Council houses for fixed terms only!

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

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.

No, cheapest one in the village ie 3 bed £190k-£250 the £190k is a modern home a 2 bed is on the market at £150k and that is the lowest they will take as they over paid or so everyone is saying as it is on for what they paid for it. 4 houses for sale at the moment including an ex buy to let again 3 bed but £230k ? this one has been on the market for 4 years . We did have another house for sale in the village a 2 bed this was under another affordable deal 2 were built in the village those who purchase them had to be local and you can only sell them at a small profit I do not know much about them but they have sold 3 times since built but they are like rabbit hutches .I would point out I have looked at a building plot same size area as my HA home £225k ? it is madness

ILW

If £250k houses are being rented out at £650 a month, I think there will be a few repos on the market pretty soon, could be your chance.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

If £250k houses are being rented out at £650 a month, I think there will be a few repos on the market pretty soon, could be your chance.

Look and wait is what I was told. The buy to let one was bought by a local retired business man he bought 2 and supposed to have paid cash for them both which is why the one has been on the market for years he has had loads of offers but will not budge

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

That is not correct, they are not going to be evicted, just made to pay a market rent. If they wish to commit fraud to avoid this there are measures in place to avoid this.

We already have a benefits system so complex that, as these boards so often show, even those charged with its administration often cannot fully understand the various machinations. This complexity is one of the reasons so many people fear moving away from the safety and security that benefits give them. Introducing another raft of costs increasing with work/income isn't going to encourage those already in the benefit trap to look seriously at escaping it.

Variable rents will also be costly for the housing provider to administer and will make financial forcasting incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Wee_Willy_Harris

puddy wrote: »

in an ideal world, of course, but its not and the world has moved on from the 40s and 50s (in this country especially) where council houses were for those who couldnt afford to buy. so a tenant would wish to stay in their council home even if they are earning a huge amount of money, why wouldnt they. but this means that there is a lack for those who are in desparate need, families in b + b for example, families renting 2 rooms because there isnt anywhere else

of course the long term plan should be to build more 'council' homes, not these 'affordable schemes', but until that happens, unfortunately because people dont act in a socially minded manner, the government will need to force the issue and put legilsation into place to prevent people hogging up accommodation when they could be renting privately or buying

Well, that's really the question isn't it? Is there "hogging" on a scale big enough to make a difference? With 60% of social tenancies lasting less than 10 years, it isn't the universal issue that many think it to be and, on that scale, wouldn't solve the problems facing the housing market. It needs a far more holistic approach, rather than just tinkering with one sector. The private housing market, both rented and owned, needs to be a part of the solution also.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

If anyone would turn down a promotion or chance to earn more purely to keep a discounted rent, they do not have ambition and it is just an excuse. If someone has the go and talent to better themselves, they should be paying their way in life, and proud to do it.

The take-up of right to buy, and the fluidity of the market for ex council properties, would indicate this to already be the case. There will be exceptions, of course. But they are few and far between and, I would suggest, of so little consequence that the changes proposed (including those mentioned on here) would just be using a sledge hammer to crack an egg.

Wee_Willy_Harris

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?

Perhaps it would be better to develop this idea to include the private sectors as well. Perhaps a tax on those who are buying on a martgage/own outright to encourage them to move up the housing ladder as funds allow, thus freeing up properties further down the ladder for others. Perhaps a similar syatem for private rents as well might release all those more affordable rents in the private sector being hogged by young couples saving for a deposit.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The take-up of right to buy, and the fluidity of the market for ex council properties, would indicate this to already be the case. There will be exceptions, of course. But they are few and far between and, I would suggest, of so little consequence that the changes proposed (including those mentioned on here) would just be using a sledge hammer to crack an egg.

I suppose it is a matter of degree, if your point of view is that thecurrent system is flawed but it is too much bother to do anything about then fair enough. I personally think that the flaws within should be looked at and addressed. There will be winners and losers but if the winners tend to be those in greatest need and the losers those with no real need at all, I would consider it worth the effort.

Wee_Willy_Harris

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?

Whilst I'm certainly not a fan of RTB, it has produced far greater mixed tenure within many communities. However, the way it was done was, IMO, extremely clumsy. The massive discounts of old are now long gone, and the money raised can now be put into replacing the lost stock. RTB is still, for many, the one opportunity open to them to get a foot on the property ladder, but I would still welcome a revue of its functionality and application.

It's also worth remembering that many developments are restricted in terms of RTB (Fourcandles being a case in point).

Wee_Willy_Harris

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

I am an HA tenant

And many HA tenants enjoy their "right to aquire", which is essentially RTB under a slightly different guise.