Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group

Newaglish · 09-03-2012 5:44pm

I wonder is it possible for some people who can't afford their own accommodation but need to stay close to their "support network" - would they consider living in their family home?

daltonmd · 09-03-2012 5:47pm

MariMel wrote: »

Ok a quick point to make.....and yes i am well aware the example I am making is a personal one.
Due to illness my child went to live with family members. Forward to now and I have been looking for cheaper accommodation as mentioned in previous posts. As you suggest I should move to where I can find somewhere within the new limits.
I understand you dont care if i have to move out of this area or indeed out of this county since there is NOTHING suitable for my situation in the region under the new limits.
But.....tell that to the social worker who looks after my childs case.....tell them that they are wrong to say i MUST live within the rural area my child is at school. That it is condition of my having my child back on a full time basis that I live close to my support network. Tell them as a tax payer that you not them, should insist that I move away from my child, tell them you as someone who doesnt get RS, that you can force me to give up ever being a full time parent because as some who does receive RS, that I cannot make any choices with regards to my child.

I am on Job seekers BENEFIT after having worked for years.....not long term allowance. I started very actively looking for employment once I was cleared by my support workers and medical team to do so.
Is being on JSB and RS a long term goal for me?? .....eh no!!!!
Is choosing where to live me saying I want to live in a great area and wont accept any less that the best???......eh no again!!!!
Is being forced into choosing between being a parent or being homeless something I want???? no yet again.....
but this is what.....for me....the new rental rates could be forcing upon me.

Life is not black and white......

Life is not black and white and it's an awful situation to be in - you should write to your local TD and ask her to pass this on to Joan Burton - who asked that any people having difficulty with the new rules be passed to her.

Your situation, while a difficult one, is unfortunately not a reason for rent reductions not to be made. Your case would be an exceptional one and should be treated that way.

Also look at the circular I posted on the first page - print it out and bring t to your CWO. But do write to your TD about this.

09-03-2012 6:08pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Jeez - it's not me that doesn't get it. When my rent was being raised during the boom who did my dirty work - I either had to pay OR move - what part of that are you having a problem with?

That part of that that I have a problem with is that a Rent Allowance tenant is NOT ALLOWED to make that call on their own behalf! The CWO makes it for them. JEEZ!

daltonmd wrote: »

If this is what private renters have to do then why do you think a RA tenant should have anyone doing their dirty work for them? Again, you're missing the point - if the rents were set to a rate more appropriate to the climate we are in then we would all benefit.

Yet you acknowledged that rents are being driven high by more than just rent allowance - Landlords charge rents at a rate that is enough to cover their mortgage costs. There are more factors involved to rent prices then just rent allowance.

Like the fact that there IS no social housing. Even RAS is not permanent.

daltonmd wrote: »

Listen - let me repeat - if a landlord raises the rent then you try to negotiate - if you fail then you move if you succeed then you stay. That's what negotiating means - but we have NO more leeway than a RA tenant if the landlord won't reduce his rent.

This has been addressed many times already - you can choose to absorb the extra expense yourself, or leave. That is the difference. That option is NOT available to RA tenents. Please don't make me have to repeat that again.

daltonmd wrote: »

Again - the point jumps out at me and again you miss it - you want the CWO to negotiate for RA tenants when private renters have to do it themselves.

Yes I do. Because the CWO sets the ceiling limits, the CWO assess and decide how much RA is paid to claimants, and the CWO has all the decision making powers. Something else I hope I don't have to repeat again.

And you have completely ignored any reference to the importance of communities and of support networks within those communities.

When my daughter was small my Mother looked after her afterschool so I could work full time. Now in turn, I am close by and can look after my Mother in her declining years.

If I had rented instead of bought, and subsequently was forced to move, the State would now probably be paying thousands per month for my Mother in nursing home care, as well as my rent because I had to move to meet their lower limits!

There is a bigger picture, and no one decision can be taken in isolation. But you're only thinking of one corner of the picture.

MariMel · 09-03-2012 6:08pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Life is not black and white and it's an awful situation to be in - you should write to your local TD and ask her to pass this on to Joan Burton - who asked that any people having difficulty with the new rules be passed to her.

Your situation, while a difficult one, is unfortunately not a reason for rent reductions not to be made. Your case would be an exceptional one and should be treated that way.

