No to council house..... Reason: No room for trampoline

eviltwin

Queen-Mise wrote: »

It is a valid reason to refuse a house. If a garden is so small that you can't fit in a 7ft/9ft trampoline - it is ludicrously small.

The garden would be far to small for children to play in. Never mind somewhere to hang clothes out on a line & any other stuff you would want a garden for.

Tough luck. I'd put them on the bottom of the list for that.

beerbaron

EuskalHerria wrote: »

What do you suggest they do with the trampoline then?

Simply attach a bike lock, and count to three...........eh better make it five.

Penny Dreadful

Queen-Mise wrote: »

It is a valid reason to refuse a house. If a garden is so small that you can't fit in a 7ft/9ft trampoline - it is ludicrously small.

The garden would be far to small for children to play in. Never mind somewhere to hang clothes out on a line & any other stuff you would want a garden for.

Whats wrong with taking your children to the park?

Many many people across the world bring up their children in apartments and they survive.

MurdyWurdy

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Whats wrong with taking your children to the park?

Many many people across the world bring up their children in apartments and they survive.

Agreed. I'd love to live somewhere with a garden but we can't afford it, so we don't. I don't feel like I'm entitled to a place with a garden and expect the government to pay for it - be that with a council house or rent allowance. We make do.

dark crystal

eviltwin wrote: »

Tough luck. I'd put them on the bottom of the list for that.

I think that's what they're hoping for...

Medusa22

I think the only legitimate reasons for not taking a house are:

a) if it is in a bad area which has a high crime rate.

b) if there aren't enough bedrooms.

c) If the house or flat is badly in need of repair.

Gardens are a nice plus, but not a requirement, even if you have kids! The list is ridiculously long and I'm quite sure there are many people refusing for valid reasons but the example given is definitely not a valid reason.

PyeContinental

eviltwin wrote: »

Tough luck. I'd put them on the bottom of the list for that.

Maybe this is what they want? To not be bothered again for a long time with social housing but for their rent allowance to continue to be paid? As said in the article, "The discussion took place amid claims that many on the official waiting lists don’t actually want a council house, but were merely on the lists so they could receive Rent Allowance for private accommodation."

eviltwin

We can't have a system where people are allowed to pick and choose where they live based on things like this. Fair enough if the house is too far from the child's school or unfit to live in but garden size? Come on. If they have such an issue with what the council provides let them go out and buy a house that suits their needs.

EuskalHerria

eviltwin wrote: »

We can't have a system where people are allowed to pick and choose where they live based on things like this. Fair enough if the house is too far from the child's school or unfit to live in but garden size? Come on. If they have such an issue with what the council provides let them go out and buy a house that suits their needs.

Good response but I'd like to hear from your less evil twin.

Penny Dreadful

Medusa22 wrote: »

I think the only legitimate reasons for not taking a house are:

a) if it is in a bad area which has a high crime rate.

b) if there aren't enough bedrooms.

c) If the house or flat is badly in need of repair.

Gardens are a nice plus, but not a requirement, even if you have kids! The list is ridiculously long and I'm quite sure there are many people refusing for valid reasons but the example given is definitely not a valid reason.

I'd also say that if you're offered accomodation somewhere that is a long way from your children's school it is an acceptable reason to say no.
However the idea that there is something wrong with your children having to share a bedroom baffles me. Myself and my sister grew up sharing a bedroom and there was absolutely nothing wrong with that. Children do not need to have their own bedroom. It is a want rather than a need.

Plazaman

Pfft, I've no room for a tramp never mind a trampoline.

Of course the Hendersons down the road are always bragging how they have a homeless guy in their garden. Stupid fancy Hendersons :mad:

eviltwin

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Good response but I'd like to hear from your less evil twin.

I'm the nice one, the other one would cut them off RA and let them fend for themselves for a while. Might make them see how lucky they really are.

snubbleste

dark crystal wrote: »

I think that's what they're hoping for...

If they refuse 2-3 offers of Council housing, then their rent supplement will be withdrawn.

giant_midget

Amazing how this country rewards stupidity and laziness with a choice of houses?

"there's no room for my kids trampoline"

"get ta fcuk ye lazy fat slob, find a job and pay your way like normal humans do...."

zom

KuriousOranj wrote: »

Yes the UK scheme in which LA's are forcing people to leave their communities is a far better scheme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/04/london-boroughs-housing-families-outside-capital

From the Guardian forum under:

Call for a revolution in Ireland‎"At first they came for the poor and unemployed and I said nothing...
Then they came for the working man and woman and I said nothing...
Then they came for the old and the pensioned and I said nothing...
Then they came for the public sector and I still said nothing...
Now they come for me... Who will speak up for me?"

