Should people in emergency accommodation be made pay for their stay?

Sleeper12

Augeo wrote: »

Do you really think that?

A minority of homeless folk are as you describe below......



I was in a hotel for a party last Christmas and it was obvious that loads of rooms there were emergency accommodation.

What struck me was the sheer number of kids each couple seemed to have, well above the 2.4 average or whatever it is.

A significant amount of the homeless folk are gaming the system to get a council property that suits them.......they are sprogged up to facilitate this too.

Oh I really KNOW that. Unlike many posters here I have direct contact with homeless people.



Here's the thing. People with no real contact with homeless people get to have wonderful imaginations when it comes to homeless people. They can imagine & make up anything they want.



Then you have people who work directly with homeless people & homeless charities & they don't have the luxury to imagine these fantastical things. Sadly they have to face reality everyday. You'll never find anyone that has worked with homelessness or has first hand experience of it say that most are scamming the system because it's simply not true. People involved with homeless people see the daily misery that goes on.



Government departments, agencies & ministers all know that the vast majority are very genuine cases. The only people claiming otherwise are the people sitting in warm offices & homes with no experience at all banging away on their keyboard.



Get out & join a soup kitchen, food run or volunteer with a homeless charity for a few months & then come back to me & tell me I'm a liar

YFlyer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They have no cooking facilities at all. They hyave to pay for take out food or store bought sandwiches. A huge amount of people in hotels have to move regularly. Sometimes several times per week.

What exactly would they be paying for?

Sandwiches can be made cheaply or get salad based food from the stores.

Sleeper12

YFlyer wrote:

Sandwiches can be made cheaply or get salad based food from the stores.

As pointed out before government can't charge rent for accommodation without cooking facilities.

Private landlords could make your same argument about making sandwiches and then not provide a cooking. This is why it's illegal

Old diesel

_Brian wrote: »

Nothing should be completely free.
They should contribute something towards the cost.

While there may be an element of the state failing them the majority of the failing is to be shared among themselves, parents, partners. At some stage along the line ****ty decisions lead to where they are now.

For the rest of us we and our parents made huge efforts and sacrifices to secure our lifestyle. My parents went without and worked hard so we could go to college, I worked from age 15. When I got married I didn’t go on to have a string of kids with no plan or ability to provide for them.

People love to blame the state but it’s more tue truth that they should be looking at those they have surrounded themselves with for the causes of their problems.

Personal responsibility is something they don’t want to face.

All those teachers who told them if they didn’t work hard they would go nowhere - they were dead right !

No amount of taking personal responsibility or hard work overcome the problems that our unfit for purpose rental and housing system creates.

All the working hard in the world will not prevent your landlord deciding to sell up and no alternative accomodation been available to you in a suitable location and at a price you can pay.

Then theres totally random landlord selection - no we don't want teenagers, no we don't want the van you need for the job that pays the rent we charge you parked on the drive. How are you supposeded to work around that. Someone here on boards actually reported having the "can't have teenagers" and "don't want the van parked on drive" objections from Landlords. I think it was the guy unhappy that a receiver gave him a shorter notice period then other properties the same receIver was giving other properties.

Another issue is people having a place to stay they could afford when they originally had their kids

The problem is lack of supply - there are too many people needing housing vs the available supply.

I can't think of a way tenants can increase housing supply by themselves even with the best of hard work and personal responsibility.

_Brian

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Oh I really KNOW that. Unlike many posters here I have direct contact with homeless people.



Here's the thing. People with no real contact with homeless people get to have wonderful imaginations when it comes to homeless people. They can imagine & make up anything they want.



Then you have people who work directly with homeless people & homeless charities & they don't have the luxury to imagine these fantastical things. Sadly they have to face reality everyday. You'll never find anyone that has worked with homelessness or has first hand experience of it say that most are scamming the system because it's simply not true. People involved with homeless people see the daily misery that goes on.



