Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Council begins evictions

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So like the poster I was referring to said, "Wow 20 quid a week for a place close to Dublin City centre"

    It's not.

    You can find out how differential rents work here: http://www.dublincity.ie/housing-and-community-i-rent-my-home-i-rent-council/rent-rent-arrears

    Every la is different. I don’t know what you’re arguing with me for? I just told you how it works here.


  • Options
    #123
    Duke of Url
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭Duke of Url


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So like the poster I was referring to said, "Wow 20 quid a week for a place close to Dublin City centre"

    It's not.

    You can find out how differential rents work here: http://www.dublincity.ie/housing-and-community-i-rent-my-home-i-rent-council/rent-rent-arrears

    So maximum rent in Dublin1 in a council house where earnings can be well over 100k and higher is only 1700 a month?


  • Options
    #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Every la is different. I don’t know what you’re arguing with me for? I just told you how it works here.

    I know how differential rent scheme works and that different Councils have different rules.

    But you replied to my post,
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's not. I posted quite a large article you may have missed.

    In relation to:
    DellyBelly wrote: »
    Wow 20 quid a week for a place close to Dublin City centre. Absolutely outrageous.

    With:
    splinter65 wrote: »
    Our LA charge €20 for the first €200 of income and 20c for every €1 of income after that.
    Allowances are made for children.
    If you are single and just in receipt of JSA then your rent is €20.60 per week.

    Which comes across as defending that posters point that rent in Dublin City is 20 a week.

    Which it isn't.

    I mean, if you mentioned in the original post that your LA was Tipp, that would be fine and not misleading in anyway.

    What council rent is in Tipp bears no relation to the current conversation about Dublin City Council rents at all.


  • Options
    #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Duke of Url wrote: »
    So maximum rent in Dublin1 in a council house where earnings can be well over 100k and higher is only 1700 a month?

    I would LOVE to know how many of them there are.

    The council are currently trying to scrap that rule, and I would agree with them 100%


  • Options
    #126
    Duke of Url
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭Duke of Url


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would LOVE to know how many of them there are.

    The council are currently trying to scrap that rule, and I would agree with them 100%

    But am I correct in reading that table right based on an average 4 week month?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Pronto63
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭Pronto63


    Grab All Association wrote: »
    Sometimes people get into arrears due to the social welfare suspending payments, unemployment or other unexpected costs. Fact is the council owes money to some tenants who have overpaid too. Without knowing the circumstances of those involved I can’t comment on it. Hopefully it’s scumbags getting their comeuppance and not someone who experienced the above.

    SW suspend payments as a last resort only. It's quite rare.

    Should they not pay their arrears when they get their payment reinstated?

    Also if you lose your circumstances change, job loss or 3 day week, the council will adjust your rent.

    NO EXCUSES - PAY YOUR WAY!


  • Options
    #128
    Peatys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Peatys


    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    I would be dining with the Gods if I was made homeless if you get my drift. In some ways I respect the homeless for staying alive but in another way I look at them with pity for not having the courage to go and dine with the Gods.

    Not even a little bit


  • Options
    #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pronto63 wrote: »
    SW suspend payments as a last resort only. It's quite rare.

    It's not.

    I was on the Dole for a while.

    Miss a signing? Suspended.

    My partner was suspended for weeks once because she never returned a form that she never received.

    I was once suspended for 2 weeks for being 5 minutes late for signing on.

    Far from a last resort and often up to the mood of the case worker you have.


  • Options
    #130
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Pappa Dolla is correct here. Council's don't deal with waste anymore, or havent done so in decades. It's one of the reasons people dump everywhere.

    The other poster might mean rubbish disposal on a managed estate which would be part of management fees as opposed to having your own bins and paying privately.


  • Options
    #131
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's not.

    I was on the Dole for a while.

    Miss a signing? Suspended.

    My partner was suspended for weeks once because she never returned a form that she never received.

    I was once suspended for 2 weeks for being 5 minutes late for signing on.

    Far from a last resort and often up to the mood of the case worker you have.

    You only have to sign on once a month, it’s not very onerous. If you don’t show up to sign on and you haven’t notified the SW that you’re unavailable in that day, and why, then it can be assumed that you don’t need your jobseekers. Also once you explain why you’ve been late or forgotten then the payment is returned.
    You do agree that there has to be terms and conditions attached to state payments?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    collywobble7
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭collywobble7


    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    Which council ?, as every council has there own criteria. However if someone is meeting their obligations under their tenancy agreement I see no reason to kick them out just to satisfy a bunch of clueless begrudgers and whingers. Although most people who avail of a council house and have the means to do so normally move on when they can afford too.


