New Housing Legislation

hellboy99

Under new housing legislation it is now legal for any housing body to remove you from your home and rehome you on the grounds that the property is too big for your needs.

Is this the new thing to solve the housing crisis?

You will have to expand a bit on that. Are you referring to council type housing?

hellboy99

Deleted User wrote: »

You will have to expand a bit on that. Are you referring to council type housing?

All social housing.

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015

Amendment of section 35 of Principal Act 29.

Section 35 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (6):

“(7) The statement to accompany a notice of termination in respect of a termination referred to in paragraph 2 of the Table shall specify— (a) the bed spaces in the dwelling, and (b) the grounds on which the dwelling is no longer suitable having regard to the bed spaces referred to in paragraph (a) and the size and composition of the occupying household.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2004

Chapter 3 Section 34:

Grounds for termination

1. The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy (whether arising under this Act or otherwise) and, unless the failure provides an excepted basis for termination—
(a) the tenant has been notified of the failure by the landlord and that notification states that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy if the failure is not remedied within a reasonable time specified in that notification, and
(b) the tenant does not remedy the failure within that specified time.
2. The dwelling is no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant and of any persons residing with him or her having regard to the number of bed spaces contained in the dwelling and the size and composition of the occupying household.

It can be interpreted two ways:

1. Overcapacity in their property and the rehousing of a family to a more suitably sized property.
   
2. Under capacity in their property and the removal of a family to a downsized property, i.e. You no longer have children thus you no longer need to be accommodated in a three bedroom house.

Gatling

Only fair been honest ,
If a single person is sitting in a 3-5 bed social housing they should be moved to a smaller property based off their current need ,

Mrs OBumble

About time.

There will be a lot of media heat about Bridie who's lived at no 27 for a zillion years and raised all her kids there.

But Bridie Jnr with the young kids now needs the 3-bed more than Bridie does anymore.

Owryan

Kilkenny county council have been doing something similar already. They identified properties which were under occupied and made smaller properties available.

It's only a small scheme but appears to be working well, freeing up family homes and moving elderly tenants into smaller, more appropriate homes.

Btw it's also voluntary before anyone suggests people are being forced to move against their will.

Carlow had a similar scheme some years ago

hellboy99

Gatling wrote: »

Only fair been honest ,
If a single person is sitting in a 3-5 bed social housing they should be moved to a smaller property based off their current need ,

And what of the argument that it's been your family home for 20 - 30 years, kids where born and raised it that home etc...

Owryan

hellboy99 wrote: »

And what of the argument that it's been your family home for 20 - 30 years, kids where born and raised it that home etc...

Is that justification for allowing a person remain in a 3-4 bed home tho? It may sound harsh but if it is a council property then they are allocated on needs.

Do, for example, an elderly couple really need a large house? At the end of the day it is a house they are renting. They don't own it regardless of any sentimental attachment

Samuel T. Cogley

hellboy99 wrote: »

And what of the argument that it's been your family home for 20 - 30 years, kids where born and raised it that home etc...

Indeed, what of it? It's more important to house a family according to their needs.

Gatling

hellboy99 wrote: »

And what of the argument that it's been your family home for 20 - 30 years, kids where born and raised it that home etc...

The home you were given based off your housing need ,
Housing needs change so should tenants

hellboy99

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Indeed, what of it? It's more important to house a family according to their needs.

And what about local authorities looking to acquire privately owned homes that are on sale and currently vacant as a temporary measure, or even one set further, lets go after home owners and introduce bedroom taxes or tell them we want to house someone in with you. Where do you draw the line?

Spanish Eyes

If they had to pay LPT they'd be gone in a flash.

Samuel T. Cogley

hellboy99 wrote: »

And what about local authorities looking to acquire privately owned homes that are on sale and currently vacant as a temporary measure, or even one set further, lets go after home owners and introduce bedroom taxes or tell them we want to house someone in with you. Where do you draw the line?

You draw it at private ownership - which should rightly be taxed. Those taxes along with other taxes go into a big pot and are used to provide housing to people with a genuine need. Where that need changes the accommodation also changes. I am and always will be a socialist, however it baffles even my left of centre bleedin' heart liberal brain that people think a couple rattling around in a four bed council house is a good idea. It's not even a good idea for people who privately own, however they have paid, and continue to pay through tax, to have the choice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

hellboy99

I do get what some of you say but at the same time thinking about it on both sides of the fence it's not nice for a family to suddenly be taken from their home of ex amount of years and housed elsewhere. And what about removal and utility costs, who covers that?

.......

This post has been deleted.

hellboy99

It should be spread across the board, it should be applied to both social and privately rented properties.

irelandrover

hellboy99 wrote: »

It should be spread across the board, it should be applied to both social and privately rented properties.

No it shouldnt. The government should not force on private landlords who they can rent their house to.

hellboy99

irelandrover wrote: »

No it shouldnt. The government should not force on private landlords who they can rent their house to.

Why not, it's been forced upon people in social housing as a means to address the housing crisis. Maybe some incentive given to them in the form of a rebate on LPT?

c montgomery

hellboy99 wrote: »

Why not, it's been forced upon people in social housing as a means to address the housing crisis. Maybe some incentive given to them in the form of a rebate on LPT?

Because beggars can't be choosers

irelandrover

hellboy99 wrote: »

Why not, it's been forced upon people in social housing as a means to address the housing crisis. Maybe some incentive given to them in the form of a rebate on LPT?

As an incentive sure.

I also doubt there are many people in private accommodation that are in 4 bedroom houses that only require 1 bedroom.

jimmycrackcorm

Gatling wrote:

Only fair been honest , If a single person is sitting in a 3-5 bed social housing they should be moved to a smaller property based off their current need ,

But you're making me homeless.

Won't happen for that reason.

Mrs OBumble

hellboy99 wrote: »

Why not, it's been forced upon people in social housing as a means to address the housing crisis. Maybe some incentive given to them in the form of a rebate on LPT?

People in orivate ownership paid or are paying for their houses.

People in social housing pay a contribution based on their income. Usually its s very small contribution.

Irrespective of the housing ctisis, they should not be getting more housing than they currently need.

hellboy99

Panic over guys, it's not happening.

The legislation states it is only in relation to overcapacity and not under capacity, if a housing body were to try remove a tenant on grounds of under capacity they would be in breach of security of tenure laws.

Gatling

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But you're making me homeless.

But we're not making you homeless we're relocating you to a smaller property

Samuel T. Cogley

hellboy99 wrote: »

Panic over guys, it's not happening.

The legislation states it is only in relation to overcapacity and not under capacity, if a housing body were to try remove a tenant on grounds of under capacity they would be in breach of security of tenure laws.

It's not panic over at all, it's panic continue for the thousands of poor sods who are either homeless or spending years on waiting lists or those in unsuitable private accommodation with kids settled in to schools, who are evicted and can't find anywhere because some eejit is a bit nostalgic as to where their kids slept a decade ago.