To think Reversing right to buy to right to sell could solve some housing problems?

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

There are lots of people that are going to get repossessed.
What if councils brought their houses and gave them the option of living there at reasonable rent? We would then have more social housing which is greatly needed in this country. It's a long term plan because the people might want to live there until they die but after that the house will be free for others.

So - housing being repossessed - brought by councils/la/however it works nowadays. What d'ya reckon?

Banks still get paid what theyre owed (but not more)
People aren't made homeless from being repossessed.
Social housing gains a property.
Future housing might not be so rare?

Hmm probably v flawed - could it work?

Great idea, but unworkable in the short - medium term, as councils don't have budget for this.

Our council has to cut another 300 staff from this April, after more than 400 being cut last year because of the budget cuts.

Where do you think they are going to find hundreds of thousands of pounds to buy everyone's homes?!

They do have similar schemes already.

"Financial help

There are 2 kinds of financial help. With both, the council involves a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). This is an independent housing organisation.
Equity loan

The RSL provides an interest-only loan to help pay off some of your mortgage and reduce payments to an affordable level. You need no more than 40% equity in your property to qualify for this.
Government mortgage to rent

The RSL buys your home for 90% of its market value. You?ll stay in your home and pay rent to the RSL. The rent will be 20% less than the market rate for your area." link

Bugger.
It is a good idea though isn't it - could they not be given the budget to do this from the government? It would surely save money as it would save hardship payments etc? Wouldn't it make money long term too because of the rent?

Lougle is right - there are schemes along these lines already. But the budgets are very small in my experience (I work I'm social housing) and therefore the number of people who can benefit is very small. I've only seen a handful of customers benefit from 'buy back' type schemes in 15 years working in RSLs.

YANBU to think its a good idea in principle, but in reality the money just isn't there.

I suspect it's generally easier to put pressure on the state owned banks not to foreclose on mortgages. No fresh capital required then.

Doctrine - how would that work?

It's a lovely idea but unworkable and you'd probably end up with lots of AIBUs about people who have deliberately defaulted on their mortgage to get into social housing and how they all have big plasma TVs and six holidays to Florida per year.

Housing Associations in Edinburgh managed to buy (no idea on funding or what they paid) a lot of new build housing developments from insolvent building firms when the crash happened.

But it might reward people who have over stretched themselves on purpose.

I work with someone who has a family income like mine - in fact my DH earns a tad more then hers ( we discuss these things) when we bought our house a modest semi in quite a nice area of Ryde we made sure we were able to afford our mortgage and have a bit spare. My friend bought a large detached home in an affluent area and from day 1 struggled to pay her mortgage

If she got repossessed would it be fair that the council bought her (expensive) home and allowed her to stay there at council house rents when it was her and her DHs decision to buy a home that they knew they would struggle to afford.

Jazz, as the banks own anything up to 100% of the house through the mortgage, they can choose not to repossesss if mortgage payments are delayed. They can structure more affordable payments, grant a payment holiday etc and I think it might be possible to claim mortgage interest payments as a benefit (as an alternate to housing benefit) if job is lost etc, but I'm not sure of the criteria.

In Mid Sussex in the 90's this was done. Where houses that were previously council owned and bought under the right to buy were up for repossession. So the houses had been sold for a small fraction of the value.....went up.....came down in value and then bought back. A very expensive way of increasing social housing with the owner winners being the banks.

*only winners (sleepy head)

From the start Right to Buy should have had a clause allowing it to happen only when waiting lists in each borough were below a certain level. And don't get me started on the fact that councils were prohibited from using any RTB receipts to build new social housing

bump

Yes but if the lovely expensive lots of bedroom homes were rented back at market value rents then the people who could no longer afford the mortgage would probably not be able to afford the rent?
In my area at least- it's cheaper to have a mortgage per month than it is to rent the equivalent privately.
If the rent was cheaper than private but more than the mortgage (likely) then the people who brought wouldn't be able to live there anyway.
And tbh does it matter if people default on purpose? That would be their choice and they wouldn't be leaving any inheritance in property so long term social housing still wins?
What if it were opened to anyone that wanted to do it not just those struggling - council buy back but at less but you still get to live there? Like we buy any car but nicer and with houses...

It would require a lot of capital i guess but I think it'd save money long term - shouldn't we be looking at that too and not just at short term fixes?

Why were they prohibited from spending that money on more social housing? Seems a bit ridiculous!
Where did that money go?

If there was more social housing I think people would put less importance on owning and therefore the prices might come down.
People would be secure and able to decorate which is why a lot of people want to own - they're the main reasons we wanted to own our own house.

I have always thought this but I guess councils couldn't afford it I always think councils could buy back their stock ,

Is there a way we can get them to do it?

What would the flaws be? (inevitable that there are some as with everything)

funny enough? its when posters continually come up with "is it fair " well prob. not but fair is a word that should be banned from use by anyone over age of ten because the world is so obviously not "fair " ,our council ,if u want a quick sale will make an offer on your (x) council house , that offer will be below market value but guarenteed>so quick, and re people losing their home ,council has to home them somehow ,at some cost .fair , or otherwise .

I don't quite get why your saying?

*what

Love the idea because it also means people not being turfed out, but even repos are pricier than councils building themselves. Better to take advantage of low interest rates to enable councils to borrow to build, in an ideal world where we don't have 'back of a beer mat' Gid 'n' Dave in charge of our economy. Sadly they are determined to carry on cutting so the opportunity for cheap borrowing will be lost, and with it a chance to kick start the economy. Ho hum.