Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Council Housing Lists dissolved... No chance of council house. Mod Note in 1st post

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    fussyonion
    Registered Users Posts: 7,819 ✭✭✭fussyonion


    BOHS wrote: »
    The problem with the housing list/ rent allowance is that pretty much anyone can apply once you are under the income limit i.e an 18 year old can decide they just want to move out of the family home and get RA for private rented accommodation. This means that anyone can technically get a council house once they wait long enough.

    Realistically all council housing should be allocated to people with a medical or welfare priority before anyone else is considered. The problem with the new scheme is that people who really do need council housing will have their position hurt by moving to the transfer list.

    Medical priority *is* given to people on council housing lists but they're up there with families too.
    So if you fancy a council house and you don't have a medical condition, have yourself six children.
    I'm not being smart but I know for a fact this goes on and it's disgraceful.


  • Options
    #33
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    BOHS wrote: »
    The problem with the housing list/ rent allowance is that pretty much anyone can apply once you are under the income limit i.e an 18 year old can decide they just want to move out of the family home and get RA for private rented accommodation. This means that anyone can technically get a council house once they wait long enough.

    Realistically all council housing should be allocated to people with a medical or welfare priority before anyone else is considered. The problem with the new scheme is that people who really do need council housing will have their position hurt by moving to the transfer list.

    That is incorrect. A person cannot just go on rent allowance. You have to pay rent out of your own pocket for 6 months and then if you happen to be unemployed thereafter then that person will be eligible for rent allowance.

    Also, anyone cannot just get council housing either. Special circumstances need to be forwarded as to qualify and be accepted for housing.


  • Options
    #34
    BOHS
    Registered Users Posts: 461 ✭✭BOHS


    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    That is incorrect. A person cannot just go on rent allowance. You have to pay rent out of your own pocket for 6 months and then if you happen to be unemployed thereafter then that person will be eligible for rent allowance.

    Also, anyone cannot just get council housing either. Special circumstances need to be forwarded as to qualify and be accepted for housing.

    Both are untrue, you need to be renting for 6 months or have a HNA from your local council. A HNA is just a letter stating you have been accepted on the council housing list.

    Also special circumstances can be something as little as you are sharing a room with a sibling in a family home.


  • Options
    #35
    BOHS
    Registered Users Posts: 461 ✭✭BOHS


    fussyonion wrote: »
    Medical priority *is* given to people on council housing lists but they're up there with families too.
    So if you fancy a council house and you don't have a medical condition, have yourself six children.
    I'm not being smart but I know for a fact this goes on and it's disgraceful.

    Sorry not really sure what you mean by this...


  • Options
    #36
    fussyonion
    Registered Users Posts: 7,819 ✭✭✭fussyonion


    BOHS wrote: »
    Sorry not really sure what you mean by this...

    What bit?!
    I said if you want to be housed quickly and you don't have a medical condition, go and have six children. Then you'll be housed.
    What's not to understand?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    BOHS wrote: »
    Both are untrue, you need to be renting for 6 months or have a HNA from your local council. A HNA is just a letter stating you have been accepted on the council housing list.

    Also special circumstances can be something as little as you are sharing a room with a sibling in a family home.

    Yes, basically I was trying to say that if you are accepted on the council housing list then you will get rent allowance. I thought your comment was in relation to anyone just leaving home and automatically getting rent allowance. I get ye now.


  • Options
    #38
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    bajer101 wrote: »
    I think you are wrong there. Most councils charge rent for council houses based on the wages of the tenants - with no max cap.

    Hopefully i am wrong and there is no cap on the amount of rent payable. In my example however there up till late last year there was for this couple.

    Still tho if someone is earning €1800 pw why should they be allowed stay in a council house?.


  • Options
    #39
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    fussyonion wrote: »
    Medical priority *is* given to people on council housing lists but they're up there with families too.
    So if you fancy a council house and you don't have a medical condition, have yourself six children.
    I'm not being smart but I know for a fact this goes on and it's disgraceful.

    It does. people having children to use them as an income source or having children while on welfare and burdening the tax payer are the lowest of the low in my book.


  • Options
    #40
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    bajer101 wrote: »
    I think you are wrong there. Most councils charge rent for council houses based on the wages of the tenants - with no max cap. Sometimes this can result in the tenants paying more than the market rate. I was going out with a girl who had a council house and when I enquired about moving in with her it became apparent that due to my salary, we would have ended up paying over €1k a month - for a crappy property in a horrible estate, when you could rent a four bed semi in a private estate in the same town for the same price. Needless to say, we rented the private house. But she kept the council house and paid her nominal rent, because otherwise she would have lost if/when we split up - which we did. Crazy system that encourages this and which resulted in a house lying empty. But what could she do?
    So she lied to the council in order to keep the property. She could maybe not moved in with you and been an honest person and given her kids a good example of honesty.