Also look at the circular I posted on the first page - print it out and bring t to your CWO. But do write to your TD about this.

have written to joan.....got reply from her dept saying it was up to me to find somewhere within the new limits, not the responsibility of the dept and yes she was aware of all the facts. Wrote to tds, county councillors even got a letter of support from my social worker as well but to no avail.
Am in the process of appealing.
It very easy for joan to say people should contact her then to fob them off with how the reductions will save tenants money......as i and other have stated, no matter how far the rents are reduced the contribution RS tenants have to make doesnt.
My situation albeit not your normal one, is just a selection of what is happening many many families yet me, like them are all tarred with the one brush.

daltonmd · 09-03-2012 6:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That part of that that I have a problem with is that a Rent Allowance tenant is NOT ALLOWED to make that call on their own behalf! The CWO makes it for them. JEEZ!

Seriously?- so a private tenant forced to move (for economic reasons) is better off because they can make that call themselves? Really?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet you acknowledged that rents are being driven high by more than just rent allowance - Landlords charge rents at a rate that is enough to cover their mortgage costs. There are more factors involved to rent prices then just rent allowance.

No - landlords get the market rate - when 50% of a market is paid for by the state then that's what sets the rates. Very few landlords are covering their mortgages.

Deleted User wrote: »

Like the fact that there IS no social housing. Even RAS is not permanent.

Absolutely agree with you here.

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been addressed many times already - you can choose to absorb the extra expense yourself, or leave. That is the difference. That option is NOT available to RA tenents. Please don't make me have to repeat that again.

You'll have to keep repeating it and then one day the penny will drop.

Please see the reason for the protest:

"SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports."

Again let me repeat - I do not have an infinite amount of money - I have a budget and if I cannot absorb the the extra expense then I leave - IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I do. Because the CWO sets the ceiling limits, the CWO assess and decide how much RA is paid to claimants, and the CWO has all the decision making powers. Something else I hope I don't have to repeat again.

The CWO does not set the ceiling limits. He does not have the "power" if a claimant is entitled to a payment then he/she gets it - so again you can repeat it all you want.

Deleted User wrote: »

And you have completely ignored any reference to the importance of communities and of support networks within those communities.

Yes, when you're working and able to afford to live where you want, you are free to CHOOSE where you live - if you are unemployed and dependent on state help you don't have that choice.

Deleted User wrote: »

When my daughter was small my Mother looked after her afterschool so I could work full time. Now in turn, I am close by and can look after my Mother in her declining years.

That's great - but it has nothing to do with this conversation.

You WORKED and you BOUGHT a house so you made a CHOICE.

If you CANNOT support yourself - then you cannot make that CHOICE.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I had rented instead of bought, and subsequently was forced to move, the State would now probably be paying thousands per month for my Mother in nursing home care, as well as my rent because I had to move to meet their lower limits!

Jeez - again you just don't get it - perish the thought that this would mean lower rents for people.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a bigger picture, and no one decision can be taken in isolation. But you're only thinking of one corner of the picture.

No, I'm afraid that's your specialty.

Let me repeat it - again -

If rent allowance is reduced the this means cheaper rents for EVERYBODY.

If they remain it means that the only people who benefit (apart form the Landlords of course) are the ones WHO DO NOT PAY FOR IT.

ShaShaBear · 09-03-2012 7:36pm

New limits were introduced 1st of January. Rent hasn't gone down. Wonder why? :rolleyes:

09-03-2012 7:51pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Seriously?- so a private tenant forced to move (for economic reasons) is better off because they can make that call themselves? Really?

Now you are just being obtuse. I've addressed this several times, I am not about to repeat myself again. You're trolling, at this stage.

daltonmd wrote: »

No - landlords get the market rate - when 50% of a market is paid for by the state then that's what sets the rates. Very few landlords are covering their mortgages.

Landlords are in the business to make a profit, so their aim is to recoup their costs and then some. Again, as I've already stated, their are more factors in the rates they charge then rent allowance.

daltonmd wrote: »

Please see the reason for the protest:

"SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government which will force people to uproot out of their homes and away from children's schools and social supports."

