Cameron pledges to 'boost right to buy scheme'(45 Posts)
Cameron turns into Thatcher...
Apparently money raised will be used to build new social housing which will be rented at 80% of 'market value' (I wonder who will determine what the market value is and where they will find appropriate building plots...)
right to buy worked when house prices were reasonable and tenants qualified for up to 70% discounts. Now the maximum discount for housing association properties is less than £20000 and the last time I looked, council housing maximum discount was less than £40000. In London, flats and houses cost £200000+. Who will be able to afford to exercise their right to buy? Most of the people in social housing are low earners or unemployed so this policy looks like a red herring to me.
What a dick. I swear, this man is trying to do the most damage possible, in the least ammount of time
Every time he opens his mouth I think he can't possibly come out with any more nonsense. And then he does. It would be funny if he wasn't in such a position to fuck us all up big time.
Creighton, he is talking about increasing the amount of discount offered to social tenants. I just don't understand what good will come of selling off yet more social housing.
Right to buy could have been a good idea, if the government had approved all monies go to the councils involved. As it was, they kept all bar 28%. Leaving councils with a shortfall and no money to create further housing. If perhaps 100% were used to create further social housing, it may help.
I'm torn on this one. RTB was a good idea for some people, I have seen people's lives changed for the better for it. It did increase mixed economy housing in estates and gave people more pride in their properties. Also for some of these people, it was their only chance to become home owners, to better themselves financially to do so. Yet, I have also seen people who cannot get houses. The discounts are useless now as house prices have risen so much. There is much less incentive to RTB now and lose all the security of tenure and free repairs etc that you get as a tenant.
The good side of this, though, is that if those tenants in council homes now are given bigger discounts to buy, it frees up money to build another home. Those people may be unlikely to free up a house otherwise, the ones on the border of being able to afford to buy. I don't have a problem with this. First time buyers can already get help from the Gov with homebuy schemes. I would have to read all the details first but it sounds like there are some good points to the scheme.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
How are the prospective owners going to get big enough morgages in the first place?
He doesn't have a clue, does he?
Is this going to apply to private tenants? Like my assistant (I'm disabled) who's lost 3 houses when the landlord sold or got repo'd fornot paying the mortgage. As sitting tenants they don't even get 1st refusal even if she could get a mortgage. Better still, the last 2 were ex council houses. She can't even get on the waiting list. Every time she has to move, that's another 2/3 days leave I have to arrange cover for (don't resent her, just the situation)
I'm sure the Tories commitment to the public sector will extend to housing
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Right to buy my arse (not literally).
It was wrong in the 80's and it's wrong now, when my parents got a council place in the 70's it was for families, a way to deal with the over crowding of the working class in privately rented accommodation, my family of 5 used to live in a 1 bed flat with the cooker chained to the landing outside the front door because there was no room for it in the kitchen.
Over the years the idea of what social housing is for has changed, councils started throwing homeless people, the mentally ill, immigrants etc straight into council housing, using it as a dumping ground instead of providing dedicated services for people.
Once again working class families are at the mercy of private rental properties, the amount of sub standard housing is going up, levels of overcrowding going up, because the people council housing was built to help don't get a look in now.
It was meant to be a safety net, not a first foot on the property ladder, and this new scheme stinks of fat cat shit, so the tax payer pays for the building of council places then ConDem properties limited sells them off to residents for cheap and builds more, it's a bullshit scam to pave over everywhere with privately owned homes at the tax payers expense, how many shares does Cameron have in building companies?, how much money are the maintenance companies employed by the councils, going to get out of the annual charges to property owners for the upkeep of the buildings?.
I don't understand what the issue is. Some points- and I work for a Housing Association so know a little about this:
1) ANYONE can live in a council house- income is irrelevant as it is non means tested. So therefore there may well be many people who can afford to buy.
2) Outside of london, property prices are at the lowest they have been in ten years and continuing to drop. If you are in a position to buy, now is a great time to do so, especially of the price is going to be heavily discounted as proposed. Property is generally a good long term investment and can be passed on to your children- rented properties can not.
3) A new home will be built for every one that is sold- I am presuming funded from the money the government receives from the house sales. This will provide much needed employment for the construction industry and more apprenticeships. It will also improve the overall quality of the housing stock, so a family who has been on the council waiting list for a while may get a nice new house.
I am curious that if it was a labour government proposed this would there be so much criticism??
Also- how is this any different from the many co-ownership schemes that many housing associations offer that have been very successful?? they are also taking housing stock from some that many would argue are more needy??
Anyone can not live in a council house, theres a points system that classes you as A, B, C or D. most families class as C or D which means you might as well give up, you haven't got a chance in hell.
