renting out a rtb council house

gomer

diggingdude wrote: »

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

But the point is its not about renting a gift out. People are just doing what the rules say they can do. It all comes back to policy. The rights or wrongs are a separate debate, it just is what it is.

sevenhills

gomer wrote: »

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 all those that are able to afford another house are asked to move out of their social housing, what is left will be an estate full of poor people, a ghetto.

gomer

sevenhills wrote: »

If all those that are able to afford another house are asked to move out of their social housing, what is left will be an estate full of poor people, a ghetto.

Then I suppose the question is Do you support people on six figure salaries taking up social housing when they can afford to buy outright or rent privately? Is that an appropriate use of social housing?

If youre in a more favourable position financially than a vast majority of social tenants then surely the moral thing to do is buy your own place?

My thought is once you earn a six figure salary you shouldn't qualify for social housing on principle. I just think it's morally wrong.

sevenhills

gomer wrote: »

Then I suppose the question is Do you support people on six figure salaries taking up social housing when they can afford to buy outright or rent privately? Is that an appropriate use of social housing?

If youre in a more favourable position financially than a vast majority of social tenants then surely the moral thing to do is buy your own place?

I assume these people you mention are paying rent every month and not housing benefit, so they are not being subsidised in any way?
So what is your problem?

da_rule

Just to get back to the OP’s question (although I imagine we won’t hear from them again), the rules don’t vary, they are clearly governed by the Housing Act.

The Op can do anything with his property that any other owner could do. The discount only becomes repayable if the Op makes a relevant disposal during the first 5 years (a transfer or long lease). Therefore a tenancy is not a disposal and doesn’t constitute a relevant disposal.

The Op will also have to give the Council first refusal for 10 years before they can sell it.

TheGardener

In 2012 George Osbourne tried to make some bogey men out of Bob Crow types. However, when they did some research it turned out that out of approx. 4million social housing tenants, only around 4000 tenants earned over £100K (0.01%) Osbourne decided that wasn't enough to make a splash so he lowered the amount to £60K and that bumped it up to about 0.5%. Seeing that in fact this was not actually the great scandal he wanted - the whole idea of 'pay to stay' was scrapped.

“the working man, the doctor and the clergyman will live in close proximity to each other”.

Aneurin Bevan Speaking about the new postwar housing estates

Its taken councils a long time to drag what were 1980's 'sink' estates back from the brink (ok - there is still work to do in some places) and building communities - and not ghettos - takes a mix of humanity and if they are all poor/vulnerable/old/disabled then the community will simply sink back into the 'sink'.

The most successful communities have balance and diversity.

gomer

sevenhills wrote: »

I assume these people you mention are paying rent every month and not housing benefit, so they are not being subsidised in any way?
So what is your problem?

My problem is some people on this thread seem to think social housing should only be for people who can't afford to buy or rent privately. I've given an example to the contrary.

Do you not agree then?

gomer

TheGardener wrote: »

In 2012 George Osbourne tried to make some bogey men out of Bob Crow types. However, when they did some research it turned out that out of approx. 4million social housing tenants, only around 4000 tenants earned over £100K (0.01%) Osbourne decided that wasn't enough to make a splash so he lowered the amount to £60K and that bumped it up to about 0.5%. Seeing that in fact this was not actually the great scandal he wanted - the whole idea of 'pay to stay' was scrapped.

“the working man, the doctor and the clergyman will live in close proximity to each other”.

Aneurin Bevan Speaking about the new postwar housing estates

Its taken councils a long time to drag what were 1980's 'sink' estates back from the brink (ok - there is still work to do in some places) and building communities - and not ghettos - takes a mix of humanity and if they are all poor/vulnerable/old/disabled then the community will simply sink back into the 'sink'.

The most successful communities have balance and diversity.

Nobody is suggesting entire communities should be old, poor, vulnerable etc. Only that if you can afford to rent privately or buy outright then perhaps you don't really need a council property


I think that makes sense. .

diggingdude

I don't have a problem with people who come into money renting or buying council houses, it's the discount that disgusts me

gomer

diggingdude wrote: »

I don't have a problem with people who come into money renting or buying council houses, it's the discount that disgusts me

I guess that's where we differ. See, my thought is if your circumstances change to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds and you can afford private rental or to buy outright then at the very least morally you are no longer in need of social housing.