right to buy housing association tenants

sniggings

giddypenguin wrote: »

If you can't save for a deposit despite cheaper-than-market rent

Not always the case, and many times the rents are only very slightly less.

patman99

I suppose the easy way to avoid the housing stock being sold via a rtb scheme would be for the HA's to set up a limited company and transfer all the housing stock to it.

That way, the HA would simply be a 'tenent provider' whilst the Ltd Co. would be supplying properties to rent under contract to the HA.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Most people agree that we need more social housing to be built.

Most people agree that we need more housing of any tenure to be built.

Most people agree that FTBs are being priced out of the market in many areas.

Most people agree that too many are trapped in rented accommodation.

This offers a solution to all of the above, as long as we can get over the politics of envy.

However, to answer the OPs question..... It ain't gonna happen. And I think that's a shame.

sniggings

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Most people agree that we need more social housing to be built.

Most people agree that we need more housing of any tenure to be built.

Most people agree that FTBs are being priced out of the market in many areas.

Most people agree that too many are trapped in rented accommodation.

This offers a solution to all of the above, as long as we can get over the politics of envy.

However, to answer the OPs question..... It ain't gonna happen. And I think that's a shame.

so selling someone a house at a discount, so they can sell at an inflated price, and at the same time reducing the limited amount of social housing we have is the answer! Don't think so.

(and I live in social housing too)

lighting_up_the_chalice

sniggings wrote: »

so selling someone a house at a discount, so they can sell at an inflated price, and at the same time reducing the limited amount of social housing we have is the answer! Don't think so.

(and I live in social housing too)

The LA would have to reimburse the HA the discount, so they will be more than able to cover the cost of another build. End result would be more housing stock, the same number of SH units, which would ease overall housing demand. Win/win.

But it ain't gonna happen, so don't worry.

sniggings

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The LA would have to reimburse the HA the discount, so they will be more than able to cover the cost of another build. End result would be more housing stock, the same number of SH units, which would ease overall housing demand. Win/win.

But it ain't gonna happen, so don't worry.

Lets hope like last time the social housing gets replaced when sold...oh wait it wasn't.

lighting_up_the_chalice

sniggings wrote: »

Lets hope like last time the social housing gets replaced when sold...oh wait it wasn't.

Different kettle of fish. This is property owned by a third party. I'm pretty sure the HA's will insist.

But it ain't gonna happen, so don't worry.

sniggings

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Different kettle of fish. This is property owned by a third party. I'm pretty sure the HA's will insist.

But it ain't gonna happen, so don't worry.

Pretty sure...if the aim is more affordable housing, build more houses,it's quite simple,this is a government passing the buck and then not ensuring the supple of social housing is replace.

I do agree,unlikely to happen, as theTories are unlikely to pass a law that makes a 3rd party sell it's assets and then tells it what it can do with the funds.

lighting_up_the_chalice

sniggings wrote: »

Pretty sure...if the aim is more affordable housing, build more houses,it's quite simple,this is a government passing the buck and then not ensuring the supple of social housing is replace.

I do agree,unlikely to happen, as theTories are unlikely to pass a law that makes a 3rd party sell it's assets and then tells it what it can do with the funds.

It is very unlikely to be realised, but it's still a very interesting idea. Get rid of the tenanted properties and build new to replace. Certainly an improvement on the pathfinder scheme which involved the mass demolition of perfectly habitable homes which was opposed by their residents. Many of those sites remain empty almost a decade later.

zeoknight

apologies, for the late reply - here's our situation.

We are young professional couple, mid 20s, earning around 30k a year between us - my partner is training to be a nurse so is only on a bursary for the next 3 years.

In regards to saving a deposit and buying on the open market, thats a stupid idea.

Why would I do that if I have opportunity to get a reasonable first time buyer home, that I have lived in for nearly 5 years and without the hassle and stress of the buying process.

On top of this, in my financial opinion I would rather have a small mortgage for this property for 12ish years, paying more on the principle and just a small proportion of interest per month with the added bonus of being mortgage free before our 40th.

Compare this to a 5% HtB mortgage paying 3 times the amount of the smaller mortgage and paying double the principle as interest. Why wouldn't I do it?

Don't get me wrong, we are incredibly lucky and thankful to have the opportunity, to have a nice home, and possibly even have the opportunity to buy our home at a discounted rate but to those that complain; unfortunately that's life.

RtB has been around for nearly twice as long as I have been alive, I didn't create it, but I'll damn well take any advantage I can get to secure my family. If you're not happy with that, tough.