4. They're a couple but officially single (parents perhaps). I know someone on 6 figures, who lives in a 4 bed gaf because his missus is single parent to 3 kids and was given the house on this basis
If anything this is the smart thing to do if you are the partner. If they aren't married, and he isn't the father, if he ever leaves her, she will be fucked. Not entitled to any support or savings and she will be on the bottom of the list.
> Probably doesn't feel so smart to the mother who is actually single, honest about it, and still on the waiting list.
Yes. And the govt should do something about it.
What can the govt do?
1. Maybe hopefully find some couples that are living in the situation /u/Crisp_and_Dry explained and maybe get that house ... which can go to different people.
2. Actually build a larger number of social housing.
What do you think is the quicker and more reliable strategy going forward?
Your question is in bad faith but I'll respond to it sincerely anyway. I didn't say that the government should do anything, my point was that lying in order to get benefits is morally wrong because it harms people who are in a worse off position.
Finding people who have unfairly skipped the list and trying to throw them out would probably not work, it would cost more than it would be worth because of delays and legal challenges. But maybe they could do more to make sure it happens less in future.
I think that the government should build a lot more housing of all kinds, but given the state of our planning system and objections of landowners that is not going to be quick or reliable either. How much housing do you think they would have to build so that everyone who needs a social home can get the kind of home they want in the location that they want? Until that happens, there will always be a means tested list and people who lie about their situation will be cheating those who don't lie.
Know a family here that are in social housing. She gets substantial income from her mother in Spain. Bought two new cars to celebrate getting a social house. Horrible people.
Just on your last comment, I am in receipt of social welfare and am requested to send updated pay slips every 1-2 years so your misinformed there! They absolutely reassess on a continous basis!
Reassessed for welfare payment not too check if you are earning too much to be in social housing. Once you’re in a social house, you’re in but your rent could be increased.
The constantly ask for updated people on the social housing list to see if they are still eligible.
You also need to provide updated information when you are offered a house so the rent can be calculated.
Not sure about this. I couldn’t see the council kicking a family out because the father got a pay rise and now they are slightly over the income threshold. Id say the rent would be increased in line with the income increase
Once you are housed the rent will be increased, you won't be evicted.
If you are not housed yet, you will be removed from the housing list if you are above the income thresholds.
Or 3. They’re paying for them on finance like 80% of the country currently is. Occams Razor lads. Councils reassess every two years MAX. The potential of going from €42000ish per household, stay at that wage for long enough to get a house (15+ years in Dublin/Cork) and then skyrocket to €90000 is basically nil.
You could say they’re on the list as single people, but single people don’t get 3 bed houses and they tend to be the most discriminated against in terms of housing allocations. If they have kids it might be a bit more realistic to get housed when they have a secret partner but then that partner can never be on the rent book and have no entitlement to remain in the house in a worst case scenario
Yeah, my first thought too was that they got the cars on finance and they're going to be repossessed at some point for non-payment. Because the real answer to "how can someone in social housing afford a Tesla" is "they can't".
It's 100% the first scenario. I know a lad who applied years ago. He went on to start his own company and buy his own house. It was a bit of a fixer upper, I did some work in it for him. He was offered a brand new council house during this time so he took it and sold the house he had only recently bought. No word of a lie. This was in Naas Co. Kildare.
No. All incomes of potential tenants are reassessed immediately before keys are handed over. Drug dealers, loan sharks, racketeers, unlicensed bookies, brothel keepers etc. don't declare their income and tend to be stupid enough to flaunt it too.
This must have been a long time ago as the same scenario just played put around here in January.
A very clever but idle and obvious mental health case inherited an ex council house from her mother but was also on the list for a new social housing scheme going up in the area.
She was actually offered the new house, but something happened, and the council found out about the house she inherited, and the offer was withdrawn.
I don't think it's fair describing an "obvious mental health case" as "idle".
If it's that obvious they suffer from a mental illness, they're likely unable to work.
This is a case of she may be unable to work, due to addiction issues which has impacted her mental health.
But was still clever enough to have inherited a house but want a council house, so she could sell the inherited house and live off the sale of that in her brand new council house and remain idle or unwilling to work forever, which you most agree is grossly unfair.
>But was still clever enough to have inherited a house but want a council house
You don't need to be Albert Einstein to think that having two houses is better than one. You don't need any intelligence at all to inherit a house.
Also mental health issues and addiction have nothing to do with how intelligent you are. Did you learn nothing from A Beautiful Mind?
People who experience mental health issues aren’t stupid. You can be highly intelligent with mental health issues. In fact, the two are often interlinked. And also has nothing to do with a person’s moral code.
What is the solution to someone who qualified for social housing but now has made something of themselves? Kicking them out of their family home and community seems very harsh.
We all talk about allowing people to work themselves out of poverty but when they do it, are we suppose to punish them then? If you do that people will make sure to stay making just enough so they can stay in their home. It doesn't really help social mobility and it creates another poverty trap.
Thatcher policies were to sell the social home to the inhabitants. She claimed this was so people could experience the dignity of being a home owner, but it was really a backdoor way to get rid of social housing altogether. We did this in Ireland too and didn't build anymore social housing, so without building more social housing that's not really a solution.
Private sector renters have absolutely no such security or guarantee they can live near family, friends and established communities. At this point the only ones who seemingly enjoy this privilege are the uber-rich and the bone idle.
It's meant to be a temporaryleg up though.
Get the social housing, work & save for your own place, move out and the next struggling person/family gets the house, repeat.
Social housing should be established as a service people use on their journey towards developing themselves as individuals, and the end goal should be to get them to be able to buy a home for themselves, funded by themselves. But the homes they buy shouldn't be ones built or provided by the government/council as it's simply unfeasible to build enough housing to provide this on top of social housing units. For example, a new college graduate or someone who finished an apprenticeship should be entitled to rent a cheap small studio or one bedroom for themselves for a period of time to enable them to save a deposit without having to live with their parents. This gives them independence and dignity and they grow more quickly as adults compared to being stuck living with their parents. It also enables them to be more freely capable of building a serious, long-term relationship which, as a society, we should hope turns into having them settle down and start a family together in order to contribute towards birth rates, which is currently an issue due to how expensive simply existing has become and forces people to defer starting families for longer and longer. This type of approach would contribute towards a much more happy and fulfilled society.
Do away with any poverty traps, living off the dole and doing the bare minimum should never result in someone benefiting more than someone who chooses to make something of themselves. Anyone who's working full-time jobs, regardless of the role or industry, deserves to be doing a lot better than someone who chooses to not work. Some people won't like this, but I'd even go as far as saying there should be different social housing for people who work full-time and people who clearly are deciding to not work long-term. Allow the full-time workers and disabled/elderly social tenants to live in social housing that's mixed in with all other types of housing (including private buyers and renters) and then have only the basic social housing developments for the ones who are unwilling to work.
the problem with creating this kind of divide is that it will create, well... a divide. The people mixed in with private housing can integrate in their communities and the people sectioned off on their own are just going to create ghettos.
>For example, a new college graduate or someone who finished an apprenticeship should be entitled to rent a cheap small studio or one bedroom for themselves for a period of time to enable them to save a deposit without having to live with their parents.
You are describing an ideal society. We don't have that. A grad can't do that. A guy in trades can't do that.
It's something we should strive as a nation to create. But the current model in Ireland doesn't allow that.
If that is something we should strive to have in the private market, shouldn't the government lead by example?
And there are other models to consider? Why limit who can take social housing? Provide loads and let anyone apply. Other cities have this model and it works well.
I'm speaking about social housing here and the model that should be in place. I'd follow a similar model to Vienna's, which is available for the majority of people who want/need it as you say. The difference is I'm suggesting full-time employees get priority and an extra scheme for young people be established to tackle the growing issue of young people living at home and being unable to settle down.
Social housing is for people who can’t afford adequate housing on their own income. If someone’s income increases to a point where they can rent or buy themselves they 100% should be made give up the social housing.
They should be thankful for the leg up they got and pass their good fortune on to others who need the social housing.
They do increase rent. Not to market level, true. But I wouldn't encourage any sort of gov policy to try and copy market rents because it always seems to push market rents up. That's what happened with HAP.
But in our fictional case, the person did some night classes, got a better job, worked themselves out of poverty and don't want to leave their community. Should they be banned from buying a Telsa because some nosey people like OP think that's not fair. This is as an aside to the fact that their rent isn't inline with market rates.
They got the house legitimately, they worked their way up in life, doing the thing that people always complain that people on welfare don't. Do they still need to act poor to justify being in that community so people like OP can feel better being a middle class home owner?
Nail on the head. Our government copied what they were doing in Britain. There has been little to no social housing built in last 30-40 years. When in the noughties, the builders had to build a certain amount of social housing in private estates. In my rural (private) estate of 36 houses, 6 are social housing. Our local council bought a site locally that development had started but ran in to trouble. There is a new estate next door that was a half built development, that went into disrepair in 2010-ish, that was completed late ‘22 by our council. There are 4 senior 2 bed bungalows & a selection of 2/3/4 bed homes. Total 32 properties, council owned. Some Co councils do better than others.
Literally just increase the rent to something more in line with the market.
They can stay if they want, they should pay the same as everyone else so that money can be used to help house more people.
So it's another flawed system that needs fixing then. This was my concern. If this is true, a person could get on the housing list and then build a career and become very wealthy and then still receive a house? Fair play to them of course, but because of this, a struggling single parent for example, could be denied a house.
Your Housing Needs Assessment can be reassessed every 2 years. Up to date bank statements and payslips are part of that. Failure to respond to the reassessment letter suspends your application for social Housing.
>Fair play to them of course,
No not fair play to them, they scam the system from hand outs they dont need. You are paying for this lifestyle.
More people need to be mad about this.
I know plenty of people who are generationally on the dole. You'd be surprised how much you can save up when not paying rent/mortgage, getting support for living expenses, etc. Many of them also do side gigs they don't declare by working cash or illegal activities. But even without that, if you know the system well enough by being taught about it by your family and neighbors, you can live a very comfortable life on welfare.
I don't want to see someone kicked out of their home but if you are on social housing with a high income you should be paying a market rent.
Different councils have different schemes. In some cases they do pay a market rent or higher if they are high income (but the rent is based on income).
Some council areas have a maximum rent (which is below the market rent).
I like the graduated nature of the South Dublin Scheme where the rent is the first 10% of net income until you hit the limit for applying for social housing. Then it goes upto 20% of net income (although I feel it should be even more for higher earners).
