Homelessness on the rise

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you don't know why certain homes were rejected but made up something to fit your narrative or as some would say you lied. You don't know what any one living in a hotel has been offered if they have been offered anything at all. But again you seek to have your own narrative.

Try reading the links provided. They are from numerous sources. Are they all lying?
People have to learn how to provide for themselves. Life is far from perfect. One learns to make the most of their lot.

Wheeliebin30

Do people actually think it’s Leo and the governments job to house every single person in this country regardless of, situation, status etc without asking any questions about finance and sustainability?

Is this the mindset?

No matter what everyone should be housed at someone else’s expense?

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

So we build council housing and some people don't pay their rent. What do we do then? I invest in a property and want to leave it idle so I am going to be taxed so. It appears your answer is to tax tax and tax more. You refuse to place any responsibility on people to accept housing once offered.

You asked for suggestions, you got some. Not my concern you don't like the answers you received. So you are going to base what we should do on the possible actions of a few. Yeah every bit as sensible as your revised planning suggestion. Not a lefty btw, but if it makes you feel better labelling people who disagree with you 'a lefty' be my guest.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Try reading the links provided. They are from numerous sources. Are they all lying? People have to learn how to provide for themselves. Life is far from perfect. One learns to make the most of their lot.

You have made the claim that people demanded top notch fixtures and fittings, up to you provide evidence of this or it can be assumed you made up the claim.

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You have made the claim that people demanded top notch fixtures and fittings, up to you provide evidence of this or it can be assumed you made up the claim.

I see you ignored my comment about free houses.

Nothing new.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You asked for suggestions, you got some. Not my concern you don't like the answers you received. So you are going to base what we should do on the possible actions of a few. Yeah every bit as sensible as your revised planning suggestion. Not a lefty btw, but if it makes you feel better labelling people who disagree with you 'a lefty' be my guest.

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/local-authority-rent-arrears-in-dublin/ so 26% of Dublin city tenants are "just a few"

Your concept of just a few speaks volumes.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

I see you ignored my comment about free houses.

I didn't my response to you is there.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Nothing new.

Just in case you are unable to look correctly. #658

Wheeliebin30

Like do people really think if we build houses for these 10,000 homeless people very quick, you won’t have another 10,000 the following day suddenly homeless waiting for their house??

Are people really this thick?????

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Just in case you are unable to look correctly. #658

I don’t know how to look up comments like that but I’ll take a guess your response is I’m talking nonsense and that’s it without any constructive point of view.

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

so 26% of Dublin city tenants are "just a few"

Any recent figures since your link is 3 years out of date. As an aside isn't the onus on the council to collect the rent, there is enforcement available to the council's.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

I don’t know how to look up comments like that but I’ll take a guess your response is I’m talking nonsense and that’s it without any constructive point of view.

So you can't scroll back the pages till you see that number beside a comment? Wow.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Any recent figures since your link is 3 years out of date. As an aside isn't the onus on the council to collect the rent, there is enforcement available to the council's.

Do you think the tenants have all suddenly paid all arrears and there are only a "few" with outstanding amounts.

I thought the onus was on the tenant to pay their rent how foolish of me to think that.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Any recent figures since your link is 3 years out of date. As an aside isn't the onus on the council to collect the rent, there is enforcement available to the council's.

Like, evict them onto the streets?

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

Do you think the tenants have all suddenly paid all arrears and there are only a "few" with outstanding amounts.

No up to date figures so.

The Student wrote:

I thought the onus was on the tenant to pay their rent how foolish of me to think that.

It is but not everyone does what they are required do, if they did no need for courts or guards etc.
I also believe there is an issue collecting council rates from commercial business. Owed millions there to.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Like, evict them onto the streets?

Is that your suggestion? Personally I'd have suggested an attachment order I guess I'm more caring of my fellow citizen.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No up to date figures so.



It is but not everyone does what they are required do, if they did no need for courts or guards etc.
I also believe there is an issue collecting council rates from commercial business. Owed millions there to.

So you feel every council tenant is up to date with their rent except for a "few" so.

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

So you feel every council tenant is up to date with their rent except for a "few" so.

I don't know and neither do you. You're the one who posted a link form 3 years ago. I'd imagine the figures would be different now I could be wrong though, but again I don't know.

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I don't know and neither do you. You're the one who posted a link form 3 years ago. I'd imagine the figures would be different now I could be wrong though, but again I don't know.

Why would they be different?

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Why would they be different?

You believe nothing changes in 3 years? Btw I trust you were able to find my reply to your question?

Eric Cartman

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Is that your suggestion? Personally I'd have suggested an attachment order I guess I'm more caring of my fellow citizen.

an attachment order on somebody with no income, yeah good luck. Our social housing schemes are already full of people with multiple orders for a 5er a week that they don't pay..

Hitman3000

Eric Cartman wrote:

an attachment order on somebody with no income, yeah good luck. Our social housing schemes are already full of people with multiple orders for a 5er a week that they don't pay..

Unless they live on fresh air they have an income. Any link to the rest of your claim you know as in some figures to back it up?

Twenty Grand

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You believe nothing changes in 3 years? Btw I trust you were able to find my reply to your question?

You believe if there is a change that it's positive?

Eric Cartman

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Unless they live on fresh air they have an income. Any link to the rest of your claim you know as in some figures to back it up?

from : https://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0722/463975-prison-unpaid-fines-alan-shatter/

In a statement today, the department said that the Government decided last October not to proceed with deductions against social welfare payments.

It said this was due to the cost of administering the deduction of fines, and because social welfare rules meant only around €2 a week could be deducted.

you can only deduct 2 euro a week from welfare recipients.

Hitman3000

Eric Cartman wrote:

from :

2013......

Hitman3000

Twenty Grand wrote:

You believe if there is a change that it's positive?

32 million was outstanding in 2015, I would hope that the council concerned would have made some effort to collect what is owed. Other than that I don't know as I already said.

Eric Cartman

Hitman3000 wrote: »

2013......

please show me where they gave up on this and actually started punishing welfare recipients for their ills ?

Hitman3000

Eric Cartman wrote:

an attachment order on somebody with no income, yeah good luck. Our social housing schemes are already full of people with multiple orders for a 5er a week that they don't pay..

Eric Cartman wrote:

you can only deduct 2 euro a week from welfare recipients.

Still doesn't address your claim. Do you think all social housing tenants are on social welfare? Many work believe it or not.

Graham

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You believe nothing changes in 3 years?

More recent figures:

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

Between 2015 and 2016 local authority rent arrears leapt from €67.4m to €72.9m.

Collection rates appear to hover fairly consistently around 85%.

while the rate of collection throughout the country has been stable over recent years (circa 85pc), the absolute amount of arrears has increased year-on-year since 2009.

Hitman3000

Graham wrote:

Between 2015 and 2016 local authority rent arrears leapt from €67.4m to €72.9m.

So the council is failing abysmally at collecting revenue owed to it? Maybe they should use the resources available to enforce collection.