You obviously didn't the actual report either. Nowhere does the actual verdict state that a 'significant amount' of housing is sub-standard accommodation.....
Who speaks for the taxpayer?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
You obviously didn't the actual report either. Nowhere does the actual verdict state that a 'significant amount' of housing is sub-standard accommodation.....
Perhaps because they're all just more of your diversions. What does a homeless family refusing an offer of housing have to do with someone else refusing to pay the rent that they have been assessed as being capable of paying? Homeless families make up a small portion of those refusing housing offers, and overall, the majority of refusals are due to the unit not being in a desirable area.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Here is some of the actual wording from the judgement as referenced to by the Irish Examiner article.
"118. The Committee has repeatedly held that the right to housing for families encompasses housing of an adequate standard and access to essential services (see §106 above). In this respect the Committee takes into account General Comment No 4 of the UN Committee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Committee which provides that ”Adequate housing must be habitable, in terms of providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well”and that “An adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities , means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services.”
The Committee considers that some of the conditions described above regarding sewage invasions, contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould etc. go to the core of adequate housing, raising serious concerns from the perspective of both habitability and access to services. It notes in particular the high number of residents in certain estates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions (for example the Dolphin House complex) years after the problems were first identified.
It also takes into consideration the fact that a significant number of regeneration programmes adopted by the Government for local authority estates in the last decade have not been completed with the effect that a number of local authority tenants remain living in substandard housing conditions."
If you are trying to be pedantic and waste time, you are doing a good job of it.
You are the one wasting time. But since you just seem to interested in posting endless boring posts about rats, then I will give you the actual wording since you can't be bothered to look it up properly.
In the light of the above the Committee finds that the Government has failed to take sufficient and timely measures to ensure the right to housing of an adequate standard for not an insignificant number of families living in local authority housing and therefore holds that there is a violation of Article 16 of the Charter in this respect.
You might think that is pedantic but that is not the same as saying a significant amount of LA housing is sub-standard as you state. Also this committee mainly looked at inner city Dublin LA developments like Dolphin house on which €25m is currently being spent on regenerating but the committee relied on a old report.
Nobody is saying there aren't problems with some housing stock but unless you can define what you mean by 'significant amount' and back it up with evidence, I would suggest you stop quoting it.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
The European Committee of Social Rights, in a decision published today, found that “a significant stock of local authority housing is of substandard quality”.
This is the quote from the Irish Examiner upon which I relied upon. If the reporting is not precise, I do beg your pardon.
However, here is the judgement in full. Some would do well to read it
http://hudoc.esc.coe.int/eng/#{"ESCDcIdentifier":["cc-110-2014-dmerits-en"]}
This is the quote from the Irish Examiner upon which I relied upon. If the reporting is not precise, I do beg your pardon.
However, here is the judgement in full. Some would do well to read it
http://hudoc.esc.coe.int/eng/#{"ESCDcIdentifier":["cc-110-2014-dmerits-en"]}
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Pedantic? I think so.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I never said it does. Im suggesting that it is not beyond reason and common sense that a LA tenant may refuse to pay rent in dispute with the landlord on the basis of substandard accommodation, is it?
Im saying that this may account for some of the 15% of LA arrears, do you think that is a plausible scenario?
By all means, evict the tenant for refusing to pay rent in such circumstances. But I would add for what purpose? If the current tenants are prepared to go to Europe to fight, and win, over the conditions they live in, who in their right mind would be prepared to live there given the conditions of the property?
Do you think educated, hard working, taxpaying, family aspiring, squeezed out of private rental and ownership market John & Mary FTB are going to be "happy to pay the rent" on this one?
Think about it.
So all you will have done is increase the homeless rate and done nothing to resolve the housing crisis.
I apologize for any condescending tone, but repeating the same question again and again, and limiting the housing crisis to a simplistic formula of long-term arrears should = automatic eviction solves nothing.
Well I would respectfully ask that you apply your considerable intelligence and life experience to the issue and stop limiting it to simplistic assumptions.
People need to be housed. That you even consider there is an option here suggests you are over-egging the value of your education.
There is currently around 10,000 people classed as homeless or in emergency accommodation. Its a tiny fraction of the population. 700,000 are on hospital waiting lists, yet it is the homeless crisis that is forefront.
Without a secure tenancy all sorts of other social and economic disadvantages emerge, employment prospects, educational opportunities (how can someone go to college in Dublin if tomorrow they may be moved to some other unidentified location)?
Yes, I have repeatedly said that if someone can pay and refuses, then they should face the prospect of being evicted.
You have identified a cohort of LA tenants that are 15% in arrears as tenants who "wont pay" as opposed to "cant pay" by virtue of the rent differential rate system.
Im simply refuting that assertion providing reasoning that extends beyond that, including scenarios that may give cause for somewhat more complex reasoning as to why some tenants may be in arrears (despite the rent differential rate system).
Yes, because it suits your agenda and the agenda of others to present a complex problem in a simplistic manner.
- The state should engage in (is engaging, in fairness) in a house building program to rectify in part the consequences of the housing market failure.
- A tax rebate or grant to be offered to both tenants of private and public housing to relocate to smaller dwellings where there is currently under occupancy. 40% of private dwellings are currently under occupied. A moving grant will increase mobility in housing market.
- Restructure the private rental market. All landlords to register as limited companies. Banks to provide mortgages of 150yrs + to the companies to buy-to-let properties. Landlords can concentrate on providing quality housing for affordable rates instead of the cowboy landlords who bought into the property boom hoping that others would pay off their mortgage just in time for retirement.
