|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2009 17:16:00 GMT
Ah, thank you chefmate! That is a bit like our housing benefit scheme, but instead of having vouchers, the benefit is given in money. Until recently, it could either go to the landlord direct or via the tenant, but under a change of rules, it now goes to the tenant, unless they are in council or social housing.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 1, 2009 18:35:34 GMT
Council housing isn't a 'free ride'. And Lin, you could have applied for a council house yourself if that was what you wanted. Jean, I couldn't because Mike and I were over the income threshold, we were a couple and I wasn't a single Mum. Anyway, I'm morally opposed to the whole councll housing system. Ideally I'd like to privatise them all but it's not practical politics. What they OUGHT to do is make the tenancies renewable six months contracts (like they do in the private market) and also make them pay an economic rent and pay for their repairs. My sister's just had £2000 worth of work done on her place and it hasn't cost her a penny! Mike and I have to spend our own money to get anything done! Council tenants are the ultimate capitalists - and yes, my sister knows perfectly well how I feel about it and about her being a single Mum for five years. She just thinks that if you can get something for nothing then you might as well. I prefer to believe that people should contribute as well as receive.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 1, 2009 19:03:18 GMT
My sister's just had £2000 worth of work done on her place and it hasn't cost her a penny! Mike and I have to spend our own money to get anything done! But it's your house, isn't it? The increase in the value of your property because of the improvements you make is all yours. But your sister pays rent, and has nothing to show for the outlay at the end of it all. When I was living abroad and let my flat, my tenants quite properly held me responsible for the repairs that needed doing. I paid for those repairs out of the rent they paid me, and I still made a good profit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2009 19:29:43 GMT
Jean, I couldn't because Mike and I were over the income threshold, we were a couple and I wasn't a single Mum. Anyway, I'm morally opposed to the whole councll housing system. Ideally I'd like to privatise them all but it's not practical politics. What they OUGHT to do is make the tenancies renewable six months contracts (like they do in the private market) and also make them pay an economic rent and pay for their repairs. My sister's just had £2000 worth of work done on her place and it hasn't cost her a penny! Mike and I have to spend our own money to get anything done! Council tenants are the ultimate capitalists - and yes, my sister knows perfectly well how I feel about it and about her being a single Mum for five years. She just thinks that if you can get something for nothing then you might as well. I prefer to believe that people should contribute as well as receive. In the good old days council housing was for anyone, single,married, in work, out of work... the main thing was that they didn't have a home. To some extent that works now, though an able bodied adult without children doesn't stand much chance. I'm all in favour of social housing being set at an economic rent - with subidies of course for those who can't afford it. In recent years the rent of the public and private sector has got closer and close together, the only diference being tht the public sector rdoesn't make a profit... and what's wrong with that? As for six monthly contracts... well, I can understand it in the private sector. But why would you need that kind of power in council housing when they can rely on a brech of tenancy to get tenants out?
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 1, 2009 19:39:44 GMT
As of this year, in order to get private rent allowance it has become compulsory to apply for public housing - thus adding people to the list who do not necessarily want it. It's not the accommodation as such - it's the people in some of these blocks! Where is that, ratarsed? I've forgotten where you live. It certainly isn't the case in England. Social housing isn't everyone's first choice. Often it is taken by people who simply wouldn't get a tenancy in the private sector however hard they tried! This is Ireland. There is a limit as to how often it's possible to refuse social housing too. There are some nice blocks and most are being done over to modernise them because cable TV and telephone landline are not standard and the acoustic insulation is poor but they are mostly typical 50s 5-storey 'gangway' blocks with a ground floor of rooms and two of maisonettes grouped as an estate. A lot of them can be fine, but plenty are not and the design can attract people who want their dealings off the road in the shadows whether they actually live there or not. A lot of them have been cleaned up but that raises the question of where the problem families went - in all likelihood, to satellite suburbs with a bad reputation like Blanchardstown. In any case, I prefer at the moment to live in a house on a road (though towards town is none so salubrious compared to going the other way) than the bottom of a block surrounded by other blocks in deserted space - or space one hopes deserted except for the occasional burnt-out car. Some of it is pure prejudice because the truth is that a less 'working class' urban village like Rathmines attracts more kids with more money than sense that they think entitles them to live it up in pubs pretending to be discoes and throw it up everywhere else. All I have here is the biggest sports stadium in the land about 100 metres behind me - which will be great next time U2 play there ;D
|
|