Homelessness on the rise

The Student

Deleted User wrote: »

Take your pick.

http://www.thejournal.ie/government-report-homelessness-4080314-Jun2018/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/3000-social-housing-offers-turned-down-in-past-two-years-450651.html

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/families-turn-down-social-housing-due-to-lack-of-space-garden-or-parking-34359743.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-four-social-houses-turned-down-despite-crisis-36206587.html

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/latest-people-refusing-social-housing-not-to-blame-for-crisis-says-dublin-councillor-808983.html

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1752147/woman-refuses-social-housing-because-sea-view-made-her-seasick-as-one-in-four-turn-down-offer-of-home/

Now now stop providing facts!

Old diesel

Gatling wrote: »

The likes of local authorities should increase rents from a minimum rents to something around 600pm they also need to enforce the collection of over due rents council's across the country are losing something around €50 million in un paid or over due arrears ,

How much could be raised for new housing stock by actually increasing rents to a meaningful level and collect what is already owed

How do we link this 600 euro to ability to pay????.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Take your pick.

I fully accept the people on the housing list refuse homes from time to time. I know a guy that refu two thinking he & his family had a third shot. I was delighted when they told him that he was now further down the list. If he gets offered again it will be years from now.

I had a quick scan through the links you posted and didn't find any statistics on homeless people refusing accommodation

There is a huge difference between someone living in a house with the state paying most of the rent refusing compared to one of the 10,000 homeless people refusing

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

How do we link this 600 euro to ability to pay????.

Simple, you charge €600 and its up to the tenant to prove they can't pay. Each year there rent is set at a figure and its up to them to prove they can't pay.

One of the reasons there is outstanding local authority rents is where the income of the household increased but the tenants did not inform the council. it would appear that some tenants had no intention of notifying the council until they got caught.

By adopting the above approach the onus is on the tenant to prove they can't afford it rather than the other way around.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Take your pick.

Cheers for that but I did ask for facts. Very few in those articles.

handlemaster

The whole homeless figures are a sham. There are lots of people per sais marked homeless but living with parents.

Hitman3000

handlemaster wrote:

The whole homeless figures are a sham. There are lots of people per sais marked homeless but living with parents.

Do you deny there is a housing crisis?

handlemaster

Hitman3000 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote:

The whole homeless figures are a sham. There are lots of people per sais marked homeless but living with parents.

Do you deny there is a housing crisis?

Loaded question . If you wish to state something do so.

Hitman3000

handlemaster wrote:

Loaded question . If you wish to state something do so.

It's not, it's a simple there is or there isn't. If unwilling to answer just say so.

Old diesel

The Student wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

How do we link this 600 euro to ability to pay????.

Simple, you charge €600 and its up to the tenant to prove they can't pay. Each year there rent is set at a figure and its up to them to prove they can't pay.

One of the reasons there is outstanding local authority rents is where the income of the household increased but the tenants did not inform the council. it would appear that some tenants had no intention of notifying the council until they got caught.

By adopting the above approach the onus is on the tenant to prove they can't afford it rather than the other way around.

I interpreted Gatlings suggestion as 600 been a minimum figure.

Not one open to flexibility if you could show financial inability to pay.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

I interpreted Gatlings suggestion as 600 been a minimum figure.

Not one open to flexibility if you could show financial inability to pay.

The figure is changeable but the principle remains the same. The ESB don't fix your charge based on your ability to pay, the TV license is not set based on your ability to pay (except the old people etc), your car tax is not based on your ability to pay. If you are getting something subsidised and you can afford to pay extra but you choose not do how is that fair.

I am all for helping those who genuinely need it (and I mean genuinely need it) but in my experience their are to many "playing the system".

If we put the onus on the tenant to prove inability to pay rather than on the State to catch those who should pay more. Our history of enforcement of anything leaves a lot to be desired.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

The Journal are reporting that Irish charities have an income of 14.5 billion and employ 189,000 people.
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-charities-4145144-Jul2018/

That's completely mental. I don't trust any statistics out of the charity industry (and it is an industry, which spends a fortune on marketing).

