Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[bbtzs]

Right to buy is good. People have to live somewhere. I have never understood the theory of saying it is good to rent but not to own. Do those who rent and then buy take a home from someone? I think not.

there are plenty of silly arguments made about this subject but precious few who bought would like to go back.

[Mighty Hatfield]

Right to buy is good. People have to live somewhere. I have never understood the theory of saying it is good to rent but not to own. Do those who rent and then buy take a home from someone? I think not.

there are plenty of silly arguments made about this subject but precious few who bought would like to go back.

its quite simple actually

if you take out a mortgage, you dont own the house. The bank does and you pay rent to them. They use this rent to increase their own profits. If you pay rent to the council, (in theory) they can use the rent for the benefit for the whole community.

I have never understood the theory of everyone being able to buy their own homes. They cant, they dont, and the results of right to buy are plain to see for all, student ghettos, and rich uncaring absent landlords, not to mention a huge decline in neighbours interacting with each other, as they are far more concerned with chasing the next rung on the mythical ladder only to fall off every time theres a recession, an inevitable fact.

[jonmorris]

A very good and fair interpretation. I think renting and 'buying' should be kept separate. Councils have limited housing stock and if everyone buys then it's all going to disappear. Then you're only able to rent from private landlords.

I am not against getting a mortgage, but people do forget that for the next 25 years they don't own their house. And with the way interest is charged, for the first 10-15 years they've probably paid virtually NOTHING off the cost of the house and just paid the interest.. so they're still not homeowners or anywhere near becoming one!

Still, I'm one person that would actually like house prices to fall. Only if I want to sell and leave the country to somewhere where the cost of living is low could I ever benefit. Lower house prices would also mean lower mortgages, so people wouldn't spend 40-60% of their income on paying it.

[bbtzs]

MH Quite a lot of mythical facts there. This could end up a philosophical argument but I dont see how residents paying less than the cost of housing to the Council adds back anything to society, yet, those who buy (on good advice) will often stretch to improve it at their own cost. there is no loss of housing as a result only a shift of responsibility from public to private. regarding landlords being unscrupulous etc well, that can where necessary be regulated and to some extent is. The price of renting will be less or more according to demand, just like house buying. The fact that there is not wenough accommodation or choice is the problem in my view. Not the status of the property being owner occupied, landlord or Local authority.

[Cassandra]

If people who are renting homes from the Council don't buy those homes, presumably they're still going to live in them, so those homes still won't be available to anyone on the waiting list.
 
The problem is obviously, quite simply, too many people and too few homes.  The fairest answer must be to build more homes and then to rent them ONLY to people who are on the waiting list, with priority being given to those who have waited the longest.
 
On the subject of 'too many people', why let UH add to this problem by expanding constantly and bringing more and more students into the area?  This encourages student landlords to line their pockets by buying most of the cheaper houses and flats, which people on lower incomes (and currently renting) could probably afford to buy, thus adding more families to the Council waiting list.  It doesn't matter how many rooms UH builds on its own land for its students, each year most of those students will have to move out to make room for the new year's intake.
 
The sensible way forward here is surely to provide homes for those who NEED them, and not to see buying and renting out property as the best investment for rich people (or those who chase after wealth).  For years the excuse has been that landlords are buying property as their 'pensions'. 
This Government should set about making pension provision from savings and other forms of investment more attractive than property speculation, to help alleviate the housing shortage.
 
I put this argument to a local Councillor a few years ago. He replied that 'You can't dictate who can or can't buy houses'.  Well, when those houses are owned by the Council, I don't see why the Council shouldn't be able to say who, if anyone at all, is able to buy them or how much they should pay for them. 
 
It would also help if buy-to-let mortgages were banned, or at least scaled back drastically, so would a limit on the number of properties a landlord is allowed to own.
 
As for those who believe others shouldn't have a right to purchase a home of their own instead of lining landlords' pockets, is this a case of 'I'm all right, Jack'?  Why shouldn't people who work hard and save hard for years be denied their aims?
 
 
 
 
 

[jonmorris]

If people who are renting homes from the Council don't buy those homes, presumably they're still going to live in them, so those homes still won't be available to anyone on the waiting list.

But if they use right to buy, the council then loses the home when they no longer live in it.

[Cassandra]

Yes, Jon, that's true, but the Council gets the sale proceeds to put towards building new social housing. 
 
Aside from that, most Council-owned properties in this area are about 50 years old.   The cost of maintaining/updating old housing stock will continue to rise as time goes by, so if tenants buy their homes, that expense is down to them, not the Council.
 
If Councils build new homes, they can incorporate all the new devices to enable energy-saving, water-saving, etc, thus saving the cost of installing those things in older properties and meeting any targets currently set.

