Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Noreen1

donalg1 wrote: »

Are you on the housing waiting list yourself?

No. I own my house - mortgage free, thanks!
Yourself?

donalg1

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Yawn. More of the same, I'm back to ignoring you.

Ha ha therefore admitting you are wrong, once again unable to back up your crazy claims what a pointless poster you are.

Seriously though you come on here and say I dont answer your questions despite the fact i did and by the way dont forget this is the internet so its their for the whole world to see.

You come on here saying you answered all my questions when you obviously didnt again this is the internet so the whole world can see your empty argument.

You call me prejudiced yet cant back this up. You call me inciteful yet cant back it up.

I think its time you left boards.ie as you dont seem to be able to grasp the point of a forum. Before you post again I suggest you come up with something solid rather than silly statements, I also suggest you answer all questions i have asked you over the past few days.

El_Flyboy what a joke!!

donalg1

Noreen1 wrote: »

No. I own my house - mortgage free, thanks!
Yourself?

I own my house too thanks very much Noreen. But seriously though if you hear of anyone looking to rent a nice new property for €10 per week will you point them in my direction, but dont waste my time by sending someone who isnt an unemployed construction worker ok?

EI_Flyboy

donalg1 wrote: »

El_Flyboy what a joke!!

Yep, what a joke, everytime I read your indignant ramblings I have a little laugh! What would be really funny is if Mr. Touhy ever read this thread, your stern belief that your opinion trumps the law and wilfull ignorance of it might find him making a quick buck off your back. Now that would be hilarious!

donalg1

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

El_Flyboy what a joke!!

Yep, what a joke, everytime I read your indignant ramblings I have a little laugh! What would be really funny is if Mr. Touhy ever read this thread, your stern belief that your opinion trumps the law and wilfull ignorance of it might find him making a quick buck off your back. Now that would be hilarious!

Still not answering my questions then?

Joke

EI_Flyboy

donalg1 wrote: »

Still not answering my questions then?

Joke

I already answered several of your inane questions but it all fell on deaf ears. I dunno but seeing 30+ question marks actually makes me take your questions less seriously for some reason, maybe you should also use caps lock in future? The sole basis for all your arguments seems to be that they came out of your mouth. You have given nothing beyond baseless opinion to back them up and even when corrected you've ignored the obvious. Or maybe you're omnipotent, is that what I'm missing? If that's the case, take heart, "Against ignorance even the Gods themselves struggle in vain."

You have have the entire internet at your fingertips yet you still refuse to educate yourself and the concept of spending money in one area to save it in another is completely beyond you. You seem to think the state runs according to your delusions and is just as incapable of adapting to fix a problem. Or maybe you know everything there is to know already and it's the rest of us that have yet to catch up on your enlightened state of being! Well then you should head down the Dail and tell them to GTFO, then we can all sleep easier knowing that the country is in safe hands.

If you feel you must have the last word, you're welcome to it. Go on, shout all you like, get it all out on the internet for the whole world to see how awesome and powerful your intellect is. Go on, lord it over me and put me in my place, show me what's what! Get it all out of your system then you can go crawl back under your bridge.

Noreen1

donalg1 wrote: »

I own my house too thanks very much Noreen. But seriously though if you hear of anyone looking to rent a nice new property for €10 per week will you point them in my direction, but dont waste my time by sending someone who isnt an unemployed construction worker ok?

So, no further arguments that the RAS is cost free, and the only possible solution, then?

donalg1

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Still not answering my questions then?

Joke

I already answered several of your inane questions but it all fell on deaf ears. I dunno but seeing 30+ question marks actually makes me take your questions less seriously for some reason, maybe you should also use caps lock in future? The sole basis for all your arguments seems to be that they came out of your mouth. You have given nothing beyond baseless opinion to back them up and even when corrected you've ignored the obvious. Or maybe you're omnipotent, is that what I'm missing? If that's the case, take heart, "Against ignorance even the Gods themselves struggle in vain."

You have have the entire internet at your fingertips yet you still refuse to educate yourself and the concept of spending money in one area to save it in another is completely beyond you. You seem to think the state runs according to your delusions and is just as incapable of adapting to fix a problem. Or maybe you know everything there is to know already and it's the rest of us that have yet to catch up on your enlightened state of being! Well then you should head down the Dail and tell them to GTFO, then we can all sleep easier knowing that the country is in safe hands.

If you feel you must have the last word, you're welcome to it. Go on, shout all you like, get it all out on the internet for the whole world to see how awesome and powerful your intellect is. Go on, lord it over me and put me in my place, show me what's what! Get it all out of your system then you can go crawl back under your bridge.

So still refusing to answer them?

Spending money again with that delusion and where does this money come from exactly? End of the rainbow is it?

