Social Housing - Rent Means Test

padd b1975

Ginger83 wrote: »

I know of a guy who was an only child, his mam passed away and he was let take over the house for 15 quid a week.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone who has to live in these places, absolute dives and kips, my own parents turned down a council house years ago and were taken off the list.

As my mam used to say some nice people but alot of bow-wows.

As my own mother used to say it's not where you live, it's how you live.

Chinasea

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

Total bull.

rob316

Chinasea wrote: »

Total bull.

It's not. Can definitely confirm this.

Chinasea

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

€73 Million in arrears in 2017.

Weekly rent for a brand new fully furnished apartment in the new development of Dun Laoghaire ex golf club 1 bedroom
€14.00 per week.

rob316

Ginger83 wrote: »

I know of a guy who was an only child, his mam passed away and he was let take over the house for 15 quid a week.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone who has to live in these places, absolute dives and kips, my own parents turned down a council house years ago and were taken off the list.

As my mam used to say some nice people but alot of bow-wows.

Depends on the development and area. I'm on a small block in the city, alot of the houses have been bought privately. In fact anyone I know that lives on a council estate has no problems, obviously some are trouble hot spots.

There is social housing inside private estates, neighbours may never even need know.

El Weirdo

Chinasea wrote: »

Total bull.

Which bit, exactly?

rob316

Been in arrears on a council house is absolutely taking the piss though, no matter your circumstances. I don't even know how you could be, its linked to your income.

Chinasea

El Weirdo wrote: »

Which bit, exactly?

All of it.

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

El Weirdo

Chinasea wrote: »

All of it.

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

And which part of that link disproves anything that I said in the quoted post?

Ginger83

padd b1975 wrote: »

As my own mother used to say it's not where you live, it's how you live.

Yes i suppose some can't help it if they're dragged up. Thats all they'll ever know.

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

Yeah, because Thatcher's same policy worked so well in the UK. They're really reaping the benefits now.

Why would someone not have an interest in the condition of their estate just because they're a "high earner"? Surely the fact that they have security of tenure and can conceivably even leave their tenancy to their children would be incentive enough?

Why should they get that ahead of someone who can't afford private accommodation?

Should everyone just go on the housing list from day one? Sure they can even pass on the house to their kids.

mirrorwall14

Why is it capped? I don’t see the benefit to the tax payer there. Uncapped eventually the higher earners will move back into the private market freeing up the house for someone who is in more urgent need at the time

ericl

grahambo wrote: »

Ballymun - Many

Can you name any of them?

El Weirdo

Ush1 wrote: »

Why should they get that ahead of someone who can't afford private accommodation?

Should everyone just go on the housing list from day one? Sure they can even pass on the house to their kids.

If someone can't afford private accommodation, they are eligible for social housing.

It's about trying to build sustainable communities, not just throwing people into ghettos.

fussyonion

zell12 wrote: »

Yes it's a rigorous yearly review.
Rent is 15-20% of income, min ~€30pw to max ~€200pw

It is not a yearly review for everyone.

El Weirdo

fussyonion wrote: »

It is not a yearly review for everyone.

It certainly was where I worked. Every January.

fussyonion

El Weirdo wrote: »

fussyonion wrote: »

It is not a yearly review for everyone.

It certainly was where I worked. Every January.

Not me. I'm in my place six years & I've only had one rent review form.

Chinasea

El Weirdo wrote: »

It certainly was where I worked. Every January.

Ohne jeez, this bull continues. He who doth protest so much.

€73 MILLON in 2017 in arrears owed to local authorities.
Rents of €14.00 per week for fully furnished brand new apartments. What a sham.

Defending this kind of nonsense or another polite adverb would be : Populist dysfunction.

El Weirdo

Chinasea wrote: »

Ohne jeez, this bull continues. He who doth protest so much.

€73 MILLON in 2017 in arrears owed to local authorities.
Rents of €14.00 per week for fully furnished brand new apartments. What a sham.

Defending this kind of nonsense or another polite adverb would be : Populist dysfunction.

This was the post you claimed was incorrect:

El Weirdo wrote: »

I worked in social housing.

A rent assessment was required to be returned every year. If the forms were not returned on time, or incorrectly completed, or without acceptable proof of income etc, the tenants were put on the maximum weekly rent.

NOTHING in your link disproves ANY of that post.

