'I just want a home for my children' - mum on housing list for 12 years

fg1406

I currently rent in quite an upmarket estate where houses would sell for upwards of €500k (which is a lot in a regional town) but the builder had to build some social housing in the estate. The social houses are lovely 3 bed Semi d's. They don't have driveways and have very small gardens but it is a really really nice estate. May I add I've just bought a house and there is no way in hell I could afford to buy where I am currently renting. Anyway one of my neighbours is a separated mother who was my bosses boss in a past life, earning approx €80k pa in a legal role. She took redundancy a few years ago and she told me how she planned it. Herself and her husband were living separate lives in the same house until their kids went to college. She took redundancy which where she received statutory payment. She then applied to the council as a single mother, and somehow got a house in my estate within a year. (This was before I moved in). She had another job lined up but didn't take up the post until she had occupancy of her social house. She earns less than her last job as she works 4 days a week, but it's still a good enough job as she has a 2013 X4 outside. She too is honest with them and pays her rent as is set by the council but it is a hell of a lot less than mine, and it is her home for life. I won't begrudge her though. She got lucky with her house as the list is years long now and although she has a right to it for life, it's never going to be her own. I'm happy that despite my mortgage, my home is my home.

What I'll never understand is however is those that put themselves into situations whereby they are living in overcrowded accommodation. I've mentioned a member of my extended family who is expecting his 3rd child having never worked and in a HAP rental, complaining that the council told them they aren't entitled to a bigger house. It's not that difficult to not get pregnant. I've managed to avoid it for over 20 years!

partyguinness

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She must have had a kid or something?

One the one hand she should be congratulated for improving her lot and she is an example of why social welfare is important generally and how it can improve peoples lives. If she had not received that support fair to say she may not have been able to study and progress- life of dead end jobs and low income may well have followed. May well have fallen into a poverty trap.

Problem is that Council's are not building enough houses and then the snob factor kicks in- large swathes of people do not want to live in a Council house.

We have embraced liberal market economics and let the private builder build the houses. They intentionally keep the stock low to keep prices up.

jimmycrackcorm

Cork Truck Driver wrote:

Is this what you want in Ireland?

Isn't that what we should have,?

boardsuser1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Isn't that what we should have,?

Should,could,would but why don't we?

_Kaiser_

fg1406 wrote: »

I currently rent in quite an upmarket estate where houses would sell for upwards of €500k (which is a lot in a regional town) but the builder had to build some social housing in the estate. The social houses are lovely 3 bed Semi d's. They don't have driveways and have very small gardens but it is a really really nice estate. May I add I've just bought a house and there is no way in hell I could afford to buy where I am currently renting. Anyway one of my neighbours is a separated mother who was my bosses boss in a past life, earning approx €80k pa in a legal role. She took redundancy a few years ago and she told me how she planned it. Herself and her husband were living separate lives in the same house until their kids went to college. She took redundancy which where she received statutory payment. She then applied to the council as a single mother, and somehow got a house in my estate within a year. (This was before I moved in). She had another job lined up but didn't take up the post until she had occupancy of her social house. She earns less than her last job as she works 4 days a week, but it's still a good enough job as she has a 2013 X4 outside. She too is honest with them and pays her rent as is set by the council but it is a hell of a lot less than mine, and it is her home for life. I won't begrudge her though. She got lucky with her house as the list is years long now and although she has a right to it for life, it's never going to be her own. I'm happy that despite my mortgage, my home is my home.

Nah, sounds to me like, as she said herself, she had this well-planned and is just as bad in that regard as the "lifers" - worse even as she clearly HAS the means to get a decent job/income and earn like most people but chooses not to... or at least, not to the extent she might otherwise have to.

Your home won't be yours until the last payment is made and if something should happen to upset that routine, you may quickly find out how tenuous that hold you have is.

Not so your neighbour who is - as you said - there now for life regardless.

What I'll never understand is however is those that put themselves into situations whereby they are living in overcrowded accommodation. I've mentioned a member of my extended family who is expecting his 3rd child having never worked and in a HAP rental, complaining that the council told them they aren't entitled to a bigger house. It's not that difficult to not get pregnant. I've managed to avoid it for over 20 years!

On this I agree fully with you though.

partyguinness

TBH...I am more concerned about this waiting list:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/cork-woman-in-uk-for-heart-and-lung-operation-after-15-year-wait-1.3223792

howamidifferent

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Is this what you want in Ireland?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property

Seems like a good move to me.