Government departments, agencies & ministers all know that the vast majority are very genuine cases. The only people claiming otherwise are the people sitting in warm offices & homes with no experience at all banging away on their keyboard.



Get out & join a soup kitchen, food run or volunteer with a homeless charity for a few months & then come back to me & tell me I'm a liar

So is it everyone else’s fault except their own ??

Because it’s everyone else that’s paying the bill while providing for themselves and their own families.

In many if not most cases it’s a series of poor personal choices that bring them to where they are. When people aren’t accountable for their personal choices then things don’t change, in fact they get worse.

What of those who turn down accommodation and choose to remain homeless, some turning down multiple options, when do we say enough !!

Yes the state has a responsibility to these people, but they need to accept they will need to compromise and take what they get, it’s primarily their own responsibility they are in these positions.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or to put it another way some people want a secure tenancy and not be told in 6 months or a year that the LL is selling up/ needs it for a relation/is refurbishing.

Imagine wanting secure accommodation-the cheek of some people.

theres many want that

theres a proportion want it for nothing

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Oh I really KNOW that. Unlike many posters here I have direct contact with homeless people.



Here's the thing. People with no real contact with homeless people get to have wonderful imaginations when it comes to homeless people. They can imagine & make up anything they want.



Then you have people who work directly with homeless people & homeless charities & they don't have the luxury to imagine these fantastical things. Sadly they have to face reality everyday. You'll never find anyone that has worked with homelessness or has first hand experience of it say that most are scamming the system because it's simply not true. People involved with homeless people see the daily misery that goes on.



Government departments, agencies & ministers all know that the vast majority are very genuine cases. The only people claiming otherwise are the people sitting in warm offices & homes with no experience at all banging away on their keyboard.



Get out & join a soup kitchen, food run or volunteer with a homeless charity for a few months & then come back to me & tell me I'm a liar

yawn ......... I said significant amount, not most.

You can be a tad deluded/naive etc without being a liar btw.

_Brian

Old diesel wrote: »

No amount of taking personal responsibility or hard work overcome the problems that our unfit for purpose rental and housing system creates.

All the working hard in the world will not prevent your landlord deciding to sell up and no alternative accomodation been available to you in a suitable location and at a price you can pay.

Then theres totally random landlord selection - no we don't want teenagers, no we don't want the van you need for the job that pays the rent we charge you parked on the drive. How are you supposeded to work around that. Someone here on boards actually reported having the "can't have teenagers" and "don't want the van parked on drive" objections from Landlords. I think it was the guy unhappy that a receiver gave him a shorter notice period then other properties the same receIver was giving other properties.

Another issue is people having a place to stay they could afford when they originally had their kids

The problem is lack of supply - there are too many people needing housing vs the available supply.

I can't think of a way tenants can increase housing supply by themselves even with the best of hard work and personal responsibility.

A “suitable location”

Suitable locations are those you can afford, if you can’t afford your desired location then up sticks and move to somewhere you can afford. It’s not the states responsibility to supplement people to live in their desired location. Plenty of us have to compromise on this stuff and work and pay the bills and support those who won’t compromise on where there is accommodation they can afford.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

So is it everyone else’s fault except their own ??

...................

In many if not most cases it’s a series of poor personal choices that bring them to where they are. When people aren’t accountable for their personal choices then things don’t change, in fact they get worse..................

Indeed.
Very well said.

Thousands spent on various activities (smoking, drinking, recreational drugs) over the years, never getting a skill or trade, being happy on the scratch and with HAP etc while rental accomodation was plentiful, have a few kids etc etc.

Then when the sh1t hits the fan get emergency accomodation and keep on refusing HAP offers until the state ponies up a council home for you and yours.

But, that's all just in my imagination :rolleyes:

Sleeper12

_Brian wrote: »

So is it everyone else’s fault except their own ??

Because it’s everyone else that’s paying the bill while providing for themselves and their own families.

