# Social housing should not be allocated for life



## Delboy (16 Mar 2016)

_ Copied from another thread as it's such an important issue - Brendan _

- Change the rules on social housing - it shouldn't be for life, no matter whether your circumstances improve or not.
- Sort out rent arrears in the Social housing area...over 30% of local authority tenants are in arrears. And here we are shouting for tens of thousands of more social housing units to be built!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Mar 2016)

Hi Delboy 

Are these still the rules? 

It seems to me that the supply of housing could be improved if they allocated social housing for 5 years at a time.  

Their tenancy could be cancelled/not renewed in the following circumstances 

reduction in housing needs e.g. children leaving the house, marriage split up 

persistent arrears 

unsocial behaviour 
The freed up house could be let to someone with a greater need. 

Brendan


----------



## cremeegg (16 Mar 2016)

Hi Brendan,

Just to let you know this is an Irish website.

While it may be different in your country. These suggestions are outside the bounds of political discourse in Ireland.

In fact we recently had an election where insurgent parties supporting increases in protection for tenants did well at the expense of the more established parties. The one party which did suggest rebalancing the tax and welfare system to support wealth creation received almost no support.

Unfortunately many commentators who are concerned by this turn of events seem to have decided to ignore political reality, and are making suggestions which have no profile outside their own sphere.

regards

Cremeegg


----------



## Delboy (16 Mar 2016)

Brendan

I've no idea about length of residency, just rehashing what I have heard in the media over the years. The 30% rental arrears figure was used by Karl Deeter in a debate on housing yesterday evening- he was pointing out the perils of rushing to build more social housing when we couldn't manage what we currently have.
On this particular issue (rent arrears) I would suggest we need a National Debt Collection Agency who would take all that work away from Local Authorities and Govt Departments etc (not the Rev Comm of course as they're good at it). LA's are useless at collecting cash...we've seen that with water rates (only 40% of the amount due from Businesses is collected if I recall correctly), commercial rates. TV licence collection rates are also terrible. Too many people are now choosing what they feel they will pay and using 'moral' arguments to justify it.

But in terms of social housing for life. I know families who got council housing down the country at a young age and are still there with the houses passed on to the last child to remain on. Some bought out the houses (at a sweet discount I'm sure...another benefit available to some!) but others are still paying peppercorn rents despite the children having grown up and gotten jobs with some of them still in the house. A lot of wages going into some houses.


----------



## Gerry Canning (16 Mar 2016)

We have a gilt edged opportunity to ensure future Social Housing Tenants pay a fair and realistic rent.
It should be under a separate body, with Statute Type Rules so that those that milk off the rest of us , can and will be thrown out.I don,t mean eviction , just throw messers out fast !
If it starts fair ,the leg-lifters will soon be sorted.

I very much agree{people are choosing what they pay} = too hell with that for an attitude!
...................
On the council houses being passed on;
I do not think they should be owned by next generation ,but I think letting next generation (stay) in (their) home makes social sense provided rent they pay is fair., They should never have been sold at below market rates.


----------



## Black_Adder (16 Mar 2016)

Affordable housing does not equal social housing.
But 25% of all houses built in 1974 (when we had no money) were built by Local Authorities (6250 of 25,000)
By 1999 it was like a few hundred
Dellboy is right about should not be a freebie

But what is needed is:
-affordable housing

Which could be done if:
- Housing Association + properly controlled costs
- Planning problems resolved
- 4 way finance (i.e. mortgages from at least four providers)
- Developer + profit margin based on actual costs

Control of:
- Land cost (zone more in Dublin  and go up)
- Development cost


----------



## Delboy (22 Mar 2016)

Karl Deeter now debating this with Ruth Coppinger on Radio1.
It's full on dog eat dog!

According to Deeter, the rent for a 2 bed in Dublin (from the local authority) is a max of €62 per week. He's also making the point that people who get social housing, seem to hold on to it for life no matter whether their circumstances improve or not.

€21m of rent arrears for Dublin Corpo.


----------



## Waver (22 Mar 2016)

What percentage of the rent arrears are actually real arrears. There are some huge problems with rent assessment in Dublin City Council.

If someone leaves a rented property they have to supply three official proofs of address at their new address to be taken off the rent at their old address. In the case of separating couples or an adult child moving out they may be unwilling or unable to provide these to the occupier so they remain on the rent.  Then of course the local authority can access their social welfare or P60 information but not in real time and can assess back rent based on a new job the ex spouse or whoever now has. Suddenly thousands in owed in arrears and it is very difficult to sort out.


----------



## Waver (22 Mar 2016)

Delboy said:


> Karl Deeter now debating this with Ruth Coppinger on Radio1.
> It's full on dog eat dog!
> 
> According to Deeter, the rent for a 2 bed in Dublin (from the local authority) is a max of €62 per week. He's also making the point that people who get social housing, seem to hold on to it for life no matter whether their circumstances improve or not.
> ...


