Right to buy. What about everyone else?

[BrownieBanana]

AIBU to think that it's all well and good to bring in new policy that allows better saving for RTB for council tenants, but that it doesn't help people who REALLY need help? If you're in a council property it is still vastly cheaper than private rent (over 50/60% where I live). What about the millions of young people living with their parents into their early and mid 30s who can't afford rent (this is me), can't get a mortgage as a single person even on an OK salary. Am I missing the mark here? I'm not saying everyone in a council property has it easy, if course not, however I don't think it's the right way to deal with the housing crisis at all....

Are you honestly that thick that you don't realise that if someone's MH is already in the gutter then £19k of debt, the threat of bailiffs, ccjs and bankruptcy is enough to push them over the edge?

The UK has had social housing for around 100 years, some of these houses have been able to be sold since the mid 30's with this being less restricted since 1980! We haven't managed to break the poverty cycle in many of these areas so far and I can't see allowing the forced sale of housing association properties making that much of a difference. People will always be in need for a variety of reasons some of which out of their control. Good quality houses with longevity cannot be built at the same rate they can be bought - this has been made clear.

I understand most people want the security and long term financial benefit of home ownership. I will inherit a house on the death of a parent (not ex-council) and its likely to be my only way onto the property ladder. However I don't think I should be able to buy a house I rent whether it's council owned or by housing association. It's completely unnecessary as you have security of tenancy - any benefit is really to those who stand to make money from it either from selling or inheriting it. Long term is benefits society more by remaining social housing as it can be returned to that stock or be involved in a swap so it's more efficiently used.

I don't understand why someone would want to buy their council house when they have a secure tenancy. They can literally live there for life so why bother. If they buy it, they'll have the expense of homeownership.. boiler breaks? You now pay. Windows need replacing? Kitchen needs doing? General repairs.. its now all on you to pay.

If I’m cynical, I’d say the benefit is to government - all these people owning homes they can barely afford, getting old…then having to sell their houses to pay for care…

Right to buy for housing association homes without replacing those homes, when this was done with council houses, got us into the situation we're in today. It's fixing a problem that doesn't exist while making the problem of lack of affordable homes bigger.

• Housing Associations do already offer people a right to buy through shared ownership.

• The other options is affordable rent and a secured tenancy - what's wrong with renting if the rent is affordable and the tenancy is secure?

• If the government really cared about housing they could bring in rent controls and secured tenancy in the private sector.

A few things come to mind about this.

The main one is that it's being touted by a lazy man keen to hold onto power who hasn't even got as far as taking basic policy advice on it. So it probably won't happen anyway.

The next is that Cameron's government ran a pilot scheme around giving HA tenants the right to buy but ran into all kinds of legal problems to do with the charitable status of these associations and how ownership can pass in that context.

The next specifically around the housing element of UC is that most people with the kind of savings you need to get a mortgage offer won't qualify for UC so the number of people who could theoretically take advantage of such a scheme if it ever existed is really small.

The next thought is that this is consistent with tory housing policy. RN if a social housing tenant retires they need to pay rent till they die and usually that involves at least a bit of state funds in the form of benefits going to an HA/council plus there's no asset to sell to pay for social care. That again requires state funds. So in the long run it's cheaper for them to have a tenant on a marginal income become a home owner in order that the government can strip that asset in the long run.

The last thought which is also general Tory policy is that they are very keen on housing being seen as a wealth generating asset. It doesn't matter a damn to them that a third of households aren't home owners; what matters to them is that the ones who are profit from it. And they're much more likely to profit in a rentier economy where properties available to rent are mostly private owned. So they need to get rid of as many state owned properties as they can.

They're not particularly bothered about who buys the previously public now privately owned properties, as long as someone does because once a property is privately owned it can play its true part in the private sector rentier economy, eventually.

@Rosewaterblossom So that you don’t have to live in poverty in retirement and/or are able to pass something to your children so they are on a level playing field with peers.

Also as other people have said, Housing Associations are private companies, and no mugs, they have top law firms advising them. No way is the government ever going to get something past them that is contrary to their interests and purposes. It's government by announcement again. Just pissing in the wind.

You get the asset though rather than just paying rent

So you can use that equity that you accumulate

@BlueTitSmilingAtMe

The next specifically around the housing element of UC is that most people with the kind of savings you need to get a mortgage offer won't qualify for UC so the number of people who could theoretically take advantage of such a scheme if it ever existed is really small.

They are to introduce policy that ring fences Help to buy ISAs and Lifetime ISAs from universal credit calculations……

Basically you’ll be able to save as much as you like in either of these vehicles and continue to receive UC which will also then be counted by mortgage provider.

