Pay a small fee if someone vacates a 3 bed council home.

jos28

I think that a review of the Fair Deal Scheme for Nursing homes would free up houses for the purchase/rental market. There are approx 23,000 people availing of the scheme and I would hazzard a guess that a large proportion of them own their own houses.
If they sell or rent their house while residing in a nursing home it's classified as income and 80% of that has to be handed over towards your care. I have several friends whose parent/s are in that situation. In one case a beautiful 10 year old house is actually boarded up because it can't be sold without handing 80% of the proceeds over.
From experience it's horrendous when your Mam or Dad have to move into a nursing home. The family house becomes a problem, you're trying to maintain it, doing the gardens, putting lights on etc etc. This is time that you would rather be spending with your Mam or Dad knowing that time is limited.
A temporary amnesty on the sale of such houses would definitely free a lot of houses on to the market.

Private Joker

There's a lot wrong with social housing and HAP. One of the issues is if you've got it you have it for life regardless of your current circumstances. You could have 100 grand in the bank and earn 80 grand a year and get a council house if you receive HAP. There are people earning good money living in council houses paying minimal rent.
Then after a year of living in their sometimes brand new A rated home they can apply to buy the house, often with a council loan at a 40% discount at least.

AulWan

Private Joker wrote: »

. You could have 100 grand in the bank and earn 80 grand a year and get a council house if you receive HAP.

If your income goes over the council's earning threshold while on the waiting list then you are taken off the housing list.

Once you have a house allocated you do get to stay but you pay rent based on your earnings according to the differential rent scheme.

RonanG86

Private Joker wrote: »

You could have 100 grand in the bank and earn 80 grand a year and get a council house if you receive HAP.

Don't think that's right. Applicants for Social Housing are required to re-submit their household details, including income, every couple of years. I believe incomes are periodically reviewed for HAP too, but I don't know how often.

You'll also have to provide up to date income details if a house is offered to you as part of the acceptance so they can calculate your rent. If they discover you're on €80k a year then, your housing application will invalidated instantly.

Theoretically, you might get away with HAP on a high income for a while between reviews. But otherwise you can only get Social Housing Support at that income if you're getting it under the table.

You can get a Council house and then a job at €80k a year and not lose the house. But you better hope that your Council is one of the ones with a max rent charge or else you'll likely be paying more than in PRA.

Spanish Eyes

Forget the aspirational stuff. There are thousands of tenants in arrears of rent and no sanctions/evictions.AFAIS

Tell me that is great, it is not. Just perpetuates the entitlement cohort giving a two fingers.

Urethral Buttercup

There is a scheme like this in some Councils in Ireland. It's called downscaling.

Spanish Eyes

Urethral Buttercup wrote: »

There is a scheme like this in some Councils in Ireland. It's called downscaling.

Obviously well advertised. Never heard of it.

Calhoun

satguy wrote: »

Before you all start shouting ...

There are lots of 3 bed council homes, but there are lots of people on the waiting list looking for a 3 bed home.

What if an older couple with an empty nest are offered €5k, and a 1 bed apartment. Would this not free up homes.

Cheap 1 or 2 bed flats / apartments, could be built, with the hope the each apartment would free up a 3 bed council home.

Why would we give them anything? if its council owned stock it needs to be needs assessed and if you no longer have the need your relocated.

There should be conditions around having an apartment to move into an all that but the council should be managing its inventory correctly.

Ubbquittious

RonanG86 wrote: »

Then again, the likes of the Germans and Dutch aren't hung up on a 'forever home' the way we are.

Rest assured the forever home is still quite popular in Holland.

yabadabado

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Forget the aspirational stuff. There are thousands of tenants in arrears of rent and no sanctions/evictions.AFAIS

Tell me that is great, it is not. Just perpetuates the entitlement cohort giving a two fingers.

DCC was owed 33m at the end of 2019 in rent arrears with about 60% of tenants in some arrears.Clawing that back should be number one priority.

If the person makes no effort to repay what's owed there should be a system of directly taking it from their income.Take the weekly amount + a percentage until they catch up.
Their was an act passed a few years back where social welfare could be taken at source to pay rent but it's never been implemented afaik.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, so we pay for a new council build. 300k, sell it for 150k (because this is the kind of insane bull**** that they offer) Explain the maths to me...

