Article on inefficiencies in social housing allocations

Cyrus

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/comment-we-cannot-allow-tenants-to-act-as-if-they-own-houses-37456377.html

from Brendan Burgess and Karl Deeter

Samuel T. Cogley

Nail, head.

I had no idea the situation was so perverse.

Cyrus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Nail, head.

I had no idea the situation was so perverse.

this is a proper scandal, it wont get any traction though

ednwireland

Cyrus wrote: »

this is a proper scandal, it wont get any traction though

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

Cyrus

ednwireland wrote: »

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

im sure there is a far more efficient allocation of the existing accommodation,

but you are right theres nothing in it for a politician

AlanG

A very interesting article. It would address many of the issues and if there is a crisis then it should be treated as such.

Amirani

ednwireland wrote: »

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

Agreed.

Regarding alternative accommodation; given we have a housing crisis, why not enforce sharing of council housing? If there's a 4 bed council house with 2 people living in it, why not move in another 2 council tenants? It happens in private rental sector the whole time.

Fian

And not only do we have a homeless problem, we also have an overcrowding problem. In the Dublin City Council area, there are 18 cases of a family of five or more living in a one-bed housing unit. Conversely, there are 118 individuals living in a four-bed house. This is wrong.

This is crazy. I understand that people should not be uprooted willy nilly or unecessarily adn that people should eb enabled to put down and maintain roots in a community. But allowing an individual to remain alone in a state owned four bed house while simultaneously squeezing a family of five into another one bed unit, simply because the individual got the four bed "first" when presumably they had children living with them is absurd. the State has a duty to the family of five that outweighs the convenience of that individual.

I had no idea the system worked like this.

MayoSalmon

Fian wrote: »

This is crazy. I understand that people should not be uprooted willy nilly or unecessarily adn that people should eb enabled to put down and maintain roots in a community. But allowing an individual to remain alone in a state owned four bed house while simultaneously squeezing a family of five into another one bed unit, simply because the individual got the four bed "first" when presumably they had children living with them is absurd. the State has a duty to the family of five that outweighs the convenience of that individual.

I had no idea the system worked like this.

Only in Ireland...the sense of entitlement is second to none.

L1011

UK "bedroom tax" has had disasterous impacts so any similar setup here would require treading extremely carefully.

The Iveagh Trust has done some specific work on building new, one bed units specifically designed for older people with facilities to assist them; offered solely to those who can vacate a larger council property. The councils should be doing this themselves - carrot not stick, and providing something that other countries already have; also avoids any legal issues about the lifetime tenancies if it is does entirely voluntarily. That would be the bulk of cases like this.

As goes single people inheriting tenancies to a larger unit - inheriting tenancies at all needs to be done away with - if they still meet social housing criteria they should be put to the top of the list for a correctly sized unit to get the large one released.

GGTrek

L1011 wrote: »

UK "bedroom tax" has had disasterous impacts so any similar setup here would require treading extremely carefully.

Disagree on this statement only. The bedroom tax partially achieved some of its objectives which was to force people depending on benefits to downsize.
This is recent research from the LSE which is a bastion of left wing ideology and disagrees with your statement:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1537.pdf
Just because lefty journals like the Guardian dislike the bedroom tax, it does not mean it is bad policy. In my opinion it is a very good policy. Taxpayers resources are not infinite and have to be managed efficiently. It actually shows how much on the left current Irish parties policies are compared to the UK spectrum.
It is the other side of the coin of the vacant tax imposed on property owners.

L1011

GGTrek wrote: »

Disagree on this statement only. The bedroom tax partially achieved some of its objectives which was to force people depending on benefits to downsize.
This is recent research from the LSE which is a bastion of left wing ideology and disagrees with your statement:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1537.pdf
Just because lefty journals like the Guardian dislike the bedroom tax, it does not mean it is bad policy. In my opinion it is a very good policy. Taxpayers resources are not infinite and have to be managed efficiently. It actually shows how much on the left current Irish parties policies are compared to the UK spectrum.
It is the other side of the coin of the vacant tax imposed on property owners.

It partially achieved its objectives at a huge societal cost. I said it had disastrous impacts, not that it didn't work!

loyatemu

It's similar to the problem in the private sector. There's a real lack of options for people to trade down to smaller properties.

There's also a disincentive for tenants to move to a smaller unit if they think there's any chance they may be able to buy their house, as the discount is worth a lot more in a larger property.

L1011

loyatemu wrote: »

There's also a disincentive for tenants to move to a smaller unit if they think there's any chance they may be able to buy their house, as the discount is worth a lot more in a larger property.

Something else which really should be stopped...

4ensic15

Trading down is stressful and carries risk. This is often too much for older people. They often don't have cash for a deposit until they sell their own house and if they sell without buying they are left homeless and are involved in renting contracts and then getting involved bidding wars on a new property. There is a risk that if the property market moves up after they have sold they may lose the capital sum they had hoped to realise by trading down.
As usual, nothing is being done about this, which doesn't actually involve building but is administrative.

noodler

4ensic15 wrote: »

Trading down is stressful and carries risk. This is often too much for older people. They often don't have cash for a deposit until they sell their own house and if they sell without buying they are left homeless and are involved in renting contracts and then getting involved bidding wars on a new property. There is a risk that if the property market moves up after they have sold they may lose the capital sum they had hoped to realise by trading down.
As usual, nothing is being done about this, which doesn't actually involve building but is administrative.