    The system in no way encourages this behaviour, selfish views and action encourage such behaviour. I see this as incredibly low behaviour


  • Options
    #41
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    BOHS wrote: »
    Also special circumstances can be something as little as you are sharing a room with a sibling in a family home.
    Seriously? Didn't we all do that growing up? I had to share a room with my younger brother.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    hdowney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    No Pants wrote: »
    Seriously? Didn't we all do that growing up? I had to share a room with my younger brother.

    Yes but sharing the room with your sibling when you are children VS sharing the room with your sibling when you are both full grown adults?!?


  • Options
    #43
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    hdowney wrote: »
    Yes but sharing the room with your sibling when you are children VS sharing the room with your sibling when you are both full grown adults?!?
    I'm not seeing a difference. If either sibling doesn't like it, they can move out.


  • Options
    #44
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Owryan wrote: »
    An often ignored issue is the "council house for life" system.

    Its often the case that people get a council house when they need it but over time they get back into the workplace and earn decent money. I know of one couple with income of €1800 a week in a council house and they are paying the max rate of rent which is tiny. They have effectively gotten subsidized rent for life as it stands.

    A change needs to occur where council houses can be taken back when the occupiers are no longer considered in need of social housing.

    That's not true at all .......... Council rents are based on household income, the more you earn the more you pay .......... there is no maximum rent


  • Options
    #45
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    That's not true at all .......... Council rents are based on household income, the more you earn the more you pay .......... there is no maximum rent
    How do council rents compare to market rates?


  • Options
    #46
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    No Pants wrote: »
    How do council rents compare to market rates?

    Well if you were earning 1800 euros per week you could be paying over the market rate depending on the property and location etc


  • Options
    #47
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Well if you were earning 1800 euros per week you could be paying over the market rate depending on the property and location etc

    So council house rents could match or indeed be more than the average market rent for a similar rental in the same area? Interesting.


  • Options
    #48
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    From the Fingal CoCo website:
    HOW DO YOU CALCULATE HOW MUCH RENT I WILL HAVE TO PAY?
    The assessable income (net income) for the principal earner is determined and rent is calculated
    at 12% of this figure.
    The assessable income (net income) of each subsidiary earner is determined and rent is
    calculated at 12% of this figure to a maximum of €40 per week per subsidiary earner.
    The combined principal and subsidiary earners contributions form the weekly household rent.

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND SUBSIDIARY
    EARNERS?
    The principal earner is the person with the highest net income. A subsidiary earner is a member
    of the household aged 18 years or over who has an income or is entitled to an income.

    WHAT INCOME IS NOT ASSESSABLE?
    The following income is not included in the calculation of rent:
    (a) Child benefit, orphans allowances or orphans pensions.
    (b) Allowances payable for fostering children.
    (c) Allowances for domiciliary care of a child suffering from a severe disability.
    (d) Disability Allowance for those under 18 years of age.
    (e) Respite Care Grants.
    (f) Higher Education Grants.
    (g) Fuel Allowance.
    (h) Living Alone Allowance.
    (i) Extra Allowance for people aged 80 and above.
    (j) Assistance received from any charitable organisation.

    The following items are partially assessed:
    (k) Community Employment Programme income –Where a person’s income is increased as a
    result of participation in Community Employment Programme(s) the weekly charge of the
    tenant shall not be increased solely as a result of such participation for a cumulative period
    of 3 years.
    (l) Back toWork Allowance –Where a tenant is certified by the Department of Social
    Protection as taking part in a Back toWork Allowance Scheme their weekly charge shall
    not increase for the first twelve months of the Scheme as long as the combined gross
    income from the Back toWork Scheme and employment /self employment does not
    exceed €500 per week.
    12% of €1,800 is €216 each week, or approximately €929 a month (using 4.3 weeks in a month. Still seems like a good deal to me. I would argue that someone on €1,800 a week should be moved out of council housing and told to find themselves somewhere to live, freeing up the council house for someone who cannot house themselves.


  • Options
    #49
    Iseedeadpixels
    Registered Users Posts: 4,280 ✭✭✭Iseedeadpixels


    No Pants wrote: »
    From the Fingal CoCo website:


    12% of €1,800 is €216 each week, or approximately €929 a month (using 4.3 weeks in a month. Still seems like a good deal to me. I would argue that someone on €1,800 a week should be moved out of council housing and told to find themselves somewhere to live, freeing up the council house for someone who cannot house themselves.

