Councils driving owners out of their homes with scummy tactics

JimmyVik

Ive been hearing from friends effected by this for months.
What do people think of this?
I think its just cynical. Basically the councils are devaluing peoples property, and then subtly or otherwise forcing them to sell to them.



There are 3 scenarios that I know about and know multiple people effected by both. Is this really fair on people who have bought their homes.


1: Council rent a property from a landlord on LTL
The give it to an extremely anti-social tenant who intimidates and generally makes life horrible for those living next door and around them. The council wont do anything about the tenant. Eventually the trouble is too much and people around start to sell. The general areal is going downhill too.
Then the council have the cheek to go and make low ball offers on the properties that they have already driven down the values on.


2: Councils lackey developer goes and buys a site, usually a house with a very large garden and makes plans to build lots of houses on it.
Then calls into the neighbor and tells them hes just there to let them know out of niceness that he is going to be building houses on the land next door. It shouldnt effect you too much but it will be coming right up to your fence and overlooking your garden and we will have machinery in your driveway for 2 to 3 years max. He lets them stew for a while and then goes back and says to them. I had a word with my boss and he gave me permission to make an offer on your house and garden too.
This person has been bothered by the scare tactics for a few weeks and decides its easier to just sell than put up with this.

Then the developer repeats the process on the next neighbor.


3: Councils and REITs contacting owners of apartments and saying they want to buy, but only if they can buy the whole block. Owners then decide it is time to sell. Landlords decide, i was going to get out anyway. Might as well get out.



I have actually spoken to a few people these things have happened to. Some are happy because they were going to sell anyway, but others have been driven out of their homes. In all cases the area is set to becomes a worse place to live.

Xterminator

HI Op

i think your taking the very small minded narrow view here. You are forgetting the wider good of societal view. New homes are needed for our growing population. Its not oaky for existing home owners to say , i am grand thanks, and pull up the ladder after them, to prevent anyone new from getting a home.

You point 1 was the council do nothing about anti social behaviour. Well your just plain wrong there.

https://www.sdcc.ie/en/services/community/joint-policing-committee/antisocial-behaviour/
https://www.fingal.ie/council/service/anti-social-behaviour-management

there is just a couple of examples of councils that have a clear process, easy to follow. Tell me what process do you follow if a house owner engages in anti social behaviour? what process for private tenants? What about airBnB situations etc? At lease with the councils they have clear process and guidelines, and you can report, follow up, and talk to someone whos responsibility it is. Stop demonising council tenants - most of them are good people.

Re: the other scenarios i dont understand why you are saying the council are the bogeymen? more houses are built privately then by council , and none of the points your raised are specific to council building and builders.

if someone is building close to your house it is inconvenient. you may suffer loss of amenity and or disturbance. you dont get to chose your new neighbours. But the home owner doesn't own those spaces. And there is a planning permission process to allow interested parties to raise issues of concern. But the home owner never gets to NIMBY all new developments. and that sounds like what you are proposing. though in your case you only hate the councils.

BanditLuke

JimmyVik wrote: »

Ive been hearing from friends effected by this for months.
What do people think of this?
I think its just cynical. Basically the councils are devaluing peoples property, and then subtly or otherwise forcing them to sell to them.



There are 3 scenarios that I know about and know multiple people effected by both. Is this really fair on people who have bought their homes.


1: Council rent a property from a landlord on LTL
The give it to an extremely anti-social tenant who intimidates and generally makes life horrible for those living next door and around them. The council wont do anything about the tenant. Eventually the trouble is too much and people around start to sell. The general areal is going downhill too.
Then the council have the cheek to go and make low ball offers on the properties that they have already driven down the values on.


2: Councils lackey developer goes and buys a site, usually a house with a very large garden and makes plans to build lots of houses on it.
Then calls into the neighbor and tells them hes just there to let them know out of niceness that he is going to be building houses on the land next door. It shouldnt effect you too much but it will be coming right up to your fence and overlooking your garden and we will have machinery in your driveway for 2 to 3 years max. He lets them stew for a while and then goes back and says to them. I had a word with my boss and he gave me permission to make an offer on your house and garden too.
This person has been bothered by the scare tactics for a few weeks and decides its easier to just sell than put up with this.

Then the developer repeats the process on the next neighbor.


3: Councils and REITs contacting owners of apartments and saying they want to buy, but only if they can buy the whole block. Owners then decide it is time to sell. Landlords decide, i was going to get out anyway. Might as well get out.



I have actually spoken to a few people these things have happened to. Some are happy because they were going to sell anyway, but others have been driven out of their homes. In all cases the area is set to becomes a worse place to live.

Yeah. This ain't happening.

Some people really need an end to this lockdown, badly.

JimmyVik

Xterminator wrote: »

HI Op

i think your taking the very small minded narrow view here. You are forgetting the wider good of societal view. New homes are needed for our growing population. Its not oaky for existing home owners to say , i am grand thanks, and pull up the ladder after them, to prevent anyone new from getting a home.

You point 1 was the council do nothing about anti social behaviour. Well your just plain wrong there.

https://www.sdcc.ie/en/services/community/joint-policing-committee/antisocial-behaviour/
https://www.fingal.ie/council/service/anti-social-behaviour-management

there is just a couple of examples of councils that have a clear process, easy to follow. Tell me what process do you follow if a house owner engages in anti social behaviour? what process for private tenants? What about airBnB situations etc? At lease with the councils they have clear process and guidelines, and you can report, follow up, and talk to someone whos responsibility it is. Stop demonising council tenants - most of them are good people.