I never claimed that there were no rent arrears, and I never mentioned an amount for minimum rent (it was actually €15 where I worked).

Also, your link makes no mention of fully-furnished apartments as far as I can see. The association I worked for certainly didn't provide furniture for properties, and I doubt that any local authority does now, either.

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

If someone can't afford private accommodation, they are eligible for social housing.

It's about trying to build sustainable communities, not just throwing people into ghettos.

But it's not sustainable or "fair" currently. Look at the arrears and waiting lists.

We have a finite amount of housing, why should someone who can afford to house themselves privately take up a house for someone more in need?

El Weirdo

Ush1 wrote: »

But it's not sustainable or "fair" currently. Look at the arrears and waiting lists.

We have a finite amount of housing, why should someone who can afford to house themselves privately take up a house for someone more in need?

It's hardly an incentive to go out and find work or better yourself if it means that your family home is going to be taken off of you, is it?

We should be building more social housing units.

Hitman3000

fussyonion wrote:

Not me. I'm in my place six years & I've only had one rent review form.

I was in my former council house for 5 years. Rent review every January. Different councils different policies.

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

It's hardly an incentive to go out and find work or better yourself if it means that your family home is going to be taken off of you, is it?

We should be building more social housing units.

But it's not yours. It's the governments.

There is already schemes to buy council houses from the council at a discounted price but people have obvious issues with that also.

Why should you need to be incentivised like that to better yourself? Does it discourage people to better themselves past a point where they will no longer be eligible to get a council house in the first place?

Beta Ray Bill

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I just looked at the Foxhound in Kilbarrack on Google maps. It's looks like a nice area, do you mean the council estates are near pubs. There is a logic to having a pub near a large population whether it's private or council housing.

The Snapper and The Van was filmed at/in the Foxhoud...

El Weirdo

Ush1 wrote: »

But it's not yours. It's the governments.

No. It's your home.

Mrs OBumble

Chinasea wrote: »

Ohne jeez, this bull continues. He who doth protest so much.

€73 MILLON in 2017 in arrears owed to local authorities.
Rents of €14.00 per week for fully furnished brand new apartments. What a sham.

Defending this kind of nonsense or another polite adverb would be : Populist dysfunction.

Council houses don't usually come with flooring, much less furniture.

The only rents i saw which were that low were for some unfortunate Brits who got only a tiny pension from there and weren't entitled to state pension here.

That's not to say there aren't some places where therules aren't enforced. But they would be the exception, not the norm.

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

No. It's your home.

Grand so, it's your home and you like the area and can afford full market price, then you should pay full market price for it.

El Weirdo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The only rents i saw which were that low were for some unfortunate Brits who got only a tiny pension from there and weren't entitled to state pension here.

Exactly. The one or two times (literally) I applied minimum weekly rent, was for elderly gentlemen who had spend most of their working lives in England and wanted to spend their final years back home. I certainly applied the maximum rent many more times than the minimum.

topper75

Diceicle wrote: »

Councils are currently owed €65,000,000 in arrears so it would appear the approach varies at best.

Council tenants owe €65m in unpaid rent

Can't send around the heavies to collect it either.

Because the people doing it ARE the heavies.

I love small countries!

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

Grand so, it's your home and you like the area and can afford full market price, then you should pay full market price for it.

No, you should pay whatever the maximum rent the L.A. sets based on a tenants income .Don't like the rules? lobby to have them changed.

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

Exactly. The one or two times (literally) I applied minimum weekly rent, was for elderly gentlemen who had spend most of their working lives in England and wanted to spend their final years back home. I certainly applied the maximum rent many more times than the minimum.

Sounds like the maximum could have been extended so...

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No, you should pay whatever the maximum rent the L.A. sets based on a tenants income .Don't like the rules? lobby to have them changed.

It's nothing to do with me "liking" them, it's do with what social housing is for, how it is maintained and sustained. Also what is "fair" to people genuinely in need on waiting lists and those who aren't.

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

It's nothing to do with me "liking" them, it's do with what social housing is for, how it is maintained and sustained. Also what is "fair" to people genuinely in need on waiting lists and those who aren't.

People living in social housing were also assessed based on their needs. Once they are paying what they are obliged to pay I see no reason to suggest they should be required to leave what has become their home and community just to soothe the outrage of a cohort of begrudgers. The government needs to build more social and affordable housing simple. If the rents are too low the council's need to review their policies taking account of income of sitting tenants.

