My mother in law has lived in her council house for 41 years
She is now widowed and retired although has probably paid the mortgage that Margaret Thatcher offered her in the 80's 10 times over.
So I am in a position to buy her place as she will get the full discount meaning she is happy as financially secure and we are both happy because I am investing in the future for my children when she and I kick the bucket.
Once again Maggie got it right..
Nice for you and your family. Shame about all the families who have to pay huge proportions of whatever income they have to profiteering landlords when in the past they might have stood a chance of renting an affordable home from the council and havimg a fecemt quality of life. If you think RTB is such a good ifea maybe we should include private rentals. I've given huge amounts of money to private landlords. Why shouldn't I have some of that back so I can have some security? That never occurred to Thatcher did it? Wonder why.
It seemed a poor policy during the election, but at least it was a stated policy of the Conservatives. It can't be a surprise that they want to enact the policies they promised to the people.
It's still a poor policy. It's just a poor policy they're going to carry out. Slum landlords everywhere can sleep soundly secure in the knowledge that their enslaved tenants have lost one more escape route.
Had an interesting pre-election discussion with the Conservative candidate in our local/borough election. I queried the logic of the RTB scheme, and specifically the discounts....he pretty much admitted it was madness, and said more than once "it won't happen...we'll fight it round here..." (I wasn't convinced about that).
Quite a few of my cousins directly or indirectly did extremely well out of RTB first time round, none of whom are remotely low income. In London in particular there were always some lucky council tenants who got a house/flat in a nice location (e.g. the Ashburnham triangle in Greenwich). Such people got luckier a 2nd time when able to buy the places on the cheap...
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
You want to know the damage caused by right to buy? Try to find a home in London.
The top 15 Housing Associations in London own over 400,000 properties and build over 10,000 homes a year in London.
Let me know where you want to live and I'll get you a link.
Of course you could always buy your own property - try www.rightmove.co.uk
RTB only helps those that probably are a bad fit for social housing. If you can afford to buy (even a discounted) property you should be in the open market. Help to Buy on 2nd hand properties only pushes up property values for the feelgood election run-in. So everyone pays higher rents due to excess of demand over supply. Social housing needs separating from being an add-on to private developments and needs stand alone estates without the red tape of current new builds. I wonder how many people getting housing benefit are actually in full time work?
Double council tax for empty properties (rather than discounts), and solely HA developments are the way forward together with a red button planning on (empty?) office and commercial developments given current saturation.
Thatch only did it because she wanted to social engineer former Labour council tenants into Conservative supporting home owners with mortgages, a vested interest in bank rates & inflation, and to encourage inheritance to family. And it didnt half work.
Of course the councils weren't given the full proceeds from the sell off to replace the loss of housing stock (as this would negate the reasons why they were sold off in the first place!).
I'd rather we flog assets to the people that benefit the people, cheaply, like houses, than flog all of our gold at a ridiculously low price to massive companies.
Also the main defenders of this policy are people who don't actually live in housing association properties but believe in aspiration/dreams.
If only Conservatives had a name like Labour and bemoaned wealth the whole time they might win some idiots over.
My mother in law has lived in her council house for 41 years
She is now widowed and retired although has probably paid the mortgage that Margaret Thatcher offered her in the 80's 10 times over.
So I am in a position to buy her place as she will get the full discount meaning she is happy as financially secure and we are both happy because I am investing in the future for my children when she and I kick the bucket.
Once again Maggie got it right..
Nice for you and your family. Shame about all the families who have to pay huge proportions of whatever income they have to profiteering landlords when in the past they might have stood a chance of renting an affordable home from the council and havimg a fecemt quality of life. If you think RTB is such a good ifea maybe we should include private rentals. I've given huge amounts of money to private landlords. Why shouldn't I have some of that back so I can have some security? That never occurred to Thatcher did it? Wonder why.
First, why should private landlords hand over to you some portion of the market rates (they have to be market rates otherwise tenants would just move somewhere else) rents back to you when you have had use of their asset and they have had to pay their mortgage, tax, repairs, boiler certification, insurance, management fees, etc, etc? Out of interest do you take the engine out of a hire car as your share when you return it to its owners?
