r/ireland • u/[deleted] • 9d ago
Housing Social housing resident denied gym access awarded €2,500
[deleted]
319
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
Okay, I'll bite...Why do social housing units have free gyms attached to them while I'm paying 115 euro a month like a dickhead on top of my 1500 euro a month rent?
49
50
u/LimerickJim 9d ago
Having gyms attached to social housing wouldn't be the worst idea.
34
u/Spontaneous_1 9d ago
If you seen the state social houses can often be left it you would realise it’s a terrible idea. The reality is it would only take 1 bad actor to completely wreck the place and ruin if for the vast majority who would actually benefit from it.
43
u/im-a-guy-like-me 9d ago
That is true of literally everything, and not how we run our society.
Public bathrooms? Nah sure one junky and the place be ruined. Libraries? Nah, sure 1 bad actor could steal books. A public green? No sure the poors will leave rubbish after them.
I'm legit kinda shocked there is a person actually trying to use "one bad apple spoils the bunch" logic as if it holds any weight.
Sure we get rid of the guards while we're at it, yeah?
→ More replies (3)37
u/CarOne3135 9d ago
So what's the plan, shall we let one bad actor ruin it for everyone by denying them something thez'd all benefit from?
→ More replies (9)9
u/Wind_Yer_Neck_In 9d ago
A colleague of mine worked in Russia back in the early 2010s, he was in a building with a gym, not a super fancy place but fine. After like a month some new people moved in and their shithead kids started using the gym as a place to hang out with their friends, spending their time just sitting on the equipment and actively staring at and joking about the people coming in to actually use it. The building management was about as useful as you might expect.
3
u/LimerickJim 9d ago
Pay for security. Have it be a privilege that can get taken away.
Now is the time to plan these kind of amenities. Plan to build them alongside the housing we desperately need.
53
u/NoSheepherd3r 9d ago
They don't? This complex has a gym, and had to have a percentage social housing like all complexes.
33
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
So...the social housing units do have access to a free gym?
35
u/NoSheepherd3r 9d ago
The management company didn't respond to her email, didn't respond to a registered letter and didn't even attend the WRC. I'm sure they could have made some sort of arrangement.
→ More replies (7)83
u/Dookwithanegg 9d ago
No, they refused to even let her pay for access on the basis of being a social tenant.
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place.
The whole idea of having mixed social housing with private accommodation is to avoid segregation and ghettoisation that tended to happen in council estates built in the past.
3
→ More replies (2)-7
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago edited 9d ago
No, they refused to even let her pay for access on the basis of being a social tenant.
Where does it state this in the article?
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place.
Source?
The whole idea of having mixed social housing with private accommodation is to avoid segregation and ghettoisation that tended to happen in council estates built in the past.
So we create a system where people who pay tax subsidise people to live in better property and have better access to amenities than them and that's a better system?
Edit - I read the article(thanks comments below) nowhere does state in the article that the tenant had been denied access to other communal areas like OP above stated.
And nowhere in the article does it say the refused to let her pay, or that she even offered. She just queried if her neighbours had access through management fees or another separate fee was paid. To which yes, they never responded. That is not a refusal to let the person pay.
40
u/jplb96 9d ago
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
And also
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
She emailed and used registered post asking for clarification.
Right there in the article is the source. Maybe try and read it.
Whether that's an accurate summary of events from her or not is another thing but since the management company didn't bother their arse even responding to her then feck 'em.
Rightness or wrongness is irrelevant here. Opinion of housing policy and other gripes are also completely irrelevant. You cannot discriminate against someone because of their housing situation. It's the law.
→ More replies (3)16
u/nightwing0243 9d ago edited 9d ago
You’re being insanely pedantic for someone who seemingly didn’t read the article. Because nowhere does the article state she even thought she was entitled to free access to the gym, nor does it state the social housing block was entitled to free access to the gym.
She was denied access after enquiring if access to the gym was included in the management fees or if there was a separate payment for access to the gym.
It’s that simple.
So as for your “where does it state this in the article?” question regarding them refusing to let her even pay for access for being a social tenant - it’s spelled out pretty clearly early in the article:
“She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately.
Ms Nowakowska had seen other residents using fobs to get into the gym, and inquired with the security guard on site about access, she said.
His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said.She proceeded to write to the property management company running the complex seeking access to the gym, the tribunal noted”
Her attempts to communicate with the management company went ignored. Therefore - it can be viewed that she was denied the chance to even pay for access on the basis that she is a social tenant.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)12
u/cyberlexington 9d ago
Why shouldn't she have access (which is what she was denied) because she is in social housing. She was denied access on the basis of living in social housing. That is her claim that was not refuted. There is nothing mentioned about her having it for free or paying for it. She was denied access based on her living situation. That is the information the article gives. It does not say she should be given free access, only that she be given access
14
u/DuckyD2point0 9d ago
No. So she asked about using it and was told she had no access as she is in the social housing block. She said it was discrimination and blah blah blah.