- Change inflation calculation measures to include increases and decreases in asset prices.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Another simplifier!
The proposal is to evict people on four counts;
1. If they are not working - evict (to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?)
2. If they are working and earn a decent income - evict (to where? What if it adversely impacts on their employment prospects? Childcare arrangements, evening college classes?)
3. If they have spare rooms - evict, even if they worked all their lives, paying taxes, paying their rent, raising a family who are now working and paying taxes too. None of that matters, they have spare bedrooms in their 3 bed terrace - evict them! But to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?
What if the homeless family dont like the location of the evicted tenants?
4. If they are capable of paying, but refuse to pay - I agree, face them with the prospect of eviction. It usually does the trick where someone CAN pay.
A bit of a mess, isnt it?
Hasnt really been thought through, has it?
A load of nonsense basically, isnt it?
This would result in a massive exodus of small landlords and make the problem far worse in the short term (the next 5+ years).
You seem to accept that there are structural problems in the way in which the LA stock of homes is managed and allocated. Can you suggest any improvements?
Given that under the existing system I can put my kids on the LA housing list at 18 and they'll get a house before they are 30 as long as their income is low enough why would they bother trying to get their own place? Just say they are homeless and live with me and once they get their own place they can start developing their education and career. They should go and travel the world in their 20's, get their LA house in their early 30's and then work on growing their income knowing that they will never have to pay a mortgage, never have to pay for structural repairs, never have to pay mortgage protection insurance etc. They would probably be in their early 30's anyway before they had scrimped and saved to get a deposit and they'd struggle for the next 10 years to cope with their large mortgage.
They'd be utterly mad to bother trying to stand on their own two feet. My oldest son is 20. I think I'll get him on the housing list.
Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't evict people who won't pay their rent unless there is somewhere else to put them (that they like and want to move into?)Another simplifier!
The proposal is to evict people on four counts;
1. If they are not working - evict (to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?)
2. If they are working and earn a decent income - evict (to where? What if it adversely impacts on their employment prospects? Childcare arrangements, evening college classes?)
3. If they have spare rooms - evict, even if they worked all their lives, paying taxes, paying their rent, raising a family who are now working and paying taxes too. None of that matters, they have spare bedrooms in their 3 bed terrace - evict them! But to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?
What if the homeless family dont like the location of the evicted tenants?
4. If they are capable of paying, but refuse to pay - I agree, face them with the prospect of eviction. It usually does the trick where someone CAN pay.
A bit of a mess, isnt it?
Hasnt really been thought through, has it?
A load of nonsense basically, isnt it?
If you won't pay your rent and you end up sleeping in a doorway with your kids that's 100% your own fault. Your kids should be taken into care and you should be left there.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I have repeatedly said - if someone CAN pay, but REFUSES to pay, invoke an eviction order.
Please read 4. above for the most recent time that you can quote me saying that.
"The prospect of eviction" is different from eviction. Please edit 4 above for clarity, then it will be clear.
I have repeatedly said - if someone CAN pay, but REFUSES to pay, invoke an eviction order.
Please read 4. above for the most recent time that you can quote me saying that.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Yes, the prospect of eviction is different to eviction. I can however assure you that number of people who, faced with the prospect of eviction, faced with the prospect of homelessness, faced with the prospect of their children being homeless, and refuse to pay when they CAN pay is next to zero.
Not just in Dublin LA housing, but all around the world, since the beginning of civilization.
To emphasis the point, how many of current homeless do you think are homeless because they refused to pay, when they were able to pay?
So in reality they will still not pay as they know there's no real prospect of actually being evicted. Thanks for clarifying.
Plenty of people are officially homeless because they refused to pay market rents. Why would they? They can just go on the housing list knowing that they will be given a house. The only thing preventing more people doing the same thing is the waiting time. Once we build more houses we'll see more people on the housing list. They'd be mad not to.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...lying_for_local_authority_housing.html#l1f4da
Pure fantasy once more. You can only apply for social housing under set criteria, including but not exclusively, your income.
If you are low-income, you are not in a position to 'refuse' private rental market prices.
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Why are you so gung-ho for eviction?
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/rent_arrears.html
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 724
You only suggest that they should face the prospect of eviction. What if they still wont pay? should they then be evicted or is the threat just a veiled threat?
If they are evicted should they be let join the housing list and be housed by the state? if your answer is yes then why bother even charging them rent if they wont bother paying it knowing the state will always be there for them.
None of that would be a problem. I can have a falling out with my son, kick him out of the house; he's homeless!
Without getting into his personal details he'd have no problem qualifying. The fact that I can support him until he could provide for himself is an aside; why should he? If he doesn't bother trying he'll have it handed to him. He can even get it furnished under the Supplementary Allowance Welfare Scheme. Anything they don't provide sure he can just call the Vinnie DePaul.
Then he can go out and develop a career and build his income, knowing that he will never have to pay market rents thereby being subsidised by his fellow citizens for the rest of his life.
Sure, you choose not to work so you have a low income and you get on the housing list.
Another simplifier!
The proposal is to evict people on four counts;
You can't just answer the question then?
runningrecord
Registered User
- Messages
- 17
Why can't rent be taken from the social welfare or other income of the occupant when they refuse to pay - whatever the reason??? Make sure they are aware this will happen after even one non payment and the problem is solved. People who don't pay do it as they know nothing will happen.