[jonmorris]

That's true. Is the money made from right to buy ringfenced for use on building new properties?

I would say that this would be a good way to improve housing, but at the same time, right to buy causes a problem if 50% of a block is sold and 50% isn't. That block will get older, needing more money spent, and the ideal solution would be to re-house people, knock the block down and build something new with all the improvements you mention. But, how do you do that when you have private owners? Compulsory purchase?

[Cassandra]

Sorry, Jon, I don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to discuss it further.  I've never lived in a Council-owned property, only a flat rented from a housing trust during my early life.  My only knowledge of 'right to buy' comes via my in-laws, who bought their house in Hatfield many years ago after renting it from the Council for about 30 years.
 
I must admit to not considering blocks of flats when I made my earlier comments, only Council-owned houses and bungalows, but I still think the idea seems worth pursuing in some form. 
 
Perhaps those with better insight could take the discussion forward.

[Kay]

Cassandra - when the last Conservative Government were 'in office', Mrs 'T' allowed people to buy their Council Homes but introduced legislation So LOCAL AUTHORITIES COULD NOT build any new Social Housing.

The thing that has always amazed me is if people were able to buy their own home in the first place, and choose the are - surely they would move to a 'better area'?

I think selling off Council Houses (Social Housing) stocks was a 'quick fix/quick money making scheme' to solve financial problems within the country when Mrs 'T' was ' in office.

I don't suppose anyone else realises/realised...  a person could buy a house e.g. a son for parents on the Right to Buy Scheme and THEN rent it out to them whereby they can claim for Housing Benefit (this was the case a while back not sure if that loophole is still there!), so the mortgage would be taken care of by the Benefits!!.

Jon - Not sure what you mean 'if 50% is sold and that block gets older? - do you mean the block privately owned or the block Social Housing?  Surely if those who own the 50& will have the money for the upkeep of it - otherwise why buy in the first place?

tt4n
Kay

Sorry, Jon, I don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to discuss it further.  I've never lived in a Council-owned property, only a flat rented from a housing trust during my early life.  My only knowledge of 'right to buy' comes via my in-laws, who bought their house in Hatfield many years ago after renting it from the Council for about 30 years.
 
I must admit to not considering blocks of flats when I made my earlier comments, only Council-owned houses and bungalows, but I still think the idea seems worth pursuing in some form. 
 
Perhaps those with better insight could take the discussion forward.

[jonmorris]

What I meant is that if the council doesn't sell off a whole block, they still have to maintain it. The people buying are only leaseholders. The council can't therefore sell off old blocks to build new as they could with individual houses.

[Kay]

Hi jon - where I live (in a row of houses) two of the (nr middle) ones have been sold.  The rest are Council and so the council tenants would still have a 'right of way' through a footpath - which splits the garden in half.

The Council still (well, did) maintain the paths etc.,

tt4n -Kay

What I meant is that if the council doesn't sell off a whole block, they still have to maintain it. The people buying are only leaseholders. The council can't therefore sell off old blocks to build new as they could with individual houses.

[bbtzs]

Despite all this, I dont see an argument for not allowing tenants to buy. I do see that some regard is needed to speculative purchases with a view to renting out but this could be covered by a covenant on the house saying it must not be rented for say, 5 years or, some other changes.

The problem we have is simply an inadequate number of homes and a tax position that favoured property speculation in favour of, for example, pension savings. The property boom was encouraged by successive governments but all it did was ratchet up debt. Add this to significant uncontrolled immigration, to which I specifically would lay blame on the last Government for opening the floodgates to Eastern Europe when they could have had transitional measures, and the end result is a very large and growing unemployment problem for our young people and a lack of housing. All this having been allowed to develop until it took over. The way back is going to be extremely tough but, rent v purchase still doesnt seem to be a problem to me. We simply need more homes or a reduction in the level and number of immigrants housed here. I am not certain we have the room for the homes so I favour some immigrants returning home as part of the solution to housing and unemployment problems.

[Hatfield Girl]

My elderly neighbour's flat has been bought by his wealthy children using his RTB discount.  He was divorced from his wife and the kids bought her house too.  How is that right?
 
Someone I worked with bought her council flat in WGC for £16,000 using the larger RTB discount.  She then sold that at a huge profit and bought a large house.  How is that fair?
 
I got a mortgage for a one bedroom flat and had four jobs to pay it because I was told the council waiting list was 11 years.  I got no help and no discount so why should anyone else?  I bet I have a smaller income than a lot of people who have council houses so why should they get discounts when I don't?

[bbtzs]

Hatfield Girl
Sorry but this is an 'its not fair' approach. It is not an argument against, it is just a pity that you didnt get to benefit. the homes that were sold cheap still house people and families who would otherwise be homeless so what is the problem?