#

Maximum weekly rent for a 2 bed in Dublin City Council is €313 under the 2013 Rent Scheme


----------



## Delboy (22 Mar 2016)

30% of rentals in Dublin are in arrears according to Deeter last week on Drivetime

The €62 weekly figure I quoted above is the max contribution from the tenant, not the Taxpayer funded element


----------



## Waver (22 Mar 2016)

Delboy said:


> 30% of rentals in Dublin are in arrears according to Deeter last week on Drivetime
> 
> The €62 weekly figure I quoted above is the max contribution from the tenant, not the Taxpayer funded element




That is incorrect. Perhaps you are confused and thinking of Rent Supplement or RAS, you would still be incorrect though

From Dublin City Council website

*What is the maximum rent payable on a dwelling?*
The maximum rent payable is based on the size of the dwelling as follows:

Bedsit (1 room) - €257.00

1 Bedroom (2 rooms) - €301.00

2 Bedroom (3 rooms) - €313.00

3 Bedroom (4 rooms) - €401.00

Greater than 3 Bedroom/4 rooms - €423.00


----------



## Delboy (22 Mar 2016)

I'm only quoting what the guy said!

Actually, Broadsheet have a transcript of the 1st part of the interview...so better detail in that than v's what I was trying to repost
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/03/22/i-have-to-return-some-videotapes/


> “Of course it has and when you look at the figures though, let’s just examine them, look at the two-bed houses – average rent on those is €62 a week. The average rent overall is about €59 a week. The highest rent being charged in all of Dublin city and lmost likely for a five or six-bed house is €228 a week which is about €990 per month. Now what I would say then, is when you look at the five-bedroom houses and six-bedroom houses on average, it’s €80 a week or €117 a week. Which is a price so good that you simply, it can’t be matched anywhere.


----------



## Waver (22 Mar 2016)

Delboy said:


> I'm only quoting what the guy said!
> 
> Actually, Broadsheet have a transcript of the 1st part of the interview...so better detail in that than v's what I was trying to repost
> http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/03/22/i-have-to-return-some-videotapes/




Average rent is a bit different to maximum rent.


----------



## ppmeath (22 Mar 2016)

Waver said:


> That is incorrect. Perhaps you are confused and thinking of Rent Supplement or RAS, you would still be incorrect though
> 
> From Dublin City Council website
> 
> ...




Here is what Deeter said:

“Of course it has and when you look at the figures though, let’s just examine them, look at the two-bed houses – average rent on those is €62 a week. The average rent overall is about €59 a week. The highest rent being charged in all of Dublin city and lmost likely for a five or six-bed house is €228 a week which is about €990 per month. Now what I would say then, is when you look at the five-bedroom houses and six-bedroom houses on average, it’s €80 a week or €117 a week. Which is a price so good that you simply, it can’t be matched anywhere.

It seems that KD has acquired figures and these figures show the average rent on two bed houses (not max rent). He also seems to have figures which show that the highest rent being *charged *in all of Dublin is €228 a week.  He then appears to have details of 5 and 6 bed houses.

The max (or the cap) needs to be looked at in tandem with two things, how DCC determine the rent and the occupants of the houses.

For example, a family requiring a 5 or 6 bedroomed house may consist of parent's and 4 children. So the income used to determine the rent, can only come from the parents, as the "children" are - well children.

Here is how they assess the rent:

_The rent is calculated having regard to the weekly assessable income firstly of the Principal Earner and then the Subsidiary Earners. When the rent payable by the Principal Earner has been calculated additions will be made to this amount in respect of a rent contribution from the Subsidiary Earners. The amount to be paid is calculated as follows:
_

_Where the Principal Earner is a single person it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €32.00_
_Where the Principal Earner is regarded as a couple it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €64.00. If a spouse/partner however has a weekly income over €32.00 the couple allowance does not apply._
_*Where the Subsidiary Earner is a single person it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €32.00. The maximum contribution is €19.00 per week.*_
_Where the Subsidiary Earner is regarded as a couple it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €64.00. The maximum contribution is €19.00 per week._
_The maximum combined rent contribution payable from the weekly assessable incomes ofthe Subsidiary Earners in an individual household is €76.00_

As you can see, if, for example, the 4 kids grow up, remain in the home and work - the rent is primarily based on the "highest earner", the max rent on a 6 bed house is €401.

Now, to give you an example of how much you have to earn to get to that max, if there was only one person working out of 6 adults, they would have to have an "accessible income" of €2,707 *per week*.

What is "accessible income":

*What is considered to be Assessable Income?*
_The assessable income of either a Principal or Subsidiary Earner will generally be that person’s normal weekly wage and/or social welfare payment/s* less any deductions (where applicable) for income tax, P.R.S.I. and U.S.C. (Universal Social Charge) payments.
*_
So, it's €2,707 - *net per week*.  (http://www.percentagecalculator.net/) 2,675 + 32. (Gross?? But Hook Tax calculator is a good one).

[broken link removed]

_"But in terms of social housing for life. I know families who got council housing down the country at a young age and are still there with the houses passed on to the last child to remain on."
_
That is no longer the case. If, for example, the last child was a sole adult and the property was a 3 bed house, then the adult would be offered an alternative property suitable for their needs - if the child was married and had a family, this is the only way that they could remain in the property.