    Come and join us in the real world. Can you back this outrageous claim up


  • Options
    #133
    Pronto63
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭Pronto63


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's not.

    I was on the Dole for a while.

    Miss a signing? Suspended.

    My partner was suspended for weeks once because she never returned a form that she never received.

    I was once suspended for 2 weeks for being 5 minutes late for signing on.

    Far from a last resort and often up to the mood of the case worker you have.

    If you don't sign on you don't need Jobseekers. When unemployed you agree to sign on once a month. It ain't that much to ask or difficult to do.

    When you do sign on you get your full payment and any arrears. No excuse not to pay your rent.


  • Options
    #134
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    collywobble7 wrote: »
    Come and join us in the real world. Can you back this outrageous claim up

    What outrageous claim?


  • Options
    #135
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    you are exactly the type of person I am angry on behalf of? you dont see the madness in it all! why should you have to rent for your whole life? Because too much resources are being aimed at one section, at the MASSIVE detriment to the rest of us! Yes big business etc and the pittance they pay in tax is morally corrupt, but that is not a problem that is easy to solve!

    That's on government to sort out. It's not the fault of those worse off in need of assistance to put a roof over their head. They don't make policy.


  • Options
    #136
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Duke of Url wrote: »
    How do we house the people in hotels then. Do you think the answer is to build more council houses?

    I’m not looking to argue with you. I’m interested in you opinion.

    Yes. We can rent out properties we own built on our own land. Built en masse in pockets near amenities. Like we use to do before government became more about private business than people.

    People need to stop comparing the over heated market with people being charged based on income.
    The market is based on greed, it will always charge as much as it can. Comparing market rents to council ones, designed to be low, is pointless.
    We don't have a housing or homelessness crisis because some people are paying cheap rent to live in council owned properties, quite the opposite.


  • Options
    #137
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Yes. We can rent out properties we own built on our own land. Built en masse in pockets near amenities. Like we use to do before government became more about private business than people.

    People need to stop comparing the over heated market with people being charged based on income.
    The market is based on greed, it will always charge as much as it can. Comparing market rents to council ones, designed to be low, is pointless.
    We don't have a housing or homelessness crisis because some people are paying cheap rent to live in council owned properties, quite the opposite.

    It is not pointless.

    Social housing worked when rents were charged and collected that were sufficient to fund the building of more social housing. That connection breaks when you charge rents at very low levels and don't bother to collect them.


  • Options
    #138
    collywobble7
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭collywobble7


    Pronto63 wrote:
    When you do sign on you get your full payment and any arrears. No excuse not to pay your rent.

    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    Which council ?, as every council has there own criteria. However if someone is meeting their obligations under their tenancy agreement I see no reason to kick them out just to satisfy a bunch of clueless begrudgers and whingers. Although most people who avail of a council house and have the means to do so normally move on when they can afford too.

    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    Which council ?, as every council has there own criteria. However if someone is meeting their obligations under their tenancy agreement I see no reason to kick them out just to satisfy a bunch of clueless begrudgers and whingers. Although most people who avail of a council house and have the means to do so normally move on when they can afford too.

    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    What outrageous claim?


    That people in council housing move on when they can afford to do so. What planet are you living on


  • Options
    #139
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    collywobble7 wrote: »
    That people in council housing move on when they can afford to do so. What planet are you living on

    The planet where I know plenty of people who have done exactly what I have said myself included. No one with the means continues to live in an environment where anti social behaviour is common place.


  • Options
    #140
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    meathstevie wrote: »
    I think you can rest well assured that all possible avenues have been thoroughly explored by the council before taking this final step, including involving the local welfare officers in cases of genuine hardship.

    Would it be unduly hopeful looking forward to evictions for persistent and serious anti-social behaviour as well ?

    You trust the authorities to get things right? :eek:


  • Options
    #141
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It is not pointless.

    Social housing worked when rents were charged and collected that were sufficient to fund the building of more social housing. That connection breaks when you charge rents at very low levels and don't bother to collect them.

    It certainly is. One is designed to be low the other designed to be as high as possible. The discrepancy is the point.

    Social housing worked because people needed homes and the state provided them. There was little concern for profit. The goal was providing housing. The people were put above the wants of private business.

    Read the OP. They are collecting them. This has been covered. If Revenue were slow at collecting taxes would you be suggesting we do away with the whole practice or suggest they fix it and resume collecting?