Second, and I appreciate it's a harsh view, but personally I don't care one jot about families having to pay a huge portion of their income to their landlord. They should have worked out precisely how much it costs to run a family in the first place. It's their problem - frankly I don't want to pay for their poor decision-making. It's been calculated that you can own and run a Bentley for what it costs to bring up a single child. (At current prices, the average cost of raising a child is £230,000.) That's the choice people make; they should just have to get on with it.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
You want to know the damage caused by right to buy? Try to find a home in London.
The top 15 Housing Associations in London own over 400,000 properties and build over 10,000 homes a year in London.
Let me know where you want to live and I'll get you a link.
Of course you could always buy your own property - try www.rightmove.co.uk
Keston / Locksbottom / Petts Wood / Chislehurst. not really fussed but any in those locations.
I want at least 4 bedrooms, 2/3 bathrooms, 2 receptions, large kitchen, off street parking for 3 cars, double garage, well maintained gardens front and rear also a quiet location in a cul de sac.
Not entirely sure why the living arrangements of a young Nicola Sturgeon or an older Ben Elton should preclude them from disagreeing with either Margaret Thatcher or austerity measures?
That's the point exactly - it didn't preclude them.
Sturgeon family buy a property under the "Tory" RTB scheme - and Nicola grows up as anti-Tory.
Still, I guess the family can always sell the parental home at a profit if austerity starts to bite, and with the changes in taxes and pensions implemented by Tory Governments since the 1980's she will be able to keep more of the money that her parents worked for and invested in a property.
Ben E buys a house in London for £650k (not RTB scheme) which increases in value by 450% over the years, due to house price inflation - fueled by a shortage at the bottom of the scale caused by the RTB scheme.
So not a bad profit (indirectly) from Mrs T's scheme for Ben, who again, can benefit from the reduction in higher rate tax for the super rich (50% reduced to 45% by Osborne in 2013).
So the RTB scheme can benefit people in different ways. The simple reason for the discount is that folk couldn't afford them at the market price, and owning one's own home has become "aspirational" for the UK population - something which the next Labour leader should bear in mind.
The root of this issue is the shortage of housing - which is proportional to the increase in UK population. Questions about how long it will take to build replacement houses are irrelevant - if you think about trying to empty a bath with a cup with the plug still in and the taps running.
Hence, there will always be a housing shortage until folk stop wanting to live here / the population boom is under control.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
The damage done by the original RTB scheme is less social housing for those that need it. Just look at the long waiting lists for people that urgently need housing. I don't dismiss it as a bad idea for political reasons because Thatcher originally bought it in or Cameron is extending it, I oppose it because the reduction in stock it is bad for people that need urgent housing.
I worked in social housing for over 30 years and have a very good understanding of how HA borrowing works. I don't quite recognise your version.
I can promise you that unless you buy properties from a developer of a scheme already built which only provides small numbers it takes a long time to acquire land (ever getting harder to find), then plan (get planning permission) and then build.
HA's do sell properties on the open market but that is too fund building for social housing as the level of social housing grant that was previously given has been cut dramatically.
I've found the above posts an interesting debate. I'm not going to wade in to that, but just as a general comment about the current housing situation, it is probably the thing that concerns me the most in my life right now.
I'm approaching mid 20s and realistically doing about as well as I could have hoped for job/salary wise for my age. Housing should be something that I can consider investing in at this stage, but in London I literally don't have a chance. I'm from a normal family background, so no mountains of cash to call upon for deposits and despite being in a decent position wage wise, you won't get a mortgage more than 4x that salary pretty much.
People might use the argument, you CAN afford a house, just not in the area you are looking for. My immediate reply to that, is why should I not be able to buy anywhere within an 8 mile radius of my family home and where I grew up. I was always under the impression the rental market was designed for people who couldn't afford a property and the rental rate should undercut a mortgage repayment - this doesn't seem the case today and makes renting the equivalent of pissing money down the drain as you are not owning any underlying asset there.
For my generation, unless you take the hit on rent, it feels like you're gonna be left in the family home for a long time. It really does worry me that no matter how well you might doing in work or trying to lead a productive life, housing is no longer a privilege you can expect to be entitled to in London and it's fast become a luxury good
Sorry, but this thread comes across as 'It's not fair, someone else is getting something that I can't have'.
