£30,000 bribe to leave your council house

Grade_A_Reject

mower5 wrote: »

Often the new builds don't meet the minimum size requirements for social housing, 1-2 bed boxes built in the last few years for the btl market are not good enough.

Maybe they should re-evaluate the standards then. If they're good enough for someone who was willing to pay upwards of £100k then surely they should be good enough for someone who is going to be housed for free?

Graham_Devon

Aspiring wrote: »

Reward them for their poor money management, do you mean?

You wouldnt be rewarding people for bad money management.

We are seeing people lose their jobs left right and centre, on top of massive house prices. Many people have no other option but the privately rent or buy, and the advice on every channel of the TV, the government, and the banks etc has been to buy.

Only people with children in general get council homes, the rest have to pay their way and double the rent of their counterparts in council homes.

On another thread I commented that the £30,000 could be used in a much better way. Loans at 0% of up to £30,000 to pay the mortgage only for those facing reposession as a result of the recession / lossing jobs.

The people loosing their home wouldnt need to be given the 30k, there could just be a central mortgage fund, which the mortgage company would be able to defer payments from, up to 30k.

No one would lose out, as the money would have to be paid back by the individual. It would be their choice as to whether they used it, or went down the road of loosing their home.

Of course, giving people 30k of taxpayers money to buy a house keeps house prices up and house sales up. Something the 30k loan to people loosing their homes wouldn't do, so the government isn't really interested.

In my mind it would be a much better scheme than just giving out non repayable 30k lumpsums of taxpayers money to the select few who live in the right postcode.

The trouble with council homes is the long term tennancy agreement, which gives the tennant far too many rights, rights which simply don't exist in other walks of the housing life, and are only available to the select few. You only need to look around MSE boards to find people asking how much they can claim for the council etc and how it's a completely different world to any other housing strategy.

whathavewedone

In times of recession people don't usually lose their homes because of "poor money management". They usually lose their homes because one or both mortgagees lose their jobs for a while.

Vulnerable people and families with children will have to be housed which will cost the taxpayer money in any event.

It seems stupid to pay for people to be housed elsewhere when they could be assisted to stay where they are. I don't actually think they should be given 30k but I do think it makes more sense for the councils to buy the properties and rent them back.

I read recently about a family who were repossessed in 2006, moved to a private house on a council estate. The housing benefit paid by the council to the landlord was more than their mortgage was on a repayment basis never mind interest only.

We shouldn't be thinking about punishing people we should be thinking about the cheapest and most expedient way of dealing with the problem if there are mass repossessions.

Anyway, I don't see why should people be rewarded for staying in a council house for longer than they need to financially, or for occupying a 5 bedroom house when they only need a 1 or 2 bed house or flat. They should just be given the choice of moving or paying a market rent.

mower5

Grade_A_Reject wrote: »

Maybe they should re-evaluate the standards then. If they're good enough for someone who was willing to pay upwards of £100k then surely they should be good enough for someone who is going to be housed for free?

I was pointing out that those new build town centre flats have been built for a particular market. They are designed as btl flats to be rented out to those with no children.

By changing the use of these flats from young workers to families on social security you rapidly create sink estates. Social housing needs planning, otherwise you just create more problems in a few years time. Let the builders who built btl boxes go bust, they took a risk building cheap shoddy stuff so tough luck if the market finds them out.

A better idea would be to confiscate (under a "use it or lose it " law) the massive landbanks held by construction companies and supermarkets and allow ordinary people to buy their own plot of land and build themselves houses. Social housing could be built into the mix.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On another thread I commented that the £30,000 could be used in a much better way. Loans at 0% of up to £30,000 to pay the mortgage only for those facing reposession as a result of the recession / lossing jobs.

The people loosing their home wouldnt need to be given the 30k, there could just be a central mortgage fund, which the mortgage company would be able to defer payments from, up to 30k.

No one would lose out, as the money would have to be paid back by the individual.

That's a great idea Graham. It also fit's very well with whathavewedone's comment:


We shouldn't be thinking about punishing people we should be thinking about the cheapest and most expedient way of dealing with the problem if there are mass repossessions.

