To think that Boris bringing back the 'Right to buy' scheme from the 80s is a terrible idea

[somewhereoverthechipshop]

Just this really. I think it's a slap in the face for all those private renters who cannot afford to buy a home, and just a horrible idea.
Boris Johnson mulls a new Right to Buy scheme as housebuilding hits the curb (cityam.com)

Not sure if link above works, but you can google it.
Evidently he is 'mulling over' the idea of bringing back Margaret Thatcher's scheme from the late 80s that decimated this country's council housing stock.
Just wondered what other people thought about it?

I don't know why BTL mortgages were ever allowed. If you want to run a rental then do it when you own the property outright and your income is high enough that you can adequately furnish and repair the flat properly plus there needs to be a regular inspection scheme which rental properties are subject to. If you can't provide the basics to tenants cos your mortgage rate has gone up and your spouse has just lost their job, then don't put the rent up or refuse to get something fixed just cos YOU'RE struggling. You shouldn't have been greedy in the first place and seen BTL as a way to make money. It's because we have reached this ridiculous point of viewing property as a money making scheme rather than for the purpose of providing shelter for all that we are in this mess.

If housing costs hadn't been overinflated by bloody BTLers and greedy mortgage lenders all these years then we wouldn't need so many rental properties anyway cos EVERYONE would be able to afford to buy something to suit their needs. Most people only rent now because they can't get a foot on the property ladder. Which means that the vultures seeing property as a chance to make money get even more excited - more renters to take advantage of.......Vicious circle......makes me apopleptic. So wrong.

Probably, the gullible tend to be his voters.

But the aim of the policy was to destroy council housing

@bringonsummer2022 best post on the thread

@carefullycourageous as it was expanded, definitely. But the original rtb which had been in place for decades previous to the 1980s was fairly neutral in impact - benefited a target group, didn't detract from anyone else. Done properly it still could be. It won't ofc. But existing tenants who can genuinely benefit from it and shore security for themselves and their families have to take things as they are. Lord knows there isn't anything else for them.

my council are shit
a council has had been empty for 2 yes two fucking years In my street

I know pretty much all the circumstances as I’m one of the tennants many victims .

Tennant did very serious ASB and around 30k min worth of damage to the property and had an exclusion order from the area for two years
he’s been able to claim HB for this place and wherever the fuck he is living for two years under “ special circumstances “
as one of the mad bastards victims I’ve been plaguing my MP & local councillor to get him moved
hopefully this will happen in the next few months
So a house that has 3 beds worth over 400k has been left empty

Parents can indeed pass on their tenancy to their children, so long as it only involves one succession of tenancy.
If a single parent wishes to pass her tenancy onto her child, that would be one succession of tenancy.

Owning your own home has become a right to many people rather than a privilege. However, I agree with you.

Yes, the plan was to remove housing from local authority control. And then to replace much of it with housing owned by Registered Social Landlords like Housing associations. But they have built and/or acquired far fewer than needed. The last Labour government could have also stopped Right to Buy but they chose not to.

Very often when ex council houses come on the market they are much cheaper than private houses. I bought an ex council house for £34k, to buy an equivalent private house at that time I would have needed to pay upwards of £75k for a 2 bed much smaller house as mine was a 3 bed which I would have struggled to afford. My ex council house was better insulated, my bills were cheaper, my council tax was the lowest band. If there hadn't been right to buy I couldn't have afforded it. Lots of first time buyers choose ex council houses for this reason.

Absolutely this.

My policy would be anyone can rent out one house at any price. Any more than that and they can only charge HA rates or capped rent. More than three and your tenants need to be people of the Housing Register.

You should really sell it on for 34k though since you got it at a better deal with right to buy. Or sell it back to the council? Are either of those your plans or is it to make profit?

Ex council houses once sold off don't remain at the cheap price people bought them for. Loads of council houses round here were sold off at about 5k. They certainly aren't those prices anymore.

