Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

No capital gains tax?

No capital gain.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

Or Inheritance tax

It's a tenancy succession, not an inheritance. In the same way aeroplanes don't pay road tax.

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Right. So there's no objection to moving the over-housed, if suitable accommodation is available for them to be moved to.

Through incentives and free choice, it's already done. But through force or legal threat would go against the whole ethos of security of tenure.

wodgerdodger

Having read much on this thread my views have swung back and forth. I believe there are many things wrong with our Social Housing

1. It's allocation.
2. fair levels of rent proprtionate to the tenants ability to pay.
3. The generally poor stock of quality social housing.

Many of the these have been caused or influenced by the inequality of tenure afforded in the private sector. If you look at the practices in France, Germany and Switzerland where renting is still the major form of ownership the ability of a landlord to increase rents or terminate tenancies is extremely difficult. The result is a more stable market.Agreater proportion of wealth is represented by savings rather than in property and by and large their economies are less prone to boom and bust as ours has been.

As a populace we have been brought up to aspire to home ownership and if you dont own your own house then you are somewhat a lesser person than someone who rents. That attitude does not exist in the countries mentioned. There is no stigma to being a tenant it's the norm. Why are we so hell bent on being saddled with a mortgage for 25 years and owning bricks and mortar.

What quality rental stock we did have had been sold off since 1979 leaving a big black hole which the state can't replace and they have not the will or money to replace.

Landlords in the rest of europe appear to manage and continue to invest in rental property despite the greater protection awarded to tenants where many tenacies are endless so why is it so difficult to introduce the same legislation here.

GREED,GREED GREED ,

It would appear that the only way to make money is in property. We dedicate hours and hours on TV prorammes on property development and how you can acquire a portfolio of BTL's and countless magazines on property investment or makeovers or improvements.

We wont resolve the issues with Social Housing until there is far greater security of tenure in the private sector and there is a lot less reliance on being home owners.

neverdespairgirl

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Through incentives and free choice, it's already done. But through force or legal threat would go against the whole ethos of security of tenure.

To that extent, it should be gone against.

mumcoll

I think it's wrong that people who own their own home outright are allowed to be given Housing Associaton properties. They go down the medical route, move up the list and are housed in bungalows. I don't understand why they don't sell their large houses and buy a two bed bungalow that would suit their needs.

Oh no, they have a nice large lump of cash in their bank and they take a bungalow that could have been given to someone who may be in private rented accommodation.

I have to be impartial in work but it really makes me mad!!!!:mad:

FOURCANDLES_2

wodgerdodger wrote: »

Having read much on this thread my views have swung back and forth. I believe there are many things wrong with our Social Housing

1. It's allocation.
2. fair levels of rent proprtionate to the tenants ability to pay.
3. The generally poor stock of quality social housing.

Many of the these have been caused or influenced by the inequality of tenure afforded in the private sector. If you look at the practices in France, Germany and Switzerland where renting is still the major form of ownership the ability of a landlord to increase rents or terminate tenancies is extremely difficult. The result is a more stable market.Agreater proportion of wealth is represented by savings rather than in property and by and large their economies are less prone to boom and bust as ours has been.

As a populace we have been brought up to aspire to home ownership and if you dont own your own house then you are somewhat a lesser person than someone who rents. That attitude does not exist in the countries mentioned. There is no stigma to being a tenant it's the norm. Why are we so hell bent on being saddled with a mortgage for 25 years and owning bricks and mortar.

What quality rental stock we did have had been sold off since 1979 leaving a big black hole which the state can't replace and they have not the will or money to replace.

Landlords in the rest of europe appear to manage and continue to invest in rental property despite the greater protection awarded to tenants where many tenacies are endless so why is it so difficult to introduce the same legislation here.

GREED,GREED GREED ,

It would appear that the only way to make money is in property. We dedicate hours and hours on TV prorammes on property development and how you can acquire a portfolio of BTL's and countless magazines on property investment or makeovers or improvements.

We wont resolve the issues with Social Housing until there is far greater security of tenure in the private sector and there is a lot less reliance on being home owners.

Agree if the same protection was given to Private tenants and private rent cappped by local councils as in some EU countries many who can afford to move out of HA and council homes would I am sure do so.But one thing is clear the evidence suggests they move in to home ownership or private rent at some point . I would also point out I would assume this passing on to your children which is rather rare is when the child has stayed at home and I assume never married moved out etc , I can not imagine they would ever allow one of the children to turn up when the parent dies and say I am moving in now I think that is one of these myths.I would also assume many people living in homes which are still council houses would want to move on as many are run down and in poor areas. Ours were sold to a HA 10 years ago because the council could not keep them up to date with regards electrical, plumbing , rotten windows etc but in the last 10 years they have all been brought up to housing standards level. They are now building small developments in our villages example 5 private 3 shared ownership and 3 rentals the ones in my nearest village have all gone to local peoples children from the village they are in. All the tenants have decent jobs but cant afford to buy outright and in a recent local paper interview said the had gone in to HA homes because of secure on tenure and did not wish to move every few years .

Wee_Willy_Harris

mumcoll wrote: »

I think it's wrong that people who own their own home outright are allowed to be given Housing Associaton properties. They go down the medical route, move up the list and are housed in bungalows. I don't understand why they don't sell their large houses and buy a two bed bungalow that would suit their needs.

Oh no, they have a nice large lump of cash in their bank and they take a bungalow that could have been given to someone who may be in private rented accommodation.

I have to be impartial in work but it really makes me mad!!!!:mad:

For many who need to move to an addapted property on severe medical.mobility grounds, the putchase of such a property would not be financially viable, even if they are currently owner occs. Of course, their financial interest in another property will usually have an impact on any claim for assistance with rental costs and other benefits. The provision of housing is rarely as black and white as you would wish it to be.

mumcoll

They are not moving to adapted properties, just OAP bungalows. Nothing different to the ones they could buy themselves. I know of several who's properties they live in are worth in excess of £180k and a nice 2 bed bungalow in the same area are sold for approximately £160k.

We recently had a couple allocated one of our nicer bungalows who ummed and ahhed about it because the kitchen is too small compared to what they have in their own house.

And I do understand that it's not always black and white.

FOURCANDLES_2

mumcoll wrote: »

They are not moving to adapted properties, just OAP bungalows. Nothing different to the ones they could buy themselves. I know of several who's properties they live in are worth in excess of £180k and a nice 2 bed bungalow in the same area are sold for approximately £160k.

We recently had a couple allocated one of our nicer bungalows who ummed and ahhed about it because the kitchen is too small compared to what they have in their own house.

And I do understand that it's not always black and white.

Well as I have said in older posts many especially in rural areas oap's sold their own House and moved in to a H !!! bungalow . However they are permitted to do so , they then in turn freed up money to give to the children so they could purchase .It is as I do staying within the rules nothing illegal .