This is true of anyone.

The difference in this example is that taxpayer is paying for this person's house presumably for their entire life until they became old.

4ensic15

noodler wrote: »

This is true of anyone.

The difference in this example is that taxpayer is paying for this person's house presumably for their entire life until they became old.

A younger person may have access to cash to pay for a deposit and so will be able to participate in a chain. An older person will not have the means to accumulate cash or borrow on a bridging basis. They will also have much less experience of the rental market and will not be attractive as a tenant.


I do not understand the reference to the taxpayer. the old person owns a house outright and wishes to downsize. It is costing the taxpayer indirectly if they can't downsize as it means a new house of the same size has to be built rather than a smaller unit. This worsens the housing supply.

Mrs OBumble

4ensic15 wrote: »

A younger person may have access to cash to pay for a deposit and so will be able to participate in a chain. An older person will not have the means to accumulate cash or borrow on a bridging basis. They will also have much less experience of the rental market and will not be attractive as a tenant.


I do not understand the reference to the taxpayer. the old person owns a house outright and wishes to downsize.

In this case we are talking about social housing tenants, so the taxpayer is paying.


In general older people are not poor. Some are, for sure. Many aren't. Their pension plans often give them lump sums which make good deposits.

4ensic15

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

In this case we are talking about social housing tenants, so the taxpayer is paying.


In general older people are not poor. Some are, for sure. Many aren't. Their pension plans often give them lump sums which make good deposits.

I was responding to a comment about the private sector. The downsizing process is too daunting for many elderly people. Even in publicly provided housing many of them will have lived in the house for decades and have the same neighbours for all that time. They will quite likely have the experience of trying to get the house in the first place and experienced various difficulties with housing in their early years. Not surprisingly they are reluctant to move.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

I was responding to a comment about the private sector. The downsizing process is too daunting for many elderly people.

You keep spouting this as if somehow people lose their faculties the minute they retire. Most of the retired/elderly I know would run rings around their younger counterparts both financially and in terms of what they're capable of.

To suggest anything but a minority of elderly/retired people can't downsize because they're all too poor and incapable smacks of personal prejudice more than anything else.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

You keep spouting this as if somehow people lose their faculties the minute they retire. Most of the retired/elderly I know would run rings around their younger counterparts both financially and in terms of what they're capable of.

To suggest anything but a minority of elderly/retired people can't downsize because they're all too poor and incapable smacks of personal prejudice more than anything else.

Elderly people don't lose their faculties when they retire. They are however cautious. If they have been householders for decades they won't know much about renting. Very few will want to sign a contract to purchase unless they have the money to complete in their hand.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

Elderly people don't lose their faculties when they retire. They are however cautious. If they have been householders for decades they won't know much about renting. Very few will want to sign a contract to purchase unless they have the money to complete in their hand.

Seriously, quit the sweeping generalisations. They are not remotely accurate.

Gatling

I think they should bring leases that end when the youngest child turns 18 and are capable of supporting themselves,
Always hated the idea your housed on need but yet you could in theory end up with a load of single people living in 4/5 bed properties until their deaths , meanwhile families in desperate need of multiple room properties are left waiting 12+ years for a property .

lawred2

ednwireland wrote: »

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

That's the problem with national policy being drawn up and delivered by local politicians.

AndrewJRenko

I think the authors don't know the difference between houses and homes in communities.

Mrs OBumble

Gatling wrote: »

I think they should bring leases that end when the youngest child turns 18 and are capable of supporting themselves,
Always hated the idea your housed on need but yet you could in theory end up with a load of single people living in 4/5 bed properties until their deaths , meanwhile families in desperate need of multiple room properties are left waiting 12+ years for a property .

No in theory about it. It's happens regularly.

18 is perhaps a little too soon - many kids live at home while at college. So 23 might be more realistic. And rather than just end, they should come with automatic re-assessment and an offer of move to a smaller unit within the same rough area if there is still a housing need.

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

I think they should bring leases that end when the youngest child turns 18 and are capable of supporting themselves.

Because it's generally easy for 18 year olds to find affordable housing?

mikemac2

Annamore Court in Ballyfermot is a scheme that maybe could be copied.

There were 38 small flats opposite the Fás centre that were closed for years and years. A shame just lying idle

Now 70 new units are on the site. Built to the best of standards though they are quite small as it’s a small site. The emphasis is have elderly residents move there and free up family homes in the area. I don’t have links and stats but I have read stories in the Northside people of Ballyer locals very happy to move there

Seems to be a success story by DCC and the Iveagh Trust who are partners on this

s7ryf3925pivug

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

4ensic15

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

Middle-class people are transient when they are single but they eventually get to buy a house.

Idbatterim

This country isnt capable of running itself! I think those morons in power thought they would be on easy street when the economy recovered!

Paying nothing for houses that their neightbours will pay over a million for when you factor in loan interest and that is after tax!