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

Was it the suggestion that you take them in cherry ?

That’s not what we are currently discussing but they do get housing stock

You’re so naive you seem to think any government can afford to compensate the rich and give it to the poor (or less well off) on all private rentals

They don’t get housing stock. The housing stock belongs to the housing association.

Just like my next door neighbour could build a house in his garden. That’s not giving the government housing either.

You’re still not answering my point about how and why any government would fund this for all private rentals

Why do they do it now then?

I am sufficiently bored that I have been googling right to buy. The discount under both the statutory scheme applicable to council houses and the voluntary scheme currently being piloted for housing associations is repaid to the landlord by Homes England. As cherry has repeatedly and correctly claimed - so apologies for doubting you on this.

However, there are two important caveats on reclaiming the discount which I think will make it very difficult for a private individual landlord to obtain it. Firstly, you need to monitor the former tenant’s continuing eligibility for the discount for 5 years post sale; and secondly you need to commit to replacing the housing stock on a one for one basis. Neither of these seem remotely practical so if the proposal is serious it’s going to need to be different from the current right to buy product.

FFS, because, as you’ve said yourself the money gets reinvested

And you are missing the point that at no time has this recent proposal supported your instance that the government would fund the difference

Yes, and a private individual landlord would reinvest it too. So it’s the same isn’t it?

Thanks MrsWobble, glad you checked and hope OP takes some notice of your post. The law doesn’t currently make provision for this to work but this is what labour is proposing they would change should they get into power/ go ahead

Well it’s not exactly the same - I and I suspect most private landlords are not equipped to build a new house each time a tenant exercised right to buy. And i’m sure it would cost a lot more than the discount to go through planning and all other costs, even if I had a handy patch of land available.

Yes, and a private individual landlord would reinvest it too. So it’s the same isn’t it?

No because you’ve completely failed to evidence that landlords would get the full price

And secondly, the costs of buying and selling makes it prohibitive unless on mass scale

no, individual landlords would not be able to do that. It’s a simplification to say that housing associations build a house for each sale, of course they don’t.

Some HAs won’t sell enough in 5 years to cover the cost of building a new property. It’s not working well in this respect and that should be thought about, but won’t be. It wasn’t in the first place so why now?

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

Thank you for responding, Passthecherrycoke, and I honestly do get what you're saying here … I just don't quite see what's to stop a future government changing the T&Cs for Right to Buy itself

Well there is nothing to stop a future government changing any legislation is there?

But individual housing associations do have to commit to replacing on a one for one basis - it’s part of the scheme rules.

there is nothing to stop a future government changing any legislation is there?

You're quite right; obviously they'd have to get the legislation through, but in principle there's nothing to stop them trying - which might well explain why the proposal makes no mention of the discount "refund" continuing

Longwayoff
Oh Jeremy Corbyn. What else can the Labour Party think of to ensure it doesn't get elected by mistake?

Exactly so. That wins the award for most insightful political comment of the year,

I can't imagine individual landlords building houses. Cost of land, build, paperwork... Nah.

Also. What would happen if landlord couldn't sell because they would get less than what's left on mortgage?

It's all moot point, but I am interested in how people think this could possibly work.

Labour are dangerous under Corbyn. It’s about time everyone realised this.

@IAmALazyArse presumably the individual landlord would meet the same criteria by purchasing another rental property- although that’s detail that hasn’t been arrived at or documented yet

Labour are dangerous under Corbyn. It’s about time everyone realised this

Looking at the list of polls I linked upthread, I'd say a lot of folk are realising it

I know polls aren't everything, but as a previous Labour voter I can't believe it's come to this when you consider the pig's ear our government are making of things right now

But purchasing another rental property doesn’t add to the housing stock which is why the commitment is to build or buy off plan.

No it doesn’t but they’re proposing extending the scheme so they’ll have to extend the requirements presumably. unless they don’t care what landlords do with the money

I think that the redistribution of housing wealth is an excellent idea. We could start by redistributing it south to north - every time someone in the SE sells their 3/4 million semi, some of their profits could go to those whose identical homes are worth a fraction of the same. After all, why should someone be able to make hundreds of thousands just by buying in 1 location rather than another.

Landlords seem remarkably willing to claim that there is no difference between people living in specific houses as owner-occupiers, and living in those houses as tenants to the landlords when it suits them. Yet when you turn that around and say those same houses should be taken into ownership away from the landlords, suddenly the tenants have nowhere to go. Remarkable. The tenants exist, the house exists: we're just talking about a change in distribution.

Lots of narratives abound justifying the right and need of private landlords to keep more than one property. I'm sick of it. Pensions, tenants not wanting to buy and needing flexibility that they can't get any other way - the justifications all wore thin a very long time ago.

People would still have to secure the mortgage. So it would still be just for the well earning ones