Can I rent out my Right to Buy House

tr3mor

I'm really interested to know what the outcome of this is.

Surely there are clauses in the RTB contract that don't allow renting them out for the first however many years anyway...

Merton

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes, he was lucky and had an opportunity that others won't have. My son won't have it. But he has actually done nothing he is not allowed to do and that house, at least, as I said in my post abover, is lost to the Council whether he sells it or rents it out. I don't see as it makes any difference which one he does, it is still not ever going to be a Council house again.

So you're saying that the OP has no ability to work out for himself the difference between right and wrong and needs a law to tell him where the line is? If the law doesn't exist, he can do his worst! That's ridiculous.
Those who rent in this country are subjected to laws which mean that they risk having to move every six months. That means no stability for those individuals. No security of tenure, which, by the way, the OP enjoyed when he was a council tenant. Can you see the irony yet? Are you starting to glimpse the difference between him selling the house at a reasonable price under the circumstances to someone starting out and him hoarding it for greed and to exploit others? It isn't sufficient to hide behind law. Sometimes you have to make a decision for yourself, rather than be told by others. The greatest pity is that he's about to be a parent when others who are stuck in sub-standard rental accommodation don't have a hope in hell of being able to house children, when maybe, just maybe, they would provide a greater sense of morailty and community than the OP has shown so far.

Merton

Melissa177 wrote: »

Who needs two of anything? Two cars? Two TVs? Isn't one enough? I'm not a big fan of using reductio ad absurdum, but it illustrates a point. Housing is a commodity like anything else. Just because we all need food, water & shelter doesn't mean it can't be traded.

I don't think this idea is really in the spirit of the RTB law, but I don't see that what the OP is doing is outrageous. As Seven Day Weekend points out, he could either sell or rent - either way, he's giving a home to someone else.

20 years ago people complained there weren't enough places to rent - now we have then, people are still complaining.

You're missing the point about security of tenure.

seven-day-weekend

I agree with everything you say except I don't see why it is worse to rent it rather than sell it. I don't see why him renting it is 'exploiting' others.. There are always going to be people who need to/prefer to rent and as I keep saying, it is never going to be a Council house again.

How would him selling the house help those others you mention who are stuck in 'sub-standard accommodation'? (Unless they bought it of course, but if they can afford to buy his house, then there is no need for them to be in sub-standard accommoodation as they could buy a different one).

Of course people don't need laws to tell them what is right or wrong.. Actually I think the thing that is wrong is the RTB legislation in the first place. Without it, my son may stand a chance of a Council place.

But you can't blame people for taking up the opportunity.

Merton

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree with everything you say except I don't see why it is worse to rent it rather than sell it. I don't see why him renting it is 'exploiting' others.. There are always going to be people who need to/prefer to rent and as I keep saying, it is never going to be a Council house again.

How would him selling the house help those others you mention who are stuck in 'sub-standard accommodation'? (Unless they bought it of course, but if they can afford to buy his house, then there is no need for them to be in sub-standard accommoodation as they could buy a different one).

Of course people don't need laws to tell them what is right or wrong.. Actually I think the thing that is wrong is the RTB legislation in the first place. Without it, my son may stand a chance of a Council place.

But you can't blame people for taking up the opportunity.

I do actually hold people accountable for their actions. I don't go along with the view that we can't blame him for exploiting the system. I wonder if the OP would object to the idea of renting it out to someone on the same terms that he enjoyed: security of tenure and subsidised rent (subsidised by the OP). Maybe that will be the test of integrity.

Graham_Devon

Merton wrote: »

I do actually hold people accountable for their actions. I don't go along with the view that we can't blame him for exploiting the system. I wonder if the OP would object to the idea of renting it out to someone on the same terms that he enjoyed: security of tenure and subsidised rent (subsidised by the OP). Maybe that will be the test of integrity.

Already asked that. Most money possible.

seven-day-weekend

I too hold people accountable for their actions.

No-one but a Council or Housing Association would offer rentals under those conditions. If you want people to do that then all the rented houses will disappear. And seeing as there are now no Council houses left, it would make things worse not better.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel for people who are in rental properties with no security of tenure. But we have to be realistic, in the current climate there is not going to be security of tenure. Not from private landlords anyway.

So maybe we should all be campaigning for the re-instatement of social/public housing so that people who rent actually have a choice?

Toto

It's worse to rent it out rather than sell because he is still held into the discount period. This means if he sells on the open market the council still has a charge over the property for a % of the discount. In other words he would have to pay some of his discount back to the council. This is why people are getting heated over the renting situation.

Merton

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I too hold people accountable for their actions.

No-one but a Council or Housing Association would offer rentals under those conditions. If you want people to do that then all the rented houses will disappear. And seeing as there are now no Council houses left, it would make things worse not better.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel for people who are in rental properties with no security of tenure. But we have to be realistic, in the current climate there is not going to be security of tenure. Not from private landlords anyway.

So maybe we should all be campaigning for the re-instatement of social/public housing so that people who rent actually have a choice?

Yes we need social housing and yes we need security of tenure in the private sector too. And if landlords wanted to get rid of their responsibilities and sell up, houses would be affordable (as they should be) for those who are forced into renting. I see no problem at all. Greed has created the housing crisis that we have now. We cannot rely on greed to get us out of this mess because it won't.

Graham_Devon

Toto wrote: »

It's worse to rent it out rather than sell because he is still held into the discount period. This means if he sells on the open market the council still has a charge over the property for a % of the discount. In other words he would have to pay some of his discount back to the council. This is why people are getting heated over the renting situation.

Why didnt I just say that!