Council Right to Buy Scheme - HELP

monkeyspanner

Swift1 wrote: »

Yes @ Monkeyspanner the comments were aimed at you and yes I believe the rules have changed, I assume your purchase was many years ago.

Also any contract, by a solicitor or otherwise is totally invalid when relating to a RTB property as whatever is agreed the council and/or the former tenant have sole right and responsibility. You could give someone £100K to buy their council house and have all sorts of contracts drawn up but the property would never be yours and you would have no right to a single penny against it. At the end of the 10 year buyback period the tenant could if they wished pass it on to you (or 5 years if the council agreed) but theres every chance by then they would be unwilling or unable to do so.

After many years of people 'being creative' with RTB just to make profit the Government have finally closed up all the loopholes they can think of. Most people who aren't genuinely after a long term home with a small discount to help them get on the property ladder will now find it very difficult to use RTB and I think thats to be applauded.

I did not give the money to my MIL, I loaned the money to her under a mortgage agreement. The house was in her name and I was not named on the title deeds. It was never my intention to gain pocession of the house at any time or to 'be creative' with RTB rules merely to assist my MIL in her purchase. In fact I am not a beneficiary directly or indirectly of my MIL estate. I suggest that you read my posts carefully and not imply meaning where there is none.

As far as whether my MIL deserved to exercise her RTB, (note the word 'right') she paid rent as a council tenant for 40+ years and was sole carer for her now deceased husband who had rheumatoid arthritis for 15+ years with little assistance from the state. Brought up 7 children lost 2 at birth and brought up 2 of her grandchildren . Her husband, a merchant seaman, ended up in the North Atlantic twice due to ships being torpedoed in WWII. I think they as a couple deserved any assistance the state is prepared to give and my MIL has earned a little comfort in her final years.

I know I haven't contributed as much to this country as they did, have you?

Swift1_3

I wasn't commenting on your personal situation, its none of my business. I was answering your general comments on RTB rules and regulation.

However I do think its dangerous to keep talking about home ownership as a 'comfort' or being in the best interests of a pensioner as, apart from using the property as inheritance, there are not many benefits for an elderly person owning a property rather than having a secure tenancy with no money to find for rent or repayments, all safety and renovation work carried out and so much less stress.

I have no idea if you are one of them but unfortunately there are lots of 'well-meaning' relatives up and down the country who are convincing elderly people not to waste their RTB entitlement without giving any thought to the possible consequences.

monkeyspanner

You are right in saying there are some disadvantages exercising your RTB in terms of responsibility for the property but with the right family support this can give greater flexibility to the elderly person.

In our case it allowed my MIL to move out of her ex-council/housing association when the Housing Association lost control of the tenants of her estate.

There was a crack den next door and two drug users in other close-by houses. The children of these users were doing twice daily drug deliveries on their bikes for the dealer next door. This was followed by threats of violence to the occupants of the crack den next door in the middle of the night. One person involved in this incident was later charged with murder resulting from a similar fight. My MIL was sleeping with an improvised weapon at her bedside.

We spent months trying to get the HA and police to take effective action, eventually the crack den was boarded up when the tenant was taken into hospital with a drugs overdose. The boarded up house was then illegally taken over by other users/dealers until another police raid. I can only assume the raid was common knowledge as these squatters left a few hours prior to the raid carrying with them anything portable. HA staff refused to enter the house because it was a safety hazard (needles and filth I assume) and weeks went by before the HA regained control of that house but then continued to allow the other tenants to daily break their tenancy agreements and acceptable behaviour orders. HA despite new regulations are virtually powerless to enforce rules as courts will rarely grant eviction notices on tenants with young children.

By comfort I mean that the proceeds of the sale of the house have allowed my MIL to chose a suitable very pleasant care home run by dedicated staff which she is self-funding. The level of the funding is £100+ more per week than the council would be prepared to spend. I don't know if you have seen the level of care elderly people who are not self funding receive supported by the local councils but many are not the kind of place anyone would like to live.

The most stressful part of this process for my MIL and us has been those times when we have been forced to have dealings with the local council social services and other government agencies. The staff are generally poorly trained, demoralised, complacent and obstructive. I think you are overplaying the lack of stress in remaining a council/HA tenant. If we had not taken the RTB course my MIL would have not had any choice but to take what was handed out by the council or make our own provision.

moneysavinmonkey

how does buying a house under RTB - meaning your mother has to live there for 5+ years before she can sell up - help her away from the next door crack den??!!

Also this sentance... the proceeds of the sale of the house (bought at a discount so part funded by tax payer) have allowed my MIL to chose a suitable very pleasant care home run by dedicated staff which she is self-funding

no trying to have a go at your or your mother's situation just questioning your argument as it doesn't make sense to me.

monkeyspanner

Other posters have stressed the importance of security of tenure under tenancy agreements with Council/Housing Associations and that ownership was not worth having or has downsides. I was trying to point out that there were some situations where being a tenant gave little flexibilty and could leave the tenant in a vulnerable situation.

When the situation on her estate became intolerable due to the inability of the HA and police to control the situation my MIL's ownership of the property resulting from a previously exercised RTB gave her the flexibility to move which she would not have had as a tenant. In actual fact you do not need to stay 5 years, as if you sell prior to that there is a pay back penalty of a proportion of the discount given under RTB dependant on period of ownership.