    That x1000 agree with you.


  • Options
    #50
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,960 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    That's not true at all .......... Council rents are based on household income, the more you earn the more you pay .......... there is no maximum rent

    There is in some council areas, eg in Galway City it's E180 per week.

    http://www.galwaycity.ie/housing-rents/housing-rents-information/#4


  • Options
    #51
    TheBandicoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭TheBandicoot


    quadrifoglio verde wrote: »
    What should be done is these sites redeveloped into MUDs, and rented to the highest paying tenants. Using the money from this the council then goes and relocates johnny on the dole for the last 20 years to somewhere where demand for housing isn't as strong.

    The problem is that you can't just do this, politically or socially. After all the Johnnys have been living in this area for 20 years, it is their home, it has its own culture and environment, it is a living community. These community members will not be happy to be moved on and separated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    No Pants wrote: »
    From the Fingal CoCo website:


    12% of €1,800 is €216 each week, or approximately €929 a month (using 4.3 weeks in a month. Still seems like a good deal to me. I would argue that someone on €1,800 a week should be moved out of council housing and told to find themselves somewhere to live, freeing up the council house for someone who cannot house themselves.

    They pay a lot less than the figures you worked out. Still no excuse why they are allowed stay in a council house tho.


  • Options
    #53
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    It does. people having children to use them as an income source or having children while on welfare and burdening the tax payer are the lowest of the low in my book.

    There's no evidence for what I'm claiming, but I'll be damned if I let that stop me fuming about it!


  • Options
    #54
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    The problem is that you can't just do this, politically or socially. After all the Johnnys have been living in this area for 20 years, it is their home, it has its own culture and environment, it is a living community. These community members will not be happy to be moved on and separated.
    They're welcome to stay, but I don't see why a) they should have any choice in the matter if they're not paying for it and b) they should be prioritised over people who find themselves temporarily requiring assistance while they search for work.


  • Options
    #55
    TheBandicoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭TheBandicoot


    No Pants wrote: »
    They're welcome to stay, but I don't see why a) they should have any choice in the matter if they're not paying for it and b) they should be prioritised over people who find themselves temporarily requiring assistance while they search for work.

    I don't claim to have an answer to either point, I just thought I would bring up another viewpoint on the situation. As someone would like to rent in the city centre, sure, I am all for this kind of gentrification ; but I recognise there is a human aspect to this, and that looking at it from a capitalistic, "if you don't work, you are homeless" doesn't sit well with me.


  • Options
    #56
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    I don't claim to have an answer to either point, I just thought I would bring up another viewpoint on the situation. As someone would like to rent in the city centre, sure, I am all for this kind of gentrification ; but I recognise there is a human aspect to this, and that looking at it from a capitalistic, "if you don't work, you are homeless" doesn't sit well with me.
    I'm not saying that they should be made homeless, but I see no reason why they should occupy a space in the economic centre of the country if they don't work. As my father might say, "****, or get off the pot." You have three months to get yourself gainful employment or off you go to this cottage on Arranmore.


  • Options
    #57
    TheBandicoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭TheBandicoot


    Do you seriously think that is a viable course of action and would ever realistically be enacted by a government in this country?


  • Options
    #58
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    Do you seriously think that is a viable course of action and would ever realistically be enacted by a government in this country?
    I think that not only is it viable, it's necessary. Will it ever be implemented? Not a hope. :)


  • Options
    #59
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Anyone who thinks routinely booting people out of Dublin after three months of unemployment is viable and necessary, rather than a supremely effective shortcut to getting half the city burned to the ground in riots, can safely be disregarded in serious discussion of matters to do with social housing.


  • Options
    #60
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks routinely booting people out of Dublin after three months of unemployment is viable and necessary, rather than a supremely effective shortcut to getting half the city burned to the ground in riots, can safely be disregarded in serious discussion of matters to do with social housing.
    Three months *maybe* too early. However, lets have a starting point. Long term unemployed should be moved under a rural resettlement scheme. We have brand new housing stock wasting away! This is public money (in the case of social welfare and most likely in the case of the ghost estates (or ghost-like).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks routinely booting people out of Dublin after three months of unemployment is viable and necessary, rather than a supremely effective shortcut to getting half the city burned to the ground in riots, can safely be disregarded in serious discussion of matters to do with social housing.
    Three months? No way. Anyone could be made unemployed on Monday and it could take a year or two to get back into paid employment. I was referring to "Johnny" on the dole for twenty years. He should get a notice period to become productive or ship out.


Advertisement