... to not understand the "Right to Buy" thing???

[MillieV]

OK. Up and down the country, and here on MN, there is talk about councils not having enough council stock, that there should be more, and we all blame it on Margaret Thatcher. But why is it that now, politicians want to follow in Thatcher's footsteps yet again?!?

One article here

Do these properties come with covenants, i.e. they can only be sold on by the original buyer to those who are also in council/social housing, and continue to be at a discount? This would be fair. However, I fear the housing stock may just be sold on at market value 5 years down the line...

It's not my fault some landlords are bellends is it?!

But it's ok as I live in a 'subsidised' which it really fucking isn't house so I should be grateful.

not it's not ok, and no you shouldn't be grateful. but that doesn't mean it's not subsidised!

if it's so crappy, why not move?

In my local authority tenants must live in the property for five years after exercising the right to buy - I don't know how they can police whether they're renting it out though. Here social housing is deemed to be a tenancy of last resort for many, as the stock is in mainly "regeneration areas", with predominantly flats, often in tower blocks. The bulk of the family homes in "good areas" were sold off under RTB. (I worked in the housing dept of my local council up until a few years ago - the waiting lists were fearful, yet people were turning down flats in the hope they'd eventually get a "nice house". Most of those people will be dead before they get to the top of the list for the property they want. Not London, btw.)

gumball keep ringing. keep your name at the top of that pile don't get lost in a mass of names. I hope they sort you out too.

Because if she hands in her notice she would make herself homeless on purpose even though her home sounds sub standard

It isn't subsidised keepit it really really isn't. London and other places it might be a different matter but here it is not.

We are on a really good scheme and totally fair ( I think) We are classed as the next tier up from social housing and it's called 'affordable housing'. We bought our apartment at a massive discount but we have to sell it to someone also on the list at the present market value at that time MINUS the discount if we want to move.
It limits it as a profit making excercise but gives us our own home with a mortgage less than rent - I am truly grateful. No one should be making quick bucks if you're in a position of being given help - it's wrong
We are never moving, am so grateful for an affordable house/rent.

I am LST. I'm currently 2nd on a lovely 3 bed semi in one of the most affluent villages in the borough and it's in the catchment of a fantastic school. THREE people have turned it down already!! It's with no 4 and they haven't yet responded.they have until Tuesday then it's mine!!!

Your neighbour is in breach of her tenancy Rubybleu and the Council would be serving a Notice of Posession if they were aware of this. If she doesn't live there., she doesn't need it and someone else should be given the chance. I hate RTB btw.

The last time I rented I was given a months notice. Don't get the deposit back until you vacate so was looking at finding 2 months rent PLUS deposit approx 2 1/2 k (not London).

There is no security in private renting unless you are very, very lucky.
My SIL lives with that over her head as well as living in a shit hole that the LL does nothing to, to the point where legal action would need to be taken and she can't afford it!

Subsidy refers to the money that built the home. Government subsidy goes in to building social homes which is why they stack up. Otherwise no one would build social homes. Land values for social housing is much lower than for market housing.

FWIW, I'm an Affordable Housing Enabler working in Housing Strategy for a Local Authrotiy in Wales. I may therefore be biased but IMO RTB is a shocking scandal of momentous proportions and Thatcher should be posthumously tried for crimes against our nation. She gave away a national asset and made no provision to replace it.

I really hope there will be a mass outcry against this.

I can't believe people are really so dumb to fall for the "give them bread and water" line politicians always throw at us at election time.

If Cameron & co. Come on MN to campaign- pls let me know. I'd like to hear what he has to say.

There are those of us who are trying to lobby for social housing building on a massive scale. Its a relatively small voice thus far but a growing one - if you want to know more, have a look at this:

www.4socialhousing.co.uk/

And this slightly negative but interesting blog, which spells it out in monetary terms:

speye.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/why-social-housing-campaigns-are-inept-and-cant-succeed/

I needed somewhere to live super... does that not count?

Of course that counts but lots of people need somewhere to live and the deciding factor on who gets the house shouldn't be based on employment status, it should be based on who has the greatest need.
For example: If a family with a disabled child are in temporary unsuitable accommodation but are unemployed then they should get priority over somebody on the waiting list who is in a private suitable let but in employment.
The deciding factor when there isn't enough social housing for everyone in the area on the waiting list should not be simply employment status.

EMS23 It's easy to blame Thatcher but as I said upthread RTB was immensely popular.

Of course it was popular but she gave people that choice. It is her and her cabinets fault.

As evidenced by PP's on this thread, people can understand why it is a bad policy overall and still look to benefit from it personally. I can understand why people do that and I don't really blame them. It's not illegal and if you are eligible, with house prices the way they are in the UK, I don't blame the individual for doing it.