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

jam_mac_jam

I am actually amazed that anyone thinks that if you are getting a council house that you should be getting a garden. God forbid a child would live in an apartment or have a small garden.

There are thousands of people in this country living in apartments and working to pay for this but if you don't work you have to have a garden. Why don't you get a job and rent a house with a garden if this is important to you.

Anyone

Haha what a joke, the people should be named and shamed. As for the Fine Gael councilor, Veronica Neville...let them put the fecking trampoline in her garden and the kids can practice the hobby over in hers since she cares so much.

paddy147

EuskalHerria wrote: »

What do you suggest they do with the trampoline then?

2 euro a go......:D:D:D

Medusa22

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I'd also say that if you're offered accomodation somewhere that is a long way from your children's school it is an acceptable reason to say no.
However the idea that there is something wrong with your children having to share a bedroom baffles me. Myself and my sister grew up sharing a bedroom and there was absolutely nothing wrong with that. Children do not need to have their own bedroom. It is a want rather than a need.

If the school was quite far away then I think that is a legitimate excuse as well. I actually meant if it was a very large family, say 6 people and they wanted to house them in a 2 bedroom house, for example. Many children share bedrooms and I shared with my sister for a long time as well. I just meant if there would be too much overcrowding in the house offered because there weren't enough bedrooms. Personally I wouldn't have so many kids, especially if I couldn't afford to look after them but that is for another thread.

not yet

Jesus, would you please think of the childeren in all this....

Cantona's Collars

This is crazy,I paid good money for my house & haven't room for a trampoline.Well for some that can pick & choose where they live & have us subsidise it.
The council should tell them to feck off.If they had to pay the bones of a grand a month on a mortgage like many others maybe then they'd appreciate what they have.

I'll probably be crucified for this but how come it's always council houses that have gardens full to overflowing with expensive toys or else it's car parts & dogs that are totally unsuitable to be kept as pets?

Freddy Smelly

davet82 wrote: »

I haven't heard a solution for the trampoline situation yet in all fairness to them...

jump on the bed?

paddy147

Ah here.......

not yet

paddy147 wrote: »

Ah here.......

leeeeave it bleeedin out.

conorhal

goose2005 wrote: »

The most important sentence:

So it's landlord's dole that really causes the whole mess

Rent allowance requires people to be on the housing list to recieve it.
However, as far as I know the only sanction for refusing a property more then three times is to be put at the back of the housing list.
This of course is no sanction at all if the people in reciept of rent allowance aren't really intrested in a council house.
This of course is one of the factors that is mantaining high rents in Dublin because rent allowance is a subsidy paid to a massive number of households paying rent to private landlords, and it's not called the landlord's dole for no good reason.

There really needs to be a strict set of defined criteria to premit the refusal of a council house (hint, I can't fit a trampoline in the back garden won't be one of them). There are valid reasons. It would be unreasonable to expect a family to move from Dublin to Donegal or vice versa. You should not be forced to move too far from the social support of friends and family.

Frankly stories like this show that it time to sanction the refusal of an offer of a council property by cutting the applicants rent allowance.
This would offer the government an opportunity to reduce the RAS spending and remove those from the housing lists that are simply playing the system.

kylith

dark crystal wrote: »

I would agree with this. However, I would also understand someone refusing a house in a bad area (high crime, boarded up houses etc.) because this is somewhere you're going to have to bring up a family for a long time to come.

Once they house you, it's virtually impossible to move anywhere else unless you have the money to rent privately or buy elsewhere.

The trampoline excuse is utterly ridiculous, though.

Medusa22 wrote: »

I think the only legitimate reasons for not taking a house are:

a) if it is in a bad area which has a high crime rate.

b) if there aren't enough bedrooms.

c) If the house or flat is badly in need of repair.

Gardens are a nice plus, but not a requirement, even if you have kids! The list is ridiculously long and I'm quite sure there are many people refusing for valid reasons but the example given is definitely not a valid reason.

Yep, I'd agree with those reasons.

bhamsteve wrote: »

To be fair, a house with no room to fit a trampoline means a house with no garden at all. I wouldn't want to raise a child in a house without a garden, I'd rather have the kids sharing bedrooms.
Anyway, it's a second hand anecdote from somebody with an axe to grind, like all them Polish people getting extra dole money to have their bikini lines waxed.

Bollox it does. You could just about physically fit a trampoline in my garden, but there wouldn't be room to walk around it. There's more than enough room for a couple of washing lines though.

