Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

238 replies

medona · 14/04/2015 08:15

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.

OP posts:
ComtesseDeSpair · 14/04/2015 12:50

Ah, it's an extension of it.

LargeGlassofWhite · 14/04/2015 12:54

Am I right in thinking that if you but through the right to buy scheme you have to live in it for several years before you can sell it?
My ex has a council flat, he got it when he was kicked out of his parents house when he was 18. He looked in to buying it but decided he'd wait until the council had put a new kitchen and bathroom in.
But there was all kinds of rules and stipulations. He had to own it for (I think) 4 years before he could sell, he couldn't rent it out, say if they retiled all the roofs he would have to pay for his to be done etc etc.
Obviously those rules are in place to prevent people just taking advantage of the scheme.
This was about 7 years ago so maybe it's changed since then.

It would be interesting to see the financial details of the scheme, whether the amount they charge somebody to buy their home is enough to build a new similar house.
If it is then fantastic! But they need to be building them as fast as they're selling them.

I understand the OPs frustration though, sometimes it seems that the gap between the non-working and the working isn't that huge, and you wonder why you even bother working when those who don't work get everything handed to them on a plate.
BUT you have to be working in order to buy your council house so that isn't the case here.

CrystalCove · 14/04/2015 12:56

Market rates are not 'inflated', but represent market conditions

Set by landlords? Who charge too much? Councils can charge what they like, this is not a subsidy.

TheSultanofPing · 14/04/2015 13:14

Tbh the people who I really feel sorry for are the ones who will be forced into private rental accommodation when social housing becomes almost impossible to find.

There is no way that the money made from this will be used to fund social housing. Just watch the housing benefit bill rise and rise.

Viviennemary · 14/04/2015 13:18

I think on the whole it isn't a good idea. Because a lot of right to buy council houses are now buy to lets in expensive areas. And it will do nothing to increase the stock of houses for people to rent. I think it's so unfair on people who rent privately who are losing out twice. They pay more rent, have less security and have no right to buy. Losing out three times in fact. It's wrong.

loa321 · 14/04/2015 13:23

I'm a bit confused, since HA tenants already have the right to buy their homes after a certain period of tenancy, with a discount. What's new in the Tory announcement?

No they don't, thats the whole point of the announcement. Only HA tenants who were former council tenants have right to buy.

This is a real vote winner for me, despite the fact I always usually vote Labour. I, like many other long term HA tenants will be snapping Daves hand off.

My husband hates the Conservatives with a passion, but said this morning he will be voting Conservative on the basis of this policy alone.

BarbarianMum · 14/04/2015 13:25

Terrible, terrible policy.

But YABU to think the real losers are the forgotten middle. The real losers will be the next generation on low wages that are unable to buy and unable to access a council/HA home.

But hey ho, that'll be good for the unscrupulous end of the private rented sector who'll be able to rent out any old sh*t at inflated prices. Back to the Victorian era of overcrowded slums, I reckon.

Mintyy · 14/04/2015 13:40

This proposal re. extending the right to buy is utter madness. I seriously cannot BELIEVE it is a real thing when low cost housing is so terribly scarce in this country and the whole rental sector is chaotic and makes people's lives utterly miserable. We have people on Mumsnet who have had to make themselves homeless in order to go on a council waiting list. Meaning they put their private landlord through a whole lot of stress and bother, but there is just no other way to be eligible for local authority or housing association houses!

And the Tories want to increase the scarcity and effectively hand over sums like £60,000 to a pp on this thread?

How can it possibly be justified?

I am truly shocked Shock.

juliascurr · 14/04/2015 13:46

'social' housing rents are not subsidised - the cost of building and maintaining houses has been paid many times over in rent
the problem is private rent is uncontrolled

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 13:52

This is a real vote winner for me, despite the fact I always usually vote Labour. I, like many other long term HA tenants will be snapping Daves hand off. My husband hates the Conservatives with a passion, but said this morning he will be voting Conservative on the basis of this policy alone.

I don't even know where to start with this level of I'm-alright-Jack hypocrisy.

The only saving grace is that apparently the Tories have promised this several times before and did fuck-all about it. It does, however, seem that a lot of people are going to be swayed by this appalling, damaging policy. Still, they'll end up with the government they deserve...

Arsenic · 14/04/2015 13:56

We have people on Mumsnet who have had to make themselves homeless in order to go on a council waiting list. Meaning they put their private landlord through a whole lot of stress and bother,

People are obliged to make themselves homeless and your thoughts are with the 'hassled' Landlords Mintyy??

Arsenic · 14/04/2015 13:57

Sorry - 'stress and bother' for the LLs....

loa321 · 14/04/2015 13:57

The only saving grace is that apparently the Tories have promised this several times before and did fuck-all about it.

When? First time I have heard them mention it and I have been a HA tenant for 18 years, most of that under Labour.

littlemonkeyface · 14/04/2015 13:59

Councils can charge what they like, this is not a subsidy.

Sorry ChrystalCove, this is a contradiction in terms. Charging a reduced market rate to a select few is a subsidy.

Btw: I am not against subsidised social housing where it's needed, but I am very much against the disposal of social housing at discounted market rates.