Most people in these houses are not wealthy and to complain that those that have been renting these properties, in some circumstances for many years, are not allowed a discount to buy them macks of selfish greed by those that don't want to someone else getting anything that they can't have.
It frees up money for investment and moves the responsibility for the house to someone else - why shouldn't they benefit from taking that responsibility away from the tax payer?
Sometimes I find it staggering how we can be so selfish and so greedy that we can bulk at someone worse off than us being given a helping hand!
I'm sorry but you are missing the point of my argument and that of those with similar views.
I do not see myself as either selfish or greedy, I don't begrudge anyone worse off being given a helping hand, it all depends what the helping hand entails. I live in my own house and paid off my mortgage and am pretty happy with my lot. But having worked in social housing for over 30 years up to a couple of years ago I can see how the lack of social housing is causing real hardship to those people who cannot afford to buy or pay private rents. There is no helping hand for those.
In my road are people who live in private rented houses paying rent which they have done for years constantly moving because the landlord wants their house back after a couple of years. No security of tenure for them. They now through their taxes will pay for people who have been lucky to get a social housing property not only get the opportunity to buy their home but also with a huge discount. (Up to £103,900 in London and £77,000 outside the capital).
Nothing will alter my opinion that this is a very unfair policy and very damaging for those not well off people in desperate need of housing.
Fortunate enough to own my own home, but don't really understand how the social housing world works.
(Apart from ownership) what is the difference between local authority housing and Housing Associations? Do the qualifying rules differ? is the rent likely to differ?
How do you get generally on the qualifying lists? Do you have to have an income below a certain amt? if so, broadly what for our suburb areas.
How much of a percentage discount are LA and Housing Association rents compared to market rents?
We have to build more than 300,000 houses/flats a year to accommodate the new comers--plus schools,hospitals etc etc although i do agree with the Right to Buy i cant see in any way this helps with the overall issue of massive shortage ?
As for it being a basic "human right" to have a home , how do you square that statement with people who have 4/5---10 kids ? does each one have a "human right" to their own place ?
Did your beloved Labour Party ban The Right To Buy in their 13 years ? NO. Did they give everyone in the Uk the "right" to their own place ? NO.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
You want to know the damage caused by right to buy? Try to find a home in London.
The top 15 Housing Associations in London own over 400,000 properties and build over 10,000 homes a year in London.
Let me know where you want to live and I'll get you a link.
Of course you could always buy your own property - try www.rightmove.co.uk
Keston / Locksbottom / Petts Wood / Chislehurst. not really fussed but any in those locations.
I want at least 4 bedrooms, 2/3 bathrooms, 2 receptions, large kitchen, off street parking for 3 cars, double garage, well maintained gardens front and rear also a quiet location in a cul de sac.
As these are all in Kent, you can search yourself.
Fortunate enough to own my own home, but don't really understand how the social housing world works.
(Apart from ownership) what is the difference between local authority housing and Housing Associations? Do the qualifying rules differ? is the rent likely to differ?
How do you get generally on the qualifying lists? Do you have to have an income below a certain amt? if so, broadly what for our suburb areas.
How much of a percentage discount are LA and Housing Association rents compared to market rents?
Appreciate any insight.
Basically, the difference between councils and HA's is different in that HA's are privately run and funded with some access to housing grant from the Govt. Councils are fully public funded by council tax and Government grant. The rents for the general needs housing stock should be pretty similar. Some HA's to obtain more funding for development to carry out what is called intermediate rents and market rents which are higher than the general needs rents
Some HA's maintain their own waiting lists but some take people from the council waiting list. New developments for HA's where grant is concerned usually have 100% nomination rights for the council.
I'm not sure of the exact criteria needed to get on a waiting list. You get priority if you considered vulnerable. Such as homeless families or individuals where young children are concerned or serious health issues.
Social rents are considerably cheaper than private rents. I reckon around social rents are generally around 60% to 70% of private rents.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
The damage done by the original RTB scheme is less social housing for those that need it. Just look at the long waiting lists for people that urgently need housing. I don't dismiss it as a bad idea for political reasons because Thatcher originally bought it in or Cameron is extending it, I oppose it because the reduction in stock it is bad for people that need urgent housing.
I worked in social housing for over 30 years and have a very good understanding of how HA borrowing works. I don't quite recognise your version.
