Right to Buy loss

gettingtheresometime

I've said for a long time that until the RTB is removed there is little point in building any more social housing

kinger101

Running_Horse wrote: »

How do we know they didn't want to? Maybe the last house was unfit by modern standards which is why they didn't cash in. Maybe life sometimes just isn't "fair".

Being given a brand new house at a low rent seems like something to be grateful for. Ultimately the answer does not lie on this forum, but with their landlord. I hope they get over the feeling of unfairness and enjoy their incredible good fortune.

What's pretty certain is they no longer wanted to live there once the wrecking ball had smashed it to pieces.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Running_Horse wrote: »

How do we know they didn't want to? Maybe the last house was unfit by modern standards which is why they didn't cash in. Maybe life sometimes just isn't "fair".

Being given a brand new house at a low rent seems like something to be grateful for. Ultimately the answer does not lie on this forum, but with their landlord. I hope they get over the feeling of unfairness and enjoy their incredible good fortune.

They'd lived there, quite happily, for 28 years with no indication of a desire to move. Perhaps YOU could explain what it was YOU read in the OP that indicated any desire to move?

Many faced with this sort of issue live in well established, close knit communities. Sadly, when higher authorities make the decision to embark in urban renewal, they get little choice in the matter and have to watch their neighbourhood get smashed to the four winds regardless of their personal wishes, or even those of the wider community.

Would YOU be happy with that? Even if a new house was offered?

lighting_up_the_chalice

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

I've said for a long time that until the RTB is removed there is little point in building any more social housing

I would have thought that ANY house building would be a good thing during a time of housing shortage.

Norman_Castle

kinger101 wrote: »

Perhaps perhaps people generally disagree with the principle of social housing being transferred into private ownership.

If people disagree with it they should direct their views towards the government who chose to offer this. Not towards individuals who take advantage of it.

G_M

I've just realised why the OP wants to make use of RTB now, but did not do so during the previous 28 years: see username.

kinger101

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If people disagree with it they should direct their views towards the government who chose to offer this. Not towards individuals who take advantage of it.

We've already gone into why OP invited opinion on this matter.

AdrianC

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If people disagree with it they should direct their views towards the government who chose to offer this.

If you mean the party who first proposed it in an General Election manifesto, then I'm not sure that Hugh Gaitskell is particularly up for answering queries on 55 year old policies.

Norman_Castle

AdrianC wrote: »

If you mean the party who first proposed it in an General Election manifesto, then I'm not sure that Hugh Gaitskell is particularly up for answering queries on 55 year old policies.

As presumably Hugh is an ex politician directing views towards governments who currently choose to offer this would be appropriate.

AdrianC

Norman_Castle wrote: »

As presumably Hugh is an ex politician

You could say that, since he died in 1963.