El Weirdo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

If the rents are too low the council's need to review their policies taking account of income of sitting tenants.

Just on this, the councils and HAs have to (or at least had to) abide by Department policy when setting out their rental structure.

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

People living in social housing were also assessed based on their needs. Once they are paying what they are obliged to pay I see no reason to suggest they should be required to leave what has become their home and community just to soothe the outrage of a cohort of begrudgers. The government needs to build more social and affordable housing simple. If the rents are too low the council's need to review their policies taking account of income of sitting tenants.

They were assessed based upon needs at the time they were housed. This thread is about their circumstances changing, namely they improve financial income far beyond what would have made them eligible for social housing in the first place.

As I said, if you can afford full market price, that's what you should pay, same as anybody else housed privately or publicly.

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

They were assessed based upon needs at the time they were housed. This thread is about their circumstances changing, namely they improve financial income far beyond what would have made them eligible for social housing in the first place.

So what? Once they are honouring the terms of their tenancy with the L.A. there is no issue except with the feelings of those who begrudge the security of tenure and favourable rent L.A. tenants have. What do you want equality of misery?

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

As I said, if you can afford full market price, that's what you should pay, same as anybody else housed privately or publicly.

Irrelevant, rent is set based on income to a max chargeable rent. Which varies from L.A. to L.A. Can't see a tenant willing to pay more than they are liable for just for kicks and giggles.

El Weirdo

Ush1 wrote: »

They were assessed based upon needs at the time they were housed. This thread is about their circumstances changing, namely they improve financial income far beyond what would have made them eligible for social housing in the first place.

As I said, if you can afford full market price, that's what you should pay, same as anybody else housed privately or publicly.

So ghettos for all the povs, yeah? Because that's what you're asking for. And we all know how well that works out.

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So what? Once they are honouring the terms of their tenancy with the L.A. there is no issue except with the feelings of those who begrudge the security of tenure and favourable rent L.A. tenants have. What do you want equality of misery?

No issue, apart from the huge number of people on waiting lists who ya know, actually can't afford private accommodation but I'm sure they're begrudgers anyway.:rolleyes:

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Irrelevant, rent is set based on income to a max chargeable rent. Which varies from L.A. to L.A. Can't see a tenant willing to pay more than they are liable for just for kicks and giggles.

I'm saying what it set by the max set by the authority is obviously too low. I'm not asking tenants to overpay, I'm saying authorities should be asking for more if the tenant can afford it.

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

No issue, apart from the huge number of people on waiting lists who ya know, actually can't afford private accommodation but I'm sure they're begrudgers anyway.

There is always waiting lists. Up to the government to address the lack of housing NOT someone who is fortunate to have the security of a L.A. house.

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

So ghettos for all the povs, yeah? Because that's what you're asking for. And we all know how well that works out.

Why do you assume because some people will have to pay more that it will produce ghettos?

As I said if you like the house and area and can afford the market rate, that's what you should pay.

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

I'm saying what it set by the max set by the authority is obviously too low. I'm not asking tenants to overpay, I'm saying authorities should be asking for more if the tenant can afford it.

Well then, by your own admission your issue is with the L.A. and housing authorities.

El Weirdo

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm saying what it set by the max set by the authority is obviously too low. I'm not asking tenants to overpay, I'm saying authorities should be asking for more if the tenant can afford it.

How about this?

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

There is always waiting lists. Up to the government to address the lack of housing NOT someone who is fortunate to have the security of a L.A. house.

There will always be more houses to build, why not go full nanny state and everybody gets a subsidised home?

It is up to the government that those genuinely in need get help and are prioritised.

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Well then, by your own admission your issue is with the L.A. and housing authorities.

Yes, I never said otherwise.

Hitman3000

Ush1 wrote:

There will always be more houses to build, why not go full nanny state and everybody gets a subsidised home?

Sure , submit a detailed proposal to the Housing Minister .

Ush1

El Weirdo wrote: »

How about this?

It's an interesting idea, and certainly better than the current situation.

Ush1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sure , submit a detailed proposal to the Housing Minister .

I think it's you who wants to submit that particular proposal comrade.

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote:

It's an interesting idea, and certainly better than the current situation.

Ronan Lyons is probably one of the best Economists writing about this serious problem, many of his ideas make perfect sense