    You have never given an alternative. You won't applaud nor knock putting people up in hotels or compare social housing to the use of hotels or buying private property for use as social housing.
    All you do is try poke holes in a system you refuse to give an alternate to, happy, I can only assume, with the state of play we have that has us in costly crisis.
    collywobble7 wrote: »
    That people in council housing move on when they can afford to do so. What planet are you living on

    Again, take it up with the policy makers not those living there. Personally I'd be hard pressed to give up the security myself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    The planet where I know plenty of people who have done exactly what I have said myself included. No one with the means continues to live in an environment where anti social behaviour is common place.

    I knew many families grew up in social housing. Only a handful remain in them.


  • Options
    #143
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pronto63 wrote: »
    If you don't sign on you don't need Jobseekers. When unemployed you agree to sign on once a month. It ain't that much to ask or difficult to do.

    When you do sign on you get your full payment and any arrears. No excuse not to pay your rent.

    splinter65 wrote: »
    You only have to sign on once a month, it’s not very onerous. If you don’t show up to sign on and you haven’t notified the SW that you’re unavailable in that day, and why, then it can be assumed that you don’t need your jobseekers. Also once you explain why you’ve been late or forgotten then the payment is returned.
    You do agree that there has to be terms and conditions attached to state payments?

    Pronto63 wrote: »
    SW suspend payments as a last resort only. It's quite rare.

    Should they not pay their arrears when they get their payment reinstated?

    Also if you lose your circumstances change, job loss or 3 day week, the council will adjust your rent.

    NO EXCUSES - PAY YOUR WAY!

    I don't really care about what the contract to get your payment is.

    The point made was that suspension of payments is a last resort and quite rare.

    It's not.


  • Options
    #144
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,762 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Pronto63 wrote: »
    When unemployed you agree to sign on once a month. It ain't that much to ask or difficult to do.

    Is that true? - is it once a month sign on?

    They are actually strict with suspending payments AFAIK.

    Don't know if that is only Job Seekers though...


  • Options
    #145
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,691 ✭✭✭corks finest


    LoughNeagh2017 wrote:
    I would be dining with the Gods if I was made homeless if you get my drift. In some ways I respect the homeless for staying alive but in another way I look at them with pity for not having the courage to go and dine with the Gods.


    You are inhumane- suggesting ppl top themselves? I've a teenager attending Pieta house and believe me suicidal thoughts/ suicide is not to be joked/ played with here on boards
    You should choose your wording more carefully - might come back to haunt you,or yours


  • Options
    #146
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Do the angry ones here have any stats please? re defaulting council tenants, badly behaved tenants?

    Set against eg pensioners, disabled tenants who pay on time etc etc

    The rant does not discriminate :rolleyes:

    Are they saying all council tenants are *******?


  • Options
    #147
    Pronto63
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭Pronto63


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Is that true? - is it once a month sign on?

    They are actually strict with suspending payments AFAIK.

    Don't know if that is only Job Seekers though...

    Not strict but automatic.

    With both Jobseekers Benefit and Allowances a program is run after signing is finished. This suspends any payments for those that haven't bothered to turn up and sign.

    Once you sign again you get all arrears which I think is generous.


  • Options
    #148
    randomspud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭randomspud


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Do the angry ones here have any stats please? re defaulting council tenants, badly behaved tenants?

    Set against eg pensioners, disabled tenants who pay on time etc etc

    The rant does not discriminate :rolleyes:

    Are they saying all council tenants are *******?


    The article linked in the OP says than more than half of the total DCC tenants are in arrears.


  • Options
    #149
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    rents obviously shouldnt be market rate or anything like it but they do need to be in some way consistent with the maintenance costs of the social housing stock and with the cost of a continuous building program


  • Options
    #150
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    We don't have a housing or homelessness crisis because some people are paying cheap rent to live in council owned properties, quite the opposite.
    Matt I agree with much of what you say, but I dont agree with this. The amount of rent they do or dont pay in some circumstances, is just far too cheap. It should be increased and this money ring fenced for new social and affordable housing etc...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Matt I agree with much of what you say, but I dont agree with this. The amount of rent they do or dont pay in some circumstances, is just far too cheap. It should be increased and this money ring fenced for new social and affordable housing etc...

    If that's the case I'd agree. They are supposed to be assessed at regular interval. Like most state/government institutions they need fixing, but I believe the idea of providing social housing rather than letting people go to the side of the road is very important society. The FG policy of using the private market doesn't work and we shouldn't be looking to blame the poor for that.
    As in all things we get chancers. We should tackle the chancers not blame the idea of looking after our own who are in need. That's the whole point of society and taxation IMO.


Advertisement