I have no problem with this. It could have been worded more clearly, but its apparant (to me) that the message was they are protesting against the changes to RA conditions that will cause additonal hardship.

daltonmd wrote: »

The CWO does not set the ceiling limits. He does not have the "power" if a claimant is entitled to a payment then he/she gets it - so again you can repeat it all you want.

Now you're having a laugh. Are you being deliberately obtuse? The circular that you yourself posted ( http://www.focusireland.ie/files/swa%20circular%2021-2011%20-%20maximum%20rent%20limits.pdf ) refers to the setting of new "Maximum Rent Limits" ...

The "limits" for properties the CWO will consider for RA tenants are set for each particular county and within each county. In addition to this, CWOs have the "discretion" (read "power") the enforce even lower "ceiling rates" within specific areas if they wish, (see section 3.3.) so your statement above is just plain wrong.

Multiple posters now have posted about the inconsistencies of dealing with CWOs - we can't all be wrong.

The rates are also here:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#l62fd2

Call them what you will - it doesn't change what they are. Ceilings.

daltonmd wrote: »

Yes, when you're working and able to afford to live where you want, you are free to CHOOSE where you live - if you are unemployed and dependent on state help you don't have that choice.

daltonmd wrote: »

Originally Posted by Loueze - When my daughter was small my Mother looked after her afterschool so I could work full time. Now in turn, I am close by and can look after my Mother in her declining years.

That's great - but it has nothing to do with this conversation.

It has everything to do with this conversation. These are peoples lives we're talking about. People are not animals, though I think some here believe they should be treated like cattle. Herded together and categorised by employment or economic status.

daltonmd wrote: »

If you CANNOT support yourself - then you cannot make that CHOICE.

daltonmd wrote: »

Jeez - again you just don't get it - perish the thought that this would mean lower rents for people.

Oh spare me. I don't believe you're interested in lower rents for "people". You're interested in lower rents for private renters like you.

Please don't now try to give the impression that you actually CARE about people on rent allowance. Its smacks of hypocrisy, when consistently on this thread you have not been very complimentary in your comments towards them - indeed, you have repeatedly stated they should have no say, or choice, in where or how they and their families live, once they become reliant on benefits.

daltonmd · 10-03-2012 11:57am

ShaShaBear wrote: »

New limits were introduced 1st of January. Rent hasn't gone down. Wonder why? :rolleyes:

You won't see the result until next year - after the first review in 2010, rents fell last year.

It seems pointless to continue trying to explain to some that lower rents all round mean that everyone benefits.

ShaShaBear · 10-03-2012 1:26pm

daltonmd wrote: »

You won't see the result until next year - after the first review in 2010, rents fell last year.

It seems pointless to continue trying to explain to some that lower rents all round mean that everyone benefits.

It seems pointless to continue trying to explain to some that no rent allowance means some people will be homeless by next year.

Newaglish · 10-03-2012 1:47pm

ShaShaBear wrote: »

It seems pointless to continue trying to explain to some that no rent allowance means some people will be homeless by next year.

MariMel · 10-03-2012 2:16pm

Newaglish.....dont know if this is the right thread or even section to make people aware of your liking for star trek. But since I always liked Patrick Stewart I wont object to this bit of information about you.

But whether you want to think about it or not is that homelessness is one of the potential pit falls what await after the rent reviews which are taking place at the moment. It may not affect every RA tenant but it will affect some of the most vulnerable ones. Its one which very very closely could be my fate.

10-03-2012 3:15pm

daltonmd wrote: »

You won't see the result until next year - after the first review in 2010, rents fell last year.

It seems pointless to continue trying to explain to some that lower rents all round mean that everyone benefits.

No NOT everyone.

Just private renters, and the Government. Because what an RA tenant contributes to the rent from their income is FIXED - based on a means test calculated by the CWO - regardless of the overall price of the accommodation.

That doesn't reduce if the accommodation is cheaper. Rent allowance is not a differential rent scheme.

So, to summarise - you want thousands of families on RA to be used as the Government's pawns against landlords, - to be displaced from their homes, forced to move, to find cheaper accommodation (that doesn't exist), move their children's schools, uproot from their communities - and all to drive down rent prices for the benefit of everyone EXCEPT them.

And let me remind you, before you start shouting about savings to the taxpayer - many of these people now receiving RA are people who have contributed thousands in tax and PRSI for years, and deserve to be afforded some dignity.

