Housing Association

leveller2911

captainhaggis wrote: »

A good post.

Am I being a snob? Perhaps a little. But at +200k I think I have every right. There are plenty - plenty - of new developments being built in my town that are at a lower level of the market than these properties.

My problem isn't with housing associations taking flats in new developments but I do think the developments in which new flats are built should be chosen more carefully.

I've worked, saved and invested VERY hard to be able to afford that flat. It really in an executive place with all those facilities.

This is like the countless discussions we've had recently about saving for retirement etc : by giving people the perks that prudence affords one without actually having been prudent oneself, you remove the incentive to save/invest.

If people want a house they should be helped in getting one. But should they be given a property at the high end of the market?

Remember that the cost of these flats will have been built in to the cost of mine....

:eek:

You say you paid £200k for your flat, mortgage?????? Your sig says your in debt and waiting/hoping for an upturn in the housing market to bail you out..........


I rent, Im debt free totally, I don't owe a penny to anyone, have £35k in savings.I work 60hrs a week............

Are you any better than me? Am I any better than you???

No we are probably similar.There are good and bad in all parts of our society.I know millionaires who are complete a** holes and people with very little money who are the salt of the earth.

Given that house prices have risen 300% in the last 10 yrs and wages around 30% , how would you "help " people to buy???

theartfullodger

Now, I've just discovered that one of the blocks in the development - a block of, I believe, 18 properties - was given to a local housing association for sale/lease/part ownership to their registered users.

It seems wrong that :

a) people are getting these luxury flats for far less than private buyers have paid, but more importantly

Well, surely can't you feel pleased for the people who will move into these properties for their good fortune?? I'm sure their behaviour & manners will improve with the "rubbing off" and copying from your high-quality "executive" tenants...

Seems to me that you were conned by a dodgy developer (? perhaps "believed the salesman ?? ) into buying something that wasn't what you "thought" it was ("exclusive executive development...") .
.
.
IMHO the world is divided into three groups...
a) Those who when they make mistakes, accept their own responsibilities and get on with life...
b) Those who always want to blame someone else and get someone else to pick up the tab...
c) Those who can't count...
- Which are you?? I know for me...


Cheers!

Lodger

adg1

captainhaggis wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd have bought one, to be honest, had I know about the HA block. Purely out of principle.

What principle? That you paid full market value for a flat and someone else paid less? Can't you be happy for the people who have qualified for these homes and, as a result won't be living on the streets? People need to live somewhere it just happens that the developer had to build a HA block in order to get the planning permission for your flat.

HA blocks are a necessary part of new development in many areas with housing needs - otherwise more and more expensive appartment blocks would be built and there would be less and less property available for those on low incomes.

If the HA block is 18 properties I'd guess the whole development is pretty hefty and I doubt that you'll ever hear from these 'non-executive' people as this type of development is so anti-social.

In order to get planning permission for large new developments, the local authority normally makes the developer build a certain percentage of the development as affordable homes. Every new development here has a block that is reserved for affordable home schemes.

No affordable housing - no planning permission for the whole development.

The thing that gets me the most is that the affordable housing/council housing is actually build to better safety standards than the flats next door, as the councils and local authorities have far more stringent rules in place for safety and security which developers don't have to abide by for private sale flats.

captainhaggis wrote: »

Remember that the cost of these flats will have been built in to the cost of mine....

:eek:

Then you should feel happy and contented that you have helped someone less well off in life than yourself.

Fire_Fox

captainhaggis wrote: »

I bought a flat about two years ago in a luxury development in the centre of my home town. The flats here were in high demand. I paid about 202k for a two bed, two bath property and the flat comes with a dedicated parking space, secured gate entry system (which two years on STILL doesn't work), a concierge service and a residents' gym.

Now, I've just discovered that one of the blocks in the development - a block of, I believe, 18 properties - was given to a local housing association for sale/lease/part ownership to their registered users.

It seems wrong that :

a) people are getting these luxury flats for far less than private buyers have paid, but more importantly
b) that the developer didn't advise me as a private buyer that a housing association would be taking one of the blocks

Does anyone think I can argue with the developer over this point?

The fact that the development included affordable housing would have been part of the planning application, which is a public document. Are you 100% confident this was hidden from you and you didn't simply fail to do your homework?

Either the flat is worth what you paid, in which case well done for making a sound investment, or you paid over the odds in which case you should have done your homework better.

