Homeless mother of 5 wants social housing

[michaelm]

That is incorrect, but it gets stated ad nauseam without consideration of the evidence.

There's no Scooby Doo mystery here. While life-expectancy has crept up we still need a fertility rate of 2(or 2.1) to maintain our population. While we're close to that level those who have more than two children compensate for those that have one or none. Otherwise we'd end up with a lot of older people and a dwindling pool of younger people to support the whole pyramid . . and ultimately a shrinking population and a dying society.

 

[TheBigShort]

If she presents herself as homeless she would be accommodated either in a hotel room or one of the hubs. While not ideal initially it would provide a bed for her family

The hubs have wrap around services so they are resourced to meet the needs of those living there. You make mention on one child needing full time medical care, how will where they live affect this, are you suggesting living in a house under cramped conditions is somehow more medically appropriate to a family hub?

No. I was suggesting that hotels and hostels were not medically appropriate. Do you recall mentioning that she would have been offered a hotel or hostel? See above quote.

I am a bit surprised at the second paragraph.

Why?

The question we asked was why an additional child was conceived while homeless? We don't know about the life this person had growing up but to suggest she had no influence on her current situation is wrong.

True, we don't know about the life of this person growing up. So I won't be judging her 'behaviour' or determine that she is irresponsible.

But the question that has been asked by myself and others on this forum is why she and her partner increased the size of their family while homeless?

I don't know, have you asked her? Who knows, perhaps she got news that her partner was going to get a steady job and they celebrated wildly, only for the job to fall through a month later. Who knows?

We don't know about the life this person had growing up

Education has never been more available to all than at any time in the past. The Govt are continually offering course's to help people become more employable in expanding sectors of the economy. The majority (if not all) colleges offer courses both online and classroom based so if you have a broadband connection and a tablet you can access these courses.

That is true, I agree with that, but that is not to say it is a job done. People with no or little formal secondary education, through no fault of their own as children growing up in disadvantaged socio-economic conditions, will still tend to find themselves out of the loop, despite all the efforts and the resources that are now available, as you quite rightly point out.

It could be a case that she is 'playing the system', or she could genuinely be someone who never really had a chance ( for a multitude of reasons, including the awful scenario I depicted earlier, or for some other awful reasons). Either way, we don't know. Until we do, I for one, will reserve judgement.

 

[Firefly]

Education has never been more available to all than at any time in the past. The Govt are continually offering course's to help people become more employable in expanding sectors of the economy. The majority (if not all) colleges offer courses both online and classroom based so if you have a broadband connection and a tablet you can access these courses.

Pardon the pun, but you can bring the horse to the water...

For some people there are always excuses and for others they will often make excuses for others.

 

[The Horseman]

No. I was suggesting that hotels and hostels were not medically appropriate. Do you recall mentioning that she would have been offered a hotel or hostel? See above quote.



Why?



True, we don't know about the life of this person growing up. So I won't be judging her 'behaviour' or determine that she is irresponsible.


I don't know, have you asked her? Who knows, perhaps she got news that her partner was going to get a steady job and they celebrated wildly, only for the job to fall through a month later. Who knows?




That is true, I agree with that, but that is not to say it is a job done. People with no or little formal secondary education, through no fault of their own as children growing up in disadvantaged socio-economic conditions, will still tend to find themselves out of the loop, despite all the efforts and the resources that are now available, as you quite rightly point out.

It could be a case that she is 'playing the system', or she could genuinely be someone who never really had a chance ( for a multitude of reasons, including the awful scenario I depicted earlier, or for some other awful reasons). Either way, we don't know. Until we do, I for one, will reserve judgement.

Lets look at the facts of this case (as I took the opportunity to review the article in the newspaper). This woman at the age of 20 decided to go on the housing list. At this point there were no children born at this point. She has spent 8 yrs on the housing list 17 months of which she and her family were homeless.

They left accommodation because it was not fit for human habitation. With the powers of the RTB and Threshold all she needed to do was open a case with The RTB and the matter would have been resolved. The local authority via the RTB would have fined the landlord for failing to bring the property up to regulation. I fail to see why she made herself intentionally homeless if she did not follow the RTB process. The local authority would not have allowed her move without finding her alternative accommodation. I have experience of the Council inspectors and they set extremely high standards for properties. I fail to see how black mould appeared and was not noticed when the inspectors undertook the initial inspection.

If you make yourself intentionally homeless you are (I am led to believe) removed from the housing list for two years. By leaving the accommodation she made herself homeless. You appear determined not to attach any responsibility at all on this person for her current situation. You continually provide "what if's" for any question asked. I do not accept that she has no responsibility for her situation.

