We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
First time buyer - Right to Buy
Comments
-
-
I suspect that the OP has probably gone back under their bridge so will not return
0 -
Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »To be fair I only discovered late in my adult life occupation of a council house was not contingent on need.
...remaining in occupation yes - at the point of application a need would need to be evident. A council tenant could win the lottery...or indeed, make use of the secure tenancy to concentrate on educating themselves and getting on in the world and subsequently earning a high salary and being an economic asset to the community. In which case, the social housing proved effective in helping someone less fortunate get on in life. Whether they should have to move out once their fortunes have changed is another political hot potato. The governments 'pay to stay' proposal seems to have been recently watered down for the rather mundane reason that it would be nigh on impossible for any social housing provide to administer. It would mean tracking every tenants income closely for decades: submission of payslips/SE accounts every month from say 50,000 households? That would need an army of administrators to monitor and LA's are losing staff faster than they are selling council houses.0 -
TheGardener wrote: »It would mean tracking every tenants income closely for decades: submission of payslips/SE accounts every month from say 50,000 households?
Why would finances need to be checked every month?
Tenants could get a tenancy that last two, five, ten years or whatever is decided or the reassessment could be triggered by events like means tested benefits are so a lottery win or an inheritance or some other big change in household income would have to be declared.0 -
We're barely into January but this thread get's my vote for P155 take of the year....0
-
Expect many more newbies with dubious and unlikely right to buy threads. Highly likely its the same troll.sparky130a wrote: »We're barely into January but this thread get's my vote for P155 take of the year....0 -
Thank you all for your advice and information. All very useful. Regards J0
-
3/10 Must try harder.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards