Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To have bought my Council House on Right to Buy when I have a good income

108 replies

fuzzye · 28/10/2016 10:43

I was given my Council House when I was 20. I was a Single Mum studying at University and on benefits. Since getting my house my situation has improved and now, aged 30, I have a very good income.

I made an application last year to buy my Council House on the right to buy. I paid £60,000. My house is currently worth £130,000 as I've spent £10,000 Renovating it. At the time of my Application the Council valued my house considerably below £130,000.

Noe there are now rules around buying your Council House when you have a high income, only that it must be your main home which this is for now. It was legal for me to buy it, and there is a lot of social housing in my area. The waiting list for a Council House is two weeks! There are many properties they have to advertise online as 'hard to let' as they have no tenants for them. So I've certainly not taken a house from anyone who needs it. On my estate also there are 4 houses currently standing empty.

It's a semi rural area and you have to have a local collection to live here. Very few people do and the population is only 8,000. Thousands of Social Housing was built around the factories here until they closed and the population diminished massively. It's not a rough area, just very sparsely populated.

Under my circumstances is it unreasonable that I feel no guilt at all in buying my Council House? There's a large number of bought Council houses in my area, and it's improved the area massively.

OP posts:
Manumission · 28/10/2016 15:05

This is as goady as fuck.

Yep.

Thefishewife · 28/10/2016 15:17

What most of these jelouse ones who moan about the house being taken out of the stock for good don't realise

Is that Somone who is given a house at 22 may not ever give that house up so for the next 70-80 it will be out of use then after tenant dies it can be passed on to children so you then looking at another 80-90 years before the coucil gets there hand on that home again well you could say waiting 100+ years for a property to put back in stock is a good out come most coucil get there homes back whenpeople die not by people handing the keys back in the lady next door to me has had her coucil home since she was 19 she is 78 and will be passing it on to her son when she passes

Me2017 · 28/10/2016 15:23

They are not easy issues. If we give anyone subsidised housing and they then can save money and then be in a better position than someone not given subsidised housing (I have not had subsidised housing ever) then that is arguably very unfair as it stands.

Manumission · 28/10/2016 15:31

There need to be as many ways as possible to help people into home ownership.

Whinges about RTB being 'unfair' are odd considering they often come from people who have either given or received large house deposits to their DC or from their parents.

That's the biggest phenomenon (family gifted deposits) keeping the completely dysfunctional housing market inflated but I've never heard calls for that to be taxed or otherwise curtailed.

House deposits a huge problem for a whole generation.

Frankly, anyone over 30 whining about life being unfair needs a shake.

(And I've never been given money towards a house purchase by anyone, family or state, so no I don't have a horse in this race myself.)

chilipepper20 · 28/10/2016 16:13

There need to be as many ways as possible to help people into home ownership.

Why? In fact, there are good arguments for not doing this. The housing crisis in 2008 in the US was some of the fallout.

People owning is good for the owners because we have places (the UK, much of the US) with terrible protections for renters. If, however, you have proper protection for renters (parts of the US and Europe and Canada) people get along just fine renting. And in fact its good for the economy in many ways. In particular, people are more mobile when they don't own.

streetch · 28/10/2016 17:33

I actually don't see the problem with right to buy - the house is out of the housing stock for a long time anyway, possibly 2 generations could raise their families there if the tenancy was transferred over. If the council were allowed to reinvest that money in the housing stock that would mean that there would be another home available to replace the one they sold sooner than if they hadn't sold it iyswim.

chilipepper20 · 28/10/2016 18:19

the house is out of the housing stock for a long time anyway, possibly 2 generations could raise their families there if the tenancy was transferred over. If the council were allowed to reinvest that money in the housing stock that would mean that there would be another home available to replace the one they sold sooner than if they hadn't sold it iyswim.

Unfortunately, the trouble is council's are doing this.

The trouble is selling the homes for below market value. We should object when public assets are sold for below value, unless there is some loftier social good being served, as we all lose out.

Coconutty · 28/10/2016 18:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crashdoll · 28/10/2016 19:06

Given how many posters are on here, I'm surprised Troll Land has such a low population.

YelloDraw · 28/10/2016 19:12

The trouble is selling the homes for below market value. We should object when public assets are sold for below value

Exactly. By all means RTB, but it should be at MV, or at a 5% discount to reflect reduced transaction costs.

HelenaDove · 28/10/2016 19:25

Elderly tenants to be evicted so sheltered housing can be turned into emergency accomodation.

www.chelmsford-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=120367

mothattack · 28/10/2016 21:04

You know it isn't morally right OP. You were very lucky and have done well out of the situation but at the expense of others; now and on the future. Your own children maybe. Now you have your house, no other single mother can be given the opportunities you had.

