Housing is an example of how Scotland makes better use of its powers than Westminster

Shakethedisease

cells wrote: »

Council estates probably harm people's life chances but even if you disagree I doubt you would try to argue they improve people's chances

Really ? Well, I was one of the 17 year old pregnant teenagers Clapton was on about ( apart from the lying to the council bit ) but it was back in 1988. I did okay in the end.. most of us don't stay perpetual 'teenage doley mother's' forever you know. My life chances were neither harmed or enhanced by getting one. But back then most of my town lived in council houses. Even all the managers of the supermarkets, dentists, and lots of what we'd call 'middle class' I suppose. There was even an 'engaged couple's list'. There were a lot of council houses.

Mabye the fact they've gotten rarer these days is the reason why they are so hotly debated ? But back then, living in a council house wasn't really anything out of the ordinary. For anyone. At all.

If a palce like London sold off its council stock as it became vacant the near 100% council estates would go towards 50% over 25 years which woupd be a positive.

If nothing else there should be a re balancing of the stock. Councils like Hackney or Islington have nearly twice as many council homes as most London boroughs. They should sell their stock down. In my view there is no need to replace them and the money should be spent on more crossrail type projects but if you insist a private home in a London Borough with less council homes can be baught and become a replacement.

It's not just London though is it ? It's just at the extreme end of the scale. But an AWFUL lot that were sold cheaply through RTB are now rented out privately at a whacking great cost to the housing benefits bill. Both councils ad LHA are scared to invest in building more in case they get sold off again.

Friday 14 August 2015

Figures released by 91 councils in England under the Freedom of Information act show 37.6 per cent of flats sold to tenants under the controversial policy are being sublet at up to seven times the cost of average social rents.

The councils revealed they have sold 127,763 leasehold properties – typically flats and maisonettes – with 47,994 leaseholders now living at another address, a strong indication that the home is being sublet.
More than half the ex-council flats in six local authority areas are now being let privately with the highest - 70 per cent - in Milton Keynes. Stevenage, Corby and Blackpool all sold more than 60 per cent of their stock to people who are subletting their property...


...Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, one of more than 150 MPs earning at least £10,000 a year each in rental income,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/right-to-buy-40-of-homes-sold-under-government-scheme-are-being-let-out-privately-10454796.html

Well someone's sure coining it in aren't they ? ( And I don't mean the MP's, though they are too ).. Taking rent seven times higher than the social rent they themselves were paying, and a cheap house too. Those housing benefit bills for the Govt though.... Ouch.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Really ? Well, I was one of the 17 year old pregnant teenagers Clapton was on about ( apart from the lying to the council bit ) but it was back in 1988. I did okay in the end.. most of us don't stay perpetual 'teenage doley mother's' forever you know. My life chances were neither harmed or enhanced by getting one. But back then most of my town lived in council houses. Even all the managers of the supermarkets, dentists, and lots of what we'd call 'middle class' I suppose. There was even an 'engaged couple's list'. There were a lot of council houses.

Mabye the fact they've gotten rarer these days is the reason why they are so hotly debated ? But back then, living in a council house wasn't really anything out of the ordinary. For anyone. At all.

It's not just London though is it ? It's just at the extreme end of the scale. But an AWFUL lot that were sold cheaply through RTB are now rented out privately at a whacking great cost to the housing benefits bill. Both councils ad LHA are scared to invest in building more in case they get sold off again.

Friday 14 August 2015

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/right-to-buy-40-of-homes-sold-under-government-scheme-are-being-let-out-privately-10454796.html

Well someone's sure coining it in aren't they ? ( And I don't mean the MP's, though they are too ).. Taking rent seven times higher than the social rent they themselves were paying, and a cheap house too. Those housing benefit bills for the Govt though.... Ouch.

I certainly agree that the dynamics of renting council houses is different if council houses are the dominant form of housing.

One assumes, that ALL the people there, weren't living in subsidised houses but they were broadly paying their way.

The situation in London and the SE with a severe shortage of housing, has quite dynamics compared to places with an adequate supply.

Maybe Scotland should become a owner occupier free society and all housing should be owned and managed by the state.

I believe that quite a few SNP politicians have used the RTB without be excluded from the party by Auntie or Uncle

Generali

The councils revealed they have sold 127,763 leasehold properties – typically flats and maisonettes – with 47,994 leaseholders now living at another address, a strong indication that the home is being sublet

Isn't that a strong indication of someone that has sold the flat and moved somewhere else or am I missing something?

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Isn't that a strong indication of someone that has sold the flat and moved somewhere else or am I missing something?

I think you have if the leaseholder is living somewhere else the property must be empty or someone else is living in it.

chucknorris

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well someone's sure coining it in aren't they ? ( And I don't mean the MP's, though they are too ).. Taking rent seven times higher than the social rent they themselves were paying, and a cheap house too. Those housing benefit bills for the Govt though.... Ouch.

Why are they 'coining it'? I bought 4 ex-council flats on the open market, so I am the leaseholder, and I paid the open market price. How am I 'coining it'?

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

Why are they 'coining it'? I bought 4 ex-council flats on teh open market, so I am the leaseholder, and I paid the open market price.

And presumably the leaseholder it was sold to is now living at a different address hence my comment.

You could just as easily have been an owner occupier as a BTL vampire squid.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

And presumably the leaseholder it was sold to is now living at a different address hence my comment.

You could just as easily have been an owner occupier as a BTL vampire squid.

The way I read the leaseholder is living at a different address that leaseholder might not be original occupier, but the property is either empty or more likely let to someone else. I have nothing against BTL landlords the point is about a third of those properties are now let out. Of course all the people in them will not be claiming housing benefit but for those that are the government are now paying rent at market rate for a property that sold at a large discount.

Shakethedisease

chucknorris wrote: »

Why are they 'coining it'? I bought 4 ex-council flats on the open market, so I am the leaseholder, and I paid the open market price. How am I 'coining it'?

The people who sold them to you. Bought them at a big discount. Then took full market price from you.

Or haven't sold, but moved elsewhere and are currently letting them out at up to seven times the rent they themselves paid while living there. So yes, coining it in. I didn't mean people like you.

Current Tory policy is to extend RTB to LHA's also.

chucknorris

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The people who sold them to you. Bought them at a big discount. Then took full market price from you.

Of course they did, the discount is clearly stated in the property details, but you were talking about rent, NOT capital gains.

Shakethedisease

chucknorris wrote: »

Of course they did, the discount is clearly stated in the property details, but you were talking about rent, NOT capital gains.

I was talking about 'coining it in'.

or

...haven't sold, but moved elsewhere and are currently letting them out at up to seven times the rent they themselves paid while living there.