It is up to the strategists, the politicians etc. to make sure we don't get ourselves in a mess and that's where Thatcher and her advisors went wrong - they either didn't foresee what a mess RTB would cause or they didn't care and I strongly believe they simply didn't care.

As is evident with the current administration - they have no empathy for the less fortunate than themselves. As long as they're ok, the rest of the UK can be hung out to dry and painted as the undeserving poor/ benefits cheats/ work shy layabouts etc etc

I have housed people in desperate situations and then watched them exercise their RTB. it's frustrating for me - it feels like they're saying 'I'm alright Jack, now let's pull up the ladder behind us'.

They cannot see the irony in the long wait they endured for their home against the fact they are further shrinking social housing stock by buying it but why should they? I am a housing strategist, they are not. They just want to own their own home.

It isn't subsidised keepit it really really isn't. London and other places it might be a different matter but here it is not.

so you are saying that anyone could have rented your place, and what you are paying is market value? if so, I agree it's not subsidised.

if not, how is it not?

In the village I live in in scotland I private rent at £425 pm, I know I'm lucky to have a 3 bed house at that price. It is ex council which has been BTL. My neighbour who has an identical house but which is still council pays only £70 pw for theirs. I'm also lucky as my tenancy is a long lease so feel I have some kind of security, but their is always that feeling of rent being dead money hanging over me and it will never be my house.

now if LL was to sell up my council still doesn't see that as priority even if homeless they try to get you back into private rents, it is notoriously difficult to get back onto the council list once privately renting. Why isn't there some kind of help to buy scheme for private renters when LL decide to sell up?

MissIgg - in an ideal world we would help everyone who needed help but there isn't enough money and we have to prioritise our scarce resource for those most in need.
Putting social housing grant money in to providing Home ownership initiatives means we are diverting money from other types of social housing (I.e. Rented) which is in much much higher demand.

There are 1st time buyer Low Cost Home Ownership schemes available through lots of local authorities (I am not referring to the Government backed HelptoBuy/ Homebuy). It might be worth you seeking advice from the Housing Strategy department at your local council.

social housing rent is not subsidised - it is merely offered at a rate lower than in the private sector. It's just like two shops selling the same product at different prices.

The only subsidy is in the build costs, but even then the subsidies have been massively reduced since 2010. Council house building is pretty much non-exisent and virtually all new social housing is built by housing associations. And more and more housing associations are deciding not to take any govt subsidy and simply borrow all the money themselves. Even when they take the subsidy they still have to borrow most of the money anyway.

The govt has allowed (encouraged) social landlords to increase their rent above the rate of inflation so long as they use the extra income towards housebuilding - this of course, helps to increase the housing benefit bill.

Of course, the housing benefit bill has risen every year since 2010 mainly because more and more low paid working people can't afford the rent in the private sector and haven't a hope a hell of getting social housing because we're still not building anywhere near enough to make up for all the ones that were sold off years ago. There are even examples in some places of councils paying extortionate rent in housing benefit to private landlords who now own the homes that used to belong to the same council!

bonkers

And the answer to all of this, IMO - we need to build more homes. Many hundreds of thousands of them. It will ultimately bring down house prices and rental prices.

social housing rent is not subsidised - it is merely offered at a rate lower than in the private sector. It's just like two shops selling the same product at different prices.

unlike two shops, that lower rate isn't available to everyone.

EMS23 that sounds good but where will you build them?
People need homes near to their work, and the work is in the cities. The cities are already built up solid.
You could build tiny flats in tower blocks. They tried that in the sixties and it was a disaster - they had to be knocked down.
You can built estates on green fields outside the cities but that means long commuter routes and they are already jammed solid - trains and roads alike.
So I ask again. Where are the affordable new homes to be built, to be of any use?

I don't have a one size fits all answer for that unfortunately Sallying. Different areas require different solutions but joined up strategic thinking around transport infrastructure, employment, schooling etc is definitely needed.

However, much of that is also chicken and egg. My work covers some rural areas and if we build, they will come/ remain. If we don't, the villages will become the preserve of the elderly rich and eventually all services will leave those areas and the villages will die.

We definitely have a housing crisis and we need to get building on a massive scale. We have a huge amount of land on this island, granted not all of it suitable for building upon and some should be rightly protected from any form of building but we do need to build and we do need to find the solutions to the issues you've raised.

In some areas, brownfield sites will be the answer. In others, some greenfield along with transport infrastructure could provide the solution. But it all comes back to that one big problem - money. We don't have a lot of it. Especially not when the Tories are "helping" a select few in our society to benefit from various home ownership schemes (20% discount for under 30's, Help to Buy Isa's etc etc) that could drive prices up rather than putting that money into building more homes, which could ultimately drive prices down.