a local authority housing list.

I’m not a bigot and I’ll thank you not to refer to me as such.

With all due respect I’m not the deluded one here. The amount of people’s on the housing lists who have refused multiple properties is beyond a joke. The properties can’t all have been that bad.

jam_mac_jam · 12-02-2019 1:14pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m not a bigot and I’ll thank you not to refer to me as such.

With all due respect I’m not the deluded one here. The amount of people’s on the housing lists who have refused multiple properties is beyond a joke. The properties can’t all have been that bad.

What amount of people? How do you know?

jam_mac_jam · 12-02-2019 1:15pm

Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

Disagree strongly

The majority are lazy scroungers. People who work but can’t afford a mortgage are ignored, they have to rent privately and struggle

They are ignored and put to the back of the list as all the lazy parasites who are in hotels are going to get priority

Not forgetting the single mothers with their boyfriend hiding in the cupboard too that has a job

You do realise that there are loads of people who work who are on the housing list?

12-02-2019 1:16pm

Boom_Bap wrote: »

If you were homeless and offered this house, would you take it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3814776,-6.2938524,3a,75y,261.34h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBJrRMkNryzK4uBCpuQH4Fw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A few considerations besides the condition of the house.
1. There was a shooting here recently
2. Remember the video last year of cars joyriding in an estate and crashing into everything...that was here.
3. The locals don't accept new people into the neighbourhood and force them out

4. There is open drug dealing on the street
5. There is open drug use on the street
6. There are scramblers and quad on the go here night and day
7. There is a litter problem - that normally comes with rodent problems

This might be a good place to start. Have places like this knocked and rebuild with 1, 2, 3 & 4 bed units. Relocate the existing tenants far and wide so their anti social behaviour in groups is diminished. Ensure that anti social behaviour is acted upon and said tenants are the ones who end up in the B&Bs. If the council are seen to mean business I would hope a lot of the trouble would ease up.

With regards to only having a social house to sit the size of the tenants - it couldn’t be an instant thing. Use the census and whatever other measures are at the authorities disposal. Work out the demographics and build smaller units to meet that. Keep it within the area too, don’t see why people would have to move location as smaller 1 and 2 beds could be built on top of each other.
Ensure that all rent is collected via revenue or social welfare if in arrears of more than a month.
Streamline those unbelievable turnaround times for having a house ready. If a tenant has been in a house 20 years, modernising that house should really only take 3-4 weeks if the plans of action are already in place.

As long as a tenant knows that they are guaranteed a social house once their family size reduces, why would they have a problem?

Sweet.Science · 12-02-2019 1:23pm

Social housing is a thing of the past. There is no hope of it improving its just going to get worse and worse . Totally unsustainable and if anyone thinks it will pick up again like the last century there are delusional. Housing/population is a global crisis that cant be fixed.

Emergency accommodation is the best we can ask for going forward.

Sweet.Science · 12-02-2019 1:24pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

This might be a good place to start. Have places like this knocked and rebuild with 1, 2, 3 & 4 bed units. Relocate the existing tenants far and wide so their anti social behaviour in groups is diminished. Ensure that anti social behaviour is acted upon and said tenants are the ones who end up in the B&Bs. If the council are seen to mean business I would hope a lot of the trouble would ease up.

With regards to only having a social house to sit the size of the tenants - it couldn’t be an instant thing. Use the census and whatever other measures are at the authorities disposal. Work out the demographics and build smaller units to meet that. Keep it within the area too, don’t see why people would have to move location as smaller 1 and 2 beds could be built on top of each other.
Ensure that all rent is collected via revenue or social welfare if in arrears of more than a month.
Streamline those unbelievable turnaround times for having a house ready. If a tenant has been in a house 20 years, modernising that house should really only take 3-4 weeks if the plans of action are already in place.

As long as a tenant knows that they are guaranteed a social house once their family size reduces, why would they have a problem?

Utterly delusional. We will just use monopoly money to do all this. It would bankrupt the country to the point of no return.

12-02-2019 1:29pm

So your solution is to fire everyone into emergency accommodation which I believe is 100% paid for by the authorities???

Ensure that rent is collected and they’ll be an ongoing cash flow. I believe there are many 3 beds in circulation already that have only one person in them paying the lowest rate of rent. Having a family unit with an increased rent value puts more in the pot again.

It’s not an overnight solution but it’s better than none.

Sweet.Science · 12-02-2019 1:33pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

So your solution is to fire everyone into emergency accommodation which I believe is 100% paid for by the authorities???

Ensure that rent is collected and they’ll be an ongoing cash flow. I believe there are many 3 beds in circulation already that have only one person in them paying the lowest rate of rent. Having a family unit with an increased rent value puts more in the pot again.

It’s not an overnight solution but it’s better than none.

They would have to pay rent . Pay a contribution for electricity etc .

People need to realize this is just the tip of the iceberg. In 5/10 years time it will be so much worse. The entitlement culture of people wanting a house because its their right has to go and will go as its no longer possible

A roof over their head should be the main priority from now on.

This isn't just Ireland. Its a global crisis.

Ush1 · 12-02-2019 1:33pm

Boggles wrote: »

What if they can't or will never be able to afford a house?

It's successive governments that have fooked the housing market with their constant meddling.

Why should everyone suffer because of political ineptness.

Well if they can't afford the house they need to look elsewhere, like anyone who isn't a council tenant. Subsidising the private purchase of a home is what I would call beyond the "spirit" of social housing.

Not sure what your last paragraphs have to do with anything. People do suffer when this happens. The council then has to buy another property and will outbid people. People who want to buy a home in the same area are shafted because they will have to pay full price simply because they aren't a tenant.

Boggles wrote: »

The value of something is far different from the cost of something.

In the long run the benefits to society are far greater if someone buys their home even discounted.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

:rolleyes:
Life isn't so simple. Social housing was seen as something to help people out a roof over their head who had no alternatives. If you can afford to purchase a home or your making far more money than any of the rent caps take into account, you're taking advantage of a poor system.

You have enough money to buy a house, pay full price. You make enough money to pay market rent rates, pay full price. Simple.

Turn down two houses and you're off the list

Comments