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
Pay a small fee if someone vacates a 3 bed council home.
Options
Comments
-
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.
We need a bit of imagination on this issue and incentives such as this can help. It is hard to expect senior citizens to leave the area they lived in all their lives but if modern apartments were available locally I'm sure people could be encouraged to take them thus freeing up bigger properties. Of coursea lot of the housing stock has been bought off by famlies0 -
How would anyone hold down a job with substance abuse problems? You're ignoring or forgetting the tax payer. The low income, (define low by not enough to manage a private rental) needs a hand.
62% of people on the socual housing list only derive their income from welfare, having somebody with a job move in to a social house is a happy minority case but all policy and rules should be set based on the assumption of tenants being unemployed0 -
or
This makes no sense. People would just give up work and staying on benefits, or work for undeclared cash, rather then lose the council house. You're removing any incentive for them to work, if bringing home anything over minimum wage would result in them being evicted.
yeah, this happens left right and centre. Just keep the very valuable property given to you for a pittance, work cash and pay no tax, I have heard of a woman , that simply works cash in evening, minds the kids during the day, the partner works regular hours. What a set up, no childcare costs, no massive mortgage, the job she works cash for, you arent exactly breaking your balls. the morons in charge, have created a fcuked system. I mean lets not be hypocrites here, if I had that easy street option open to me, I'd do it, many would. How many of us though years ago, could have foreseen this farce of a situation? those now beneftting from it, never had many asperations and would have just been passed on the council house or had their names on it for years (the list)... With this bull**** "oh just give up the job then and get your free house" not quite that simple, for people who intended on paying their way , it will take years on the list now BUT the dundrum luxury apartments are going to be the start of it, it makes total sense, depending on your circumstance, to put your name on the list! I've heard many even sub let their council properies for cash and live elsewhere, this council house thing, is some obscene racket!0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »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.
The attitude of social housing only being used for one family is why it won't ever be properly fixed. I am ok with with that but as a society we have to stop complaining about it.
There was a protest over houses yesterday in a newly built housing estate those people shouldn't bother because unless we change how we do things the ladder has been pulled up.
As for your friends situation I don't think it's right and think if we are going to still sell housing stock that we have a clause like with the fair deal where we claw back money even in the event of death. Home ownership is not a right anyone should have, social housing stock should not be a leg onto the property ladder and I feel it's that misunderstanding that has led us to where we are now.
If someone wants to own a home then they have to sacrifice and maybe move outside of the area they grew up in.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I can understand your argument, but at the same time, social housing will only benefit one family, perhaps generationally.
Done correctly it should benfit more than one family,could have several familes use it .No council house ,should be generarational,iirc correctly they no longer are ?.
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.
It wouldnt be a case of people being forced to move out,the rent would increase based on their income.No one currently pays the maximum rent in DCC.Change the tresholds to take into account people who wont move out but have the means to.They would still be getting a good deal on rent.
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.
Getting a house at 50% of market value is a great deal for the buyer but absolutely crazy that this is in place.DCC were on record as saying the average housing unit cost 330K(debatable) and people actually think its a good idea to write off up to 60% of this when a tenant decies to buy.If a tenant applies and meets the criteria then the council have no choice but to sell.Madness
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.
Imo council houses should never be sold to the tenant,when the tenant moves out/downgrades(both unlikley) or dies ,it should be returned to council stock and be used for what it was built for,housing peolpe who cant do it themselves.Building and selling on houses undermarket value indefinetly isnt sustanable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »62% of people on the socual housing list only derive their income from welfare, having somebody with a job move in to a social house is a happy minority case but all policy and rules should be set based on the assumption of tenants being unemployed
What percentage of those are claimants of Old Age Pension, Disability, or Carer's payments?
My parents both claimants of old age contributory pensions, no other income. They could be classed as falling into the "deriving their income from welfare" but the fact is they worked for 40+ years each before claiming their pensions at 66. While working they lived pay cheque to pay cheque and never earned enough as blue collar workers to satisfy the bank's criteria for a mortgage, but no one went hungry.
There are no adult children still living at home, (we all bought our own homes) so once they pass away, their house will revert back to the council.
