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 I would sell up, why wouldn’t I? I didn’t set out to be a property broker, I set out to provide relatively low cost rentals to people who wanted them. (For info we accept tenants on HB and with pets, two of the main bugbears against landlords)

I honestly can’t believe you think this proposal involves the government subsidising the discount.

How exactly does that ‘redistribute wealth’?

All it does is keeps the landlord as he would have been, helps the tenants, and costs the tax payer.

Yes I know you’d sell up, OP thought you would keep your tenants but just use loopholes to ensure they were never eligible for RTB.

I don’t think. That’s exactly how it works, it’s now it’s worked for nearly 40 years and thousands of property sales

Legislation to make eviction much harder will be introduced at the same time

But it doesn't matter. Because you'd evict in line with your current contract before the legislation came in. Who wouldn't? You'd have to be off your head not to.

And then who would want to go into rental if it becomes very difficult to evict? Meaning rental properties drop. Driving rents up. And ultimately you always have to be able to evict.

So all that happens is anyone who is in their home for years gets notice before the legislation comes in. Forced to leave their homes. Rental properties start dwindling. And rents go up, to offset the negatives. Meaning no one can stay long term and everyone pays more.

It's shit for tenants. It works on social housing due to life time tenancies. It does not work in private because every one gets advance notice it might happen and can act to prevent it.

I can’t be bothered looking for loopholes, and evicting good tenants just because they’ve been in the property for however many arbitrary years are decided ‘enough’. I’d just get out now

It redistributes wealth by taking money from a progressive tax system (ie taking it from the rich) and giving it to the poor.

Exactly the way using tax revenue to fund unemployment benefits works

This reminds me of the stubborn owners who won't sell to make way for a road and their house is the one standing in the middle of the road.
Nobody can make you sell your property, it isn't going to happen.

Housing associations don’t usually have life time tenancies, apart from legacy tenancies

Can you tell me where you think the money CURRENTLY comes from for these transactions?

You’ve said yourself the RTB currently relate to HAs and corporate entities who reinvest so the payback exists for those government investments

You spectacularly fail to explain where the payback comes from in essentially buying houses off private landlords at full price and selling them to tenants at a discount

Even Robin Hood took from the rich to give to the poor - you’re talking about giving the rich the full value and the government funding the difference.

It’s completely laughable.

So if the money for the deposit comes from the "discount" is somebody going to loan the families this money that does not currently exist ? The local HA that is cash strapped to the bare bones ?

It's unwieldly and unworkable.

You must be kidding @Drabarni- forget the government, haven’t you ever seen Tesco clear a street to make way for a new store? It’s depressing as hell.

I was involved with one of those stubborn owners @Drabami. Despite threatening Highways Agency staff and the police with a shot gun at one point, he did have to sell up and move. The legislation is a lot tougher now than it used to be.

@AnyFucker that’s how it works now. No one fronts the cash, the mortgage company forfeit it.

Ie house is worth £100k

Tenants get 15k discount

Bank give them a 85k mortgage with no cash deposit. The bank don’t care, because the house is still worth £100k, the LTV is the same.

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

It was these guys.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7538213.stm

There is no payback for the government OP. They’ve given cash to a private company who use it to invest in new property for them to rent. How do the government get payback for that?

The bank don’t care, because the house is still worth £100k, the LTV is the same.

Nowadays they very much care as the person borrowing the money has zero financial input from the beginning - they don’t like that at all anymore.

I am trying to get my head around this

I'm a landlord, and are because we are not given a pension in the industry we work in.

I can think of several ways round this. The simplest is to rent your property by the room on individual contracts so no one person is the tenant overall. Presumably no one person can then buy the property without making the others homeless.

It would penalise families, and landlords will do anything to avoid long term tenancies. Everything governments do to meddle with a market has unintended consequences.

Was £300k on top of buying his house at market value alsohuman

What is the actual issue then if the hypothetical landlord still gets their hypothetical 100 k ?

Oh right well you better tell the lenders regularly offering these mortgages then OP, they don’t seem to agree with you

They’ve given cash to a private company who use it to invest in new property for them to rent. How do the government get payback for that?

Because you said yourself you’re talking about entities who reinvest in new builds etc or it buys housing stock for associations.

You’re clearly one of Corbyn disciples who doesn’t understand that this stuff actually has to be paid for though so it’s probably best we agree to disagree.

No, he wanted £300k more. He didn’t get it.

Christ knows @AnyFucker. OP has suggested they might want to keep the house. But as I say, if this becomes the law then it’ll just be part and parcel of being a landlord