so the people with low rent that is subed, will now be able to buy with a sub total madness

[medona]

The people in the country with rent that us subbed will be promised a discount of up to 100000 to buy this property. It's madness all over again.

This scheme is estimated by some to cost 29 billion.

There really is no point working in this country, the middle just get squeezed more by the day. Best off either never working or being rich.

SIL has a HA house in the SE. Four bedrooms, in a nice cul de sac in an expensive area, and she had it from new. When the builders were finished she was given the keys and moved in. The house on the open market would be worth about 550 - 600K. When she moved in she had three adult children at home, who were earning 18K, 22K and 28K respectively (approx). Between all three of them and SIL they paid about 750 pounds a month rent. She now shares the house with just one of her adult children and their partner.

From my POV getting a HA house in this way is like winning the lottery. I was gobsmacked - we are owner occupiers and our house is a shit heap!

Carrier, my friend moved in with his partner.

I think its a stupid idea.
All new build development sites ar required to include a proportion of social housing/ha properties. Wtf is the point of that if they can be sold off?

Repairs and gas safety checks are a problem with a lot of HAs There is currently more than one complaint with Trading Standards about the same sub contractor who has the contract to service the boilers on the properties of THIRTY TWO HAs. Despite the complaints about this company mounting up (and this includes gas emitting from a boiler after a safety check, several no shows in a row, and 15 engineer visits to fix a boiler plus tenants going weeks and sometimes months without heating and/or hot water) despite all this this contractor has just signed a TEN YEAR contract with another HA.

All new build development sites ar required to include a proportion of social housing/ha properties. Wtf is the point of that if they can be sold off?

There's an estate going up now right next to me, 5 mins walk away, some are council, some are part ownership and some are for sale, These are the first ones going up now out of 2400 in my borough. There will be a new school, doctor's surgery and shops as part of the plan. These homes should have been built years ago but i am pleased to actually see some being built at last

More info here

It looks like housing associations are going to fight this proposal if there are attempts to bring it in.
I have just seen this quote but haven't linked it because it was on the daily fail:

The policy director of the National Housing Federation, Ruth Davison, a Labour party member in Islington, said it was wrong to hand money to ‘some of the most securely-housed people in the country on some of the lowest rents’.

She told the BBC: ‘We are independent organisations and charities – you can no more force a housing association to sell their assets at less than they’re worth than you can force Tesco, or even Cancer Research.

‘So housing associations would have to be fully recompensed for any sale. There will be a cost to the taxpayer.’

I know that quote is from a labour member but other HA bosses have said similar.

Link from the independent:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/housing-associations-say-theyll-sue-if-the-tories-force-them-to-sell-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html

I suspect that they are looking to eventually end social housing entirely.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-david-camerons-righttobuy-in-conservative-manifesto-condemned-by-housing-groups-10176734.html

All new build development sites ar required to include a proportion of social housing/ha properties

Not quite true. Developers can and do get round this by paying into a social housing fund - this means they can move the social housing elsewhere (NIMBY) while the funding doesn't always translate into immediately available social housing.

Developments of 10 new homes no longer have to make an affordable housing contribution: www.gov.uk/government/news/pickles-cuts-stealth-taxes-on-new-homes-and-boosts-small-builders

Section 106 is entirely negotiable to larger developers. The money doesn't have to spent on affordable housing:
"Bypassing Southwark’s requirement for 35% affordable housing – which would have meant around 100 units – Lend Lease has instead contributed £3.5m in lieu towards the construction of a community leisure centre next door, which will cost £20m to build. A triumph for the public good, you might think, until you realise that the equivalent cost of building 100 affordable units would have been around £10m, three times what the developer paid."
www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities

Affordable housing is not required to be social housing. It can be 'affordably rented' or shared ownership. The vast majority is shared ownership, meaning the residents have to be able to get a mortgage for the purchased portion and pay rent on the rest.
www.southnorthants.gov.uk/AffordableHousing.htm

I think that's England Gralick - we're in Scotland, so it's a not consistent picture across the UK.

Oh. I didnt realise.