Re: the other scenarios i dont understand why you are saying the council are the bogeymen? more houses are built privately then by council , and none of the points your raised are specific to council building and builders.

if someone is building close to your house it is inconvenient. you may suffer loss of amenity and or disturbance. you dont get to chose your new neighbours. But the home owner doesn't own those spaces. And there is a planning permission process to allow interested parties to raise issues of concern. But the home owner never gets to NIMBY all new developments. and that sounds like what you are proposing. though in your case you only hate the councils.

Have you ever had occasion to get the council to remove a problem tenant?
If you had, I think you would see the problem here.
The council is forcing people to sell and hoovering them up.
If they werent and were just making offers on property that was put up for sale without intimidation, but because the owner genuinely wanted to sell. No problem at all.

Xterminator

i have knowledge of tenants that were issued a warning over antisocial behaviour yes. it may disappoint you to learn hat eviction is not the 1st course of action taken if a council tenant engages in antisocial behaviour.

you do know that council tenant does not equal anti social behaviour yes? I hear your comments, yu would prefer an apartheid solution where "scummy" (your word) council tenants were not close to the property you like. maybe a gated community that excludes the minorities you hate would be better to your taste?

Cuddlesworth

Xterminator wrote: »

You point 1 was the council do nothing about anti social behaviour. Well your just plain wrong there.

https://www.sdcc.ie/en/services/community/joint-policing-committee/antisocial-behaviour/
https://www.fingal.ie/council/service/anti-social-behaviour-management

Council staff rarely follow up on evictions, since they are required to house the new evictee.

JimmyVik

Xterminator wrote: »

i have knowledge of tenants that were issued a warning over antisocial behaviour yes. it may disappoint you to learn hat eviction is not the 1st course of action taken if a council tenant engages in antisocial behaviour.

you do know that council tenant does not equal anti social behaviour yes? I hear your comments, yu would prefer an apartheid solution where "scummy" (your word) council tenants were not close to the property you like. maybe a gated community that excludes the minorities you hate would be better to your taste?

I dont think you understand the OP.
Its not about hating people.
Its about bullyboy tactics to hoover up property.

Xterminator

Council staff rarely follow up on evictions, since they are required to house the new evictee.

factually incorrect. not a shred of information has been provided to back up any of these claims.

the evicted person can apply to be housed. this is a right of anyone in the state. the council don't have to rehouse them - there are criteria. they might, and if they did the tenant would be on the waiting list like anyone else.

JimmyVik

Xterminator wrote: »

factually incorrect. not a shred of information has been provided to back up any of these claims.

the evicted person can apply to be housed. this is a right of anyone in the state. the council don't have to rehouse them - there are criteria. they might, and if they did the tenant would be on the waiting list like anyone else.

I think everyone is actually aware themselves of how it actually works in practice with the council and problem tenants, but let me say it again.

I dont think you understand the OP.
Its not about hating people.
Its about bullyboy tactics to hoover up property.

Xterminator

no, it is about the Op equating all council tenants with anti social behaviour.

the council buying a house on your road is not a bully boy tactic. It is the council trying to house peope on the housing list.

any builder building houses near you is inconvenient, and more private houses are built than council ones. but this is only a council tactic? give me a break.

Just recently someone here asked about buying in a very specific area and was advised to put letters in owner's letterboxes asking if they were interested in selling and see if they could stir up interest from a potential seller. I don't see why any other potential buyer can't do the same?

I wouldn't see that as bullying or underhand tactics. No one can be forced to sell, and I doubt there is a policy anywhere in any local authority set out to bully existing homeowners out of their homes so the council can buy them, that's in no one's interest.

L1011

Have you any evidence of any of this? Otherwise this is suited to a blog, not a discussion forum.

With the Property Price Register, council minutes of purchased/disposed property, planning permission and other tools, actual evidence should be very easy to provide.

If the OP cannot provide evidence, this thread will not continue to operate in a vacuum.

JimmyVik

Xterminator wrote: »

no, it is about the Op equating all council tenants with anti social behaviour.

the council buying a house on your road is not a bully boy tactic. It is the council trying to house peope on the housing list.

any builder building houses near you is inconvenient, and more private houses are built than council ones. but this is only a council tactic? give me a break.

The point here is that the council can keep an anti-social tenant in the leased property long enough to "encourage" the owners around to put their properties on the market. The council then goes and buys said properties themselves.


Thats the discussion I want to have.

I think thats a conflict of interest right there.


Same discussion around developers of council houses buying a house and then making an offer on the one next door, once they shown the owner of the one next door what they plan to do to them if they dont sell.


Its not a discussion about nimbyism. Its a discussion on how powerful, rich entities acquire property.
Should they be allowed to acquire it in this way?

Gumbo

JimmyVik wrote: »

The point here is that the council can keep an anti-social tenant in the leased property long enough to "encourage" the owners around to put their properties on the market. The council then goes and buys said properties themselves.


Thats the discussion I want to have.

I think thats a conflict of interest right there.


Same discussion around developers of council houses buying a house and then making an offer on the one next door, once they shown the owner of the one next door what they plan to do to them if they dont sell.


Its not a discussion about nimbyism. Its a discussion on how powerful, rich entities acquire property.
Should they be allowed to acquire it in this way?

Any proof?
Should be easy to find using the PPR as reference.

Councils don’t do any of the OP points.

Sounds like this thread should be on conspiracy theories.

L1011

OP has had two and a half hours to provide any evidence, and has been posting during it. Locking thread.