Right to buy - grossly unfair on private renters and private home owners

[Winterday1991]

Is it just me or is RTB grossly unfair. People that already have cheap subsidised rent and a secure tenancy can get over to £105k off the market value of their council property.

This seems so unfair to us who have to brought in the private market at full market price and private renters who often do not have secure long term tenancies. Why should the public subsidise this?

You also don’t contribute as a tax payer unless you earn in excess of £100k per annum. Under that amount you take out what you put in.

Where have you read this @Princessbananahamock

Utter bollocks. Nobody of working age in reasonable health who hasn’t got children is taking out more than they put in. We put the greatest demand on services during childhood and after pensionable age. From the time my son left school until I claimed my pension I took nothing out at all.

I'm a home owner and couldn't care less if people can buy cheaper housing.

What I disagree with, is the resulting mess the country is now in, with not enough social housing and people forced into B&Bs and other such shit circumstances.

What exactly do you think those of us who live in social housing do for a living? Are we not allowed to have socially useful jobs or something 🤣

This x1000000000. Awful, awful policy. The only way it could possibly have worked wonders if money raised was used to build more council or HA stock, but the RTB legislation forbade it.

One of the other issues is people who earn very good money clinging on to social housing which denies others the chance. It clearly gives money for holidays, cars and going out, but morally it’s not right. A family member inherited enough to buy 3 houses but decided to stay in their council flat that the council made bigger by knocking it into the adjacent flat. Two people with well paid jobs and no children. There needs to be periodic reviews of tenancy agreements and huge savings should be a bar to continuing to have social housing.

See, while I don't agree with RTB I don't agree with this. I don't think forcing people to leave their homes just because they've managed to turn their lives around and become good earners is the way forward. As a HA tenant, I just wouldn't bother trying to get a better job or save if I knew I would lose my home because of it, and many others would do the same.

I do think that people should be downsized where appropriate though, for example when all children have left home.

Maybe you’d like people with relatively high incomes and small mortgages to be forced out of their homes and made to pay more?

It isn’t fair. DHs relative lived in a spacious three bedroom council house with a garden all his life. He was a single man and didn’t need the space. He was a head teacher and could afford to buy. He then bought the house for less than £50k a few years ago. He also died with almost a million quid in the bank.

Completely ridiculous system.

Your mum, a single woman with 4 kids was lucky to have got a council house in a nice area, but the fact that she was able to buy it means it was lost to the social housing stock and not replaced. Many single mums are now being housed in hotels, emergency accommodation, unsuitable overcrowded accommodation because there is no where to house people. The stock is gone and not replaced. I have no issue with people having aspirations for home ownership and there should have been different supports to help people achieve this which didn't include buying their council property. The whole point of social housing was to provide affordable accommodation for people who were unable to buy their own home or afford some of the private sector rents. It was to get people out of overcrowded poorly maintained dangerous tenements. The loss of stock has meant people are going back to living in overcrowded unsuitable accommodation.
It was a vote winner for Thatcher and has been criticised for years but it is part of many tenancy agreements. Now with Housing Associations taking over much of the Council's stuck RTB is no longer part of new tenancy agreements. I am in Ireland and we ran a similar scheme here (mainly copying what was happening in the UK at the time). Ironically I bought my first house off an owner who had bought it from the Council. The only rule they had was that they were only allowed sell to first time buyers. I bought it during the boom and the profit they made was eye watering

I don’t begrudge people the opportunity to buy their home when they otherwise likely couldn’t afford to. What is an issue is the lack of social housing that has resulted from the policy. If they’re going to sell if conical housing then more need to be built to keep up with demand for affordable housing.

There are many though that can't even get a council property and are stuck on massive waiting lists. So if you think people should be supported to buy, it should not only be open to those lucky enough to get a council property but open to everyone that is eligible for social housing

More lighthouses!

@VickyEadieofThigh Thatcher was all about owning your own business and home.

I can't really blame people if they're offered the chance to buy social/council housing, it needs to be addressed with authorities

Don't even get me started on this topic. It's disgustingly unfair. I have some very strong views. You get what you put in in this life.