They shouldn't be allowed to increase like that or be sold off privately again. If you buy it, if you want to sell it, it should go back to the council it came from. Sadly that doesn't happen, and loads of people are now in unfit housing thanks to the bad decisions made by people in power. It will never change.

Is the money ring-fenced? If not then it's up to the individual councils to decide how they spend it.

In any case, local councils have people on housing lists. Instead of selling off prime locations to developers to build private housing they should have used the money to provide new modern homes for people. As far as I'm aware that hasn't happened.

@doublemonkey councils are not legally able to build new housing, it is very complicated but a council can't just decide to build a new row of houses.

Really? Why not?

@doublemonkey because people who live in council housing are more likely to vote Labour. Tories don't see why they should provide services for that kind of people.

All that would achieve is higher rents. This is why rents are so expensive, because of all the taxes, insurances, licenses etc etc etc. The costs just get passed on.

The cynic in me thinks Boris is just considering this because if you own, you don't get housing benefit.

The government got half the money. The councils were restricted in how they could use their share by the government. It had to be used to reduce their debt until it was cleared rather than build more housing.

I remember when right to buy began. Many families were encouraged by cheap mortgages and within a few years they were repossessed, needing housing , which by then was scarce. The properties sold were never replaced as we can see now.
We have landlords kicking longstanding tenants out for air b and bs and so the housing crisis gets worse.
Won't be long before workhouses (albeit in a different name) become a common sight in certain towns.

Rents are charged at whatever the market will stand... i.e. the highest amount the landlord can charge the tenant.

If you took away taxes licences etc, rents wouldn't fall, that isn't how capitalism works.

What this country needs is rent controls & build more social housing, eventually, private rents would fall once people had a really choice, BTL would cease to exist, more 1/2 bed properties available to buy at more realistic prices, as landlords sold.

Cheaper rents means more disposable income, more spending on the high street.. better for the economy and people.

Its pretty basic stuff, as its what we did the last time we had a housing crisis after WW2, 100s of '000s made homeless, soldiers demobbed, Labour build millions of council housing... which both parties carried on with until the 80's.

Labour have been in power since the Right to Buy scheme was introduced.

This would be so good

we need more SH not less.
people should not be at the mercy of landlords that are making money out of them.

My grandad used to say the cleverest thing the tories have ever done is introduce right to buy. That one act turned 100s of thousands, if not millions, of traditional Labour (or at leasst not tory) voters into mini-tories as people who were previously more than happy to unionise, protest, and strike suddenly stopped because they were scared of loosing their homes.

What's really needed is a change in attitude from the public. The thing that we seem to have forgotten is that the power lies with the people, for too long we have accepted being the downtrodden and let governments, of every colour, do what is in their best interest instead of ours. We might not be able to come together and march to the same effect as times gone by, but we do control a good chunk of money, and money is power.

Imagine what would happen if every renter in London withheld their rent payments until rent controls and proper regulation of the market was brought in. I'd wager it would be solved with months, if not weeks.

What if 1 million, 2 million, 5 million or more households said they'd with hold rent/mortgage/council tax payments from October-December to compensate for the cost of living crisis. How quickly do you think the government would bring in real measures to help once the saw a giant hole in their and their doners coffers?

I often think on what my grandad said and wonder if that's why we see so little disobedience in the UK compared to other countries. Are we all too scared to take action because we want to protect what we have? In my case, rather hypocritcally, the answer for years has been yes. However, now I would love to see a protest like the above and would gladly take part. I just don't know how to go about organising such a thing and doubt very much anyone would listen to a middle-aged, overtired, overweight lump (another excuse I know). Where's a Pankhurst, Baker, or even Guevara when you need one?

Your grandad was absolutely on the money @Thebestwaytoscareatory. Not only was it a blatant bribe to buy votes but it completely changed the housing landscape. It’s at the root of all our current housing problems.