Previously, if you were on low income/UC benefits then you wouldn’t have been able to save without jeopardising losing the UC and mortgage provider unlikely to accept you as UC etc disregarded…

For many up until now the only option was to rent endlessly or to buy a council house, which ate up council stock.

Now that barrier is being removed.

And as a bonus there will be less people renting, and thus less landlords.

@Robinni

Except the if someone is already on HB - when they retire, they will STILL be on HB, possibly more than before, plus pension credit plus any pension the person has. They are likely to be not substantially worse off than before they retired.

And on your second point - in order to pass on your home tho your children you either need to be wealthy enough to be able to fully cover the costs of your care (and they are unknown and unknowable until you get there) OR very very lucky enough to not need any care in your old age.

Anyone who has bought a house under this scheme is on such a low wage as so be on HB and is therefore unlikely to be able to save enough to cover the costs of care, so it’s more likely than not that the their house will end up being sold before they die to cover those costs.

@Rosewaterblossom is right - and as a Council Tenent myself, I don’t see why anyone would ever do it.

Yes and post retirement that is certainly a consideration. You'd need to be on a really good pension to be able to afford to pay rent till you die and have a nice retirement.

Trouble is like I say often the state gets it in the end via care costs etc and for those who are only just over the margins they'll end up losing a lot, proportionally, anyway.

Aren’t 5% deposits already available for FTB?

@Rinoachicken post retirement your housing benefit reduces in accordance with what private pension you have. I know people in their fifties who, having been stung by pension schemes collapsing previously, never took up the workplace pension for that reason - what the workplace pension would be out wouldn't put them in a better position than being solely reliant on housing benefit and in some circumstances would put them in a worse position as they'd lose pension credit and all the gateways it leads to.

So it's really not a straightforward decision, and rent has to be paid as a social housing tenant, even if you're 70, 75, 80.

@blue yes pensions are only worthwhile if they put you in a better position than you would have been on benefits. I always say it is not a good idea for everyone to save into a pension.

Unfortunately you are one of the people the government are prepared to ignore so their traditional home owning supporters will continue to vote for them.

@antelopevalley yes agree.

It's kind of sad isn't it that these are the considerations facing people in this country who have worked their whole adult lives, especially given the paucity of the UK state pension - that even this much trumpeted policy is unlikely to do very much to materially improve their lives, in most cases.

Re what about everyone else isn’t that where more lax lending comes in - which was talked about

Although we’ve been there before and there are risks

It’s a roundabout way of liquidising the countries assets isn’t it? I don’t believe there’s any intention of providing people with long term secure homes given the group they’re targeting (said as a terminal private renter who accepted long ago that I can’t afford to buy and maintain a property at current prices. I’m wary of renting properties without white goods!).

I also suspect a row to erupt later down the line. If UC can be used to get a mortgage then I’m presuming the same people will still be entitled to the housing element as it’s been used as a factor for affordability. Does this open up the possibility of future claimants of UC being allowed to claim a housing element for existing mortgages? I’m presuming that isn’t a thing currently tbh, I’ve no idea in reality, my understanding could be way out of date.

So basically you’re just bitter because you’ve gotten to 30 without being able to move out of your parents home? @BrownieBanana yes, YABU.

Yeah it does seem a bit suss to use state money to enable asset purchase.

But then we already do that. I mean we give away billions every year in housing element/benefit to the working tenants who claim it as a top up and it goes straight to their landlords.

I guess in one way you could argue that using it to fund the purchase of the occupier rather than fund the purchase of the owner who then rents to the occupier just cuts out the middle man.

But it still doesn't address the issue of state funds being used to inflate the value of privately owned assets.

Good point

What about all the people in the middle in jobs like teaching or nursing who do not have access to council or social housing though

I agree it is about getting hands on HA assets.

Re. benefits: it was previously the case you could claim mortgage support if you lost your job, Osborne took this away and replaced it with a loan- I think there is concern about repossessions now we are facing a recession (special thanks to everyone who voted for Brexit ) and people who have paid in all their lives are going to be very fucked off to lose their homes - not to mention it being very expensive for us to then give HB for rental costs which are higher than supporting the mortgage.

The welfare system used to be better, more rational, now all the punitive changes have made it completely irrational from a public purse perspective.

On one hand it’s good for the individual as owning an asset is preferable

But not so good for next generation who might want that HA asset to live in

I can see why people want to own - be it HA or private renters so helping out makes sense

But it does pull up the drawbridge a bit

@woodhill those people already have access to council and social housing. Many are living in such housing, myself included. Earn enough to not need HB though.

Not everyone in social housing is on HB, and it’s a sliding scale, from full HB to 50p a week!