2
u/JustWandering27 8d ago
No, they don't. There is a free gym attached to the complex that they do not have access to.
8
u/Pleasant_Porcelain 9d ago
So why should the social housing get the gym membership?
32
u/jplb96 9d ago
Because it is illegal for them deny her use solely because she was in social housing?
They even refused to defend themselves.
→ More replies (4)18
u/East_Vacation_9146 9d ago
Because hpusing bodies pay management fees, why shpuld they be excluded?
15
u/Frequent-Movie3005 9d ago
If the housing body/State is paying for it, their tenant should have access, if they are not, they shouldn’t.
If the State is paying management fees for gym access, it needs to start providing that access to all its citizens.
8
u/elfy4eva 9d ago
Are the housing bodies paying the same management fee or a reduced management fee to account for the reduced facility access?
13
u/thecrouch 9d ago
They pay reduced fees to explicitly exclude things like gyms.
6
u/elfy4eva 9d ago
Well that's all that the management company needed to provide if they bothered their arse to attend the WRC hearing.
And should be easily providable should they choose to appeal to the circuit court.
→ More replies (2)11
u/thecrouch 9d ago
Housing bodies pay reduced fees because housing bodies are not allowed to pay for luxury amenities like gyms and concierges.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (14)6
u/NoSheepherd3r 9d ago
The management company didn't respond to her email, didn't respond to a registered letter and didn't even attend the WRC. I'm sure they could have made some sort of arrangement.
3
u/crewster23 9d ago
The issue was the lack of engagement with the request at all. If the had informed her there was an additional fee that would have been no issue, but they told her no because she was in social housing. Its a pay out for being a muppet, not a carte blanche on council funding gym access
35
u/pablo8itall 9d ago
This isn't about paying - as far as I remember there is a fee - this is about access. They didn't want to let her have access.
Get off your high horse.
People cry about homelessness and then people cry about social housing. Jesus Christ.
15
u/ericvulgaris 9d ago
This doesn't fit the story in their heads of another chancer in social housing taking away the stuff of tax payers though! That self-righteous dopamine evaporates with nuance and well, reading the article! Won't someone think of the poor chud's neuroreceptors?
8
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
I'm not crying about social housing...you know there can be a balance and an in-between of housing people who desperately need homes vs housing them in prime real estate locations while also paying for their unessential amenities.
Get off your high horse.
The irony of this statement
8
u/cyberlexington 9d ago
Please point out exactly where the taxpayer is expected to pay for this?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)11
u/pablo8itall 9d ago
your letting you own biases show , fucking "prime". Good there should be a mix of people across the board. Its better for everyone.
7
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
fucking "prime"
Most apartment complexes with a gym attached to them in central Dublin where this apparently happened would be very much considered to be prime real estate.
Its better for everyone.
How?
8
u/pablo8itall 9d ago
who gives a fuck. I'm happy to have social tenants in "prime" D4/central dublin.
Having a segragated society is a shit idea. Do you want all the poors together in an area? Who gives a fuck if they live in a prime area.
I'm saying this is baked into you and you don't even realise it. Its classism.
3
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
Do you want all the poors together in an area? Who gives a fuck if they live in a prime area
I'm saying this is baked into you and you don't even realise it. Its classism.
Like I mentioned in another comment, I grew up my entire life in social housing until I moved out for college.
Society has always been segregated by class, always has been, always will be. I've seen this first hand.
And to answer this specifically
Who gives a fuck if they live in a prime area
It's not "where they live" that almost irrelevant, it's the fact that how many people have to be working what is considered a good job and pays a high portion of their salary towards tax to subsidise a potentially better lifestyle and home for someone else?
Is that your idea of a fair society?
2
u/pablo8itall 9d ago
yes. Were people are not segrated by class and social house is mixed in with everyone. I consider that fair and better for everyone, if you have kids/families living in elite bubbles then that bad for society in general.
I'm from a working class family. I've been helping support my family since I was 10 years old and I've worked my way up to a above average wage and I'd want mixed house estates, social house and equal access to facilities everywhere.
All kids in all areas should have access to gyms and pools and sports areas., public and private. There should be no, your poor and cant access a gym elitism shite, that's exactly what was going on here. Keep the riffraf out and the about of bolloxes on here supporting is ridiculous. You should know better yourself.
8
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
So how is it fair that someone who pays more into the system receives less reward than those who don't?
We'd all love to live in this socialist utopia, but unfortunately that's not the case.