I can promise you that unless you buy properties from a developer of a scheme already built which only provides small numbers it takes a long time to acquire land (ever getting harder to find), then plan (get planning permission) and then build.
HA's do sell properties on the open market but that is too fund building for social housing as the level of social housing grant that was previously given has been cut dramatically.
Sorry, but what has a waiting list got to do with RTB? You are not reducing the Housing Stock, just changing the tenure. The people living there as HA tenants are now just Owner Occupiers. There is no addition or subtraction from the housing stock. The Housing List remains static. How on earth can RTB extend the Housing List? The only thing that can is more poeple wanting to move into Social housing. I can't believe you worked in Social Housing for over 30 years and don't understand this simple premise.
Funding of HAs has changed dramatically in the past three years. Below might help you with 'my version'.
Also HAs have quite extensive land banks or are able to purchase them from other developers fairly easily. Planning permissiosn has been an issue but the last Coalition Government made it a lot easier for housing to be built and this Governement have promised to take that further.
Of course selling properties on the open market is to help raise funding for new housing. Approximately every £14k they receive (in London) allows them to finance a nice shiny new property. And with old converted Victorian houses selling for up to £1m in large parts of London, you will find them able to build 70 replacement properties. A sensible way of increasing their Housing Stock I think you'd agree?
So self funding, rather than being funded by the tax payers
Find it a bit galling on a selfish level that 6 years ago I was out of work and hard enough up that I drew job seekers for a couple of months whilst I sorted myself out with employment.
Since then I've had to work my arse off to save up a deposit with my partner over 5 years (bugger all possible a month), got to the stage where we we're scrabbling around for affordable flats, had to mortgage ourselves to the hilt to even get on the ladder and had absolutely no help at all from the government bar that 2 months job seekers. Nothing for being a first time buyer, other than getting firmly shafted.
Over the past years at times ive worked 16 hour days, 7 day weeks, had to invest deposit savings in my own education and career, had 4 years with 10 days holiday each year just to get where I am. All of that time I have to pay full rental prices.
I do struggle to see why if I had to do all of that, others get the opportunity to have a 35% discount on a property with low rates. Where was my helping hand?
On top of that, more properties on the market will naturally bring down prices so that this asset I've worked hard for is worth less in 5-10 years than it would have been.
Shouldn't people who buy these properties have to jump through the same hoops, pay the same market prices and put in the same level of effort?
There are people who will call you selfish if you query the government using taxpayers' money to provide a substantial benefit to a small group of people who may or may not be amongst your friends or family. I just find that odd. Why not just give £30k to each and every identifiable homeless person?
Its illogical, like calling someone selfish for objecting to a 50% tax rate when they are not 50% taxpayers. Or objecting to benefit fraud when they are not on benefits.
I don't support this limited form of RTB as it looks to me like a naked form of pre-election bribe, albeit I doubt it had much positive impact for the Tories, and as others have said, it does not address problems with the housing supply at all.
I can't see how the housing shortage can be addressed whilst we have unlimited immigration and I don't recall any politicians properly addressing this during the election campaign. You'd have to be building 200,000 plus homes each year just to mark time. That's every year in perpetuity. And I say that as someone who is open-minded about the Tories' EU referendum.
The damage done by the original RTB scheme is less social housing for those that need it. Just look at the long waiting lists for people that urgently need housing. I don't dismiss it as a bad idea for political reasons because Thatcher originally bought it in or Cameron is extending it, I oppose it because the reduction in stock it is bad for people that need urgent housing.
Sorry, but what has a waiting list got to do with RTB? You are not reducing the Housing Stock, just changing the tenure. The people living there as HA tenants are now just Owner Occupiers. There is no addition or subtraction from the housing stock. The Housing List remains static. How on earth can RTB extend the Housing List? The only thing that can is more poeple wanting to move into Social housing. I can't believe you worked in Social Housing for over 30 years and don't understand this simple premise.
The available stock has reduced because one has been sold. If you have a turnover of tenancies of 5% on a stock of 1000 properties, that means you have 50 properties for people on the Housing Register (it's not really a waiting list anymore). If you sell 50 under right to buy, it means you only have 45 for people on the Housing Register.