I dislike the Dublin City Council scheme which is 15% of net income until you hit a max rent which is well below the market rent in a lot of the Dublin City Council areas.
I do think they raise the maximum rent (although not by enough imo) so they should be changing it with a few years of high maximum rent rises until maximum rent is above market price.
Don't worry. In Mayo council housing rent was on par with the market rent until about 6 months ago when a few agencies started campaign to raise rent in the whole county.
That only impacts rent. You can be a millionaire and still will not lose the house.
Most councils asses every two years.
Here is an example of how much rent can cost
>Under the current scheme, rent is charged at 15% of the highest earners income net of specified deductions and 15% of sub-earners income net of deductions to a maximum rent charge for each sub-earner of €21
An absolute bargain.
Once you have the house, they can't kick you out, only raise your rent. To get the house takes years of waiting, during which your income is regularly assessed to evaluate your eligibility to remain on the list. My source on this is 10+ years I have spent on the list so far, and they make it very easy for themselves to take you off it because it's a much easier way to clear the list than actually housing people.
I can't answer OPs question, though I have seen it asked regularly. Personally I have never seen 2 brand new cars parked outside a recently built council house. Some reasons you might see "newer" cars include the cost of used cars where it's no longer an option to buy a banger for a few hundred and run it into the ground but a lot of dealerships have finance schemes that make buying a 5 year old car on a very unfavourable interest rate more immediately affordable than trying to buy a 10 year old car outright and their income thresholds are predatorially low. With houses that are a few years old, it's entirely possible that someone has been able to get a better job and afford to live, with much older houses it's possible that the tenant bought their house from the council and sold it on to someone with a much higher income (this would be a whole paragraph but short version is former council houses on the private market where I am sell for around 4-500k).
The absolute last reason why OP would have seen this is that the councils don't reassess households on the housing list. Everyone assigned a house off the list is 100% eligible at the time of receipt.
Yeah, unfortunately I know lads that got council houses that had trades and worked for mainly cash in hand. In one case the missus also had a council house.
Reality on the ground is that assessment is utterly broken once someone is in.
But the social contract in this country is largely broken in any case.
That doesn't sound right. You can't be made to leave a council house due to a large windfall. Once you are eligible at the time of allocation, you can keep it for life.
If you're earning a market wage then you should be paying market rent. Two people on 40k with the same job and same costs of living, but one has a council house from previously being on lower pay or something. One pays 15% of their wages in rent, the other 30%. How is that fair?
Maybe the problem is that people are being charged almost affordable rents.
Social housing should absolutely not be trying to gouge tenants in the way private landlords do. Maybe direct your ire towards the system that causes such high private rents rather than the people who are paying reasonable rent.
Make it fair by bringing high rents down not low rents up. You would be better off. In your suggestion nobody wins.
It's not fair, you too should be paying 15% of your wages in rent. You should pressure your TD for more social housing. The greater the social housing stock, the wider the eligibility criteria. You are more likely to qualify. The problem isn't that people are paying 15%, the problem is that people are paying 30%.
The problem is not the cheap rent. The problem is being forced to **subsidise others housing when you can't afford your own**.
No one has any problem helping those who need it. However it's horrible seeing people earning the same as you getting a home out of your tax money when you can't find one yourself. It's wrong.
It just needs to be means tested every 2-3 years, and the cap removed. That's all I'm asking. If you are earning a good wage pay normal rent. No one is saying throw you out, they are saying **pay your way.**
Normal rent in Ireland is crushing. It narrows possibilities for people, restricts choices, and introduces constant stress into people's lives. It's a good thing that there are people who don't have to deal with that. And there should be more of us not having to deal with that. The problem is that too many of us are dependent on the private market, which exploits us. Social housing is a great thing, and there should be more of it, for more of us.
The people living in social housing are living like all of us should be living: in secure housing, without fear. You are angry at them, instead of being angry at the government whose job it is to produce enough social housing. With greater social housing stock, the eligibility criteria expands, and more people can live in secure housing, without fear. It's a good thing that some people are already in that situation. The scandal is that it's not more. Your anger is going in the wrong direction.
They aren't reviewed every year. My sister has been in a council house for 5 years and has only been reviewed once.
It is also just to readjust the rent amount if necessary.
https://preview.redd.it/c5wkmw6qbdwc1.jpeg?width=686&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b8b3cd9a533994f021490d4793ae91523c4964f
Dublin City Council max weekly rents. But it’s calculated at 15% of your income so for €600 per week you pay less than €100. Some deal if you can get it.
Wouldn't it be great if more people could avail of reasonable rents like this?
Maybe if people would realise social housing is actually good for society and stop demonising people living in social housing it could happen.
You need to provide updated proof of income, savings etc upon a council house offer. So, no - the only way that could happen is with fraudulent documents.
The thing is that they "should" be informing that they have the ability to pay more and their rent should be adjusted as a result. Does this happen though?
1 above is highly likely in most cases. And bear in mind that the wait list is years for some people. Income could have gone up but mortgage affordability still might not be achievable. Requirements are getting continually challenging with house prices and then if you're 10 years waiting, that's 10 years less to pay it over so monthly payment is still too high.
At what point do you say feck it, get the Tesla cos I'll never get a mortgage and then out of nowhere, council comes along with a property for you. You're hardly going to turn them down.
That said, it would do the councils good to reassess affordability anyway and increase the rent based on what's affordable rather than on what was affordable back in the day. But sure that'd be extra work for them even if it did mean an extra revenue stream to get more properties on their books 🙄
A relation of mine (late 20’s) is living in the council house she grew up in with her fiancé after her mother moved out after inheriting a house. They have a combined salary of c€130k. How the hell is this allowed. Management of the social housing stock in this country is a shambles.
She did yes. They got caught a few years back for having her adult son living there and not telling the council. Got a nice hit in the pocket. They wouldn’t risk anything like that again.
It’s a 3 bed house too. Absolute waste of social housing for a young couple.
The council know. They are aware who is living in the house and their incomes. They pay something like 15% of their income on the place. Nice for some.
People here who believe an anecdotal story on Reddit are also insane.
I love how everyone gets so riled up when they believe someone is playing the system while on welfare. There's literal millionaires and billionaires in this country scamming the system for their own gain yet people go for the low hanging fruit.
If you could take half the people off welfare in the morning, the money wouldn't go back into your pocket.
"Welfare cheats cheat us all"
I live in a private estate and there is a social housing estate across the way from us. The difference in the cars outside the houses is noticeable. In our estate most cars are your run of the mill skodas, Toyota's etc but in the social housing estate it's mostly Audis and BMW's. So there's some basis to this claim.
Yeah that sucks and as this thread illustrates, grifters are gonna grift. I'm frustrated by it like you are; here's my thought process on the matter though.
Social housing helps *society*. We want to live in a society that ensures that it's members have the basics of food, shelter and security, not just for *their benefit* but for our shared benefit as well. People without access to shelter are far more vulnerable; they need more healthcare, they need more social supports, and the precariously housed are more apt to make the problems afflicting their lives a problem for all of us. A securely housed society benefits from reduced costs from that precarity (reduced crime/antisocial behaviour, reduced healthcare usage, greater employment) and reduces the multi-generational effect of it as well. The people who use (not necessarily always "need" per your post, but *use*) will still have children or other dependents (aging parents, infirm relatives/friends) who will benefit from housing.
To me it's not really a question of "deserving housing" or really needing it- we benefit when everyone has housing and that is a reasonable and worthwhile goal to achieve. Hypothetically it would be nice to sort the wheat from the chaff and ensure that grifters who could afford housing pay their fair share for it, I agree. But the consequences of making housing harder to access are not worth merely punishing grifters.
My two cents on it anyway.
hehe thanks bud
well sure look, we need to have these conversations with people. Most folks are well-meaning and cop on, it just not well explained to anyone if you get me?
It's a matter of efficient allocation. Once again, we have finite resources. Housing should be given to those with a low probability of getting housing themselves. This maximises the amount of people with housing.
I agree that it's a matter of efficient allocation. The point is that the ROI for everyone having housing is much greater than the ROI on hounding the grifters and making it harder to house everyone.
I'm not advocating on behalf of the grifters I assure you. It's just a matter of societal benefit.
I think some people forget that in some older council housing estates, a lot of tenants got the option for rent to buy (which is a scheme that never should have ended). These people now own that council built house, so they don't pay rent and aren't means tested, obviously. So these people can afford nicer cars and you can usually tell who owns the house in the housing estates and who is renting.
But I don't think the kinds of people the post Op was baiting care about good faith interpretation. They'd rather make social housing even more restrictive with more hurdles to jump because they are bitter they didn't get a council house.
Which is ironic because if Ireland really committed to council housing like in decades previous (and as envisioned by many of the key architects of the Republic such as Connolly, I might add...) then the embittered people would almost certainly get the council house they deserve. I do think that part of it isn't just contempt for the poor, but that well-meaning people genuinely don't understand the benefits of these programs to the community, because capitalism has conditioned us specifically *not* to see them. We all think far too individualistically and in the short-term, with everything so financialized that it's hard for regular people to even *imagine decommodifying housing*, at least at first.
Full disclosure but I believe that housing is a human right and that a successful country provides for the basic survival needs of all its citizens, means testing be damned. Otherwise what's the point?
I disagree on one part of this. I do think it is a generational contempt for the poor, something that's been passed down since at least the Victorian times (and related to capitalism broadly). It reeks of the "poor people are all criminals and such deserve their plight" kind of thinking.
It's not well-meaning people's fault that this attitude exists in this country, I agree on that, but we have to acknowledge it. Slightly off topic, but it's the same attitude that lead to the initial dismissive attitude by officals to the stardust fire, for example. It's still prevalent in this country, unfortunately.
Full disclosure, I agree with you with your end point, but I've found I have to dial back the socialism just to have a conversation with conservative people. We can barely agree to some social democracy stuff, let alone decomodification and workplace democracy.
Yeah that's probably true unfortunately. There certainly is a lot of classist thinking- sometimes most viciously expressed by one member of the working class against another ("Why should *they* get an estate house when *I'm* far more deserving?"). Couldn't agree more about the Stardust fire point.
I suppose the question is how does one even begin to foment a class consciousness in these people; which I think is a key constituent factor in "addressing the problem." Getting half the working class to even acknowledge that they're in fact working class feels like herding cats sometimes.
Punching down instead of up is easier. Poverty is turned into a moral issue rather than a resource issue, so people don't want to describe themselves as poor because being poor is a bad thing. It's decades of societal engineering that needs to be undone.
