Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE ORGANISERS OF a Junior Cert party have issued an apology after the disastrous night saw hundreds of students left stranded outside the venue.
Furious parents have been complaining about the event, which was held at the Clayton Silver Springs Hotel, and run by Pineapple Entertainment. The ball started at 8pm on Thursday night but as the venue began to fill up, teenagers with valid tickets were refused entry and left standing outside.
Adam Courtney of Pineapple Entertainment issued a statement yesterday, apologising profusely to anyone with a valid ticket who failed to get in.
“I know this was a very important for all involved, and I deeply regret that the event did not go to plan.”
Courtney said a number of people at the event had forged tickets which went undetected at the door, leading to the venue becoming overcrowded. He acknowledged that scrutiny of the tickets fell short on the night.
For future Pineapple Entertainment events, I intend to review our ticketing system, and take whatever action is required, such as working exclusively with one supplier, to eliminate opportunities for forgery.
Anyone holding a valid ticket will be fully refunded on request if they email PineappleEntertainmentBooking@gmail.com with their name and number.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
These aren’t new findings, read any thread on hpusing policy in Ireland and it will tell you we gave away our social housing stock. Breaking the cycle on children inheriting rentals is also important. At the end of the day their tennents not owners.
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: actually that’s not correct , currently we have considerable amount of council stock that’s boarded up and will likely never be used , sometimes because the last tenant was burned out, or antisocial behavior has been life run lose on the estate, we have a list of social housing on charitable housing sites that nobody wants , sometimes they say its because the tenant want to live near mammy , more times its just not wanting to live in poison environment . most of these houses should be sold and reinvest in housing that promotes community living not ghettos
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: and what happens if a tenant suddenly dies and their adult children are living in the property, ya going to let them live with you? Ridiculous attitude to have. The whole point of social housing is to give people a chance to access Housing because qualifying for a mortgage is out of the question. You can only buy a local housing property when you qualify after a certain number of years as a tenant and have a clear rent for a period of years. And why not purchase it? It takes the resources away from the local authority like maintenance etc and money is put back into the local government through a lower priced mortgage each month. A no brainier, everyone wins. local authorities mistake was stopping building social housing not letting people buy their properties.
Putting legislation into place to stop Vulture Funds ruining our childrens futures should take priority over this but its always easier to rob from the needy and enrich the powerful.
@Aidan Ward: no it was never designed to be fair, it’s meant to be unfair to empower the state and its institutions. But back to housing, councils should be selling. The should set and hold a realistic stock level, … sell older stock for no less than the cost of a replacement build elsewhere, ringfence that money and so let the buyers finance new builds. It’s then cost neutral and maintains their stock levels. Mature estates gradually privatise while new estates are born from that process. Simple.
@Greg Blake: I think they should only allow workers rent social housing as it was originally envisaged (the city centre locations are wasted on people who don’t work) and put the rent at a rate that covers the costs.
@Aidan Ward: Ill-tempered and ill-willed, but the type of reaction such a crass report incites. Do yourself a favour and get the facts. Citing the average rent from a pay related system in just deplorable and can only be meant to mislead. What that average actually tells any reasonable person is that people living in social housing have very small incomes. think about it.
A rational initiative. Taxpayers fund social housing so tenants fortunate enough to acquire a unit should not be able to profit on the sale. The housing stock should remain the property of local councils. Social housing if properly built can serve several generations.
During the Celtic Tiger this became a trend and house passed into private ownership, the stocks were depleted which ultimately contributed to the current scandal of homelessness across the country.
@Charlie Hunter: It has nothing to do with the boom council housing purchases by the resident were brought in in the 80s.
@Charlie Hunter: government failures caused the housing crisis,only a tenant could buy a social house house is that depleting the stock ? They would have just stayed tenants , no difference except the tenants would probably look after the house better.
@Kal Ipers: it has everything to do with them. In fact the current generation are suffering because of them .
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: not really Shawn, he was pointing out that these people still exist, whether they own their house or not. The housing shortage is simply not enough roofs for the amount of people. If the country was 100% rental or 100% ownership, it’s the same thing when it comes to the ratio of houses to people. How we got there is another matter.
@Sean Beinead: initially there is no difference you are correct. The tenant looks after the place better etc. but fast forward the clock ten or fifteen years and those houses would start becoming available again for new tenants. Moreover the council retains ownership of the now massively appreciated asset. You simply can’t argue that allowing a tenant to buy a house at pennies in the pound represents a good deal for the tax payer.
