You obviously didn't the actual report either. Nowhere does the actual verdict state that a 'significant amount' of housing is sub-standard accommodation.....
You didn't read the article then?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html
Unfortunately, another breach by Ireland was a failure to keep recorded stats on the housing stock, but the EU Committee on Social Justice found that a 'significant amount' of housing is of sub-standard accommodation.
Kind of plays into my reasoning that there are factors, other than bare faced refusal to pay although affordable, coming into play for the overall 15% arrears in LA.
You are constantly making the simplistic assumption that the 15% of arrears is nothing more than a bare faced refusal to pay where there is means to pay.
You ignore all other possible factors despite repeated reports of substandard accommodation, homeless families refusing accommodation, social disorders and deprivation.
Why?
You obviously didn't the actual report either. Nowhere does the actual verdict state that a 'significant amount' of housing is sub-standard accommodation.....
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.
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."
I read the article and the state has been found to have substandard housing this does not mean you just stop paying rent.
By the way if you think you need to explain the waiting lists please refrain from your high and mighty condescending tone.
I am well schooled in life and am also well educated academically and have seen the LA areas first hand and I know exactly what goes on.
You seem to think people should be housed no matter what.
I have repeatedly specially referred to those who can afford to pay and blatantly refuse to pay
I have kept my comments specific to those who refuse to pay.
Perhaps you could offer some constructive suggestions rather than sitting and pontificating about what's wrong and that its everybody else's fault and never then tenants.
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.
This would result in a massive exodus of small landlords and make the problem far worse in the short term (the next 5+ years).- 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.
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?
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?)
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
"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.
"The prospect of eviction" is different from eviction. Please edit 4 above for clarity, then it will be clear.
So in reality they will still not pay as they know there's no real prospect of actually being evicted. Thanks for clarifying.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?
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.
So in reality they will still not pay as they know there's no real prospect of actually being evicted.
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).
.
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!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.
Sure, you choose not to work so you have a low income and you get on the housing list.If you are low-income, you are not in a position to 'refuse' private rental market prices.
Another simplifier!
The proposal is to evict people on four counts;
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?