The reason that council/HA housing is now so restricted is that this has happened on an enormous scale. Lewisham Council had around 36000 properties in the late 80s. It now has around 15000. Some have been shifted into the HA sector through transfers, but loads have gone under Right to buy, or been demolished to make way for private developments (like the estate next to Lewisham Station was). I'm pretty sure similar figures apply in greenwich or Southwark. It used to be that anyone could be on the Housing Register, but now it is restricted depending on each council. I know about Lewisham as I live here and there is an income restriction and a savings restriction before you can join the register. If you have savings of more than £16k I think the assumption is that you can sort out housing for yourself. If you have an income of more than that, likewise. You also have to have a local connection through living here or working here. Other councils will vary but all will have similar restrictions. The shortage of housing is also already costing all of us who live in the London or the South East, as councils spend out loads of money on B&Bs and renting former council places off landlords for the homeless (which was something Lewisham used to pride themselves on avoiding - not any more). Extending Right to buy will make this worse.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
You want to know the damage caused by right to buy? Try to find a home in London.
The top 15 Housing Associations in London own over 400,000 properties and build over 10,000 homes a year in London.
Let me know where you want to live and I'll get you a link.
Of course you could always buy your own property - try www.rightmove.co.uk
Yeah right. You give me half a million and I will. You're having a laugh.
My mother in law has lived in her council house for 41 years
She is now widowed and retired although has probably paid the mortgage that Margaret Thatcher offered her in the 80's 10 times over.
So I am in a position to buy her place as she will get the full discount meaning she is happy as financially secure and we are both happy because I am investing in the future for my children when she and I kick the bucket.
Once again Maggie got it right..
Nice for you and your family. Shame about all the families who have to pay huge proportions of whatever income they have to profiteering landlords when in the past they might have stood a chance of renting an affordable home from the council and havimg a fecemt quality of life. If you think RTB is such a good ifea maybe we should include private rentals. I've given huge amounts of money to private landlords. Why shouldn't I have some of that back so I can have some security? That never occurred to Thatcher did it? Wonder why.
First, why should private landlords hand over to you some portion of the market rates (they have to be market rates otherwise tenants would just move somewhere else) rents back to you when you have had use of their asset and they have had to pay their mortgage, tax, repairs, boiler certification, insurance, management fees, etc, etc? Out of interest do you take the engine out of a hire car as your share when you return it to its owners?
Second, and I appreciate it's a harsh view, but personally I don't care one jot about families having to pay a huge portion of their income to their landlord. They should have worked out precisely how much it costs to run a family in the first place. It's their problem - frankly I don't want to pay for their poor decision-making. It's been calculated that you can own and run a Bentley for what it costs to bring up a single child. (At current prices, the average cost of raising a child is £230,000.) That's the choice people make; they should just have to get on with it.
Social housing is owned by the public at large. Your family have had housing for a more than reasonable rent for many years. They could continue to have that or pass it on to others. But you want more. Thatcher got that right. There is no end to greed. Selling off all the social housing is why it is now not feasible for anyone on a reasonable income in London to buy or even rent a decent home.
Sorry to get personal, but there is so much cobblers being talked here. It is nothing to do with security and pride, it is about getting a big hand out from the state. And when you say why shouldnt people get a hand up I agree. But why only the ones who are lucky enough to live in social housing? Why should landlords hand over some portion of market rates? Why should housing associations or councils hand over to a select few? They also have had to maintain the properties while the tenants who are now making a quick buck have been living there for peanuts. Your family have had use of a public asset for many years and now you want it. Cheap. Crack on, but don't pretend it is fair.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
The damage done by the original RTB scheme is less social housing for those that need it. Just look at the long waiting lists for people that urgently need housing. I don't dismiss it as a bad idea for political reasons because Thatcher originally bought it in or Cameron is extending it, I oppose it because the reduction in stock it is bad for people that need urgent housing.
I worked in social housing for over 30 years and have a very good understanding of how HA borrowing works. I don't quite recognise your version.
I can promise you that unless you buy properties from a developer of a scheme already built which only provides small numbers it takes a long time to acquire land (ever getting harder to find), then plan (get planning permission) and then build.
HA's do sell properties on the open market but that is too fund building for social housing as the level of social housing grant that was previously given has been cut dramatically.
