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.
ANN UZELL LIVED in her home in Ballyfermot for 40 years and raised six children there.
The Dublin woman – who will turn 70 next month – will later this week move into her new apartment in nearby Annamore Court in Chapelizod/Ballyfermot.
The 70-apartment complex was officially opened yesterday by new Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy. It is operated by Dublin’s oldest social housing charity the Iveagh Trust.
The €10 million scheme was completed in 18 months from when construction began, at the cost of €144,000 per unit. It was formerly a derelict sheltered housing scheme which was renovated as a joint project between the Trust and Dublin City Council.
Ann received the keys to her apartment yesterday. She had decided two years ago to give up her four-bedroom council home of 40 years and allow it to be used for a new family.
“I’m on my own now so what’s the point of having a big huge house when you’re on your own,” Ann told reporters on her balcony yesterday.
So I decided to give it back two years ago, but I didn’t think I’d get one so quickly.
So what does Ann think of her new apartment?
It feels great; it feels fabulous. It’s airy and there’s some space so I’m absolutely mad about it.
The view from her third-floor balcony looks down onto Ballyfermot and the Church of Our Lady of the Assumption, where Ann made her Communion and was married.
It was important to her when she was giving up her home to get a new place near the local community.
Downsizing
Ireland is in the midst of a housing and homelessness crisis unparalleled over the past number of decades. The Iveagh Trust said that by people like Ann downsizing and moving to their one-bedroom apartments, it frees up space for people in need.
The Trust said that 86 new beds should become available as a result of people moving to Annamore Court.
“I think it’s nice to be able to give a young family a start in life,” said Ann.
“I don’t think you should have a big house if you’re on your own. I kind of felt guilty living in a big house on my own.
There’s so many people out there looking for house so I just felt very guilty living on my own.
Ann said she will miss the home she had, but was ready to move on and make new memories in her apartment.
“There’s 40 years of memories up there in the house I was in. I had lovely memories now in the house that I was in so I think I’ll be very happy here,” she said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good for you Ann.A great decision.Enjoy your new home.
shouldn’t have the option alone in a 4 bed provided by the state is a nonsense.
@dead right: You have to be a Banker
@Celtic_Horizon: no, and I am not a banker either and agree she should not have the choice, no one should. How can we solve the social housing crisis when one person is allowed to remain in a four bedroom house, perhaps for 20 plus years.
@dead right: why it was her home for 40 years she paid for it over those years and you pay a percentage of all income coming into the home including adult children not just a basic rent as some seem to think. Why should anyone be forced out of they’re home because of government incompetence.
@Tricia Lowry: she paid a reduced rent she didn’t pay to own it.
@Tricia Lowry: how is it government incompetence? It is actually incompetence to allow one person to remain in a four bedroom house state owned when population is growing and the need for all housing is growing. No one is entitled to social housing for life.
@Paul Fahey: Your right all private owners should also have to sell their homes and downsize free up space for the families that can afford to buy but can’t because all the retired ppl have housing stock taken up. We should increase LPT for retired ppl in 3&4 bed homes by themselves. It’s great if they can afford large house they can afford the LPT if they can’t then downsize.
@Celtic_Horizon: not a banker in a time of supposedly families living on the street one person living in a 4 bed provided by the state is as i said a nonsense.
@Tricia Lowry: no she rented it from the state for 40 years a mortgage is paying for your home .
@Tricia Lowry: letting someone stay in a state provided properly is absolute incompetence i couldn’t agree more.
@Celtic_Horizon: your just being silly now suggesting someone who purchased their home be forced to scaledown ridiculous suggestion i can inly imagine your just being argumentative.
@dead right: Well no but it’s like you said people are homeless. And it’s always the people at the bottom that are asked to make the sacrifices. And as a home owner (when the mortgage is paid in 30 years)of a 4 bed and when my family grows up I don’t see problem in government charging more LPT for the right to live in bigger home. It’s for the good if the ppl at the end of day.
