Can I rent out my Right to Buy House

Libra1975

CB1979 wrote: »

morally wrong? possibly
illegal? NO govt's stupid fault these types of things happen.

totally agree with silvercar, they followed the rules and got their "rewards" by the govt. (yes i know we as taxpayers have forked out for it)

but are you telling me if someone - no matter who it was - gave you £35k with no comeback and it not seen as a loan, for a deposit you would then give that back even if they weren't asking for it?

sorry but nope, look after number 1, if the system has flaws, use them for your benefit, simple as that.

do i like the idea of these people living on subsidised rents and then getting £30k given to them when i have to earn more than them for the same kind of living? of course i don't!

it's exactly the same as these bank charges claims, I live within my means always have done always will, I had one late payment about 5 years back and that's it, yet these people haven't and then got given a windfall plus interest, am i pleased hell no, but that's life the banks have slipped up (just like govt in this instance) so take take take.

As much as the orginal poster makes me slightly annoyed by the fact he is using something people have helped subsidised to move up the property ladder when there are other people scrimping and saving towards a deposit or trying to get enough points to get decent housing he came on here asking for advice and he got it. But the post by CB1979 makes my blood boil, we are lucky enough to have a gov't who for all it's faults and whether Tory or Labour acknowledges there are people who need help, that the collective have a responsibilty for the few that might need shelter or help thru no fault of their own and yes in the execution of those responsibilties the gov't does show flaws but to say that you should take advantage of those flaws and only look after number one is one of the reasons our tax bills are so hefty having to look after work-dodgers and people who do milk the system and therefore make others less inclined to help the people who do need it. I'm sorry but I am one of those who think we should be cracking down on people who take advantage of the system not patting them on the back and saying well done (and as I pointed out the OP asked for advice not a pat on the back).

CB1979_2

yes appreciate your views totally, but end of the day if it's a toss up between me & my family benefiting from £35k given to me or the next person, of course I'll choose me to have that cash thank you.

that's what i mean by look after number 1, not be selfish & act illegally but if it's given on a plate then do it, if it betters your & your family life.

Imagine yourself in these people's position, generally a lot don't have a pot to p!ss in and they're being offered £30k handshake to get off the LA housing list, of course they're gonna take it.

i would now, and I'm not skint by any stretch of the imagination, but £30k is £30k at the end of the day, and i don't believe anyone who says they'd turn that prospect down of given £30k for nothing.

and not meaning to go too off topic & down the route of benefits etc, I too have had this discussion on another forum about this recently and as much as i wouldn't want to do it, I can see why people do stay on benefits when there's no motivation for them to get off their !!!!!'s and get a job, why work 40 hours a week on minimum wage and be worse off than on housing benefits and other credits?

obsessed_saver

Exactly. They should just scrap all these benefits. If you don't work, you don't eat. If you don't earn, you don't feed (their children).

Or make them do work for their benefits - garbage collection, sewage cleaning, potato peeling, whatever. Those jobs need doing. If they can't find anything to do themselves, and want the money, they have to do whatever it takes to earn it.

To the OP: I'm glad to hear you and your wife are making headway in life. I'm sure it's through you and your wife's hardwork that you are able to take that step to the next rung on the ladder. Good luck.

seven-day-weekend

I think people are most unfair to people who have bought Council houses.

Yes, we all agree that the RTB scheme was just a ploy to get the Conservatives some votes(and the Labour Government hasn't changed it) - but in the end the tenants have the RIGHT to buy. Why shouldn't they? It's not illegal! You can't blame people for wanting to better themselves by a lawful method, even if it is an unpopular lawful method.

OP, I think you can rent your place out after a certain amount of time (sorry, don't know what the time is). And for those people going off on one, the OP will still be providing a home for someone.

My m-i-l bought her bungalow from the Council and my husband inherited it when she died. He rented it out for about five years to someone who had been on the Council list for a bungalow for about three years. When he eventually sold it the tenants were re-homed into a bungalow by the Council. So how was anyone worse off with that transaction?

(edited to add - the tenants were allowed full Housing Benefit as we priced the rent the same as the Council ones).

We bought our house in Spain with the money from the sale. Flame away if you like.....

