Fair Deal changes might actually happen but...

I have no idea how many houses could be rented out. I think the money gained may be immaterial - it may be seen as more hassle than its worth to alot of people.

My uncles house is in no way up to rental standards - its still stuck in the 1950's and would need a huge amount spent on it to get it to standard for renting. I expect alot of the properties of the elderly are not up to rental standards and are dated. The government would have to possibly look aswell at lending money for similar houses to be updated. Perhaps the full rent could be paid to the government as loan repayments and property cant be sold until loan is repaid. Families could gain then by having a better standard property to sell down the line.

My own County Council will only take on houses on the 10 year/20 year rental scheme if they are in towns. They aren't interested in houses in rural areas. There's a big chunk of those 8,000 houses gone right there. Good luck sticking a Ukranian family in a rural area with no transport and miles away from suitable support services/education etc.

Why Departments you ask? Someone will have to run these schemes? We've seen that we can't outsource social housing to the private sector. That clearly isn't working. The private sector can't effectively manage all aspects of your proposal from start to finish as it's far more complex than you seem to realise. This means that there will be Government Departments needed to run your (as Michael Healy-Rae would say) 'airy fairy' idea.

I'm guessing you mean HAP etc. as being a subsidy to the private sector. If you pull the likes of that, you are correct, the market will settle at it's own level and we will have far fewer rental properties as even more landlords will flee the market. You'll actually make the problem worse.

I'm curious how they managed to do that? Who owned the bachelor farmer's house? If he owned it, he must have given permission for it to be done up and sold. If so, he mustn't have gone into the nursing home under the fair deal scheme.

I reckon his brother was given power of attorney over his affairs. As I stated above, it would be assumed he didn't go under FD as he owns land.

Land used to be included in the reckoning of the 7.5% but that was removed. However only removed where there is a qualified successor identified.

The man was one of a number of siblings. Actually his parents were not farmers but it was a grandparent's farm. It was originally a very big farm but it was left between him and his siblings and his siblings sold their shares. He was the only one who actually farmed it.

So his nieces and nephews have interest in farming. So the land would presumably come under the 7.5% and I reckon they did a calculation that on the balance of things, it would be better to sell the house and pay up front. I don't know, all I know for certain is the man is on his last legs in a home and his house was sold a few months after he was taken into care.

Even if you've seen a will Ray, that is a living document until death of the testator. It means nothing until that point in time and can be invalidated by the simple act of making a new will.

Just letting ya know

Yes, the houses will be bought by either the councils or the private sector. Currently we have the councils outbidding the private sector for houses in many instances.

But the upshot of your proposal is that there will be less rental properties and this will impact those who can't afford to buy a house or aren't at the top of the social housing list. It's difficult enough now to find a rental property let alone an affordable rental property. What would it be like if supply and funding for such was reduced?

Your idea about removing supports etc. would also mean less private sector investment in building as if rents are brought down, it won't be worth building.

The mans siblings are all highly qualified professionals. The assumption is that they would have been on the ball and as I mentioned above, it is assumed that a brother was given power of attorney over his affairs.

It is not the case that you are better off with no assets, more so that you are no worse off with none

There are many components which add up to the cost of providing housing. One of which is land prices. There is no inherent reason why development land prices need to be so high. They are only that high because developers bid them up to that point. They only do that because they know that they can, in turn, squeeze even more out of the end buyer.

Let me remind you of the first sentence of your post. Way back at the start of the paragraph

If it's not occupied then it contributes a unit of 0 towards the rate. If it is occupied, then it contributes a unit of 1 to the number of occupied. Your sentence is gibberish.

He probably wouldn't let them touch a thing. Older people do not embrace change easily if at all.

What sad is not knowing the situation, you assume the worst. Nice.

Even if you had no direct experience of this, which is obvious. There enough TV shows showing intervention's, to have grasp some insight into this.

Says the poster who doesn't even know the first name of the person to whom I am referring 🤣

You are taking things very personally Ray. I am not meaning any personal offence and there is nothing in that post that could be reasonably be construed as such

Can I ask why you don't go down the power of attorney route now? You can do that if she doesn't have capacity anymore.

Ah so there is another option, you just don't like it. That's not what you were saying earlier in the thread.

It's not my fault if you can't understand things dude. The fact you can't get your head around a concept does not mean it is impossible

If it makes you fell better dude then believe whatever you want.

You are free to believe that there was never a person whose house was sold after they went into a home if you want.

No ... when you go the ward of court route the decision is not yours .. it is the courts and they will decide what the best option is .... you can ask but the court will decide and Fair Deal is the best option in almost all cases

believe me .. I've been down this route and to suggest to me after 3 years of heartache and stress that if there was a better / more suitable way I'd have found it ?

Ray, Ray, Ray. there is no need to be so triggered. My suggestion was merely a suggestion that the FD scheme be reworked so that the lien was a smaller percentage but that there be an additional component calculated on the market value of the rent, with the additional feature that the additional 80% clawback be removed entirely. Thereby adding an incentive that the house be used rather than being left vacant, potentially for years with all the associated issues such as invalidating insurance and damp etc.

Everyone would win if they wanted to. It would not be compulsory and the owner or their representative could instead decide to leave the property and eat the additional calculated amount.

No need to be getting yourself so worked up

Anyone who thinks this is not an emotive subjective has obviously had no experience of it. Not that wasn't obvious from all the factually wrong comments.

Your simplistic proposals do not fix the problems. Because you don't understand them. Even when they've been explained to you. You just keep repeating the same dogma.

What in the name of jaysus are you talking about ?

of course when someone is incapable it is up to the courts to make decisions for them unless Enduring Power of Attorney has been arranged ... I've never said that it should be any other way.

what I am and what people are explaining to you is that your proposals and understanding of the issues and subject matter is next to nothing .. you obviously did a bit of furious googling yesterday to try back up some of your posts.

and putting 'no offence' at the start of a nonsense post does not excuse it being offensive.

you and you alone brought up the notion of children looking to spend incapacitated parents money on BMWs ... you are the one trying to advocate for forcing incapacitated people in to renting out their assets even if they are paying for their own nursing home care.

you haven't a clue

You are the one who could do with some googling. The only time I did a google was to pull up a link for someone to educate them on something which I said but they disputed. Nothing I have posted was factually incorrect. It is human nature for people to stick their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you" when being told something which they don't like, but I can't help them on that.

People are not paying for their own care costs. Giving a contribution towards it is not the same as paying for it. I already said that I think it is a good system. But saying you are paying towards it is somewhat analagous to the extreme case of a person in a council house, who puts has to give 10 Euro "rent" a week, saying that they pay for their own housing. I am only using an extreme case to illustrate the concept.

You were apparently complaining about it not being "your choice" to make decisions for a family member if they were made a ward of court. I was merely pointing out that there was no reason why it would automatically fall to any specific relative unless the person had made provision for it. It was a simple concept.