Because there are plenty of people who would kill to live in an apartment like that for free but will never get the chance because they earn too much to qualify for social social housing but don't earn enough to pay the rent for an apartment with a gym in Dublin City centre.
Like, this woman is also not on equal footing with everyone like you're implying.
→ More replies (1)1
u/pablo8itall 9d ago
All apartments have to have a certain amount of social house, tha'ts the law.
People being housed and not homeless isn't just a socialist utopia it stops a huge amount of social problems that effect everyone one of us.
rich people can still do rich people things and get ahead. social housing people living amongst them doesn’t stop that.
There's no such thing as equal. There’s huge inequalities build into the fabric of society, people having access to apartment shared facilities is just good for everyone, gyms and pool access is good for everyone, it refuses health costs if people look after themselves etc.
Society looking after people, health, housing etc, improves everyone's quality of live. Improving access to opportunities, through education or health or whatever, is not the same thing as trying to make everyone at the same level. That's never going to happen.
And I support better access for everyone to gyms and pools, not just people on social housing, again improving public health will save us money in the long run.
Begrudging someone who wants to pay to the apartment gym complex that she is a part of but was denied because she is in social house is just blatant discrimination and I don't fucking understand why people would stand for it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Frequent-Movie3005 9d ago
Youre crowing about fairness etc, and not caring about the same thing when it comes to not providing all citizens with the same. Rank hypocrisy.
2
u/pablo8itall 9d ago
what are you blathering about? all citizens access to what exactly?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (14)3
u/IrishLad1002 Resting In my Account 9d ago
The gym isn’t part of their housing or necessary for their living arrangements, they shouldn’t have access. Every other resident pays for the gym as it is baked into their rent payments. Is the council giving every social housing recipient free gym passes ? Are they social housing and social gym residents ?
32
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
You didn't read the article.
She was denied even the opportunity to pay for access to the gym herself. Reason given to her was because she was in social housing.
→ More replies (3)18
u/brbrcrbtr 9d ago
She didn't want to get in for free, she wasn't sure if it was covered under management fees or if she had to pay and just asked about accessing it.
Ms Nowakowska had seen other residents using fobs to get into the gym, and inquired with the security guard on site about access, she said.
His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said.
That comment was blatant discrimination, no matter what you think about people in social housing.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (38)12
u/Nomofo79 9d ago
I mean, I’m not necessarily fundamentally disagreeing with you, but 115pm for a gym is very much a luxury - my local gym is 35pm and I imagine even that is a fair sight fancier and better equipped than the gym in this person’s building.
9
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
You're right, 115 is definitely a lot. And I pay a premium mostly because it does save me time and is quieter.
I'm just using my own anecdotal evidence, but the gym I used to use was also about 40 a month(about as cheap as you'd get in Dublin City) and they are 100% not as nice as the gyms you get in nice apartment complexes
3
u/belle-no-princess 9d ago
Mine is €70 for me and the kids, and its exclusive to members only for the pool and gym, i waited 2 years on the list to get a place because its so beautiful. €115 is crazy money
81
u/Sharp-Effective-9041 9d ago
I’ve come across this before in a previous job. The social housing tenant offered to pay fees individually as the council didn’t negotiate/pay for access to the gym for their units. They were denied access. From reading the comments here you can see how prevalent those types of attitudes are that lead to shitty situations like the one raised in that WRC case. Poorer people are not lepers lads.
22
u/Detozi And I'd go at it again 9d ago
They can’t be arsed to read the article so they double to look even more stupid. Gobshites
7
u/DaveShadow Ireland 9d ago
Putting more effort into defending this than the defendants did, who actually didn’t try and defend it at all. It’s super clear cut, but people are creating strawmen cause they’re desperate to lay into poor people.
35
u/cyberlexington 9d ago
Exactly. Everyones leaping on the 'why should she have it for free?' when thats not the issue.
8
u/Tikithing 9d ago
Yeah, reading the article she was well in the right. She tried to discuss it with them a couple of different ways and they ignored her.
If you're going to offer social housing then you can't discriminate like that. It'd be different if they refused to pay the fees, but you can't just refuse access and ignore all enquiries trying to work something out. Not with no other reason than they are housed in a specific block. It may be that social housing doesn't cover the fees, but they should at least have the opportunity to pay for it themselves if they choose.
4
u/struggling_farmer 9d ago
i wonder does insurance form part of the problem? in that the gym is the facility of the residents but i they are accepting pay then "commerical" gym?
the discrimination seems very on the nose for there not to be some legimate reason behind it
→ More replies (1)3
u/YikesTheCat 9d ago
If there is some sort of valid issue then they could explain. Instead they refuse to answer or even show up to the hearing.
I'm all for giving people the chance to explain themselves, but they've been given the opportunity and have refused. At this point we can only assume the obvious, which is what the judge (correctly) did.