Toto Wolfcastle

I lived in the estate mentioned in the article for awhile. It's a lovely, quiet estate and if I was waiting for a council house I'd be delighted to be given one there. Not having a garden big enough to fit a trampoline is not the same thing as not having a big garden. They could be looking at it and thinking that it doesn't fit their trampoline once the garden furniture and whatever else they have is in there.

conorhal

zom wrote: »

From the Guardian forum under:

Call for a revolution in Ireland‎"At first they came for the poor and unemployed and I said nothing...
Then they came for the working man and woman and I said nothing...
Then they came for the old and the pensioned and I said nothing...
Then they came for the public sector and I still said nothing...
Now they come for me... Who will speak up for me?"

I notice everybody got fvcked before the public sector, so nothing new there then!

goose2005

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm the nice one, the other one would cut them off RA and let them fend for themselves for a while. Might make them see how lucky they really are.

It'd be more interesting to cut all rent allowance and introduce property laws to protect tenants, rather than using the law and endless subsidies to prop up the poor ould landlords

Ray Palmer

conorhal wrote: »

Rent allowance requires people to be on the housing list to recieve it.
.

That is not true you don't need to be on the housing list to get RA.

Rent allowance went down in Dublin a rent went up which proves your other point isn't true either. Never ever heard the term LL dole and suspect you made it up.

I think it is reasonable to have 3 refusals for what ever reason. The problem is that such a refusal system was actually the downfall of Ballymun. People knew they could refuse the flats so they did. They ended up going further down the list and effectively filled them with the most anti-social people. This in turn meant the families moved out and it slowly meant the towers were full of the worst of the worst.

I have seen certain council houses remain empty due to the neighbour being a well known criminal family. I don't see why anybody should be forced to live there.

As for the trampoline it seems ridiculous but to assume this is a person who is a sponger is a bit much. Who is to say she isn't a widow with one child who lost every thing when her husband died and the last thing the father got the child was the trampoline. Would you have a compassion then?
You have to understand the towers were an excellent design but were never managed correctly so turned into a hell hole.

bhamsteve

kylith wrote: »

Yep, I'd agree with those reasons.

Bollox it does. You could just about physically fit a trampoline in my garden, but there wouldn't be room to walk around it. There's more than enough room for a couple of washing lines though.

So who decides what are the acceptable reasons for refusing, different people have different priorities. Maybe I don't care about the crime rate, or don't mind one less bedroom. Maybe you would want to be near your child's school or your family. I don't see the problem with being offered a choice of three empty houses from the list and choosing which one best suits our needs, with repercussions if you decline all three.

Is there any practical reason to want someone to be put in a house they don't like, or is it just spite?

Btw, It was my understanding that you lost your housing benefit if you declined 3 houses/flats but I seem to be wrong on that one.

omahaid

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Never ever heard the term LL dole and suspect you made it up.

Tis a fairly common term, here is a thread about it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056297039

Boombastic

Glanmire playground

omahaid

Boombastic wrote: »

Glanmire playground

No trampoline though

wandatowell

To those who need it council housing should be a privilage not an entitlement.

ScumLord

Maybe one of the children is an olympic trampoliner in training?

Toto Wolfcastle

Boombastic wrote: »

Glanmire playground

It's very close to Fernwood too. You'd drive down there in 3 minutes.

kylith

bhamsteve wrote: »

So who decides what are the acceptable reasons for refusing, different people have different priorities. Maybe I don't care about the crime rate, or don't mind one less bedroom. Maybe you would want to be near your child's school or your family. I don't see the problem with being offered a choice of three empty houses from the list and choosing which one best suits our needs, with repercussions if you decline all three.
Is there any practical reason to want someone to be put in a house they don't like, or is it just spite?

It's certainly not spite, but I think that 'not liking' a house isn't enough of a reason to refuse one. Valid reasons for refusing are one thing; crime rate, or proximity to your children's schools would be valid considerations. IMO 'the garden's not big enough' isn't a valid reason. There is no legal right to a garden. Plenty of children have been reared without access to a garden for millennia. A garden is not necessary to your wellbeing. 'I don't want it because I can't fit my trampoline in the garden' is a spit in the eye to the destitute people that genuinely need social housing.

conorhal

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is not true you don't need to be on the housing list to get RA.

Rent allowance went down in Dublin a rent went up which proves your other point isn't true either. Never ever heard the term LL dole and suspect you made it up.

