2,064 three bed council houses in Dublin with only one occupant!

Is it possible that many of those houses that say there's only 1 occupant have rented out the other rooms on the quiet? There's an undercurrent of the black economy hard at work in that section of society that could teach or lecture any expert from the social services department, but a blind eye is shown by the powers that be. One video doing the rounds at the moment has a man counting out €300,000.00 in cash on a makeshift table with no problem showing his face or whatever, he has €50,000.00 rings, more valuable watches, etc, etc. If you don't believe me I can very easily put the video up here if allowed and I have no doubt at all that this person is living in social housing paid for by me and you and working people. Yet, if anyone says one word about those people then God help you. It beggars belief what's going on in this country.
 
I would say that some of them do have paying tenants.

Others probably have their daughters and their grand children living with them, but they are also registered as homeless so that they can get a place of their own.

Brendan
 
Part of the problem is just that brendan. Traditionally grown up child with a child of 2 of their own 'went on the list' and was grand at home until a suitable place arose. Then became the 'going homeless' to get bumped up the list. Numbers went up dramatically
 
I live in an old estate where the houses are regularly coming onto the market as their owners are passing, these houses were being snapped up by the council, ripped apart and then upgraded to the highest level. Over the past 10 years at least 5 of these houses have been given to single people, 1 of them to a taxi driver who now has lodgers. The house next door was assigned to a young girl and her child, about 2 months later her partner who also drives a taxi has moved in and they keep horses, and park a horse box on the footpath, blocking the road. Another house was assigned to a single lady, she never lived in it, would come up a couple of times a week, turn on lights , put rubbish in the bins, cut grass etc, eventually after about 8 years, the house was taken back and reassigned to another single person. These are all family homes and really should house families, yet only 1 of these houses has a child living in it. The council are wholly to blame for this nonsense. But so long add they get their rent on time they don't actually care.
 
While nether agreeing or disagreeing with the principles of your proposals, I am thinking of the logistics.

Local Authorities would have to carry out periodic reviews in respect of each and every tenancy. I don’t know how many LA tenancies there are countrywide.

How often would the reviews have to be conducted?

If under-occupancy were to be established, then matching appropriate alternative accommodation would have to be found in each case, which may not necessarily be one-bedroomed accommodation.

Given changing needs, accommodation requirements may change several times, sometimes within a relatively short time span.

Would LAs have the resources?

Would there be a sufficient stock of suitable alternative accommodation?
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should try before spending over €5.5 billion adding more housing stock. Given that we have so few net financial contributors in society already is it fair to ask the few hundred thousand who pay for the rest of us to fork out thousands or tens of thousands more?
This issue makes the HSE look efficient.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I

At the very least, 53 of the people living on their own in 4 bedroom houses should swap with the 53 families living in overcrowded conditions.
Click to expand...

Absolutely we do need to get people to downsize and free up family properties, but to expect people to leave the homes they have been in for years or decades and move just like that, its not that simple. Lots of other councils do much better at it, one London borough offers attractive incentives to tenants to downsize for example
 
Last edited:
Ah yes we need to now give incentives to people that have had years of discounted rent and where tenancies can be passed on whilst private owners pay market rates.

Seriously if you are being housed by the government for life within reason accept what you are given.

I think people live in different universes and expect so much from the state. We have people who are reliant on the state and welfare to pick up the tab. Those with genuine sick / health / old people i have no issue with the state supporting them and in fact wish they got more - everyone else cop on.
 
That's simply not how it works, and to be honest, I'm glad. Living in social or council housing does not mean you do not have an pride in or feeling for your home or your environment, and don't deserve to be treated badly while being told to be grateful.

Think it about as real people instead of statistics. Would you really tell a widow in her 70s who has lived 50 years in her council house, reared her family, paid her rent, tended the garden and decorated countless times that you've decided she has to instantly shift herself away from everyone she knows, friends family and support networks, to move into a one bed flat across the city to make room for another family?

Bearing in mind she has a legal contract and rights as a tenant anyway which means you don't currently have any right to make her, anyway.
 

I don't think anyone has suggested overnight moves, but we have to get away from the idea that council house is yours for life, even being passed onto next generation, regardless of your needs, who else is on the waiting list, and the next generation's current means.

What if she didn't tend the garden and treated the place like a kip? It's irrelevant really because it's not her house. It's where she lives.

You seem to be forgetting the real people in bedsit homeless hubs or hotels\B&Bs, that could be in that house. They're being told there's no council house for them. They're being instantly shifted around right now. There's currently a 7 year waiting list for Dublin City Council because they are not using the council houses they have at their disposal to maximally house those on the waiting list.

If we're ok to prioritise that we don't want to shift a single person from a council house because of their longevity there, then we have effectively decided to prioritise that over the people in homeless hubs \ hotels etc.
 
Karl Deeter and Brendan Burgess have the bones of an idea, which if done properly, has the potential to free up a certain amount of larger properties for families.

But at the moment it is just an accountancy exercise because there are unsubstantiated presumptions of the viability of direct swaps.
 
odyssey06 said:
irrelevant really because it's not her house. It's where she lives.
Click to expand...

It's her HOME. In the same way yours is. It's not just where she lives.


I'm not forgetting anyone. Do we need to free up larger homes for overcrowded families? Yes, of course. That much is obvious. Do we do it by treating long term good tenants like they don't matter, like they are only entitled to shelter and not homes? No, we do not.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the housing crisis that people who have no experience of it do not understand. You think its all a numbers game and that people should be happy and grateful for a bed of some sort. It doesnt work like that, people need secure HOMES, where they can live and contribute fully to society. And with that comes a way to treat people.
 

Yes.
 
Magpie said:
It's her HOME. In the same way yours is. It's not just where she lives.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's hers if she pays the mortgage on it and owns it. The state owns it to provide shelter to those in need. It is where she lives. Fundamental difference.


People don't need to be given a house for life at below market rent to achieve that - without regard to their current room needs or how many other people are on waiting list \ in hotels \ hubs etc. There are lots of people living and contributing fully to society in rented accomodation with 6-12 months security. Against that, there are 7000 people in hubs and hotels with zero security.
Security does not require rights of virtual ownership of a property for you and your descendents in perpetuity. That's a fantasy and if that's what it takes to end a homeless crisis, then (a) it's not a crisis and (b) it will never end.
People don't need to be treated to a free house at other's expense.
 
This is precisely what my mother and aunt did. One because of business debts and the other to make good use of the proceeds to live off. My grandparents, who owned their home could not mind it in old age, they didn't even go upstairs for about 20 years, in Dublin, and confined themselves to their bedroom, and living room. The front room was spotless as it was never used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register