The facts of the case as described in the media are as follows at the age of 20 she went on the housing list, having spent 8 yrs on the housing list her family went from herself to having five children, one of which was conceived while homeless. I am sorry but to me it appears from the facts on this that she never had any intention of fending for herself and has chosen the welfare system as a way of life.

You are entitled to reserve your judgment but based on the facts available from the article on the paper I am of the opinion that this person is playing the system.

 

[TheBigShort]

You are entitled to reserve your judgment but based on the facts available from the article on the paper I am of the opinion that this person is playing the system.

Do you have a link to the newspaper article please? Or tell me which publication. Thks.

 

[The Horseman]

Do you have a link to the newspaper article please? Or tell me which publication. Thks.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...list-after-nearfatal-blood-clot-36169198.html
As per post number 5 in this thread.

 

[TheBigShort]

This woman at the age of 20 decided to go on the housing list. At this point there were no children born at this point. She has spent 8 yrs on the housing list 17 months of which she and her family were homeless.

There is no evidence that this woman decided 'to go on the housing list'. To get on to the housing list you need to meet certain criteria, one typical criteria is that your income is simply insufficient to pay private rents or sustain a mortgage. There is evidence to suggest that between herself and her partner that was the case.

"Edel told Kenny how she and her partner Gary and her four boys became homeless 17 months ago when they moved out of unsuitable accommodation in Hartstown."
"The young mother described... how she was looking for a new home but when...landlords heard she had four kids they didn't call back"
This indicates they were looking for private rental accommodation. It doesn't confirm either way if one or both parents were in gainful employment at the time, but that possibility exists. In which, if either one or both were in gainful employment at the time then surely these are the people who should be prioritised for housing?

With the powers of the RTB and Threshold all she needed to do was open a case with The RTB and the matter would have been resolved.

There is no evidence in the article or the radio interview to suggest that they did, or did not contact RTB. Your assumption that the 'matter would have been resolved' is just that, an assumption.

The local authority via the RTB would have fined the landlord for failing to bring the property up to regulation

Fines do not clear mould or fix holes in windows. Plus, I assume that there is most probably a lenghty legal process (I admit I could be wrong here) in which time the issues are not resolved.

I fail to see why she made herself intentionally homeless if she did not follow the RTB process.

You are assuming that the RTB was in operation, and that it is always effective.

The local authority would not have allowed her move without finding her alternative accommodation.

You are assuming her previous accommodation in Hartstown was LA accommodation. But, assuming it was, you are assuming that the LA keep all their properties at all times up to standard. It's possible that there was a RTB process in train, but that it was taking an undue length of time to conclude? To suggest that a LA can prevent a resident from leaving a property for what the residents consider more suitable accommodation that what they currently have is simply not true.

The facts of the case as described in the media are as follows at the age of 20 she went on the housing list, having spent 8 yrs on the housing list her family went from herself to having five children, one of which was conceived while homeless.

The facts of the case as you have interpreted them are full of assumptions. You also seemed fixated on the fifth child, knowing that even without the circumstances of the fifth child, there are four others to consider.
It appears to me that the woman loves her children, would like a large family, and if she wants, she should have more children, regardless of her socio-economic status.

You have concluded she is playing the system, I remain unconvinced.
I propose the State should build adequate levels of social housing to accommadate people in this position. What do you propose?

 

[The Horseman]

If you are on the housing list the council pay most if not all of your rent through the various schemes (HAP,RA, RAS etc). At the age of twenty this person was not forced to go on the housing list she choose to. To me that indicates that she has not even tried to get any type of career. I would have no issue with someone in their late twenties going on the housing list having tried to support themselves, but to make the choice at 20 to decide I am not going to even try is something I have an issue with.

Those who are on the housing list and are housed in private accommodation are part of a three party lease between the tenant, landlord and the council. The council would have to agree to any move as they are the ones paying the landlord. Therefore in order to leave one property the council would have had to be informed otherwise who was going to pay the landlord in the new location. I can assure you that the council are well aware of the RTB and its function and would have no issue taking a case against the landlord on behalf of the tenant (as she is a council tenant).

You suggest I am assuming the last property was a LA property, I am not making that assumption, why would the council let its own tenants go homeless knowing full well they would just present themselves homeless to the self same council.

I don't doubt the woman loves her children, but we can't all have a large family just because we want one. We all want things we can't have this unfortunately is life.

I agree the State should build social houses, but not on the current model were you get a house for life in a desired location because you knew how to play the system and because someone shouts loudest they should automatically get what they want.

My viewpoint on this matter remains the same. I respect you have your viewpoint and I have mine. Based on the postings to date neither of us appear willing to change.