They could do with downsizing soon, as my mother has difficulty with the stairs, but when we asked about it, we were told there were no smaller units available.
Welfare recipient does not automatically equate with "lazy person who wants everything for free".0 -
I would have less an issue with a council house purchase scheme if the purchase was only possible after a certain number years of paying the council rent in a timely fashion (incentivising responsible and prompt payment) that amounted to as close to possible precentage of the construction cost of the unit, and a clawback clause of a relatively high percentage of the sale price if the house / apartment was sold for after it was purchased (exceptions made for those of pensionable age). It would function in some ways as an affordable housing scheme that washed its own face. Public housing could be put on a more sustainable economic footing, and it would have less pushback from those on the right who see public housing provision as nothing more than a 'free gaffes' policy.0
-
I would have less an issue with a council house purchase scheme if the purchase was only possible after a certain number years of paying the council rent in a timely fashion (incentivising responsible and prompt payment) that amounted to as close to possible precentage of the construction cost of the unit, and a clawback clause of a relatively high percentage of the sale price if the house / apartment was sold for after it was purchased (exceptions made for those of pensionable age). It would function in some ways as an affordable housing scheme that washed its own face. Public housing could be put on a more sustainable economic footing, and it would have less pushback from those on the right who see public housing provision as nothing more than a 'free gaffes' policy.
Yeah kinda agree with the sentiment.
You pay on time everytime and after 10 years you are eligible to buy the house and get a small discount on the market value because you are the only one who can buy it and have paid into the house over the previous 10 years.
10% would be the max discount .
If there was plenty of housing stock this would be very easy to implement but as it stands the tenant buying schemes should be scrapped asap.0 -
What percentage of those are claimants of Old Age Pension, Disability, or Carer's payments?
My parents both claimants of old age contributory pensions, no other income. They could be classed as falling into the "deriving their income from welfare" but the fact is they worked for 40+ years each before claiming their pensions at 66. While working they lived pay cheque to pay cheque and never earned enough as blue collar workers to satisfy the bank's criteria for a mortgage, but no one went hungry.
There are no adult children still living at home, (we all bought our own homes) so once they pass away, their house will revert back to the council.
They could do with downsizing soon, as my mother has difficulty with the stairs, but when we asked about it, we were told there were no smaller units available.
Welfare recipient does not automatically equate with "lazy person who wants everything for free".
0% , theyre in a different category, only 10% of social housing applicants are not welfare claimants. 62% are of working age and not disabled and only on the dole.0 -
Those in receipt of OAP, Disability, Carers etc, are still classified as welfare recipients.
I'd be interested in seeing a link, if you have one, that shows this breakdown, including that 62% of all social housing applicants are in receipt of Jobseekers payments, specifically. By dole I assume you mean Jobseekers payments, as there is no welfare payment called "dole".
Also, do these statistics show which category those who are both fall into? For example, those who are in part time or low paid employment who also receive some top up benefits (e.g. Working Family Payment or 1/2 days Jobseekers?). Are they counted as falling into the "working" or "welfare recipent" category.0 -
Advertisement
-
somebody here explain to me, because maybe I am the one seeing this all wrong! Someone explain to me, the insanity of giving away housing to one person deemed "poor" while the other working poor person, pays a fortune for it, that is the sytem here. Please explain the morality? its disgusting and depraved0
-
-
Not here but in London, Hammersmith Council do not mess about for a second.
The home in East Acton where my Grandad and his family moved into in the 1930's, had been in the family for generations, the latest on the lease was My Aunty and Uncle,
Aunty dies some 15yrs ago, Uncle Pete died last year.
At the time of his death their daughter and her son were both living there, all adults. When he died they had 1 month to get out of a home that the family had had for over 80yrs, they were told that they could have a 2 bed flat and if that offer would be rescinded if they didn't go.
Any anti social behaviour and there's a warning followed swiftly by eviction, and they do not rehome you if evicted.
It's the same with many many councils in the UK, fcuk about and you're gone.
Shame they can't enforce that here0 -
There is a rule in some councils in the UK, that once a local authority tenancy has been passed down from parents to child once, then the child cannot then pass it down to their children.