Anyone can go on the list for a council house- it is not dependant on income, wether they get one or not is entirely dependant on what accommodation is available- it goes beyond even need.
As this proposal will see new houses being built surely that will give those in class c or d a chance of getting one? The houses that are sold are not going to become available anyway as there are already council tenants living in them.
Also, council tenants need to be living in a house for a long time before they have the right to buy. It used to be 11 years although this may now have been reduced. It certainly isn't a case that you are given a council house and can then buy straight away. Tenancies for life are also being abolished.
ANYONE can live in a council house? - Yes, in theory, but there's a 4-5 year wait around here. Income may be irrelevant but there are many other needs-based criteria that a prospective tenant has to fulfil. You don't just pop along to the council and say you'd like to rent a house please and get given one the next day (as you no doubt know...)
So it's a great time to buy property is it? If you can afford to buy a property, buy a property. But why should some people be entitled to buy heavily discounted property while everyone else has to pay the market value?
Property prices here in the south east are NOT the lowest they've been for ten years. My house has increased in value from £135,000 to £185,000 in the past seven years. The market has been fairly stagnant for the past two-three years around here, but prices are static, not falling.
Your arguments are in favour of buying over renting, but don't address the real issue which is that social housing is meant to address a need, not provide people with a nice, discounted 'investment'.
Where will these new homes be built? Again, I can only speak for my own area where there is currently an absolute outcry because the council keeps trying to push through plans to build on ancient woodland. Clearly development sites are not that easy to find.
Yes, I would be just as critical if Labour proposed this.
individuals and companies will offer tenants money to buy their council house, and tenants who buy will do so to make money to move out of the area.
in my parents block all the right to buy places from the 80's are owned by people who where not the original tenant or are being used as privately rented shared accommodation (3 of which are owned by the same guy).
There is no way in hell the condems will make enough homes to accommodate all those on the housing list, he wants to sell them and replace the number being sold, it's just a scam.
'It was meant to be a safety net, not a first foot on the property ladder'
That depends how far back you go.
ok, well lets take Edinburgh, where I live as an example of somewhere that would benefit from discounting the right to buy further.
Edinburgh Council have not built a single new property sine the early 1970's. They own the properties outright so therefore wether they get 60k or 100k is of little odds to them. Their stock is obviously getting older. These new proposals would force them to build new stock, therefore addressing the property shortfall and giving them a newer stock. There are also 12 wards in Edinburgh within the 15% most socially deprived areas in Scotland. More people buying would also help with that.
The HA that I work for are currently building 400 new properties in just one deprived area, so there are definitely still sites available, and many areas that drastically need re-developed.
To completely back up what Ryoko said, I actually rent a private flat in a central London Council block and I've seen this first hand over the last decade. It's a social disaster.
My landlord owns several ex-Council flats in the area which he purchased from RTBers about 12 years ago, when 2 or 3 bedroom flats were about £70-£85k. Those flats now sell for £350k - £400k, even more for 4 or 5 bedrooom properties.
My landlord is an exception in that he rents to workers, when the majority of BTL landlords in the area will only take people on housing benefit. They can secure far more rent from a long-term non-working family than from someone with a low paid job - over £600 per week for a three bed. An equivalent council house rent literally next door would be a quarter of that. Huge amounts of HB money flows straight from the taxpayer to BTL landlords, bypassing the tenant completely. The new HB caps won't change this radically.
Finance companies regularly leaflet the block offering Council tenants £30k to 'front' a right to buy and secure a discount, take the money and move out. They then move families on benefits in and charge the maximum rent. The Council stock is diminished, and as it's allocated on need, only the most 'needy' get it. A lot of those can't/won't work. If you are in a minimum wage role, then you're probably earning too much to qualify and will have to get a horrible bedsit in the private sector, with little security of tenure and not many other rights. If you are living in an ex-Council flat on benefits, there's little incentive to get a job due to the high rent. Over 70% of people in my area living in social and ex-social housing are dependent on benefits.
Council housing was intended to provide decent and secure housing for poorer working families. They can no longer get a look in, social ghettos are being created, and hard working people beavering away at unpleasant minimum wage jobs are getting the shitty end of the stick. Taxpayers are getting ripped off, and a few people are getting rich via 'investments' the rest of us fund.
The problem with municipal housing is not just the problem of capital receipts.\
The 1989 housing act stated that councils could hive off their properties to housing associations and private landlords. This reduced the RTB. It also reduced the council stock. It freed up some monies for councils because those that hived theirs off to housing associations were obviously no longer responsible for maintainence etc.
That's one of the reasons there are so many housing associations now, and so few council properties.
Join the discussion
Please login first.