Sorry, but what has a waiting list got to do with RTB? You are not reducing the Housing Stock, just changing the tenure. The people living there as HA tenants are now just Owner Occupiers. There is no addition or subtraction from the housing stock. The Housing List remains static. How on earth can RTB extend the Housing List? The only thing that can is more poeple wanting to move into Social housing. I can't believe you worked in Social Housing for over 30 years and don't understand this simple premise.
Funding of HAs has changed dramatically in the past three years. Below might help you with 'my version'.
Also HAs have quite extensive land banks or are able to purchase them from other developers fairly easily. Planning permissiosn has been an issue but the last Coalition Government made it a lot easier for housing to be built and this Governement have promised to take that further.
Of course selling properties on the open market is to help raise funding for new housing. Approximately every £14k they receive (in London) allows them to finance a nice shiny new property. And with old converted Victorian houses selling for up to £1m in large parts of London, you will find them able to build 70 replacement properties. A sensible way of increasing their Housing Stock I think you'd agree?
So self funding, rather than being funded by the tax payers
I am sorry but you are not grasping it all, I will try and make it simple for you. RTB does affect the amount of housing that is available social housing - ie for people in need of housing to rent. Every time a house of flat is sold under RTB this is one less for renting. Of course the number of properties there are doesn't change but what can be done with the property does. Currently when a tenant gives up their tenancy or dies then that property is again available for renting to people on the waiting list. Once it is sold it isn't, it is just sold on (usually at a nice profit) or even as a buy to let at much higher rents than social rents so therefore out of reach for those in need. I hope that is clear enough for you. It isn't just me making this blindingly obvious statement, its made by countless housing experts / commentators. You'd have to be blinkered not to see it.
I couldn't be bothered to go through the links you posted, I read Inside Housing every week so are aware of its contents. If you have read recent editions and comment from the NHF you would have read that HA's financial ratings will be reduced as they will have less stock to borrow against.
If you believe the Governments spin on the a new build for every sale then you will be disappointed or maybe not. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
The damage done by the original RTB scheme is less social housing for those that need it. Just look at the long waiting lists for people that urgently need housing. I don't dismiss it as a bad idea for political reasons because Thatcher originally bought it in or Cameron is extending it, I oppose it because the reduction in stock it is bad for people that need urgent housing.
I worked in social housing for over 30 years and have a very good understanding of how HA borrowing works. I don't quite recognise your version.
I can promise you that unless you buy properties from a developer of a scheme already built which only provides small numbers it takes a long time to acquire land (ever getting harder to find), then plan (get planning permission) and then build.
HA's do sell properties on the open market but that is too fund building for social housing as the level of social housing grant that was previously given has been cut dramatically.
Brian
Most HAs are limited companies so how are shares owned? Trustees? Unless by local or central government, I cannot see how Tories can force them to sell their assets cheap. It would be like labour ordering Harrods to cut their prices by half so Joe Bloggs can afford their stuff.
If it gives a chance for someone to aspire to owning their own homes after working their Way.to.that position I am all for it
I'm all for that except the selling of the assets that belong to HAs and councils (us actually). Nothing wrong with working hard and having aspirations but if you cant afford something at the market rate, you cut your cloth accordingly.
Why shouldn't Council/HA tenants have the right to buy their property? As long as that property is valued fairly and the discount takes into account the number of years you've lived there.
Peoples situations change as they make their way through life and if the opportunity comes to own your own property and it's that little bit easier or within reach because of a discount, then we should be encouraging people to take on the responsibility. As long as you are prevented from selling on within (say) 5 years, I don't see the problem.
The scheme will probably cost less than the latest first time buyer inducements. And don't forget, you can't get Housing Benefit on a Mortgage, like you can for rent.
Housing Associations already sell plenty of properties on the open market - at least this way, they will be going to residents rather than property speculators.
Funders are falling over themselves to lend HAs money at the moment - particularly those who show surpluses every year and whose gearing is in place to manage future changes. The current favourite way of raising money by HAs is on the Bond Market. They are extremely tightly regulated and funders love the controls that brings.
And as for 'stock value reducing considerably' - it just doesn't happen. HAs just don't sell houses for less than it cost them to build. They can also build them much quicker than they actually are - but there are quite a few things to bring together, particularly when you're developing brown field sites.
