"Social housing should be rent-free in certain areas."

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,684
An interesting idea from Dr Padraic Kenna of NUI Galway in the Examiner

Council tenants owe €65m in unpaid rent

“There is an argument to say we should have zero rents in local authorities because the cost of implementing and the cost of collecting them and court fees is quite significant,” he said.

“It wouldn’t be popular because we tend to feel people should pay something but the economics of it make sense.

“You are dealing with people on such low incomes and the whole business of setting rents, collecting rents, administrating rents, recording rent arrears, chasing people for arrears, court actions — if you add it all up there’s very little gain at the end of the day.”

I met someone recently who has not paid their mortgage in 2 years. The lender is trying to get an order for possession and he isn't worried. He reckons that his family will get better accommodation from the state.

I think anyone on social welfare should have 30% of it withheld and paid for their housing needs. In his case it should be paid to ptsb. It would be almost enough to make the mortgage sustainable. If someone is in receipt of social housing, it would be paid directly to the local authority.

Brendan
 
I dont believe any money should be wasted going to court etc. going after council tenants who dont pay their rent but they shouldn't get away with it - there should be a system in place where the money is taken from their income directly the minute they start to stop paying so that they know there is NO non -payment option. This should be a simple system that automatically kicks in the minute payment stops and won't cost the state. It's shocking that council tenants owe 65 million in unpaid rents but why would you bother when you know no one is going to do anything about it. I just feel some of these people are getting enough for nothing already and the payments are often minimal and so should be paid. Added to that people often have little regard for something that they get for nothing.
 
A terrible idea from the Dr.
Deduct rent from source automatically as Tebbit says above, no debate. And put the system in place before the upcoming social housing building spree takes hold
 
Free house and you don't even have to pay rent... cue cash in hand from sublettings and lodgers... certain individuals will somehow end up with multiple houses across different local authorities. This kind of idea will only make housing shortages worse.

If it's too costly to chase down rent arrears, make the system more efficient.
 
Dr Kenna's observation sums up exactly why local authorities have given up on building social housing. It is a money pit, with no economic return whatsoever. Long past time for a proper and economically sustainable model as suggested above.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I think anyone on social welfare should have 30% of it withheld and paid for their housing needs.
Click to expand...
The simple round number won't work. It would make for huge gains and losses for vulnerable "edge cases".

Withholding rent from any/all benefit payments seems a more achievable, and less sweeping proposal. I think we can all agree that giving with one hand while taking away with another is daft.
 
trasneoir said:
I think we can all agree that giving with one hand while taking away with another is daft.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean.

The welfare rates include an allowance for the person to pay for their housing needs, but if they don't pay that money to the local authority or the bank, then it's certainly daft that it is allowed.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Not sure what you mean.

The welfare rates include an allowance for the person to pay for their housing needs, but if they don't pay that money to the local authority or the bank, then it's certainly daft that it is allowed.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Don't forget Brendan that lot's of people on rent allowance don't pay their Landlord either. They come up with each and every excuse in the book to keep this. Of course this payment should be taken at source.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I think anyone on social welfare should have 30% of it withheld and paid for their housing needs.
Click to expand...

Delboy said:
Deduct rent from source automatically as Tebbit says above, no debate.
Click to expand...

T McGibney said:
Long past time for a proper and economically sustainable model as suggested above.
Click to expand...

trasneoir said:
Withholding rent from any/all benefit payments seems a more achievable, and less sweeping proposal.
Click to expand...

noproblem said:
Of course this payment should be taken at source.
Click to expand...

I wonder if I have missed out on something. I had not seen this suggested before. Yet there seems to unanimous agreement here.

Brendan
 
I agree with the sentiments in the post above but they are far too sensible for politicians to comprehend.
If you did get some sensible politicians to accept the above they would be shouted down and blackmailed by left leaning politicians who love bureaucracy as it gives them some feeling of power because they can overcome it and their constituents become grateful to them for doing so. There
are a lot of politicians ( in all parties ) who are not going to rock any boat and be seen to go against the "disadvantaged". Very hard for me to see any party with the courage to implement it.
 
Dermot said:
There are a lot of politicians ( in all parties ) who are not going to rock any boat and be seen to go against the "disadvantaged".
Click to expand...

I hear that argument a fair bit. When I say on the radio that people who make no effort to pay their mortgage should be repossessed quickly, I get attacked by the other panelists. No politician well advocate it publicly.

But where are the voters in this? Even assuming that the average Askaboutmoney user is not the typical voter, are there not enough people who would agree with the above sentiments to elect a few TDs?

Brendan
 
Yes, a few TD's could be elected and I personally would vote for them but also understand that when in the Dail and elected they would have as much power to implement their policies as Humpty Dumpty. That is where our democracy is falling down. They're the most legal bunch of professional bullies in the system and all we can do is change who the bullies are now and again. It's sad, but also very true.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
But where are the voters in this? Even assuming that the average Askaboutmoney user is not the typical voter, are there not enough people who would agree with the above sentiments to elect a few TDs?
Click to expand...

I am bemused by this as well as I would have also thought that there would be enough as well. It could be a case of if it does not effect me directly it is not going to change my vote and the lefties will trip over one another twisting it into a negative and waiting for the promoters to make a slight mistake in the presentation of the change. It would be presented as a cut in their welfare allowances by the left.
When you were on various media outlets I am sure you often felt that you were pressed harder on for example the house repossession issue than maybe someone on the panel who was on the other side of the argument.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I wonder if I have missed out on something. I had not seen this suggested before. Yet there seems to unanimous agreement here.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Same theory should be applied to Court fines. Deduct at source rather than wait for the Perp to pay up, if they ever do.
Its been talked about for years but the TDs seem very slow to want to go after people in this manner. Maybe as said above it's because they are often able to make it appear that they can help sort out the issue, even if its not possible to do so.
 
How much do social housing tenants on social welfare pay in rent?

I was discussing it with a friend who said that they pay no rent. But I don't think that this is correct.Here is the Dublin City scheme:

[broken link removed]

How is the weekly rent charge arrived at?
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 of the Subsidiary Earners in an individual household is €76.00


Is the following correct for a couple with two children:

 
Delboy said:
Same theory should be applied to Court fines. Deduct at source rather than wait for the Perp to pay up, if they ever do.
Click to expand...

There has been a similar issue with court judgements. If a person is injured for example and receives a judgement to provide for their care over their expected lifespan, in the past the amount was capitalised and awarded as a lump sum. The minister has published legislation to allow for periodic payments.

This is not the same as deducting fines from wages or social welfare income but related.

If the minister gets the legislation enacted maybe she can tackle periodic deductions next.

And then the rest of my wishlist
 
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/new-government.198848/#post-1472359
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register