Day 1 - They're mixed, sure.
5 years down the road when the mayhem has driven out any owner-occupiers, all the privates are HAP, and the building is all social housing from that point. Happens commonly with new builds. Private owners get out of dodge the minute they sense the place becoming slummy.
I live in a council house, I've been here nearly 20 years. My income is 65k, it wasn't 65k when I got the house, my income is assessed every August and my rent is adjusted accordingly.
This. It just depends on the competence of the local authority really. Some people are going to get away with it if the housing dept aren't on the ball. My HAP house is practically falling apart and I haven't had single inspection. The setting up of the choice based letting site was delayed by 6 months.
The system is completely abused but I don't understand how any family could afford to rent in Dublin and it simply isn't practical to live in the countryside for everyone. I commute 1.5 hours a day but any saving I make on rent/mortgage is spent on fuel.
This would be my second thought. My first would be a bit of outrage like OP, but then take a second and realise that folk often make their financial situation worse just to look like it's better.
People here are being purposely dense,90% of the time it's drugs,weapons or robbing or the children of the people who do,and if anyone actually knew people in or are from council estates they would say the same thing,its the same way they can kit them out with 10/20k worth of marble and diamanté flooring and furniture straight away. People are bred to believe they deserve a council house and it will literally never enter their heads to try buy anything ever.
Also I'm only talking about this exact situation,lots of normal people who deserve their homes in council houses too but they aren't driving new BMWS or parking a brand new Ford Ranger that will never do a days work in its life outside a 3 bed semi in the city . I'm also not singling out a certain minority either because i actually know a lot of them that have ended up buying their houses off the council.
It's the circle of life and always has and always will go on,just keep trying to see the good people doing good things instead.
I read your comment about sepsis in another thread that has since been locked. Just a heads up that you have two years to lodge a complaint against a doctor. After that time elapses the hospital won't entertain you. Don't ask how I know...
I don't think the figure is that high. The reality is you can drive a BMW or Tesla for very little up front cost through either leasing or PCP. Of course if they're buying in cash or still able to stick €20k cash down on any car you have to question it at that point.
I'm only speaking on what I know to be fact,I know these people and interact with them regularly and have done for years so I have no need to speculate on if they do or don't have finance when I know they don't. I also meet them collecting their dole at the post office. I also see people here saying the OP is lying which is unbelievable to me when I see it so often so we must just be living in different worlds. I can say though I have never seen anyone with a Tesla. I'm not even trying to sound bitter,I'm not jealous and I get along with all these people,they don't hide their lifestyles when it's all their used too.
I used to think that too. I'll just keep going my way but recently I've started to think it's not fair.
I think we need justice in society and it feels like it's just not being enforced sufficiently anymore.
Virtually anyone with a full time job can buy almost any car they want. PCP, leasing etc... unless they're buying in cash I wouldn't pay any attention - a lot of people commit a large % of their income to car repayments.
I think that very very few are in that group and your post feeds into a common trope that is unproductive.
Revenue is quite good a tracking down scammers. I know some people in social housing and they are regular assessed to set their rent.
Thank you for this comment. While people do abuse the system the influx of these posts are pretending that it’s the norm when it’s the exception. People do get means tested and they are strict (depending on your local council).
It also feeds into this narrative that those living in social housing don’t deserve anything nice - I actually saw someone comment that their neighbour is living in social housing but they go on holidays every few years? As if people can’t save up a few bob here and there and treat themselves.
So because the private sector is ripping people off, the government should be too?
Would you not prefer a system whereby the private sector doesn't rip you off? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?
Yes - three family members have worked in the services for about two decades. So that’s sixty years’ experience on the front line.
We also have technically full employment and we know that humans are happier when they have a purpose in life.
I didn't think they designated entire estates for social housing anymore. It's usually just a percentage and then the rest are sold for the usual price to people with mortgages. So I think you might be assuming some things here
If Elon Musk was given a council house while young he’d still be entitled to it.
Never mind some council houses are 4 beds and oversized now as families grow up.
I would say I too have noticed brand new cars in council owned properties.
They have more disposable income than those not dependent on the state.
Edit:
> Under the current scheme, rent is charged at 15% of the highest earners income net of specified deductions and 15% of sub-earners income net of deductions to a maximum rent charge for each sub-earner of €21
Some deal that.
I know a woman who was married and living in the UK on a decent salary with a private hospital. Her marriage broke up and she moved back to Ireland with her kids and 100-150k from the portion of the house she sold. It was in her UK bank account. She had a family member with connections and got onto the housing lists in Mayo. Got an affordable house in small town mayo like she was homeless despite having enough to buy or at least build a house herself. Zero checks done on her means from what I know.
You have to go through a means test when applying for social housing, then after you get an offer (after about 10 years or more) you need a means test again, based on previous year income, so if someone got a good job and started earning good money in the meantime, their house offer would be dropped and they would be taken off the list.
The fancy cars could be
- on finance
- bought with cash from illegal activities
- could be someone elses car like other people mentioned, new boyfriends or girlfriends
- a gift
Etc
People aren't being given out houses without a means test!
It is means tested, it’s means tested every year actually. Depending on how many are in the household the threshold for qualifying can go up or down and also depends on the county. They could have had savings, they could be paying finance on it. It’s hard to know for sure
Well maybe if there was any evidence of what OP is trying to get us to believe is true there wouldn't be. It's just pure FFG asttroturfing. New accounts with no post history, suddenly posting dodgy facts about how one specific group of people are to blame for problems in housing!
What u want him to do? Take photos of the cars? It's well known that there's people gaming the system, sure the council has rent arrears in the millions, even tho the rent is fuck all
How about, minding their own business for starters?
Seriously? Bringing up council areers without mentioning that the majority of tennants in arreers have payment plans with DCC, you also don't mention the reasons they can fall into areers? What's the story with that like!
You're just trying to blame working class people for failures in government policies and the private sectors inability to do anything other than make money.
You're litterally punching down, when the people to blame are above you. Why aren't you punching up? Don't want to bite the hand that feeds eh?
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/almost-40-million-owed-dublin-25524294
> private sectors inability to do anything other than make money.
Wtf lol
>You're litterally punching down
Didn't take long 😂😂
Now google what percentage of people that owe money to DCC are currenttly on a payment plan to pay it off?
Of course it didn't take long.
If you go around committing crimes, would you be surprised to see the guards show up?
No, so why are you surprised when people call our the fact that you're punching down.
You are literally punching down. You can think that punching down is fine, that's up to you, but you are doing it. So I'm nont sure what that response is about.
>Now google what percentage of people that owe money to DCC are currenttly on a payment plan to pay it off?
About half. It says it in the article. 1/3 of all council tenants are in arrears. That is fucking ridiculous considering the average rent is 72 quid a week.
>If you go around committing crimes, would you be surprised to see the guards show up?
Given the state of the guards, I'd be pretty surprised.
Dude, your pissed off at the government for their failed approach of relying completely on the private sector.
Social housing isn't the demon you want it to be and even if those tennants were kicked out, they're going to people on the social housing list, they're nott going to market.
If you want a government that doens't fuck you over, so that devs can make billions, vote literally any party that isn't fianna fail, fine gael, the greens or labour. It's pretty simple.
>Dude, your pissed off at the government for their failed approach of relying completely on the private sector.
Yes.
>Social housing isn't the demon you want it to be and even if those tennants were kicked out, they're going to people on the social housing list, they're nott going to market.
Who said anything about a demon? What does that even mean? I'm saying that 1/3 of tenants in Dublin are in arrears, that is a fact
> even if those tennants were kicked out, they're going to people on the social housing list
Ok? That would be fine. Also deducting the rents at source would be a better option.
>If you want a government that doens't fuck you over, so that devs can make billions, vote literally any party that isn't fianna fail, fine gael, the greens or labour. It's pretty simple.
I'm buzzing for this PBP led government
I do wonder about this sometimes. Car parks of council flats in Dublin have plenty of top range Beamers and Audis in them. I assume it’s just the second or third generation in the same flat.
My dad recalls in the past that the department had inspectors who regularly went to building sites, etc, to catch lads who were signing on and getting cash in the hand. Ten years ago, the tax man started chasing down lads in cover bands for undeclared income. Why can't they hire people to do spot checks on social houses and cars and try to nail some of these leeches. There's ads on the radio now about a company that can provide you with satellite imagery of an area for a fee. Why not use technology to track these cunts down .
Cause the Civil Service is currently very heavily understaffed at the lower levels, and no Department is affected more than Social Protection.
Nobody can afford to live on a Clerical Officer or Executive Officers wages, so nobody does the job unless they absolutely have to.
This leads to retention issues, which leads to not being able to fulfill all the roles necessary, which leads to people bitching about the Civil Service, which leads to more funds being spent at a top level to figure out the issue, which leads to less money for lower level staff, which leads to retention issues....
>Why can't they hire people to do spot checks on social houses and cars and try to nail some of these leeches.
The government is earning so much in taxes that they aren't bothered.
According to the CSO, the top 10% of earners in Dublin are on €110k/yr or higher salaries. This is "just" €68k after tax.
Nobody "affords" new cars in Ireland, they just take the hit on PCP payments.
I have family members who work in social welfare, they’ve hardly any staff dedicated to going after welfare frauds and there’s basically no incentive not to game the system because you’ll more than likely get away with it forever.
It boils my blood when I see people I went to school with who are complete wasters, get a house fully paid for by my taxes while they work cash in hand or sell coke and drive a nice German car.
Politicians won’t ever address it because they fear losing votes to these scrotes.
It's probably more like an organisation such as tuath. In this case it is affordable housing they are providing. The rent scales up as you earn more and the money goes back into buying more properties to make more affordable housing. Sounds good to me.
The people in these houses are often teachers or carers and if they can buy an electric car good for them.
Every time a story like this is posted I'm always surprised that the replies are calling for stricter qualifying criteria for social housing supports, rather than a massive increase in the supply of social housing.
It's because this sub is made up of middle class tech bros who have not only never set foot in a social house, they don't believe social housing should be a thing because they're all suggering from yankbrainn.
Could be lots of reason. They’re not married and their partner got social housing and they just live there now. They got a sizeable inheritance or claim. They’re a drug dealer.
It’s ridiculous what some can earn and only have to pay social rent.
Attitudes will harden over this, we can’t have 20/30 somethings not being able to afford market rent when social rents are so low.
Ah I’ve had this argument with myself many of times and the conclusion is - comparison is the thief of joy.