Okay. All hypotheticals:

I live in a council house. The house was lived in by my father, and as is the general case with Council housing, it would be generational. I'd get it when he dies, my child gets it when I die, his child gets it when he dies, etc.

(you can argue how right or wrong that is, but that's the system in real life)

So, the council come knocking and say, "hey KKV, fancy buying a cheap house?" The rules are simple - no history of anti social behaviour, and you have to be working in a job.


I have two choices:

1) Remain an indefinite tenant, pay the minimal rent charged, and effectively live off the back of the council. Council will maintain the house, it's boiler, general upgrades, will have to pay to keep up with new requirements and such as time goes on.

2) Buy the house. I take ownership of the property and the council was their hands of it. Council no longer have any maintenance fees, in fact, the opposite is true, as I'm now liable for LPT on the house.


Knock on effect to the economy is that the tradesmen and self employed now get more business as I'm looking for someone to service the boiler, fix the tile on the roof, etc.


Realistically: Unless I voluntarily gave the house up, no one that's currently homeless would ever see the inside of it, regardless of whether i remained a tenant or became a home owner.

In rougher areas, people investing in their homes means estates will tend to quieten a bit and slowly gentrify as they become more private estates and less council estates. Because scumbag john that's never worked a day isn't eligible to buy the house, it keeps people like that at bay.

Also, if you aspire to home ownership, it gives you reason to get out and get a job.

Ultimately, selling Council houses is better for the council than it is to indefinitely rent them in my opinion.


Drive through council estates and you can generally tell the privately owned VS council rented houses simply by taking a passing glance at them.

As an aside, in relation to the OP, the council already do offer money to get people to trade down in houses.

Fella I know, 50, lives alone, 3 bed house, was approached a few times. But he said there's no amount of money they could offer, as his street is quiet, he knows the people there, and god only knows where the council would put him. Could be any sihthole estate where he would be tormented with anti social behaviour issues.


I feel if the council tackled anti social behaviour in general, more people would be willing to play ball with them. But as it is, no one wants to risk ending up in a mid terrace between local scumbags and travellers. No money would make you take the risk.

10000maniacs

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not true , the household charge as it was known before it was renamed the LPT was widely protested. Only when collection was given to Revenue did people realise the futility of protesting. Maybe you should ask the geniuses who tried to implement water charges as to why Revenue wasn't tasked with collection. I know the reasons but it should prove a good lesson in the art of research for you and prehaps encourage you not to make flippant and tbh stupid assumptions.

Yours is a stupid statement and rimshot, I hit a nerve. Nice. . When you compare the household charge protests to the water charge protests, did the household charge protesters stop the traffic in O'Connell Street week in week out on weekdays and attack drivers who gave out to them? No, because they were at work. They had civilized small protests at weekends when most of the politicians were out of town.
Also did the householders who owned their property attempt to stop water meters being put in? Again no. Because they were at work and couldn't be in two places at the same time.

Lillyfae

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Rest assured the forever home is still quite popular in Holland.

Yes, if you buy one.

A friend of mine lived at home with his mom and she needed a new kidney. He gave her one of his kidneys, she died anyway, and he had to be out of the apartment within three months. It was barbaric but that was the rule. The council do pay towards moving to and refurbishing a new place though.

A lot of urban areas where demand is high at the moment there is a definite push towards moving the elderly, disabled and those who aren’t in employment out to less in demand areas. There are plenty of social houses but they’re getting those on the less lucrative long term contracts out to refurbish the current stock. They’re free to move back but at the current market rent, but they normally have everything they need in the new place they go to.

The affordable housing scheme is a 50/50 split between housing and tenant too. If you sell the property, 50% goes back to the housing authority.

Lillyfae

Lillyfae wrote: »

Yes, if you buy one.

A friend of mine lived at home with his mom and she needed a new kidney. He gave her one of his kidneys, she died anyway, and he had to be out of the apartment within three months. It was barbaric but that was the rule. The council do pay towards moving to and refurbishing a new place though.