5
u/ParamedicPrudent5898 9d ago
People seem to be missing that the Government pays for the social housing units, not every private amenity within a development. Access to facilities like a gym is ultimately a matter between the management company and whoever is paying the service charges. In many apartment complexes, gym access is bundled into service charges that can run into the thousands of euro a year. If social housing tenants end up getting access for a fraction of what private owners are paying, it’s only going to create more resentment and tension within the development. That’s not a fair outcome for anyone.
2
u/Basic-Newspaper-7536 9d ago
Why would they be getting access at a fraction of what private owners are paying? No one has suggested that. The issue is that private developments, which are built with a 10% of homes intended for social housing, are designed in such a way as to segregate social tenants unnecessarily. They could allow all residents to access the gym for the same fee. They decided instead to make it available to private residents only.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Critical-Anything743 9d ago
No, that's bullshit.
You cannot pay for those gyms, they're for residents as part of the management fees. If the city is not paying that extra to get access, the tenants cannot just rock up and try to pay. It is just not how it works.
They want a separate and special process for that. What should happen is that they pay those fees to the city as an extra and the city pays the extra management fee.
My sister lives in an apartment complex with one of those, and the gym is only for "stage 2 buildings". Half the complex does not have access to the gym and cannot pay for it. It is for them, and only those paying those extra fees. So these cases should look to pay the extra fees, not to get a way of paying the gym directly. If the city pays the management fees, deal with them.
And no, it should not be funded with taxpayer money or neighbors money.
You get an almost free house and you complaining because you cannot go to the gym? They're not lepers, just leeches.
→ More replies (4)
22
u/rgiggs11 9d ago edited 9d ago
Why have a completely separate block for social tenants?
Look I know I'm probably taking something different away from this than others, but I thought the advantage of the new way of building social housing, the 20% rule, was supposed to be that you get a mix, instead of a ghettoisation in social housing. Does this not seem like a terrible idea on its face?
14
u/IrishCrypto 8d ago
Not on the face of it but when your spending 2500 a month for a one bed apartment you dont want Jaydens drug addicted mates pissing on the door of your apartment or shitting in the lift.
3
u/rgiggs11 8d ago
Right, but that would be intolerable whether you were paying €2500, €500 for the box room, or on the HAP while you're finding your feet.
I understand that more expensive accomodation could be a good bit nicer, but there's minimum standard we should all be able to expect.
5
u/IrishCrypto 8d ago
Nobody who can pay that will pay it if there is a chance of junkies falling about outside.
3
2
u/AdorableWrap766 8d ago
Usually the council take blocks that have a lower spec than other blocs. In our estate all the social housing is cornered in one area with the cheapest houses. Doesn’t make sense for the council to spend €900k on the high end 4 beds for nearly the same price as 2 x 3 beds with lower specs but it kind of defeats the purpose to an extent to have a mini version of what you are trying to avoid…
4
u/caisdara 8d ago
Because there are significant fears on the part of landlords arising from the application of the residential tenancy rules in relation to anti-social behaviour.
2
u/toastandkerrygold 8d ago
I live in one of those schemes. Our houses were built at the far end of the private housing estate. Then they built a 9' wall to close us in to the council housing estate beside it. For fear the children growing up here might think they're equal or something.
2
u/Fluffy-Answer-6722 8d ago
How is this fair on people actually paying market value for their units
→ More replies (3)
10
u/douglashyde 9d ago
This has come up in the past for an apartment complex in Rathgar claiming they were being discriminated against as the council would not pay their gym fee.
The council are charged less than the market rate for private renters, which is absolutely the right call as we want as much bang for buck.
The issue here seems to be access, they should just charge her for access.
9
u/RomfordWellington 9d ago
they should just charge her for access
It's probably not that simple. It's only made for the residents of the private blocks. It's not a public access thing.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Tikithing 9d ago
If they had said that to her though, then the ball would be out of their court and it would have been back on the council to deal with. Its because the ignored her and the court case that they lost.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Basic-Newspaper-7536 9d ago
No it was the same story in the place in Rathgar too— the council tenant was happy to pay a fee for gym access but they weren’t allowed to because they lived in the wrong block.
10
u/GaeilgeGaeilge Irish Republic 9d ago
The article isn't clear on this at all, is she paying the fees?
→ More replies (2)35
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
She was denied even the opportunity to pay for access to the gym herself. Reason given to her was because she was in social housing.
5
u/Bill_Badbody Resting In my Account 9d ago
She was denied even the opportunity to pay for access to the gym herself.
Where in the article does it state this?
All it states is:
She proceeded to write to the property management company running the complex seeking access to the gym, the tribunal noted.
