Why sale agents don't want to talk about social housing?

on_the_roots

The answer seems to be obvious but this is not.

I'm interested in a new housing development in Dublin and this has been very hard to get any information from either selling agents and the builder about social housing allocation on that particular dev. They give only generic answers like "this is scattered across the multiple phases".

This should have nothing to do with GDDPR, I presume, because I'm not asking people's names that will occupy houses, just what houses will be for that purpose.

Any thoughts or other experiencies with the same issue?

KungPao

If I know for sure that no. 2 is social, I sure as hell won’t chance buying next door to it. If everyone knows, the price /demand goes down on the houses next to them I reckon.

Caranica

A developer has to offer a certain proportion of units to the council for social housing. However there is nothing to stop the council from buying additional units so the truth is you'll never know.

Xterminator

Your not 'entitled' to these details. They could only serve one purpose; to create a housing apartheid where people can avoid the social housing units.

Thats why its not publically available.

Gru

on_the_roots wrote: »

The answer seems to be obvious but this is not.

I'm interested in a new housing development in Dublin and this has been very hard to get any information from either selling agents and the builder about social housing allocation on that particular dev. They give only generic answers like "this is scattered across the multiple phases".

This should have nothing to do with GDDPR, I presume, because I'm not asking people's names that will occupy houses, just what houses will be for that purpose.

Any thoughts or other experiencies with the same issue?

they can't tell you because they likely don't know themselves,


they'll have the units handed to council (and generally they are clumped together)

but other single units of various sizes/area's can be bought by councils or housing organisations and let out by them depending on their housing list's needs (e.g: 2beds, 3beds, 4beds...etc) they too are "social housing"


equally people could be buying as part of a shared ownership scheme thats coming... so as said above me in truth you will never know...

Gatling

Xterminator wrote: »

Your not 'entitled' to these details. They could only serve one purpose; to create a housing apartheid where people can avoid the social housing units.

Thats why its not publically available.

In the current climate practically every estate or apartment blocks have social housing the same for every future builds .
Are we going to have a separate housing crisis involving people refusing to live in areas with social housing .
The new invisible homeless ,why are you homeless ?because I can't live where there might be social housing

PommieBast

If an estate gets a problem family or two in social housing, it basically ruins the lives for everyone else because said problem family have to commit murder before they get evicted. This is why as soon as private buyers get wind of a nearby house being allocated for social housing, they desert the entire estate in droves.

Unfair but that is the reputation social housing has earned. No wonder sellers want to keep quiet about it.

Gatling

PommieBast wrote: »

This is why as soon as private buyers get wind of a nearby house being allocated for social housing, they desert the entire estate in droves.

If that was true there would be a hell of a lot near empty estates around the country ,

on_the_roots

Gru wrote: »

they'll have the units handed to council (and generally they are clumped together)

but other single units of various sizes/area's can be bought by councils or housing organisations and let out by them depending on their housing list's needs (e.g: 2beds, 3beds, 4beds...etc) they too are "social housing"

Didn't know that. What would be these housing organisations? It's like big private enterprise landlords such as IRES and Occu?

Caranica

on_the_roots wrote: »

Didn't know that. What would be these housing organisations? It's like big private enterprise landlords such as IRES and Occu?

Cluid, Respond, Peter McVerry trust... They house people on the social housing list/people in emergency accommodation/homeless people

Lia_lia

Check the planning permission. It sometimes states it in the plans but this can change.

We almost bought a new build. We asked the estate agent what kind of people bought the house nextdoor (like was it a family for example) and he said he didn’t know. But could point the type of people that bought every other house. So my partner straight out asked the builder and he told us the two houses nextdoor were social housing. We ended up pulling out but not for this reason. Tbh we were a bit concerned when we heard it but then quickly got over ourselves...

AngryLips

PommieBast wrote: »

If an estate gets a problem family or two in social housing, it basically ruins the lives for everyone else because said problem family have to commit murder before they get evicted. This is why as soon as private buyers get wind of a nearby house being allocated for social housing, they desert the entire estate in droves.

Unfair but that is the reputation social housing has earned. No wonder sellers want to keep quiet about it.

You could be living next door to social housing right now and not know it

PommieBast

AngryLips wrote: »

You could be living next door to social housing right now and not know it

No doubt about that. Most social housing tenants are little if any trouble. However as with the exodus of independent landlords from the rental market it is not the behaviour of the majority that matters.

jimmycrackcorm

Gatling wrote:

If that was true there would be a hell of a lot near empty estates around the country ,

Or a reflection that private buyers aren't being told about which houses are being allocated to social housing.

em_cat

TBH, if developers gave out that information to EAs to pass on to prospective buyers they’d literally be shooting themselves in the foot.