@Celtic_Horizon: how is a person living alone in a 4 bed house paying a little rent to the council someone on the bottom as you callled it?.
Fair play as long as it was her choice, as for telling someone to get out or a house after 40 years,”forget it,” they lived there all there lives and raising a family, it is more then a house at that stage, it is the family home and no one should be forced to move,
@Mick Hannigan: you forget one thing – she never owned the 4 bed home – she paid a rent for it over the period but now was too big. There should be a system in place that assesses your requirements and automatically downsizes you to more suitable accommodation as they do on the continent-
@Mike Howard: suitable accommodation is the operative word there is none
@Tricia Lowry: odd that, she has moved i to suitable accommodation, which kind of makes your point redundant. It is a also counter intuitive as their will never be enough suitable accommodation if one person is allowed to remain in a four bed state owned house.
@Mick Hannigan: so Mick if you were a landlord to a family would they be entitled to your house after 20 years because they paid a pittance in rent?!
@Mick Hannigan: Are you willing to personally foot the bill for someone to continue living in their family home? Social housing should be for people with no other alternative…..not a lifestyle choice. Otherwise we create a viscous circle where people choose social housing over buying their own home and the bill for the taxpayer gets larger.
@Mick Hannigan: Feelings, emotions & memories don’t and should never matter when it comes to crisis.
4 beds council house for what??? Shouldnt it be reviewed if anyone still in need for such a big house? Great system again.
@travelminder: @travelminder: she was in the house for 40 years and raised 6 kids in it, f#cking right she should have an option, it was a family home..fair play to her for giving it up..
@goon4life: and what about the other families waiting for a home? And to be quite clear it was their family hone, but only on contractual agreement with the state and at that stage her family was raised. Perhaps you believe she should have been able to pass it on to her own children?
@travelminder: Ar you supporting a bedroom tax?.
@Paul Fahey: a lot of chancers (backed by idiot politicians) do believe it should be handed on to the kids.
@goon4life: 40 years!! you got the point …. I wonder how many families are out there with 6 kids who are still kids! Great you see the balance and equality in the system!
@Joe Keogh: I assume this 4 beds were paid by your taxes as well.
Well Done to this woman, she is a genuine considerate person not like the majority on social who have their hands out constantly looking for more and whinging about what they already have.
@Finnster: how do you know that? Did Leo tell you?
@Finnster: do you know everyone receiving sw? Spoken to all of them? No, just “I had a thought and because it’s my thought it must be true and factual and right”. Idiot.
In Sweden, nearly all people over 55/60 sell up and move to apartments.
It keeps the market open for families to get a house.
There are loads of 55+ apartment buildings that cater for older people
@Niall Connolly: is 55 old?
@Martin Byrne: just thinking the same at 58
@Martin Byrne: he didn’t say it was old, he is pointing out it is a method of keeping social housing of all sizes available.
@Martin Byrne: it’s not so much a matter of age, at 55+ most of the kids are grown and have flown the nest, as a result we are left rattling around 4 and five bedroom homes which aren’t needed. We sold our 5 house of 30+ years to downsize last year, only our reasons were more for financial reasons than altruism. I have subsequently found that memories of that home are in the heart and not in the bricks and mortar. I wish Ann the very best for the future and hope she will build new great memories in her new home.
@molly coddled: 5 bed house, not 5 houses !
@Martin Byrne: they seem to think so over here
At 60, I downsized to a moderate sized apartment for my wife and for me. It is suitable in case we get incapacitated and is close to all necessary amenities. I was able to sell a car and now rely on an electric bike and public transport. It is much less hassle than a house.
I see families managing with children in apartments.
I can walk to cinema, theatre, galleries, I am 200 metres from a well stocked public library. I can meet friends easily and conveniently.
There are downsides but they are manageable.
A house can be a home but a new home can be established.