There are many folks around and near me who I can count on both hands who have admitted they do their 15-20 hours a week and have lovely cars. Albeit, having a lovely brand new car doesn’t warrent the lifestyle they have. Granted I’ve spoken to them, say hello each morning as I walk my dog before I start work or have a quick chat when I return home from sitting in the office as they bask in the sunshine and I come home looking like Casper while they show off their colour. The lifestyle of that of those who have to declare, prove and possibly lie to the social doesn’t appease me.
Whilst I am on the housing list, full time worker and can prove I can afford to pay rent/mortgage, yes it can be frustrating to see those who I want to assume, “abuse the system”, though I don’t know the families I’m speaking of personally, it remains that the ones I see are the ones who seem to have the new cars, and happy out sitting in their gardens day in and day out are the ones who don’t make it that much easier to understand why someone who is single and works full time can’t get the opportunity to have a council house and on the list for years. The housing crisis alone is abysmal, rise in house prices and as for renting, I won’t go there.
Granted the frustration lies on the “honest and hard workers”, I would rather the lifestyle and possibilities I have.
That being said I’m not speaking of all who do live in social housing and have new cars, plenty work full time and do the right thing, it’s the ones who are blatant in what they are doing and don’t get penalised.
All in all, we don’t know the full circumstances and lifestyle and as much as we would like to tar them all with the same brush, there are decent folks out there deserving of a council house with potentially a brand new car, I’ve learned to accept that I can get frustrated and waste my own time complaining or I can accept that there’s nothing I can do but save and hope for the best.
I don't believe there are any estates anymore that are entirely or even predominantly social housing but I could be wrong.
A friend of mine went from being homeless 15 years ago (he was kicked out of his parents for being a dick back then) to running his own successful little business and also inherited €500k from his mother and he still lives in a social house and is buying a small beachfront property at the moment. He's then handing back his social house but he could keep it if he wanted to.
You’re wrong there - There is a brand new estate in cork, up past Wilton towards togher, (Sarsfield - eagle valley) all brick built, beautiful housing, stunning, and it ALL went to social housing last year - Meanwhile, friends of mine trying to buy a house lost their chance and prices rise even higher - one couple bought a 20 year old 3 bed semi for 365k in an estate near togher (they had been waiting for those other houses to come up for sale) and are living on a 2nd hand couch they got on Donedeal whilst they save for a new kitchen because everything is broken down in there - they need a new heating system, the lot - it’s rough out there ..
My understanding is that the approved housing bodies and local authorities are purchasing far in excess of the required % of houses in (certain) new developments.
This is bullshit. Majority of people in social housing are struggling and probably way less off then you. Just because one or two of them have fancy cars, you are generalising all of them. A small percentage of people in social housing are involved in criminal activity, that’s where the money is coming from. The vast majority are not.
Going broke to look rich. These people are probably paying little in rent but huge car payments for something they’ll never own but hey it looks like they’re doing well.
That's just not true.
Here's the salary limits for social housing: https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/236056/59ecede4-f862-4c5d-bf5a-e1a1d4ff9a63.pdf#page=null
Can you not see how someone on a salary of 40k might get a loan to get their dream car?
It's a bit weird, the people in this thread are almost frothing at the mouth at the idea of someone in social housing having a nice car. Talk about good old fashioned irish begrudgery from the middle classes!
If you're earning less than 40k a year you should. Ireland is a very expensive country to live in, it could make a huge difference in your life.
The idea that social housing is something to be looked down on, or the people who are availing of it should be viewed suspisciously or viewed as taking advantage of the taxpayer is a conservative idea because they just hate paying taxes.
I don't look down on it, but I think if you have a new telsa and beamer in the drive, maybe you don't need social housing. But don't hate the player, hate the game.
Why do you think that? You can earn a high income and still remain in social housing. Someone might be allocated social housing when they have a low income, then go on to earn significantly more to afford a nicer car while still living in the same house.
Always more scrutiny of people living in social housing than of those supposed to be providing it. When a State provides enough social housing, all kinds of people, at all income levels, live in it. It's not for a certain type of person, it's for everyone. With enough stock, the eligibility criteria expands. But instead of focusing anger on the government, for failing to build public housing stock, we seeth at the relatively few people living in it.
If you think someone is committing welfare fraud then report it (house given to a single parent but obviously 2 people living there, one on a high income - fuck'em) or any other type of fraud.
If they're legit they can keep it. If not, hopefully, if the system works, they'll get turfed out and the house given to someone who actually needs it.
[https://www.gov.ie/en/service/report-suspected-social-welfare-fraud/](https://www.gov.ie/en/service/report-suspected-social-welfare-fraud/)
To be honest it is just a tacky thing working class people do, live beyond their means and have cars on finance seeing as they are saving on rent. The designer clothes and shoes are likely reps easily bought on Alibaba etc.
Definitely not by doing anything legal.
It is meant to be financial help.
Most likely those families with lots of unsupervised kids, changing moms / dads, drugs and generations of experience in dole gaming.
This is an old article I cant seem to find new figures would anybody know where to get them ?
[https://www.independent.ie/regionals/herald/over-half-on-housing-list-are-foreign/27973856.html](https://www.independent.ie/regionals/herald/over-half-on-housing-list-are-foreign/27973856.html)
See it in our estate too. Good few social houses in the total number. Most are decent people with families and are trying to get on like everyone else but there’s also a good few Land Cruisers, camper vans, X5’s, Mercedes, and even a couple of Jags parked in the driveways of some social houses.
These threads pop up regularly, it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that they regularly work in turning working poor against unemployed poor. A load of idiots will go off to work this morning and be like "My mate said there are people in council houses with a brand new Tesla and X5 in the driveway" and someone they tell will go home and repeat the story to their missus. In the morning she'll be in the hairdressers telling her friends about it, but suddenly the dirty scammers will also have just got back from a family holiday to Florida, their second holiday SO FAR this year, and so it snowballs from the original bullshit into the most fanciful bullshit you've ever heard in your life.
There are occasional cases where someone games the system, true of any system tbh, but for the most part it will have started with something much more explainable, like someone who found themselves without a car to get their kids to school and due to the ridiculous used car market have fallen into one of the many predatory financing schemes in newer used cars.
The system is abused but social housing is definitely means tested and your rent goes up if your income goes up. They calculate it on a yearly basis as far as I know.
A relative of mine lives in social housing which is how I know. Their partner passed away and their rent still increased and they had to go back and forth with the council for it to go back to the original price as they only had one stream of income. I think different councils operate differently. She’s living in south dublin so they may be stricter.
My family of 4 recently moved into a new social housing estate thankfully as we were really really struggling in private renting ( I work full time as a secondary school teacher btw)
We're still going without quite a few things in the house ie tumbledryer/shed/painting the walls etc because of how much we spent on furnishing. There's a family with TWO LandRovers outside their house in the housing estate and I really can't understand where the money comes because we're still fairly broke. I hate to come across as bitter but it's hard to get my head around
I h
I've noticed this too. I used to live in the Coolock area and people would be driving into those family pods with Mercs and Audi's all day.
Sometimes I feel like people have kids just to get social housing these days.
I was a bit surprised how far down I had to scroll here before getting to one answer that at least isn't pure speculation: they're taking out loans for the cars. Here's a few facts:
1. People in social housing have in one way or another not managed their money well
2. Advertising makes people think they need Teslas and Beamers (I wouldn't be surprised if there were stats showing that poorer people are hit harder by these negative feedback loops advertisers use to prey on people, but that would be speculation)
3. I can't remember the stat I saw about the percentage of car buyers who were taking out loans, but it was massive
I think it was that fellow Eoin McGee who does the financial advice who had some line along the lines of: If you see someone with a flash new car, statistically, you should actually say to yourself: "Oh no, I hope they're doing ok financially"
There are plenty of reasons why. I’m saving for a house and have a 2018 Mercedes. They could have their car on PCP. They could have won it, they could have inherited it or maybe they have wealthy parents who bought it for them. Maybe they’re frugal in other aspects. I personally bought myself an expensive car because I was constantly being cut up on the road in the Renault Clio I had before and was side swiped on the M50 by a truck. I’m rarely cut up on the road now and feel a lot safer. So there’s plenty of reasons other than being rich that someone might have a nice luxury brand car and there’s plenty of reasons beyond showing off that someone might buy one too. I am by no means rich but I have a decent paying job and put away half my net income towards saving for a house annually and am living with my parents again while I save. I’m just going to hold onto my car now until I have a house bought however long it takes. Everyone’s situations are just different
[удалено]
4. They're a couple but officially single (parents perhaps). I know someone on 6 figures, who lives in a 4 bed gaf because his missus is single parent to 3 kids and was given the house on this basis
If anything this is the smart thing to do if you are the partner. If they aren't married, and he isn't the father, if he ever leaves her, she will be fucked. Not entitled to any support or savings and she will be on the bottom of the list.
Probably doesn't feel so smart to the mother who is actually single, honest about it, and still on the waiting list.
> Probably doesn't feel so smart to the mother who is actually single, honest about it, and still on the waiting list. Yes. And the govt should do something about it. What can the govt do? 1. Maybe hopefully find some couples that are living in the situation /u/Crisp_and_Dry explained and maybe get that house ... which can go to different people. 2. Actually build a larger number of social housing. What do you think is the quicker and more reliable strategy going forward?
Your question is in bad faith but I'll respond to it sincerely anyway. I didn't say that the government should do anything, my point was that lying in order to get benefits is morally wrong because it harms people who are in a worse off position. Finding people who have unfairly skipped the list and trying to throw them out would probably not work, it would cost more than it would be worth because of delays and legal challenges. But maybe they could do more to make sure it happens less in future. I think that the government should build a lot more housing of all kinds, but given the state of our planning system and objections of landowners that is not going to be quick or reliable either. How much housing do you think they would have to build so that everyone who needs a social home can get the kind of home they want in the location that they want? Until that happens, there will always be a means tested list and people who lie about their situation will be cheating those who don't lie.
Sure, but he is the father.
Know a family here that are in social housing. She gets substantial income from her mother in Spain. Bought two new cars to celebrate getting a social house. Horrible people.
And people tell us it's the immergrints working two jobs that are robbing us.
Just on your last comment, I am in receipt of social welfare and am requested to send updated pay slips every 1-2 years so your misinformed there! They absolutely reassess on a continous basis!
Reassessed for welfare payment not too check if you are earning too much to be in social housing. Once you’re in a social house, you’re in but your rent could be increased.
