Expensive council houses should be sold...

chewmylegoff

Wookster wrote: »

Can someone tell me why council tenants have a right to buy property at deeply discounted rates? This sounds like bribing the electorate.

Surely this is what was supposed to be the case that sold council houses were replaced? It is a true failure of several governments that this hasn't happened.

the latest announcements around the "renewal" of right to buy (i.e. increasing the discounts) suggested that the proceeds would be used to build more social houses.

FWIW, i don't think that the think tank in question is suggesting that these sales should be effected through right to buy. they are suggesting that when council houses are freed up (presumably mostly by death) those houses should be sold onto the open market (at an average price of over £190,000, which suggests no RTB discount).

i expect the numbers ignore the fact that the govt cannot sell many of the houses because secure tenancies can be "inherited".

adouglasmhor

Wookster wrote: »

Can someone tell me why council tenants have a right to buy property at deeply discounted rates? This sounds like bribing the electorate.

Surely this is what was supposed to be the case that sold council houses were replaced? It is a true failure of several governments that this hasn't happened.

No the councils were not allowed to use the money to build new houses, that was a legal directive.

Brallaqueen

The government should wash their hands of council housing completely. Then charities/housing associations who believe in the concept should build their own and implement their own criteria for access and continued use. Peabody had it right.

chewmylegoff

adouglasmhor wrote: »

No the councils were not allowed to use the money to build new houses, that was a legal directive.

my understanding was that the sales proceeds went to central government, not local councils, so they couldn't spend it on anything, let alone building more houses?

wotsthat

Maybe the government could stop the requirement for a quota of 'affordable' housing to be built on new estates. The builders would make more money and donate some to councils fund for social housing building projects.

I propose it should be applied retrospectively so that the 'affordable' area on my estate can be sold off at market price. I'd miss the empty quavers wrappers blowing in the early morning breeze and the young men with tattoos of stars and teardrops on their necks but it's a price I'm willing to pay.

wymondham

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i expect the numbers ignore the fact that the govt cannot sell many of the houses because secure tenancies can be "inherited".

If this is true then is this not part of the problem? Housing given on need at some time in the past guarentees future generations acquire it by default regardless of need?

ILW

Brallaqueen wrote: »

The government should wash their hands of council housing completely. Then charities/housing associations who believe in the concept should build their own and implement their own criteria for access and continued use. Peabody had it right.

I did see an historic Peabody tenany agreement some time ago. If you did not adhere to very strict standards of behaviour, you were out on your ear. Why is not all social housing run to such a high standard?

chewmylegoff

wymondham wrote: »

If this is true then is this not part of the problem? Housing given on need at some time in the past guarentees future generations acquire it by default regardless of need?

possibly, the government has been talking about changing it for new tenancies, so that they last for, e.g. 5 years (part of the reason for that appears to be the perception that, once people no longer depend on social housing, they should be moved on). however, that will not change the terms of all of the tenancies currently in existence.

adouglasmhor

chewmylegoff wrote: »

my understanding was that the sales proceeds went to central government, not local councils, so they couldn't spend it on anything, let alone building more houses?

I can't remember TBH, I just know it was not allowed to use it to build more housing.

adouglasmhor

This is from Wiki so it's opinion rather than fact.

Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England.