HAs will just have to get on and manage the situation, instead of getting indignant because their little 'empires' are being controlled.
Oh, and please tell me what damage was done by the original RTB scheme? Real facts and figures would be useful though rather than dismissing it because it involved "Thatcher".
The damage done by the original RTB scheme is less social housing for those that need it. Just look at the long waiting lists for people that urgently need housing. I don't dismiss it as a bad idea for political reasons because Thatcher originally bought it in or Cameron is extending it, I oppose it because the reduction in stock it is bad for people that need urgent housing.
I worked in social housing for over 30 years and have a very good understanding of how HA borrowing works. I don't quite recognise your version.
I can promise you that unless you buy properties from a developer of a scheme already built which only provides small numbers it takes a long time to acquire land (ever getting harder to find), then plan (get planning permission) and then build.
HA's do sell properties on the open market but that is too fund building for social housing as the level of social housing grant that was previously given has been cut dramatically.
Sorry, but what has a waiting list got to do with RTB? You are not reducing the Housing Stock, just changing the tenure. The people living there as HA tenants are now just Owner Occupiers. There is no addition or subtraction from the housing stock. The Housing List remains static. How on earth can RTB extend the Housing List? The only thing that can is more poeple wanting to move into Social housing. I can't believe you worked in Social Housing for over 30 years and don't understand this simple premise.
Funding of HAs has changed dramatically in the past three years. Below might help you with 'my version'.
Also HAs have quite extensive land banks or are able to purchase them from other developers fairly easily. Planning permissiosn has been an issue but the last Coalition Government made it a lot easier for housing to be built and this Governement have promised to take that further.
Of course selling properties on the open market is to help raise funding for new housing. Approximately every £14k they receive (in London) allows them to finance a nice shiny new property. And with old converted Victorian houses selling for up to £1m in large parts of London, you will find them able to build 70 replacement properties. A sensible way of increasing their Housing Stock I think you'd agree?
So self funding, rather than being funded by the tax payers
I am sorry but you are not grasping it all, I will try and make it simple for you. RTB does affect the amount of housing that is available social housing - ie for people in need of housing to rent. Every time a house of flat is sold under RTB this is one less for renting. Of course the number of properties there are doesn't change but what can be done with the property does. Currently when a tenant gives up their tenancy or dies then that property is again available for renting to people on the waiting list. Once it is sold it isn't, it is just sold on (usually at a nice profit) or even as a buy to let at much higher rents than social rents so therefore out of reach for those in need. I hope that is clear enough for you. It isn't just me making this blindingly obvious statement, its made by countless housing experts / commentators. You'd have to be blinkered not to see it.
I couldn't be bothered to go through the links you posted, I read Inside Housing every week so are aware of its contents. If you have read recent editions and comment from the NHF you would have read that HA's financial ratings will be reduced as they will have less stock to borrow against.
If you believe the Governments spin on the a new build for every sale then you will be disappointed or maybe not. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Simple?
A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.
Comments
Quite a few of my cousins directly or indirectly did extremely well out of RTB first time round, none of whom are remotely low income. In London in particular there were always some lucky council tenants who got a house/flat in a nice location (e.g. the Ashburnham triangle in Greenwich). Such people got luckier a 2nd time when able to buy the places on the cheap...
Let me know where you want to live and I'll get you a link.
Of course you could always buy your own property - try www.rightmove.co.uk
Double council tax for empty properties (rather than discounts), and solely HA developments are the way forward together with a red button planning on (empty?) office and commercial developments given current saturation.
Of course the councils weren't given the full proceeds from the sell off to replace the loss of housing stock (as this would negate the reasons why they were sold off in the first place!).
Also the main defenders of this policy are people who don't actually live in housing association properties but believe in aspiration/dreams.
If only Conservatives had a name like Labour and bemoaned wealth the whole time they might win some idiots over.
First, why should private landlords hand over to you some portion of the market rates (they have to be market rates otherwise tenants would just move somewhere else) rents back to you when you have had use of their asset and they have had to pay their mortgage, tax, repairs, boiler certification, insurance, management fees, etc, etc? Out of interest do you take the engine out of a hire car as your share when you return it to its owners?