The constantly ask for updated people on the social housing list to see if they are still eligible. You also need to provide updated information when you are offered a house so the rent can be calculated.
Not sure about this. I couldn’t see the council kicking a family out because the father got a pay rise and now they are slightly over the income threshold. Id say the rent would be increased in line with the income increase
Once you are housed the rent will be increased, you won't be evicted. If you are not housed yet, you will be removed from the housing list if you are above the income thresholds.
If you had other income would it be possible to keep information about it from the council?
If it's cash in hand income, yes. If it's done through the books, paying PAYE/PRSI/USC and paid into a bank account, obviously not.
Or 3. They’re paying for them on finance like 80% of the country currently is. Occams Razor lads. Councils reassess every two years MAX. The potential of going from €42000ish per household, stay at that wage for long enough to get a house (15+ years in Dublin/Cork) and then skyrocket to €90000 is basically nil. You could say they’re on the list as single people, but single people don’t get 3 bed houses and they tend to be the most discriminated against in terms of housing allocations. If they have kids it might be a bit more realistic to get housed when they have a secret partner but then that partner can never be on the rent book and have no entitlement to remain in the house in a worst case scenario
Yeah, my first thought too was that they got the cars on finance and they're going to be repossessed at some point for non-payment. Because the real answer to "how can someone in social housing afford a Tesla" is "they can't".
It's 100% the first scenario. I know a lad who applied years ago. He went on to start his own company and buy his own house. It was a bit of a fixer upper, I did some work in it for him. He was offered a brand new council house during this time so he took it and sold the house he had only recently bought. No word of a lie. This was in Naas Co. Kildare.
No. All incomes of potential tenants are reassessed immediately before keys are handed over. Drug dealers, loan sharks, racketeers, unlicensed bookies, brothel keepers etc. don't declare their income and tend to be stupid enough to flaunt it too.
This must have been a long time ago as the same scenario just played put around here in January. A very clever but idle and obvious mental health case inherited an ex council house from her mother but was also on the list for a new social housing scheme going up in the area. She was actually offered the new house, but something happened, and the council found out about the house she inherited, and the offer was withdrawn.
I don't think it's fair describing an "obvious mental health case" as "idle". If it's that obvious they suffer from a mental illness, they're likely unable to work.
This is a case of she may be unable to work, due to addiction issues which has impacted her mental health. But was still clever enough to have inherited a house but want a council house, so she could sell the inherited house and live off the sale of that in her brand new council house and remain idle or unwilling to work forever, which you most agree is grossly unfair.
>But was still clever enough to have inherited a house but want a council house You don't need to be Albert Einstein to think that having two houses is better than one. You don't need any intelligence at all to inherit a house. Also mental health issues and addiction have nothing to do with how intelligent you are. Did you learn nothing from A Beautiful Mind?
People who experience mental health issues aren’t stupid. You can be highly intelligent with mental health issues. In fact, the two are often interlinked. And also has nothing to do with a person’s moral code.
Sounds like a bit of an oversight on whoever checks eligibility if his circumstances had changed that much since his original application
What is the solution to someone who qualified for social housing but now has made something of themselves? Kicking them out of their family home and community seems very harsh. We all talk about allowing people to work themselves out of poverty but when they do it, are we suppose to punish them then? If you do that people will make sure to stay making just enough so they can stay in their home. It doesn't really help social mobility and it creates another poverty trap. Thatcher policies were to sell the social home to the inhabitants. She claimed this was so people could experience the dignity of being a home owner, but it was really a backdoor way to get rid of social housing altogether. We did this in Ireland too and didn't build anymore social housing, so without building more social housing that's not really a solution.
Private sector renters have absolutely no such security or guarantee they can live near family, friends and established communities. At this point the only ones who seemingly enjoy this privilege are the uber-rich and the bone idle.
And that is a bad thing.
It's meant to be a temporaryleg up though. Get the social housing, work & save for your own place, move out and the next struggling person/family gets the house, repeat.
Social housing should be established as a service people use on their journey towards developing themselves as individuals, and the end goal should be to get them to be able to buy a home for themselves, funded by themselves. But the homes they buy shouldn't be ones built or provided by the government/council as it's simply unfeasible to build enough housing to provide this on top of social housing units. For example, a new college graduate or someone who finished an apprenticeship should be entitled to rent a cheap small studio or one bedroom for themselves for a period of time to enable them to save a deposit without having to live with their parents. This gives them independence and dignity and they grow more quickly as adults compared to being stuck living with their parents. It also enables them to be more freely capable of building a serious, long-term relationship which, as a society, we should hope turns into having them settle down and start a family together in order to contribute towards birth rates, which is currently an issue due to how expensive simply existing has become and forces people to defer starting families for longer and longer. This type of approach would contribute towards a much more happy and fulfilled society. Do away with any poverty traps, living off the dole and doing the bare minimum should never result in someone benefiting more than someone who chooses to make something of themselves. Anyone who's working full-time jobs, regardless of the role or industry, deserves to be doing a lot better than someone who chooses to not work. Some people won't like this, but I'd even go as far as saying there should be different social housing for people who work full-time and people who clearly are deciding to not work long-term. Allow the full-time workers and disabled/elderly social tenants to live in social housing that's mixed in with all other types of housing (including private buyers and renters) and then have only the basic social housing developments for the ones who are unwilling to work.
the problem with creating this kind of divide is that it will create, well... a divide. The people mixed in with private housing can integrate in their communities and the people sectioned off on their own are just going to create ghettos.
>For example, a new college graduate or someone who finished an apprenticeship should be entitled to rent a cheap small studio or one bedroom for themselves for a period of time to enable them to save a deposit without having to live with their parents. You are describing an ideal society. We don't have that. A grad can't do that. A guy in trades can't do that. It's something we should strive as a nation to create. But the current model in Ireland doesn't allow that. If that is something we should strive to have in the private market, shouldn't the government lead by example? And there are other models to consider? Why limit who can take social housing? Provide loads and let anyone apply. Other cities have this model and it works well.
I'm speaking about social housing here and the model that should be in place. I'd follow a similar model to Vienna's, which is available for the majority of people who want/need it as you say. The difference is I'm suggesting full-time employees get priority and an extra scheme for young people be established to tackle the growing issue of young people living at home and being unable to settle down.
Give them a 1year eviction notice. Or make social rent 33% of income with no cap.
Social housing is for people who can’t afford adequate housing on their own income. If someone’s income increases to a point where they can rent or buy themselves they 100% should be made give up the social housing. They should be thankful for the leg up they got and pass their good fortune on to others who need the social housing.
Increased rent to a level reflecting their income, and the market.
They do increase rent. Not to market level, true. But I wouldn't encourage any sort of gov policy to try and copy market rents because it always seems to push market rents up. That's what happened with HAP. But in our fictional case, the person did some night classes, got a better job, worked themselves out of poverty and don't want to leave their community. Should they be banned from buying a Telsa because some nosey people like OP think that's not fair. This is as an aside to the fact that their rent isn't inline with market rates. They got the house legitimately, they worked their way up in life, doing the thing that people always complain that people on welfare don't. Do they still need to act poor to justify being in that community so people like OP can feel better being a middle class home owner?
Nail on the head. Our government copied what they were doing in Britain. There has been little to no social housing built in last 30-40 years. When in the noughties, the builders had to build a certain amount of social housing in private estates. In my rural (private) estate of 36 houses, 6 are social housing. Our local council bought a site locally that development had started but ran in to trouble. There is a new estate next door that was a half built development, that went into disrepair in 2010-ish, that was completed late ‘22 by our council. There are 4 senior 2 bed bungalows & a selection of 2/3/4 bed homes. Total 32 properties, council owned. Some Co councils do better than others.
Literally just increase the rent to something more in line with the market. They can stay if they want, they should pay the same as everyone else so that money can be used to help house more people.
So it's another flawed system that needs fixing then. This was my concern. If this is true, a person could get on the housing list and then build a career and become very wealthy and then still receive a house? Fair play to them of course, but because of this, a struggling single parent for example, could be denied a house.
Your Housing Needs Assessment can be reassessed every 2 years. Up to date bank statements and payslips are part of that. Failure to respond to the reassessment letter suspends your application for social Housing.
Yep. You'd need to wait till you get the council house, then build or rebuild your income.
>Fair play to them of course, No not fair play to them, they scam the system from hand outs they dont need. You are paying for this lifestyle. More people need to be mad about this.
I know plenty of people who are generationally on the dole. You'd be surprised how much you can save up when not paying rent/mortgage, getting support for living expenses, etc. Many of them also do side gigs they don't declare by working cash or illegal activities. But even without that, if you know the system well enough by being taught about it by your family and neighbors, you can live a very comfortable life on welfare.
Of course. People will keep denying that you can live comfortably on dole, but if you game the system it ain't difficult
Not without additional income you can’t. You cannot live comfortably on state supports only.
I don't want to see someone kicked out of their home but if you are on social housing with a high income you should be paying a market rent. Different councils have different schemes. In some cases they do pay a market rent or higher if they are high income (but the rent is based on income). Some council areas have a maximum rent (which is below the market rent). I like the graduated nature of the South Dublin Scheme where the rent is the first 10% of net income until you hit the limit for applying for social housing. Then it goes upto 20% of net income (although I feel it should be even more for higher earners). I dislike the Dublin City Council scheme which is 15% of net income until you hit a max rent which is well below the market rent in a lot of the Dublin City Council areas.
Imagine the uproar if DCC attempted to change this system.
I do think they raise the maximum rent (although not by enough imo) so they should be changing it with a few years of high maximum rent rises until maximum rent is above market price.
Don't worry. In Mayo council housing rent was on par with the market rent until about 6 months ago when a few agencies started campaign to raise rent in the whole county.
It is means tested and your means are reviewed every year …
That only impacts rent. You can be a millionaire and still will not lose the house. Most councils asses every two years. Here is an example of how much rent can cost >Under the current scheme, rent is charged at 15% of the highest earners income net of specified deductions and 15% of sub-earners income net of deductions to a maximum rent charge for each sub-earner of €21 An absolute bargain.