@Johnny Kelly: not sure it matters, there is a housing crisis in the private sector too, not just in public housing. Tony would be doing a public service if he did down size in the public sector. It strikes me that people who actually buy their own house in this country are very much being forgotten.
@Johnny Kelly: I down sized. Think about it.
@Tony Daly: That’s fine when u live in a city but try that living in the middle of the country miles from a town/village never mind d city. No public transport, libraries etc
Good for her as long as she made the choice freely. You hear adds on the radio about people bullying the elderly, I wouldn’t think the local authorities are contributing to that.
@mickmc:
Are you for real?
She is lucky enough to be able to live in our capital city on a greatly reduced rent subsidised by taxpayers for the last 40 years. A 4 bed house at that.
She does not own the house, why should she be entitled to a state subsidised mansion while families live in emergency accomodation?
You people complain about the lack of social housing but think it’s ok for 1 person to take up a 4 bed house.
Couldn’t make it up
@mickmc: what adds are they i never heard one?
@Theunpopularpopulist: Hardly a mansion. It’s an old house, in one of the cheapest areas in Dublin.
@Mike Howard: really I cannot believe the amount of people who feel this lady should be put out of her home. While I appreciate it was her decision in the end, I think it is so sad. Her memories, her children’s family home, what if she has relatives staying. Have we turned into a society where once your children grow up, your partner is gone, we expect you to spend your life alone,.. it is little wonder the suicide rate is so high. Whatever happened to humanity, we have a housing crisis due to incompetence and greed don’t forget, people trying to be more than they were in some cases. Borrowing more than they could afford. This lady paid her bills, didn’t borrow just lived within her means. She is not responsible nor are people like her, so why turf them out of their homes to accommodate someone else. To be honest if the government can spend that amount per unit they could build more houses..I don’t believe the snobbery that is out there, some people live in social housing through choice, not necessity and it is their choice as it is another’s to take a massive mortgage and live in debt for their lifetime. It is scandalous to think that a person who has paid their taxes all their days can be made to feel guilty by a society about living in their own home alone. And it is her home, home is where your heart is, where your memories are, where you lived and loved, it is irrelevant how you paid for it. OMG soon squatters will have more rights than the elderly, whatever happened to respect. Ann I hope you find happiness in your new home x
@Maria Magennis:
Unless you bought the home and maintained t yourself and paid property tax and a 30-35 year mortgage – there is no way that 1 person should be allowed occupy a 4 bed house that is paid for and maintained by the state.
You can’t complain about the housing crisis and then not see how ludicrous the above situation is.
Getting a council house 40 years ago was a hell of a lot different than it is now! You have to remember it was a different time in the 70s for women than now, marriage ban, no contraception, no educational opportunities etc. The vast majority of those who got council houses were hard working couples, who did not view a council house as an entitlement or a hand up, but a hand up. Most women were forced to give up-I don’t agree with this idea that the elderly give up there houses, be it mortgaged or a council house. It may work in Dublin where families stay near enough and there are more services. It is different outside the pale. This generation are forced to move to get jobs, so not close to elderly parents, who depend on neighbours.
@Blah blah: The 70s were not that bleak, I went to college in the 70s both my folks were working class, grants were not easily obtainable you had to get 4 honours in your leaving to even be considered, what families did was chip in – my brother helped toward accommodation, I got a part time job my parents borrowed same as my husband who was reared in a council house all his elder siblings helped toward his uni fees. There were certain jobs eg public service and banks certainly women had to give up when married (did not agree with that one). The opportunities were there only harder to obtain, we also had those in social housing that were absolutely work shy and knew how to play the system.
@Blah blah: That is at least an exaggeration. The marriage bar applied to the civil service not all companies and was gone by 73. My aunt was in college in the 70s.
There were many more council houses built and the criteria was much lower to get one. It proved to be unsustainable to maintain the property so the council’s sold them off.