@Sean: the price of the social housing sold are a the current market price minus a discount at a maximum of 45% and lets not forget these houses are not mansions for the rich also the funds from sales of these houses goes back into the local authority coffers which can be used to fund the building of new social housing and lets not forget the many years of rent paid plus the fact regular cost associated with the ownership of these houses dissapears albeit until more are built so while i can understand peoples mistake in thinking these houses are being sold for little or nothing it is simply incorrect.
@Sean Beinead: That is no longer true.
The discounts off the purchase price are much bigger under the new 2016 Tenant Purchase scheme – 40%, 50% or 60% compared with a maximum discount of 30% under the 1995 Scheme.
Section 3 of the below.
@Sean: your wrong again check your info ,its wrong contact DCC and they’ll put u straight also discounts are now based on income,do check it out.
They need a report to tell them this??? In England you have to either downsize or pay a vacant bedroom tax when children are grown up. Giving someone a 3/4 bed house for life at pittance rent is ridiculous
@niamh ryan: trying to get the people out to downsize is a huge problem, house full of memories, I’ve invested so much in it blah blah blah
@GClare: who invests in decirating a rental house.
Any word about the €72,000,000 in rent owed by tenants to local authorities? I have no problem with subsidised local authority/taxpayer funded housing but the elephant in the room here is that there are a lot of people out there who want FREE housing.
@Brian Deane: thats a little off topic, people who did not pay rent would never be considered for purchase. the discussion is about stopping people purchasing council homes and when they get elderly and lonely and not a big enough unit for the home they rent, kick them out from the community they lived in all their lives and the neighbors more likely to support them in times of need.
@Dáithí: Not off topic given social housing costs are being discussed. Why 1 person gets to stay in a house designed for a family paid for by state should stay has to be questioned when family are living in hotels. People suggest taking property off landlords who bought the property but don’t want to move somebody in social housing provided by the state.
@Kal Ipers: you tell me sending you a link of one charitable housing assoc houses vacant https://www.respond.ie/find-a-home/search-by-county/ the councils in Ireland have thousands of boarded homes, no need to be moving our elderly at at time they need security
@Dáithí: Location means everything and there is need in Dublin regardless of any other factors.
Without a doubt this is needed. Council houses are being used to buy votes with councilors arranging for family members to receive them at 5 per cent of the market rate. Meanwhile we have families sleeping rough due to shortage of housing stock. About time this got addressed.
Total no brainer
@brian boru: 5%. Have you a link to this. Thanks
@brian boru: 5% of market rate??? , Even thought the report above says in certain instances at UP TO 60% discount on market value. ( Only in certain instances mind )
Have you got a link to your 5% claim please?
@Pearse Mc Mullen: apologies no link or proof only personal knowledge -
@brian boru: Somebody told you down the pub? People lie and exaggerate all the time. Unless it is actually you who bought for 5% of market value you don’t know
@brian boru: tenants receive a 3% discount per year for a maximum of 10 years tenancy so most tenants buying from the council received a 30% discount on market value
@Liz Bermingham: Apparently it is up to 60% which is not insignificant in ex LA estates in Dublin where houses are now going for in excess of 500k
@Pearse Mc Mullen: from what I’ve read from the new incremental scheme it allows a tenant on a low income to buy the house for a discount of roughly around up to 50% off
The 50% discount is then paid back at a later stage at whatever the going rate of the property is valued at by then, it would cost more to buy a council house in the long term than a private house, if you sell before a set time council get 30%
Of the sale price
On the plus side you can buy it on a low income but you will pay back forever like the 50/50
the council also buy houses. They then board them up and leave them sitting vacant for over a year while families could be living in them
Downsize once their children are grown and move out? According to the CSO, nearly half a million adult children are still living at home. And with the number of working adults still living at home on the rise because they can’t afford to move out, yep, this is likely to happen.
@Ron O’Keefe: If they have their children living at home and working are they declaring this. The rent is meant to go up in that case.
@Kal Ipers: Since rents to councils are based on total household income, they are supposed to be declaring it; and absolutely should be declaring it.
And the councils are supposed to be doing their job of enforcing this.
