High time for more council houses

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

So consistently bad that 1.6 million council houses were bought by their occupants.


Still it shouln't be councils roles to build houses. To put it in context, 375 council houses were built in 2008.

I should imagine the discount had something to do with the popularity of the sales!

I think people forget how bad council housing was in the UK. Not just the tower blocks but the houses too. You weren't allowed to do anything yourself (because of the unions? not sure) so you had to wait for the council to come round to fix your door lock or sort out the window that wouldn't shut or whatever.

My uncle painted his front door in a council house and had to pay for the council to come round and paint it again. He was a painter and decorator.

wageslave

Generali wrote: »

I should imagine the discount had something to do with the popularity of the sales!

I think people forget how bad council housing was in the UK. Not just the tower blocks but the houses too. You weren't allowed to do anything yourself (because of the unions? not sure) so you had to wait for the council to come round to fix your door lock or sort out the window that wouldn't shut or whatever.

My uncle painted his front door in a council house and had to pay for the council to come round and paint it again. He was a painter and decorator.

People dont buy houses they hate living irregardless of the discount.

Certainly in BTL you can do any repairs you want to the property. Angels will walk the earth before most landlords will pay for a tradesman.

Your uncle had a home for life Generali. He could raise his children, plan his life secure in that knowledge.

That is no small thing

IveSeenTheLight

wageslave wrote: »

Remarkably this is the first time I have disagreed with one of your posts Generali.

High quality rented housing. Get real here.

Most BTLs are poorly maintained and the tenants have little or no security of tenure.

Social housing may not be a perfect solution but, before politicians started interfering, it provided decent secure housing for at least two generations of ordinary people.

Actually Generali is correct about quality.
There is a graph somewhere showing the increase in rental quality over the years as private rental increased and social housing increased.

Social housing increased it's quality too, but there is an argument that this was because they stopped using the real bad quality properties.

I also recal recently that the governement was criticised for not keeping one of it's mandates of improving all council houses by 2010 and had only achieved 80% of what they should have down.

That's still 80% of council housing improved though.

IveSeenTheLight

wageslave wrote: »

People dont buy houses they hate living irregardless of the discount.

If you were a council tenant and had the means, would you buy a property for £30k if it was valued at £100k?

PasturesNew

silvercar wrote: »

Sad to think that what was meant to be the answer to the housing problem less tan half a century ago, is now being demolished.

It's the people that were the problem though, not the houses.

Move scum in, it's the end of any area.

wageslave

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Actually Generali is correct about quality.
There is a graph somewhere showing the increase in rental quality over the years as private rental increased and social housing increased.

Social housing increased it's quality too, but there is an argument that this was because they stopped using the real bad quality properties.

I also recal recently that the governement was criticised for not keeping one of it's mandates of improving all council houses by 2010 and had only achieved 80% of what they should have down.

That's still 80% of council housing improved though.

Oh well if there is a graph.......

I must be imagining the slum like quality of most private lets in my town.

I am sure there are good private landlords out there who maintain their properties and treat their tenants fairly. Unfortunately not all do and vunerable people are at the mercy of the individual.

Social housing works quite differently. Local authorities make sure they fulfill their obligations. Their jobs depend on it.

And I notice you dont mention security of tenure. No graph available?

wageslave

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you were a council tenant and had the means, would you buy a property for £30k if it was valued at £100k?

If I hated living there and by buying was forced to stay. No.

I'd take my 30k elsewhere. Wouldn't you?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's the people that were the problem though, not the houses.

Move scum in, it's the end of any area.

Which is the problem with council housing.

All the "security of tenure" and reliance on the council "fulfilling their obligations" creates no incentive for the scum to behave well and function in society.

If the scum knew they would be homeless if they acted like scum, they'd stop.

If the scum knew they had to get a job or be homeless, they'd choose to work for a living instead of being third generation benefits scroungers.

A safety net should be temporary in nature, and damn unpleasant to be on. Otherwise there is no incentive to ever get off it.

IveSeenTheLight

wageslave wrote: »

Oh well if there is a graph.......

I must be imagining the slum like quality of most private lets in my town.

I am sure there are good private landlords out there who maintain their properties and treat their tenants fairly. Unfortunately not all do and vunerable people are at the mercy of the individual.

Social housing works quite differently. Local authorities make sure they fulfill their obligations. Their jobs depend on it.

And I notice you dont mention security of tenure. No graph available?

Regarding quality or properties, I aim to keep my properties in top maintenance. It is my investment. I can only go by myself and the stats that produced the graph which shows a higher percentage of quality properties.
I will agree they are not all like that, but an immprovement must be a good thing surely

I'm not so sure about the local authorities fulfilling their obligations.
They probably did, when they got round to it

Security of tenure. I rent out two properties, always at a minimum of 6 months for legal reasons.

If my good tenants wanted to lease from me for a longer tenancy (12 months, 2 years, 5 years 10 etc) I'd happily sign them up.

How many tenants want to have a long term tenancy?

wageslave

Would someone please define scum for me. Just so I know exactly who we are talking about.

I dont seem to have had the exposure to scum that PN and Hamish have had so I am unsure what actually constitutes another human being being described as trash.

Which is strange given I spent most of my formative years on a council estate where it seems most of them are to be found