In many if not most cases it’s a series of poor personal choices that bring them to where they are. When people aren’t accountable for their personal choices then things don’t change, in fact they get worse.

What of those who turn down accommodation and choose to remain homeless, some turning down multiple options, when do we say enough !!

Yes the state has a responsibility to these people, but they need to accept they will need to compromise and take what they get, it’s primarily their own responsibility they are in these positions.

Who are you talking about?



You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?



Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??


You sound like you formed your opinion of homeless people, not based on fact but based on seeing homeless people at a hotel christmass party like another poster

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

...............



Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??............

What % of homeless people do you estimate fall into that category?
You're looking at single figures.

Sleeper12

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed.
Very well said.

Thousands spent on various activities (smoking, drinking, recreational drugs) over the years, never getting a skill or trade, being happy on the scratch and with HAP etc while rental accomodation was plentiful, have a few kids etc etc.

Then when the sh1t hits the fan get emergency accomodation and keep on refusing HAP offers until the state ponies up a council home for you and yours.

But, that's all just in my imagination :rolleyes:

Yes it is.


Where did you come up with this nonsense? All homeless people smoke drink & take recreational drugs! Really???


Before you make a bigger fool of yourself I suggest you volunteer with a homeless charity.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

............ based on seeing homeless people at a hotel christmass party like another poster

lol

You are getting p1ssy now

_Brian

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Who are you talking about?



You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?



Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??


You sound like you formed your opinion of homeless people, not based on fact but based on seeing homeless people at a hotel christmass party like another poster

How do I know if it’s tgeir fault

Peopleloose their jobs and then get other jobs.
We can’t accept people shrugging their shoulders and turning to the state to support them
People are dealt hard knocks all the time, it’s how you deal with that situation. They have a responsibility to themselves, their kids and other tax payers to either work their way out or accept whatever is offered to them even if it’s not in their “suitable location”

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes it is.


Where did you come up with this nonsense? All homeless people smoke drink & take recreational drugs! Really???


Before you make a bigger fool of yourself I suggest you volunteer with a homeless charity.

did I say all?
Nope...........

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Who are you talking about?



You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?



Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??


You sound like you formed your opinion of homeless people, not based on fact but based on seeing homeless people at a hotel christmass party like another poster

whats your breakdown of the percentages

after working in a housing unit for seven years, my breakdown of the housing list, let alone homeless, isnt so much "genuine" vs "scammers"

its "did something to help themselves" and "didnt"

breakdown- 5% vs 95%

Sleeper12

Augeo wrote: »

What % of homeless people do you estimate fall into that category?
You're looking at single figures.

Actually more than 85 percent have been paying rent right up to becoming homeless


More to the point what percentage are chancers? The answer is 10 percent but I'm sure your answer will be entertaining.

Old diesel

_Brian wrote: »

A “suitable location”

Suitable locations are those you can afford, if you can’t afford your desired location then up sticks and move to somewhere you can afford. It’s not the states responsibility to supplement people to live in their desired location. Plenty of us have to compromise on this stuff and work and pay the bills and support those who won’t compromise on where there is accommodation they can afford.

But what if the job is in Dublin and the only place place you can afford is in Donegal or West Cork. And you can't find a job in either of those locations.

See how suitable location can be an issue

_Brian

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Who are you talking about?



You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?



Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??


You sound like you formed your opinion of homeless people, not based on fact but based on seeing homeless people at a hotel christmass party like another poster

I haven’t been to a Christmas party in years, I don’t go out because I choose to keep my money for the priorities in life like paying for the lifestyle I want and saving for my kids education.

It’s abkut the choices we make in life,

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Actually more than 85 percent have been paying rent right up to becoming homeless


More to the point what percentage are chancers? The answer is 10 percent but I'm sure your answer will be entertaining.

full rent?

or a fraction of the rent?

you do your points little service when you are so transparent tbh

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Actually more than 85 percent have been paying rent right up to becoming homeless


More to the point what percentage are chancers? The answer is 10 percent but I'm sure your answer will be entertaining.