Let them find the "savings" somewhere else, or let them tackle the landlords directly - rather then again hitting thee most vulnerable families for savings.

Welcome to Ireland 2012. Its a lovely society we live in.

ShaShaBear · 10-03-2012 4:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No NOT everyone.

Just private renters, and the Government. Because what an RA tenant contributes to the rent from their income is FIXED - based on a means test calculated by the CWO - regardless of the overall price of the accommodation.

That doesn't reduce if the accommodation is cheaper. Rent allowance is not a differential rent scheme.

So, to summarise - you want thousands of families on RA to be used as the Government's pawns against landlords, - to be displaced from their homes, forced to move, to find cheaper accommodation (that doesn't exist), move their children's schools, uproot from their communities - and all to drive down rent prices for the benefit of everyone EXCEPT them.

And let me remind you, before you start shouting about savings to the taxpayer - many of these people now receiving RA are people who have contributed thousands in tax and PRSI for years, and deserve to be afforded some dignity.

Let them find the "savings" somewhere else, or let them tackle the landlords directly - rather then again hitting thee most vulnerable families for savings.

Welcome to Ireland 2012. Its a lovely society we live in.

It's pointless trying to defend the point, they just don't seem to get that over the next year, they have wages coming in every month - they can afford to dosh out 800 or 900 quid as a deposit on a new place to live wherever in the country they choose. They have the wage coming in every week/month to afford their rent.
But most importantly, they don't need to worry about the people that don't.
I don't think people get how expensive it is to get their child into a school, never mind move them to another one. Yes, that's right - expensive. Because not all schools have the same uniform and book list. Shocking! Transportation costs might change - what you used to walk to, you might now have to pay to get to - it costs me 15 a week to get to college now, where I could walk to it last year. That 15 a week has bought me milk, bread and butter when I needed it the most. And finally, for those in most need, childcare costs. Because you might have to change crèche, there might not even BE a crèche in the area. What does that mean? MORE transportation costs, you say? Well that's alright, we have plenty of... oh wait. :rolleyes:

Newaglish · 11-03-2012 12:26pm

MariMel wrote: »

Newaglish.....dont know if this is the right thread or even section to make people aware of your liking for star trek. But since I always liked Patrick Stewart I wont object to this bit of information about you.

But whether you want to think about it or not is that homelessness is one of the potential pit falls what await after the rent reviews which are taking place at the moment. It may not affect every RA tenant but it will affect some of the most vulnerable ones. Its one which very very closely could be my fate.

I was facepalming because despite the fact that there have been over 130 posts on this thread, ShaShaBear seems to think that people are suggesting the entire RA scheme should be scrapped, which I'm sure would make some people homeless. What we've been talking about the whole time is reducing it to a more realistic level in order to lower the distorting impact it has on the market but some people are ideologically opposed to this and are resorting to slightly hysterical emotional arguments.

ShaShaBear · 11-03-2012 3:29pm

Newaglish wrote: »

I was facepalming because despite the fact that there have been over 130 posts on this thread, ShaShaBear seems to think that people are suggesting the entire RA scheme should be scrapped, which I'm sure would make some people homeless. What we've been talking about the whole time is reducing it to a more realistic level in order to lower the distorting impact it has on the market but some people are ideologically opposed to this and are resorting to slightly hysterical emotional arguments.

And I was referring to the fact that, in many areas, the rent allowance limits have been reduced to an unrealistic amount that does not match up with available accomodation. If your house is over the limit, you don't get the rent allowance. In this case, apologies for not being clear. Not getting rent allowance = no rent allowance.

daltonmd · 15-03-2012 12:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No NOT everyone.
Just private renters, and the Government. Because what an RA tenant contributes to the rent from their income is FIXED - based on a means test calculated by the CWO - regardless of the overall price of the accommodation.

No, no. Loueze, if the cost for private renters was lower then RA tenants would beneift from this. The reason things are the way they are is that reviews weren't carried out. If the market was based on what working people could pay then this would be beneficial to those on RA. Which, as I have said, is the wrong scheme for those who find themselves longterm unemployed, part time or whatever.

