Council houses for fixed terms only!

mumoftwins

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I am more interested in seeing the private rented marked brought UP to levels of security and affordability closer to that of the social sector, rather than reducing the social sector to that of the private rented market. Why should a good tenant, who pays their rent and looks after the property, still face the prospect of eviction at any time? Would YOU want to live like that?

This may be a bit off kilter here, but private tenants really do need more security of tenure. If, like myself, someone wants to make a home and know that the private rental is 'theirs' for years to come then things have to change.

Renting privately always has an uncertainty to it, 'are we going to have to move?', 'is the landlord going sell?', 'is the rent going to remain affordable?'.

Not only do some of us want security and knowledge that we can stay put for several years, it's the cost of actually moving too - the removal companies costs, new deposits etc.

I used to be a homeowner until my divorce and since then have had to rent privately - I just wish it was more secure.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

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.

No more unfair than inheriting a property you have never paid a penny towards in the private sector.

ILW

mumoftwins wrote: »

This may be a bit off kilter here, but private tenants really do need more security of tenure. If, like myself, someone wants to make a home and know that the private rental is 'theirs' for years to come then things have to change.

Renting privately always has an uncertainty to it, 'are we going to have to move?', 'is the landlord going sell?', 'is the rent going to remain affordable?'.

Not only do some of us want security and knowledge that we can stay put for several years, it's the cost of actually moving too - the removal companies costs, new deposits etc.

I used to be a homeowner until my divorce and since then have had to rent privately - I just wish it was more secure.

Thing is, you may have a better chance of getting a secure HA place if they were not being sat on by those that could easily afford to buy.

mumoftwins

ILW wrote: »

Thing is, you may have a better chance of getting a secure HA place if they were not being sat on by those that could easily afford to buy.

Totally agree, and also agree that those who can afford to buy but are living in HA or council properties should be means tested.

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

You're assuming they were all bought for £250k. Recent house price inflation means that even if they were bought a few years ago, the price paid may have been considerably lower than the £250k quoted. Many will have effectively inherited family properties bought for well under that figure and with little, if any, debt attached to them. Of course, you also need to look at the local market. In areas where you have over-supply of the rental market but under-supply of available properties for sale, rents may not reflect the purchase price.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

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.

Whilst I agree that the current system is flawed, addressing merely one symptom of that flaw is not the way to effect a lasting, sustainable cure. The entire houisng market needs to be looked at and the issue dealt with as a whole. This peace-meal approach of persecuting one sector of the market to disguise the fault in another is destined to failure.

Wee_Willy_Harris

mumoftwins wrote: »

This may be a bit off kilter here, but private tenants really do need more security of tenure. If, like myself, someone wants to make a home and know that the private rental is 'theirs' for years to come then things have to change.

Renting privately always has an uncertainty to it, 'are we going to have to move?', 'is the landlord going sell?', 'is the rent going to remain affordable?'.

Not only do some of us want security and knowledge that we can stay put for several years, it's the cost of actually moving too - the removal companies costs, new deposits etc.

I used to be a homeowner until my divorce and since then have had to rent privately - I just wish it was more secure.

Couldn't agree more. When you hear stories of tenants not being prepared to spend £50 on paint in case they make their home so nice that the LL evicts (and yes, it does happen) you just know the system is flawed.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Whilst I agree that the current system is flawed, addressing merely one symptom of that flaw is not the way to effect a lasting, sustainable cure. The entire houisng market needs to be looked at and the issue dealt with as a whole. This peace-meal approach of persecuting one sector of the market to disguise the fault in another is destined to failure.

True, but you need to start somewhere and this is at least an area where the autorities have a high level of control. And to be fair, this thread was about lifetime HA tenancies. Taking on the open market is another matter.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Thing is, you may have a better chance of getting a secure HA place if they were not being sat on by those that could easily afford to buy.

So, one gets security by removing the same security from all?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So, one gets security by removing the same security from all?

If the person that can afford to buy does, they then have the security of ownership (as long as they kep up the payments)