Thats an absolute staggering amount of money. Surely it should read millions and not billions?. Where is this money going?, genuine question.

Graces7

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I fully accept the people on the housing list refuse homes from time to time. I know a guy that refu two thinking he & his family had a third shot. I was delighted when they told him that he was now further down the list. If he gets offered again it will be years from now.

I had a quick scan through the links you posted and didn't find any statistics on homeless people refusing accommodation

There is a huge difference between someone living in a house with the state paying most of the rent refusing compared to one of the 10,000 homeless people refusing

And you need to set these cases against the numbers of those who DO accept an offer gladly... I jumped in before the words were spoken almost!

But i suppose that that is not sensational?

Graces7

The Student wrote: »

The figure is changeable but the principle remains the same. The ESB don't fix your charge based on your ability to pay, the TV license is not set based on your ability to pay (except the old people etc), your car tax is not based on your ability to pay. If you are getting something subsidised and you can afford to pay extra but you choose not do how is that fair.

I am all for helping those who genuinely need it (and I mean genuinely need it) but in my experience their are to many "playing the system".

If we put the onus on the tenant to prove inability to pay rather than on the State to catch those who should pay more. Our history of enforcement of anything leaves a lot to be desired.

Would value more and reliable info?

The Student

Graces7 wrote: »

Would value more and reliable info?

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/local-authority-rent-arrears-in-dublin/

See under the section Addressing rent arrears

"Dublin City Council’s collection of arrears is better understood when one considers the collection rate as a percentage of accrued rent in a particular year (excluding overruns). Between 2013 and 2015, the city council collected over 100 per cent of its accrued rent. It is the Council’s policy to apply retrospective debits to accounts in the case of under-declaration of household income and occupants. This accounts, in part, for the average arrears of €3,440 among tenants and the total arrears of €19.6m in 2015"

Tony EH

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Cheers for that but I did ask for facts. Very few in those articles.

Enough, though, for some people to come on here month after month and peddle the repeated idea that there isn't a problem, despite the fact that everyone else can see that there is. A VERY large one indeed.

It's wholly disingenuous to try and fling this idea around that there's no issue here and it's just people having a laugh.

Conditions in this country are already out of control, regarding affordability in both rents and purchasing, and there's no desire from government to try and tackle it. For too many people, a simple thing like merely buying a home is out of reach and remains a pipe-dream <- that's an indicator of a sick society right there.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I fully accept the people on the housing list refuse homes from time to time. I know a guy that refu two thinking he & his family had a third shot. I was delighted when they told him that he was now further down the list. If he gets offered again it will be years from now.

I had a quick scan through the links you posted and didn't find any statistics on homeless people refusing accommodation

There is a huge difference between someone living in a house with the state paying most of the rent refusing compared to one of the 10,000 homeless people refusing

Don’t get your point. If someone is living in a house, they’re not homeless.

The poster girl for the homeless industry, Erica Fleming, refused 2 offers of accommodation before accepting one. She then took to social media complaining about a draughty window.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

The poster girl for the homeless industry, Erica Fleming, refused 2 offers of accommodation before accepting one. She then took to social media complaining about a draughty window.

So almost 10,000 people get judged based solely on Erica Fleming? She was a gift for certain quarters.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

Don’t get your point. If someone is living in a house, they’re not homeless.

The poster girl for the homeless industry, Erica Fleming, refused 2 offers of accommodation before accepting one. She then took to social media complaining about a draughty window.

Yes I agree. My point was someone posted links on people refusing accommodation. I was pointing out that the links were highlighting people already in houses refusing an offer because they can.


I didn't see any links highlighting the amount of homeless people, the 10,000, refusing accommodation. That was my point. The links posted to prove a point didn't prove the point

Old diesel

Deleted User wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I fully accept the people on the housing list refuse homes from time to time. I know a guy that refu two thinking he & his family had a third shot. I was delighted when they told him that he was now further down the list. If he gets offered again it will be years from now.

