Right to buy to be extended

cepheus

kwmlondon wrote: »

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!

Here's some clarification

Housing associations say they'll sue if the Tories force them to sell off homes under right-to-buy

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't think tenancies are for life now? I may be wrong, but pretty sure they were axed some years ago now?

That's not to say a paying tenant will be moved or that they are checked each year for eligibility. However, don't think the tenancy for life clause is still there.

As for "why does a fireman deserve to be picked". It's likely they live in an area where house prices outstrip local wages. They will likely have other issues too, such as children etc and are therefore on the council waiting list.

These people are not just "picked", it's not just "luck of the draw"... there is a whole bidding system in place where people have priority based on their circumstances over others. I assumed you knew about the bidding system to be honest. But it appears you have huge issues with how council housing operates, but no actual understanding of how it operates.

My issue was you defined people in council homes as the "undeserving class" which would seem quite offensive. If someone has enough points to be able to bid on these places (which are in some cases rare as hens teeth), it's likely that life hasn't dealt them the greatest hand. Many will have disabled partners or children etc.

council properties are effectively for life: inheriting them is now no longer standard.

the allocation system for social housing favours the idle, the lazy, single mothers, the 'disabled' and other somewhat random selection of people.

I would be amazed if any significant number of police officers or nurses were allocated social housing in areas where they are as rare as hens' teeth .

The allocation system favours certain life styles : it rewards exactly the wrong behaviour.

There is nothing offensive about having moral and ethical views about behaviour: Rotherham, Mid Staffs etc are illustrations of what happens when people don't take a principled stand

Sapphire

I would largely agree with this, but I don't think this was the case in the past. My parents lived mostly in housing association flats when we were growing up because they were simply unable to buy property. The last flat we all lived in together was a two-bedroom mansion flat in Clapham. My two sisters and I slept in a small bedroom (bunk beds and unfolding bed), my brother slept in a tiny room and my parents slept in the sitting room.

I would certainly not call my mother 'idle, lazy, single mother, or disabled'. Both my parents were cruelly injured during the Second World War, and they were simply unable to adapt after the war. The flat was, however, always beautifully kept and we never noticed any hardships as children – despite things such as lack of hot water and central heating, and the REAL poverty of general conditions.

CLAPTON wrote: »

the allocation system for social housing favours the idle, the lazy, single mothers, the 'disabled' and other somewhat random selection of people.

CLAPTON

Sapphire wrote: »

I would largely agree with this, but I don't think this was the case in the past. My parents lived mostly in housing association flats when we were growing up because they were simply unable to buy property. The last flat we all lived in together was a two-bedroom mansion flat in Clapham. My two sisters and I slept in a small bedroom (bunk beds and unfolding bed), my brother slept in a tiny room and my parents slept in the sitting room.

I would certainly not call my mother 'idle, lazy, single mother, or disabled'. Both my parents were cruelly injured during the Second World War, and they were simply unable to adapt after the war. The flat was, however, always beautifully kept and we never noticed any hardships as children – despite things such as lack of hot water and central heating, and the REAL poverty of general conditions.

Things were very different after the war.

Graham_Devon

I see the tories are now funding 30 hours free childcare for all 3 & 4 year olds.

Theres no mention on how it's funded though. It appears to be all pulled from thin air.

Seems it's even upsetting the tory peer Sir Stuart Rose now too!

Graham_Devon

There was also a piece on the news tonight regarding how the tories will "coherce" housing associations to sell the homes.

Apparently, it's not actually lawful to force these housing associations to dispose of their assets at below market value. Therefore, compensation payments will need to take place, to "coherce" the housing association to part with their stock.

One housing association has apparently commented that there is no way they will be part of this unless forced to do so. They have a huge waiting list and they cannot just build one or two houses as they are sold. They build several houses or flats all on one plot and they cannot be expected to build a new house each time one is sold.

Further, they need to manage these estates. How are they going to effectively manage estates when some are private and some are still under them?

Pobby

I think, historically, IRs were more like 7 or 8%. Anyway. Just shows how desperate the Tories are to get votes. Cynical, mad and um er, just like Tories.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was also a piece on the news tonight regarding how the tories will "coherce" housing associations to sell the homes.

Apparently, it's not actually lawful to force these housing associations to dispose of their assets at below market value. Therefore, compensation payments will need to take place, to "coherce" the housing association to part with their stock.

One housing association has apparently commented that there is no way they will be part of this unless forced to do so. They have a huge waiting list and they cannot just build one or two houses as they are sold. They build several houses or flats all on one plot and they cannot be expected to build a new house each time one is sold.

Further, they need to manage these estates. How are they going to effectively manage estates when some are private and some are still under them?

the councils seem to manage fine with a mix of owner and social tenants

an the Tories wont/can force them to do this, the law can and elected governments can write laws

as for not being able to build more as they build in groups not just ones and twos, there will clearly be a lag but that is no excuse



but more than anything they need perspective the right to buy already exists for some 4 million or so homes and only 10,000 or so are sold yearly. That means per DECADE a HA might have to part with 3% of their stock

also on the other hand of the equation, social homes are building build up and down the country by developers. In london the target is 50% of all new builds and many councils get close to that (my council got 48% of their new builds to be social last year as an example)

so even if this passes in 5 years, in 10 years, there will be more social homes rather than less as more are being built than are being sold

cells

oh and its clear the HA would react like this, the greedy stupid bosses probably have ideas of losing their easy jobs as all the tenants buy their rental empires

westernpromise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was also a piece on the news tonight regarding how the tories will "coherce" housing associations to sell the homes.

Apparently, it's not actually lawful to force these housing associations to dispose of their assets at below market value. Therefore, compensation payments will need to take place, to "coherce" the housing association to part with their stock.

One housing association has apparently commented that there is no way they will be part of this unless forced to do so. They have a huge waiting list and they cannot just build one or two houses as they are sold. They build several houses or flats all on one plot and they cannot be expected to build a new house each time one is sold.

Further, they need to manage these estates. How are they going to effectively manage estates when some are private and some are still under them?

So you just pass a law that says they have to do it. No different from Miliband wanting to pass a law that says if your house has inflated, he can rob you.

Also, the housing associations - if they are up to their job - will be selling 4 flats in a house for £250k each that are worth £350k. With the million quid they buy a plot of land - cost in London about £125k - and build another house with four more flats on it. This costs about another £375k so the result is they sell four homes and use the money to build 8. Where there were 4 homes there'll be 12.

Seems very sensible and ensures that more homes get built, which is what's needed.