Right to buy: Housing Associations

ukcarper

I really can't see who stands to gain with RTB apart from the tenant that buys.

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

the people I know who used RTB mostly to buy their flats in inner London went on to buy property in outer London selling their flats to in some cases probably BTL Landlords.

To achieve that it required the taxpayer accepted pennies in the pound on the asset. Seems an awfully inefficient way of allocating housing. It might have been cheaper to sub the person in the council flat in inner London to move elsewhere.

Same with 'social cleansing' - offer benefits claimants in London council housing £10k to move to Stoke and there will be a queue. Then sell the house at the market price.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

To achieve that it required the taxpayer accepted pennies in the pound on the asset. Seems an awfully inefficient way of allocating housing. It might have been cheaper to sub the person in the council flat in inner London to move elsewhere.

Same with 'social cleansing' - offer benefits claimants in London council housing £10k to move to Stoke and there will be a queue. Then sell the house at the market price.

From what I recall the discounts they got were £16k not much different from your suggested £10k bung

Also they are now private rentals probably Housing 4 in work tenants. The council average is less than 2.3 and in average they are far less likely to be working so its a better mix

And finally if the state is so wonderful a landlord I suggest corybn nationalise the whole stock and we can all be council tenants and be thankful for it

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I really can't see who stands to gain with RTB apart from the tenant that buys.

Think of the opposite statement and see if you agree

I really can't see who stands to lose if the state bought private homes (the lowest proved ones in the worst areas) from estate agents and rented them out as council homes to a select group for a lifetime on the basis of one time need

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

From what I recall the discounts they got were £16k not much different from your suggested £10k bung

Also they are now private rentals probably Housing 4 in work tenants. The council average is less than 2.3 and in average they are far less likely to be working so its a better mix

And finally if the state is so wonderful a landlord I suggest corybn nationalise the whole stock and we can all be council tenants and be thankful for it

Not sure what the typical RTB discount is in London but the maximum is £105k and the occupants won't (or at least shouldn't) be able to afford to buy so won't be going anywhere soon - why would they?

Give them a bung to do one. Sell them to the private sector and let's put the failed experiment of allowing the state to provide subsidised housing to certain favoured groups behind us.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Not sure what the typical RTB discount is in London but the maximum is £105k and the occupants won't (or at least shouldn't) be able to afford to buy so won't be going anywhere soon - why would they?

Give them a bung to do one. Sell them to the private sector and let's put the failed experiment of allowing the state to provide subsidised housing to certain favoured groups behind us.

Generally agree but I'm not sure the sane of mind would give up their council homes for £10k especially as they would lose all their benefits until that £10k was gone.

London and especially inner London should sell off all its social homes makes no sense that places like hackney are 45% social

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

Generally agree but I'm not sure the sane of mind would give up their council homes for £10k especially as they would lose all their benefits until that £10k was gone.

Special dispensation to allow recipients not to be penalised for x years after receipt for having savings.

If you're living on benefits then the chance of a new start and more money than you've ever seen might be the nudge you need. Don't need to worry about missing their friends and family - they can all go.

If they were able to run a cost/ benefit analysis and calculate the sum of money was too small they would probably have a pot to p**s in the first place.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Special dispensation to allow recipients not to be penalised for x years after receipt for having savings.

If you're living on benefits then the chance of a new start and more money than you've ever seen might be the nudge you need. Don't need to worry about missing their friends and family - they can all go.

If they were able to run a cost/ benefit analysis and calculate the sum of money was too small they would probably have a pot to p**s in the first place.

The easy one would be to sell off homes as they become vacant. I think that's 4% of the stock per year. So about 5 million social homes so can sell off about 200,000 a year just selling the ones that become vacant.

To be honest I think even that might be too high a figure to be viable as its quite a flood of properties for sale!

Maybe limit it to the most expensive 50% so its 100,000 sales a year which night be more sustainable. The other 50% put up for rent at market price

This is actually one of my risks as a London investor. If the above was done I suspect London prices would go nowhere for 10 years as the state would be selling about 30-40k homes in London

Graham_Devon

Or let the public sector do what it does best and let the private sector do what it does best.

It's been proven that the private sector does not do housing the best. What's more, it would collapse without the public sector subsidy (housing benefit).

Public sector housing on the other hand has a track record for building the homes we need in the numbers we need and doesn't require as high a subsidy once the homes are built, saving money long term on housing benefits. There were some problems with the 60's buildings, granted, but we don't have to make the same mistakes again.

Equally though, there are plenty of problems in the private sector.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Or let the public sector do what it does best and let the private sector do what it does best.

It's been proven that the private sector does not do housing the best. What's more, it would collapse without the public sector subsidy (housing benefit).

Public sector housing on the other hand has a track record for building the homes we need in the numbers we need and doesn't require as high a subsidy once the homes are built, saving money long term on housing benefits. There were some problems with the 60's buildings, granted, but we don't have to make the same mistakes again.

Equally though, there are plenty of problems in the private sector.

You are too right wing

The state should simply build and gift to each couple a free house that it theirs. Why enslave them as council rent slaves