We need many more options like this. Not just for council tenants but for private owners to downsize and stay in their area. It would free up many larger homes.
@Reg: it makes sense for all providing it is done by incentive not by heavy handed compulsion.
@Tony Daly: I agree. I fully intend to sell my 4 bed and downsize in about fifteen years. Not sure I’ll have got rid of the kids by then!
More suprised that this is making the news really. It should be happening everywhere.
LPT will force many older owners to trade down or to trade away to other locations.
@Tony Daly: I really doubt it as it is very small payment. If they are that tight with money they should downsize. There should be incentive schemes to downsize as we have massively under used housing stock and a housing crisis.
Very easy to concert a number of houses for people to downsize and remain living in their community. My own road is mostly retired people many widowed living in large houses near schools and other family requirements. A school closed near us as there aren’t enough pupils. Will be sold and more houses will be added
@Tony Daly: are we going to see the bedroom tax implemented here??
@Frederic Slimane: *over
Sensible and sensitive woman. Enjoy your new home.
@Theunpopularpopulist: you are assuming that everyone in social housing is living of the state.. they are not. Some people have lower incomes, but still paid their own rent and raised a family. No difference in that and paying your mortgage, your home is still your home, you are entitled to stay there. In some countries, people rent all the time regardless of income. It shouldn’t come into it, you are creating a two tiered society here, what happened to equal rights for all. The reason we are moving out of an economic crisis is due to people having 35yr mortgages, that is what is ludicrous. Are you telling me I don’t own my house, I didn’t have a 35 yr Mortgage and I own two houses? Will I give both up when I hit 55 and become what society considers old?
@Maria Magennis: There is a huge difference to paying rent and paying a mortgage, rent is a contractual agreement between the owner, in this case the council (state) and a private individual even if that person rented the property for 70 years the property remains in the ownership of the state and the person renting has absolutely zero entitlement to possession. Even back in the 80s when we first bought mortgages were for 22/25+ years, and only when that is paid in full can you say you own the property, otherwise you are a renter and it will never become yours.
@molly coddled: yes thanks for the lesson in law, but I am well aware of legal rights and how Mortgages work. Renters have rights, it was your choice to buy your property, likewise some people decide to rent, they should not be victimised due to this. Private landlords may decide to sell or change terms of renting, this will be in the terms and conditions; however social housing, where a person is in situ for 40 years, that is their home, they may not own it but they do have rights. A person who has worked and paid rent and taxes is entitled to remain in their home when they retire, have you never heard of a long term agreement? They have the right to possession for the term of the agreement. What happens to the house afterwards is a different matter.
We don’t live in a dictatorship? We cannot dictate that people buy houses. If you need 35yrs of a Mortgage perhaps you can’t afford the house.
@Maria Magennis: that’s rubbish. What’s wrong with a 35 year mortgage? I have a 35 year mortgage, which I’ll pay back over 35 years, plus interest. It suits me, and it suits the bank, and it is costing me less than half of what rent would cost. Plus I’ll own the place before I retire.
@Metempsychosis: yes and that is your choice if you feel that meets your needs. Again I reiterate you cannot discriminate again someone for deciding to rent, their choice. You cannot deny that a large proportion of people in negative equity are responsible for borrowing above their limits (not forgetting banks for lending more than they should have), that is what negative equity means is it not? resulting in people becoming homeless, causing a housing crisis, like the one we currently have, therefore why should a person who lived their life within their means, all be it renting, be victimised as a result of someone else’s choices. I’m sorry you can argue all day, but one persons choices should not result in another person having to move out of their home when they retire. That’s like saying I have to take responsibility for someone else who has lived it up their entire life and now finds themselves homeless as a result. Be it houses, cars, holidays, everyone needs to take responsibility for their own choices. Just because someone has a lesser income/ or decides to rent regardless of income, shouldn’t result in them being victimised.
Maybe this lady owned her house who are you people to judge
have your say