Deleted User wrote: »

So, to summarise - you want thousands of families on RA to be used as the Government's pawns against landlords, - to be displaced from their homes, forced to move, to find cheaper accommodation (that doesn't exist), move their children's schools, uproot from their communities - and all to drive down rent prices for the benefit of everyone EXCEPT them.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. For years, private rental tenants have had to do EXACTLY that because rents rose so much - the government then simply increased the RA because of the rises and when they did we were forced to seek alternative accomadation. You can't have it both ways Loueze and I wish you could see that. And that you see lower rent prices as not beneficial to everyone really tells it.

Deleted User wrote: »

And let me remind you, before you start shouting about savings to the taxpayer - many of these people now receiving RA are people who have contributed thousands in tax and PRSI for years, and deserve to be afforded some dignity.

Loueze - we are all a paycheck or an illness away from SW. What about those contributing NOW - what about our dignity?

Deleted User wrote: »

Let them find the "savings" somewhere else, or let them tackle the landlords directly - rather then again hitting thee most vulnerable families for savings.

Welcome to Ireland 2012. Its a lovely society we live in.

Or - why don't they start a petition or a group to FIGHT against the HIGH RENTS????

And yes welcome to Ireland - you might have just got here in 2012 - but we've a few years on you.

daltonmd · 15-03-2012 1:03pm

ShaShaBear wrote: »

It's pointless trying to defend the point, they just don't seem to get that over the next year, they have wages coming in every month - they can afford to dosh out 800 or 900 quid as a deposit on a new place to live wherever in the country they choose. They have the wage coming in every week/month to afford their rent.
But most importantly, they don't need to worry about the people that don't.

Wow - and I mean wow. Your lack of regard for WORKING SINGLE PARENTS is astounding. We can afford to dosh out money willy nilly - how lucky are we eh?

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I don't think people get how expensive it is to get their child into a school, never mind move them to another one. Yes, that's right - expensive. Because not all schools have the same uniform and book list. Shocking! Transportation costs might change - what you used to walk to, you might now have to pay to get to - it costs me 15 a week to get to college now, where I could walk to it last year. That 15 a week has bought me milk, bread and butter when I needed it the most. And finally, for those in most need, childcare costs. Because you might have to change crèche, there might not even BE a crèche in the area. What does that mean? MORE transportation costs, you say? Well that's alright, we have plenty of... oh wait. :rolleyes:

Oh and so when private tenants have to move because of rent increases or - now I know this might seem alien to you - PAY CUTS - then we are somehow protected from these issues? Really?

As for creche costs - don't even get me started.

daltonmd · 15-03-2012 1:04pm

ShaShaBear wrote: »

And I was referring to the fact that, in many areas, the rent allowance limits have been reduced to an unrealistic amount that does not match up with available accomodation. If your house is over the limit, you don't get the rent allowance. In this case, apologies for not being clear. Not getting rent allowance = no rent allowance.

No no sha sha bear - it's the rental asking prices that are unrealistic. That's the point that you and others don't get.

daltonmd · 15-03-2012 1:09pm

MariMel wrote: »

Newaglish.....dont know if this is the right thread or even section to make people aware of your liking for star trek. But since I always liked Patrick Stewart I wont object to this bit of information about you.

But whether you want to think about it or not is that homelessness is one of the potential pit falls what await after the rent reviews which are taking place at the moment. It may not affect every RA tenant but it will affect some of the most vulnerable ones. Its one which very very closely could be my fate.

Homelessness is a potential pitfall for any renter -RA or not - the difference is that if you're on RA then the council are obliged to rehouse you - a private renter does not have that safety net - again I will say to you that if you are on benefits then the objective is - to house people - maybe not to their liking - but that's the function.

It's function is not to house you where you choose, near the schools that you want, to a standard that you desire - these are reserved for people who buy their homes and who have their own money.

When you have your own money you can do what you want, live where you want, have your kids in the schools that you want - when you don't have enough money then sacrifices have to be made when you are on SW those sacrifices still have to be made.

Gingermagic · 17-03-2012 4:47am

What a better way to divide people than to create an unequal system. And as always instead of uniting and fighting for a more equal system what I have observed a great deal on this thread is; "why don't they do this....why don't they do that"....much division on a topic that goes accross "classes" for want of a better word.