People being only to quick to look after No 1 is how we have got into this mess.

It isn;t even necessarilty the case that if you move out, the next tenant will buy it. Hopefully by the time the next tenant qualifies (in 5 years time or whatever) they will have scrapped this horrendous scheme.

What is that quote... you have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.

Perhaps you can give something (significant £££ donation) back to society when you sell the property and realise the profit.

mothattack · 28/10/2016 21:13

Dammit. Didn;t read the whole thread.. too cross! Too many peopel actually doing this though. Grrr.

GardenGeek · 28/10/2016 21:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GardenGeek · 28/10/2016 21:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

thisisafakename · 28/10/2016 22:02

GardenGeek, I don't think it's a generation gap at all. She got the council house because she was a teen mum and would have been seen as priority need. Single mums would still be classed as priority need and they would potentially be eligible for the right to buy scheme after a number of years. Additionally, there is financial support available for students with dependents in the form of child tax credits.

Therefore, it has nothing to do with the OP being 4 years older than you. I am older than the OP and I didn't get a council house or benefits during my degree either. The reason? I was not a single, unemployed mum.

GardenGeek · 29/10/2016 11:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Me2017 · 29/10/2016 11:26

GG, it is very hard for most people under 30 to do those things. In fact my poor grandfather only had my father at almost aged 50 because if took so long to save up to marry and buy a house and my parents were similar. |They were married for nearly 10 years before having a baby because it was so hard to save up to buy a house even in those days. They were not from rich families.

My 3 older children (graduates) have all bought property in their 20s (and one hasmarried and then had a baby in 30s just - 29 when baby came I think ) (although the third has not exchanged yet but that is likely to be next week). It is not easy. It can involve things like sleeping on friends' floors, living at home when you don't want to, not going out, no holidays. I recommended house sitting/ guardianship to them too as that way you guard a property and pay no or low rent, you can live in places like fire stations.

Someone mentioned the unfairness of parents helping out. We did used to have a capital tax on gifts to family members in the UK called capital transfer tax. We could introduce that - that the stage got say 40% of every gift you give your child. I doubt it would be very popular.

Manumission · 29/10/2016 12:29

My 3 older children (graduates) have all bought property in their 20s (and one hasmarried and then had a baby in 30s just - 29 when baby came I think ) (although the third has not exchanged yet but that is likely to be next week). It is not easy. It can involve things like sleeping on friends' floors, living at home when you don't want to, not going out, no holidays

Living in the parental home and eschewing holidays to save a deposit is fine.

Pity the poor people who do all those things and more and are still priced out year after year.

Manumission · 29/10/2016 12:35

And going back to chilli's answer to me that I missed; a good proportion of home ownership is good for communities, home ownership is good for families. It makes people stakeholders in their surroundings and it promotes community and personal stability. Owner occupiers are on the whole happier than renters, (as are renters in communities where there is a good proportion of owner occupation).

'Mobility' (like the much-vaunted 'flexibility') is good for first and second jobbers, good for business owners, and good for the minority with itchy feet. It's not good for the average Joe. You seem sure it's a good thing. I find that surprising.

Inthenick · 29/10/2016 12:37

You take what you can get in this life, no criticism here.

Me2017 · 29/10/2016 12:51

Manu, I agree with you. I also think as I said above if you can have mixed housing (Prince Charles' Poundbury is an example) you have better communities. I like the fact that where I live we have all kinds of different people, rich and poor within a very short distance. It's better for everyone so selling off some social housing properties in a street isn't always a bad thing but certainly it is hard to buy for many people. (mind you it always has - my grandfather only had my father aged 50 as he was waiting to earn enough to buy a house and the house be bought sells for only about £60k in the NE these days so is hardly a palace).

Manumission · 29/10/2016 13:00

Yes, I do agree with you about mixed tenure communities.

MyWineTime · 29/10/2016 15:36

There's nothing wrong with what you've done.

There's something very wrong with the system that has allowed you to do it.

MsJamieFraser · 29/10/2016 15:53

Midsummer right to buy in Scotland ended on July this year, you can no longer buy social housing property in Scotland now.

I don't think you did anything wrong OP, my company has over 32,000 still intreasted in social housing (I set a system in place to review our CBL system recently) and the outcome was the above number.

The communities are in dire need of social housing and we are in the process of applying for funding to build new houses, however it's a long and lengthy and complicated process that our boards have had migraines over.