I didn't ask what % paid rent I asked what % fell into the category you desrcibed below

Sleeper12 wrote: »

................

Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??

You didn't answer the question but came out with a daft enough comment. Prior to being homeless most folk paid rent, well that's a a shocker isn't it, not.

Sleeper12

Augeo wrote: »

I didn't ask what % paid rent I asked what % fell into the category you desrcibed below



You didn't answer the question but came out with a daft enough comment. Prior to being homeless most folk paid rent, well that's a a shocker isn't it, not.

Question. Why would you separate homeowners from renters when both are paying tax?

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

full rent?

or a fraction of the rent?

you do your points little service when you are so transparent tbh

You don't have statistics for that & neither do I. However what difference does it make? paying full rent or part rent? both are made homeless by the landlord. You are actually trying to separate someone on family income supplement (FIS) & someone not needing FIS? You really want to place the class card?



Is it ok for a landlord to make someone paying part rent homeless & wrong for the same landlord to make someone paying full rent homeless? You do realize how foolish that sounds? Right?

Old diesel

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Who are you talking about?



You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?



Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??


You sound like you formed your opinion of homeless people, not based on fact but based on seeing homeless people at a hotel christmass party like another poster

Exactly

The only way the tenant could ever be to blame is where behaviour or actions on their part - anti social behaviour, damaging property or non payment of rent and giving unwarranted hassle to the landlord - caused the end of the tenancy.

Sleeper12

Old diesel wrote: »

Exactly

The only way the tenant could ever be to blame is where behaviour or actions on their part - anti social behaviour, damaging property or non payment of rent and giving unwarranted hassle to the landlord - caused the end of the tenancy.

Some posters believe that unless you pay the whole rent out of your own pocket (no FIS) that it's ok to make you homeless. They believe that you should be treated DIFFERENTLY to someone not getting help toward the rent. There are OAPs getting state aid to help with the rent. They fail to see how playing the class game is as bad as playing the race game. It all comes out of hatred

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Question. Why would you separate homeowners from renters when both are paying tax?

Well you were the one who mentioned the homeless folk who were allegedly home owners. ............ so maybe ask yourself

I was questioning what amount of homeless folk fell into the category you described... "Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating"

Instead of answering that you added the following..... "Actually more than 85 percent have been paying rent right up to becoming homeless"

You now are asking "Why would you separate homeowners from renters when both are paying tax?"

How about answering what you were asked?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Some posters believe that unless you pay the whole rent out of your own pocket (no FIS) that it's ok to make you homeless. They believe that you should be treated DIFFERENTLY to someone not getting help toward the rent. There are OAPs getting state aid to help with the rent. They fail to see how playing the class game is as bad as playing the race game. It all comes out of hatred

You really are on a rant.
Hatred?
Folk acknowledging that many folk claiming to be homless are gaming the system doesn't mean that we hate OAPs etc getting help with their rent.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You don't have statistics for that & neither do I. However what difference does it make? paying full rent or part rent? both are made homeless by the landlord. You are actually trying to separate someone on family income supplement (FIS) & someone not needing FIS? You really want to place the class card?



Is it ok for a landlord to make someone paying part rent homeless & wrong for the same landlord to make someone paying full rent homeless? You do realize how foolish that sounds? Right?

hold on there bucko

you said 85% "homeless" had been paying rent

its entirely relevant to interrogate that given your pretty obvious bias towards twisting both hard figures and soft anecdote

its entirely relevant to interrogate whether this very high % you claim have in fact ever paid full whack of rent as opposed to a figure of none or a figure that is a pittance relative to what the full-paying joe pays

full paying joe is also the fella with his hand in his pocket paying for the subsidised tenant, in case you needed that spelling out

full paying joe will, under your express wish, see the helpless "what can i do shure life is so hard to me" individual put into housing, permanent or rented, before himself.

