Council Right to Buy

PoorDave

Who was it that decided this scheme was a good idea?!

I was wondering last night and thought i would canvass views.

It seems like we had a good scheme where people on lower incomes could get the houses they needed for their circumstances.

they the same people were allowed to buy them, thus taking them from the "affordable" pot, and putting them into the mainstream.

The argument being that these people had the "right to own their own home", but then that has penalised future generations and stopped them doing the same, hasn't it?

Your thoughts?

(We own an ex-council house, but we are way down the line of owners from the first purchaser, in case anyone's interested)

lowis

The Tories under Thatcher decided it was a good idea - and it was, it has helped many people to improve their life - but the Tories failed to introduce the other half of the policy i.e. replace sold housing stock with new stock. Doh!

Mrs_Optimist

We too bought an ex-council house some way down the line from the original council tenants. Whilst in essence I do think it was a good way to allow people on lower income to afford thier own home, the money the council made was not ploughed back into building further affordable and council housing and so we (taxpayers) are spending a fortune on housing the homeless in hotels and B&B's and private rent to landlords etc, because there is no housing for them since it has been sold off. Also the system has allowed only certain members of society to cash in on free money (this has been voiced on this forum many times before), to the detriment of everyone else. When we bought our home 10 years ago for £44k that was the absolute top limit for our affordibility. We didn't get given concessions and discounts from the vendor. It is interesting that in our row of 10 local authority houses only 2 are now owned by the local authority and we know of at least 2 where the tenants have brought cheap from the council and sold on quickly (at market value) and disappeared with the money. One of them, a lady wth 4 children brought from the council at the bequest of a company specialising in right-to-buy, who gave her a cheque for £10k and she disappeared to ireland as soon as the sale went through. The council are supposed to claw back any discount if the property is sold in within a certain time limit but our local council didn't even know that she had sold on - and then they couldn't trace her, so who profited? Yes the company who now let it out at a premium. The woman concerned was of the view that the "council would have to rehome her because she had kids" when she decided to return to the UK from Ireland. Its farcical. Next door to us they bought 2 years ago at £80k which is an absolute bargain and they have done nothing but remortgage and thrown money about like water - because it was in essence free equity before they even started.

lynzpower

I believe that this was the worst idea the Conservatives ever had, and they had a few pretty bad ones. In fact Id almost go as far as to say this is the worst idea ( apart from going to war) any government in my lifetime has come up with.

Its tripe to say in fact that the reasoning behind it was to allow those at the bottom to own thier own homes, the reasoning behind it was to make the state machine leaner, and to offload a provision from the government to the individual. Thatcher purposely refused to give councils any money to build more stock, as the express purpose was to discourage the populace from seeing the state as a proivider of housing and that everyone should get off thier !!!! and buy thier own place or rent privately.

Mrs A is completely correct, what we as taxpayers and local authories, pay some hotel owner 600 a week in a squalid hole for a family to live in then wonder why the children are ill and have behavioural problems.

Labour has gone some way to addressing this, by providing LAs with the finance to buy properties off the open market. One LA is buying ex-LA flats back at over 4 times the rate they were sold at, in fact I bet they are all having to do that.

Genius. utter bloody genius.

whambamboo

lynzpower wrote:

I believe that this was the worst idea the Conservatives ever had, and they had a few pretty bad ones. In fact Id almost go as far as to say this is the worst idea ( apart from going to war) any government in my lifetime has come up with.

Its tripe to say in fact that the reasoning behind it was to allow those at the bottom to own thier own homes, the reasoning behind it was to make the state machine leaner, and to offload a provision from the government to the individual. Thatcher purposely refused to give councils any money to build more stock, as the express purpose was to discourage the populace from seeing the state as a proivider of housing and that everyone should get off thier !!!! and buy thier own place or rent privately.

Mrs A is completely correct, what we as taxpayers and local authories, pay some hotel owner 600 a week in a squalid hole for a family to live in then wonder why the children are ill and have behavioural problems.

Labour has gone some way to addressing this, by providing LAs with the finance to buy properties off the open market. One LA is buying ex-LA flats back at over 4 times the rate they were sold at, in fact I bet they are all having to do that.

Genius. utter bloody genius.

except that the LAs are not very good at managing property

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=4930

Hmm, 36,000 properties transferred by Sunderland council to a company set up by former chief exec of Sunderland Council for £4,000 each. Great idea...

lynzpower

Oh agreed, but additionally to remember that local authories are under stricvt instructions to tender out everything they can, regardless if they can do it cheaper inhouse- its called Best Value, and having worked for councils in a variety of capacities over the last 6 years, I can tell you now, I have never,not ONCE seen a best value project that would ever constitute value for money.

clutton_2

""squalid hole"" - going off on my favourite quiet rant here for a minute or two - the local authorities have had draconian powers for years in terms of getting rid of "squalid holes" - but i have rarely come across such squalid landlords in court - i have seen several lists of works to be done whic have been issued by EHO's, but, then the local authorities seem to lose interest.

With the exceptions of Rachmann in 1960's and Nicholas Van hooooogstraten, (however he is spelt) - who can name a landlord that has been prosecuted ?

This 2004 Housing Act, was simply not necessary in my view - "squalid holes" owners, will still not register with the local authorites, and homeless families will still be housed in such appalling places.

Those that profiteer from central funds, with no intention of providing any sort of decent standards, will always find a way round the regs.

mini rant over !

BobProperty

clutton wrote:

...With the exceptions of Rachmann in 1960's and Nicholas Van hooooogstraten, (however he is spelt) - who can name a landlord that has been prosecuted ?....

I don't think Rachman was ever prosecuted. He was vilified in the press but, as far as the press was concerned, they could safely say anything about him. By the time all the stories about him came out, especially with his Christine Keeler / Mandy Rice-Davies connection, he had died, I think, from a heart attack.
His name has since become immortalised in the English language as the epitome of the exploitative landord.

clutton_2

""especially with his Christine Keeler / Mandy Rice-Davies connection"" - well,l never knew that !!

its interesting, dontcha think, that even the viperous Nicholas Van oooogstra.... has since been on a documentary on television, acting as some sort of "jack the lad" - its almost as if being a bad, illegal, nasty, landlord is not worthy of publicity, and is some sort of "badge of honour".

Some of the properties i have been into, managed by the worst possible profiteers, housing THE most vulnerable folks, have made me want to vomit. I have never understood why the press does not take up this story - its almost as if no one dare tell these stories ? Investigations take place on care home, hospitals, childrens homes etc - why not private sector housing ?

MARTIN ? what about it ?????

Gorgeous_George

The Tories sold our houses to council tenants to make more people more likely to vote Tory. Sadly, it worked.

They also sold our water, gas, electricity companies (and more) to buy votes. Sadly, the great British public fell for those as well.



GG

msw_2

I agree, I have no idea why the press is ignoring this story...especially given that there are about 10000 stories each day speculating on the housing market and discussing the plight of first time buyers. The general public do not seem to be aware that local authorities still have a repsonsiblity to house homeless people (quite rightly) but not enough housing stock to meet their responsibilities... so they are paying a fortune (via housing benefit) to private landlords....well the local authorities aren't ...but central gov is....! I wonder when someone will look into how much this is costing. It is a crap solution for the people who are housed as well as they have often v v high rent and no real long term security...often no right to decorate or do other small things that make the house seem like theirs.