In other words, they only allow a tenancy to be passed along within a family in this way, once.
In the case of your relations in Hammersmith, they were offered alternative accommodation, in the form of the two bed, so I would consider that fair enough.
I know my parents, and indeed the elderly parents of friends of mine who also grew up in local authority housing would seriously consider downsizing if they could stay within a reasonable distance of their family support, their GP, etc) but enquiries are met with the same response "no smaller units available".0 -
but enquiries are met with the same response "no smaller units available".
Councils across Ireland and the UK have built virtually no 1 bed units for decades. Not smaller enough (at least since bedsits were stopped) to save enough space and larger units make more of an impact on the bits of the housing lists that get media attention too.
Back in the early 80s when the housing lists were at their lowest in Ireland those seeking 1 bed units were still at the absolute bottom of the list. I imagine there were a fair few not really that wanted kids forced out to ensure a couple now met the rules for a 2 bed.0 -
heard it through the grapevine, that some of the social housing tenants in the luxury apartments are making their way to pmacs and candlelight bar, bringing the tone of the places down, didnt take long :rolleyes: Real pity as the candlelight bar, do a rather excellent Haut-Médoc and I do rather enjoy sitting back with a glass of nice red and some classical music , played by their excellent resident pianist on a saturday night...0
-
Idbatterim wrote: »heard it through the grapevine, that some of the social housing tenants in the luxury apartments are making their way to pmacs and candlelight bar, bringing the tone of the places down, didnt take long :rolleyes: Real pity as the candlelight bar, do a rather excellent Haut-Médoc and I do rather enjoy sitting back with a glass of nice red and some classical music , played by their excellent resident pianist on a saturday night...
Luxury apartments? are these the block the council is renting?0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »heard it through the grapevine, that some of the social housing tenants in the luxury apartments are making their way to pmacs and candlelight bar, bringing the tone of the places down, didnt take long :rolleyes: Real pity as the candlelight bar, do a rather excellent Haut-Médoc and I do rather enjoy sitting back with a glass of nice red and some classical music , played by their excellent resident pianist on a saturday night...
What on earth are you talking about?0 -
Luxury apartments? are these the block the council is renting?
yeah all 90 of them, one beds would be from E1800 a month plus, market rent! yeah I have a friend, who was looking to buy a house on the sandyford road, but re-considered spending nearly €700,000 when he found out a two third height version of ballymun, was landing within a stonesthrow of the property...0 -
T
In the case of your relations in Hammersmith, they were offered alternative accommodation, in the form of the two bed, so I would consider that fair enough.
.
oh for sure, they were happy enough, a bit disappointed at giving up the only house they'd ever known but they didn't dwell on it.
I'm busting my nuts saving for a mortgage and we seem to be getting hit with 1 setback after another, it's all made so much better when i drive past the 25, yes, 25, brand spanking new social housing homes being built in Trim. Look lovely too, hate to think what dregs are going to get their forever homes0 -
Advertisement
-
Apparently we need to pay people more now who have received charity all their lives because otherwise they will be upset.0
-
I'm busting my nuts saving for a mortgage and we seem to be getting hit with 1 setback after another, it's all made so much better when i drive past the 25, yes, 25, brand spanking new social housing homes being built in Trim. Look lovely too, hate to think what dregs are going to get their forever homes
What makes you immediately jump to the conclusion that the people who will be allocated these houses will be "the dregs".
They could quite possibly turn out to be low income working families who get them.
Honestly, when you immediately label someone as the dregs simply because they qualify for social housing, I lose all sympathy for your own struggle.0 -
What makes you immediately jump to the conclusion that the people who will be allocated these houses will be "the dregs".
They could quite possibly turn out to be low income working families who get them.
Honestly, when you immediately label someone as the dregs simply because they qualify for social housing, I lose all sympathy for your own struggle.
A lot of that struggle could be eased for that person , if social housing wasn’t given away at a pittance in rent. Giving one person a lotto windfall and fcuking the other person who doesn’t qualify, but could be earning just over the threshold. Absolutely outrageous scenario!0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »A lot of that struggle could be eased for that person , if social housing wasn’t given away at a pittance in rent. Giving one person a lotto windfall and fcuking the other person who doesn’t qualify, but could be earning just over the threshold. Absolutely outrageous scenario!