no landlord "makes" anyone homeless. you either pay your way or you dont.

any other spin is just that.

a safety net cant support everyone, its the duty of a fair minded citizen to pay towards it but also to not throw themselves upon it for any old reason at all.

you and those who think like you do society no service at all imo to encourage the shameless carryon seen around chosen "homelessness" at present

Old diesel

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Some posters believe that unless you pay the whole rent out of your own pocket (no FIS) that it's ok to make you homeless. They believe that you should be treated DIFFERENTLY to someone not getting help toward the rent. There are OAPs getting state aid to help with the rent. They fail to see how playing the class game is as bad as playing the race game. It all comes out of hatred

A far more productive mindset imo - would be to say okay - people are becoming homeless because landlords are leaving the market.

So how do we either help landlords stay in the market by addressing the reasons they left.

Or looking at how to replace the lost capacity in the market and add additional capacity as well.

Not much blaming some guy for "not working hard enough" in that though. Might actually solve the issue of energency accommodation by reducing the need for it thought.

also you need to learn what FIS is and how it differs from rent supports such as HAP or the differential rent

Old diesel

Deleted User wrote: »

hold on there bucko

you said 85% "homeless" had been paying rent

its entirely relevant to interrogate that given your pretty obvious bias towards twisting both hard figures and soft anecdote

its entirely relevant to interrogate whether this very high % you claim have in fact ever paid full whack of rent as opposed to a figure of none or a figure that is a pittance relative to what the full-paying joe pays

full paying joe is also the fella with his hand in his pocket paying for the subsidised tenant, in case you needed that spelling out

full paying joe will, under your express wish, see the helpless "what can i do shure life is so hard to me" individual put into housing, permanent or rented, before himself.

no landlord "makes" anyone homeless. you either pay your way or you dont.

any other spin is just that.

a safety net cant support everyone, its the duty of a fair minded citizen to pay towards it but also to not throw themselves upon it for any old reason at all.

you and those who think like you do society no service at all imo to encourage the shameless carryon seen around chosen "homelessness" at present

The point of the 85 percent were paying rent point I believe is to show that tenancies werent ending and thus the tenant becoming homeless - due to something the tenant did or didn't do.

To show that the homelessness came about for reasons that had nothing to do with that individuals personality, work ethic, sense of civic duty or whatever other bad points we want to hit them for

BrokenArrows

Augeo wrote: »

I've stayed in plenty hotels.
Sometimes for months at a time for work.

I think the point being made was that they are being put under curfew and cannot cook affordable meals because it's a hotel. They are forced to eat out all the time which is very expensive, even if you went for the cheapest option everywhere.

I'm assuming that meals are not included in their hotel stay. If they are then they can **** off and pay what they can afford.

Sleeper12

Augeo wrote: »

Well you were the one who mentioned the homeless folk who were allegedly home owners. ............ so maybe ask yourself

I was questioning what amount of homeless folk fell into the category you described... "Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating"

Here is my full statement

You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?

Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??

My question is why would you single out homeowners. Why didn't you include the part about the thousands of people put out onto the street by their landlord. Oh & btw almost every one of the homeowners didn't go straight to homelessness. They rented & were made homeless by landlords.

Augeo wrote: »

You really are on a rant.
Hatred?
Folk acknowledging that many folk claiming to be homless are gaming the system doesn't mean that we hate OAPs etc getting help with their rent.

You are guessing at that though. You have no first hand experience except judging homeless people while you enjoy your Christmas party. You must have really been in the Christmas Cheer that year.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

also you need to learn what FIS is and how it differs from rent supports such as HAP or the differential rent

I do know what FIS is. I also know some OAPs on HAP.