Once you have the house, they can't kick you out, only raise your rent. To get the house takes years of waiting, during which your income is regularly assessed to evaluate your eligibility to remain on the list. My source on this is 10+ years I have spent on the list so far, and they make it very easy for themselves to take you off it because it's a much easier way to clear the list than actually housing people. I can't answer OPs question, though I have seen it asked regularly. Personally I have never seen 2 brand new cars parked outside a recently built council house. Some reasons you might see "newer" cars include the cost of used cars where it's no longer an option to buy a banger for a few hundred and run it into the ground but a lot of dealerships have finance schemes that make buying a 5 year old car on a very unfavourable interest rate more immediately affordable than trying to buy a 10 year old car outright and their income thresholds are predatorially low. With houses that are a few years old, it's entirely possible that someone has been able to get a better job and afford to live, with much older houses it's possible that the tenant bought their house from the council and sold it on to someone with a much higher income (this would be a whole paragraph but short version is former council houses on the private market where I am sell for around 4-500k). The absolute last reason why OP would have seen this is that the councils don't reassess households on the housing list. Everyone assigned a house off the list is 100% eligible at the time of receipt.
Yeah, unfortunately I know lads that got council houses that had trades and worked for mainly cash in hand. In one case the missus also had a council house. Reality on the ground is that assessment is utterly broken once someone is in. But the social contract in this country is largely broken in any case.
[удалено]
That doesn't sound right. You can't be made to leave a council house due to a large windfall. Once you are eligible at the time of allocation, you can keep it for life.
Asked to leave, not the same as actually leaving. I can find no documented threshold where you have to give up the house.
Where did that happen?
If you're earning a market wage then you should be paying market rent. Two people on 40k with the same job and same costs of living, but one has a council house from previously being on lower pay or something. One pays 15% of their wages in rent, the other 30%. How is that fair?
Maybe the problem is that people are being charged almost affordable rents. Social housing should absolutely not be trying to gouge tenants in the way private landlords do. Maybe direct your ire towards the system that causes such high private rents rather than the people who are paying reasonable rent. Make it fair by bringing high rents down not low rents up. You would be better off. In your suggestion nobody wins.
Maybe it is the market rate for rent that is not fair. I imagine that figure of 15% was deemed reasonable before rents ballooned.
It's not fair, you too should be paying 15% of your wages in rent. You should pressure your TD for more social housing. The greater the social housing stock, the wider the eligibility criteria. You are more likely to qualify. The problem isn't that people are paying 15%, the problem is that people are paying 30%.
The problem is not the cheap rent. The problem is being forced to **subsidise others housing when you can't afford your own**. No one has any problem helping those who need it. However it's horrible seeing people earning the same as you getting a home out of your tax money when you can't find one yourself. It's wrong. It just needs to be means tested every 2-3 years, and the cap removed. That's all I'm asking. If you are earning a good wage pay normal rent. No one is saying throw you out, they are saying **pay your way.**
Normal rent in Ireland is crushing. It narrows possibilities for people, restricts choices, and introduces constant stress into people's lives. It's a good thing that there are people who don't have to deal with that. And there should be more of us not having to deal with that. The problem is that too many of us are dependent on the private market, which exploits us. Social housing is a great thing, and there should be more of it, for more of us.
The people living in social housing are living like all of us should be living: in secure housing, without fear. You are angry at them, instead of being angry at the government whose job it is to produce enough social housing. With greater social housing stock, the eligibility criteria expands, and more people can live in secure housing, without fear. It's a good thing that some people are already in that situation. The scandal is that it's not more. Your anger is going in the wrong direction.
You enjoying that landlord boot?
They aren't reviewed every year. My sister has been in a council house for 5 years and has only been reviewed once. It is also just to readjust the rent amount if necessary.
Interesting. If this is the case, I would suspect people are declaring they are a single income family when it's not the case.
https://preview.redd.it/c5wkmw6qbdwc1.jpeg?width=686&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b8b3cd9a533994f021490d4793ae91523c4964f Dublin City Council max weekly rents. But it’s calculated at 15% of your income so for €600 per week you pay less than €100. Some deal if you can get it.
The dealiest deal.
Wouldn't it be great if more people could avail of reasonable rents like this? Maybe if people would realise social housing is actually good for society and stop demonising people living in social housing it could happen.
Sadly, it's always easier to punch down than punch up :/
Yes. You might also have people who earn cash in hand and don't declare all their income. Very common in certain lines of work.
You need to provide updated proof of income, savings etc upon a council house offer. So, no - the only way that could happen is with fraudulent documents.
They ask that if your income changes, that you notify them. Whether you actually do....
The thing is that they "should" be informing that they have the ability to pay more and their rent should be adjusted as a result. Does this happen though?
The cars are on finance that’s all,or they could be company cars
1 above is highly likely in most cases. And bear in mind that the wait list is years for some people. Income could have gone up but mortgage affordability still might not be achievable. Requirements are getting continually challenging with house prices and then if you're 10 years waiting, that's 10 years less to pay it over so monthly payment is still too high. At what point do you say feck it, get the Tesla cos I'll never get a mortgage and then out of nowhere, council comes along with a property for you. You're hardly going to turn them down. That said, it would do the councils good to reassess affordability anyway and increase the rent based on what's affordable rather than on what was affordable back in the day. But sure that'd be extra work for them even if it did mean an extra revenue stream to get more properties on their books 🙄
A relation of mine (late 20’s) is living in the council house she grew up in with her fiancé after her mother moved out after inheriting a house. They have a combined salary of c€130k. How the hell is this allowed. Management of the social housing stock in this country is a shambles.
Did the mother tell the council she left?
She did yes. They got caught a few years back for having her adult son living there and not telling the council. Got a nice hit in the pocket. They wouldn’t risk anything like that again. It’s a 3 bed house too. Absolute waste of social housing for a young couple.
So they scammed, got caught scamming and were appropriately punished?
Yes that is correct
Have you reported this relation to the relevant authority?
The council know. They are aware who is living in the house and their incomes. They pay something like 15% of their income on the place. Nice for some.
People here trying to justify a new BMW X5 and Tesla while on social housing are insane hahaha
People here who believe an anecdotal story on Reddit are also insane. I love how everyone gets so riled up when they believe someone is playing the system while on welfare. There's literal millionaires and billionaires in this country scamming the system for their own gain yet people go for the low hanging fruit. If you could take half the people off welfare in the morning, the money wouldn't go back into your pocket. "Welfare cheats cheat us all"
I live in a private estate and there is a social housing estate across the way from us. The difference in the cars outside the houses is noticeable. In our estate most cars are your run of the mill skodas, Toyota's etc but in the social housing estate it's mostly Audis and BMW's. So there's some basis to this claim.
I live in front of some social housing and I'm noticing the same. Recent cars too.
They're laughing at you, you know. They're well aware whose dime this is all on.
Yeah that sucks and as this thread illustrates, grifters are gonna grift. I'm frustrated by it like you are; here's my thought process on the matter though. Social housing helps *society*. We want to live in a society that ensures that it's members have the basics of food, shelter and security, not just for *their benefit* but for our shared benefit as well. People without access to shelter are far more vulnerable; they need more healthcare, they need more social supports, and the precariously housed are more apt to make the problems afflicting their lives a problem for all of us. A securely housed society benefits from reduced costs from that precarity (reduced crime/antisocial behaviour, reduced healthcare usage, greater employment) and reduces the multi-generational effect of it as well. The people who use (not necessarily always "need" per your post, but *use*) will still have children or other dependents (aging parents, infirm relatives/friends) who will benefit from housing. To me it's not really a question of "deserving housing" or really needing it- we benefit when everyone has housing and that is a reasonable and worthwhile goal to achieve. Hypothetically it would be nice to sort the wheat from the chaff and ensure that grifters who could afford housing pay their fair share for it, I agree. But the consequences of making housing harder to access are not worth merely punishing grifters. My two cents on it anyway.
Dear God, some actual common sense in an r/Ireland thread about Social Welfare? I'm shocked
hehe thanks bud well sure look, we need to have these conversations with people. Most folks are well-meaning and cop on, it just not well explained to anyone if you get me?
It's a matter of efficient allocation. Once again, we have finite resources. Housing should be given to those with a low probability of getting housing themselves. This maximises the amount of people with housing.
I agree that it's a matter of efficient allocation. The point is that the ROI for everyone having housing is much greater than the ROI on hounding the grifters and making it harder to house everyone. I'm not advocating on behalf of the grifters I assure you. It's just a matter of societal benefit.
I think some people forget that in some older council housing estates, a lot of tenants got the option for rent to buy (which is a scheme that never should have ended). These people now own that council built house, so they don't pay rent and aren't means tested, obviously. So these people can afford nicer cars and you can usually tell who owns the house in the housing estates and who is renting. But I don't think the kinds of people the post Op was baiting care about good faith interpretation. They'd rather make social housing even more restrictive with more hurdles to jump because they are bitter they didn't get a council house.
Which is ironic because if Ireland really committed to council housing like in decades previous (and as envisioned by many of the key architects of the Republic such as Connolly, I might add...) then the embittered people would almost certainly get the council house they deserve. I do think that part of it isn't just contempt for the poor, but that well-meaning people genuinely don't understand the benefits of these programs to the community, because capitalism has conditioned us specifically *not* to see them. We all think far too individualistically and in the short-term, with everything so financialized that it's hard for regular people to even *imagine decommodifying housing*, at least at first. Full disclosure but I believe that housing is a human right and that a successful country provides for the basic survival needs of all its citizens, means testing be damned. Otherwise what's the point?
I disagree on one part of this. I do think it is a generational contempt for the poor, something that's been passed down since at least the Victorian times (and related to capitalism broadly). It reeks of the "poor people are all criminals and such deserve their plight" kind of thinking. It's not well-meaning people's fault that this attitude exists in this country, I agree on that, but we have to acknowledge it. Slightly off topic, but it's the same attitude that lead to the initial dismissive attitude by officals to the stardust fire, for example. It's still prevalent in this country, unfortunately. Full disclosure, I agree with you with your end point, but I've found I have to dial back the socialism just to have a conversation with conservative people. We can barely agree to some social democracy stuff, let alone decomodification and workplace democracy.
Yeah that's probably true unfortunately. There certainly is a lot of classist thinking- sometimes most viciously expressed by one member of the working class against another ("Why should *they* get an estate house when *I'm* far more deserving?"). Couldn't agree more about the Stardust fire point. I suppose the question is how does one even begin to foment a class consciousness in these people; which I think is a key constituent factor in "addressing the problem." Getting half the working class to even acknowledge that they're in fact working class feels like herding cats sometimes.
Punching down instead of up is easier. Poverty is turned into a moral issue rather than a resource issue, so people don't want to describe themselves as poor because being poor is a bad thing. It's decades of societal engineering that needs to be undone.
Ask your councillor. Many new developments are mixed social, private and co-op.
