Right to buy: Housing Associations

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

what does that mean in practice ?


e.g. if a family lives in a nice 3 bed house with garden for 25 years and then the kids all leave home and dad tragically dies of cancer
then will mum be kicked out?

This is quite simple to sort out.

You just do exactly the same as you do with housing benefit currently. If they are no longer eligible for housing benefit, they pay the rent themselves. Same as any housing association build.

So that part of the argument "against" council houses is a very easy issue to sort. Almost a none issue considering how housing benefit works.

No one gets housing benefit for life unless they qualify for it.

Lifelong tenancies was a mistake of the past. There is nothiong to suggest that any new council building must make all those same mistakes. As Ukcarper states, I don't think they even exist anymore......only those holding on to them from eras gone by have them.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is quite simple to sort out.

You just do exactly the same as you do with housing benefit currently. If they are no longer eligible for housing benefit, they pay the rent themselves. Same as any housing association build.

So that part of the argument "against" council houses is a very easy issue to sort. Almost a none issue considering how housing benefit works.

No one gets housing benefit for life unless they qualify for it.

Lifelong tenancies was a mistake of the past. There is nothiong to suggest that any new council building must make all those same mistakes. As Ukcarper states, I don't think they even exist anymore......only those holding on to them from eras gone by have them.

indeed changing the rules will change the result although which way is debateable
if it were so easy to sort out, it is truly amazing that it has been done already.


I will ask you the question that UKcarper reclines to answer


what do you think will happen to a council tenant (even if they don't have a life tenancy agreement), where they family circumstances no longer justify a 3 bed council house and they refuse to move voluntarily?


do you really think we will see labour council evicted 'decent' people after 25 years living in a nice home?


anyway there so many other negatives about council owned property that the very limited 'account' is not the reason to have them whatever the result.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lifelong tenancies was a mistake of the past. There is nothiong to suggest that any new council building must make all those same mistakes. As Ukcarper states, I don't think they even exist anymore......only those holding on to them from eras gone by have them.

Politicians are to blame for many of the current housing problems. Given the chance they'll repeat the mistakes of the past and dream up some new ones too.

To think a cure for an over large state is to make it even larger is naive.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Politicians are to blame for many of the current housing problems. Given the chance they'll repeat the mistakes of the past and dream up some new ones too.

To think a cure for an over large state is to make it even larger is naive.

To think the cure for a chronic lack of building is to rely on the same failing policy that has been in place for the last 50 years is beyond naive.

The very fact that we have a chronic shortage problem and were talking about it today should highlight the failure.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

what do you think will happen to a council tenant (even if they don't have a life tenancy agreement), where they family circumstances no longer justify a 3 bed council house and they refuse to move voluntarily?

I've already answered.

The same as happens with housing benefit.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To think the cure for a chronic lack of building is to rely on the same failing policy that has been in place for the last 50 years is beyond naive.

The very fact that we have a chronic shortage problem and were talking about it today should highlight the failure.

Forumonics. I said a couple of posts up policy has failed, why it's failed and what I think should happen.

All politicians think the answer to any problem is more politicians but they're like alcohol - the cause and cure of all problems. They should stick their noses in less - we'll be fine.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Forumonics. I said a couple of posts up policy has failed, why it's failed and what I think should happen.

All politicians think the answer to any problem is more politicians but they're like alcohol - the cause and cure of all problems. They should stick their noses in less - we'll be fine.

So this is the sum of your argument against council housing?

OK - but as i said, I'm all ears for financial reasons as to why the policy is so bad. I've asked for the third time for examples of why financially it was so bad. I've got nothing, apart from that, rather strange stuff above and clapton going on about life long tenancies that don't even exist anymore.

All I can see is the same people who hold the value of their own house pretty dearly arguing against any policy which will increase house building and therefore dilute values.

You may disagree....but unless you can put some proper arguments forward about why it;s such a bad policy, it's all I'm left with.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've already answered.

The same as happens with housing benefit.

that isn't current policy and so is merely an assumption without justification

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So this is the sum of your argument against council housing?

OK - but as i said, I'm all ears for financial reasons as to why the policy is so bad. I've asked for the third time for examples of why financially it was so bad. I've got nothing, apart from that, rather strange stuff above and clapton going on about life long tenancies that don't even exist anymore.

All I can see is the same people who hold the value of their own house pretty dearly arguing against any policy which will increase house building and therefore dilute values.

You may disagree....but unless you can put some proper arguments forward about why it;s such a bad policy, it's all I'm left with.

I could use the same childish argument and say you're worried about losing the taxpayer sub on the rented part of your shared ownership house which is why you're all for ever increasing state meddling.

Let's say I'm right and the biggest single factor causing a shortage of housing is government diktat that planning permission be highly restrictive then the solution would be for government to remove those restrictions.

More houses could be built and, you won't like this bit, the people who live in them could do what adults do and pay for them by either buying or paying rent rather than sticking their hand out for a sub.

No more HTB, rotten landlords snubbed in favour of better ones, cheaper houses, more choice, reduced cost maintaining the vulnerable and adults treated like adults.

Oh, my house might fall in value - try not to worry about it - I'm not.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

that isn't current policy and so is merely an assumption without justification

As I said non life life tenancies are new so the current polices regarding life time tenancies do not apply.