We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Right to buy denied
Options
Comments
-
Apply for a transfer to a property which is eligible for the rtb. For your current property to be eligible the housing department would have to buy it at market rates. The discount would then be affected by the cost floor rule.
0 -
Trynsave2 said:Agree with other comments here. Ask Education dept if you can have it cheaper than market rates. If they say no, and I hope that they do, either continue to rent cheaper than market rents or move out and buy something at market rates like the rest of us. Nothing against you personally, but can't fathom why right to buy is even still a thing, and can't abide the whining about not being entitled to a the discount you assumed you would be. If you can afford to get a mortgage you can afford to get out and leave the property for someone who is in the situation now that you were when you qualified for the property. Imo all Council tennant's should be reassessed every 5 years to ascertain if they would still qualify for the house they're in and asked to jog on if not.14
-
SameOldRoundabout said:
They should be reserved for those in need, as intended originally.
Does that also mean that people who are no longer 'in need' should be evicted, and their council home given over to someone more desperate?
I'm not sure the original intent had much to do with being 'in need' in most cases. In rural areas council housing was often built simply to provide better housing than the existing stock, and to give local people an alternative to living in a tied rental. In urban areas the construction of estates was typically associated with 'slum clearance', aka 'regeneration', aka freeing up prime land in urban centres for more profitable development such as retail or office, or for transport schemes. The people living in those homes weren't 'in need' as we think of it today.
The 'in need' part usually arrived later - sometimes inadvertently as it became a norm that only those who were most desperate for a roof over their head would be willing to live on some crumbling estate with no facilities and surrounded by vandalism, drunks, drugs, and violence. Hence the emergence of the 'sink estate'. Planners generally regard the 'council estate' as a failed social experiment, with mixed tenure being a far more suitable approach.
In which context, RTB can help drag existing or prospective 'sink estates' back towards being places people want to live, rather than homes of last resort. It isn't as simple as RTB being pure unadulterated evil.
'Right to co-own' could be a better approach though.
4 -
AFF8879 said:assuming it’s a bog standard council tenancy then OP should still have exactly the same rights to buy as any other council tenant.They have but not for that property. Councils will use whatever properties are available to them including privately owned but the rtb only applies to the councils housing stock. Council housing has to be self financing, built or bought with grants or loans which are repaid through rental income. By law it has to be financed separately from other council departments with its own accounts, the housing revenue account. Its assets cannot be funded by or used to fund other council business.This property is owned by the education department and will have been funded by that department.
8 -
Trynsave2 said:If you can afford to get a mortgage you can afford to get out and leave the property for someone who is in the situation now that you were when you qualified for the property. Imo all Council tennant's should be reassessed every 5 years to ascertain if they would still qualify for the house they're in and asked to jog on if not.Presumably mortgage affordability takes into account the purchase price.Council housing is designed for long term security, it was never designed to be temporary accommodation.
0 -
Section62 said:SameOldRoundabout said:
They should be reserved for those in need, as intended originally.
Just look back to the headlines over the late Bob Crow.I'm not sure the original intent had much to do with being 'in need' in most cases. In rural areas council housing was often built simply to provide better housing than the existing stock, and to give local people an alternative to living in a tied rental. In urban areas the construction of estates was typically associated with 'slum clearance', aka 'regeneration', aka freeing up prime land in urban centres for more profitable development such as retail or office, or for transport schemes.
The world has moved on a lot since then, of course.The people living in those homes weren't 'in need' as we think of it today.
They were.
They needed secure, affordable, good-quality housing. They still do.The 'in need' part usually arrived later - sometimes inadvertently as it became a norm that only those who were most desperate for a roof over their head would be willing to live on some crumbling estate with no facilities and surrounded by vandalism, drunks, drugs, and violence. Hence the emergence of the 'sink estate'. Planners generally regard the 'council estate' as a failed social experiment, with mixed tenure being a far more suitable approach.
As, of course, can redeveloping those areas... Which becomes a LOT harder when they're in mixed tenure - the council as freeholder gets into a lot of CPO issues.
In which context, RTB can help drag existing or prospective 'sink estates' back towards being places people want to live, rather than homes of last resort.It isn't as simple as RTB being pure unadulterated evil.
RtB certainly did a lot of good in the past - but its time has gone. The main problem was also that the monies raised did not go back into replacing the lost provision of social housing, which is why we're in the position we are now in.
'Right to co-own' could be a better approach though.3 -
I'd like to point out that not ALL council estates are sink estates, nor do all have vandelism, mugging etc accepted as the norm.6
-
Norman_Castle said:Trynsave2 said:If you can afford to get a mortgage you can afford to get out and leave the property for someone who is in the situation now that you were when you qualified for the property. Imo all Council tennant's should be reassessed every 5 years to ascertain if they would still qualify for the house they're in and asked to jog on if not.Presumably mortgage affordability takes into account the purchase price.Council housing is designed for long term security, it was never designed to be temporary accommodation.
If person A walked in to a housing department with the financial means to raise any mortgage would they be likely be offered a Council tennancy. If not then why should they be (a) allowed to stay in the property or (b) be permitted to buy said property at a heavily discounted rate? Both options prevent person B or family C in desperate need of State accommodation achieving their chances of a period of stability. Always annoys me that behind every tennant pursuing right to buy is an ex-waiting lister who once walked in the shoes of those currently most in need of a Council tennancy. How short term their memories must be.
5 -
Trynsave2 said:Norman_Castle said:Trynsave2 said:If you can afford to get a mortgage you can afford to get out and leave the property for someone who is in the situation now that you were when you qualified for the property. Imo all Council tennant's should be reassessed every 5 years to ascertain if they would still qualify for the house they're in and asked to jog on if not.Presumably mortgage affordability takes into account the purchase price.Council housing is designed for long term security, it was never designed to be temporary accommodation.No agreement needed, they're facts.Tenant. Count the n's.
0 -
Update: having some excellent suggestions from @Section62 @theartfullodger and few others. Thankyou. After a series of emails in which council failed to mention the clause which make me not entitled to rtb, i received another rtb2 today that my rtb is admitted and a separate letter from surveyor.
I have another question. After the first rtb2 (denied) in July, i sent them rtb6 on 25th August. But next day received email that rtb6 is invalid because its denied and not delayed.
Now the second rtb2 (admitted) received which showing the same date of application (in june).
Is my rtb6 is still invalid????
Thanks0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards