Take offer of housing or get struck off has to be implemented

Stheno

the_syco wrote: »

I'm uncertain how to discuss this issue, as any criticism of the people on the social housing list and/or the serial offenders is not allowed.

I think the councils should draw up a list of acceptable criteria for refusal, such as danger to oneself due to an ex/known criminal, but also use that as pre selection criteria.

Then if it's a case that refusal is not part of pre sanctioned approvals, people should be removed from the list.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

I never understand the outrage at stuff like this.

If people are deciding the houses they are being offered are so unsuitable for them that they're willing to stay living in a hotel room with their families for an unknown further length of time then I'm willing to believe most of them. The alternative seems to be believing that these people have it so good in their temporary accommodation that they're refusing to move into acceptable houses in a calculated attempt to annoy working class people.

In any case, who do the people freaking out about this think is being inconvenienced? If a person decides to refuse the offer of a house it literally makes no difference to anyone bar themselves. They refuse the house so are stuck in temporary accommodation for longer than they might have been, while the next person on the list gets to move into a house instead of them.

The number of people on the housing list decreases by exactly the same number regardless of whether or not we force people to accept the first offer of a house they get or whether we allow them to decide a place isn't suitable, so why does it matter whether family 1 on the list says 'no' allowing family 2 on the list to move in?

<mod snip>

It's more ime that while turning down vacant properties they are registered and getting heavily subsidised as having a "housing need"

High refusal rates demonstrate the lie in this. The cost to the taxpayer is high. People without a genuine need of public housing are seen to be blatantly gaming the system in the hope that they can hold on for a more valuable asset for themselves, all the while taking up tightly stretched resources in housing depts and clogging waiting lists. Govt subvention of rent in desirable areas drives up already too-high demand.

Frankly I'm surprised anyone could profess surprise or confusion at the myriad ways evidence of a high refusal rate would irritate quite a large number of people.

borderlinemeath

the_syco wrote: »

I'm uncertain how to discuss this issue, as any criticism of the people on the social housing list and/or the serial offenders is not allowed.

I suppose we're allowed to discuss how to fix the problem, and what measures can be implemented to ensure that the right housing goes to the right people.

I think that if you refuse a council house based on weak enough reasoning (personal danger and problem houses aside) then you get either struck off the list or your RA is immediately up for review. If you're not on RA, then FIS or any other state subsidy you are receiving. It's that simple, if you qualify for state housing you should grab it with both hands, don't forget, the recipients chose the particular area based on their needs when registering. Turning down a home in an area that was in your top 3 areas to live on registering speaks volumes about a recipients actual needs.

Graces7

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So let's say a person/family is on the RAS or RA scheme in a nice house, nice area.

Then they get an offer of a council house in a different/worse area.

If they don't move they are put to the bottom of the list, is that correct? But why in hell's name would they move if they like where they are? Maybe that's a reason for all the refusals. Private rented accommodation might just suit them.

Anyway, being put to the bottom of the list solves nothing. The taxpayer is still subsidising the original accommodation that they refused to move from.

I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt if anyone can be FORCED to move, there might be a challenge on human rights grounds or something.

Mad altogether.

This is a worry I had. I am well over 70 and need for health reasons a quiet place and am totally happy renting privately on RA permanently. When I moved south several years ago, the CWO told me i HAD to be on the housing list to get RA ( I had been on RA several years elsewhere) . It took them 7 months over that very cold winter to do the home visit and no RA during that time. I chatted with a welfare officer at a craft fair and she told me that there was no need for me to be on the housing list and that I should complain. I got RA immediately and fought them for the back monet. When I chanegd county again, they tried to make me go on the housing list so I checked with Threshold and they backed me up. I was dreading being put in a council flat in a town. So now I am renting privately and getting RA as long as I need it. I have no idea why the CWOs in some counties do that and it clearly inflates the housing list. But for that welfare officers kindness I would have been worrying knowing I could not cope in town.

Graces7

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I suppose we're allowed to discuss how to fix the problem, and what measures can be implemented to ensure that the right housing goes to the right people.

I think that if you refuse a council house based on weak enough reasoning (personal danger and problem houses aside) then you get either struck off the list or your RA is immediately up for review. If you're not on RA, then FIS or any other state subsidy you are receiving. It's that simple, if you qualify for state housing you should grab it with both hands, don't forget, the recipients chose the particular area based on their needs when registering. Turning down a home in an area that was in your top 3 areas to live on registering speaks volumes about a recipients actual needs.

