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

somefeen

How big was the trampoline?

RealExpert

If the trampoline cant fit in the garden then its clearly not a garden as they are not very big,probably ten feet in diameter for the big one.
Its probably just an excuse because they dont like the area etc.So after refusing it they should automatically go to the bottom of the housing list and they should get no state benefit to pay for the accomodation that they are in at the moment cheeky ungrateful bast***s

suicide_circus

NuckingFacker wrote: »

If you study, slog, get promotions and save hard, maybe you can get a mortgage on an overpriced house or apartment which you can then slog to pay for, for the rest of your life.

If you just don't bother at all, here you go, have a house, pay a tiny rent, out of your dole. Need a bed? Here you go. Need a fridge? here you go. Need room for your trampoline? Here you go.

This is one very, very fecked up world. I do not entirely get it.

yep. its the kind of thing that makes me want to do a Michael Douglas in Falling Down.
and people are "entitled" to this and that, all through the sweat and hardwork of others. all rights and no responsibility. this is not civilised or enlightened. its wrong wrong wrong.

Gatling

RealExpert wrote: »

If the trampoline cant fit in the garden then its clearly not a garden as they are not very big,probably ten feet in diameter for the big one

Some go up to 13 ft in diameter

NuckingFacker

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A roof over your head is a basic human right, not a privilege.

Rents are based completely on income, and part of the country the housing is in.

This is the information for Dublin
http://www.dublincity.ie/Housing/Pages/RentAssessment.aspx

go tell that to the people worried sick about not being able to pay their mortgage repayments. I have no time for this two tiered guff. Slog and borrow to pay for an overpriced semi, miss some repayments and the bank wants you thrown onto the streets. Don't bother, miss a few years rent, and the state/council will just shrug and say sure they'd be homeless if we throw them out, lets give them more benefits. I'm starting to strongly believe the Trotters. Only fools and horses work.

wolfpawnat

NuckingFacker wrote: »

go tell that to the people worried sick about not being able to pay their mortgage repayments. I have no time for this two tiered guff. Slog and borrow to pay for an overpriced semi, miss some repayments and the bank wants you thrown onto the streets. Don't bother, miss a few years rent, and the state/council will just shrug and say sure they'd be homeless if we throw them out, lets give them more benefits. I'm starting to strongly believe the Trotters. Only fools and horses work.

People with mortgages have the right to a roof over their head too. My belief with mortgages is that the home owner should be allowed go into the bank and prove their now reduced income, be it through paycuts or redundancies and be allowed more reasonable repayments. After all no bank should want to have thousands of unsellable homes and the last thing the government should want is thousands of more people on waiting lists and on the RA until then.

And again, let me reiterate what I and others have said, the assumption that those in LA housing do not work is wrong, they are usuallylow income families who work and make a measily income and pay an albeit lower rent, but the vast majority of those in that situation are not scroungers.

That's like the assumption all those not up to date with their mortgage are hoping to get a free house off the bank, there are a few, but not all

Bullseye1

wolfpawnat wrote: »

More than likely in a privately rented house using rent allowance. So they are costing the state money.

Social housing also costs the state money.

the purple tin

Give the kids a space hopper :pac:

dark crystal

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Social housing also costs the state money.

Do you think it costs the state more or less to subsidise someone living in private accommodation than to build a house for someone who'll spend the next 40-50 years paying their own rent (or indeed buying it outright)?

Construction of social housing has never reached above 10% of total new builds in Ireland, even during the boom, so they made up only a very small portion of the construction industry (2 out of every 1000 houses built). Between 2007 and 2011, there has been a 90% drop in housing output from Local Authorities, as budgets for them were slashed by 80%. Ironically, this is the time when waiting lists are at their longest.

Chop Chop

But what if they won a speed boat on bullseye, it's not their fault Jim Bowen gave them a speedboat

corktina

Chop Chop wrote: »

But what if they won a speed boat on bullseye, it's not their fault Jim Bowen gave them a speedboat

never gonna happen.....

Chop Chop

corktina wrote: »

never gonna happen.....

That's because Jim Bowen is now the pope:mad:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFTcwHwCMAAnSdV.jpg:large

mattjack

Anybody interested in buying a trampoline ?

Morag

In fairness the trampoline might be the only exercise their kids get.

Catphish

My neighbours are quite ambitious with their tiny back garden, as they have a huge trampoline taking up most of it. If a kid goes off it on one side they'll hit the shed, fall forward and they'll hit the house, and either side they'll either end up in my garden or the one on the other side. I wouldn't mind but I think I've only ever seen the kids use it once or twice. It's a real eye sore to boot.

the purple tin

Morag wrote: »

In fairness the trampoline might be the only exercise their kids get.

