To wonder how Labour’s Right to Buy on privately rented houses would work?

[Bearbehind]

Just read something this morning about Labour proposing Right to Buy on privately rented properties - how would that actually work?

How can they force a private landlord to sell at a discounted rate?

Also, if one of the requirements is you have to have been renting the property for several years, that’s just going to lead to less secure tenancies because landlords will make sure tenants cannot qualify for this.

It seems like a bonkers idea to me

Yes it's bonkers and not just that, it's effectively state theft of private property. but that won't bother McDonnell.
Similarly the lovely sounding idea of making companies give 10% of their shares to employees will disincentivise any company from employing more than 250 people, will hit all our pensions and is another example of state theft of privately owned assets.
Other similar schemes have been mentioned such as nationalising vacant shops. In theory sounds nice doesn't it, but it demonstrates how a Corbyn state would view all private property as fair game and would destroy the economy and faith in property rights which underpin it.

I suppose they can't force it but they could give the landlord the option. In a depressed market it might be something some landlords would take.

There would not be an automatic right to buy whether the owner liked it or not. Because nobody would rent their houses out then!

There are lots of things wrong with the housing market. The 00s growth of landlordism, combined with hugely inadequate housebuilding, was a dreadful blight on the young. But half baked ideas like this will not help at all.

Glad it’s not just me who thinks it’s mad

What is the point if such idiotic policies that will do more harm than good in reality?

We are an ordinary family but through savings and overseas working have 3 rental properties with families happily living in them. If this law is passed, we'll have to evict and leave them empty until DC are old enough to inherit

Yes because so many 'ordinary families' are able to afford three properties through saving and working...

And so many 'ordinary families' can make do with three empty properties bringing no money in.

Stop it, quite offensive to actual ordinary families such as mine, who despite working will likely never be able to afford one house.
Let alone three.

The people proposing these policies - McDumb and Momentum - dont think that they are bonkers at all. Listen carefully to what they are both saying because they are the ones with the power not Corbyn and the reasonable people in Labour.

and for those of you thinking and saying "it will never happen" that is exactly what was said about Trump getting elected in the USA and people voting for Brexit. go back through old MN threads. Its alarming how many people just dont listen when nutters speak because they cant countenance the fact that these people DO and WILL get elected.

It won't HAPPEN as you're all imagining it to.

It would be something like an OPTION for the landlord. Not a rule.

Where is this suggested or confirmed as a Labour policy - rather than something someone, somewhere said and has now been touted as a Labour policy to encourage frothing about assets being seized?

It would be something like an OPTION for the landlord. Not a rule.

That option already exists. A landlord can sell to a tenant at any point if they choose to.

So what is different about Labour’s proposed ‘option’?

Well...it seems I was wrong! But what I can glean from this article
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-right-buy-scheme-houses-landlords-tenants-john-mcdonnell-corbyn-a9088211.html

It would be targeting landlords who don't maintain the properties properly and who allow them to become overcrowded. So slum landlords. There are LOADS of them in larger cities. The type who let to multiple families and don't look after the house. Or if there's one tenant, or one family, then they're not caring for the property properly.

There'd probably be a long series of warnings and legal hoops before the landlord was forced to sell.

mummy how do you think this proposal could work in practice?

I do agree that ‘normal’ families don’t have 4 properties but equally don’t see how this proposal helps

As above, there would just be less secure rentals available

I don't actually see what would be different from now. If a tenant offers landlord £££ you buy the house, Landlord can either say yes or no!

If they are trying to target the social housing / housing associations that were set up to get round the right to buy council houses - well that's not really helping anybody other than pushing people back into the hands of private landlords.

It’s touted as a discounted scheme though so the tenants gets to pay less than the market rate

For me it just proves the point that, to a degree, none us ever really "own" anything. Bank accounts can be frozen, assets can be confiscated. The more you have, the more you could lose.

Bearbehind - I dont think this proposal will work in practice. what I think will happen is what always happens in politics.