JasonLVC

The RTB was introduced not to buy votes but to cut costs. Councils cannot afford to maintain council houses, back then or today as the rent charge is set by central government using a unique formula that barely keeps the system going. So either poll tax had to triple or the councils had to get rid of the properties that were costing them a fortune. That;s what they did. Our 'Labour' government are now forcing councils to sell their stock to housing associations by decreasing their housing grants whilst forcing them to acieve a decent home standard by 2010 which is impossible without more money, hence more council house selll-off. But that's for another argument, another day.

Private rents are usually 2-3 times higher than council 'subsidised' rents and those on rent allowances/benefits are capped at a governmental figure so someone renting a council house with maximum benefits don't pay anything. The same person renting privately will have to make up the (substantial) shortfall so any private landlord is going to be putting tenants on benefits at a disadvantage straight away.

As for OP saying council is not interested in buying it back....the law gives them first refusal to purchase within 10 years of sale and that current housing policy for almost all councils is to re-purchase where possible so OP hasn't really checked this out I'm sure, probably more an assumption.

Not having a go at the OP but your earlier post saying you did not set out to make a profit from RTB...but sorry, the ONLY reason why people buy a house is for it to appreciate in value and sell at a profit.....and the profit margin is so much more in a RTB house as they are undervalued initially before the discount is deducted and so will have appreciated in value almost as soon as contracts had exchanged by at least 10%.

Under the old rules you had to pay back a % of the discount you received, you now have to pay back a % of the new selling price. So if house has gone up in value in last 12 months (and it will have) then the amount paid back will still be less than the original discount received in most cases. (ie buy for £100,000 and sell for £150,000 - discount paid back @ 10% is £15,000. Maximum discount under RTB is approx £20-25k so still quids in!.

(I'm an ex-RTB Manager/Housing Manager and have no issue with people using or abusing the system, the system is at fault, not the people).;)

seven-day-weekend

Interesting and informative post, Jason. Thank you.

System

JasonLVC wrote: »

the ONLY reason why people buy a house is for it to appreciate in value and sell at a profit

Stop being so simplistic. That may well be the reason that you bought but this doesn't apply to everybody.

I bought for the simple reason that after 30 years of moving around the country, living in the carp housing that the Forces provide, I decided that I wanted somewhere where I could settle and actually call home. Somewhere where I could knock a nail into a wall without worrying about the consequences on leaving.

After 30 years of moving, I will probably stay in this house until my children have completed their education and established themselves. My wife and I will then probably downgrade to a smaller house. Yes we will possibly make a profit but that is a by-product of downsizing.

Graham_Devon

Thinking about it is one thing. I think thats wrong in itself. Out of tax payers money, you got a help onto the property ladder that others in the same position as yourself do not get and struggle and work themselves stupid, to get. You got that handed to you on a plate, just because of the situation you were in. Others in the same situation just not as lucky, do not get that.

Now your wanting to profit from that. Thats grossly unfair and morally very very wrong.

You already have profited. Up to 30k of the taxpayers money, while all the rest get is council tax increases (where your handout came from). You've profitied from subsised rent.

Now your wanting to also profit and charge another family, who have not had the same fortune as yourself and can not get that help, and charge them and make a further profit.

Would you say to this family you rent it out to 'hey, just pay the minimal amount to cover the house, as thats what I did, and I'm giving you a chance'.

If the answers yes, go for it.

If the answers no, as indicated in your posts, and you simply want to profit from those that handed their wages over to you in the first place to put you in this position, then I think your very very selfish ans should have to pay back the full amount you got.....just like the people your planning to profit from. But you wouldnt like that....would you? Probably say it would be unfair?

margaretclare

mrt04 wrote: »

DOLCE VITA

What do you mean by I hope not and I hope so ! ! !

(sigh) I think what DolceVita means by this is that what you're proposing is completely against the whole ethos of the 'right to buy' scheme. If I understood it correctly, massive discounts were offered to council tenants to enable them to become part of the so-called 'property-owning democracy', a slogan of the time, in reaction to the socialist 'cradle to grave' control model of the economy. The reason for these large discounts was to provide a stable home to people who'd lived in the same place for a set period of time, minimum 2 years, and NOT to enable profiteers and speculators to make a fast buck, which appears to be what you're thinking of doing. Therefore, if there aren't controls in place to prevent you doing this then there darned well should be.

Margaret

seven-day-weekend

I must admit I never understood why the massive discounts were applied. The properties are already valued lower than a similar house on the open market.

But that is hardly the tenant's fault and you can't blame people for making the most of the opportunity.