Could they not do it on the wii?

gugleguy

Maybe they're waiting for one of the latest Gen consoles ie xbox720 - did u mean the wii u? Doesn't. Seem to have taken off

Sleepy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Except you are not guaranteed the top rate, their rules are based on the income, no. of people in the family, how many parents (single or two parent family) and then you are forced to pay a minimum of 130 a month per adult (and that is if they are on SW) now it does mean that you have people on SW living in areas they never did before, and if they are good people trying to get by, then that's okay, if they are perpetual abusers of the SW and are anti-social, well then they are dragging a whole area down.

We'd get the top rate based on the only circumstances in we'd require it would be if I got laid off (other half is a stay-at-home mammy), we're a family of 4 living in a 3 bedroom house that if they wanted us to move from, they'd have to provide a van or a supplementary welfare payment to cover the cost of movers etc. And, by and large, welfare officers will, where possible, leave tennants in their existing properties rather than move them to a new one in order for them to avail of RA.

wolfpawnat

Sleepy wrote: »

We'd get the top rate based on the only circumstances in we'd require it would be if I got laid off (other half is a stay-at-home mammy), we're a family of 4 living in a 3 bedroom house that if they wanted us to move from, they'd have to provide a van or a supplementary welfare payment to cover the cost of movers etc. And, by and large, welfare officers will, where possible, leave tennants in their existing properties rather than move them to a new one in order for them to avail of RA.

Do they cover this? About 90% sure they don't.

As long as you are renting over 6 months they will assist in RA regardless of the property as long as the rent is under their restricted costs. If you are in a house where the rent is say 1200pm but they only cover to 1000 they will tell you to get the rent reduced 200 or move. and you will not be given the full 1000.

Sleepy

Given that they'd cover communion costs until very recently, I'd be very surprised if a welfare officer wouldn't approve a payment for moving tbh.

I've rented our home for the past three years and it's only marginally above the threshold for RA. Agreeing an "under the counter" payment to the landlord for the difference wouldn't be any more difficult than making a phone call and tbh, I'd be surprised if it wasn't possible to come to a non-monetary arrangement (e.g. putting time into the maintenance of the house minding some of his other tenants etc.).

None of which has anything to do with my poiint: of course people refuse council housing for spurious reasons. Most of them are in places you wouldn't want to raise a family if you can avoid it and the RA scheme enables you to have the taxpayer pay your rent in a decent neighbourhood.

wolfpawnat

Sleepy wrote: »

Given that they'd cover communion costs until very recently, I'd be very surprised if a welfare officer wouldn't approve a payment for moving tbh.

I've rented our home for the past three years and it's only marginally above the threshold for RA. Agreeing an "under the counter" payment to the landlord for the difference wouldn't be any more difficult than making a phone call and tbh, I'd be surprised if it wasn't possible to come to a non-monetary arrangement (e.g. putting time into the maintenance of the house minding some of his other tenants etc.).

None of which has anything to do with my poiint: of course people refuse council housing for spurious reasons. Most of them are in places you wouldn't want to raise a family if you can avoid it and the RA scheme enables you to have the taxpayer pay your rent in a decent neighbourhood.

I agree, and in many cases they allow scumbags into areas they have no right being in too. There are a few people that are say in a 3 bed apartment paying 300 out of their own pockets rather than a 2 bed one that they would get supplemented for under the RA.

Many council estates are horrendous, like little ghetto's, but many of them are lovely too. And some of those houses you would not believe. My mothers one has a little range for the fire, and a shed out the back that was hooked up with sockets for a washing machine and everything!

Catkins407

I have. 13 ft trampoline in my dining room at present. Admittedly it's still dismantled in three boxes but it just goes to show that with a bit of imagination you can easily fit a trampoline into a small space .

Also if anyone wants to put a 13 foot trampoline together for me I'd be very grateful as the sons knees are in bits from jumping on it the way it is at the moment

kickslate

That is pretty unbelievable! Pretty sure the house is much more important than any trampoline

U.P.O.

If you google maps Fernwood in Glanmire they look like pretty nice houses to me. The gardens look a decent size too and it looks like at least 3 houses have trampolines in the back garden

wolfpawnat

U.P.O. wrote: »

If you google maps Fernwood in Glanmire they look like pretty nice houses to me. The gardens look a decent size too and it looks like at least 3 houses have trampolines in the back garden

Try Ard na Greine Dingle. Looking into the harbour every day, mountain out the back, gardens aren't huge but houses are fancy enough on the inside and far nicer than a lot of mortgaged homes IMO.

snubbleste

Dear council, this house won't do - it's on a hill
Headline on front page of today's Sunday Times.

ttoppcat

giant_midget wrote: »

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...."