Please see my other post. When I had to fill in the forms that time I chose rural areas where i knew there was hardly any council stock.. When my RA came up for review I called Threshold who were dealing with other similar queries. If you have been renting privately I think for a year that qualifies for RA. When I wrote that to the CWO here they went quiet.

borderlinemeath

Graces7 wrote: »

Please see my other post. When I had to fill in the forms that time I chose rural areas where i knew there was hardly any council stock.. When my RA came up for review I called Threshold who were dealing with other similar queries. If you have been renting privately I think for a year that qualifies for RA. When I wrote that to the CWO here they went quiet.

So you're admitting to playing the system? Choosing an area where you know that potentially there will never be a house suitable for your needs?

Threshold are very good at telling people what they want to hear rather than telling people what they are obligated to do. They have been known to tell tenants to illegally overhold on properties they are living in so I wouldn't really hold much stock in what they say.

I hope your landlord doesn't go through with his indication that he wants the property back for himself. It's no longer a renters market, very few landlords are willing to take rent allowance and you're in limbo if you've refused to be accommodated by state housing. Not a position I would like to be in when I'm over 70.:(

JustTheOne

http://www.thejournal.ie/finglas-an-riasc-2503050-Dec2015/

Working people put deposits on houses only to find they have now been bought to be used as social housing.

What a kick in the nuts.

And people moan and whinge the that we live in some 3rd world hell hole where the government is starving their people and would rather see them on the streets.

Socialists paradise this country is.

Graces7

borderlinemeath wrote: »

So you're admitting to playing the system? Choosing an area where you know that potentially there will never be a house suitable for your needs?

Threshold are very good at telling people what they want to hear rather than telling people what they are obligated to do. They have been known to tell tenants to illegally overhold on properties they are living in so I wouldn't really hold much stock in what they say.

I hope your landlord doesn't go through with his indication that he wants the property back for himself. It's no longer a renters market, very few landlords are willing to take rent allowance and you're in limbo if you've refused to be accommodated by state housing. Not a position I would like to be in when I'm over 70.:(

No, not playing the system! Defending my very poor health. I do not want council housing. Threshold are grand. And I was simply confirming what I already knew. The council are in the wrong telling everyone they HAVE to be on the housing list to get RA... I am not worried. I have been renting many years now. Always find a home and I am a good tenant. And you omit that the law is there; that you do not have to be on the council housing list to get RA. that was the point of my post. It is either or and the council know this. So no way am I " playing the system." REALLY!

borderlinemeath

Graces7 wrote: »

No, not playing the system! Defending my very poor health. I do not want council housing. Threshold are grand. And I was simply confirming what I already knew. The council are in the wrong telling everyone they HAVE to be on the housing list to get RA... I am not worried. I have been renting many years now. Always find a home and I am a good tenant. And you omit that the law is there; that you do not have to be on the council housing list to get RA. that was the point of my post. It is either or and the council know this. So no way am I " playing the system." REALLY!

And there's plenty of people claiming they're good tenants who have rented for years screaming for housing because they can no longer afford to rent. Having a self belief in being a good tenant doesn't prove much as there is no tenant database to prove your claims and most landlords don't want to know as soon as they hear the words "Rent Allowance" - references or not.

I hope your current situation continues for as long as you need it because if you were like others who have been forced to move out of their homes due to rising rents and RA that is no longer sufficient to cover the costs then you would be in a situation where you could possibly be homeless and accommodated in a hotel at a far greater expense than RA.

Graces7

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And there's plenty of people claiming they're good tenants who have rented for years screaming for housing because they can no longer afford to rent. Having a self belief in being a good tenant doesn't prove much as there is no tenant database to prove your claims and most landlords don't want to know as soon as they hear the words "Rent Allowance" - references or not.

I hope your current situation continues for as long as you need it because if you were like others who have been forced to move out of their homes due to rising rents and RA that is no longer sufficient to cover the costs then you would be in a situation where you could possibly be homeless and accommodated in a hotel at a far greater expense than RA.

The point I was making was that people do not have to be on the council list to get RA. Period. it is either/or and I qualify without seeking council accommodation. And that there are as others have said, many like myself. That is the only aspect of this matter I posted on and the only relevant matter. The side effect of course is that the lists may well be inflated by those happy in private rented accommodation. And yes I would refuse any offer if it were in a town etc.

Graces7

Stheno wrote: »

I think the councils should draw up a list of acceptable criteria for refusal, such as danger to oneself due to an ex/known criminal, but also use that as pre selection criteria.

Then if it's a case that refusal is not part of pre sanctioned approvals, people should be removed from the list.

Agree totally. Add medical and disability grounds. I am very limited now. One reason I stay in private rental and off the council list.