It's already been tested in the courts:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...mily-council-house-high-court-rules-1.1790258

Edit - I have put in the incorrect max rent, it's €423 not €401 - I won't change the calculations, it won't be much of a difference.


----------



## Gerry Canning (23 Mar 2016)

Clear post ppmeath.

The Urban Myth of (council) houses passing on , no longer applies.
The Rent due is worked on a fairly lenient (but sensible) affordability assessment.

All in all seems ok , provided rent is collected.


----------



## Delboy (23 Mar 2016)

'Urban myth no longer applies'!!!
It can't have been an Urban myth if it did indeed apply at 1 stage 

This is Ireland - who says that the actual court ruling is applied by every Council? Or whether it's applied in every case...perhaps a 'helpful' Councillor intervenes to keep someone in their 'family home' or in their 'community'. 
And anyways, according to ppmeath, you can get to stay on in the house if you have kids. Single mother with 2 kids for example...no council would move them out.


----------



## Thirsty (23 Mar 2016)

> Single mother with 2 kids for example...no council would move them out.


What about a single father with two children? 

If there's a mother with a child, somewhere there's a father with a child.  Funny how they are always left out of a topic like this...


----------



## ppmeath (23 Mar 2016)

Thirsty said:


> What about a single father with two children?
> 
> If there's a mother with a child, somewhere there's a father with a child.  Funny how they are always left out of a topic like this...




Sad fact is that most one parent families are headed by females. 13.5% are headed by a male.

98% in receipt of OPFP (Lone parents) are women.

I don't think fathers were left out on purpose, but it's a good point that you have raised.

_"This is Ireland - who says that the actual court ruling is applied by every Council? Or whether it's applied in every case...perhaps a 'helpful' Councillor intervenes to keep someone in their 'family home' or in their 'community'. "_

It would apply to every Council if there were in that position and the position is that they are under extreme pressure to house people. Having one person in a home designed for a family as opposed to a one bedroomed apartment - in the same vicinity is a no brainer.


_"The Rent due is worked on a fairly lenient (but sensible) affordability assessment."
_
I would agree. But I do think the income cap for the sub earner should be higher.

_"The Urban Myth of (council) houses passing on , no longer applies."_

It wasn't a myth, it was a policy, if you lived in the house and were on the rent, the house passed to you, which is why the man in the link brought the challenge.

What also used to happen is that when the kids became adults they'd put down for their own council house and if successful and if, for example the mother was living in the original family home on her own, one of the grandchildren would put his name on the rent and pay the rent so when the mother (grandmother) died, he/she would then get the house.

This has to work itself out of the system.


----------



## Thirsty (25 Mar 2016)

Its not so much the 'heading up' of a household.

( though I agree with your figures, the SW payments deserve another thread entirely so I won't derail this one)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the state / society / SW / co.co assumes responsibility for families with one resident parent. The non-resident parent, particularly if not married, is allowed to abdicate their responsibility.

The non-resident will only be pursued for child maintenance if the primary carer has the time, energy and willingness to bring cases to court. Many, I would say the vast majority (anecdotal,there are no reliable figures available) just give up in the end as the process is so trying.


----------



## ppmeath (25 Mar 2016)

Thirsty said:


> I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the state / society / SW / co.co assumes responsibility for families with one resident parent. The non-resident parent, particularly if not married, is allowed to abdicate their responsibility.
> 
> The non-resident will only be pursued for child maintenance if the primary carer has the time, energy and willingness to bring cases to court. Many, I would say the vast majority (anecdotal,there are no reliable figures available) just give up in the end as the process is so trying.



It's a bit chicken and egg really though isn't it? As in which came first - did the state step in first or the did absent parent abdicate their responsibility first?

I think when the state had the resources that it became lazy and complacent, now that it doesn't, this I am sure is being closely looked at. If you have kids then you are responsible, the main reason for the state to step in is when the other parent is dead or genuinely unable to provide - somewhere along the line it simply turned into an "entitlement". 

It's the same (I feel), with Social Housing. 

Another thread though.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Apr 2016)

A sideways thought occurs to me in relation to this thread... 
Could the relatively short lifespan of modular homes be a step in the right direction from this perspective?


----------



## Purple (10 May 2016)

ppmeath said:


> Sad fact is that most one parent families are headed by females. 13.5% are headed by a male.
> 
> 98% in receipt of OPFP (Lone parents) are women.
> 
> I don't think fathers were left out on purpose, but it's a good point that you have raised.


The person who received the Welfare payments is considered to be the head of the household. The mother will automatically get the Children's Allowance and so will automatically get the OPFP, even if the father maintains a household and has the children half the time. Jut as the mother gets a double tax free allowance but the father only gets a single persons allowance. The only way that changes is if the father goes to court and that's an expensive process where there is a perceived bias in favour of the mother. In short unless the mother is endangering the children the father won't get a look in. 
Basically where a couple breaks up the mother will become the head of the household from a OPFP point of view by default. Fathers don't matter.


----------

