‘There will be no living for us at all’ – older residents protest South Dublin County Council 25pc rent hike
A group of older residents stood in scorching temperatures to protest a planned rent increase by South Dublin County Council, as councillors passed a motion calling for the increase to be suspended.
From July 1, rent for social housing tenants in south Dublin will increase by 25pc.
South Dublin County Council (SDCC) will become the fourth Dublin local authority to increase rents this year, after councillors were informed of the changes at a housing meeting on May 14.
At a special meeting on Thursday, which lasted just 30 minutes, 12 councillors put forward a motion to “suspend” any changes to tenants’ rents until a public consultation is held with tenants, tenants’ unions and representative organisations.
Before the meeting, more than 20 people gathered outside the council chamber in Tallaght, chanting: “No way, we won’t pay.”
Doreen Bolger (77), who lives in Dublin 24 with her son, said she currently pays €55 a week but does not yet know what her new rent will be.
“After living in my home for 49 years, you wouldn’t think they would be putting the rents up,” she told the Irish Independent.
“Between electricity going up, food going up, there will be no living for us at all.
“We will really have to cut back. People’s wages are just going into surviving.”
Gillian O’Connor (34), from Tallaght, attended the protest with her 75-year-old mother, Maire.
“My mam is an old age pensioner, we live together so fortunately, I’ve been able to cover most of the bills. But I am also struggling to support myself,” she said.
“My mam has been living in her home for 50 years. I was born there and now I’m 34, and I would never be able to move out or afford my own home. I know it’s not the end of the world because my mam has friends who have to choose putting the heat on or paying the electricity bill.
“They also have to choose between the quantity of food over the quality of food they are having.
“Seeing that the rent will go up is very disappointing, people already have so little.”
Mary* (63), from Whitechurch, said many of her neighbours did not even know their rent was due to increase.
“People literally couldn’t believe it when I told them,” she said.
“For me, I am already struggling and this is going to make it worse. I wouldn’t even get a takeaway now or even a coffee... I simply can’t.
“I live with my son and he’s trying to save now for a deposit. Well, there goes that savings now. I’m sure he wouldn’t want to live with his mammy forever.”
Currently, SDCC charges rent at 10pc of a household’s overall income. This will increase to 12.5pc.
An additional charge of 10pc applied to subsidiary earners, or other members of the household earning above certain income thresholds (€40,000 and €47,000), will also increase to 12.5pc.
Padraig Kennedy (68), from Citywest, joined the protest in solidarity. Although he does not live in a council home, he said the rent increase was “unjustified”.
“The direct result of this would be that people who can’t afford to put food on the table are now going to face another burden which is totally unjustified in my view.
“They are already burdened by fuel cost, grocery cost... so this is going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
The changes will apply to more than 20,000 accounts managed by the council and will affect tenants under Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs), the Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS), the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP), as well as the council’s own tenants.
Meanwhile, when the meeting began, more than half of SDCC councillors were absent from the council chamber.
The councillors who brought forward the motion did so under Section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001. The request was initially refused and deemed “invalid”, before the meeting was granted following a legal letter issued to the council.
Speaking at the meeting, People Before Profit councillor Jess Spear said there was “no legal requirement to implement this on any particular date”.
Sinn Féin councillor William Carey said: “The problem for us here is that we have not had a discussion on how rents should be implemented, or how rents should be assessed. We have been left in the dark. We’ve been handed a fait accompli.
“We have a responsibility to tenants to discuss and to seek their views when it comes to rents.”
People Before Profit councillor Kay Keane told the meeting how she grew up in a council house.
“I was so happy when I was allocated a council house in Jobstown. I’ve lived up there for over 40 years, and my neighbours are some of the people that these rent increases are going to affect, and it’s absolutely difficult to think that families that are already struggling to make ends meet in a cost-of-living crisis are going to be hit with increases in rent,” she said.
Councillor Louise Dunne (SF) said the increases would affect the “most vulnerable people in society”.
Councillor Patrick Pearse Holohan (Ind) said: “There is going to have to be a rent increase at some point, because everything has gone up.
“I don’t stand with these increases, but there are decreases coming as well.
“I do not stand for this council increase at this time with the fuel prices and with the clear cost of living.”
The motion was ultimately passed by 15 votes to one.
Chief executive of South Dublin County Council Colm Ward said: “I’ve had legal advice that the motion is not valid, so I’m not going to add anything further over that.”
In correspondence sent to councillors before the meeting, Mr Ward said that even if the motion was passed, it remained “unactionable” because changes to the rent scheme are an executive function.
“I remain fully mindful of your important role in exercising your democratic mandate, which is central to the effective functioning of local government, and indeed appropriate use of Section 140, but I would respectfully suggest that due consideration and judgement on its use and the ultimate effects therein should be carefully considered,” he wrote.
“In this case, should the motion be passed, it is not actionable for the reasons outlined earlier and therefore would not give effect to any material action or outcome by the executive.”