Spanish Eyes

Oh god I'm going to be killed or sanctioned for saying this but anyway I'll be brave.

Maybe incentives should be given to those who have chosen not to take anything from the State, be it housing, rent supplement, dole, whatever, and are earning under a certain amount.

Give them free childcare, or a tax allowance for having children or something, anything.

Seems to me that many who live side by side lead very different lives. One cohort has all the comforts of the State, the other doesn't. Both have similar incomes.

One cohort seems to be able to have as many children as they like, the next door neighbours fret at the second one because of mortgage payments and childcare costs.

The forgotten middle.

Discuss.

boardsuser1

partyguinness wrote: »

TBH...I am more concerned about this waiting list:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/cork-woman-in-uk-for-heart-and-lung-operation-after-15-year-wait-1.3223792

I totally agree with you.

boardsuser1

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Oh god I'm going to be killed or sanctioned for saying this but anyway I'll be brave.

Maybe incentives should be given to those who have chosen not to take anything from the State, be it housing, rent supplement, dole, whatever, and are earning under a certain amount.

Give them free childcare, or a tax allowance for having children or something, anything.

Seems to me that many who live side by side lead very different lives. One cohort has all the comforts of the State, the other doesn't. Both have similar incomes.

One cohort seems to be able to have as many children as they like, the next door neighbours fret at the second one because of mortgage payments and childcare costs.

The forgotten middle.

Discuss.

That already exists if you aren't married.

Spanish Eyes

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

That already exists if you aren't married.

I didn't know that, what is it do you mind me asking?

Surely that would be discriminatory just because someone isn't legally hitched. Anyway open mind here.

.......

This post has been deleted.

boardsuser1

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I didn't know that, what is it do you mind me asking?

Surely that would be discriminatory just because someone isn't legally hitched. Anyway open mind here.

Single parent tax credit.

You pay fcuk all PAYE and minimal USC if any and just PRSI.

I know loads around here (my locality) getting it

I claimed it in 2012/2013 for my eldest child before they stopped both parents claiming it.

boardsuser1

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I didn't know that, what is it do you mind me asking?

Surely that would be discriminatory just because someone isn't legally hitched. Anyway open mind here.

here it is

http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-tax-credits-reliefs-and-exemptions/children/single-person-child-carer-credit/how-do-you-qualify-for-the-spccc.aspx

fg1406

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nah, sounds to me like, as she said herself, she had this well-planned and is just as bad in that regard as the "lifers" - worse even as she clearly HAS the means to get a decent job/income and earn like most people but chooses not to... or at least, not to the extent she might otherwise have to.

Your home won't be yours until the last payment is made and if something should happen to upset that routine, you may quickly find out how tenuous that hold you have is.

Not so your neighbour who is - as you said - there now for life regardless.



On this I agree fully with you though.

Despite the mortgage we can do as we wish to the house. We can extend, decorate etc. We can pass it on to family upon our demise and when we have it paid off in 20 years, it can be an asset. We can move as it's not in negative equity (yet!), and we have our mortgage planned so that if either of us lost our jobs or were unable to work, the mortgage is affordable on one of our salaries.

Owryan

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I'd say it's very rare to find a corpo house with two bathrooms.

Go look at some of the new council houses in Kilkenny, 3 bathrooms!!!

Spanish Eyes

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

here it is

http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-tax-credits-reliefs-and-exemptions/children/single-person-child-carer-credit/how-do-you-qualify-for-the-spccc.aspx

Thank you very much for the information.

But in fairness that means that those single parents are actually working (in order to claim tax relief) which is a good thing.

I was more talking about giving a bit extra to those who are not taking any benefits whatsoever from the State, you know, those who mither about a second (or even a first) child due to the costs involved.

The opposite side to the coin. Those who claim nothing but pay for everything. Sorry if that sounds bad, but ask anyone in that situation and they will say similar. Forgotten contributors and payers for everything.

boardsuser1

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thank you very much for the information.

But in fairness that means that those single parents are actually working (in order to claim tax relief) which is a good thing.

I was more talking about giving a bit extra to those who are not taking any benefits whatsoever from the State, you know, those who mither about a second (or even a first) child due to the costs involved.

The opposite side to the coin. Those who claim nothing but pay for everything. Sorry if that sounds bad, but ask anyone in that situation and they will say similar. Forgotten contributors and payers for everything.