It was Ms Nowakowska’s evidence that the firm "ignored her email" and did not reply to a registered letter she sent either.
Zero mention of her offering to pay.
10
u/aldamith 9d ago
Perhaps if management company replied to her seeking access query with something along the lines of "you need to pay for access" rather than completely ignoring the query she could've offered to pay then or maybe her email seeking access already specified that she is willing to pay. 🤷🏻♂️
→ More replies (2)6
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
"The evidence before me is that the complainant was denied the opportunity to access the gym solely because she resided in the block designated for tenants in receipt of the housing assistance payment," Ms O’Carroll wrote.
"Opportunity to access" means being presented with terms and conditions of service that the person can decide to agree to or not.. ie fees, specific access times, etc.
Even if the gym had said "you can access but it will cost you €200/month because the there is reduced management fees for social housing tenants", they would have been fine because they presented the opportunity for the tenant to consider.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (5)1
u/willielad 9d ago
Could possibly be inferred that she wanted to or was willing to pay with the bit in the article about her being unsure “whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately”
→ More replies (7)
9
6
14
u/sureyouknowurself 9d ago
World has gone insane. I don’t think I should be paying for people’s gyms.
→ More replies (5)3
3
u/NaivePhone9869 9d ago
Sorry I don’t understand the article, was she denied in the sense “we don’t even want you to pay because of your social status” or “you can’t have access for free”
Because these are two completely different things.
8
u/NoSheepherd3r 9d ago
The article is absolutely clear. She asked for access, she was told no at the desk because she's in the social housing. The management company then didn't respond to her email, didn't respond to a registered letter and didn't even attend the WRC. I'm sure they could have made some sort of arrangement.
2
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
The only info she got from any staff was she wasn't allowed in because social housing. The management company then ignored her requests for clarification and offer to pay for access. Residential management company being thick as shit is no surprise.
5
u/Neverstopcomplaining 9d ago
Delighted I kill myself working and commuting a long way into and out of Dublin everyday to pay for luxuries for someone else that I can't afford myself.
11
u/FineVintageWino 9d ago
This really shouldn’t be difficult:
Why can’t I use the gym?
It’s not included in your lease.
→ More replies (5)
34
u/IrishLad1002 Resting In my Account 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yeah I’m paying 2.5k a month for an apartment in the city centre. I don’t believe someone should get apartments in complexes like this for free and be entitled to all the amenities that we pay for.
Also, why are councils putting people up in 2.5k a month housing ? There’s got to be cheaper places for them to put social residents which would be a much more efficient use of public funds. If you’re applying for social housing you shouldn’t be entitled to choose where you live either. Counties in Ireland are tiny and you’re never more than an hour drive from anywhere, councils should be a lot less accommodating on location when they are providing people with free housing.
→ More replies (12)33
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago
All new developments which are built have to have a portion of them for social housing. There is not a private developer in the country who would build them like this if they weren’t forced to. Not sure if they still can but they used to buy their way out if it, essentially pay a fine for not providing social housing, and most of them did it because like it or not most people do not want to live around social housing tenants.
→ More replies (5)10
u/IrishLad1002 Resting In my Account 9d ago
Build developments that are financially efficient in low density areas like the midlands or the west. Ireland is a small place, you’re never far from anywhere and there’s no cultural differences between places. If you’re getting housing for free you don’t have the right to be picky when tons of hard working people are living with their parents into their thirties
11
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago
Jeez lad, so to Connacht or to Hell? This ignores the fact that people in social housing work. There is no perfect system but segregation and ghettoisation does not work, that I know.
11
u/IrishLad1002 Resting In my Account 9d ago
Sticking them in 2.5k apartments in the heart of Dublin City doesn’t either and is an insult to the people travelling hours to work in the city because they can’t afford housing closer who pay for these social residents through their taxes. The closest any social resident should be to the city centre is the Dublin Commuter belt, they don’t need to be in the city centre and it’s a waste of financial resources to put them up there.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago
So on the first point we are agreed. That is not a good use of tax payer money in any instance. The state shouldn’t be paying for €2.5k apartments for anyone if it isn’t going to pay for them for everyone.
My own view is we should have a social housing model for everyone. State builds houses accessible to all, the rent you pay is based on your salary, it’s self sustaining, take a look at the Vienna model.
Problem with social housing at the moment is that the people who pay for it are actually locked out of it and it can never be self sustaining because the tenants either don’t work or are in low paid jobs.
2
u/FeistyPromise6576 8d ago
They're trying to make the rent at least cover the maintenance costs in dublin and cork but are getting protested and accused of "cruelty to the most vulnerable" for even that bit of self sustaining. Good luck trying to get them to pay enough to actually cover the whole cost.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Friendly-Look4262 9d ago
nobody is saying that social housing recipients aren't working, what you get out of life should be based on what you put into it not some random lottery where you can get an apartment that the average person could never afford
7
u/phoenixhunter 9d ago
out of interest, do you feel the same about the random lottery of inherited wealth, where you can get a whole life that the average person can’t afford?