I had a quick scan through the links you posted and didn't find any statistics on homeless people refusing accommodation

There is a huge difference between someone living in a house with the state paying most of the rent refusing compared to one of the 10,000 homeless people refusing

Don’t get your point. If someone is living in a house, they’re not homeless.

The poster girl for the homeless industry, Erica Fleming, refused 2 offers of accommodation before accepting one. She then took to social media complaining about a draughty window.

Erica was concerned that going on HAP risked becoming homeless again at a later date.

That's why she was pushing for a council house.

What she was offered was HAP.

She turned it down and eventually was offered her current council home.

The reason the window is an issue is because the house is very hard to heat.

From what I understood there was issues with some damp.

I don't know if it got sorted because it was some time ago she tweeted about it and she hasn't afaik tweeted about it since.

The people counted as homeless and who have accomodation are in temporary emergency accomodation.

That's not their permanent solution (the word temporary and emergency highlight this).

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So almost 10,000 people get judged based solely on Erica Fleming? She was a gift for certain quarters.

She’s the one who shouted loudest and got mentioned in the media. There’s roughly 1,300 families in emergency accommodation. Hundreds of those families have refused more permanent homes for various reasons. Read the links I’ve provided to inform yourself further.

Ever hear the expression “beggars cannot be choosers”?

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

She’s the one who shouted loudest and got mentioned in the media. There’s roughly 1,300 families in emergency accommodation. Hundreds of those families have refused more permanent homes for various reasons. Read the links I’ve provided to inform yourself further.

Ever hear the expression “beggars cannot be choosers”?

Can you post a link backing up your claim of "hundreds" of families?


It actually sounds a bit made up to be honest
I'd like to point out that the homeless situation is fluid. Constantly moving. For example out of the 1,300 families you are quoting more than half of these won't be part of the 1,300 (or higher) quoted in 12 months time yet the "hundreds" you mention (without proof) are figures since 2011 I'd imagine.. I'm guessing we've had over 5000 homeless families since 2011

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

She’s the one who shouted loudest and got mentioned in the media. There’s roughly 1,300 families in emergency accommodation. Hundreds of those families have refused more permanent homes for various reasons. Read the links I’ve provided to inform yourself further.

She gets mentioned a lot in the media by certain people with their own agenda. The links you provided are generally sensalionist rubbish tbh.
You agree there are 1300 families homeless. There is a multitude of reasons why accommodation is turned down. Somehow I doubt you would bother yourself with knowing what those reasons could be. The government accepts there is 3000 children homeless. Yet there are those whom for reasons known only to themselves constantly seek to down play the issue.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Ever hear the expression “beggars cannot be choosers�

Would you move your family into an area where drugs were rife for example?

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Would you move your family into an area where drugs were rife for example?

If you’re not paying for the house tough luck.

Time to weed out this cohort of leeches.

PokeHerKing

Tony EH wrote:

For too many people, a simple thing like merely buying a home is out of reach and remains a pipe-dream

To be fair it's not a packet of crisps. I personaly don't think it's unreasonable for it to be a difficult thing to attain.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

If you’re not paying for the house tough luck.

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Time to weed out this cohort of leeches.

So when you 'weed them out' as you put it where do they go? We are a society and as such we have a system in place, generally we don't dispose of our citizens. A proper thought out reply please no nonsense thanks.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

If you’re not paying for the house tough luck.

Ah the 'free house' nonsense is never far away.

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Ah the 'free house' nonsense is never far away.

Yeah but it’s true isn’t it?


Me and you have had this exact same discussion and usually you vanish out of the thread when a good few people point out how it is indeed a free house.

I’m ready to go again if you are.

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So when you 'weed them out' as you put it where do they go? We are a society and as such we have a system in place, generally we don't dispose of our citizens. A proper thought out reply please no nonsense thanks.

They get put into emergency accommodation until they can fend for themselves, not until they get a forever home at the expense of the taxpayer.

What is so inhuman about that?