Right to buy to be extended

cells

What are the Tory proposals?

They would legislate to give all housing association tenants full right-to-buy. Tenants in houses would get a 35 per cent discount, increasing by 1 per cent for every extra year they have been a tenant. Those in flats will get a 50 per cent discount, going up 2 per cent every year. Discounts for houses and flats would be capped at the lower of 70 per cent or £102,700 in London and £77,000 across the rest of England.

How will this be paid for?

The Tories say they will make councils sell off expensive properties when they become vacant. Council homes that rank in the most costly third of all properties of that type in their area will be sold off. Around 15,000 such properties become vacant each year, because tenants die or move. The sell-off could net £4.5billion a year.

What about the proceeds?

They will be split, with a proportion used to replace on a ‘one-to-one’ basis the council homes sold off. The new properties would be more affordable, probably in less expensive locations, and could be built either by a council or housing association. Another slice of the proceeds would be used to fund the new right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants. The rest would go to create a £1billion fund, enabling councils to bid for cash to develop brownfield land for housing. It would enable them to clean up derelict or contaminated land, and could lead to 400,000 new homes in five years, Tories say.

purch

We need a Conservative/Green Coalition.

The Greens say they will build 500,000 new social housing units over the life of the Parliamemt, whilst the Cons will sell them all off at a huge discount.

Voyager2002

purch wrote: »

We need a Conservative/Green Coalition.

The Greens say they will build 500,000 new social housing units over the life of the Parliamemt, whilst the Cons will sell them all off at a huge discount.

But what would that do to house prices? And most of us rely on house prices going up in order to live after retirement.

shortchanged_2

Voyager2002 wrote: »

But what would that do to house prices? And most of us rely on house prices going up in order to live after retirement.

House price rises aren't a bad thing. They just need to be more stable and in line with inflation which would be fairer to all generations instead of the boom and bust we always seem to have in the UK housing market.

cells

Take up is low, it has been for years as house price inflation has made buying homes unaffordable for all


Council RTB sales by year

1997-98 = 41,329
1998-99 = 40,272
1999-00 = 54,251
2000-01 = 52,380
2001-02 = 51,968
2002-03 = 63,394
2003-04 = 69,577
2004-05 = 49,983
2005-06 = 26,654
2006-07 = 17,684
2007-08 = 12,043
2008-09 = 2,869
2009-10 = 2,375
2010-11 = 2,758
2011-12 = 2,638
2012-13 = 5,944
2013-14 = 11,261



BTB sales are very low now, doubt this will make a huge difference in real sales

kwmlondon

Hang on, who does this policy actually affect? If the property is owned by a housing association then how can you force a not-for-profit company to sell off its assets at a massive loss? If the property is owned by the council then it's just an extension to right-to-buy, but this seems to be aimed at housing associations which are usually run by the tenants. If you bring in a law that gives people the right to buy a property they've lived in for a certain period of time how can you stop that law being applied to private properties, as housing associations have the same status in law as property companies, don't they? I'm confused - some clarification would be welcome!

Moby

Presumably we can look forward to all the landed gentry (eg - Duke of Westminster) being forced to sell their rented properties at a knock down price. What's that you say "barbarians at the gates". Nationalise all the millions of acres "owned" (nicked, more like) that our "betters acquired sucking up to whichever power held the throne when they acquired it (and that includes modern day politicians). To the Tower with the lot of them followed by an appointment at Tower Green shortly thereafter.

CLAPTON

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Council houses offer community stability by letting families focus on jobs and their kids' education rather than worrying about their LL constantly ending tenancies. They also help in areas where there is an imbalance between property prices and local wages, such as in rural North Dorset where a friend of mine wouldn't have been able to move out of her parents' house without a rare 1 bed council maisonette being available (most houses round there are the type on Escape To The Country, only affordable to those downsizing from London). We've had council houses for decades now in this country, and I think most would agree they are A Good Thing.

The point about Right To Buy is that none of the capital released has resulted in like for like replacement of social housing.

why isn't more housing being built in north dorset? surely not a shortage of land?

what specific qualification did your friend have that makes her uniquely worthy of being subsidised by other people and was she the most worthy person in north dorset?

most people think council housing is a bad thing for all the usual reasons.

TheBlueHorse

why do we need social housing? Just build a load of travelodge type rooms for people to live in, until they can afford to move out and get somewhere better. As long as the rooms have a toilet, shower, bed and kitchenette what else do people want?

If they don't like them, they can always get a job and rent something or buy something better.

the Govt has no role in housing people for their lives. They are just to provide temporary accomodation during difficult times.

kwmlondon

If a company can buy up a significant portion of property and then make a profit to rent out that property without fear of it being nationalised, why doesn't that work in reverse? Why can't a not-for-profit association of people take on responsibility for some properties that they can then rent to people that fulfil the social needs of the area?

E.g. housing people who have young families and cannot afford commercial rates, people with long-term illnesses, nurses, police, teachers - the kind of people that many communities need?

If people take issue with this housing being used long after the person living there has had their children move out or has a decent, well paid job and can afford to pay commercial rates, then fine - find a way of allowing housing associations to make this a part of the contract.

I simply feel that its important communities are able to offer preferential housing to people in order to further the needs of that community at that time and housing associations are a great way of achieving this.

In London property is the tool of investment banking, nobody is taking into account the long-term needs of our city, just building units that will sell for as much as possible, even if that means selling to investment funds and leaving the properties empty. Surely we need a counter to this?