Prejudiced much? Not everyone in a council house is unemployed!

FullblownRose

What quality of life would you have as a child in a garden you couldn't even put a trampoline in? It's important for their wellbeing to be able to play outside, and as someone else said what about somewhere to put a clothes line? As for forcing people to relinquish all of their posessions in Germany, to be honest I find that disturbing, inhumane, illogical.

If you don't know the family circs. and the child then hesitate before casting judgements.

The houses themselves are really improving nowadays in terms of standard of design and build but if they are making the gardens so very small then it matters. The attitude that people who apply for council houses deserve low quality of living and should be glad of it and even be stripped of their posessions before being offered it is bothering me. Think about the likes of ballymun and some of the estates in limerick city, crap houses with no thought to the standard of living of people growing up their and consequent social problems.

shruikan2553

FullblownRose wrote: »

What quality of life would you have as a child in a garden you couldn't even put a trampoline in? It's important for their wellbeing to be able to play outside, and as someone else said what about somewhere to put a clothes line? As for forcing people to relinquish all of their posessions in Germany, to be honest I find that disturbing, inhumane, illogical.

If you don't know the family circs. and the child then hesitate before casting judgements.

The houses themselves are really improving nowadays in terms of standard of design and build but if they are making the gardens so very small then it matters. The attitude that people who apply for council houses deserve low quality of living and should be glad of it and even be stripped of their posessions before being offered it is bothering me. Think about the likes of ballymun and some of the estates in limerick city, crap houses with no thought to the standard of living of people growing up their and consequent social problems.

If you want a good house with a large garden you pay for it yourself. If you have a large TV, all the current games consoles and an expensive car why shouldnt you be expected to sell them? This should only be a short term thing until you get yourself back on your feet when youre in trouble, not a lifestyle choice. 2 children can share a bedroom too instead of getting some 3 bed house close to dublin they can have a 2 bed apartment outside of the city.

Richard Dower

Tbf...its not just about not wanting a house, or wanting to stay in private rented houses....many refusals are based on the fact the houses offered to them are in very bad areas....usually scumbag city areas.

These houses are generally quite poor, but imo its mostly to do with th area the house offered is located in. I've known people to refuses houses in Southill or Moyross etc.

kylith

FullblownRose wrote: »

What quality of life would you have as a child in a garden you couldn't even put a trampoline in? It's important for their wellbeing to be able to play outside, and as someone else said what about somewhere to put a clothes line?

Right, so we should immediately remove children from families which live in apartments or in houses with small gardens because they have no quality of life. Don't be ridiculous.

Children have been raised in flats, tenements and apartments for donkey's years and it doesn't do any harm. Sure a nice garden is nice, but if it's a choice between a big garden and a roof over my head, I'll take the roof, thanks very much.

If there was a problem with the area being dangerous then that is a valid reason to decline housing there, but if this story is true as reported then it's fupping ridiculous.

FullblownRose

kylith wrote: »

Right, so we should immediately remove children from families which live in apartments or in houses with small gardens because they have no quality of life. Don't be ridiculous.

Children have been raised in flats, tenements and apartments for donkey's years and it doesn't do any harm. Sure a nice garden is nice, but if it's a choice between a big garden and a roof over my head, I'll take the roof, thanks very much.

If there was a problem with the area being dangerous then that is a valid reason to decline housing there, but if this story is true as reported then it's fupping ridiculous.

What are you on about? I didn't say anything of the sort. I don't generally acknowledge agressive little remarks like yours, but I will say this- good design and thoughtful design doesn't always cost more than poorly designed homes, and there's a wealth of evidence to show that the more opportunity for outdoor recreation a person has, the better. Just because people have survived growing up in tenements doesn't mean it is the way to go nowadays.

kylith

FullblownRose wrote: »

What are you on about? I didn't say anything of the sort. I don't generally acknowledge agressive little remarks like yours, but I will say this- good design and thoughtful design doesn't always cost more than poorly designed homes, and there's a wealth of evidence to show that the more opportunity for outdoor recreation a person has, the better. Just because people have survived growing up in tenements doesn't mean it is the way to go nowadays.

Opportunities for outdoor recreation don't hinge on whether or not you have a garden, this country has a wealth of parks and woodland.

I'll say it again; turning down a house, not because it has no garden, but because the garden isn't big enough for a trampoline is, imo, ridiculous. You couldn't fit a trampoline in my garden without taking up all the available space, but it's enough room for visiting nieces and nephews to play. "I'm turning down this house, because my trampoline won't fit in the garden" is insulting to all the people on the housing list who genuinely need an home and it smacks of an entitled attitude.