A lot of urban areas where demand is high at the moment there is a definite push towards moving the elderly, disabled and those who aren’t in employment out to less in demand areas. There are plenty of social houses but they’re getting those on the less lucrative long term contracts out to refurbish the current stock. They’re free to move back but at the current market rent, but they normally have everything they need in the new place they go to.

What council is this, out of curiousity? There are no 'long term contracts' in social housing. Nobody gets kicked out three months after their parent dies. This all sounds very made up?

The affordable housing scheme is a 50/50 split between housing and tenant too. If you sell the property, 50% goes back to the housing authority.

If you sell it within 5 years, you pay back the discount. Discount reduces over time. Sell it in 30 years and you pay none of the discount back. Sell it between 5 and 30 years and you pay a percentage of the discount, which reduced over the 30 year period (by 2% of the value of the house each year).

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody gets kicked out three months after their parent dies.

Actually they do I know a adult siblings that were evicted 6 weeks after after both parents passed away within weeks of each other ,in a sdcc area .

Most councils stopped people inheriting social housing a few years back ,some even make adults moving into their parents social housing sign contracts saying they have no legal claim to the property should something happen to the parents or main tenant

AulWan

Lillyfae wrote: »

Yes, if you buy one.

A friend of mine lived at home with his mom and she needed a new kidney. He gave her one of his kidneys, she died anyway, and he had to be out of the apartment within three months. It was barbaric but that was the rule. The council do pay towards moving to and refurbishing a new place though.

Is this in Ireland? I'd also be curious if he was declared as living there on the tenant list, and his income being assessed / rent being paid for him.

yabadabado

They replied to a post about Holland so I presume they were talking about there.

yabadabado

Gatling wrote: »

Actually they do I know a adult siblings that were evicted 6 weeks after after both parents passed away within weeks of each other ,in a sdcc area .

Most councils stopped people inheriting social housing a few years back ,some even make adults moving into their parents social housing sign contracts saying they have no legal claim to the property should something happen to the parents or main tenant

Definitely shouldn't be allowed inherite a council house and if an adult moves in rent should be reassessed to include their income.

If the person needs council/social housing should be the same process as anyone else,crazy to think a child of the original tenant would have some right to get the house.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay. All hypotheticals:

I live in a council house. The house was lived in by my father, and as is the general case with Council housing, it would be generational. I'd get it when he dies, my child gets it when I die, his child gets it when he dies, etc.

(you can argue how right or wrong that is, but that's the system in real life)

So, the council come knocking and say, "hey KKV, fancy buying a cheap house?" The rules are simple - no history of anti social behaviour, and you have to be working in a job.


I have two choices:

1) Remain an indefinite tenant, pay the minimal rent charged, and effectively live off the back of the council. Council will maintain the house, it's boiler, general upgrades, will have to pay to keep up with new requirements and such as time goes on.

2) Buy the house. I take ownership of the property and the council was their hands of it. Council no longer have any maintenance fees, in fact, the opposite is true, as I'm now liable for LPT on the house.


Knock on effect to the economy is that the tradesmen and self employed now get more business as I'm looking for someone to service the boiler, fix the tile on the roof, etc.


Realistically: Unless I voluntarily gave the house up, no one that's currently homeless would ever see the inside of it, regardless of whether i remained a tenant or became a home owner.

In rougher areas, people investing in their homes means estates will tend to quieten a bit and slowly gentrify as they become more private estates and less council estates. Because scumbag john that's never worked a day isn't eligible to buy the house, it keeps people like that at bay.

Also, if you aspire to home ownership, it gives you reason to get out and get a job.

Ultimately, selling Council houses is better for the council than it is to indefinitely rent them in my opinion.


Drive through council estates and you can generally tell the privately owned VS council rented houses simply by taking a passing glance at them.

Now we are in the whole lets change things and do things differently is it not the right time to start questioning the multi-generational council houses?

The rest of your post reads like something that FF would have said during the big sell off before the boom. Why would we sell housing stock for less than the market value? That is one of the reasons why the council does maintenance in the first place? to upkeep that economical value.

What protection would we have if we sold a house at a discount from someone selling it on, or like i seen in another forum someone trying to get their name added onto the deed of a council property to circumvent the rules on selling it in.

