Homelessness on the rise

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Any recent figures since your link is 3 years out of date.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.

the onus is on the tenant to pay the fkucin rent. are you just amusing yourself here or what

Eric Cartman

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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

like what ? evicting people is a PR nightmare and as I've explained the courts can't place an order on them for more than a few quid.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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

so you cant retract your false accusation that another poster deleted a comment when they hadnt?

Graham

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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

Sorry, when you asked for more recent figures, I assumed you actually wanted more recent figures.

Hitman3000

Eric Cartman wrote:

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

Take it up with the council submit a question. I don't work for them. Although didn't FG make a big thing of their civil debt bill.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

the onus is on the tenant to pay the fkucin rent. are you just amusing yourself here or what

Never said it wasn't but people don't always do what they should. That's why enforcement avenues exist.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

so you cant retract your false accusation that another poster deleted a comment when they hadnt?

Already addressed that with MA maybe you missed it. Have a scroll back.

Hitman3000

Eric Cartman wrote:

like what ? evicting people is a PR nightmare and as I've explained the courts can't place an order on them for more than a few quid.

Councils have and do start eviction proceedings against tenants. I've explained not every tenant is on welfare. Asset seizure exists for those on a the basic welfare payment.

Hitman3000

Graham wrote:

Sorry, when you asked for more recent figures, I assumed you actually wanted more recent figures.

I'm not slating your figures, the council needs to properly enforce rent collection. I already said this.

Graham

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm not slating your figures, the council needs to properly enforce rent collection. I already said this.

Councils do try and enforce rent collection, as other posters have suggested it's particularly ineffective in some (many) cases up-to and including court action.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Take it up with the council submit a question. I don't work for them. Although didn't FG make a big thing of their civil debt bill.

Was wondering when this thread was going to mention a political party.

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.

You may not see yourself as "a lefty" but your views of tax, tax and more tax is "a lefty" approach to everything. But you are not "a lefty"!

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

Was wondering when this thread was going to mention a political party.

Political parties have been mentioned long before my mention of FG's civil debt bill. But I guess when you wish to be selective.....

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

You may not see yourself as "a lefty" but your views of tax, tax and more tax is "a lefty" approach to everything. But you are not "a lefty"!

Odd I made several suggestions but the only ones you hone in on are the tax on hoarding of land ( which incidentally is also a government goal aswell) and idle homes and even then I suggested a caveat.

mad m

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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

Council tenants rent is based on them submitting the previous years P60s. A tenant could be clear in rent to then go into arrears by the time it is processed as their P60 may indicate this as they may have found work etc.

Hitman3000

mad m wrote:

Council tenants rent is based on them submitting the previous years P60s. A tenant could be clear in rent to then go into arrears as their P60 may indicate this as they may have found work etc.

Probably made sense to you as you wrote it, but genuinely I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Graces7

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Probably made sense to you as you wrote it, but genuinely I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Makes perfect sense

redsteveireland

What can be done, if anything, about the practice of people holding council houses? I have heard of families moving to the U.K and leaving a family member behind in a 3/4 bedroom house "for the future".
This is increasing waiting lists and no doubt contributing to homelessness.
Surely these people no longer have a housing need in the area?
Do the council investigate/audit the houses or if they are getting rent they don't care?

Gatling

redsteveireland wrote: »

What can be done, if anything, about the practice of people holding council houses? I have heard of families moving to the U.K and leaving a family member behind in a 3/4 bedroom house "for the future".
This is increasing waiting lists and no doubt contributing to homelessness.
Surely these people no longer have a housing need in the area?
Do the council investigate/audit the houses or if they are getting rent they don't care?

They likely have no clue who and whats living in properties once the rent keeps coming ,
They would literally have to knock on every local authorities property to investigate who's actually living there

mad m

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Probably made sense to you as you wrote it, but genuinely I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

P60 submitted by tenant to rent section in council
Rent is based on P60, the more you earn the more rent you may have to pay.

The previous year tenant might of been unemployed and on a standard social welfare rent rate. If they have gained employment and a new P60 is submitted they can be in arrears by the time it’s calculated by rent section.

I know clear as mud....:)

Tony EH

redsteveireland wrote: »

What can be done, if anything, about the practice of people holding council houses? I have heard of families moving to the U.K and leaving a family member behind in a 3/4 bedroom house "for the future".
This is increasing waiting lists and no doubt contributing to homelessness.
Surely these people no longer have a housing need in the area?
Do the council investigate/audit the houses or if they are getting rent they don't care?

They do investigate, yes. I know a chap who tried to hold onto a house, when he parents died, but he wasn't living there. The house was in his name and he was paying the rent, but it was empty. He had to give it up in the end.

There's no doubt that kind of thing happens, but it would be far and wide. Empty houses get reported to the council all the time.