@Ron O’Keefe: They are self declared but you don’t want to blame them but the council. Do you even realise your bias
@Kal Ipers: Wow. You got all that from my answer. What part of me putting the onus on the renters to declare total household income to the councils did you not get? And you are actually upset because I even suggested that the councils should be doing their part to enforce this; which is actually a job they are supposed to do, and are paid to do by us; the taxpayer. Amazing. So you think no one in govt, not even the councils, should be doing their jobs? My bias? More like your bias. I thought you just had an opinion. But now it is obvious that you are argumentative for the sake of it. I was agreeing with you, and you still got defensive. Your own bias kept you from seeing this. You are defensive where it is not necessary to be; and you are paranoid. Calm down.
Life in a nutshell, moving from a big box to a smaller box, and finally to an even smaller box RIP.
Correct, margaret thatcher policy to aloow tebabts buy social houses. Crazy. Needs to stop. Moreover, the housibg waiting lists need to be abolished, and redrwan with those with serious mental illnesses and those woth serious healrh isdues who need to be housed in proximity tonhospitaks coning first. No longer should the amount of kids you have or the fact you’re a single patent take precedence.
@niall: and I need a phone with a bigger screen.
@niall:
Get a Xaomi. Amazing phones at great prices. Gonna dominate world market in a few years.
https://www.gearbest.com/xiaomi-_gear/c_11992/?odr=hot
@Charlie Hunter: I have one and bought lots of stuff from Gearbest but unsure what they have to do with the Irish housing market.
@Keith Wizzy: Maybe he thinks they cost the same price as a council house :-)
@Keith Wizzy:
Well, according to Joan Burton mobile phones are a sign of wealth so you could possibly become a property investor.
@Charlie Hunter: mobile phones are a sign of wealth?? Lol. Have you not been to mcdonalds recently, check out all the dole robbing s(um and what phones they have.
@Charlie Hunter:
I have one as well Charlie, it’s the enormous 5.2amp battery that I bought it for, lasts ages.
@P.J. Nolan: 5.2 amps would be pretty enormous
@Bernie Roche:
Apologies, 5300 mah
It is a short term approach to gathering finances for the exchequer. However long-term there is a huge loss as these properties no longer become available to the less well off. Adding to homelessness and waste of finances on private hostels etc. Substantial discounts are offered for purchases and if I was in similar circumstances to renters I would buy too if capable. Unfortunately this stock when attempts are made to replace from private builds or buybacks too as the councils have done cost the exchequer substantially more.
@Keith Wizzy: when I grew up on a council estate in the 70’s virtually everyone was working. They worked poorly paid jobs at the time like the army, navy, corporations and local councils. But almost every adult man was working, and many of the women had part time jobs too – proper working class. Nowadays, that has all changed. Inter generational unemployment is the norm and it’s down to ridiculous social welfare management. Help those who help themselves I say, and cut the rest loose.
@niall: Agreed about the 70′s though not all in my estate were working but most I would approximate. In the 80′s lots in these working circumstances took up substantial grants by various councils to return their council homes to purchase private houses elsewhere. This left the areas decimated with unemployment, poverty, high crime rates etc. The State is much more culpable than it cares to admit.
@niall: An awful lot of people though were working and signing back then as well. Dole was a kind of national income for workers and employers alike. It made those workers cheap employees for local employers as their basic needs were taken care off.
It worked too in a way, as money was spent in local business’s going through the local economy, not bypassing it as it does now.
Assuming most of you guys are relatively young, I’m glad to be an OAP who’ll be well gone before you lot take over the world.
@Alphonsa: They will provide us with cardboard boxes as ‘affordable’ independent OAP homes :)
People on here advocating turfing out the children of parents who have council houses after the parents instead of allowing the tenancy pass to the children, so tell me this ?? How does removing people from their homeshelp the homeless situation,
Very short sighted,ignorant & heartless folks out their if u9 think people who spent their entire lives in a single home should be put out onto the streets, also no person should be forced to move home because their children have left home ,if they have lived there for decades they should be allowed stay and not be moved at an old age to a new community on their own,amazes me how bitter people can be when they see people getting a hand from the system that they paid into all their lives.remember government not tenants caused this mess.
@Sean Beinead: People seem very happy to suggest taking property off landlords who paid for their property and provide a service. Because somebody’s parents were in need of social housing doesn’t mean their kids need it. That was the purpose of the housing to help you out and better yourself not to expect the state to care for you indefinitely.