Each council sets its own rates for charging rent. Arguing that council tenants should pay a higher percentage of income then they already do is not something I would automatically disagree with, if the additional rent went towards generating more housing stock, or increasing the income limits to qualify.
But I guess it would still be social housing, so you'd still object, right?
(even though I guess that attitude would rapidly disappear if offered a chance at a social house).0 -
Each council sets its own rates for charging rent. Arguing that council tenants should pay a higher percentage of income then they already do is not something I would automatically disagree with, if the additional rent went towards generating more housing stock, or increasing the income limits to qualify.
But I guess it would still be social housing, so you'd still object, right?
(even though I guess that attitude would rapidly disappear if offered a chance at a social house).
They orivide rip off solutions to address the issue , massively hampering how much housing they can provide. They then as good as give it away. What a system ! Abolish lpt for a start , they can start funding its abolition from council house tenants and use the rest to support affordable housing, not free housing !0 -
good article below echoing what I have said for ages, supply is ramping up hugely, but they arent afforable for the most part and they arent being supplied, central dublin, where they are needed most...
the next government, is going to have to address the affordability issue. Relocated dublin port, reclaim the tolka estuary and redevelop east point business park and you can provide housing for a few hundred thousand and release billions of euro for the state... on top of the Irish glass bottle site redevelopment...
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/to-truly-solve-crisis-we-must-build-more-homes-in-right-areas-and-at-right-price-38958585.htmlHave we turned the corner when it comes to the housing crisis?
Housing was the issue that the election swung on, with Sinn Féin reaping ballot-box rewards for promising to build 100,000 public houses in five years, and committing to a rent freeze.
This means any government that is formed in the coming weeks will now prioritise more home building above everything else.
That next government will also start with a major advantage, as there are some signs the housing mess is easing.
Some of the positive signs that the worst may be behind us come from the fact that property prices are stabilising, and house building surged last year.
The latest statistics show prices rose slightly nationwide last year, but fell again in Dublin.
It was the fifth month in a row of falling property values in the capital.Prices may be continuing to go up nationwide, but the rise recorded in December was the lowest in seven years.
Experts said this meant house prices had stabilised over the past year after surging for five years following the crash more than a decade ago.
There were just over 21,000 homes built last year, according to the Central Statistics Office. This is up from almost 18,000 built in 2018, a rise of up 18.3pc.
Rents are still at extraordinary high levels, but are showing some evidence of easing off. That's the good news.
Houses in wrong area
The bad news is we are still not building enough homes, Dublin is unaffordable for all but a select few, and too many buyers are being forced into the commuter belt as a consequence of all this.
Prices in Dublin are now nine times average salaries, leaving most unable to meet sales prices.
The Central Bank estimates the State will need 34,000 new homes a year over the next decade to keep up with demand. We are not near that.
Also, there are major question marks about how the election promises of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, never mind Sinn Féin, to build thousands and thousands of social and affordable housing can be met with clear evidence of capacity constraints and skills shortages in the construction industry.
Fianna Fáil has committed to building 50,000 social and affordable homes, with Fine Gael pitching in with a promise of 60,000.
Up to now the building and buying of homes has been largely concentrated in the eight Leinster counties, or the commuter towns.
An analysis of the Property Price Register shows there was a sharp pick-up in sales activity in commuter counties such as Wicklow, Louth, Kildare, Laois and Meath.
Too few houses in Dublin
Dublin saw a fall-off in buying and selling activity last year.
Just 900 of the 21,000 homes built last year were in the centre of the capital, even though the capital desperately needs more accommodation.
Building in the centre of the capital would save people long commutes and be more environmentally friendly, but homes there are too expensive for most.
This situation means we are storing up problems for the future with the houses we are building, and risk making the same mistakes we made during the housing bubble.
Yes, we are building more homes, but they are still not affordable and are mostly in the wrong locations.
Many of the houses being built in the Dublin commuter belt are going into towns and villages with no infrastructure such as schools, water, transport and drainage.
Some cheer can be taken from the rise in apartment building last year, but it is coming off a very low base.
