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

The seller (landlord) only want £85k cash because they get the other £15k cash from central government.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. There's jiggery pokery where it's claimed the LL is no worse off because there's a partial write down of CGT. But if the LL wasn't forced to sell he/she wouldn't owe CGT, so that's of no value to him/her. In real terms, the LL is losing money on an investment that was hoped to bring in money.

@QualCheckBot I’m not a momentum or labour supporter. As I’ve said many times this idea has been mooted by both sides in the past.

It's all pie in the sky and wishful thinking.

No @Juells CGT doesn’t come into it. No one has made a comment on CHT. The article linked that talks about it is over 3 year sentence old and does not relate to today’s announcement

Excuse the typos

If the cash value of the discount is definitely given to the landlord then I would be very keen for my tenants to buy. They get the discount, I get the cash and then i’ll buy it back from them splitting the difference in value so we share the ‘free’ money from the government. I’d even lend them the money to buy it from me in the first place if the discount was large enough.

The article linked by the OP is nonsense btw- you only have to read it to see OP is completely misapplying it to today’s suggestion

Except it’s based on the same suggestion as today, by the same party.

And you can’t explain how the discount would be funded by the government or where a Labour have said it will be.

If I’m wrong cherry I’ll gladly apologise, but for now I maintain you’re talking absolutely nonsense if you think the plan is for the landlords to receive the discount back from the government.

They get the discount, I get the cash and then i’ll buy it back from them splitting the difference in value so we share the ‘free’ money from the government. I’d even lend them the money to buy it from me in the first place if the discount was large enough.

😂😂😂😂

Yes that’s illegal MrsWobble 🤣 not saying you wouldn’t be able to break the law and do it though

The discount is funded from tax revenue Op. there is nothing more to say.

just re read

It obviously wasn’t worth reading the first time so I’ll pass

That’s fine costa but then no need to keep asking eh?

The discount is funded from tax revenue Op. there is nothing more to say

Well there is because at no point does the proposal say that is the case.

And it makes absolutely no sense for any government to do that.

And even if they did, something else would have to give.

So forgive me if I don’t accept your word as gospel.

THEY DO IT NOW

In real terms, the LL is losing money on an investment that was hoped to bring in money

Isn't this all part and parcel of the "redistribution of wealth" though, which for some appears to justify almost anything? It's almost as if they think governments are capable of spending our money more wisely than we can ourselves ...

As for funding - stopping the money flow paid out in housing benefit to private landlords may go a long way towards balancing the books.

You can't get housing benefit on mortgage (afaik) so if a tenant who is on HB whoch pays part of their rent buys a house, they won't still be able to afford the mortgage even though it's cheaper than rent?

It's a bs proposal imho. It reminds me of me drunk throwing ideas around and when DH questions how it would work I just go with "Somehow it will".

No need to shout just because you’re not explaining yourself very well

Give me one example of a private landlord being forced to sell, against their will, to their tenants at a discounted rate

If it happens already, why is it a proposal now?

This is the suggestion of an extension of the existing RTB policy. To include private landlords. That’s all.

So it’s not happening now at all.

Where it is happening has pay back - this doesn’t.

Passthecherrycoke please can I ask directly why you seem to feel that something "happening now" is any indicator that it would continue under a new government - especially since, as Bear mentioned, the proposal doesn't suggest this would be so?

I believe you said upthread that they'd have to call it something different, but isn't that just semantics?

What is the pay back? I’ve asked you about a billion times
And yes it does happen now, as I’ve said a millions times, via HAs who are private landlords

Well I don’t think you e asked me about pay back at all before, but as you have now - payback is simply what the government gets in return for spending this money.

It’s not a difficult concept.

And as far as I can see they gain nothing for subsidising house prices to get people from private rented to home ownership.

@Puzzledandpissedoff no - because right to acquire, for example, is a different product with different rules- specifically, that the landlord can REFUSE the tenant the opportunity to buy the house. You can not refuse a RTB tenant.

So it’s not semantics, it’s a set of rules that decide how the property could be sold. It’s essential to any idea like this. If it’s right to buy, it’s the same as the current RTB.

So if labour want to bring in a product called, say, “right to demand” with its own set of rules, fine. But that is not right to buy, which is what they have continuously- every time this is mooted- called it.

My DH owned the little flat his parents lived in - all done by the book, his parents lived rent free.

When his DM went into a home we kept the flat as a rental just in case she became well enough to go home. DH refused to sell 'his mum's' home from under her quite rightly. He made sure things like the boiler and washing machine etc were maintained every year for the four years she was in a residential home.

When she finally died we sold the flat to the people who were renting as they'd said if we ever decided to sell they'd love first refusal.

But, if he'd been 'forced' to offer this on a RTB I think he'd have sold earlier at market price and just bought another property, rented that out and had his mum come home to that flat. The point it he'd have sold at a price that suited him, not the person renting it. If it's market value and is based on what DH would have got for it anyway, that's fine. But not if he's making a loss.

Many families are in that position at the moment. Renting out properties so supplement care homes whilst keeping the family home. Forcing them to sell for a cheaper price is hardly fair - imagine the headlines on that one 'Corbyn policy meant my mum's house was sold for less than I needed to fund her care home' - that'd go down well. If they need to sell, they need full market price and if you force their hand you'll find they'll sell early. Then the person renting has no home.

OP I know what payback is

I am asking you what payback the government currently get from housing associations by funding RTB