I think I know an awful lot more on this subject than you do based on your previous posts.

donalg1

Noreen1 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

I own my house too thanks very much Noreen. But seriously though if you hear of anyone looking to rent a nice new property for €10 per week will you point them in my direction, but dont waste my time by sending someone who isnt an unemployed construction worker ok?

So, no further arguments that the RAS is cost free, and the only possible solution, then?

It costs an awful lot less to local authorities than social housing does. See they draw up a contract get the landlord to sign a copy and the tenant to sign a copy and then collect differential rent from the tenant as they would if it was a social house.

Where did I say it was cost free?

Noreen1

donalg1 wrote: »

It costs an awful lot less to local authorities than social housing does. See they draw up a contract get the landlord to sign a copy and the tenant to sign a copy and then collect differential rent from the tenant as they would if it was a social house.

Where did I say it was cost free?

I have demonstrated a method where housing can be cost free in some instances, and has the added attraction of generating a return for the taxpayer.

You keep rejecting this in favour of the RAS. (and I'm aware of what the RAS is, thanks. If you had read the links I posted you'd be aware of this.)

Where such housing can be provided at no cost to the taxpayer, but instead can actually generate a return for the taxpayer - what exactly is your objection to this, and what benefits does the RAS offer the taxpayer that are superior?

donalg1

Noreen1 wrote: »

I have demonstrated a method where housing can be cost free in some instances, and has the added attraction of generating a return for the taxpayer.

You keep rejecting this in favour of the RAS. (and I'm aware of what the RAS is, thanks. If you had read the links I posted you'd be aware of this.)

Where such housing can be provided at no cost to the taxpayer, but instead can actually generate a return for the taxpayer - what exactly is your objection to this, and what benefits does the RAS offer the taxpayer that are superior?

By letting someone live in a house rent free while they repair it could never work, who would set the deadlines for this work to be done?

For example a tenant is allowed to live in a house provided they put in a new kitchen, even forgetting the fact they couldnt possibly afford a new kitchen, when this kitchen is in who is responsible for the maintenance of it? The Local Authority certainly wont take over the maintenance of it so this is left to the tenant to do. Now if after two years the tenant decides to hand back the keys to the Local Authority and they find another tenant for this property who then is responsible for the maintenance of the kitchen?

My point is while it would be great if all these houses were brought up to the standard of social housing and used to clear the numbers off of the housing list its not possible at the moment due to the lack of funding available so the local authorities have no other option but to explore other avenues such as RAS housing or long term leasing.

Housing policy now is focussing on the maintenance and upkeep of existing stock and the repair of vacant stock so that these house can be used, the acquisition of housing is further down the list unfortunately.

Noreen1

What about the houses that are complete?

Should we leave them to develop problems with damp, and mould?

You seem to be of the opinion that this is a Black or White situation.
The truth is, it's neither!

Where these houses are complete, would you agree that they should be let to responsible tenants, who are willing to maintain them to an adequate standard?

donalg1

Noreen1 wrote: »

What about the houses that are complete?

Should we leave them to develop problems with damp, and mould?

You seem to be of the opinion that this is a Black or White situation.
The truth is, it's neither!

Where these houses are complete, would you agree that they should be let to responsible tenants, who are willing to maintain them to an adequate standard?

I know its neither its a very complicated situation the easiest option being to board them up and leave them as they are.

And as for letting the complete houses to people, this in theory would be a good option but in practice I cant see it working. Who would be responsible for letting these properties?

Also you would be putting a lot of faith in the tenant to maintain the property. Say for instance something is in need of repair and the tenants are responsible for maintaining them, and they decide they dont want to maintain the house as it costs too much and they are only in social welfare. Say this goes on for a few years and they then decide to hand back the keys and the house is in a mess having never really been maintained, so who then is liable to repair it?

Not only that but you also have to come up with a fair rent for these tenants that are being allowed live there and maintain these properties. Whats to stop them arguing the point that why should I pay the same rent as Joe down the road for a similiar property when I have to repair this house while the LA do his.

Noreen1

donalg1 wrote: »

I know its neither its a very complicated situation the easiest option being to board them up and leave them as they are.

And as for letting the complete houses to people, this in theory would be a good option but in practice I cant see it working. Who would be responsible for letting these properties?

Also you would be putting a lot of faith in the tenant to maintain the property. Say for instance something is in need of repair and the tenants are responsible for maintaining them, and they decide they dont want to maintain the house as it costs too much and they are only in social welfare. Say this goes on for a few years and they then decide to hand back the keys and the house is in a mess having never really been maintained, so who then is liable to repair it?

Not only that but you also have to come up with a fair rent for these tenants that are being allowed live there and maintain these properties. Whats to stop them arguing the point that why should I pay the same rent as Joe down the road for a similiar property when I have to repair this house while the LA do his.

It may be the easiest option, but it certainly is not the most cost-effective.