However, large numbers of apartments are being bought by cuckoo funds, so-called because these international investors are squeezing first-time buyers out of the market.
A whole new generation, if they can get out of the vicious rental trap and buy, are being condemned to long-distance commutes. This is because the only homes they can afford are being built a long way from their work.
Home ownership levels down
The failure to build enough homes has led to a sharp decline in home ownership levels.
Home ownership in Ireland declined from 80pc in 1991 to 68pc in 2016.
Brokers Ireland, which represents those who arrange mortgages, says we are on our way to correcting this, based on the surge in dwelling completions last year.
Rachel McGovern of the broker body points out that "home ownership is critical to the growth of personal wealth, wellbeing and stability".
However, she added: "We are still very much in dysfunctional territory in terms of the housing market, but perhaps we may be seeing a chink of light with more new dwelling completions."
Economist with Goodbody Stockbrokers Dermot O'Leary said it was positive that property prices were easing, but added there is greater need for housing than is currently being supplied.
"There are some positive features of the latest trends. Housing supply has grown rapidly, the public housing stock is ramping up, house prices have stabilised and rental growth has slowed significantly.
"With incomes growing by about 4pc, affordability is, at last, improving.
"When it comes to housing policy impacting on activity and prices, it is a bit like an oil tanker taking a long time to turn around, but it does seem to be doing so."
Affordability still an issue
But Mr O'Leary added that there were still major issues with affordability, particularly in the private-rented sector, sprawl and the cost of building.
He said the fact that the Central Bank lending rules were a binding constraint meant more focus must be placed on the cost of housing, rather than just the volume that was being built.
One solution could be to have a properly thought out shared-ownership scheme, where people buy a home in conjunction with a local authority or housing association.
We are nearing an inflection point in the housing crisis, with rocketing property prices and rents a thing of the past and the fact we are building more houses.
However, there is still a considerable distance to go before we can say we are over the worst of the crisis as we are not building enough homes, or in the right places, and at prices that most can afford.
The bottom line from all of this is that the next housing minister will have the wind at his or her back.
But there is still a hard voyage ahead, with choppy waters aplenty to be navigated.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »They orivide rip off solutions to address the issue , massively hampering how much housing they can provide. They then as good as give it away. What a system ! Abolish lpt for a start , they can start funding its abolition from council house tenants and use the rest to support affordable housing, not free housing !
I do actually believe that the rent council tenants pay needs to be looked at and increased. I don't agree that that should result in the scrapping of the LPT.
I think the link to income needs to be carefully looked at, as if rent is raised because of extra earnings coming into the home, then it disincentivises people from working more then they do already, if any extra earnings are just taken in rent.
I think the flat rate per person needs to be increased and the percentage of income over that probably kept the same.
I would like to see a return of the shared ownership scheme, which was in place in the early nineties. I know many people who bought through that scheme, many of them single people.0 -
I do actually believe that the rent council tenants needs to be looked at and increased. I don't agree that that should result in the scrapping of the LPT.
I think the link to income needs to be carefully looked at, as if rent is raised because of extra earnings into the home, then it disincentivises people from working more then they do already, if any extra earnings are just taken in rent.
I think the flat rateper person needs to be increased and the percentage of income over that probably kept the same.
I would like to see a return of the shared ownership scheme, which was in place in the early nineties. I know many people who bought through that scheme, many of them single people.
fix the rent at a reasonable level of household income 20-25% and every adult in the household, should be contributing and deduct at source as needs be, as far as I am concerned...0 -
The shared ownership scheme if reintroduced would help a lot of people, especially in Dublin, who are working but don't earn enough to qualify for a mortgage big enough to buy in Dublin, but would qualify for more modest amount.
It was a simple but effective scheme.0 -
Advertisement
-
Idbatterim wrote: »fix the rent at a reasonable level of household income 20-25% and every adult in the household, should be contributing and deduct at source as needs be, as far as I am concerned...
You do that and councils will have to keep the house up to a standard which they have been incapable of doing ever. Most rural council houses are built on a site given to the council buy the tenant and the house is bare inside. Your plan would result in less council houses and even less private housing available.0
Advertisement