renting out a rtb council house

SnooksNJ

_CC_ wrote: »

Well, the OP has been renting it for 30 years. He seems like a decent bloke.

Yes and his vocabulary of female derogatory terms is impressive.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

What’s being rich or poor got to do with being nice?

Have you considered that a lot of those cars on schemes such as motability?

That said; I agree there are people who abuse social housing and don’t leave when their circumstances change.

Council houses were never supposed to be temporary or emergency housing. They were supposed to be secure affordable homes for life.

The clue is in the secure lifetime tenancies.

sevenhills

Cakeguts wrote: »

Just want to point this out. What sort of private tenant would want to rent in an area where you can buy a council house for around £22k after the discount? This house is going to be in an awful area. The type of tenant who wants to live in this kind of area isn't going to be the sort that are going to be reliable rent payers.

That is an old fashioned attitude. One of the reasons why RTB was brought in.
Many new build estates include a certain number of social housing.


The estate that I live on, is private accross the road, but around 50% of the council houses have been sold and are now private.
So although it would not be 'nice' enough for Cakeguts, I think its great.

When a housing developer gets planning permission they are normally required by the council to make a number of the homes they build officially "affordable".

Choccygirl123

Even with rtb discount I'd love to know what £23k buys you. Cheapest house in my village is £245k for 2 bed terrace.

TheGardener

Comms69 wrote: »

...That said; I agree there are people who abuse social housing and don’t leave when their circumstances change.

Whoa! - staying in a social housing property is absolutely not 'abuse' of social housing. TBH - most folk in social housing who find their circumstances so much improved that they can move on do so. For the majority that stay - its about stability for families who are not high earners. If it was 'abuse' councils/associations would not give secure lifetime tenancies. A critical part of making sure social housing estates remain balanced communities is to encourage families to put down roots and build a strong community.
We all know how the high turnover rental areas are really great places to live..not..!.
If tenants didn't have the security of tenure - the level of personal investment in repairs and improvements to SH by the tenants would fall dramatically and the cost of maintaining the homes would rocket pushing up rents which would undermine the whole ethos of affordable social housing.

Whatever your views on RTB - 'stay shaming' folk who spend their lives in social housing is a bigoted and narrow minded view and someone bringing Union Bob in to the argument (again!) is just bogey man story telling in the absence of any real understanding of how communities and social housing work.

AdrianC

Choccygirl123 wrote: »

Even with rtb discount I'd love to know what £23k buys you. Cheapest house in my village is £245k for 2 bed terrace.

After 30 years renting, the OP would be on 60% discount (35% for 3-5yrs, +1% per year for a house), so the undiscounted value would be £57,500.


It certainly doesn't sound like a prime area, but there's vast swathes of the North-East, especially, where that's eminently feasible.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Council houses were never supposed to be temporary or emergency housing. They were supposed to be secure affordable homes for life.

The clue is in the secure lifetime tenancies.

Indeed, doesn’t mean I agree with it

Comms69

TheGardener wrote: »

Whoa! - staying in a social housing property is absolutely not 'abuse' of social housing. TBH - most folk in social housing who find their circumstances so much improved that they can move on do so. For the majority that stay - its about stability for families who are not high earners. If it was 'abuse' councils/associations would not give secure lifetime tenancies. A critical part of making sure social housing estates remain balanced communities is to encourage families to put down roots and build a strong community.
We all know how the high turnover rental areas are really great places to live..not..!.
If tenants didn't have the security of tenure - the level of personal investment in repairs and improvements to SH by the tenants would fall dramatically and the cost of maintaining the homes would rocket pushing up rents which would undermine the whole ethos of affordable social housing.

Whatever your views on RTB - 'stay shaming' folk who spend their lives in social housing is a bigoted and narrow minded view and someone bringing Union Bob in to the argument (again!) is just bogey man story telling in the absence of any real understanding of how communities and social housing work.

How is it bigoted and narrow minded? You really should elaborate your point

gomer

TheGardener wrote: »

Whoa! - staying in a social housing property is absolutely not 'abuse' of social housing. TBH - most folk in social housing who find their circumstances so much improved that they can move on do so. For the majority that stay - its about stability for families who are not high earners. If it was 'abuse' councils/associations would not give secure lifetime tenancies. A critical part of making sure social housing estates remain balanced communities is to encourage families to put down roots and build a strong community.
We all know how the high turnover rental areas are really great places to live..not..!.
If tenants didn't have the security of tenure - the level of personal investment in repairs and improvements to SH by the tenants would fall dramatically and the cost of maintaining the homes would rocket pushing up rents which would undermine the whole ethos of affordable social housing.

Whatever your views on RTB - 'stay shaming' folk who spend their lives in social housing is a bigoted and narrow minded view and someone bringing Union Bob in to the argument (again!) is just bogey man story telling in the absence of any real understanding of how communities and social housing work.

I think you may have missed the bit where we mentioned about 'abuse' referring to a specific person.

We were talking about a certain high profile union leader on a six figure salary who refused to give up his 5 bedroomed council house down the road from me in spite of being in a financial position to buy his own mansion.

That is an abuse of social housing stock whatever way you look at it. In those cases I fully support stay shaming. Why should the filthy rich be given subsidised social housing? Its morally wrong.

If your circumstances are such that you aquire a six figure salary then yes, you should give back council property & had Bob Crow had any morals he would have done so.

diggingdude

In a country where people are bankrupting themselves renting private properties with little security, the thought that people are getting massive discounts through RTB on their secure low rent council properties is so offensive to the masses. Then someone decides to rent their gift out.......can't blame cross feelings, especially at classy people like the OP