However, in the interest of transparency, I do believe that prospective buyers should be told the percentage of social to open market sales if they ask. At least with the info, buyers can make a better informed choice, given that a mortgage can last 35 - 40 years.

Gatling

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Or a reflection that private buyers aren't being told about which houses are being allocated to social housing.

But no mass exodus of home owners due to living near or beside social housing

Gatling

Actually people going on about bad social tenants ,what about bad owners who can be just as bad if not worse than social tenants

ahnowbrowncow

Gatling wrote: »

Actually people going on about bad social tenants ,what about bad owners who can be just as bad if not worse than social tenants

They're rare in comparison to bad social tenants because they just don't have the time to devote to anti social behaviour due to having to work to own their house.

Gatling

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They're rare in comparison to bad social tenants because they just don't have the time .

But all the homeowners left the estates so who's living besides who these days

Colonel Claptrap

When we bought we walked into the office and they had a map of the estate on the wall with 10 thumbtacks in each social house in a row.
We asked and they showed us the map straight away. Here are the part V houses. No qualms.

ahnowbrowncow

Gatling wrote: »

But all the homeowners left the estates so who's living besides who these days

I'm presuming you haven't bought a house because if you had you'd stop with this nonsense argument. Selling a property isn't a simple process, especially if you're in a chain and your property is in an estate with high social housing and anti social behaviour. The expense and stress of it means selling up is a last resort.

Kindly take your whataboutery elsewhere.

the_syco

Gatling wrote: »

But no mass exodus of home owners due to living near or beside social housing

Good luck in selling a house next to a problem social tenant, especially if you're still in negative equity.

Idbatterim

They dont want you knowing you'll be paying a 600k mortgage and paying for your neighbours free house next door too... you'll also be paying his or her management fee and lpt...

jrosen

They don’t want to tell you because they want to sell the private houses. There is 10% at a minimum going to the local authority.

So that’s a given.

Typically the builder will give the smaller cheaper units to the council in order to sell the bigger houses for more profit himself.

You would be pretty safe In assuming any 2 beds will be social and then 3 beds after that to make up the 10%. They should be spread around the development but they aren’t always.

The other possibility is that a housing agency will look to buy/take over property too outside of the 10% the council get. They look for a minimum of 29 houses. They are looking for any homes, from the smallest to the largest available and there is no maximum number they can buy up.
Keep your ears open and do some digging to see what you can find out.

There was a estate I read about recently enough that ended up being top heavy with social housing due to a housing agency buying up a large % of stock.

They don't tell you because you're supposed to pretend that little Leon smashing your car, flying around on his scrambler and having raves til 3am is normal and acceptable behaviour.

agoodpunt

it wouldnt be a problem if there where laws and enforcement on those wayward social tenants and councils held to account for putting family x in a house

Dressoutlet

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They're rare in comparison to bad social tenants because they just don't have the time to devote to anti social behaviour due to having to work to own their house.

Social tenants here, working family. Rent costs 148e a week. Most social housing tenants do work. I know the type you are talking about, I grew up on council estates and saw them families all my life. However I don't see much of them anymore.

I'll tell ya why OP, because people are bigots.

Dressoutlet

Dressoutlet wrote: »

Most social housing tenants do work.

Most are also in arrears.


While I'd much prefer to live in town (not Dublin) I'll be looking to buy something out the road a bit. The area around my parents used to just have a council estate across the way. Now within 5 minutes is a complex used mostly for direct provision, a street with a dozen people above a few shops, people who get the bus to another town to beg and a few brothels. Pretty **** to see tbh.
Then looking at new developments I've heard some alarming stuff from buyers (2nd-hand info admittedly) and 1st-hand from a couple of renters. As well as that it's pretty funny to see houses very quickly going back on the market very quickly with asking prices 10+% from what they'd have paid a year earlier, and the property not shifting.

Cuddlesworth

agoodpunt wrote: »

it wouldnt be a problem if there where laws and enforcement on those wayward social tenants and councils held to account for putting family x in a house

In fairness to the councils, you know what happens when they evict those particular personalities from the houses? They march into the council offices the next day and the councils have to house them.

If managing this situation was your job, would you really be arsed doing anything about it?

Caranica

Caranica wrote: »

A developer has to offer a certain proportion of units to the council for social housing. However there is nothing to stop the council from buying additional units so the truth is you'll never know.

You’ll always know. Social housing doesn’t usually appear on the Property Price Register, and if they do they’ll all appear on the same day at the same (lower) price.