AulWan

yabadabado wrote: »

They replied to a post about Holland so I presume they were talking about there.

Thats what I thought, too.

AulWan

yabadabado wrote: »

Definitely shouldn't be allowed inherite a council house and if an adult moves in rent should be reassessed to include their income.

If the person needs council/social housing should be the same process as anyone else,crazy to think a child of the original tenant would have some right to get the house.

If an adult child moves back into a parents' local authority home, then the tenant (the parents) are supposed to make an application to include them on the tenancy to the Local Authority. Their income also has to be declared, and the rent will be assessed including that income.

Once accepted on the tenancy, and rent is paid, then they should now have the same right to remain as any tenant who pays rent to a landlord does. i.e. shared tenancy.

I do think that the size of accommodation can be revisited and downsized. But I don't agree that the LA's should just be able to boot these people out on the street, because the "head" tenant has died. Sorry if not popular opinion.

(eta)the exception being if the adult child's living there was never declared and rent never paid on their income.

Calhoun

Its not a popular opinion as its pulling the ladder up after you have got to safety.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Now we are in the whole lets change things and do things differently is it not the right time to start questioning the multi-generational council houses?

Do you think SF are gonna turn around and tell people they're gonna get evicted from their family home if their parents die? Do you think any govt. party would ever say that?

Calhoun wrote: »

The rest of your post reads like something that FF would have said during the big sell off before the boom. Why would we sell housing stock for less than the market value? That is one of the reasons why the council does maintenance in the first place? to upkeep that economical value.

What protection would we have if we sold a house at a discount from someone selling it on, or like i seen in another forum someone trying to get their name added onto the deed of a council property to circumvent the rules on selling it in.

The council don't perform maintenance to retain market value. They maintain because they have to supply a minimum required quality of life for the tenants, and a broken boiler is not allowed, for example. They don't do many things, however, that would be economically sensible, which is why you can often spot the council houses in a mixed area, as they're falling apart on the exterior.

As has already been discussed, if you re-sell a council house within 25/30/35 years (depending on discount you got) you pay back the discount, or a percentage of it. You cant just flip the house and sell it on.

I haven't seen you give any reason why the tenant purchase scheme is a bad idea? Also, the last line of your post is likely in reference to a thread I made, which had nothing to do with circumventing the sale of a house at all.

AulWan

AulWan wrote: »

If an adult child moves back into a parents' local authority home, then the tenant (the parents) are supposed to make an application to include them on the tenancy to the Local Authority. Their income also has to be declared, and the rent will be assessed including that income.

Once accepted on the tenancy, and rent is paid, then they should now have the same right to remain as any tenant who pays rent to a landlord does. i.e. shared tenancy.

I do think that the size of accommodation can be revisited and downsized. But I don't agree that the LA's should just be able to boot these people out on the street, because the "head" tenant has died. Sorry if not popular opinion.

(eta)the exception being if the adult child's living there was never declared and rent never paid on their income.

What you've said is exactly how the system works. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't really know what they're talking about and is basing their information on hearsay and rumour.

The council simply do not evict you because your parents died. Never happened, doesn't happen, won't happen. If the council evict someone, it's because, as said above, they weren't on the rent, so werent officially living there in the first place. If you're paying your way, you're laughing.

Many, many older people have their kids names on their rent, even though the child may not have lived there in a decade. But they'll inherit the house nonetheless.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think SF are gonna turn around and tell people they're gonna get evicted from their family home if their parents die? Do you think any govt. party would ever say that?



The council don't perform maintenance to retain market value. They maintain because they have to supply a minimum required quality of life for the tenants, and a broken boiler is not allowed, for example. They don't do many things, however, that would be economically sensible, which is why you can often spot the council houses in a mixed area, as they're falling apart on the exterior.

As has already been discussed, if you re-sell a council house within 25/30/35 years (depending on discount you got) you pay back the discount, or a percentage of it. You cant just flip the house and sell it on.

I haven't seen you give any reason why the tenant purchase scheme is a bad idea? Also, the last line of your post is likely in reference to a thread I made, which had nothing to do with circumventing the sale of a house at all.