FullblownRose

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If you want a good house with a large garden you pay for it yourself. If you have a large TV, all the current games consoles and an expensive car why shouldnt you be expected to sell them? This should only be a short term thing until you get yourself back on your feet when youre in trouble, not a lifestyle choice. 2 children can share a bedroom too instead of getting some 3 bed house close to dublin they can have a 2 bed apartment outside of the city.

Council tenants do pay for their homes, they pay rent. They're entitled to a 'good' standard of housing. Their personal possesions belong to them, who do you think you are to suggest confiscating them? I would understand if it was an issue of 'where did the funds for very lavish things come from' if it was a discussion about social welfare payments instead of council housing, but all that taking peoples posessions would do is degrade them and grind them further down.
The person who mentioned taking their posessions didn't specify the type of items, either. And people are fully entitled to things they paid for with their OWN money, probably prior to their difficult times.

Realistically, how is council housing a short term measure? Where will the highly paid jobs materialise from so that those people can get back on their feet, if they actually *want* more than an adequate house with enough space for one bit of kids play equipment?

Maybe council housing entitlement changes if tenants circumstances significantly change for the better..I don't know.

The snobbery and smugness and begrudgery is appalling on Boards.ie..

FullblownRose

kylith wrote: »

Opportunities for outdoor recreation don't hinge on whether or not you have a garden, this country has a wealth of parks and woodland.

I'll say it again; turning down a house, not because it has no garden, but because the garden isn't big enough for a trampoline is, imo, ridiculous. You couldn't fit a trampoline in my garden without taking up all the available space, but it's enough room for visiting nieces and nephews to play. "I'm turning down this house, because my trampoline won't fit in the garden" is insulting to all the people on the housing list who genuinely need an home and it smacks of an entitled attitude.

You're right, it doesn't hinge on having a garden but forestry isn't accesible to everyone for various reasons. I'm not talking about a right to acres of land, but the family might have a child who is very restless or has a disorder and benefits from trampolining. The older council houses as well as the new ones I've seen in passing and my friend's new one all have very decently sized gardens. You could easily fit a small playground into my friend's garden! They should all be of the same standard and design when they're built for the purpose of housing familes, imo. Maybe it is an entitled attitude and it doesn't sound wise to refuse on what appears to be trivial grounds, but they might place higher priority on a garden than on room size or numbers or location. I am assuming the person who raised the issue of reasons for refusal was selective about the details or just didnt know or understand them. Sounds to me like it was virtually no garden at all. They would probably have been placed on a priority band anyway so anyone who needed a house more urgently should have been accomadated aboe them if they didn't have a genuinely urgent need.

kylith

FullblownRose wrote: »

You're right, it doesn't hinge on having a garden but forestry isn't accesible to everyone for various reasons. I'm not talking about a right to acres of land, but the family might have a child who is very restless or has a disorder and benefits from trampolining.

I haven't seen anything to say that any of their children suffers from a disorder that would benefit from trampolining. I've even posted upthread links to many doctors advising that children should not use trampolines in their own homes due to risk of injury.

The older council houses as well as the new ones I've seen in passing and my friend's new one all have very decently sized gardens. You could easily fit a small playground into my friend's garden! They should all be of the same standard and design when they're built for the purpose of housing familes, imo.

They are not always built specifically for that purpose. An acquaintance of mine rents her house to the council for use as council housing. This is a house in a regular estate, and I would assume that she is not the only person with such an arrangement.

Maybe it is an entitled attitude and it doesn't sound wise to refuse on what appears to be trivial grounds, but they might place higher priority on a garden than on room size or numbers or location. I am assuming the person who raised the issue of reasons for refusal was selective about the details or just didnt know or understand them. Sounds to me like it was virtually no garden at all. They would probably have been placed on a priority band anyway so anyone who needed a house more urgently should have been accomadated aboe them if they didn't have a genuinely urgent need.

I would be very surprised for anyone in need of housing to place more importance on whether or not they can have a trampoline than on the interior of the house. Like you, I can only hope that this is only one of the reasons they turned the house down, rather than the main reason.

Gatling

Considering the fact you don't get to see inside the property before your housed by county councils ,
Not enough room for a trampoline is the only reason then

FullblownRose

You don't get to look inside the house? Really? So *all they had to go on* was the 'garden'.

Gatling

FullblownRose wrote: »

You don't get to look inside the house? Really? So *all they had to go on* was the 'garden'.

No you get an address if your lucky ,

I remember when my sister got her house in a new CC estate first tenant in ,she had 40/50 people a day for the first week banging on her door asking to look around her house so they could decide if they wanted one ,it was stupid most people couldn't take no for an answer