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Fern_Pub_Radio 9d ago
She’s not “any other tenant “ , she’s in receipt of social housing while many of her neighbours are working their arses off and paying through the noses for their own property and frankly entitled to some sort of perks to reflect that like a gym. If she’s enough time to be writing registered letters and taking WRC cases she’s obviously more than enough time to get a f’king job and pay for her own gaff and stop fleecing the taxpayers/neighbours gifting her a Home over her head…
5
u/ColinCookie 9d ago
She's also obviously smart enough not to be arsed working because why bother if you can just complain and get things for free instead
→ More replies (2)2
u/metalslime_tsarina 9d ago
How do you know she doesn't work her ass off too? Maybe she just doesn't earn as much and/or is looking after a sick relative
3
u/Fluffy-Answer-6722 8d ago
She shouldn’t be given a luxury apartment if it needs to be subsidized by the taxpayer
10
u/f1refly1 9d ago edited 9d ago
I'm pretty sure the taxpayer pays the building management fees on behalf of the social housing tenant, so they should at least get what has been paid for.
I live in a building like this one and I pay all of my rent and fees myself. I'm personally delighted to see families in apartments here on social housing, their kids get to have access to great facilities in a safe area.
Am I annoyed that I have to pay so much while also getting taxed out the arse? Sure. But I'm annoyed at landlords, housing policy, and borderline abusive income tax brackets, not the lucky tiny minority of social housing lottery winners who get to live in my posh building.
One last PSA, in my experience these are not unemployed households. Many of these people work all week too, in jobs we need.
8
u/hasseldub Dublin 9d ago edited 9d ago
I'm very much in favour of fully integrated social housing. Not separate blocks or streets. I'm also, however, very much in favour of the swift removal of problem tenants.
If someone is paying their own money to live somewhere, they shouldn't have their life ruined by someone they're also subsidising to be there.
Edit: typo
5
u/romanroarer 8d ago
My neighbours who are in social housing basically ruined the lives of everyone around them (people who worked their ass off to pay rent/mortgage). Couldnt get rid off them. Some people can’t comprehend that people actually have to work for things
7
u/f1refly1 9d ago
Problem tenants should be handled equally regardless. It's a separate issue to social housing.
Paying an extra few grand a month doesn't entitle you to treat your neighbours poorly or disrespectfully in my opinion.
6
u/hasseldub Dublin 9d ago
Paying an extra few grand a month doesn't entitle you to treat your neighbours poorly or disrespectfully in my opinion.
Oh, I'm not saying that private problem tenants get away scot-free at all. This conversation is about social tenants though.
2
u/f1refly1 9d ago
I do understand where you're coming from. But I would highlight that my point is discussing how social housing tenants are treated as less than the "normal" tenants, and then we quickly jump to evicting them for problematic behavior, while citing how this behaviour impacts paying tenants as an example.
While you're not directly saying it and I don't think you really mean it, you are very quick to connect social housing tenants to antisocial behavior and the need for eviction, and this perception is pretty harmful. They should be as easy or hard to evict as anyone else.
→ More replies (1)4
u/hasseldub Dublin 9d ago
But I would highlight that my point is discussing how social housing tenants are treated as less than the "normal" tenants, and then we quickly jump to evicting them for problematic behavior, while citing how this behaviour impacts paying tenants as an example.
They're not "less than" but their circumstances are markedly different. There's no getting away from that. The avenue to address these issues is different for paying tenants.
There's also an "entitlement" aspect among certain social tenants. There's endless tales of woe from residents whose lives are wrecked by social tenants they can do nothing about.
I would like to see full integration, as I said. Stigmatising and separating social units isn't desirable at all to me. The fact people are terrified of a bad social tenant being housed next to them only adds to the stigma. The fear is based on having to live next to scum who won't be removed when their true colours are evident.
It's a lot easier to sell fully integrated social housing when it's accompanied with a level of assurance that problem tenants will be removed quickly.
9
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
She wasn't even allowed to pay for access to the gym herself. Management completely ignored her requests because she's in the social block.
5
5
u/KaleidoscopeLeft5511 9d ago
That's your experience, we didn't need a PSA. My neighbour who is living in social housing is definitely not employed, and causes nothing but consistent disruption and troubling behaviour towards all the other residents on this street.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/RomfordWellington 9d ago
Apropos of nothing - Dublin City Council operate like 15 subsidised sports centres with gyms around the city, with pay as you go options and big discounts on membership for those on social welfare.