There are three qualifiers for rent allowance, an income threshold low enough, you to have been renting for 6 months prior to applying and thirdly you have to apply to your local council to place yourself on the housing list. (I think your thinking of rent tax relief)

Yes, rent allowance thresholds were cut in the budget. If you've never heard the term landoards dole, stick it into google, I'm sure you'll find thousands of references.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to have 3 refusals for what ever reason. The problem is that such a refusal system was actually the downfall of Ballymun. People knew they could refuse the flats so they did. They ended up going further down the list and effectively filled them with the most anti-social people. This in turn meant the families moved out and it slowly meant the towers were full of the worst of the worst.

I have seen certain council houses remain empty due to the neighbour being a well known criminal family. I don't see why anybody should be forced to live there.

That's a fair description of how many estates fell into the status of sinkhole estates, so it seems kind of schitzophrenic to then go on to say nobody should be forced to take a house there, when that's the cause you cite for them becoming un-liveable in the first place.
The only way to rectify the problem as I see it would have been to restructure the demographic living there during a regeneration process, that or police them properly.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

As for the trampoline it seems ridiculous but to assume this is a person who is a sponger is a bit much. Who is to say she isn't a widow with one child who lost every thing when her husband died and the last thing the father got the child was the trampoline. Would you have a compassion then?
You have to understand the towers were an excellent design but were never managed correctly so turned into a hell hole.

Seriously, I assume you're having a laugh there. As I said, I have no problem with a set list of criteria that would allow people to refuse a certian property, but a trampoline, be it the sole sentimental inherritance of a widow or not, isn't one of them. Just accept the obvious fact that the individual in the case cited simply didn't want the house because they don't want to move from where they are currently renting with RAS. If you have no legitimate reason to refuse housing then your RAS should be cut.

Gatling

People begging to be houses yet arse holes using stupid excuses to refuse housing probably the same crowd who enjoy the welfare funded lifestyle that entitles them to enjoy every thing on other peoples backs

Riddle101

Queen-Mise wrote: »

It is a valid reason to refuse a house. If a garden is so small that you can't fit in a 7ft/9ft trampoline - it is ludicrously small.

The garden would be far to small for children to play in. Never mind somewhere to hang clothes out on a line & any other stuff you would want a garden for.

I hope you're joking. It's a house, you make do with what you get.

davet82

Fcuking disgraceful, like what are they going to do with the trampoline? give it away for free? ffs who'd give something that big away for free... besides the council

swazzie

Just a thought that there may be more to this story. What if one of the kids in the family needed the trampoline for health reasons ie part of the therapy for cystic fibrosis is jumping on a trampoline every day to break the mucus up in the chest.


In general i don't have any time for people who feel like they are entitled to public housing ,unless they have hit hard times and its a stop gap to get back on their feet.

Pendu

Scottish trambampoline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmJUbzu6RSU

Gatling

The excuses are getting worse

Gmol

Queen-Mise wrote: »

It is a valid reason to refuse a house. If a garden is so small that you can't fit in a 7ft/9ft trampoline - it is ludicrously small.

The garden would be far to small for children to play in. Never mind somewhere to hang clothes out on a line & any other stuff you would want a garden for.

No it's not, you are being given a place to live at a significantly reduced rate.

kylith

swazzie wrote: »

Just a thought that there may be more to this story. What if one of the kids in the family needed the trampoline for health reasons ie part of the therapy for cystic fibrosis is jumping on a trampoline every day to break the mucus up in the chest.


In general i don't have any time for people who feel like they are entitled to public housing ,unless they have hit hard times and its a stop gap to get back on their feet.

If you google 'medical uses for trampolines' you'll notice that most of the links are for paediatricians recommending that children don't use trampolines at home, due to the risk of injury. If the child needed Trampoline Therapy, then it would likely be done at a hospital or physio centre.

bhamsteve

kylith wrote: »

It's certainly not spite, but I think that 'not liking' a house isn't enough of a reason to refuse one. Valid reasons for refusing are one thing; crime rate, or proximity to your children's schools would be valid considerations. IMO 'the garden's not big enough' isn't a valid reason. There is no legal right to a garden. Plenty of children have been reared without access to a garden for millennia. A garden is not necessary to your wellbeing. 'I don't want it because I can't fit my trampoline in the garden' is a spit in the eye to the destitute people that genuinely need social housing.

Our opinions obviously differ then. It's a bit of a non-issue for me anyway, it seems that most of the people on the council housing list don't want council housing.

dark crystal

swazzie wrote: »

In general i don't have any time for people who feel like they are entitled to public housing ,unless they have hit hard times and its a stop gap to get back on their feet.

Social housing is a wonderful thing for people who just can't afford mortgages or high private rents. Most don't see it as a stop-gap, but as a permanent home to raise their families.

Why would you not have any time for those people?