The waiting lists are what they are because of the government’s failure to build sufficient affordable homes. I don’t hold that against current council tenants and don’t feel they are the ones at fault. I’m sure of most of the people who have issues with it would jump at the opportunity to buy their home at a reduced rate if they had the chance and are only angry because they can’t.

so yes, would be happy for anyone who is eligible for the scheme to use it. Where I live you can only buy your home if you are in an area that isn’t struggling for housing.

I don't begrudge people doing it because I would buy my own council house if I was in their position and I think most people would.

It's unfair on a societal level though, if the government isn't going to replace all the social housing they allow to be sold off. It just makes it even harder for the next generation.

This! Had local councils been allowed to invest RTB monies in new housing for social rent, the whole housing stock would be increased or maintained.

Of course I don't begrudge anyone that had the opportunity to buy their council property, I would definitely have done the same. My issue is with the scheme itself, it should never have been an option unless it was properly enforced that Councils had to use the funds to build more properties that were lost from their housing stock to RTB. I don't support this particular scheme doesn't mean I don't blame anyone for using it.

@Dulra

If her mom hadn't bought the house her mom would still be living in it as a tenant. When she dies if she was still a tenant the tenancy could be passed to one of her children if they are still living there so she's done the PP out of a potential home by exercising her RTB

So this property could still be unavailable to other single moms - this is what people don't get. If you read above there are plenty of cases where people can well afford to move, but it's their home so they don't want to. Same with RTB they don't want to leave their homes so they if they can, they buy it.

The only way round this is to means test everyone living in a council house/HA and then force them to move if they are seen to be earning too much/have too much money

Is this the society you want to live in where we force people out of their homes because at the end of the day, it may not be their house but it is their home.

Edited for spelling

Social housing is to support people to live in a property when they cannot afford to buy or rent privately. Once the need for that property is no longer there people need to move on and let people who are more in need access it. I also don't believe children of social housing tenants should have succession rights. Yes a partner or spouse but not their adult children.

If you read above there are plenty of cases where people can well afford to move, but it's their home so they don't want to
It is not their home, it belongs to the state. So they get to live in a subsidised tenancy for ever more? Very few people are able to afford to buy or rent properties in the areas they grew up in that's life! A social housing property is to support those most in need of accommodation it should never be a longterm solution for that person when and if their situation improves they should move on.

The only way round this is to means test everyone living in a council house/HA and then force them to move if they are seen to be earning too much/have too much money. Yes because they no longer have a need for that property and others do

Is this the society you want to live in where we force people out of their homes because at the end of the day, it may not be their house but it is their home.
Yes it is. A society that looks after its most vulnerable because what you describe is clearly not working, the homeless figures are increasing, families and children are stuck in unsuitable emergency accommodation while others are living in subsidised accommodation that they no longer financially need and in many cases are under-occupying.

Social housing isn’t subsidised. From Cambridge City Council:

If the tenant pays their own rent in full, as a tenant of a local
authority, they are paying the full rent charged by the local authority
for the occupation of the dwelling. Social housing rents are well below
market rents, but are not subsidised rents.

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is where all of the properties are accounted for if they are owned by a local authority, is what is known as 'ring fenced', which means all of the costs of providing the social housing need to be met from the rental income received from them.

The housing fund cannot be subsidised
from other areas of Council activity i.e.; Council Tax, planning fees,
parking income etc. Under the same rules, the HRA cannot use its funds to
subsidise the rest of the Council's services.

Agree it was a terrible policy. My In-laws live in a council house, 3 bedrooms and huge garden.. It was given to them in 1981 when they had children at home but now it's just the two of them, They don't want to leave (don't blame them) but it's because of this, along with right to buy that there is no social houses left for families that need them now.

@BIossomtoes It depends who owns the social housing and what needs it was designed to meet. Many people years ago chose it as an option. They were not poor. Not in awful jobs or no jobs. Often they were professionals such as teachers and those who needed accommodation quickly as they worked for local industry and their skills were needed. They didn’t pull themselves up.

It really depends whether we see housing as a resource for those who need it or a long term home for those who don’t. When there’s a shortage we need flexibility. So yes, there should be an understanding that reviews of need are carried out. As we do for most other benefits paid by the state.

It’s still not subsidised. 🤷‍♀️