right to buy housing association tenants

leveller2911

usefulmale wrote: »

How can the issue be anything other than party political?


You posted: "Clearly one of Thatchers selfish children coming through. The tories are NOT your friends. Once they slash the benefits, both in-work and out-of-work, even your discounted asset will be in negative equity. And if you loose your jobs (nursing will be hit hard via the NHS bloodbath thats coming, how 'secure' will your family be, with no social housing left.

People in housing association accomodation who voted for the millionaires party just to cash in on this unviable policy deserve the shytestorm that is coming, especially since most of those people will be claiming in-work benefits, the slashing of which is the tories first job.

You conveniently forgot to mention Labour and how we suffered 13 years of a dire lack of housing policy and any coherant long term plan. Labour were just as bad as the Tories but you forgot to mention it..

Maggie.Moo_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

The is true, many HA will offer the house to a tenant but at full market value, many will be older properties that may need renovating so the HA turn over their stock, sell some and build new.

Dependant on the date the houses where built some will have the RTA Right to Aquire which is as I say full market value. Some will also have section 102 notices on the properties which mean the tenants can only buy a maximum of 80% of the property.

sniggings wrote: »

Mines a new build, but yeah no discount that I know of, haven't looked into it tho.

I personally disagree with RtB on the basis that those renting privately don't have the same opportunity but I just thought I'd throw in our example.

A few years ago, my mum had a letter from our HA offering our 3 bed house (built in 1997 - we've occupied it since) at a massive 75% discount on the market rate. Due to circumstances (being relatively poor and relying on housing benefit), she couldn't (and still can't) afford to buy it and wasn't really bothered anyway but she's likely to move out in a few years and it does seem like a wasted opportunity. At least we know it'll become available to people who need social housing though as my mum won't need a 3 bed house once we [adult children] move out.

sniggings

Maggie.Moo wrote: »

I personally disagree with RtB on the basis that those renting privately don't have the same opportunity but I just thought I'd throw in our example.

A few years ago, my mum had a letter from our HA offering our 3 bed house (built in 1997 - we've occupied it since) at a massive 75% discount on the market rate. Due to circumstances (being relatively poor and relying on housing benefit), she couldn't (and still can't) afford to buy it and wasn't really bothered anyway but she's likely to move out in a few years and it does seem like a wasted opportunity. At least we know it'll become available to people who need social housing though as my mum won't need a 3 bed house once we [adult children] move out.

So you don't agree with it for the reason you couldn't afford to buy

Maggie.Moo_2

sniggings wrote: »

So you don't agree with it for the reason you couldn't afford to buy

I see what you did there

Just to clarify, as a money-saving enthusiast it seems silly to turn down the opportunity to purchase something at 75% off, potentially saving hundreds of thousands, especially if you can resell for profit. Heck, I take advantage of plenty of deals which essentially result in 'free money' - including buying something heavily reduced and selling it on for more (not usually intentional, mind you). However in this context it just doesn't sit right with me personally but I totally understand why people would take advantage of RtB.

Besides, the offer was only ever open to my mum (only person named on the tenancy) and if she could afford a mortgage and decided to buy then that would be her choice not mine. When I explained my issues with RtB to her she instantly reacted with a "that doesn't seem fair [for non-social housing tenants]" so I'm sure she would also feel conflicted if she were in a situation to buy our HA rented house.

JencParker

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.

So the LA is going to pay the HA money that they have lost due to the discount which will be used to build more property. If that is the case, why can they not give the HA funds to build more property?

lighting_up_the_chalice

JencParker wrote: »

So the LA is going to pay the HA money that they have lost due to the discount which will be used to build more property. If that is the case, why can they not give the HA funds to build more property?

Because, by using R2B revenues, the buyer will also make a contribution, reducing the amount the LA pays for each unit. That way, the taxpayer takes on less of the overall burden.

leveller2911

Maggie.Moo wrote: »

A few years ago, my mum had a letter from our HA offering our 3 bed house (built in 1997 - we've occupied it since) at a massive 75% discount on the market rate. Due to circumstances (being relatively poor and relying on housing benefit), she couldn't (and still can't) afford to buy it and wasn't really bothered anyway but she's likely to move out in a few years and it does seem like a wasted opportunity.

Houses built by a Housing Associations between 1989- 1997 would mean that the tenants wouldn't have the RTB so its a bit strange that the HA would offer the house for sale with a discount given the fact that they were under no obligation to do so. It was Labours policy post 97 to allow HA tenants whose houses were built post 97 to have the Right To Aquire but this was at full market value....

The ex council housing stock taken over by HA's, the tenants would have kept their discounts so it seems your mothers house doesn't fall into any catagory where she would be entitled to a discount unless it was ex council housing stock taken over by a HA.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Because, by using R2B revenues, the buyer will also make a contribution, reducing the amount the LA pays for each unit. That way, the taxpayer takes on less of the overall burden.

Gaah.

If the housing association has a house worth 100K, sells it for 50K, gets 50K off the taxpayer, and builds a new house then the buyer is up 50K, the HA still has one house, and the taxpayer is 50K down. That's a direct transfer of 50K from the taxpayer to the buyer.

If the LA gives the HA 50K to build new houses without the sale, thenthe buyer doesn't exist, the HA has one and a half houses, and the taxpayer is still down 50K. The only difference is the 50K is retained by the HA, a charitable organisation, in the form of housing stock rather than being put in the pocket of a private individual.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

leveller2911 wrote: »

Just a small point FL but from my experience the vast majority of HA and Council properties are far from "Well maintained"..........Maintenance contracts always go to the cheapest quote ,there isn't enough in the contract to carry out quality maintenance and the vast majority or jobs are short term bodges. I would also say with regards to kitchen/bathroom renovations, they tend to be carried out every 20-30 years .

As one who lives in a HA property I completely agree with this. The kitchen and bathroom are shabby and the front door & double glazing are awful. All are about 12 years old. I intend replacing the bathroom & kitchen myself when funds allow.

All repairs are shoddily carried out by disinterested contractors using the cheapest materials. It took 9 visits and 3 months to get one blown double glazed unit replaced.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

sniggings wrote: »

Some HA give the right to buy, mine does.

Its actually known as the Right to Acquire and the maximum discount is £16k - unless you transferred from Council to HA when the council sold their stock - then your RTB is protected.