It makes absolutely no difference if someone is paying rent themselves or on HAP. Neither one deserves to become homeless

Gatling

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It makes absolutely no difference if someone is paying rent themselves or on HAP. Neither one deserves to become homeless

So if they do become homeless they bear zero responsibility ,and get to make zero contributions to long term hotels stays while choosing to make lifestyle choices,

Your making a lot of assumptions on this thread while suggesting your the one person with any experience with homelessness or any one who is homeless ,And I doubt any of the figures your quoting are anything but antidotal

_Brian

Old diesel wrote: »

But what if the job is in Dublin and the only place place you can afford is in Donegal or West Cork. And you can't find a job in either of those locations.

See how suitable location can be an issue

But if you haven’t moved to either how do you know if you can’t create a cheaper life there and find work ??

Living in major Urban centres is for people on high wages and who can afford it. If your job in Dublin smdoesnt oay tue rent move to an area that you can afford or move to a commuter belt.

The solution isn’t blame everyone and expect handouts forever because you want to live close to mammy.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

...........




My question is why would you single out homeowners. Why didn't you include the part about the thousands of people put out onto the street by their landlord. Oh & btw almost every one of the homeowners didn't go straight to homelessness. They rented & were made homeless by landlords..........

I queried how many were homeowners etc as I reckon you are a spoofer.
You didn't mention thousands anywhere?
No one is put onto the street by a landlord, they are evicted, which is part of the rental game.

"You do realize that people who were happy paying rent have been made homeless by their landlord? They didn't do anything wrong. The landlord decides he can make twice as much with airbnb. This is the homeless persons fault?? I'm not even blaming the landlord but how can you blame the tenant being put out on the street?

Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes. These were law abiding & tax paying citizens. Some to this day have zero credit rating. Is it their fault??"

So again, you didn't mention thousands of people put out onto the street by their landlord, but you did mention Many homeless people bought their own homes in 2006 & 2007 & lost their jobs & then their homes ....... I asked you to quantify as a % what many was. You haven't, wont' and quite simply don't fooking know.

Sleeper12

Gatling wrote: »

So if they do become homeless they bear zero responsibility ,and get to make zero contributions to long term hotels stays while choosing to make lifestyle choices,

Your making a lot of assumptions on this thread while suggesting your the one person with any experience with homelessness or any one who is homeless ,And I doubt any of the figures your quoting are anything but antidotal

What I said is [QUOTEIt makes absolutely no difference if someone is paying rent themselves or on HAP. Neither one deserves to become homeless][/QUOTE]


I'm trying to find out why posters distinguish between someone paying full rent becoming homeless & someone on HAP becoming homeless. Both becoming homeless in the exact same situation. Landlord puts them out

Your making a lot of assumptions on this thread while suggesting your the one person with any experience with homelessness or any one who is homeless ,And I doubt any of the figures your quoting are anything but antidotal

What I am saying is that many posters are saying things that are totally wrong about most homeless people. They are quoting stereotypes & attributing them to most or all homeless people when in reality they reflect a small proportion of homeless people. They are false & misleading stereotypes. I am suggesting that anyone with such warped opinions should get involved with a homeless charity for a few months. At least then their opinion will be based on facts & not water cooler nonsense

you are in effect suggesting anyone can become homeless using nebulous experience and throwing out figures that you get outraged about answering questions on

im suggesting that firstly "homeless"

secondly seven years working in housing frontline taught me that the majority even on housing list are there because of a studied indifference to effort, and that actual homelessness is the vast majority of the time a consequence of rare levels of fecklessness

you want to saint anyone and everyone who declares the state owes them housing and you want to demonise anyone suggesting this is ridiculous behaviour

lawred2

SortingYouOut wrote: »

I think the state can afford to put them up for free, considering the reason they're there in the first place.

A good scheme would be a mandatory saving scheme, with the pot given to the person when other accommodation is found for them, to help them out with paying for home content.

What's the reason they are there in the first place?

