End the Right to Buy Now

Murtle

There are so many options, the first being move to an area that you can afford. So many home owners have to do this themselves, we don't all wake up one morning and have the deposit for our ideal property. We move into areas we don't want to live in to pay the mortgage and work our way to the propery we want. I wouldn't necesarily class a parent and two children as overally vulnerable. There are many people in this situation that live in private rent or obtain mortgages.

If the private rent market says no DSS, then unfortunately it comes to those that ruin it for others. I can't believe how many people in my area just don't pay their rent or understand the concept that they will be evicted if they don't. It's beyond my understanding....

RTB, where I work, it's too late to stop it the property that is left no one really wants anyway! Hand it over to the Housing Associations, and let them do what they are good at. It's amazing how cheap the HA properties can be, and I do think if people can't save money on those properties, then they are unlikely to be able to pay a mortgage without subsidies anyway. I also don't think that people should be able to stay long term in council properties, I think they should be used more for people who are needing a helping hand at the time to get them onto their own feet, like when life knocks you for six.

I'll stop now, as I have too much to say on this subject.

SAHARA

Poppy9 wrote:

SAHARA that's appalling that you only have 19 points and need 50 for a house. What would give you the extra 31 points you need.

.

Probably if I had a tribe more kids and let them run riot, was a violent criminal, a child abuser, a drug addict. These people are deemed to be more in need of council housing than your average decent law abiding citizen.

SAHARA

Not saying I'm vunerable, just want my kids to be able to go to a decent school. Apparently house prices in Manchester have gone up 400% in the last 10 years. Great news for homeowners, not if you're trying to get onto the housing ladder. The area where I grew up, which was a council estate with some private housing , you used to be able to get a house for £50k when I was looking to buy. These exact same houses are 160k now and rising.
The housing associations in my area will only let you on their books if you fit certain categories, like being over 40!!, and the rents aren't far off full market rent anyway. Thats why I'm in a private house now, and I dont regret it, but while I'm paying this amount of rent each month, there is no way I'll be able to save for a deposit on a house of my own in any area,

webhamster

I agree with the rtb scheme , but more because of the undocumented and some would say underhand reasoning for it....as much as I loath to admit it , BUT what is sold should be replaced.

The prime example given HERE is that (especially from those that disagree with it) is people want a decent house and in a decent area.Seeing as how maggie was mentioned then I must add my op on it , she had an ulteritor motive for doing rtb and not for votes , not mentioned often but the coralling of "lower classes"(not my words) that simply dont want to get on in life ie the sponger and welfare cheat....a person that she most likely probably created in the mass destruction of union controlled industry and the creation of the yuppie and blame culture.

Where I live just now is predominately owner occupied housing originally ex council , but thos that are still council or housing asc homes are LOOKING like new while the o.o units are run down and look like beirut through no upgrading.Owner occupation should be FORCED to keep up with upgrades that the councils HAVE to implement.

We have a meltdown coming , boom and bust and all that feeds profit , and those hit hardest will be those barealy able to afford mortgages just now as it is .....primarilly first time buyers and usually ex council stock that they never rented.

All over the uk there is council buildings being demolished , flattened , mainly flats as no one likes them unless its VERY conveinent.Where is the ability for those just starting out in life to buy a flat for a couple of grand , and BRING the area up instead of down...The simple answer is that theres no need nor want to sell them to them , if they buy a flat cheap then they dont buy more expensive which means more council tax....profit is the motivation , only the first time buyer is really the loser , that is over and above the not interested buyer ie the council renter where rent is paid for them.

Its not right , I know , but if all we ever ask is a decent house in a decent area then we just self propogate the problem , instead of tackling the reason on why ALL AREAS are not better therefor desired areas.

QBD

The main reason it seems that areas are run down is due to the fact that the people occupying them do not own them so therefore do not care for them. Whats more, these deprived areas attract increase in crimes: burglaries etc which make them much less attractive for people to buy or invest. Because of this, the area gets locked into a cycle of poverty. Socialised housing only exists in a capitalist economy as a means of providing housing to those that are not economically active. This is fine but I think that the nub of the problem is that people who are given a council house but engage in anti social behaviour or misuse their property should be sent out and give other people a chance who really would want to have somewhere secure to live. The RTB scheme effectivly made a nation of capitalists overnight, I definatly agree that it was a 'vote winner' as oppossed to a rational means of improving housing provision, sadly it has irreversibly damaged the housing stock and getting rid of it now wouldnt be of much use 20 years down the line.

mummytofour

Poppy9 wrote:

Under the RTB tennants buy with a different level of discount depending on how long they have been a tennant. Even if the council could reinvest the money it achieved from the sale of council houses they would not be able to build a new house for the discounted price they are selling these houses for.

If I understand you right, you are saying that the council could not build new homes with the amount of money recieved from a right to buy?

Round here an avarage council house sells for 250k the max discount is 40k so that leaves the council 210k left to build a new house, which IMHO is possible!

The right to buy IS UNFAIR! BUT on the plus side for the council it means that they have less older houses to maintain.

I feel that council tennants are very lucky with or without RTB the rents here are aprox half what the private rental market is, infact the house next to me is privatly rented for £750 pcm, the house the other side of me is still council and they pay aprox £350 pcm, now thats NOT FAIR why should council rents be lower?

But back to the OP RTB IMHO is unfair and Im pretty sure that this will be going soon anyway, a lot of councils are selling off their housing stock to H/A who dont have RTB instead shared ownership is the new way foward, which is fairer.

