Council houses for fixed terms only!

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Yes we are, paying more tax with the more your earn easily out ways the £2,500 k you save over a year by not renting an insecure private house , Employing 2 part time staff,putting money in to the local community , being a law abiding citizen , abiding by your housing contract, what more can some one do ?.This all seems fine to my local councillor(tory) and even my mp My councillor I can understand as in his words if you move out they will house some baby breeder from outside the area who will let the house turn in to a tip and I will have the 3 houses owners by you on my back and probably others in the village , as for my MP(tory) you have a contract and you adhere to it I see no problem . So we have many issues I have mine why I will not go yet and others have their's why I should stay it is not that black and white.

Think you are missing my point.
You are doing nothing wrong and are within the terms of your contract, maybe the contracts need looking at?
By adjusting your rent to market rates when income gets better seems fairer to society as a whole and means none would be forced out of their home, you may though decide you may as well buy as the advantages of renting diminish.
I cannot see the logic of someone on a six figure salary getting a discounted rent.
In the end isn't social housing supposed to be targeted at those that cannpt afford to by whether they be baby breeders or not?

lidlest

I bought my house under the right to buy, and although yes I got a discount It certainly wasn't as cheap as everyone seems to think (I live in Suburbs of London).

The council could have built another 3 houses for what I paid for mine, that gives me a leg up with a bit of a discount and then puts 3 other needy families in the position of being able to rent and then perhaps buy with a fair discount.

Instead they are selling all the land in the borough to private contractors and only having a small number of social houses built.

Makes no sense to me, the right to buy IS a good idea as it promotes community cohesion and allows people who have struggled for a long time the opportunity of this social mobility cameron keeps going on about. BUT the councils need to replace sold stock, and like I said they could do it 3 times over for what i paid for my home.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

Think you are missing my point.
You are doing nothing wrong and are within the terms of your contract, maybe the contracts need looking at?
By adjusting your rent to market rates when income gets better seems fairer to society as a whole and means none would be forced out of their home, you may though decide you may as well buy as the advantages of renting diminish.
I cannot see the logic of someone on a six figure salary getting a discounted rent.
In the end isn't social housing supposed to be targeted at those that cannpt afford to by whether they be baby breeders or not?

Well I cant afford yet to buy in my village and I will not move either of my children from their schools, So you wish me to pay a marketable rent? why? it is an affordable home not a private property and my HA is a not for profit. I would add my MP did say if you could afford to move and buy would be better but the prices are out of most peoples reaches around here and large rents are dead money. Yes I agree they should possibly change a few rules , however none of the parties will base it on your income so I do not beleive anything will change in the short term as I have said HA houses are given to essential workers in some area's do you limit their wages ? because they have one.

ILW

If the government should subsidise the purchase of council houses by tenants, in all fairness should they not also subsidise everyone else as well. Why should a council tenant be in effect given free money to help towards buying a house?

FOURCANDLES_2

lidlest wrote: »

I bought my house under the right to buy, and although yes I got a discount It certainly wasn't as cheap as everyone seems to think (I live in Suburbs of London).

The council could have built another 3 houses for what I paid for mine, that gives me a leg up with a bit of a discount and then puts 3 other needy families in the position of being able to rent and then perhaps buy with a fair discount.

Instead they are selling all the land in the borough to private contractors and only having a small number of social houses built.

Makes no sense to me, the right to buy IS a good idea as it promotes community cohesion and allows people who have struggled for a long time the opportunity of this social mobility cameron keeps going on about. BUT the councils need to replace sold stock, and like I said they could do it 3 times over for what i paid for my home.

I knew a number who bought 3 in fact one paid 48k one paid 17 k (that was one of the first right to buys) one paid 41k all over 7 years ago. I would point out I cant buy mine as it is a ha house however if I could the price to me would be around 125k. So a lot of these people saying the right to buy people got them for the price of a car some did with the full discount and at the very start but most did not get them under 40k

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

If the government should subsidise the purchase of council houses by tenants, in all fairness should they not also subsidise everyone else as well. Why should a council tenant be in effect given free money to help towards buying a house?

I am an HA tenant

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Well I cant afford yet to buy in my village and I will not move either of my children from their schools, So you wish me to pay a marketable rent? why? it is an affordable home not a private property and my HA is a not for profit. I would add my MP did say if you could afford to move and buy would be better but the prices are out of most peoples reaches around here and large rents are dead money. Yes I agree they should possibly change a few rules , however none of the parties will base it on your income so I do not beleive anything will change in the short term as I have said HA houses are given to essential workers in some area's do you limit their wages ? because they have one.

Some of you figures seem a bit off. You have said that to rent in your area is about £650 to £700 per month. This would suggest selling prices af around £150 to £170k. On £59k earnings this should be affrdable.

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

I am an HA tenant

Sorry, I was responding to a post by Lidlest about right to buy on their council house.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

If the government should subsidise the purchase of council houses by tenants, in all fairness should they not also subsidise everyone else as well. Why should a council tenant be in effect given free money to help towards buying a house?

good example of my point here
people in council HA houses should not have secure tenure as private ones do not.Not the private sector tenure should be changed to secure tenure.

Here council HA tenants council/ha house buyers get subsidised to buy their home, is it not fair to subsidise everyone else? why not the same argument as secure tenure if we do not get why should you?

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

good example of my point here
people in council HA houses should not have secure tenure as private ones do not.Not the private sector tenure should be changed to secure tenure.

Here council HA tenants council/ha house buyers get subsidised to buy their home, is it not fair to subsidise everyone else? why not the same argument as secure tenure if we do not get why should you?

I have no argument with secure tenure, just a bit of a problem with discounted rents for life. I agree that the private sector should have more security but cannot see the benefit of giving some that may have a much higher income, lower rents for similar properties just because they are HA tenants. It does seem very unfair when HA properties of the right type in the right area are a rather limited resource.