I really can't see how anyone can support this unless they will directly benefit from it themselves.

It's just wrong and I really hope that the Tories will not get their way.

CatHammock · 14/04/2015 14:06

Haven't they promised this in basically every party manifesto for the last 15 years? They usually don't throw it in as a last minute bribe however, which is I guess why it's getting attention this time. Foxhunting for the rural vote, RTB for the urban.

Incidentally, is anyone surprised that the son of the MP who wrote the original RTB legislation now owns and lets 42 ex council flats on the same estate? For, I suspect, vastly more than the equivalent council rent would be, and with a fairly high ratio of HB claimants. What a wonderful way to get our tax in their pockets. Hmm

FloatIsRechargedNow · 14/04/2015 14:19

I appreciate loa's honesty because this new announcement might end up benefiting me too and oh how against the grain it goes. And yes it is such an 'alright jack attitude' but in all honesty it could be an offer that is too hard to refuse. If it is as promised though - each one sold must be replaced by HA and the cost to build should be less than the price it's sold for and another home enters the private market as do the ex-tenants. That is different from the Thatcher RTB. Also included is a £1billion 'brownfield development' pot. I find it's the local councils (not all of them) that are slow to grasp the mettle on these things - my local one has exacted £millions from developers in 'affordable housing' funds but aren't too great at applying these funds into new 'affordable' homes. Let's see if it's true and if the Tories even get in first. They made lots of 'wild' promises today

bereal7 · 14/04/2015 14:22

Wow, didn't think the Tories would bring out something to stop me voting for them but they have. This really is a stupid policy and I can't contribute to it coming through .

Ffs, guess I'll have to spoil Angry

mousmous · 14/04/2015 14:25

imo they want to offload expensive to maintain/old housing stock to people who can barely afford to buy...
nice move eh.

Toofat2BtheFly · 14/04/2015 14:41

So force private landlords to lower their rents or at least regulate their charges better ... Do not say my rent is subsidised because some else pays more . It imply someone helps me to pay it when in reality we just pay what is asked of us , IMO the problem is not with social housing rents it with BTL investors running business's , council/HA charge fair rents .

It may be a more desperate situation in other parts of the country but where I live the the difference is fairly minimal , maybe £50-£70 PCM more .

Fwiw , I have the RTB With no intention of using it , not everyone will take it up but don't blame a person for trying to better themselves .

And I'm saying no more on the matter Hmm

Newbrummie · 14/04/2015 14:56

Any landlord who bought in the last 7 years will be renting out at a loss and waiting, praying to get out of negative equity. Interest rates can't get any lower so it's all fcuked if you ask me.

Viviennemary · 14/04/2015 15:05

The rent is being indirectly subsidised. Because this low rent is not available to people in private tenancies. Therefore it isn't a market value rent. It doesn't affect me but it is massively unfair. If I was a private tenant I'd be furious. I'll be voting for the party that is best for me. That seems to be what most folk are doing bar a few.

CrystalCove · 14/04/2015 15:06

I disagree Monkey - councils are Landlords and can charge what they like for rent. The original premise of social housing was affordable housing for all, what private LLs charge is overinflated in my opinion. And it's not a "select few" - it's the council rent in that area for all its tenants. I assume you mean "select few" to having a council house in the first place.

merrymouse · 14/04/2015 15:29

His speech was just in La la land.

So let the message ring out from this generation of Conservatives: you’ve worked hard, you’ve saved, the home you live in, it’s yours to buy, yours to own…

What is he on about there? I'm not really sure how you define hard work, but while I am sure many HA tenants do it, I don't really understand what it has to do with eligibility for this scheme. He sounds as though he is trying to sell something on QVC.

…the dream of a property-owning democracy is alive – and we will fulfil it.

No it isn't alive and well - has he not noticed all the people in rented accommodation?

London house prices were ridiculous before 2010, but since then they have gone completely southsea bubble, tulip fever bonkers - is he not aware of this?

Even in 1995 at the bottom of the market, land was an expensive investment beyond the resources of people on low wages and people needed council houses. The only way to make property ownership genuinely affordable for everyone would be if supply exceeded demand - but I can't see any proposals for building a house for every 'hard working' family in rented accommodation, and I think his supporters would have kittens if the bottom fell out of the property market, even if he had worked out how to pay for it.

I think he just wants to get tenants out of city centre properties so his chums can sell them to foreign investors.

I'm sure there are people who will take the deal, but it has nothing to do with a 'property owning democracy'.

LargeGlassofWhite · 14/04/2015 15:40

It may be a more desperate situation in other parts of the country but where I live the the difference is fairly minimal , maybe £50-£70 PCM more

In my area there's a huge difference.
A 2 bed house in my area rents for around £500pcm, a similar council house is around £250pcm.
The bigger the house the bigger the savings must be. A 4 bed house around here would rent for around £900-1000 pcm, no idea how much it is through the council but it wouldn't be anywhere near that amount.

SingingHinnies · 14/04/2015 15:49

On my council estate my 3 bed house is £320pcm, private's are £550-650 and that's in the NE where its supposed to be cheap, i think the fair rents on a 3 bed are about £500pcm but the BTL LLs know people will find the money from somewhere as they need somewhere to live so people pay the difference