These would be the ones working 20 hours a week on top of benefits, with the boyfriend unofficially living in and this on top of it.

I accept what you are saying though.

Spanish Eyes

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

These would be the ones working 20 hours a week on top of benefits, with the boyfriend unofficially living in and this on top of it.

I accept what you are saying though.

Seems that those who work full time/part time (between both) and are legally married have it tough really.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but it seems to me that it is much easier to live high on the hog (I know, I know) if one is working a few hours a week and is a so called Single Parent, than if two people are working and paying mortgage and childcare costs.

Government should be encouraging people to work. That's fine, but if you have kids and are married there are ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVES.

Are there?

I don't know. Long past kid rearing now!

jimmycrackcorm

Cork Truck Driver wrote:

Should,could,would but why don't we?

Because we've too many teacher turned politicians and not enough truck driving ones.

boardsuser1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Because we've too many teacher turned politicians and not enough truck driving ones.

If a TD tried my job and the money that goes with it you'd see them cry!

FR85

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

If a TD tried my job and the money that goes with it you'd see them cry!

I've often thought the same thing....!

I love Sean nos

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Because we've too many teacher turned politicians and not enough truck driving ones.

Like who?

boardsuser1

FR85 wrote: »

I've often thought the same thing....!

I was insane getting into the trucking game.

All the responsibility and hassle of driving a truck for €9.25 an hour is a pain in the arse.

Bankrupt and bring a country to its knees and you get a golden handshake plus a 6 figure pension in your early 40's/50.

I'd love to know is there any Ex Truckers in Leinster house.

I just know of Solicitors/barristers/Teachers/Social workers.

All well paid jobs in their own right.

neonsofa

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

These would be the ones working 20 hours a week on top of benefits, with the boyfriend unofficially living in and this on top of it.

I accept what you are saying though.

Its a tax credit that benefits a lot of genuine single parents who work full time and are genuinely doing it alone- including without social welfare payments- and are paying for childcare out of one wage in order to work.
You claimed it yourself so surely you are aware that they are not all like you say above.

boardsuser1

neonsofa wrote: »

Its a tax credit that benefits a lot of genuine single parents who work full time and are genuinely doing it alone- including without social welfare payments- and are paying for childcare out of one wage in order to work.
You claimed it yourself so surely you are aware that they are not all like you say above.

I don't begrudge anything to the genuine cases, it's the other side of the coin is the issue.

I stopped claiming it due to a change in the law as my child's mother who has never worked a day in her life refused to sign the paperwork for me even though i offered increased maintenance in return for it.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I was insane getting into the trucking game.

All the responsibility and hassle of driving a truck for €9.25 an hour is a pain in the arse.

Bankrupt and bring a country to its knees and you get a golden handshake plus a 6 figure pension in your early 40's/50.

I'd love to know is there any Ex Truckers in Leinster house.

I just know of Solicitors/barristers/Teachers/Social workers.

All well paid jobs in their own right.

Advice I received many years ago - Never take a job that dirties your hands, money only flows into clean hands.
The work shy also live by this principle, the old saying if there was work in the bed they would sleep on the floor perfectly sums up the overwhelming majority of people who choose to live on the scratch.

boardsuser1

Trent Helpful Jibe wrote: »

Advice I received many years ago - Never take a job that dirties your hands, money only flows into clean hands.
The work shy also live by this principle, the old saying if there was work in the bed they would sleep on the floor perfectly sums up the overwhelming majority of people who choose to live on the scratch.

Well said!

neonsofa

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I don't begrudge anything to the genuine cases, it's the other side of the coin is the issue.

I stopped claiming it due to a change in the law as my child's mother who has never worked a day in her life refused to sign the paperwork for me even though i offered increased maintenance in return for it.

But you're making sweeping statements about the people claiming it when many are genuine cases. Including yourself. And we're- well I can only speak for myself with certainty- sick of being tarred with that brush. Because we're just like every other person working and paying tax, we just happen to be raising children without a partner. And any tax breaks we do get doesn't make up for the amount of childcare we need to pay from just one wage anyway, so theres not a lot to begrudge either way.