StevieJ

robpw2 wrote: »

wouldnt it be better to give the £30k to those struggling to pay mortgages so that they can stay in current homes

Yes, that is why they do it when they become unemployed, i.e. they pay their mortgage I don't think to many will be struggling with interest rates at 1% unless they lose their job.

mower5

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes, that is why they do it when they become unemployed, i.e. they pay their mortgage I don't think to many will be struggling with interest rates at 1% unless they lose their job.

Article from the times about mortgage shock, in the summer for peeps who took out 2 year trackers in '07

Quote: For example, in June 2007 Halifax offered a two-year tracker at 0.51 points below Bank rate — currently £81 a month on a £200,000 interest-only mortgage. Halifax’s standard variable rate (SVR) is 4%, so when the deal expires repayments will rise to £666 — an extra £7,020 a year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article5682104.ece

bo_drinker

Kez100 wrote: »

Should be buying places cheap or if not building them cheap with this money.

It is what should have happened right from day 1 of Thatchers right to buy, which at the time was a good idea and got folk owning their own homes etc. But the money was never reinvested back in to the housing or at least not all to build more. Years later the H A's sprung up and the original councils are mostly broke or struggling now, it's a full time job keeping the streets clean and collecting extortionate rates from struggling businesses. No vision, blinkered at best, jobs for the boys etc etc. :mad:

WTF?_2

whathavewedone wrote: »

In times of recession people don't usually lose their homes because of "poor money management". They usually lose their homes because one or both mortgagees lose their jobs for a while.

Maybe they should have factored that risk into their calculations when borrowing to buy their house and planned accordingly?

Perhaps rented, saved and waited for prices to come down?

Nope, too sensible. Just borrow, borrow, borrow and let the taxpayer bail them out when they can't make the repayments.

Vulnerable people and families with children will have to be housed which will cost the taxpayer money in any event.

Then spend the money on suitable social housing. Housing which will continue to be useful for generations, not just a sticking plaster so that families who made bad financial decisions get to keep their houses.

It seems stupid to pay for people to be housed elsewhere when they could be assisted to stay where they are. I don't actually think they should be given 30k but I do think it makes more sense for the councils to buy the properties and rent them back.

It seems stupid to me to spend public money on enabling people to keep living in their pride and joy when the money would be better spent meeting social housing needs. Buying loads of disparate properties does not make sense from the point of view of management, maintenance and improvements.

The money should be spent on proper social housing instead - housing estates, apartment blocks and the like.

We shouldn't be thinking about punishing people we should be thinking about the cheapest and most expedient way of dealing with the problem if there are mass repossessions.

Do you have any evidence that points to buy/rent back being the best way of dealing with the problem? It's not like a repossessed house disappears from the housing pool or something.

Anyway, I don't see why should people be rewarded for staying in a council house for longer than they need to financially, or for occupying a 5 bedroom house when they only need a 1 or 2 bed house or flat. They should just be given the choice of moving or paying a market rent.

Indeed, if people are occupying a council-provided house which is bigger than they need then they should have to move to a suitable smaller house irrespective of whether they want to or not. Unfortunately, this is just another side of the coin of giving people what they want and not what they need - just as buying up private housing to let people keep living in their own houses is too.

And just as council tenants who are in a large house will kick up a fuss if asked to move somewhere else more suitable to free up the house for someone who needs it, so we will find all these people in buy/rent-backs regarding the house as 'their own' still. It's a recipe for problems down the line and no way should public money be subsidising it.

Graham_Devon

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Maybe they should have factored that risk into their calculations when borrowing to buy their house and planned accordingly?

Perhaps rented, saved and waited for prices to come down?

Nope, too sensible. Just borrow, borrow, borrow and let the taxpayer bail them out when they can't make the repayments.

Interesting.

You want people to rent AND save AND live?

That would of course be fine, in the perfect world. But we haven't been living in that perfect world and some first time buyers have been saving for 10 years or more, every year, their savings becoming worth less and less in terms of a deposit against rising house prices while paying rent to a landlord.

No one is letting the taxpayer bail them out when they can't make the repayments as there is no scheme to my knowledge at the moment. I think theres some noise about extending the period they don't make repayments, but no hand outs from the taxpayer at present to homeowners faced with losing their home.