Old diesel

Gatling wrote: »

So if they do become homeless they bear zero responsibility ,and get to make zero contributions to long term hotels stays while choosing to make lifestyle choices,

Your making a lot of assumptions on this thread while suggesting your the one person with any experience with homelessness or any one who is homeless ,And I doubt any of the figures your quoting are anything but antidotal

How do you take resposibility as an individual tenant for the following.....

1) shortage of housing.

2) your landlords decision to sell or move a family member in if tou did nothing wrong.

3) landlords unwilling to take HAP.

4) not been able to magic up a new home just like that.

like, genuinely, if you werent so stridently pushing such an obviously incorrect agenda then very few would be kicking back

but you seem desperate to get a reaction just so you can mention that you helped out with the homeless.

fair play but the reality of actual homelessness is that its mainly substance abuse, and the reality of "homelessness" that is emergency housing is that most on it dont want to look at any alternative other than stable/permanent subsidised housing, which is unfair to the taxpayer and an abuse of the system

mickdw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or to put it another way some people want a secure tenancy and not be told in 6 months or a year that the LL is selling up/ needs it for a relation/is refurbishing.

Imagine wanting secure accommodation-the cheek of some people.

Imagine working people in rented accommodation who can be told to go in identical circumstances...... What is good enough for workers who pay for their accommodation is seemingly not good enough for those who want to be housed for nothing.
In a non working household, city centre accommodation should not be provided either rented or council.

Old diesel

Deleted User wrote: »

like, genuinely, if you werent so stridently pushing such an obviously incorrect agenda then very few would be kicking back

but you seem desperate to get a reaction just so you can mention that you helped out with the homeless.

fair play but the reality of actual homelessness is that its mainly substance abuse, and the reality of "homelessness" that is emergency housing is that most on it dont want to look at any alternative other than stable/permanent subsidised housing, which is unfair to the taxpayer and an abuse of the system

Homelessness is now impacting people from many different backgrounds.

As you'd expect when a key cause is - wait for it.....

There are less houses available on the market then the amount of people who need them.

And the phrase "available on the market" is key here. You might have an empty house in Donegal but if the owner isn't able or willing to lease it - it might as well not be there.

The same with a house needing a refurb because it has been abandoned for so long and wasn't great even on the day someone used it as a house for the last time many years ago.

BrokenArrows

_Brian wrote: »

But if you haven’t moved to either how do you know if you can’t create a cheaper life there and find work ??

Living in major Urban centres is for people on high wages and who can afford it. If your job in Dublin smdoesnt oay tue rent move to an area that you can afford or move to a commuter belt.

The solution isn’t blame everyone and expect handouts forever because you want to live close to mammy.

I agree with this fully.

I live in London and I pay London prices for everything. No shock there.

If my wife and I lost our jobs and couldn't find suitable replacements and being homeless was a risk then moving to the country and getting a job as a bar tender, shelf stacker, whatever would be first on my list or even just sucking it up and commuting for 2 hours.

I'd never consider asking for handouts and complaining that I can't afford to rent in my current area on the dole.

You have to balance income, location, social life and personal life. You can't expect everything unless you're earning **** loads of money.

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

Homelessness is now impacting people from many different backgrounds.

As you'd expect when a key cause is - wait for it.....

There are less houses available on the market then the amount of people who need them.

And the phrase "available on the market" is key here. You might have an empty house in Donegal but if the owner isn't able or willing to lease it - it might as well not be there.

The same with a house needing a refurb because it has been abandoned for so long and wasn't great even on the day someone used it as a house for the last time many years ago.

reasonable post, certainly

so

who gets the available accommodation

are there figures, good figures, on the actual housing stock available and the real demand

nobody seems to have credible info

but shouting the loudest on behalf of those helping themselves the least is something a lot of people havent time for anymore, when we're all feeling the pinch and doing what we can.

lectures delivered from on high are bound to rub people up the wrong way dont you think?

Eric Cartman

There are some people working below an income threshold who need to live in dublin , but most do not. The idea that being near your ma entitles you to get a free house in the capitol is madness.

