Why are some councils refusing to sell to FTBs

Londonsu

My old man loves homes under the hammer and I admit sometimes I watch with him

Lately I have seen two properties on the show where the presenters have said the council have made it a condition of the sale that the purchaser is not allowed to live in the property, they have to do up and sell on and then the new purchasers can live in the property or they can do up and rent out.

Both were London councils (different ones) and the properties were both in good nick with bathroom and kitchen (albeit dated) nothing was said about there being any problems that made the properties unmortgeable just this was a condition of the sale.

Having seem some FTBs on the programme buying at auction I cant understand why a council would make it impossible for a property to be sold to a young couple who want to make it their home and only allow property developers to bid for them.

It does not seem right to me but there may be an explanation - so does anybody know?

moneyistooshorttomention

Duly amended to "any home-owner that wants the place as a home" (ie even if they aren't young and or a couple") then I cant say I understand it either.

If someone (be they young or otherwise/a couple or single) puts in the effort/money to get the house together then surely they should be allowed to keep it and live in it as their home?

Admits that right now I'm struggling with the language that refers to "young" (as all ages need a home) or "couples" (as everyone needs a home...regardless of relationship status...and single people find it WAY harder than couples....).

I guess it was a slip of the tongue...but do please take into account ALL ages and ALL relationship status situations...not just "young" and not just "couples".

Guest101

Are these council homes being sold? The council cannot stop a purchaser from living there if it's a private sale, even repossession ( unless I've missed something ).

But if they are the vendors they could in theory stipulate this

ihatemyhouse

they do that sort of thing down here, council say who can and cant buy there houses

gazter

ihatemyhouse wrote: »

they do that sort of thing down here, council say who can and cant buy there houses

Anything to do with RTB is statutory and almost certainly not within the council's powers to impose conditions over and above.

bryanb

Homes under the hammer has little to do with RTB

gazter

bryanb wrote: »

Homes under the hammer has little to do with RTB

Good point, well made....

poppysarah

Housing association in Newton Heath was restrictin buyer type on a house sle or two recently. Ddnt understand why they were selling property tht wasn't standard HA type.

Londonsu

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Duly amended to "any home-owner that wants the place as a home" (ie even if they aren't young and or a couple") then I cant say I understand it either.

If someone (be they young or otherwise/a couple or single) puts in the effort/money to get the house together then surely they should be allowed to keep it and live in it as their home?

Admits that right now I'm struggling with the language that refers to "young" (as all ages need a home) or "couples" (as everyone needs a home...regardless of relationship status...and single people find it WAY harder than couples....).

I guess it was a slip of the tongue...but do please take into account ALL ages and ALL relationship status situations...not just "young" and not just "couples".

Sorry Its just I am so lucky I own a house outright but I feel for would be FTBs who cant get on the ladder

PasturesNew

The answer is that if the house is sold without that clause then the Govt gets most of the money.

By inserting that clause it's a loophole that means the Council retain more of the money.

This has been explained on the programme in the past.

My answer is the correct answer because I have answered the specific question being asked and have heard the answer explained on the programme and understand that the question exists for those that watch HutH and don't listen

[Deleted User]

I think councils who impose these type of restrictions are trying to increase the amount of properties available for private rental. What would make this more logical is if a provision stated that the property had to be rented through the councils offices., as private rental prices are so high. This might not be being made clear on Homes Under the Hammer. I know councils will sometimes give loans/grants for refurbishing of houses if they will then rent them to people on the council's housing list, sometimes the council will manage these properties too.

However, its all a bit nonsensical.., as there woudl't be quite such a high demand for private rentals if FBs could afford to buy their own home. (I realise this is not the only demand on housing, but its a significant one).