The first bit of legislation to come in will compel landlords who neglect their property to give tenants the option to buy at reduced rates. it will be the slum type landlords - the ones we all know are just dreadful so everyone will stand around saying "ah well yes, serves her/him right. havent done repairs for years, allowed overcrowding, blah, blah blah" and then once its enshrined in legislation it will be really, really easy to extend the scope because after all you arent bringing in a new law are you. just amending an existing one. and thats when anyone who owns a second property they rent out will find that they are then COMPELLED to sell to their tenants at a discount predetermined by the government.

Dont believe it could happen this way? look at tuition fees as one example out of many that I could give. The pandoras box was opened with £1,000 a year. it was sold as a minimal amount, something everyone could afford to pay back, tiny in comparison to the first class education. Those of us vociferous against it were told not to worry because it wasnt much money and wouldnt affect that many. But it set in place primary legislation that made it way to easy to increase to £9k plus.

Some people do own more houses than others. Some people rent these out and are diligent landlords adding positively to the housing mix in their area and giving people the chance to live in their own homes either long term if they want to or short term if they are using it as a stop gap for saving up to buy for themselves.

Less security in the rental sector puts huge pressures on local authorities and society in general. If people know that they can stay put for years then they dont have to worry about kids moving schools, they look after the property they are in because they are staying in it and it gives them the opportunity to become part of a community. If all lets go to 3 months or 6 months this is a complete nightmare for families. what if they cant find the next place at the end of the tenancy? will the council be able to give them emergency housing? what about the disruption to schooling for their kids? the strain on other family members who have to keep taking them in?

I want to see the rental market improve. you do this by employing many, many more EHO's and enforcement officers in local councils to shut the shit landlords down by making them do the repairs etc. That is how I would make it work.

It's another ploy to get votes, like the youth vote and tuition fees. So they need to make another daft promise see if another demographic will Bite. This time they are thinking it's the renters that are the numpties.

Of course it won't work. How can you legally force someone to sell something they own for less than it's worth. You can't.

Bluntness100 - you can compel someone to do this if it is the law. Already is actually - compulsory purchasing powers for slum clearance and also for big engineering projects like HS2. You can compel a private home or land owner to sell at the price that you determine and although there is an appeal process its useless. A very small extension to this bit of legislation and there you have it. Landlords being made to sell properties that they own for 60% of market value with no compensation.

Presumably the landlord gets the market rate, the tenant pays the discounted rate and the tax payers foot the bill for the difference.

I doubt it - it would need the magic money tree again for that

Stop it, quite offensive to actual ordinary families such as mine, who despite working will likely never be able to afford one house.
Let alone three.

Who are you to define "ordinary"?! How ridiculous to take such offence at a valid comment. The poster was sharing their (relevant) experience.

Are you still "ordinary" if you own your own house? How about if you've got a house and a caravan - are you still "ordinary" then?

If not being able to buy your own home makes you feel inadequate, that's your problem. Certainly luck can play a part (parental help etc), but so can lifestyle choices. E.g. choosing to have kids whilst living in rented property is going to make it more difficult for you to save a deposit.

mummy the proposal still makes no sense

Those people who are forced to use slum landlords are the least likely to be able to afford to buy a property

And if landlords were forced to sell to tenants at a discounted rate after they’d live there for x years then the tenants would just keep getting kicked out so they could never qualify

Ordinary family with 4 houses?
Get over yourself love.

The government always reimburse the discount.

Landlords would have to accept that this is the way the business of being a landlord is in this country. What else is there to say? It’s a business, you’re vulnerable to changes in legislation

Compulsory purchasing powers do not mean the owner gets much less than the value, I cannot imagine both the House of Commons and the House of Lords pass such a thing into law. Both houses have to agree it.

And there will always be ways round it, from having a family menber living in it, you living in it, your child living in it, leaving it empty, whatever. All it would do would ensure there wasn't enough rental properties and what there was went sky high.

But there is no way a law like this would be voted for and passed into legislation, even if Corbyn managed to get a mammoth majority and he could control them to vote for it, the House of Lords would veto it down and immediately. I'm fairly sure it would also be challenged in law as illegal.

Compulsory purchase orders are one thing, but the owners are well recompensed, compulsory purchase orders where the owners looses out will never be passed into law.