As for its contribution "to homelessness", it's miniscule to the primary reason of letting rents and house prices go ridiculously out of control. We learned absolutely nothing from the bust in 2008. Or, I should say government learned absolutely nothing and I reckon we're, more than likely, doomed to a repeat and the next crash won't be pretty for anyone.

Eric Cartman

Tony EH wrote: »

They do investigate, yes. I know a chap who tried to hold onto a house, when he parents died, but he wasn't living there. The house was in his name and he was paying the rent, but it was empty. He had to give it up in the end.

There's no doubt that kind of thing happens, but it would be far and wide. Empty houses get reported to the council all the time.

As for its contribution "to homelessness", it's miniscule to the primary reason of letting rents and house prices go ridiculously out of control. We learned absolutely nothing from the bust in 2008. Or, I should say government learned absolutely nothing and I reckon we're, more than likely, doomed to a repeat and the next crash won't be pretty for anyone.

without hard stats nobody can claim a problem is a big or small one, but theres certainly anecdotal evidence of this problem all over the country which proves it is a problem regardless of scale.

Tony EH

Eric Cartman wrote: »

without hard stats nobody can claim a problem is a big or small one, but theres certainly anecdotal evidence of this problem all over the country which proves it is a problem regardless of scale.

If it was a big, you would have heard about it MUCH more than we do.

The main issues for our current state, are out of control prices, a terrible renting sector, public land hoarding, not building houses, government subsidising private landlords and a lack of will to actually tackle the problem.

redsteveireland

Eric Cartman wrote: »

without hard stats nobody can claim a problem is a big or small one, but theres certainly anecdotal evidence of this problem all over the country which proves it is a problem regardless of scale.

Agreed, even if it is a small problem, 1 house being held from a family really in need is too many surely.

Hitman3000

mad m wrote:

The previous year tenant might of been unemployed and on a standard social welfare rent rate. If they have gained employment and a new P60 is submitted they can be in arrears by the time it’s calculated by rent section.

Actually no. The new rent year is assessed on the previous years income. It's not retrospective. Of course a tenant can advise the council their circumstances have changed if they wish. However they were legit under your e.g. when rent was assessed.

redsteveireland

Tony EH wrote: »

If it was a big, you would have heard about it MUCH more than we do.

The main issues for our current state, are out of control prices, a terrible renting sector, public land hoarding, not building houses, government subsidising private landlords and a lack of will to actually tackle the problem.

People are not willing to report offenders either so it's not heard of widely.

The practice of wasting council money buying private housing instead of building is also insane.

Vizzy

redsteveireland wrote: »

People are not willing to report offenders either so it's not heard of widely.

The practice of wasting council money buying private housing instead of building is also insane.

Actually, outside the big urban centres ( Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Galway) it is probably cheaper to buy a secondhand house than it is to build one, and much quicker.
Are you going to congratulate Councils for actually saving money ?

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

Actually, outside the big urban centres ( Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Galway) it is probably cheaper to buy a secondhand house than it is to build one, and much quicker. Are you going to congratulate Councils for actually saving money ?

I only caught a bit of liveline today but a lady was on explaining that she sold her 10 year old house to Cork CC about a year ago. Obviously they bought it for people on the housing list. A year later no one has moved in. 10 year old house not needing any work. Estate Agent told her that they bought a few at the same time and not one has tenants yet.

I think people on both sides of the fence will be horrified at the waste here on this one.

Vizzy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I only caught a bit of liveline today but a lady was on explaining that she sold her 10 year old house to Cork CC about a year ago. Obviously they bought it for people on the housing list. A year later no one has moved in. 10 year old house not needing any work. Estate Agent told her that they bought a few at the same time and not one has tenants yet.

I think people on both sides of the fence will be horrified at the waste here on this one.

Joe Duffy - sensationalist prat.

I heard the interview myself and the woman said she sold the house last October ( not a year ago, but anyway :rolleyes:).

Not condoning the delay, but there must be some reason why the house is not yet tenanted.


Coincidentally, the next item Joe discussed was a doctor who was jailed for tax evasion to the tune of €100,000 and Joe was horrified that he was sent to prison.

Sleeper12

Vizzy wrote:

Coincidentally, the next item Joe discussed was a doctor who was jailed for tax evasion to the tune of €100,000 and Joe was horrified that he was sent to prison.

I heard this & the doctors wife on moaning. I didn't think Joe was horrified that he got a jail sentence. I thought he was horrified that the same judge didn't lock up Michael Lowry only a few weeks ago. He was horrified that Leo gave a statement about Lowry saying that he wouldn't comment on an individual case & then he comes out & criticised the doctor. I fully agree that the doctor should be in jail just like any other thief but when you look at lowrys history. His relationship with Ben Dunne and Dennis O Brien. We actually had a tribunal because him and he still doesn't get a prison sentence. I think this is what Joe was up in arms about. The exact same judge only weeks apart.