renting out a rtb council house

gomer

Comms69 wrote: »

No-one should be entitled to a secure tenancy.

That's a scary thought. Why so Mr scrooge? What about tiny Tim? lol

AdrianC

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why should people with decent savings and/or income not need a secure tenancy? Are only poor people entitled to security of tenure?

Or, to put it another way, are people who don't qualify for social housing somehow less deserving of security?

I agree - it's only fair that everybody should have the same security of tenure.
Why should some people have far, FAR stronger tenancy rights than others?
Why should those who've benefitted for years from those rights then deny them to others?
And, perhaps more to the point, why should everybody else subsidise them in doing so?

And let's not forget that this thread started with somebody not only wanting to deny what he's benefitted from to others, but to then make that exact same property available in the private rented sector...

The council tax payers of his area are subsidising his business.

seven-day-weekend

AdrianC wrote: »

Or, to put it another way, are people who don't qualify for social housing somehow less deserving of security?

I agree - it's only fair that everybody should have the same security of tenure.
Why should some people have far, FAR stronger tenancy rights than others?
Why should those who've benefitted for years from those rights then deny them to others?
And, perhaps more to the point, why should everybody else subsidise them in doing so?

And let's not forget that this thread started with somebody not only wanting to deny what he's benefitted from to others, but to then make that exact same property available in the private rented sector...

The council tax payers of his area are subsidising his business.

Nobody is entitled to security of tenure any more than anyone else .

Comms69

gomer wrote: »

That's a scary thought. Why so Mr scrooge? What about tiny Tim? lol

haha,


well I think it takes the onus off the individual, and onto society, to provide a roof over their head

Red-Squirrel_2

Cakeguts wrote: »

I think what people are trying to say is that if you can afford to buy on the open market then you shouldn't be renting a council house at the expense of someone much worse off than you are. People who stay in council houses when they can afford to move out are staying there at the expense of someone worse off than they are.

I disagree. Social housing is much more secure and future proof than owning.

I think most people who live in social housing and find they can afford to buy, do actually buy. They want to choose their house and its location and they want to benefit from price rises.

If they don't though, that's their choice and they aren't doing anything wrong.

Red-Squirrel_2

FBaby wrote: »

What you do get though is the poor single mum who gets a nice two or three bedroom, then meets Mr perfect who is working and a home owner and instead of her and the kids moving into his house, they have him moving into hers, him letting his house, and after a few years, they buy the council at a big discount whilst he sell shis at top wack or continue to let and grow his investment.

That's a different issue entirely and one of the reasons why RTB should never have been allowed.

Red-Squirrel_2

Cakeguts wrote: »

If someone buys a council house to live in then there isn't much difference to them carrying on living there as a secure tenant.

Long term there is, as even if the former tenant stays there for the rest of their life, when they die the house is just as lost to social housing stock as if they'd sold it 5 years after buying it, whereas it would have become available again for someone who needed it without RTB.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

No-one should be entitled to a secure tenancy.

Yeah but you probably don't think anybody should be entitled to free oxygen.

Red-Squirrel_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Or, to put it another way, are people who don't qualify for social housing somehow less deserving of security?

As it was intended, everybody qualified for social housing. In a lot of areas that's still the case and literally anybody can put their name on the waiting list, its just that the reality is you will never get to the top of it.

seven-day-weekend

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

I disagree. Social housing is much more secure and future proof than owning.

I think most people who live in social housing and find they can afford to buy, do actually buy. They want to choose their house and its location and they want to benefit from price rises.

If they don't though, that's their choice and they aren't doing anything wrong.

Very sensible post.