As to who would be responsible for letting the properties, why, their owners, of course - with the proceeds being offset against their distressed NAMA loans. Hence a gain, or at least some offset of the loss to the taxpayer.

You seem to think I'm suggesting that these houses should only go to people on welfare, but the truth is, a significant percentage of people who are in employment are unable to pay their mortgage.
Unless some realistic assistance is offered to these people, then some of them are likely to have their homes repossessed, unfortunately.
They will need housing, and are likely to be in such debt that some will have great difficulty finding the deposit for rented accommodation.
Do we leave them on the street, rent them these houses, pay for emergency accommodation for them, or put them in social housing?
We need to find answers to these questions.

Some consideration also needs to be shown for young couples, with children, who are stuck in 1 bedroom flats, and in negative equity.
Do we punish the children because their parents made a mistake?
Unless I'm much mistaken, overcrowding is considered a valid reason to be granted social housing - and we already have a rather long waiting list.

It's not quite as simple as "People on social welfare may not maintain the houses". (By the way, some people on social welfare may not maintain their houses - the same may be said for private tenants, students, or pretty much any group of people you care to mention.)
Tenancy agreements were designed to solve this problem. I fail to see why the same type of agreement wouldn't work in this situation.

As to the LA maintaining houses, afaik, the LA are responsible for the structure of the dwelling.
Interior maintenance is the responsibility of the tenant.

Finally, if a fair rent can be determined for LA houses, and the RAS, then why is it so difficult to determine a fair rent in this case?

donalg1

Noreen1 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

I know its neither its a very complicated situation the easiest option being to board them up and leave them as they are.

And as for letting the complete houses to people, this in theory would be a good option but in practice I cant see it working. Who would be responsible for letting these properties?

Also you would be putting a lot of faith in the tenant to maintain the property. Say for instance something is in need of repair and the tenants are responsible for maintaining them, and they decide they dont want to maintain the house as it costs too much and they are only in social welfare. Say this goes on for a few years and they then decide to hand back the keys and the house is in a mess having never really been maintained, so who then is liable to repair it?

Not only that but you also have to come up with a fair rent for these tenants that are being allowed live there and maintain these properties. Whats to stop them arguing the point that why should I pay the same rent as Joe down the road for a similiar property when I have to repair this house while the LA do his.

It may be the easiest option, but it certainly is not the most cost-effective.

As to who would be responsible for letting the properties, why, their owners, of course - with the proceeds being offset against their distressed NAMA loans. Hence a gain, or at least some offset of the loss to the taxpayer.

You seem to think I'm suggesting that these houses should only go to people on welfare, but the truth is, a significant percentage of people who are in employment are unable to pay their mortgage.
Unless some realistic assistance is offered to these people, then some of them are likely to have their homes repossessed, unfortunately.
They will need housing, and are likely to be in such debt that some will have great difficulty finding the deposit for rented accommodation.
Do we leave them on the street, rent them these houses, pay for emergency accommodation for them, or put them in social housing?
We need to find answers to these questions.

Some consideration also needs to be shown for young couples, with children, who are stuck in 1 bedroom flats, and in negative equity.
Do we punish the children because their parents made a mistake?
Unless I'm much mistaken, overcrowding is considered a valid reason to be granted social housing - and we already have a rather long waiting list.

It's not quite as simple as "People on social welfare may not maintain the houses". (By the way, some people on social welfare may not maintain their houses - the same may be said for private tenants, students, or pretty much any group of people you care to mention.)
Tenancy agreements were designed to solve this problem. I fail to see why the same type of agreement wouldn't work in this situation.

As to the LA maintaining houses, afaik, the LA are responsible for the structure of the dwelling.
Interior maintenance is the responsibility of the tenant.

Finally, if a fair rent can be determined for LA houses,nt and the RAS, then why is it so difficult to determine a fair rent in this case?

Rent in LA houses and RAS houses is calculated based on income so its relatively straight forward to do. It would be almost impossible to determine a fair and equitable rent where someone is given a house on low rent provided they maintain it. What do you do calculate it on income minus the amount of hours maintaining it?

Its just not possible.

As for the owners renting these houses to those on the waiting list through the LA's that's called long term leasing and exists already.

99% of people on the housing list are on social welfare in some form or other.

As for people struggling to pay mortgages the answer isn't to allow them to walk away from them and then provide them with assistance for alternative accommodation. Why not provide them with assistance in paying their mortgage or working with the banks to come to an arrangement for a set period of time. I'm sure they would rather stay in their own home.

The overcrowding issue doesn't work like that either. A couple buys a one bed and has a child then realises space is tight well thats their fault and their problem certainly not the LA's. Now when that child turns 18 they can apply for housing on the grounds of overcrowding.

booboo88

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So he was healthy enough to put floring, paint the house, clean it, sort out electrical problems etc...

... But he is too depressed to work...


Feck off will ya...

i get fits of depression at the thoughts of work too, can i claim disability?