All social housing in cities should be on a new transient model, its yours as long as atleast 50% of the working age adults in your house are working or in full time education , As soon as youre on JSA or are somebody who has never worked or are say a single mother with no education who is unlikely to work , city accomodation should not be available to you and you should be assigned accomodation in a much cheaper area.

Imagine the help we could give to working poor families and reduce crime and anti social behaviour rates if we took those who never worked living on the likes of sean mcdermot street , moved them to various rural towns and gave productive members of society those properties. Sitting on your arse all day infront of the TV can be done in leitrim too, also spreading them all out might solve the heroin problem.

Anyone who has declined a property shouldnt be in emergency accomodation either.

Old diesel

_Brian wrote: »

But if you haven’t moved to either how do you know if you can’t create a cheaper life there and find work ??

Living in major Urban centres is for people on high wages and who can afford it. If your job in Dublin smdoesnt oay tue rent move to an area that you can afford or move to a commuter belt.

The solution isn’t blame everyone and expect handouts forever because you want to live close to mammy.

With ever increasing rents - you could end up moving jobs several times simply because a landlord wants you to move out.

So you have a job in Kildare you were happy with but a landlord tells you he wants to sell the house.

You end up trying to get a house in Waterford but that's too far from Kildare so you get into the Waterford jobs market. You work in Waterford for a while but then you've to move again to suit the landlord.

And now we end up in West Cork and having to do something silly like commute to Cork city.

But that's still not enough - so I know because the landlord wants us to move again - let's have a look on Daft.

Shall we try a move to Roscommon - we could commute to Athlone....

This tour around the country to suit the housing model and landlords whims is great craic.

Especially the having to do job interviews every two years and having to pursuade an employer you will be committed even though you know the housing market and a landlord will dictate your next move.

So yes sorry but a suitable location is still a valid consideration especially if you have kids.

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

With ever increasing rents - you could end up moving jobs several times simply because a landlord wants you to move out.

So you have a job in Kildare you were happy with but a landlord tells you he wants to sell the house.

You end up trying to get a house in Waterford but that's too far from Kildare so you get into the Waterford jobs market. You work in Waterford for a while but then you've to move again to suit the landlord.

And now we end up in West Cork and having to do something silly like commute to Cork city.

But that's still not enough - so I know because the landlord wants us to move again - let's have a look on Daft.

Shall we try a move to Roscommon - we could commute to Athlone....

This tour around the country to suit the housing model and landlords whims is great craic.

Especially the having to do job interviews every two years and having to pursuade an employer you will be committed even though you know the housing market and a landlord will dictate your next move.

So yes sorry but a suitable location is still a valid consideration especially if you have kids.

who did this all happen to

_Brian

Old diesel wrote: »

With ever increasing rents - you could end up moving jobs several times simply because a landlord wants you to move out.

So you have a job in Kildare you were happy with but a landlord tells you he wants to sell the house.

You end up trying to get a house in Waterford but that's too far from Kildare so you get into the Waterford jobs market. You work in Waterford for a while but then you've to move again to suit the landlord.

And now we end up in West Cork and having to do something silly like commute to Cork city.

But that's still not enough - so I know because the landlord wants us to move again - let's have a look on Daft.

Shall we try a move to Roscommon - we could commute to Athlone....

This tour around the country to suit the housing model and landlords whims is great craic.

Especially the having to do job interviews every two years and having to pursuade an employer you will be committed even though you know the housing market and a landlord will dictate your next move.

So yes sorry but a suitable location is still a valid consideration especially if you have kids.

That’s a great story but that’s all it is.
It’s jist a line being spun to justify people having their lifestyle subsided so they can live in a major urban area and make no effort to better themselves.

As long as we make excuses rather than set expectations for people to better themselves then the problem will grow and grow because it makes more sense to make yourself homeless and get handouts than work hard, scrimp and save, do without all tonhetter yourself. People want instant everything now including solutions to the mess they got themselves into.