A lot of the supports in place for single parents are there for that very reason- kids cost a lot and when there is only one wage it is hard. It is not like all single parents are living in the lap of luxury claiming everything going. I probably would be if I didn't work ironically.

boardsuser1

neonsofa wrote: »

But you're making sweeping statements about the people claiming it when many are genuine cases. Including yourself. And we're- well I can only speak for myself with certainty- sick of being tarred with that brush. Because we're just like every other person working and paying tax, we just happen to be raising children without a partner. And any tax breaks we do get doesn't make up for the amount of childcare we need to pay from just one wage anyway, so theres not a lot to begrudge either way.

A lot of the supports in place for single parents are there for that very reason- kids cost a lot and when there is only one wage it is hard. It is not like all single parents are living in the lap of luxury claiming everything going. I probably would be if I didn't work ironically.

It's far from a sweeping statement.

I was actually encouraged by revenue to take it for the final 2 years.

Life is far from simple for many on low incomes be it work and/or welfare.

neonsofa

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

It's far from a sweeping statement.

I was actually encouraged by revenue to take it for the final 2 years.

Life is far from simple for many on low incomes be it work and/or welfare.

Saying that the people claiming the single parent tax credit are the ones working part time and claiming fis and living with their boyfriend is not a sweeping statement???

boardsuser1

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I don't begrudge anything to the genuine cases, it's the other side of the coin is the issue.

I stopped claiming it due to a change in the law as my child's mother who has never worked a day in her life refused to sign the paperwork for me even though i offered increased maintenance in return for it.

neonsofa wrote: »

Saying that the people claiming the single parent tax credit are the ones working part time and claiming fis and living with their boyfriend is not a sweeping statement???

I said genuine cases, that ain't sweeping.

neonsofa

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I said genuine cases, that ain't sweeping.

It was your earlier post that I was referring to when I said you were making sweeping statements. The one where you said the ones claiming tax credits are living with their boyfriends and working part time. Hence me pointing out the genuine cases to you.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

It's far from a sweeping statement.

I was actually encouraged by revenue to take it for the final 2 years.

Life is far from simple for many on low incomes be it work and/or welfare.

families who live on low incomes, I am all for them being on the top of the council
house list, also receiving other benefits from the state, because they are trying to contribute to society.
It would be easier for them to just go on the scratch and condemn their children and so on to a life of feckless free loading.

boardsuser1

Trent Helpful Jibe wrote: »

families who live on low incomes, I am all for them being on the top of the council
house list, also receiving other benefits from the state, because they are trying to contribute to society.
It would be easier for them to just go on the scratch and condemn their children and so on to a life of feckless free loading.

I see it everyday where you just know some kids but not all will just recycle the trend.

There are also some parents out there who desperately want to work but childcare costs are a major problem.

My own kids have aspirations bar the child with disabilities.

BillyBobBS

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually no.

We could just agree what a decent income is and provide it to those capable of working who do so by supplementing their wages.

Anyone not prepared to work who is capable of doing so gets subsistence SW payments once they've been unemployed for 6 months or more.

Reserve the social housing in and around Dublin for people who are working - the city needs them.

The state should be required to provide decent housing for all its citizens, but unless you are economically contributing then there's no real reason for you tie up valuable social housing close to centres of economic activity. And forget about arguments about family......lots of PAYE workers servicing mortgages are forced to live away from family, so I'm not sure why someone not contributing to the system should have any weight attached to the family argument when their housing needs are being met out of the public purse.

Right so if you are in social housing and you lose your job we'll make sure you are fcuked on the double by also taking your house.

Next stop the master race.

Jawgap

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Right so if you are in social housing and you lose your job we'll make sure you are fcuked on the double by also taking your house.

Next stop the master race.

Not at all. Allow a period of grace.....say 6 or 12 months.....then recover the public asset that the people in question have availed of and pass it on to someone else to use.

It's public money after all and we should be looking to get a decent return on it. If someone is unable to get a job why not move them on and make life a bit easier for someone travelling into the city from a distance to work?

BillyBobBS

Jawgap wrote: »

Not at all. Allow a period of grace.....say 6 or 12 months.....then recover the public asset that the people in question have availed of and pass it on to someone else to use.

It's public money after all and we should be looking to get a decent return on it. If someone is unable to get a job why not move them on and make life a bit easier for someone travelling into the city from a distance to work?

Yes public money and people in social housing are the public also. Anyway your idea of throwing someone out of their home after 6 months is bat s h it crazy and thankfully there isn't a politician in the country who would canvass on it.

We are a society as well as an economy thankfully.

Spider Web

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Find it hilarious here that people are asking people on council housing list to move to the middle of nowhere in ghost estates and then magically find a real paying permanent job there too. The realism on boards is fooking on par with that mad egit in North Korea.