I say.....why don't you do something. To bemoan and grouch about people who are actually trying to do something, even if you think they are making a balls of it is just nonsensical. I would understand if you were actually fighting a campaign of your own....If you are I apologise, I assume when you ask what are they doing for you, that you are not fighting one but won't mind others doing that for you.

Situations on many fronts are not easy but to be bitter because people have found a way to survive on a benefit system and will fight for their rights which are just as equal as yours even if they are not working is not something you need to be. You seem to find many many faults with SPARK so why don't you contact them and discuss your issue with them and ask them how you can help them to help you fight for you and your children too. Be proactive instead of divisive.....it may change your outlook....

If you do nothing......you change nothing

Oh and please don't go into a diatribe on what you may or may not have done in the past or the difficulties you have overcome....Welcome to the club....everyone has a his/herstory be they on benefits or otherwise.....it's harsh but it's a fact....

regress · 17-03-2012 5:34am

It is legitimate to point out that what SPARK is advocating i.e. No reduction in state payments to landlords is creating a situation where single mothers who are working and not entitled to RA are disadvantaged and have to pay higher rents. That an organization that is purportedly to support single mothers is instead campaigning to keep rents high and protect state handouts to property investors.

MariMel · 17-03-2012 12:16pm

regress wrote: »

It is legitimate to point out that what SPARK is advocating i.e. No reduction in state payments to landlords is creating a situation where single mothers who are working and not entitled to RA are disadvantaged and have to pay higher rents. That an organization that is purportedly to support single mothers is instead campaigning to keep rents high and protect state handouts to property investors.

eh i take it you havent actually read quite a few of the posts in this forum?
Spark are not against reductions in rents.....they are against vulnerable families, not just single parent ones, being made pawns in the game of who will cave first, between the government and the landlords.

What happens to a family who have had their rent level cut during the rent reviews which are going on at present....they might only be 4 or 5 months into a fixed term lease.....the landlord wont reduce the rent in line with the new limits set by the government. The tenants cant afford to make up difference and are not permitted to do so, so they can no longer afford to stay in the property....yet are tied to a fixed term lease.

There is another side to this too....there are plenty of landlords who say that they cant afford to reduce their rents, like the LL of the house I am moving out of in a few days time. They say they cant afford to even take a €50 a month cut. Yet if this house is empty for even one month after I leave, then the reduction I sought for an entire year will be less than the one months rent lost because it is empty. And I might add, this house was empty for 6 months before i moved in. There are a shockingly large amount of LLs not willing to reduce their rents yet are quite happy to leave their properties vacant til the find someone to pay what they are asking. Seems a little foolish to me. Surely a regular rent albeit less than what ideally they would be looking for, surely this is in the long run more beneficial than losing 1, 2, 3 or more months rent.
If you work it out, if someone is looking for eg €100 a month reduction...thats €1200 over an entire year. The rent is €700 a month and the house is empty for just 2 months.....then the landlord is already at a loss.

I understand the bitterness a lot of posters have towards people on benefits. They believe the stereotypical image of benefit scroungers, not willing to work and who want to screw the system for all its worth. These people are a tiny minority yet everyone is being tarred with the same brush.
As some of our most vocal posters here against those on benefits having any rights are also the ones saying they themselves are a week or a month from being on benefits, surely they can acknowledge that should the worst happen to them, that they genuinely believe that eventhough the worked for years, that they too should lose every right once they walk into a social welfare office?

Gingermagic · 17-03-2012 12:25pm

It is legitmate and and questions should always be asked, but ask the right people....If people have a question about SPARK ask them, email them they have a website I presume.....You be suprised at what changes can occur when you take control of stuff yourself and not believe media hype on those on benefits, or becuase one may see a friend who seems better off than you and on benefits......

I have known people to on benefits trawl charity shops for clothes for them and their family and you would never know. I know of people again on benefit and off benefits who earn a good wage work out which days the local supermarkets have the best knock down prices because they are at their sell by date. Second hand furniture restored and glammed up so you would never guess it came from a skip....Many of the folks I know on benefits are mend and make do....and many of my working friends are finding that they too are having to do the same even though they are employed full time.....they will not throw much of anything away.....and thankfully my friends who work their arses don't begrudge them that.

