Council House purchase?

shaneshaneshane

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

Personally, I don't think you are putting your parents' best interests first. At the moment they have a secure tenancy, all repairs are carried out for them (boiler replacement for example), if they fall on hard times they'll have their rent paid. You are effectively taking all that away - and for what? So you can make some money when they die. Nice.

That is why they will save the extra money per month... have a nice saving pot (hopefully) after a while. Infact they asked me to help them get started if you must know, this was THEIR idea, their research (admittedly I have validated this) so lets drop the accusations.

charlieismydarling

Time and time again this comes up.
Who wouldn't want to make a fast buck, buying a house below market value and enjoying a huge discount? Please don't attempt to dress it up as anything else, saving taxpayers from future housing benefit payments, or any other altruistic motivation. It is to make money and pocket a huge discount.

Sadly it permanently removes a rare commodity from being used to help future generations. Incidentally, many of those that qualify for huge discounts by virtue of being a tenant for many years, got their house when it was so much easier to get council housing nowadays it is impossible.

Who wouldn't want to take advantage of this generous scheme. Those with a social conscience perhaps.

Errata

Who wouldn't want to take advantage of this generous scheme. Those with a social conscience perhaps.

Everyone would grasp the opportunity, unfortunately it's only available to a very, very privileged few. Just like £5million houses, everyone would like one but only the privileged few can have them.

lighting_up_the_chalice

charlieismydarling wrote: »

Sadly it permanently removes a rare commodity from being used to help future generations.

No it doesn't. The house still exists and will, I'm sure, help future generations.... Unless you think people who use R2B demolish the property once purchased.

charlieismydarling wrote: »

Who wouldn't want to take advantage of this generous scheme. Those with a social conscience perhaps.

Social conscience seems pretty thin on the ground in ALL housing sectors. I don't see many owners selling their property for less than they can get so that they could help FTB's, or LL setting rents at affordable levels rather than the best they can get.

If every other sector in housing is devoid of a social conscience, why impose it on just R2B applicants?

alexanderalexander

R2B has always been a bad idea (in my view it was little more than Maggie Thatcher buying Tory votes with taxpayers' money, then New Labour didn't stop it because they thought that doing so would look too "lefty" for their image), but it is completely wrong to blame the OP simply for acting in his and his parents' best economic interests. If the system's wrong, then change the system: individuals should not be blamed for simply taking rational economic decisions within the system.

leveller2911

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No it doesn't. The house still exists and will, I'm sure, help future generations.... Unless you think people who use R2B demolish the property once purchased.

You are missing the point. Yes the house will still be there but it won't be there to be rented out to a family who cannot afford to buy or privately rent. But you already knew that and choose to ignore it.

If every other sector in housing is devoid of a social conscience, why impose it on just R2B applicants?

You can't compare the private housing market with Social housing when it comes to "conscience".

Private housing was/is built to make profit , no other reason. Social Housing is there to provide people with a roof over their heads. It can and does make a profit long term which can and should be used to build more homes but the priority is to house our people.

camptownraces

leveller2911 wrote: »

Private housing was/is built to make profit , no other reason. Social Housing is there to provide people with a roof over their heads. It can and does make a profit long term which can and should be used to build more homes but the priority is to house our people.

The proceeds from right-to-buy sales go to the Treasury, who use it how they will. They do not go back to the Local Authority or a Housing Association, so that they are not used to provide more social housing.

lighting_up_the_chalice

leveller2911 wrote: »

You are missing the point. Yes the house will still be there but it won't be there to be rented out to a family who cannot afford to buy or privately rent. But you already knew that and choose to ignore it.

No. YOU are missing the point. Social Housing is NOT the exclusive preserve of those who cannot afford to buy or privately rent. Very few SH allocations policies have any stipulation regarding income, and those that do set the bar very high. There is no reason why a millionaire wouldn't qualify for SH, based on their housing need.

leveller2911 wrote: »

You can't compare the private housing market with Social housing when it comes to "conscience".

Yes I can. And I did.

leveller2911 wrote: »

Private housing was/is built to make profit , no other reason. Social Housing is there to provide people with a roof over their heads. It can and does make a profit long term which can and should be used to build more homes but the priority is to house our people.

Even in the private sector, you can still make a profit while exercising your social conscience. Of course, none do. So why should that burden fall exclusively on SH tenants?