New Builds - Affordable Social Housing

gazter

PasturesNew wrote: »

Somebody I know bought a new build, overlooking "social housing flats" and alongside shared ownership.

5 years on, the reality is they are adjoined to a shared ownership semi, valued at £400k and bought by two Doctors; the other shared ownership terraceds are nice/decent people ... and the social housing flats (surely the worst of the worst?) somehow ended up in the hands of one owner who decorated them to a very high standard and only rents them to super-decent people.

It's a bit of a flagship development.... so you need to dig around and look at the area in general and who is likely to live there. Sometimes the Housing Associations have a "promise" to not put problem families in places, especially if they're considered "nicer parts"

Yes, there are some good schemes. My local council had an excellent scheme which is going to be changed in ten days time, because, and I quote "encourages aspiration".

It was a very simple scheme. Low Cost Home ownership. The principle of the scheme was, that to be eligible you had to be local and not have been able to afford the property without the assistance of the scheme.

Essentially it was a 20%/30%/40% discount on a series of new build properties, with the proviso that when you sell it on, that the discount is passed down to the next person.

It was very minimal on bureaucracy. They wanted a quote from a mortgage provider for what they would allow you to borrow, and proof you live locally. Say your bank would allow you to borrow £120,000. It would make you eligible for a house that was worth more than that before the discount.

That was it. It wasnt prioritised in any other way, no other assessments or investigations into your finance, or how many children you had.

Now however, a sixteen page policy has been put together, with larger properties only available to those with multiple children. If you want eligible for a three bedroom property you had to have a certain number of children.

The problem is, they begin to create negative behavioural rewards, in exactly the same way social housing does. You get rewarded for poor decisions.

The cul de sac we went on all had this low cost scheme. It was kept as well as the rest of the estate, everyone there was as invested in the area as the rest of the householders.

Social housing brings along issues that you need to deal with, especially if the management of the housing association is not very good.

love2learn

phill99 wrote: »

Yes you are a snob. 'Undesireables'. Good God.

I'm working class with emphasis on "working". I was brought up in one of the roughest council estates in the UK. My wife and I work every hour we can to buy a decent house in a decent area.

I have first hand experience many times over of the types of people that end up in Council houses. Does that mean I think they are all the same? Absolutely not... the majority of people in social/council houses are also decent hard working people.

But there is absolutely no getting away from the fact that there is far more likely to be antisocial, disrespectful and sometimes even violent/intimidating neighbors in houses for which they have no paid for.

love2learn

Dird wrote: »

It's a non-issue really. How often do you ask vendors how many houses on the street are owned/rented? The vendor wouldn't even know!
More likely a future buyer would just ask about the direct neighbours & normally "old couple" / "couple with 2 kids" answers it for them

Or they could do what my wife and I do, and that's drive around the area several times on Friday and Saturday nights to see if the neighbors are antisocial.

You can get bad neighbors anywhere, but being brought up on a very rough estate I am certain those who get their house for free are far less likely to care less about the house or the people around them.

love2learn

MadelinesMum wrote: »

Hi I live on a new build estate and in my phase of about 300 houses, there are approx 20 houses and two blocks of flats that are managed by a housing association.

My house is currently for sale and it is directly opposite a terraced block of affordable housing. About half of my viewers have asked whether they are social housing.

Thanks for your honest reply. The other half may reach that conclusion without asking though. How long has your house been on the market? And how long do houses in your town or area normally take to sell? :-)

gazter

Cash-Cows wrote: »

At least with social housing they CAN be evicted. I would be more worried about living next to a 5 / 6 bedroom houses. These days they make no financial sense as single homes and developers pack them with young professionals who party the night away.

Have you ever seen the process that you need to go through to evict a tenant with a secure tenancy?

love2learn

libf wrote: »

New builds always de-value when you first move in, because they're not new anymore. Same with new cars.

As for social housing... I'm in a shared ownership flat in a block where all the flats are shared ownership apart from 3 on each of 3 levels. Full price was £134k when I bought in 4.5 years ago, valuation for sale earlier this year was £185k. My non-shared ownership neighbour sold for £175k this time last year.

There's a need for a social housing, it's just a shame that the government relies on private companies to build it. If you don't like that, don't buy there.

I'm not against having "shared ownership" buyers moving in next to me at all. Those people have a stake in their house, they don't get the house for free or almost free. And in my opinion are far more likely to care about the house and be respectful to their neighbors.

Obviously you get bad eggs anywhere, but the above is common sense really.

love2learn

giddypenguin wrote: »

We live opposite a social housing block on a new build estate - they are home to one of our best friends on the street - you simply cannot judge people based on their living arrangements.

The developers should point out to you where the blocks of housing wil be on the site plan so ask them. It's usually labelled as such.

It's not as simple as just judging people. To be completely honest I couldn't care less if they are council or housing association. The issues is that the perception is there that these houses are more likely to house the dreggs of society. Not that all of them will, but some could/will. And as such people are more reluctant to commit to what is the biggest purchase of their life if there is a chance they'll end up with antisocial, disrespectful neighbors.

Your friend is obviously a decent person, but my opinion remains the same. Free or nearly free housing is far more likely to have the above types of people than people who have a stake and a vested interest in the house they live in. I've seen it enough in life that there's no chance anyone will change my opinion on that.

love2learn

pinkshoes wrote: »

In this area it is a third of houses in developments over about 15 houses.

You are being sensible rather than a "snob".

A friend of mine bought a house in a development which he rented to me whilst he went travelling for a year. The trees had all their branches ripped off, drunken people screaming late at night, bikes stolen, someone trying to kick in someone's door etc... In a year i lost count of all the times the police were called.

Guess which houses caused all the trouble...? Oh, that would be a couple of the social rented ones. i am certainly not saying all the social houses were trouble,as a lot of them were lovely, but getting the council to evict the trouble makers was a nightmare.

My parents live in a newbuild development and the social housing is all in one area and away from theirs. Much more peaceful.

I guess it just comes down to where it is located.

Obviously you can get ghastly private tenants too, but personally i have found that private landlords didn't want trouble, so an eviction happened much quicker!

Finally an honest post, not motivated by an inferiority complex.

love2learn

andyuk01 wrote: »

I live in a mixed block with some shared communal space but separate key coded areas for owners / social

You can probably guess which areas are generally well maintained and which areas are full of rubbish and not looked after

The fire brigade have attended 8 times in the last year, all due to alarms from the social areas, down to people smoking in stairwells / flats (despite a very nice 4th floor terrace open to all)

The police have attended the social side several times for domestic issues and at least 2 sets of social tenants were evicted last year after multiple visits

If it wasn't for the fact i can park underground and have a separate lift to the floors covering the owned properties i wouldn't live here

Thank you another honest post, and speaking from experience rather than just opinion.

datlex

Social housing is not just restricted to houses. It can include provision of housing for the elderly in the form of warden controlled flats or care homes for sufferers of various conditions such as dementia or epilepsy.