And those of you who believe that if your not working then it's not a problem to be shoved into the Ghetto's....crazy..... and if you think Ireland doesn't have ghetto's, you are very very mistaken. You do feel very differently when it is you and your children, Lone parents should fight to give their children a better life.....again on benefits or other wise. Those of you that think benefit should be a punishment and that they deserve less than others for their prediciment....it is sad to see such a decrease in humanity!

The country appears as if it is going to the wall....and people are afraid. Fear causes anger, and as usual anger is directed at the easy targets and not those whose fault it really is.

A group of us where we live got scared and angry, so we decided to take on a couple of allotments....Grow our own food, I do hope that the begrudgers don't get fecked off about people on benefits having allotments too

And seriously it doesn't matter if you are on benefits or working all the hours that the gods send....if you are a single parent life can be very very difficult for many many reasons. It is just a shame that you can't unite and fight....

People don't know other peoples stories, not really, we are very good at hiding that which we may feel embarrassed about. Venting anger is one thing....but some of the previous posts and the venom in them is

regress · 17-03-2012 1:15pm

Ye really don't get it. The opposition is not to those on benefits. It is to exorbitant RA payments to Landlords. You say that are landlords are unwilling or unable to take any cuts to their dole. That there is a massive waiting list of working poor ready to pay rents at current RA levels. This is ridiculous as is your assertion that landlords would prefer to leave properties empty rather than take any reduction in their dole

There are hundreds of thousands of empty houses yet SPARK insists that those on benefits should be entitled to properties in the best areas with the best schools and that the €500 million landlord subsidy should be maintained in order to allow them to do so.

Why does SPARK have no consideration for the working single parents that have to pay higher rents because of SPARKS
advocacy on behalf of landlords. Why are SPARK not concerned with them rather than maintaining income for buy toi let investors.

StillWaters · 17-03-2012 1:46pm

regress wrote: »

Why does SPARK have no consideration for the working single parents that have to pay higher rents because of SPARKS
advocacy on behalf of landlords. Why are SPARK not concerned with them rather than maintaining income for buy toi let investors.

I'd imagine buy to let investors and property speculators are ecstatic that an interest group is lobbying and campaigning on their behalf.
SPARK should seek funding from the IPOA.

Gingermagic · 17-03-2012 2:16pm

Maybe I don't get it....wasn't it Einstein who said if it can't be explained simply then it is not known well enough....or it could be that my way of looking at it is just not compatable to how you are explaining....I am just pleased that their are others out there who care enough for their wellbeing and that of their families that they are attempting to change things. They may not be doing it in the way others would wish, but they are not sitting on their laurells and complaining how wrong others are doing it....

Armchair critics always seem to know better.....Not directed at any one critic I hasten to add....just an observation of critics as I know them...

People can spout passionately on a forum....that is easy....so very fecking easy, as is in evident....acutally doing something....well that is very different altogether.....

MariMel · 17-03-2012 2:21pm

regress wrote: »

Ye really don't get it. The opposition is not to those on benefits. It is to exorbitant RA payments to Landlords. You say that are landlords are unwilling or unable to take any cuts to their dole. That there is a massive waiting list of working poor ready to pay rents at current RA levels. This is ridiculous as is your assertion that landlords would prefer to leave properties empty rather than take any reduction in their dole My assertion is not ridiculous. Are you saying I am lying when i said that my LL would rather have the house empty than reduce it??? Are you saying that the others who are of the same opinion of me, that there are some landlords who wont reduce their rent in the hope that they will get someone to pay what they are asking and are indeed willing to stick to their guns and risk the property being empty....you saying they are lying too? A friend of mine is a LL and has their house for rent, needs a certain amount to go towards the mortgage, refuses to lower the rent, yet has had the house sitting empty for 5 months now. You saying that he is the sensible one and that I am ridiculous in thinking, financially he would be better off reducing the rent and having it permanently rented instead of having to pay the entire mortgage for the empty months.??

There are hundreds of thousands of empty houses yet SPARK insists that those on benefits should be entitled to properties in the best areas with the best schools Id love to know where Spark have insisted that they can only be housed in the best areas with the best schoolsand that the €500 million landlord subsidy should be maintained in order to allow them to do so.

