The end of Right to Buy?

ruggedtoast

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/16/right-to-buy-rethink

The issue of what to do about housing has been a running sore through the coalition. Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, is to lead a call at his party conference to oppose Cameron's plans to end lifetime tenancies in social housing and introduce fixed term tenancies. The move, supported by Shapps, was seen as a way of bringing more flexibility to the housing and labour markets.

Personally I think Right to Buy was a mistake. If a council has excess housing stock then they should have the right to sell it on the open market.

However, basically rewarding people for being on benefits or a low income for years by giving them a subsidised house, when working people are stuck privately renting on 6 month ASTs, really?

What I would like to see is increased housing stock and return to "normal" people being able to live in social housing.

blueboy43

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Personally I think Right to Buy was a mistake. If a council has excess housing stock then they should have the right to sell it on the open market.

However, basically rewarding people for being on benefits or a low income for years by giving them a subsidised house, when working people are stuck privately renting on 6 month ASTs, really?

What I would like to see is increased housing stock and return to "normal" people being able to live in social housing.

I think it was one of the really good Thatcher policies (not her biggest fan to say the least).

I would guess the majority of houses on right to buy were bought pre "assured tenancies" which were introduced in 1988.
Many of the orginal purchasers who bought in the early days, stayed in the property.

However there were real problems that should have been addressed and forseen.

1) Discounts of 60% (and I think 70% for flats) were way too high.

2) The best stock was bought leaving sink estates in areas of low employment.
3) Social housing stock depleted faster than it was replaced as councils could not use the funds to build.
4) Social housing now has a much narrower base, typically old or young and on benefits.

I still think the housing problems in the UK results from

1) Planning - not enough houses in the right places.

2) A Tax system that allows and encourages landlords to buy existing housing stock ahead of 1st time buyers. In general private landlords don't add to the UK stock of housing - where they have done it has typically been the wrong type of dwelling in the wrong place (how many city centre flats can you fill in northern cities). A mis-allocation of capital on an epic scale - what can we expect when property seemed like a one way bet with huge leverage.

I would dis-allow the offsetting of mortgage interest for all new purchasers of BTL, however I would allow it if it was a new build.

I would also increase capital gains tax significantly for all new purchasers of 2nd homes from say 01/10/2010.

Blacklight

It's ridiculous that people get a council house handed down through generations. There must be millions out there living in subsidised council owned property that could easily let it go to someone who actually needs it.

The only downside is that fixed term tenancies administered by local government would cost far more than just building more houses. Think of how many Dynamic Identity Executives and Central Accountability Coordinators would be required.

Really2

It brought home owning to the masses.

Probably responsible for every one now thinking they should own a home and that the average wage should afford a home.

People forget the average wage could afford these, but only because of the massive discount.

robin_banks

Discount has been capped at 16k for some time.

michaels

I can see that the state should pay for housing for those who can't afford it but I can't see why the state should own and manage the properties (with the possible proviso that the state has access to cheaper capital).

I do think that with AST being the only private rental model available there is a mismatch between the security that renters can achieve and what they would like.

The right to social housing for life (and longer in terms of passing it on to children) only seems to work in the circumstances where social housing was a choice for everyone rather than the current model where it is a safety net for those with low / no income. Given that social housing is now scarce it should only be available to those in real need - probably if councils were allowed to charge market rates their would be an incentive for those earning to move on to private accommodation (although also a further disincentive for those in council accommodation to seek employment).

In fact thinking out loud all new social housing contracts should be at market rent, it won't cost anything as the extra housing benefit payments will go straight back to the councils and in sink estates where market rent might be minimal that should be what is charged as well - it would incentivise the councils to fix them up or rebuild.

ninky_2

i thought the conservatives were mooting a point that they would pay people a 10k lumpsum to vacate their council houses. which probably equates to the current level of right to buy discount in a falling market. can't say i agree with this.

however, it do agree with ending lifetime tenancies. council housing should go to those who need it most and lifetimes tenancies are currently stopping this from being the case.

fc123

ninky wrote: »

i thought the conservatives were mooting a point that they would pay people a 10k lumpsum to vacate their council houses. which probably equates to the current level of right to buy discount in a falling market. can't say i agree with this.

however, it do agree with ending lifetime tenancies. council housing should go to those who need it most and lifetimes tenancies are currently stopping this from being the case.

Housing associations have been doing this for years. I know of 3 families who were given 10k to leave but it was about 8-10 years ago. I am sure they had to sign something about not being HA tenants again...but I can't remember 100%.

OH has family members who cleaned up on RTB in the 1980's and would never have been able to afford to have bought without the discount.

leveller2911

"Tenants Incentive" scheme ended here around 10 yrs ago.Our HA were paying grants of £16k for people to move out and buy but afaik tenants that did didn't have to sing any disclaimer for future entitlement to Social Housing.


My Parents bought through the RTB and paid £18k for their house and my inlaws did the same.It was the right thing to do for them but not right morally.....Having said that in the same position I would do the same, would stick in my throat though.It makes me chuckle a little when you see coments on here about RTB discounts and how its wrong and yet I know for a fact that many people buy houses knowing they need renovating but are eligable for grants towards the cost of renovation.


We have around £38k saved up for a deposit but house prices around this area start off at £160k so still a no go for another few years and I'm not taking the risk of borrowing more than I can afford.

I'm all in favour of incentive schemes to help tenants buy and release Social Housing for more people who need them more.

ninky_2

fc123 wrote: »

OH has family members who cleaned up on RTB in the 1980's and would never have been able to afford to have bought without the discount.

well that's pretty obvious. i can't imagine anyone living in a council house at the time of rtb could have bought without the discount. however, they didn't have to sell with a discount, did they?

there are many people who can't afford to buy property - should they all be given massive subsidies by the state (which is what buying social housing a discount is) in order to get on the property ladder? what happens when the next generation unable to afford a house comes along?

it just doesn't make sense.

fc123

ninky wrote: »

well that's pretty obvious. i can't imagine anyone living in a council house at the time of rtb could have bought without the discount. however, they didn't have to sell with a discount, did they?

there are many people who can't afford to buy property - should they all be given massive subsidies by the state (which is what buying social housing a discount is) in order to get on the property ladder? what happens when the next generation unable to afford a house comes along?

it just doesn't make sense.

I think I wrote about it on another thread some time back......but the sad irony is that some of their own children have struggled to get good housing (whether bought, rented or council/HA ) esp the lower paid ones and they think it's 'terrible' that there are is no social housing on offer for lower paid working families.

If I talk to some of them (who are now in their 60's) it was pretty straightforward to get a decent council house once you were a married couple. You went on the list and got offered a choice.