Without access to all their financial records, how can you possibly know this.These people can afford to have a house of their own
From what others have said, it is a lifetime tenancy. So if their income is assessed annually, their rent will have increased.These people can afford to have a house of their own. You are incorrect income is assessed annually
Many home businesses do not require planning, traffic and impact on surrounding neighbours is often a consideration there. If you believe that planning is required to run the type or scale of business taking place, then submit a complaint to the planning section of the local authority who will investigate.Also probably needs planning
Why are you refusing to state the type of business they are running.It's in the tenancy agreement which they sign to. Also probably needs planning
Here's the "homeless" report from May.It's in breach of tenancy agreement and also planning. In my opinion they are taking houses from the homeless so when you are homeless you can applaud them
Less than 10,000 people from a population of 5.127 million. How on earth can anyone describe that a national crisis?Here's the "homeless" report from May.
https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/5bffc-homeless-report-may-2024/
One of the families going to Poland for the summer. As that's is worth mentioning one issue may be that they are foreigners, coming over here and taking "our" social housing.We can't claim you have an ulterior motive as you are quite clear and unvarnished about your, in my opinion deeply unpleasant, motivation.
I want to disagree with that but I can't.From what others have said, it is a lifetime tenancy. So if their income is assessed annually, their rent will have increased.
It is irrelevant if they can afford to buy a house now. It matters if they could afford to buy a house at the time of the initial assessment. People living in council houses doing well for themselves isn't something new. It has always been that way going back to when I was growing up. People weren't kicked out of their homes then and they won't be kicked out now.
In fact, you can say that it is good for the country as a whole. I would much prefer to see someone getting a council house doing well for themselves and their family instead of giving it a generations of the same family who contribute nothing to the country but just take benefits. At least the people doing well for themselves are paying taxes and the chances of future generations living on benefits is reduced.
Welcome to my world.I want to disagree with that but I can't.
If we want to allocate the States assets in a manner which helps those most in need then that's exactly what should happen. The problem is that if we do that we create yet another poverty trap.Eg a single parent on benefits… goes to college gets a decent job etc. Should they have to move as soon as supply of council houses dictates that it’s needed for someone else? That makes no sense.
I agree but what happens when a single person is in a 3 or 4 bedroom council house, a apartment suitable for their needs is available nearby and a family is in emergency accommodation that needs the house? Should State assets be used to provide the greatest social good?I can see the need to provide more housing, and the solution is probably higher rents and putting the money into more housing stock. I don’t think forcing families to move is a good solution for society, having to move house as a punishment for getting a decent salary will not be a great incentive. Changing schools etc is not a great idea for building stability.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?