Right To Buy from 2016!

Graham_Devon

pol-zeath wrote: »

Well actually my daughter is one of those single parents...BUT a single parent who has worked maximum number of hours in a demanding essential services job. So I would hardly say she was getting something for nothing

Hey, if I was in the position of getting such a sum, I'd take it. It is, though, literally money for nothing. It's simply a case of being in the right place (house) at the right time.

All I'm pointing out is that if you are going to take such a subsidy, it's difficult to complain of others getting a much smaller subsidy.

Overall though, I just think it's the wrong thing to do. I don't know why any single household should get such a huge grant at taxpayer expense. Especially while at the same time cutting benefits to so many families as were apparently we need to balance the books.

With council housing RTB, at least we weren't literally buying a portion of the council house and handing it over to someone. We already owned it. With this, this is exactly what we are doing. Paying over a huge chunk of cash to buy an asset and then handing it to the lucky winner.

What's the difference between someone who rents a 2 bed flat from the HA and someone around the corner who rents a 2 bed flat from a private landlord? Let's say they both work in the same office on the same pay. Theres nothing different other than one has just got the opportunity to a huge portion of the house handed to them for nothing.

leveller2911

pol-zeath wrote: »

Why?
My daughter has a lovely has a lovely little Housing Association property. With a little bit of help from mum and dad she will now have a chance to get on the property ladder. Giving her and her children some security.

Actually they have more security now as tenants of a HA than they would if they bought it. They have a tenancy for life , no maintenance costs and if they fall on hard times they will have their rent paid. Flip side is buy it and they will have to pay for all the maintenance and if they fall on hard times they may well be evicted..

I just hope they make tenants sign a disclaimer to ban them from any future Social Housing rights. I personally know of 3 families who bought under the RTB scheme ,all repossessed and now back in Social Housing..


You do realise there won't be any Social Housing left for your grandchildren don't you?. Where will they live if they can't afford to buy?...

Just googled it and I can't find any info on this "deal"..

markharding557

Rtb has enabled many tenants to purchase their home, many of whom probably could not have become home owners otherwise.

There are not many policies from the Conservatives which I support, this is one of the few.

Coincidently; isn't Help to buy also a means of assisting the purchase of houses?

markharding557

pol-zeath wrote: »

Why?
My daughter has a lovely has a lovely little Housing Association property. With a little bit of help from mum and dad she will now have a chance to get on the property ladder. Giving her and her children some security.

If your your daughters finances are such that she can't finance the costs and deposit without your help then she should consider very carefully if this is the right course.

leveller2911

markharding557 wrote: »

Coincidently; isn't Help to buy also a means of assisting the purchase of houses?

Yep and its contributed to keeping the house prices inflated. Back in the 80's and 90's house owners could also apply for £10,000's worth of government/council grants to renovate their homes.

So the taxpayer was paying for new windows,kitchens,staircases,doors,roofs etc on private houses all over the country so as you say there has always been government money for the private housing sector as well as the public sector.

pol-zeath

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hey, if I was in the position of getting such a sum, I'd take it. It is, though, literally money for nothing. It's simply a case of being in the right place (house) at the right time.

All I'm pointing out is that if you are going to take such a subsidy, it's difficult to complain of others getting a much smaller subsidy.

Overall though, I just think it's the wrong thing to do. I don't know why any single household should get such a huge grant at taxpayer expense. Especially while at the same time cutting benefits to so many families as were apparently we need to balance the books.

With council housing RTB, at least we weren't literally buying a portion of the council house and handing it over to someone. We already owned it. With this, this is exactly what we are doing. Paying over a huge chunk of cash to buy an asset and then handing it to the lucky winner.

I don't understand what the difference is with Council properies RTB why is it different to HA?
I am not complaining about others being subsidised by tax credits - only the one's that intentionally work less hours to maximise their entitlement.

Graham_Devon

pol-zeath wrote: »

I don't understand what the difference is with Council properies RTB why is it different to HA?
I am not complaining about others being subsidised by tax credits - only the one's that intentionally work less hours to maximise their entitlement.

The difference is that with the council properties we, as the taxpayers, already own them. So it doesn't actually cost us to provide a discount. Many of these sales will actually realise a profit, as the houses have increased in value since we paid to build them (though it's still an incredibly silly policy as we need social housing).

With the HA properties, we, as taxpayers don't own them. The housing associations do. You cannot force housing associations to give away their assets. Therefore, if a HA house is valued at 100k and they have to offer a discount of 30% and sell it to the tenant for 70k, the taxpayer will then hand the HA 30k cash to make up the HA loss.

The worrying thing around all of this is now that they have done this, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from offering it to all tenants renting off private BTL landlords, should the BTL landlord want to take part.

pol-zeath

markharding557 wrote: »

If your your daughters finances are such that she can't finance the costs and deposit without your help then she should consider very carefully if this is the right course.

My daughter earns a good income but does not have the savings for a deposit and initial costs. Her mortgage will probably be less than the full rent she is paying on her property

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

With the HA properties, we, as taxpayers don't own them.

HA properties built between 1989-97 were built with goverment grants via the Housing Corporation so the taxpayer funded the builds. At that time HA didn't need to raise funds on the markets. I'm not sure about pre 89' for funding sources.

pol-zeath

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The difference is that with the council properties we, as the taxpayers, already own them. So it doesn't actually cost us to provide a discount. Many of these sales will actually realise a profit, as the houses have increased in value since we paid to build them (though it's still an incredibly silly policy as we need social housing).

With the HA properties, we, as taxpayers don't own them. The housing associations do. You cannot force housing associations to give away their assets. Therefore, if a HA house is valued at 100k and they have to offer a discount of 30% and sell it to the tenant for 70k, the taxpayer will then hand the HA 30k cash to make up the HA loss.

The worrying thing around all of this is now that they have done this, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from offering it to all tenants renting off private BTL landlords, should the BTL landlord want to take part.

We will be a nation of homeowners:)