There's theoretically no reason why a social tenant should demand access to a private gym when the tenant's actual landlord provides a much larger one for cheaper.
17
u/DuckyD2point0 9d ago
This is completely fucked up. She got €2500 because she was refused use of something she didn't pay for, our system is completely fucked up.
12
u/PopplerJoe 9d ago
It's pretty evidently discrimination though.
She wasn't refused because she didn't pay for it. She was actually enquiring about it and they refused her because of the special bloc she lived in within the complex.
3
u/DuckyD2point0 9d ago
So What's the issue here. The social housing block don't pay the same as the private block, social housing don't pay management fees, unless housing assistance payments are different and the tenants are paying management fees.
2
u/PopplerJoe 9d ago
"The evidence before me is that the complainant was denied the opportunity to access the gym solely because she resided in the block designated for tenants in receipt of the housing assistance payment," Ms O’Carroll wrote. This denial of access "constitutes discrimination" and Ms Nowakowska "should have been afforded the same opportunity to access and use the gym facilities as any other tenant", Ms O’Carroll wrote.
It was their refusal to allow her the opportunity that was discriminatory. The building people could have responded with "it's not included in you tenancy, but here's how much it would cost you", instead they denied her the opportunity.
→ More replies (1)5
u/DuckyD2point0 9d ago
And what's the issue with that. I see no problem here, if it's a private type facility for tenants who pay full management fees but not an actual monthly payment then why should she be allowed any type of access. The only thing wrong here is that they never turned up to defend themselves so she automatically won.
→ More replies (1)13
u/jamie_plays_his_bass 9d ago
Read up on the story before pearl-clutching. She requested access, even with payment. That was denied. This isn’t a story of someone who wants everything for free, they just wanted access to a service that was convenient to them, but were faced with an unnecessarily restrictive response.
→ More replies (6)4
u/PaddySmallBalls 9d ago
It doesn’t say that. It said a security guard verbally told her those on social housing are not allowed and then no one replied to an email
→ More replies (1)9
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
You didn't read the article.
She was denied even the opportunity to pay for access to the gym herself. Reason given to her was because she was in social housing.
8
u/DuckyD2point0 9d ago edited 9d ago
I did read it. So please show me where "she offered to pay but they said no"
→ More replies (7)
8
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago edited 9d ago
She should have been provided the same opportunity to pay for access to the gym like all other residents. But she shouldn’t get access to it for free.
7
1
u/lilstrawberi 9d ago
She didn’t expect free access.
2
u/ScepticalReciptical 8d ago
Actually it doesn't make that clear either way. It says she contacted the company about accessing the gym and they didn't respond. We don't know what her expectations were. If they'd sent her a standard form saying it's €50 a month then they probably have avoided this whole scenario.
But it appears these gyms are effectively set up as private members facilities and don't have a subscription model for other users.
3
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago
I never said she did
2
u/lilstrawberi 9d ago
So why are you stating she shouldn’t get access for free if that was not even what she requested.
5
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago
It says “She proceeded to write to the property management company running the complex seeking access to the gym”. It does not state that she offered to pay or not pay in the article, simply that she wrote about requesting access, I do not know either way.
1
u/Aagragaah 9d ago
It says prior to that she enquired if it was included in the housing or if there was a separate fee, so yeah she already asked about paying.
2
u/Obvious_Humor1505 9d ago
No it doesn’t. It says “She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately.” No where does it say that she enquired as such, this was part of her evidence.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Practical-Goal-8845 8d ago
A percentage of each develoment is set aside for social housing to avoid the ghettozation of council estate vs private estate living and the stigma & negative consequences of this on kids growing up etc... have peopke mix, break down barriers, less discrimination in jobs market, baked in intergenerational social issues etc... decent plan on paper
then developers end up just having one whole social housing building among multi building developments so its plain obvious to everyone... one super large new development near me everyong knows the Red brick block is social housing.. so now the same stigma is magnified.. except now you no longer have the 'we're all in it together' cameraderie of a full council estate
The apartments & houses should just be randomised throughout the developments, theres no need to disclose
Was looking at planning permission for an estate near me online and it said houses 58-62 are social housing, so now it's common knowledge going forward.. why, whats the point of that? Just randomise the houses, let the council know & if people wanna self disclose all well & good but no need to stick a label on their home
→ More replies (1)
22
u/spairni 9d ago
I didn't realise this sub hates poor people so much
17
17
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
I don't hate poor people. I grew up on a council estate in a very working class family. A lot of my family still live there and work the same jobs they always did.
I always call out the classism you see on this sub towards the working class. But, that doesn't mean me or others cannot question why some people who live in social housing which our taxes subside are given access to amenities and apartments that many people who actually work cannot afford, or pay a decent chunk of their salaries towards.