If your parent is elderly and you still live at home start preparing for the time and don’t expect an automatic right to a property your parents were renting.
@Sean Beinead: But there are thousands of people on housing lists who are entitled to that council house before the children get it. You cant allow people to skip the queue.
@Sinead Regan: they are not skipping a queue as you put it, the house is remaining occupied by people who already lived there,so your way of thinking is put the current tenant out because they are not the main tenant by which they will go on the housing list and put in a new tenant ,so housing crisis sorted then , more like a revolving system than anything ,clearly you have no understanding of how social housing works.
@Kal Ipers: You talking B.S.,putting people out to put people in is absolutely ridiculous,solves nothing, most people who can move on from social housing do,most that stay on tend to be in similar situations to their parents before them and also most people availed of the rent to buy scheme by the councils hardly the well to do buying up social housing which required mortgage rejections beforehand ,i dont advocate anyone losing their homes especially elderly people who lived there for decades but then again i dont get jealous and bitter because of an ignorant perception that people are getting something for nothing,check out the council areas ,you’ll notice they are not quite beverly hills.
Yeah,end home ownership and people have to pay rent for life.only the wealthy will own their homes,widening the existing class divide.
Agenda 21, nobody will own anything in another fifty years.
Thousands of County Council tenants are unable to purchase their homes due to some regulation and have been paying rent forever for houses that cost a couple of thousand punts to build back in the 1970s. Equal citizens?
@MauricePeterColgan: my parents house cost 29000 mine cost 300 000, its inflation fact of life
@Aidan Ward: But you get to own it.
Many of my relatives after paying rent for a number of years got to own their county council/Dublin corperation homes for a nominal sum when Ireland was a poor country.
@MauricePeterColgan: then in the good times people bought thier council house at a knockdown rate sold them off pronto and moved to the sticks, with a nice little subsidised nest egg, now there is none of the stock of public 3/4 bed houses available within the 10 to 15 mile commutor belt.
@MauricePeterColgan: What a splendid idea. How can I make my landlord of 12 years to sell me his house for “nominal sum”?
@Aidan Ward: your talking poo there aidan, When u buy a council house in DCC case you have to notify the council of a sale for up to 20 years after purchase and if sold at a profit DCC can re coup the difference from the price the council sold it to u and the original market price at the time it was sold so the council lose nothing , way to go with they over exaggerated selling on pronto part even if it was a blatant lie.
there are thousands of boarded up council stock and charitable housing trusts cant get occupants for their homes , Problem is a lot, not all council estates are antisocial nightmares. you would dread your kids future in such ghettos https://www.respond.ie/find-a-home/search-by-county/
A large dollop of prudence should be employed by those who plan to study this report.
At first glance tell-tale indicators pop up as to what ideology may inform the report with recommendations to end the Council House Purchase Scheme, remove security of tenure to children (their home), raise rents substantially (to cite an average rent from a pay related system shows total incompetence on the part of the authors and can only be designed to mislead) and the staple of all such reports, build smaller house units for council tenants. In short, attack those on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder for our current ills. Any surprise at the one dimensional approach and conclusions reached to our most serious social problem evaporate when noting that the report was commissioned by “Community Foundation for Ireland”, whose Board has a liberal sprinkling of those with strong associations with the banking/finance sector. Those who ill-define a problem having nothing to offer in its resolution.
Option to buy is a great incentive for people to own their home. It’s a shame if initiatives like this are removed, people value what they own and as times change it provides security and hope for those who really want it. Nothing in this country is safe from the auditing, deal searching, masses, we’re really quite horrible to each other.
The new council house incremental scheme is a rip off, you may get up to 60% off but the discount will be paid off after the first 10 years called the incremental fee so really there is no discount, it’s exactly like the 50/50 when you decide your in a position to take on the other half of the house it’s priced at current market value and you can’t rent it out and if you sell it you owe the council 30% of sale
On the plus side you can buy it on as little as 15k a year income and pay it back forever
So let me get this straight – the lower classes – the poor – are not entitled to own a home – to own their home they have been ploughing rent and time into for years and years???? So if I am getting it this right, only everybody else in Ireland is entitled to this right?
Nobody owns anything and if you do it will be taken from you in taxes
have your say