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

How about your tenants move to the same place they go to when landlords decide to sell in any other circumstance?

But without this law I’m not planning to sell, and they can stay where they’re perfectly happy, for as long as they want

However, any sign of this coming to pass and I’ll be selling up and they’ll be evicted. Win win eh?

No @Dangerfloof right to buy and right to acquire are 2 different schemes. Many landlords offer both, some only offer RTB. Depends on their property portfolio.

The person who gets on the property ladder by buying your property would probably think so @Costacoffeeplease

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

But, similar to tenants using slum landlords, those reliant on housing benefit are unlikely to be able to magic up at least a 10% deposit and service a mortgage on the other 90%, with no assistance, even on a discounted property.

It's not 'taking your house'. Stop being so melodramatic. It's taking all those extra houses that the landowner does not actually need to live in, and is using to acquire extra wealth at the great expense of those who have nothing. We cannot keep on requiring the poorest people to constantly work bloody hard ("contributing") just to keep putting food in their mouths and be unable to acquire assets, while enabling the already well off to acquire more. People are not stupid, they can see they're being required to give forever to people who do nothing but take forever. Eventually there will be a reckoning.

This would kill investment to the UK stone dead. Ditto the forced nationalisation of utility companies etc. We would have the allure of Zimbabwe during the Mugabe days.
But hey it's a vote winner because people hark back to more simple times when the council provided housing for most, the mines employed lots of people and people stayed in the area they were born in to inter-generational care. Those days are clearly gone.

OP I’ve made a mistake taking you at face value. You don’t want to know how this would work, you just want to pick holes at your demanded answers.

Well that’s kind of how discussions work cherry

Someone asks a question, someone else responds, then the first person analyses the response and asks further questions as appropriate

You’ve said yourself you don’t need to know how it will be funded - I can’t decide if that’s funny or scary - probably both.

Either way, you can choose not to care about the practicalities but you can’t stop the rest of us doing so.

Likewise, you can ignore all the factors which make it a non starter but that doesn’t make them go away.

Honestly worriedmum most people wouldn’t even notice if this was introduced. Seems
No one here noticed the other 30 times its been mooted either.

that's quite a shocking article op...so it only applies to tenants who have been there for several years? , Any Landlord with half a brain if they thought this was going to be passed into law would simply give notice to any long standing tenants in line with their contracts and thus remove any right to buy and never let tenants stay long term.

Why would you renew their rental contract or move to month to month if you even thought there was a one in a million chance they would have rhe right to buy it at a discount. You wouldn't. And no one would permit tenants to stay for the number of years it would take to let them buy it at a discount,

Ultimately this is just a bonkers game to get votes that would mean people in their rental homes for years will find their agreements not renewed and them given notice to leave.

This isn't like social housing with life time tenancies. Any sniff of this law coming in you'd just get your tenants out in line with your contract. Move your kid or auntie in for a couple of months and then rent it to new people.

It's bonkers,🤷‍♀️

Spelling out the impact for those who chose not to think it through:
Less investment in the UK -> fewer jobs
Rising unemployment -> fewer people to pay the social tax bill
Fewer taxpayers -> smaller bucket for universal credit/unemployment benefits/social care
Etc.

But thinking it through seems too hard for so many people it seems.

OP for the millionth time IT IS ALREADY BEING FUNDED

Why can’t you understand that? I’m honestly at a loss. You keep asking and I keep telling you. I’m starting to think it’s just beyond your comprehension

that's quite a shocking article op...so it only applies to tenants who have been there for several years? , Any Landlord with half a brain if they thought this was going to be passed into law would simply give notice to any long standing tenants in line with their contracts and thus remove any right to buy and never let tenants stay long term.

Exactly

So it wouldn’t work for its intended purpose and would actually make rentals less secure for tenants.

But, similar to tenants using slum landlords, those reliant on housing benefit are unlikely to be able to magic up at least a 10% deposit and service a mortgage on the other 90%, with no assistance, even on a discounted property.

True, at least immediately. I think the consequences of this policy would cut right down on buy-to-let and landlords, and subsequently crash the house prices. I can't see of that being of much benefit to anyone tbh and would much rather see a change of ownership back into social hands instead. That would stop the housing benefit flow - a very large flow of public money straight into private hands, remember - immediately and directly.

It depends bluntness. You would have to offset the expense and risk of getting new tenants against the expense and risk of potential RTB.

All that article does is explain why the landlord wouldn’t make losses from the lasts time labour proposed this. In the opinion of a researcher for a think tank.

I feel so smug. I totally saw this coming. Hilarious.

Well this is a no brainer if it happens.
Unfortunately private ll won't be able to offer long term tenancies anymore. Ours have been with us a number of years, are excellent tenants and love their home. Once again it's those without their own home who will suffer.

“But, similar to tenants using slum landlords, those reliant on housing benefit are unlikely to be able to magic up at least a 10% deposit and service a mortgage on the other 90%, with no assistance, even on a discounted property.”

You can use the discount as your deposit. However I do agree, and this is why there are so few RTBs currently- renters simply can’t afford them even with a discount. Which is why this won’t be the dramatic fall of society posters on here seem to think

cherry I have no comprehension issues - it’s you who’s just talking about HAs and corporate landlords and doesn’t understand that this is totally different to small private investors and this proposal.

I have linked to an article which suggests it wouldn’t even be funded anyway (except for CGT relief) , which makes it even less viable.

...and yes, of course it will lead to landlords kicking out tenants just before the time period is up the 'statement of the obvious' right in front of me. Presumably that loophole would be blocked up somehow? How?

It's easy to say oh it would have this and that negative impact. But that hasn't stopped governments before! I agree with a pp who said they'll start off targeting "slum" landlords but then expand it. There is a part of me that thinks that really, people only do "need" one home. If you have more money, you can just have a nicer home and savings.

Housing associations can, and do, buy individual properties to rent out at social housing rates. My street is mostly private houses, they have always been private, but my HA bought two houses in this road and I live in one of them. My friends house is similar. All the pp's saying "my poor tenants would have to move". If individuals didn't buy all these properties, then housing associations would and your tenants would have a cheaper home and a much more secure tenancy! So tbh the argument about it being worse for tenants just isn't true. Yes some would have to move but, over time, it would overall be better for renters. It's when this gets pointed out to them that you might need to start worrying! People will accept some hardship now if they think they are improving chances for their children in the future.

Which is why this won’t be the dramatic fall of society posters on here seem to think

I’ve never said it would be a ‘dramatic fall of society’ I’ve said it won’t work - which it seems you agree with

That article is simply the opinion of a researcher for a think tank and also simply a suggestion from the opposition government 3 years ago. So it’s totally irrelevant.

They are funding RTBs now. If tomorrow they suddenly had to fund 1000 more RTb sales they’d be over the moon. It’s not an issue. You’re like a dog with a bone

Wasn’t referring to you @Bearbehind, I’ve given up as you don’t understand anything

Exactly Asta. That happens every day all over the country and most HAs are desperate to buy more properties. They will have no problem buying them from
Landlords who want to exit the BTL market

Wasn’t referring to you, I’ve given up as you don’t understand anything

Except you’re the one no one else agrees with

You can insult me all you like, it doesn’t detract from the fact your argument doesn’t stack up.

I don’t doubt RTB is funded at the moment but that is not the same as attempting to force private landlords to sell at a discount to their tenants.