While I agree it's unrealistic to expect people from Dublin to resettle in Longford or Leitrim (although Mullingar or Tullamore or Trim are a reasonable compromise) that's a bit of an insult to the people who live in NK!

What's this "divide and conquer" stuff about? Who's doing the so called dividing and conquering?

People who criticise those who take the piss out of the welfare system and who reckon they are entitled to everything for nothing or next to nothing, have a perfectly valid grievance.

Those in need of welfare are a different group - they are not abusing the system and they deserve help (which would be even better if there weren't freeloaders taking resources off them).

That's it - it's completely straightforward and reasonable. There's nothing "divide and conquer" there!

I think the hate for Varadkar just seems like a bandwagon tbh. Kenny, Burton, Varadkar... far more integrity than the crooks before them. But it's the in thing to hate on them.

Wheeliebin30

Is there actually another country in the world who's citizens think life consists of the government building everyone a house and letting them live in it at a very low rate for life?

Are these people so thick to think this is what actually happens?

boardsuser1

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Is there actually another country in the world who's citizens think life consists of the government building everyone a house and letting them live in it at a very long rate for life?

Are these people so thick to think this is what actually happens?

Is that a reason for the high levels of immigration in the years gone by?

BillyBobBS

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Is there actually another country in the world who's citizens think life consists of the government building everyone a house and letting them live in it at a very long rate for life?

Are these people so thick to think this is what actually happens?

I guess you meant low rate not long rate.

Yes, social housing exists in lots of countries and works well.

The solution is building houses not throwing people out of them.

Jawgap

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Yes public money and people in social housing are the public also. Anyway your idea of throwing someone out of their home after 6 months is bat s h it crazy and thankfully there isn't a politician in the country who would canvass on it.

We are a society as well as an economy thankfully.

Well then we'll just have to put up with the crazy levels of inefficiency we have in our system. And if we are not going to manage social housing as an asset to benefit the public good I can't see any argument for expanding the current stock.......why should we? So we can have more arrears and a greater number of households in arrears than we already have?

Perpetuate current arrangements, by all means, but don't be too surprised if nothing changes and we continue to have a social housing rate that is almost twice what it is in Germany.

Wheeliebin30

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I guess you meant low rate not long rate.

Yes, social housing exists in lots of countries and works well.

The solution is building houses not throwing people out of them.

Hold on now.

I said everyone.

Is there a country where no banks loans or mortgages exists?

Everyone gets a house for basically nothing. That's what some thick irish people think should happen in life.

boardsuser1

Jawgap wrote: »

Well then we'll just have to put up with the crazy levels of inefficiency we have in our system. And if we are not going to manage social housing as an asset to benefit the public good I can't see any argument for expanding the current stock.......why should we? So we can have more arrears and a greater number of households in arrears than we already have?

Perpetuate current arrangements, by all means, but don't be too surprised if nothing changes and we continue to have a social housing rate that is almost twice what it is in Germany.

Social housing rates are rising very quickly while housing purchases appear to be dropping.

Gatling

Jawgap wrote: »

.....why should we? So we can have more arrears and a greater number of households in arrears than we already have?

Currently the figures for rent arrears is at 50 million + for local authorities across the country,
Which is staggering imo , which really adds weight to the idea of a Free house

Wheeliebin30

Gatling wrote: »

Currently the figures for rent arrears is at 50 million + for local authorities across the country,
Which is staggering imo , which really adds weight to the idea of a Free house

Stop you're attacking the vulnerable.

Divide and conquer waffle waffle.

BillyBobBS

Jawgap wrote: »

Well then we'll just have to put up with the crazy levels of inefficiency we have in our system. And if we are not going to manage social housing as an asset to benefit the public good I can't see any argument for expanding the current stock.......why should we? So we can have more arrears and a greater number of households in arrears than we already have?

Perpetuate current arrangements, by all means, but don't be too surprised if nothing changes and we continue to have a social housing rate that is almost twice what it is in Germany.

Or we could just you know build more houses and employers could pay people a proper wage so people could afford a mortgage.

Gatling

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop you're attacking the vulnerable.

Divide and conquer waffle waffle.

Im not attacking anyone,

That's the figures 50 + million owed in rents

BillyBobBS

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop you're attacking the vulnerable.

Divide and conquer waffle waffle.

It's not waffle, it's reality.