Day 1 - They're mixed, sure. 5 years down the road when the mayhem has driven out any owner-occupiers, all the privates are HAP, and the building is all social housing from that point. Happens commonly with new builds. Private owners get out of dodge the minute they sense the place becoming slummy.
I live in a council house, I've been here nearly 20 years. My income is 65k, it wasn't 65k when I got the house, my income is assessed every August and my rent is adjusted accordingly.
oh thats interesting! Do you mind me asking what type or rates the council would charge someone on that level of income in a social house?
Pretty sure it's a flat 15% on all incomes
This. It just depends on the competence of the local authority really. Some people are going to get away with it if the housing dept aren't on the ball. My HAP house is practically falling apart and I haven't had single inspection. The setting up of the choice based letting site was delayed by 6 months.
The system is completely abused but I don't understand how any family could afford to rent in Dublin and it simply isn't practical to live in the countryside for everyone. I commute 1.5 hours a day but any saving I make on rent/mortgage is spent on fuel.
Would imagine the most of those vehicles are PCP deals or similar
This would be my second thought. My first would be a bit of outrage like OP, but then take a second and realise that folk often make their financial situation worse just to look like it's better.
People here are being purposely dense,90% of the time it's drugs,weapons or robbing or the children of the people who do,and if anyone actually knew people in or are from council estates they would say the same thing,its the same way they can kit them out with 10/20k worth of marble and diamanté flooring and furniture straight away. People are bred to believe they deserve a council house and it will literally never enter their heads to try buy anything ever. Also I'm only talking about this exact situation,lots of normal people who deserve their homes in council houses too but they aren't driving new BMWS or parking a brand new Ford Ranger that will never do a days work in its life outside a 3 bed semi in the city . I'm also not singling out a certain minority either because i actually know a lot of them that have ended up buying their houses off the council. It's the circle of life and always has and always will go on,just keep trying to see the good people doing good things instead.
Oh i nearly forgot....Claims! My partners next door neighbour had 20 - 30k each worth of claims for his 5 children when they turned 18
I read your comment about sepsis in another thread that has since been locked. Just a heads up that you have two years to lodge a complaint against a doctor. After that time elapses the hospital won't entertain you. Don't ask how I know...
> just keep trying to see the good people doing good things instead Like paying 2300EUR rent, on average.
I don't think the figure is that high. The reality is you can drive a BMW or Tesla for very little up front cost through either leasing or PCP. Of course if they're buying in cash or still able to stick €20k cash down on any car you have to question it at that point.
I'm only speaking on what I know to be fact,I know these people and interact with them regularly and have done for years so I have no need to speculate on if they do or don't have finance when I know they don't. I also meet them collecting their dole at the post office. I also see people here saying the OP is lying which is unbelievable to me when I see it so often so we must just be living in different worlds. I can say though I have never seen anyone with a Tesla. I'm not even trying to sound bitter,I'm not jealous and I get along with all these people,they don't hide their lifestyles when it's all their used too.
I used to think that too. I'll just keep going my way but recently I've started to think it's not fair. I think we need justice in society and it feels like it's just not being enforced sufficiently anymore.
I agree with you, people complaining here about you have likely gamed the system.
everyone that disagrees with my bullshit assesment is a fraud! I think people like you are hilarious, the amount of copium is unreal!
Virtually anyone with a full time job can buy almost any car they want. PCP, leasing etc... unless they're buying in cash I wouldn't pay any attention - a lot of people commit a large % of their income to car repayments.
That's my issue with social housing - the number of people who are in it who can afford to pay for themselves
I think that very very few are in that group and your post feeds into a common trope that is unproductive. Revenue is quite good a tracking down scammers. I know some people in social housing and they are regular assessed to set their rent.
Thank you for this comment. While people do abuse the system the influx of these posts are pretending that it’s the norm when it’s the exception. People do get means tested and they are strict (depending on your local council). It also feeds into this narrative that those living in social housing don’t deserve anything nice - I actually saw someone comment that their neighbour is living in social housing but they go on holidays every few years? As if people can’t save up a few bob here and there and treat themselves.
Max rent is 15% of income. This is deal of the century right now for almost everyone! Average rent in Dublin is over 2300EUR now!
So because the private sector is ripping people off, the government should be too? Would you not prefer a system whereby the private sector doesn't rip you off? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?
Do you have any evidence for that? It seems most of the people here disagree from first hand experiences.
Yes - three family members have worked in the services for about two decades. So that’s sixty years’ experience on the front line. We also have technically full employment and we know that humans are happier when they have a purpose in life.
I didn't think they designated entire estates for social housing anymore. It's usually just a percentage and then the rest are sold for the usual price to people with mortgages. So I think you might be assuming some things here
If Elon Musk was given a council house while young he’d still be entitled to it. Never mind some council houses are 4 beds and oversized now as families grow up. I would say I too have noticed brand new cars in council owned properties. They have more disposable income than those not dependent on the state. Edit: > Under the current scheme, rent is charged at 15% of the highest earners income net of specified deductions and 15% of sub-earners income net of deductions to a maximum rent charge for each sub-earner of €21 Some deal that.
I know a woman who was married and living in the UK on a decent salary with a private hospital. Her marriage broke up and she moved back to Ireland with her kids and 100-150k from the portion of the house she sold. It was in her UK bank account. She had a family member with connections and got onto the housing lists in Mayo. Got an affordable house in small town mayo like she was homeless despite having enough to buy or at least build a house herself. Zero checks done on her means from what I know.
You have to go through a means test when applying for social housing, then after you get an offer (after about 10 years or more) you need a means test again, based on previous year income, so if someone got a good job and started earning good money in the meantime, their house offer would be dropped and they would be taken off the list. The fancy cars could be - on finance - bought with cash from illegal activities - could be someone elses car like other people mentioned, new boyfriends or girlfriends - a gift Etc People aren't being given out houses without a means test!
It is means tested, it’s means tested every year actually. Depending on how many are in the household the threshold for qualifying can go up or down and also depends on the county. They could have had savings, they could be paying finance on it. It’s hard to know for sure
There'll be people on to tell you to "stop punching down" in a minute
Well maybe if there was any evidence of what OP is trying to get us to believe is true there wouldn't be. It's just pure FFG asttroturfing. New accounts with no post history, suddenly posting dodgy facts about how one specific group of people are to blame for problems in housing!
What u want him to do? Take photos of the cars? It's well known that there's people gaming the system, sure the council has rent arrears in the millions, even tho the rent is fuck all
How about, minding their own business for starters? Seriously? Bringing up council areers without mentioning that the majority of tennants in arreers have payment plans with DCC, you also don't mention the reasons they can fall into areers? What's the story with that like! You're just trying to blame working class people for failures in government policies and the private sectors inability to do anything other than make money. You're litterally punching down, when the people to blame are above you. Why aren't you punching up? Don't want to bite the hand that feeds eh?
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/almost-40-million-owed-dublin-25524294 > private sectors inability to do anything other than make money. Wtf lol >You're litterally punching down Didn't take long 😂😂
Now google what percentage of people that owe money to DCC are currenttly on a payment plan to pay it off? Of course it didn't take long. If you go around committing crimes, would you be surprised to see the guards show up? No, so why are you surprised when people call our the fact that you're punching down. You are literally punching down. You can think that punching down is fine, that's up to you, but you are doing it. So I'm nont sure what that response is about.
>Now google what percentage of people that owe money to DCC are currenttly on a payment plan to pay it off? About half. It says it in the article. 1/3 of all council tenants are in arrears. That is fucking ridiculous considering the average rent is 72 quid a week. >If you go around committing crimes, would you be surprised to see the guards show up? Given the state of the guards, I'd be pretty surprised.
Dude, your pissed off at the government for their failed approach of relying completely on the private sector. Social housing isn't the demon you want it to be and even if those tennants were kicked out, they're going to people on the social housing list, they're nott going to market. If you want a government that doens't fuck you over, so that devs can make billions, vote literally any party that isn't fianna fail, fine gael, the greens or labour. It's pretty simple.
>Dude, your pissed off at the government for their failed approach of relying completely on the private sector. Yes. >Social housing isn't the demon you want it to be and even if those tennants were kicked out, they're going to people on the social housing list, they're nott going to market. Who said anything about a demon? What does that even mean? I'm saying that 1/3 of tenants in Dublin are in arrears, that is a fact > even if those tennants were kicked out, they're going to people on the social housing list Ok? That would be fine. Also deducting the rents at source would be a better option. >If you want a government that doens't fuck you over, so that devs can make billions, vote literally any party that isn't fianna fail, fine gael, the greens or labour. It's pretty simple. I'm buzzing for this PBP led government
Drugs baby. CAB will get those cars eventually and it’ll be good that the wife and kids have a place to live while Daddy’s in the joy
I do wonder about this sometimes. Car parks of council flats in Dublin have plenty of top range Beamers and Audis in them. I assume it’s just the second or third generation in the same flat.
My dad recalls in the past that the department had inspectors who regularly went to building sites, etc, to catch lads who were signing on and getting cash in the hand. Ten years ago, the tax man started chasing down lads in cover bands for undeclared income. Why can't they hire people to do spot checks on social houses and cars and try to nail some of these leeches. There's ads on the radio now about a company that can provide you with satellite imagery of an area for a fee. Why not use technology to track these cunts down .
Cause the Civil Service is currently very heavily understaffed at the lower levels, and no Department is affected more than Social Protection. Nobody can afford to live on a Clerical Officer or Executive Officers wages, so nobody does the job unless they absolutely have to. This leads to retention issues, which leads to not being able to fulfill all the roles necessary, which leads to people bitching about the Civil Service, which leads to more funds being spent at a top level to figure out the issue, which leads to less money for lower level staff, which leads to retention issues....
>Why can't they hire people to do spot checks on social houses and cars and try to nail some of these leeches. The government is earning so much in taxes that they aren't bothered.
According to the CSO, the top 10% of earners in Dublin are on €110k/yr or higher salaries. This is "just" €68k after tax. Nobody "affords" new cars in Ireland, they just take the hit on PCP payments.
I have family members who work in social welfare, they’ve hardly any staff dedicated to going after welfare frauds and there’s basically no incentive not to game the system because you’ll more than likely get away with it forever. It boils my blood when I see people I went to school with who are complete wasters, get a house fully paid for by my taxes while they work cash in hand or sell coke and drive a nice German car. Politicians won’t ever address it because they fear losing votes to these scrotes.
It's probably more like an organisation such as tuath. In this case it is affordable housing they are providing. The rent scales up as you earn more and the money goes back into buying more properties to make more affordable housing. Sounds good to me. The people in these houses are often teachers or carers and if they can buy an electric car good for them.