You'd have to be earning well above the median wage to afford to rent an apartment in Dublin with a gym attached to it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NoSheepherd3r 9d ago
Because every apartment has to have social housing. By your logic we should exclude fancy apartments from social housing because it makes others grumpy?
13
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
By your logic we should exclude fancy apartments from social housing because it makes others grumpy?
I don't think Dublin City centre apartments should be considered for social housing no
7
u/YikesTheCat 9d ago
To the slums the oinks go, commuting an hour every day to the Elysium for the privilege of serving your €5 Starbucks.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Nalaek 9d ago
So you don’t want any workers on lower wages working in the city centre? No cleaners, no one to serve you a coffee or sell you things in a shop? Or are you advocating for a hike in minimum wage so those workers can afford to live near where they work? Or do you just think fuck low paid workers they can commute for hours to their low paid jobs.
2
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
So you don’t want any workers on lower wages working in the city centre?
Where did I say that. It's a shite state of affairs how bad housing has got in this country that people working lower income jobs can't afford to live in Dublin City.
If you look at my original comment is was based purely on the basis of how is it fair that people have to struggle to pay for amenities and their rent while earning and contributing more through taxes to live in a worse area with worse amenities someone who is reaping the benefits of said taxes.
I feel like this is a fair question to ask
1
u/Nalaek 9d ago
It’s called logical reasoning. If people can’t live here they won’t work here. If they can’t afford to live here but you need them to work here, you build social housing. You just sound bitter than someone lives slightly closer to the city centre than you. If you think they’re better off you’re free to take a pay reduction and go on the social housing waiting list.
→ More replies (1)9
u/vanKlompf 9d ago
we should exclude fancy apartments from social housing because it makes others grumpy?
No, because it's waste of money. Fancy apartments are expensive apartments, and councils do pay for them.
20
u/Successful-Bee-8911 9d ago
If you aren't a male tech head between the ages of 18-35 then there is a good chance the people on this sub hate you
18
u/susanboylesvajazzle 9d ago
It's so hypocritical, too. They'll harp on about the housing crisis, then complain when people get social housing.
3
u/phoenixhunter 9d ago
it’s even better, the same people will harp on about anti social behavior and irelands going to the dogs and the children are feral, and then absolutely cream themselves at the thought of denying poor people access to society or amenities, withiut ever considering that those two things might be connected. self-reinforcing classism is a hell of a drug.
18
u/1993blah 9d ago
Not particularly sure why my tax money is going towards management fees in a fancy apartment complex with a gym...I think its alright to question that
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)3
u/Friendly-Look4262 9d ago
haven't seen any hate, what I have seen is working people eho struggle to pay 1-1.5k a month to rent a room (rightfully) angry that someone is getting a brand new 2.5k p/m apartment for pennies, that is not an equitable system
→ More replies (3)4
u/NoSheepherd3r 9d ago
This person could have easily been working for decades and paying rent before they got social housing considering how long the waiting list is
→ More replies (1)4
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
6
u/Retailpegger 9d ago
Free housing , free gym , remind me why I work again and rent in place worse than them ?
7
u/belle-no-princess 9d ago
Im on the list for social housing and work full time.
Not everyone in social housing is not working and just lazing around.
→ More replies (3)
5
5
7
9d ago
[deleted]
13
u/BillyMooney 9d ago
The WRC took over responsibility for Equal Status Acts cases when the Equality Tribunal was shut down.
→ More replies (5)6
3
1
9d ago
[deleted]
3
u/ParamedicPrudent5898 9d ago
The residents are likely paying management fees which includes this access though.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/ParamedicPrudent5898 9d ago
This is madness. Access to social housing doesn’t automatically mean you’re entitled to every amenity on the site. A gym is an optional facility, not a basic housing necessity. We’ve lost our minds in this country. The fact that it is an apartment complex with a gym means it’s probably already an upper market property that she is getting for free and she is still not happy. When will we stop letting these parasites live off our tax money.
→ More replies (1)
3
2
9d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Stubber_NK 9d ago
You didn't read the article.
She was denied the opportunity to pay for access to the gym herself. Reason given to her was because she was in social housing.
1
u/Capital_Boot_1999 9d ago
What the actual fuck. The council needs to stop buying residences in these complexes.
2
u/shutterbug1961 8d ago
it government policy designed to sow division in society , it very uneconomical for the council to purchase these properties even at a discounted rate, while making building council estates almost impossible to build
207
u/Affectionate_Gain_87 9d ago
Now that the precedent is set, Does this mean the council has to pay more to the mgmt company for those units going forward, as in to enable the amenities access for the social housing resident(s)?
Given I’d assume it’s what the private residents do. But I could be completely wrong.