Why does SPARK have no consideration for the working single parents that have to pay higher rents because of SPARKS
advocacy on behalf of landlords. Why are SPARK not concerned with them rather than maintaining income for buy toi let investors.See below where I repeat myself yet again

Ok now i know you havent read some of the posts in here and did not understand my own either.
There are many many posts in this thread saying quite vehemently that once a family is in receipt of any benefits that they should lose their rights to REMAIN in the area they live in or for their children to REMAIN in their school.
The amount of people giving out that people should just move is ludicrous too. Obtaining RA is dependant on you being assess within that specific area. Its not transferable willy nilly.
That those on RA should move to not to good areas cos thats all they deserve because they were unfortunate enough to be in the position to need to apply for RA. Maybe in cities, moving might be easier, but in rural areas this is not the case.

Your best schools argument is flawed too. I live in a rural area. There are 5 schools within a few miles radius of here. One in particular would have a very good reputation, one a not so good. The other 3 average. Can I choose the best one over the rest???? NO.....the school the kid goes to is the one within its catchment area. Ive known cases where kids on one side of the road have to go to the good school and kids the other side are in the catchment area of the average school. Again in an urban environment the choice of schools may differ to my point.

Maybe in some areas there are an every ready supply of RA tenants for landlords. This, I think you will find is far from the case in a lot of areas. My own included. I dont believe that there are a ready supply of non RA tenants either. What I am saying is that there are landlords who are under the impression that if they keep their rents high, that they will find someone to pay it.

And with the risk of repeating myself yet again.....Spark are NOT against the lowering of the rent limits. Spark are NOT demanding the government keep rents high. Spark are NOT for making things difficult for private renters.
Spark ARE against vulnerable families being made pawns between government and landlords.
How are people confusing this with wanting to keep rents high????????????

i think this is the last I will say on this as there is only so many times I can repeat myself for those who really dont get what it is I have said. That those same people refuse to even contemplate anything other than my being against the reduction of rents. I will however stand corrected if someone can tell me at any point where I insisted that rent levels remain high.

regress · 17-03-2012 3:25pm

MariMel wrote: »

SPARK - sparkcampaign (single parents acting for the rights of our kids) Have come up with a rather interesting idea with regards to the new rent supplement limits.
Thought I would share it.

SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government

The recently introduced rent limits is an attempt by the government to reduce rent in the private market.

We are calling on all people affected by these new limits to submit an application to the PRTB for a rent review.

MariMel wrote: »

I understand that there are landlords with mortgages to pay and they would not want to reduce the rent.
That is the landlords prerogative to choose potentially losing way more because they will not reduce the rent from what they feel it is worth.

StillWaters wrote: »

I'd imagine buy to let investors and property speculators are ecstatic that an interest group is lobbying and campaigning on their behalf.
SPARK should seek funding from the IPOA.

MariMel wrote: »

I will however stand corrected if someone can tell me at any point where I insisted that rent levels remain high.

daltonmd wrote: »

Then why are they protesting against them?
"SPARK is calling for a national protest action against the rent reductions being imposed by the government. "

if they had any bloody sense they'd be protesting for lower rents. If they actually wrote to the minister and asked her for protection against landlords who will not comply instead of fighting the reductions.

They should ask why landlords not reducing their rents are not given the option of entering the Rental Accommodation Scheme? If they do not then the tenant should be offered alternative accommodation.

.

MariMel · 17-03-2012 5:02pm

regress there is lots of quotes there but in not one of them did I insist that I wanted rents kept high. My original post was taken from a press release for Spark.....it was not my own personal piece. But of course it is up to you to choose how to interpret my views albeit differently than how they are actually meant.

Off now to watch the rugby......being that I am a benefit scrounger that should be on the 50inch tv we all have, living in my house in the best area close to an award winning school. (just to find in with the stereotype)
But alas I dont have a tv....cant afford the licence....so I shall spend my afternoon enjoying the rugby with my family in my parents house and not in the house that has been next to impossible to heat all winter.

regress · 17-03-2012 5:18pm

I assumed though that you were supporting SPARKS position whcih is to campaign to keep rents high and that is the title and subject of the thread. Once again issue is not with lone parents or those on benefits . It is with a RA system that contrives to keep rents high to benefit investors and speculators.

Interesting point on Rent Supplement from Singles Parents group

Comments