They probably aren't which is why we probably wont ever really solve the housing crisis because people seem to think they have ownership to something provided to assist them even though there needs may change.

They may not only perform it to maintain market value but over the past few years surely that is part of why they are doing it? If not then they need to take that into consideration especially when they are being asked to sell them on.

The exterior views on a council house is not really a good enough reason to me for why we should sell them.

The given reason for not selling the housing stock is that supposedly in a system that works we should be recycling the stock and putting newer tenants with the need into them. No government in their right mind is going to be building indefinitely and just selling on the stock to tenants especially at a loss as that is coming out of the pot they have at the end of the day.

Thats how your thread read btw, the first comment on the post even questions the morality of it. Was that a hypothetical or are you trying to transfer it into your name?

Edit: Final point if this is what people want, to be able to purchase the remaining stock then let them on with it but we loose the right to complain about a housing crisis now and in the future if we are only looking to line the pockets of the people who just happened to get a house at a certain point.

Lillyfae

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What you've said is exactly how the system works. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't really know what they're talking about and is basing their information on hearsay and rumour.

The council simply do not evict you because your parents died. Never happened, doesn't happen, won't happen. If the council evict someone, it's because, as said above, they weren't on the rent, so werent officially living there in the first place. If you're paying your way, you're laughing.

Many, many older people have their kids names on their rent, even though the child may not have lived there in a decade. But they'll inherit the house nonetheless.

I was replying to a post about the Netherlands. Somebody referred to people in NL/DE getting forever homes so I responded with how the system works here in the Netherlands, where I live.

satguy

satguy wrote: »

Before you all start shouting ...

There are lots of 3 bed council homes, but there are lots of people on the waiting list looking for a 3 bed home.

What if an older couple with an empty nest are offered €5k, and a 1 bed apartment. Would this not free up homes.

Cheap 1 or 2 bed flats / apartments, could be built, with the hope the each apartment would free up a 3 bed council home.

In case it hasn't been mentioned, this initiative already exists in the North.

Lillyfae

Lillyfae wrote: »

I was replying to a post about the Netherlands. Somebody referred to people in NL/DE getting forever homes so I responded with how the system works here in the Netherlands, where I live.

I read your post wrong, so. I thought you meant within Ireland. My apologies.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

They probably aren't which is why we probably wont ever really solve the housing crisis because people seem to think they have ownership to something provided to assist them even though there needs may change.

They may not only perform it to maintain market value but over the past few years surely that is part of why they are doing it? If not then they need to take that into consideration especially when they are being asked to sell them on.

The exterior views on a council house is not really a good enough reason to me for why we should sell them.

The given reason for not selling the housing stock is that supposedly in a system that works we should be recycling the stock and putting newer tenants with the need into them. No government in their right mind is going to be building indefinitely and just selling on the stock to tenants especially at a loss as that is coming out of the pot they have at the end of the day.

Thats how your thread read btw, the first comment on the post even questions the morality of it. Was that a hypothetical or are you trying to transfer it into your name?

Edit: Final point if this is what people want, to be able to purchase the remaining stock then let them on with it but we loose the right to complain about a housing crisis now and in the future if we are only looking to line the pockets of the people who just happened to get a house at a certain point.

I can understand your argument, but at the same time, social housing will only benefit one family, perhaps generationally.


If people thought theyd lose their council house by getting a better job and income and having to fend for themselves, many (vast majority) simply wouldnt do it. You can't make someone homeless, to let someone else have their house. So either way, you're not gonna have current-day homeless people benefitting from previously built social housing.




The thread about getting on the deeds is based on real life. I can't recall if i wrote the thread from a 'first person' perspective or not, but it's not actually me that's trying to do it, it's a friend that's not very internet savvy, so i was just asking on his behalf.


For what it's worth though, i did buy my house from the council, at 50% of the market rate. I'm a big fan of the scheme because it gives people a real chance at home ownership, who never otherwise would get the chance.


Plus, all the new rules make it a very fair scheme, in my opinion. 20 years ago a load of people in my estate bought their houses, immediately rented them out or sold them and left the area. It was allowed under the scheme. Nowadays the rules prevent that.