IN_LIKE_EVERYONE_ELSE!

To change tack slightly on this issue.....in Weymouth, Dorset, the local council have shifted tennants from Bed and Breakfast establishments into caravans and mobile homes! Selling off the housing stock is the reason why we, as a nation, are so far up debt creek, even if we all had paddles we would still sink. A bloody mess, and we are going to see a poo fan interface this year.

Poppy9

mummytofour wrote:

If I understand you right, you are saying that the council could not build new homes with the amount of money recieved from a right to buy?

Round here an avarage council house sells for 250k the max discount is 40k so that leaves the council 210k left to build a new house, which IMHO is possible!........

But back to the OP RTB IMHO is unfair and Im pretty sure that this will be going soon anyway, a lot of councils are selling off their housing stock to H/A who dont have RTB instead shared ownership is the new way foward, which is fairer.

The point I was making though is that the council cannot access the full capital receipts it gets from council house sales. The financial rules that govern spending on Council housing are complicated and one of the effects is that only about 25% of any money the Council receives from the sale of Council Houses can be used. Pre April 2005 the rule was that 75% of capital receipts from RTB sales had to be "returned" to the Welsh Assembly. Only 25% could be treated as an additional resource to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme.

The return of the 75% was not a straight cash payment but was through the mechanism of reducing the amount of housing subsidy payable to the Council by the equivalent of the loan charges on the 75%.

i.e. assume there was a RTB receipt of £24,000.

· 25% or £6,000 could be used to reinvest in the capital programme,

· 75% was used to repay the Council's housing debt thus reducing loan charges by £1,500 per annum. At the same time the council's subsidy entitlement was also reduced by the same amount as the reduced loan charges.

75% of proceeds from RTB sales are effectively "returned" to the Welsh Assembly.

From April 1st 2005 the rules have changed. The Council can reinvest the whole 100% into the Capital Programme but this would mean that none of the receipt is available to reduce the housing debt. However the subsidy that is paid to the Council is still reduced as if the debt had been repaid. Thus in the example the Council would receive £1,500 less subsidy, but its debt charges would not have been reduced. This results in a net cash loss of £1,500.

Re transfer to Housing Assoc. Swansea Council is proposing to transfer its housing stock to a new housing association:

Swansea Council is trying to sweet-talk tenants into accepting privatisation of council housing saying that a transfer to a community housing mutual is the only way of getting repairs and improvements. But council tenants should consider these following points:

Most tenants of local authorities enjoy security of tenancy as secured tenants. Transfer forces tenants to exchange their secure tenancy for an assured tenancy. Evictions are 14 per cent higher and much easier under registered social landlords.

Housing Association rents are higher - 16 per cent on average and sometimes 50 per cent more. Rent guarantees only last five years. On top of the higher rents could be additional service charges. They will not be fully covered by housing benefit.

There will be very little accountability. Community housing mutuals are accountable to no-one and are dominated by banks and lenders.

Shelter, the homeless charity, reports that 46 per cent of councils, after transfer, said they were having trouble getting the new landlords to deal with homeless applications.

Transfer will cost millions. This money could be used instead to carry out the repairs and improvements tenants need.

Councils can borrow much more cheaper than housing associations. Therefore transfer will mean more of the rent going on profit for the banks rather than repairs and improvements.

Transfer to a community housing mutual is a one-way process. There is no going back to the council when it goes wrong.

What will happen if the community housing mutual goes bankrupt?

Choosing to transfer the council housing stock would be a major mistake for Swansea's council tenants.

It will not deliver an improved service to people.

Paul Lloyd

Secretary of Bonymaen ward Labour Party

boufje

Poppy9's post is comprehensive, but maybe i can simplify the explanation:
Almost all (or at least every Council I have worked for) have debts, it seems to me these are ptimarily money owede to central government.

Of the money that a Council receives from selling a property under RTB, the Council was OBLIGED to use 75% of this on debt repayment, and was only allowed to keep 25%. Of the 25% that was kept, as far as I am aware, this could go into general funds, it did not have to be used for housing purposes ( I am studying local govt so when I get this clearer, I will post back to this thread).

The rules have recently changed, to allow Councils to retain more of the funds they receive from selling off their housing. I work in local government and the general consensus is that this will have little benefit to much of the country, as due to the recent reductions in discounts ( the max discount is now something like £18,000), extending the qualifying period to 5 years for tenants to live in social housing to qualify for RTB and Council's valuing properties closer to their true market value, RTB sales will be minimal in the future.

A few years ago, I was doing residential conveyancing for a few london local authorities selling under RTB, this was under the old scheme, but in my view, there was substantial abuse and profiteering, for example people in receipt of benefits buying property without a mortgage (ie in cash), indicating that either one of these dodgy companies was involved or tenant's relatives who did not live in the property were funding the purchase. It seems to me that central london is particularly vulnerable to these abuses, because of the money to be made simply by freezing a valuation for at least a year, as it is possible to do. I expect the situation is better elsewhere.

a very intersting article on this subject, IMHO

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151408

richgirl

dboswell wrote:

who else agrees with me that the right to buy is one of the most stupid and wreckless policies ever devised by the wackoes in charge.

It should be ended now for being unfair to:

a) councils and waiting tenants who are losing valuable housing stock and a place to live

b) the taxpayer being ripped off subsidising those that seem to think they have a right to short cut onto the property ladder.

END IT NOW

Its too late

So much housing stock has been sold that it would be unfair to those that have lived in houses for decades to say, sorry you do not have the right to buy.

But definetly all new tenants should not have the right to buy.