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.
OVER 94% OF homes surveyed by a recent study are beyond the reach of people dependent on state housing benefits.
According to the most recent Simon Community snapshot study, only 6% of properties are available within Rent Supplement (RS) and Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) levels.
That’s a 2% decrease from the charity’s last snapshot study in August.
According to the charity, there were 561 properties with no income limits available to rent across the eleven locations it surveyed.
However, just 34 properties were available within Rent Supplement/HAP limits.
The study was undertaken over three consecutive days between 14 and 16 August.
HAP is a form of rental benefit payment to assist lower-income households.
Under the scheme, introduced in 2014, a tenant’s main rent is paid directly to a landlord, with the tenant paying a differential rent to their local council. The tenants must cover their own deposit. No rent is paid by the council in advance of them entering the home.
Speaking today, Niamh Randall, National Spokesperson for the Simon Communities, said that the government’s reliance on social housing provision through the private rental sector is “problematic because the supply simply is not there”.
Many people in emergency accommodation are there because they have already lost their rented home and it is nearly impossible for them to move on from emergency accommodation and homeless services because there is nowhere for them to go.
‘Increasingly inaccessible’
Ahead of next week’s budget, the Simon Communities have called for the government to increase RS/HAP limits and for the limit to be increased in rent pressure zones as “the majority of rents in these areas will increase by at least 4% per annum.
In the absence of access to social housing as required or being able to afford to buy a home, the private rental market is the only option for many people and it is increasingly inaccessible to them.
In its pre-budget submission, the charity has called on the government to rethink its current approach to tackling the housing and homelessness crisis.
Randall says that there “are at least 9,500 people who remain trapped in emergency accommodation because there are no homes for them to go to.
It is essential to limit the time spent in emergency accommodation as people are being traumatised by their experiences and the longer they are trapped in homelessness, the greater the impact on their overall health and well-being.
The charity’s most recent study, released today, found that there were no properties available within RS/HAP in six out of the eleven study areas.
No properties were available across all four categories in Portlaoise.
There was one property available across all categories in five study areas; Athlone, Galway City Centre, North Kildare, Limerick City Centre and Waterford City Centre.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A judge with common sense rare indeed I am sure they will get the license on appeal
Buy a home in temple bar then claim they are being inconvenienced by the noise from bars and venues and are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their homes…
Terrible advertisement for himself and his skills as a solicitor if he couldn’t get that argument thrown out of court.
But, but judge I just wanted a quiet life! So a bought/rented a home in a quiet neighbourhood! Really?
His biggest mistake was to claim he was going to live on the top floor (obviously bull).
Thank goodness we have laws that protect the living standards of communities from the greedy money grabbing type of well-off solicitor who would gladly create more noise and disturbance for residents without giving them a second thought.
As someone who lived directly above The Temple Bar for a year, I agree. I knew moving there that it was a loud, entertainment area. It would be like moving to Times Square and complaining that the lights were keeping you awake at night.
Could convert it to be a mini A&E ward.
Solicitors with the DPP can afford to buy buildings in the centre of Dublin.
I blame the vibrant criminal community for making DPP roles such a lucrative career path.
Considering the amout of pubs closing down around the country, I would have assumed one opening and creating jobs would be welcomed.
They ain’t closing down in the centre of Dublin
Someone must of had a tiff in the elite community and had a bad round of golf, it will be granted by a different judge on appeal. A lot of power weilding by ego driven individuals.
Oversupply is grounds for refusal, expect appeal to succeed and rightly so. A judge shouldn’t be able to block trade. The fact that he is right about oversupply is not moot.
There’s s moot loose about the hoose
The judge was a woman
“A judge shouldn’t be able to block trade”. Well in that case I will just open a bar in the ground floor of my house and to hell with the neighbours… There’s a reason why we have planning regulations dummy.
Right or wrong .. Where does a judge get the power to decide social policy???
Tourists from all over the world flock to Temple Bar to enjoy the pubs and restaurants. It’s getting increasingly popular. Of course there’s a need for new bars. The existing ones are packed full and overcharging.
Who’s this clown Leo Enright? And why is he wasting his time on an issue like this? Our licence fee shouldnt be used for his wages if this is the sort of rubbish he gets up too.
He should of got the licence..
RTE have a space expert ? What’s the point of that nobody goes to space anymore
If anyone actually thinks the objector weren’t the other pubs in the area they are very gullible.
Well done to the residents, a victory for the little guy.
5 Aston Quay is already a pub called Gypsy Rose
The Gypsy Rose used to be located at no 5 and no 4 being Blu Cafe joined to the main bar with the basement bar comprised of the basements of 3,4 and 5, now the Gypsy Rose is located at no 4 and and only 3 and 4 making up the basement bar. This is because this solicitor bought the building and wouldn’t renew their lease forcing the change. It caused a reduction in staff as less bar staff was and the cafe staff weren’t needed as no more cafe.
Is the judge basing this on his knowledge of the market or his backwards morals?
Can the solicitor argue, that there is enough stupid laws and choose not to follow the judges rule?
The rip-off merchants of temple bar’s bar cartel have won again , mega Monopoly :1 competition/opposition :0
have your say