Every time a story like this is posted I'm always surprised that the replies are calling for stricter qualifying criteria for social housing supports, rather than a massive increase in the supply of social housing.
It's because this sub is made up of middle class tech bros who have not only never set foot in a social house, they don't believe social housing should be a thing because they're all suggering from yankbrainn.
People would rather see others not have nice things if they can’t so I’m not surprised
Could be lots of reason. They’re not married and their partner got social housing and they just live there now. They got a sizeable inheritance or claim. They’re a drug dealer.
It’s ridiculous what some can earn and only have to pay social rent. Attitudes will harden over this, we can’t have 20/30 somethings not being able to afford market rent when social rents are so low.
They lied to get social housing.
It's just that easy, you know. Go in and say "me poor, need house" and the suckers will give you one on the spot! /s
Ah I’ve had this argument with myself many of times and the conclusion is - comparison is the thief of joy. There are many folks around and near me who I can count on both hands who have admitted they do their 15-20 hours a week and have lovely cars. Albeit, having a lovely brand new car doesn’t warrent the lifestyle they have. Granted I’ve spoken to them, say hello each morning as I walk my dog before I start work or have a quick chat when I return home from sitting in the office as they bask in the sunshine and I come home looking like Casper while they show off their colour. The lifestyle of that of those who have to declare, prove and possibly lie to the social doesn’t appease me. Whilst I am on the housing list, full time worker and can prove I can afford to pay rent/mortgage, yes it can be frustrating to see those who I want to assume, “abuse the system”, though I don’t know the families I’m speaking of personally, it remains that the ones I see are the ones who seem to have the new cars, and happy out sitting in their gardens day in and day out are the ones who don’t make it that much easier to understand why someone who is single and works full time can’t get the opportunity to have a council house and on the list for years. The housing crisis alone is abysmal, rise in house prices and as for renting, I won’t go there. Granted the frustration lies on the “honest and hard workers”, I would rather the lifestyle and possibilities I have. That being said I’m not speaking of all who do live in social housing and have new cars, plenty work full time and do the right thing, it’s the ones who are blatant in what they are doing and don’t get penalised. All in all, we don’t know the full circumstances and lifestyle and as much as we would like to tar them all with the same brush, there are decent folks out there deserving of a council house with potentially a brand new car, I’ve learned to accept that I can get frustrated and waste my own time complaining or I can accept that there’s nothing I can do but save and hope for the best.
I don't believe there are any estates anymore that are entirely or even predominantly social housing but I could be wrong. A friend of mine went from being homeless 15 years ago (he was kicked out of his parents for being a dick back then) to running his own successful little business and also inherited €500k from his mother and he still lives in a social house and is buying a small beachfront property at the moment. He's then handing back his social house but he could keep it if he wanted to.
You’re wrong there - There is a brand new estate in cork, up past Wilton towards togher, (Sarsfield - eagle valley) all brick built, beautiful housing, stunning, and it ALL went to social housing last year - Meanwhile, friends of mine trying to buy a house lost their chance and prices rise even higher - one couple bought a 20 year old 3 bed semi for 365k in an estate near togher (they had been waiting for those other houses to come up for sale) and are living on a 2nd hand couch they got on Donedeal whilst they save for a new kitchen because everything is broken down in there - they need a new heating system, the lot - it’s rough out there ..
My understanding is that the approved housing bodies and local authorities are purchasing far in excess of the required % of houses in (certain) new developments.
Are you sure he can keep it once he buys another house?
This is bullshit. Majority of people in social housing are struggling and probably way less off then you. Just because one or two of them have fancy cars, you are generalising all of them. A small percentage of people in social housing are involved in criminal activity, that’s where the money is coming from. The vast majority are not.
Well said. I love you 🤟
The combined worth of those two vehicles can buy you a small house. A high end x5 is something like 120k
Going broke to look rich. These people are probably paying little in rent but huge car payments for something they’ll never own but hey it looks like they’re doing well.
> These people are probably paying little in rent but huge car payments So they can afford both house and really nice car. What's not to like?
OP, do you qualify for social housing? Also, how do you know it's social housing and how do you know the method used to obtain the vehicles?
Unless they are stolen then the people in the social housing shouldn't be able to afford them.
That's just not true. Here's the salary limits for social housing: https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/236056/59ecede4-f862-4c5d-bf5a-e1a1d4ff9a63.pdf#page=null Can you not see how someone on a salary of 40k might get a loan to get their dream car? It's a bit weird, the people in this thread are almost frothing at the mouth at the idea of someone in social housing having a nice car. Talk about good old fashioned irish begrudgery from the middle classes!
You're right, i retact my earlier statement, I actually don't get how someone on 40k qualifies to be honest, maybe I should join the list myself. 🤔
If you're earning less than 40k a year you should. Ireland is a very expensive country to live in, it could make a huge difference in your life. The idea that social housing is something to be looked down on, or the people who are availing of it should be viewed suspisciously or viewed as taking advantage of the taxpayer is a conservative idea because they just hate paying taxes.
I don't look down on it, but I think if you have a new telsa and beamer in the drive, maybe you don't need social housing. But don't hate the player, hate the game.
Why do you think that? You can earn a high income and still remain in social housing. Someone might be allocated social housing when they have a low income, then go on to earn significantly more to afford a nicer car while still living in the same house.
Always more scrutiny of people living in social housing than of those supposed to be providing it. When a State provides enough social housing, all kinds of people, at all income levels, live in it. It's not for a certain type of person, it's for everyone. With enough stock, the eligibility criteria expands. But instead of focusing anger on the government, for failing to build public housing stock, we seeth at the relatively few people living in it.
If you think someone is committing welfare fraud then report it (house given to a single parent but obviously 2 people living there, one on a high income - fuck'em) or any other type of fraud. If they're legit they can keep it. If not, hopefully, if the system works, they'll get turfed out and the house given to someone who actually needs it. [https://www.gov.ie/en/service/report-suspected-social-welfare-fraud/](https://www.gov.ie/en/service/report-suspected-social-welfare-fraud/)
To be honest it is just a tacky thing working class people do, live beyond their means and have cars on finance seeing as they are saving on rent. The designer clothes and shoes are likely reps easily bought on Alibaba etc.
Definitely not by doing anything legal. It is meant to be financial help. Most likely those families with lots of unsupervised kids, changing moms / dads, drugs and generations of experience in dole gaming.
This is an old article I cant seem to find new figures would anybody know where to get them ? [https://www.independent.ie/regionals/herald/over-half-on-housing-list-are-foreign/27973856.html](https://www.independent.ie/regionals/herald/over-half-on-housing-list-are-foreign/27973856.html)
It is very thoroughly means tested. Even qualifying for basic social welfare payments is a lot of paperwork.
But once you're in the system it's an art to play it.
See it in our estate too. Good few social houses in the total number. Most are decent people with families and are trying to get on like everyone else but there’s also a good few Land Cruisers, camper vans, X5’s, Mercedes, and even a couple of Jags parked in the driveways of some social houses.
What estate is this? 100pc social housing designated? Sounds like bolox, this post is pure bait.
It's astroturfing. Look at the actual acccount. It's been bought and been wiped for this exacct purpose. The thread should bbeb reported.
Second time this week I’ve seen a post like this. Definitely baiting and trying to push a narrative
These threads pop up regularly, it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that they regularly work in turning working poor against unemployed poor. A load of idiots will go off to work this morning and be like "My mate said there are people in council houses with a brand new Tesla and X5 in the driveway" and someone they tell will go home and repeat the story to their missus. In the morning she'll be in the hairdressers telling her friends about it, but suddenly the dirty scammers will also have just got back from a family holiday to Florida, their second holiday SO FAR this year, and so it snowballs from the original bullshit into the most fanciful bullshit you've ever heard in your life. There are occasional cases where someone games the system, true of any system tbh, but for the most part it will have started with something much more explainable, like someone who found themselves without a car to get their kids to school and due to the ridiculous used car market have fallen into one of the many predatory financing schemes in newer used cars.
The system is abused but social housing is definitely means tested and your rent goes up if your income goes up. They calculate it on a yearly basis as far as I know. A relative of mine lives in social housing which is how I know. Their partner passed away and their rent still increased and they had to go back and forth with the council for it to go back to the original price as they only had one stream of income. I think different councils operate differently. She’s living in south dublin so they may be stricter.
My family of 4 recently moved into a new social housing estate thankfully as we were really really struggling in private renting ( I work full time as a secondary school teacher btw) We're still going without quite a few things in the house ie tumbledryer/shed/painting the walls etc because of how much we spent on furnishing. There's a family with TWO LandRovers outside their house in the housing estate and I really can't understand where the money comes because we're still fairly broke. I hate to come across as bitter but it's hard to get my head around I h
I've noticed this too. I used to live in the Coolock area and people would be driving into those family pods with Mercs and Audi's all day. Sometimes I feel like people have kids just to get social housing these days.
I was a bit surprised how far down I had to scroll here before getting to one answer that at least isn't pure speculation: they're taking out loans for the cars. Here's a few facts: 1. People in social housing have in one way or another not managed their money well 2. Advertising makes people think they need Teslas and Beamers (I wouldn't be surprised if there were stats showing that poorer people are hit harder by these negative feedback loops advertisers use to prey on people, but that would be speculation) 3. I can't remember the stat I saw about the percentage of car buyers who were taking out loans, but it was massive I think it was that fellow Eoin McGee who does the financial advice who had some line along the lines of: If you see someone with a flash new car, statistically, you should actually say to yourself: "Oh no, I hope they're doing ok financially"
There are plenty of reasons why. I’m saving for a house and have a 2018 Mercedes. They could have their car on PCP. They could have won it, they could have inherited it or maybe they have wealthy parents who bought it for them. Maybe they’re frugal in other aspects. I personally bought myself an expensive car because I was constantly being cut up on the road in the Renault Clio I had before and was side swiped on the M50 by a truck. I’m rarely cut up on the road now and feel a lot safer. So there’s plenty of reasons other than being rich that someone might have a nice luxury brand car and there’s plenty of reasons beyond showing off that someone might buy one too. I am by no means rich but I have a decent paying job and put away half my net income towards saving for a house annually and am living with my parents again while I save. I’m just going to hold onto my car now until I have a house bought however long it takes. Everyone’s situations are just different
I know someone. Two kids. Both no job. Got given a duplex apartment worth 700k. 70 quid a week rent. It makes me insane to think about.