Novel model to prevent repossessions with banks showing their moral standing

olly300

leveller2911 wrote: »

Just what is the "stigma" of living in a council house???? why would it be "punishment enough?" F**cking cheek !!

Some people have either been brought up to stigmatise people living in council houses as they are "poor" and live in separate places from other people i.e. large sprawling crime ridden 60's estates, or are from aboard and hear these views.

This amuses me living and having been brought up in London where council houses where and are intermixed with normal housing. Also lots of council tenants I've met are well off compared to their neighbours particularly due to the location of their properties.

leveller2911

olly300 wrote: »

Some people have either been brought up to stigmatise people living in council houses as they are "poor" and live in separate places from other people i.e. large sprawling crime ridden 60's estates, or are from aboard and hear these views.

This amuses me living and having been brought up in London where council houses where and are intermixed with normal housing. Also lots of council tenants I've met are well off compared to their neighbours particularly due to the location of their properties.

I agree, the key to success is a mix of social housing with private, rules for social housing are tighter regarding the "tenants obligation" which has been a good thing.We don't need "gated developments" its no different than ethic groups living in their own communities.

This whole "class" thing is quite frankly pathetic, you can have good and bad in all people. What are the class devisions now?? You can have an "upper class" family living in a large "stately" but are basically bankrupt.Is it now down to purely which school you go to?..

It doesn't amuse me, bloody annoying :rolleyes:

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Ok, before anyone starts, I have no idea what I'm talking about but here goes:

purch wrote: »

There should be a Forum Rule that makes everyone start their posts with that line !!!!

I'd like it as the opening line of Prime Minister's Question Time.

Dylanwing

Ok, before anyone starts, I have no idea what I'm talking about but here goes:
When Thatch promoted the sale of Council Houses, the publicity suggested that all were on run-down estates. In truth, the Council also owned a number of highly desirable properties, particularly those in rural areas. Naturally, most decent ones were snapped up, and in some cases, individuals bought parents houses, netting a pretty hefty gain in the space of a few years. The original discounts were just plain stupid, and how selling a property for a fraction of it's market value can be seen as 'A good deal for the taxpayer' is beyond me.

leveller2911

Dylanwing wrote: »

Ok, before anyone starts, I have no idea what I'm talking about but here goes:
When Thatch promoted the sale of Council Houses, the publicity suggested that all were on run-down estates. In truth, the Council also owned a number of highly desirable properties, particularly those in rural areas. Naturally, most decent ones were snapped up, and in some cases, individuals bought parents houses, netting a pretty hefty gain in the space of a few years. The original discounts were just plain stupid, and how selling a property for a fraction of it's market value can be seen as 'A good deal for the taxpayer' is beyond me.

The discount system was a very good idea in principle, authorities got rid of a lot of housing stock needing renovating, but to give someone 69% discount just because they lived in the property for so many years was clearly flawed and of course all the nice properties would be snapped up.It was also flawed to give homeowners "grants" to modernise there homes.I know quite a few people who brought houses, then applied for grants to re-roof,central heating,windows etc, then they kept the houses for 3 yrs then sold for a good profit...........

It was all wrong and clearly NOT good for the taxpayer...

olly300

I know lots of councils in London got rid of listed properties via RTB. And if they couldn't get rid of them that way they put some of them up for Auction, reported in horror by the local papers, simply due to as leveller2911 says the councils couldn't afford the renovation costs.

olly300

Dylanwing wrote: »

Ok, before anyone starts, I have no idea what I'm talking about but here goes:
When Thatch promoted the sale of Council Houses, the publicity suggested that all were on run-down estates. In truth, the Council also owned a number of highly desirable properties, particularly those in rural areas. Naturally, most decent ones were snapped up, and in some cases, individuals bought parents houses, netting a pretty hefty gain in the space of a few years. The original discounts were just plain stupid, and how selling a property for a fraction of it's market value can be seen as 'A good deal for the taxpayer' is beyond me.

She did it for votes.

Like Dame Shirley of Westminster council.

I was watching some documentary on housing and the scheme actually was piloted in the 50's. And only took up speed during the 80's.

baileysbattlebus

The title of the thread made me smile - "banks" and "moral standing" in the same sentence.

I have come to the conclusion the banks have no morals, standing or otherwise.

whathavewedone

OK I didn't mean to get up anyone's nose when I talked about stigma etc. But come on. My oh grew up in a council house and if he were to end up in one he would feel much worse about it than I would because he'd see it as being back where he started. He shouldn't feel like that but he would.

And yes, there are a lot of people who are snobs who would be horrified to be council tenants. You might not like it, but there it is.

On the lawyer point, the ones that help individuals generally don't get paid all that much anyway, (some criminal lawyers in London start on around 17k I think) so you'd have to do it for the love of it really.