Right to Buy for Private Tenants.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Singapore did this from 1996 onwards under its Land Acquisition Act. It forced a cartel of landlords to sell at submarket prices until the government share of land ownership rose from 31 to 76%.

Breaking up a cartel is no bad thing and perfectly reasonable within law: cartels are illegal and retrospective changes to deal with that illegality are not immoral IMHO. Banks, as an example, have faced huge fines for effectively making cartels in wholesale markets.

Animal feed sellers have also been punished for the same:

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2015/05/a-cartel-settlement-boost-for-the-commission#sthash.egdhK0yu.dpbs?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

However, there is no cartel of LLs nor any monopoly I am aware of (except perhaps the Fungus couple in their local area).

The problem the UK has is not enough houses and flats to live in, not one of too few laws on the forced exchange of property.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

However, there is no cartel of LLs nor any monopoly I am aware of (except perhaps the Fungus couple in their local area).

I agree, I reckon (overall) that it is about as close to perfect competition that you can get.

ukcarper

nic_c wrote: »

Just because they are in council or social housing doesn't mean they are on housing benefit. There are plenty of new social housing that offers lower rents but exclude housing benefit. Plenty of working people don't get housing benefit but find private rental prices high.

You should read posts properly I was responding to someone who said it would save housong benefit.

ukcarper

nic_c wrote: »

T'up north I see a lot of ex-council housing selling for £60k-£90k, the higher end going to FTB as its often been done up by a developer, the lower end by cash purchase landlords knowing they can easily get £500pcm for very little work on it. A £70K house costs you £370pm at 5% if you can find £7K deposit. Obviously you probably can get a better rate at 10% deposit or go for 5% deposit at that rate, but the fact is high rents and insistence on deposit stop people from buying. Maybe we should have a deposit version of shared ownership, the gov't pays 10% deposit but gets 10% of any future sale or option to pay final 10% at market valuation.

At those prices I would suggest that the thing stopping people buying must be lack of good jobs as £70k is easily affordable for a couple one earning £15k and one earning minimum wage. Saving £7k is not impossible they would be taking home £2k a month.

MARTYM8`

ukcarper wrote: »

If they had the 10% deposit they would not be getting housing benefit. Where I an a 2 bed sells for £240k rents for £900 a month. £210k mortgage at more realistic 3% is £1000 over 25 years.

I agree a 3% mortgage is realistic for the next few years - but the whole 25 years?

The areas which are relatively safe and where you can buy typical 2 bed flats in Greater London for £240,000 are rapidly diminishing - Sutton, Barking and Dagenham, Romford, East Ham, Bexley, Croydon and Enfield (i.e. areas which don't actually have London postcodes!).

Maybe I would move out and seek better value.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

..or bung the regulated tenants £10k slowly (or none and suddenly the council has increased the value of the house from £100k to £1m.

Yes or You don't even have to do that you can just change the law to slowly (or not so slowly) convert the regulated tenants to ASTs or even sell them once the tenant goes/dies

But overall I don't think it would be politically possible to turn the not for profit council homes into for profit rental empire. I suspect Maggie believed this to be the case and though selling at a discount and getting a price above the net present value of future net rental income was good value

you sometimes also see regulated tenant buildings go on for sale at auctions and they fetch a price in between the 'normal' price and the NPV price I suppose the difference is the hope/estimated time tjat it will take for the tenant to relinquish the rights

cells

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Yes - and wouldn't the price of every first time buyer home be increased by £15,000 on the basis sellers knew this was coming?

no because the market is not only FTBs

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Why should a select group of people - including housing associatioon tenants - be gifted tens of thousands of taxpayers funds to buy an asset at a time of austerity?

because we are a socialist state. and why are a young couple less deserving of a £15k bung than an elderly person who has £15k bunged every 6 months to the care home to wipe his bum?

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Cos its us council tax payers who are going to have to fund these £100,000 discounts - as its council houses which are going to have to be sold to raise the funds to bailout the HAs.

you said you were going to write a cheque to the council to fund this, then you said the council was going to sell the council homes to fund it....which is it marty?

also how is a council selling a flat for £500,000 that it built for £50,000 (in real terms) a cost to you or them?

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Which then means less stock for other cases

But did you not just say a paragraph or twoo above that there should be no subsidy? so why are you sad that the subsidy for "other cases" is stopping.

come on Marty consistency .....

MARTYM8` wrote: »

- and therefore a rising homelessness and housing benefit bill. which we are stuck with the bill for.

unless you pay over ~£20k a year in taxes you are not paying anything in marty you are taking out

also there will not be any more or less homelessness, they are not going to sell the expensive councils homes to a black hole marty

MARTYM8` wrote: »

A stupid scheme - which will probably end up in the courts.

good thing the government writes the rules the court must follow marty

MARTYM8` wrote: »

How about we just revert to the state providing social housing - you know what it used to do in the 1930s and 1950s (which worked!).

the state did not [STRIKE]provide [/STRIKE] build social homes marty, it tendered it out to private contractors to build.

also I am not against that, so long as they SELL the built home at the end of the process rather than RENT it out.

If they build to rent, they just end up as a big landlord crowding out home OWNERS.

Cornucopia

As a LL, I would be happy to sell to a tenant. As long as their rent is up to date, and the proposed purchase price does not reflect damage caused by them, then I'd be happy to discuss a discount off the current market price, starting with the estimated cost of Estate Agents fees that would not be needed.

Obviously, any sale would need to be consistent with the early redemption terms of the mortgage, if any, and I probably wouldn't sell in the first year of the mortgage, having paid a substantial mortgage application fee.

I think it would be quite complicated to build all this into legislation, though.

cells

Why not take it further and make housing free for all like health care is

I reckon 400k free homes built per year x £100k = about £40B a year

only about 1/3rd the cost of the NHS

chewmylegoff

Or just scrap the NHS and build 1.2 million houses a year and hand them out like confetti. We won't need an NHS because we will all earn enough through HPI on the houses the govt gives us to pay for BUPA cover.

I'm not waiting for the HPI though - I'll sell my free house to a Qatari investor as soon as I get it then I'm going to the Maldives until the cash runs out.