If you have a problem with the repairs and maintenance then you need to read though the LEASE website, read through your long lease and then write to your management company. This has NOTHING to do with the affordable housing.
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/

captainhaggis wrote: »

My problem isn't with housing associations taking flats in new developments but I do think the developments in which new flats are built should be chosen more carefully.

I've worked, saved and invested VERY hard to be able to afford that flat. It really in an executive place with all those facilities.

This is like the countless discussions we've had recently about saving for retirement etc : by giving people the perks that prudence affords one without actually having been prudent oneself, you remove the incentive to save/invest.

If people want a house they should be helped in getting one. But should they be given a property at the high end of the market?

Remember that the cost of these flats will have been built in to the cost of mine....

The flats haven't been built in to the cost of yours, you were seduced by the glossy brochure into paying top whack for your 'executive apartment'. The developers charged what buyers were willing to pay, simple as that. The affordable housing has been sold to the housing association for only a modest profit, at the highest price the developers could get away with and still label the properties 'affordable housing'.

You don't even know if the social tenants will be benefitting from the concierge service and gym, if they are then they or the housing association will have to pay service charges same as you.

As the presence of social tenants has reduced the availability of apartments for private sale, you could argue they have made the development MORE exclusive not less, as the market is not flooded with high end apartments in the town centre. Have the social tenants caused problems or are you just being a NIMBY?

hells_2

Sorry but I too think you're a total snob!

If this kind of thing bothers you that much in 'executive ivory tower', then a piece of advice next time you buy is to go down the Local Authority Planning Dept and ask for a copy of the planning permission and Section 106 agreement. That will tell you if it's good enough for you and whether they will let any 'poor people' in the neighbourhood!

Alias_Omega

Probably had to agree to sell X amount to the LHA to be able to build the development.

Might be all part of that shared-ownership scheme that appears to be growing.

sequence

People are going to wake up in about 5 years and realize what absolute sh!te these new breed of "luxury" flats are.

As someone who worked on building these, I'd value most "luxury flats" at around 40K maximum. These kinds of places are going to be the real slums of the future once all the wood filler starts to fall out :cool:

robin_banks

captainhaggis wrote: »

Hi all,

Wonder if anyone might be able to answer this one for me.

I bought a flat about two years ago in a luxury development in the centre of my home town. The flats here were in high demand. I paid about 202k for a two bed, two bath property and the flat comes with a dedicated parking space, secured gate entry system (which two years on STILL doesn't work), a concierge service and a residents' gym.

Now, I've just discovered that one of the blocks in the development - a block of, I believe, 18 properties - was given to a local housing association for sale/lease/part ownership to their registered users.

It seems wrong that :

a) people are getting these luxury flats for far less than private buyers have paid, but more importantly
b) that the developer didn't advise me as a private buyer that a housing association would be taking one of the blocks

Does anyone think I can argue with the developer over this point?

Cheers

Tbh you bought a flat,'luxury' is something of a misnomer.

robin_banks

leveller2911 wrote: »

Its actually Government policy.The ratio is something like 2.8/10 affordable housing and quite righly so in my opinion.There are far too many overpriced homes that the vast majority of people under the average wage can't afford. Given the fact that the Tories allowed the selling off of the Council house stock and not allowing the Councils to build with the prceeds has made the problem far worse now.

It was around 4-5 yrs ago in London the 1st £1m ex-council house was sold, many many people have bought over the years and relied on HPI to "climb the greasy ladder".Many of those now live in houses worth vastly more than they bought thier Council houses for and suddenly forget how they started.

We need affordable housing and if you want someone to blame for having Chav,work shy scumbags living locally don't blame the Councils blame the Tories for giving un-married mums Council houses during the 80,s and Labour for continuing the policy.:rolleyes:

Labours grand plan for integration........

It's 'policy' but not happening in reality. In many cases LA flats are being demolished, to make way for a new development that will contain a portion of 'affordable ' housing namely the bonkers shared ownership scheme.

In terms of blame I wouldn't know where to begin.

hells_2

Alias_Omega wrote: »

Probably had to agree to sell X amount to the LHA to be able to build the development.

Might be all part of that shared-ownership scheme that appears to be growing.

Correct; most, if not all schemes I've been involved in lending on over the years will have a social housing element attached to the S106, or some element of contribution to public areas, new roads, a school, open spaces, etc etc etc.

The HA do a deal up front with the developer to pre-purchase x amount of units. As the developer knows he's got presales in this respect, it's easier for them to arrange funding.