You are right that sentence you highlight was not well worded. As my MIL is self funding she is able to pay for a care home which is much better than the choice of homes the council would have offered to fully fund. You are right that the RTB gave her a discount so the taxpayer part funded the house. However, the proceeds of the house sale are now allowing the local authority to save money as the council are not contributing to the cost of her care home.

So to summmarise:
Exercising RTB gives flexibility to the buyer by providing assets which can be deployed in whatever way suits the buyer's future needs. Not exercising RTB means you are stuck with whatever the council/Housing Association will provide both in terms of current security and future care provision.

scottp_2

SquatNow wrote: »

No this scumbag, by his calculations is trying to deprive the taxpayer of £65k.

It's one of the most disgusting examples of greed you will see in the UK. It's comparable to the african warlords who were seizing international food aid and selling it.

The OP is hoping to steal £65k from the tax payer... from honest MSEers.

I would say Alistair Darling giving Northern Rock as much as they want Disgusting, or Paying £Billions on army supplies to send our good men out to die in a war that cannot be won and should not be fought. I would say that people campaining about global warming and then flying off on their private jet is disgusting. All this is funded by the tax payer. Have a good think about it.

JasonLVC

The council can only sell to the tenant.

The banks may be willing to lend money to a relative with a charge upon the property (council has the first charge and may reject the lenders request for a first charge), but the relative will not be the legal owner, despite paying the mortgage. I have seen the old owners suddenly die and the relatives finding themselves not in the will or the council repossesing as the estate belongs to the deceased, despite the relatives paying. Equally, the 'owner' may refuse to leave the property or transfer title leaving relatives with a house they can't occupy.

Equally, I've seen families buy their old mans house and then kick him out onto the streets to fend for himself. People and families can be very cruel sometimes. Ask the question, are you in this for the long-term?. If so, do it, let the owner live there and die and then realise the value in the property. If you intend to kick 'em out then after a year then the burden will be put back onto the taxpayer and is somewhat cruel in my opinion.

A transfer of title/ownership from tenant to another relative will be seen as a sale so discount will need repaying. The cost of maintaining/insuring the property will become that of the owner. Rent allowances will cease although council tax benefit will remain. The discount is based on a sliding scale so the nearer the end of the lock-in the less that has to be paid.

A council house is usually under-valued by the valuers becuase of the stigma associated with them. once they are 'owned' their value will increase as the perception is that the owner will show more love/care than the council and do work such as coving, new flooring, etc which will increase the value - depending upon the area of course. Housing market is in decline but newly purchased council houses, with the discount are still a good buy in these times.

It can be done, but there will be costs involved such as legal fees for transfering title, running costs, etc but you may find the current economic climate fighting against you.

JasonLVC

monkeyspanner wrote: »

However, the proceeds of the house sale are now allowing the local authority to save money as the council are not contributing to the cost of her care home.

The proceeds of a council house sale do not go to the council, they are sent directly to central government for Mr Brown to give out to his Scottish friends:rolleyes: .

The funding and grants for social/respite care are sourced from completely different areas to that of the housing budget which is specifically ring-fenced and financed differently. They are chalk and cheese in terms of revenue streams for a council.

The council also loses the rental income (and equivalent grant funding from central government) for the maintenance of that property so every time the council sells the house, it lowers it's income and thus lowers its ability to maintain the remaining, dwindling housing stock.... 'tis a vicious circle.

The only person who wins in RTB is the ex-tenant. Everyone else loses out.

JasonLVC

scottp wrote: »

I would say Alistair Darling giving Northern Rock as much as they want Disgusting, or Paying £Billions on army supplies to send our good men out to die in a war that cannot be won and should not be fought. I would say that people campaining about global warming and then flying off on their private jet is disgusting. All this is funded by the tax payer. Have a good think about it.

I've no issue with you wishing to circumnavigate the rules in order to acquire a property.

But I struggle to find the link between a war in Iraq and you buying a house which, technically, you are not entitled too?. By your reasoning, it is okay to do anything because the government either does it or condones it?.

You knew when you posted here that what you are asking for is "How to fiddle the system" so that you can obtain something that isn't yours. I've no moral issue with that, as if the rules allow it, then it is the governments fault for not ensuring the law was specific or tight enough. I've worked in RTB for years and have seen it all, thr tricks, cons and lies and there's very little I could do about it.

But do be prepared to take some flak on the matter and try not to absolve your conscience by trying to compare your actions with that of a country and a few folks flying in private jets. You know what you are doing is iffy, accept it and take the generally good advice that is on this thread.

monkeyspanner

JasonLVC wrote: »

The proceeds of a council house sale do not go to the council, they are sent directly to central government for Mr Brown to give out to his Scottish friends:rolleyes: .

The funding and grants for social/respite care are sourced from completely different areas to that of the housing budget which is specifically ring-fenced and financed differently. They are chalk and cheese in terms of revenue streams for a council.

The council also loses the rental income (and equivalent grant funding from central government) for the maintenance of that property so every time the council sells the house, it lowers it's income and thus lowers its ability to maintain the remaining, dwindling housing stock.... 'tis a vicious circle.

The only person who wins in RTB is the ex-tenant. Everyone else loses out.

Jason, thanks for that clarification of ring fenced funds and revenue streams. The distinction I think will be lost on many posters who are simply castigating people for exercising RTB and equating the to stealing state/council funds.

For anyone who wants to know why we should all want some choice of care home read this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=501203&in_page_id=1774