Second, and I appreciate it's a harsh view, but personally I don't care one jot about families having to pay a huge portion of their income to their landlord. They should have worked out precisely how much it costs to run a family in the first place. It's their problem - frankly I don't want to pay for their poor decision-making. It's been calculated that you can own and run a Bentley for what it costs to bring up a single child. (At current prices, the average cost of raising a child is £230,000.) That's the choice people make; they should just have to get on with it.
I want at least 4 bedrooms, 2/3 bathrooms, 2 receptions, large kitchen, off street parking for 3 cars, double garage, well maintained gardens front and rear also a quiet location in a cul de sac.
Sturgeon family buy a property under the "Tory" RTB scheme - and Nicola grows up as anti-Tory.
Still, I guess the family can always sell the parental home at a profit if austerity starts to bite, and with the changes in taxes and pensions implemented by Tory Governments since the 1980's she will be able to keep more of the money that her parents worked for and invested in a property.
Ben E buys a house in London for £650k (not RTB scheme) which increases in value by 450% over the years, due to house price inflation - fueled by a shortage at the bottom of the scale caused by the RTB scheme.
So not a bad profit (indirectly) from Mrs T's scheme for Ben, who again, can benefit from the reduction in higher rate tax for the super rich (50% reduced to 45% by Osborne in 2013).
So the RTB scheme can benefit people in different ways. The simple reason for the discount is that folk couldn't afford them at the market price, and owning one's own home has become "aspirational"
for the UK population - something which the next Labour leader should bear in mind.
The root of this issue is the shortage of housing - which is proportional to the increase in UK population. Questions about how long it will take to build replacement houses are irrelevant - if you think about trying to empty a bath with a cup with the plug still in and the taps running.
Hence, there will always be a housing shortage until folk stop wanting to live here / the population boom is under control.
I worked in social housing for over 30 years and have a very good understanding of how HA borrowing works. I don't quite recognise your version.
I can promise you that unless you buy properties from a developer of a scheme already built which only provides small numbers it takes a long time to acquire land (ever getting harder to find), then plan (get planning permission) and then build.
HA's do sell properties on the open market but that is too fund building for social housing as the level of social housing grant that was previously given has been cut dramatically.
I'm approaching mid 20s and realistically doing about as well as I could have hoped for job/salary wise for my age. Housing should be something that I can consider investing in at this stage, but in London I literally don't have a chance. I'm from a normal family background, so no mountains of cash to call upon for deposits and despite being in a decent position wage wise, you won't get a mortgage more than 4x that salary pretty much.
People might use the argument, you CAN afford a house, just not in the area you are looking for. My immediate reply to that, is why should I not be able to buy anywhere within an 8 mile radius of my family home and where I grew up. I was always under the impression the rental market was designed for people who couldn't afford a property and the rental rate should undercut a mortgage repayment - this doesn't seem the case today and makes renting the equivalent of pissing money down the drain as you are not owning any underlying asset there.
For my generation, unless you take the hit on rent, it feels like you're gonna be left in the family home for a long time. It really does worry me that no matter how well you might doing in work or trying to lead a productive life, housing is no longer a privilege you can expect to be entitled to in London and it's fast become a luxury good
I do not see myself as either selfish or greedy, I don't begrudge anyone worse off being given a helping hand, it all depends what the helping hand entails. I live in my own house and paid off my mortgage and am pretty happy with my lot. But having worked in social housing for over 30 years up to a couple of years ago I can see how the lack of social housing is causing real hardship to those people who cannot afford to buy or pay private rents. There is no helping hand for those.
In my road are people who live in private rented houses paying rent which they have done for years constantly moving because the landlord wants their house back after a couple of years. No security of tenure for them. They now through their taxes will pay for people who have been lucky to get a social housing property not only get the opportunity to buy their home but also with a huge discount. (Up to £103,900 in London and £77,000 outside the capital).
Nothing will alter my opinion that this is a very unfair policy and very damaging for those not well off people in desperate need of housing.
(Apart from ownership) what is the difference between local authority housing and Housing Associations? Do the qualifying rules differ? is the rent likely to differ?
How do you get generally on the qualifying lists? Do you have to have an income below a certain amt? if so, broadly what for our suburb areas.
How much of a percentage discount are LA and Housing Association rents compared to market rents?
Appreciate any insight.
As for it being a basic "human right" to have a home , how do you square that statement with people who have 4/5---10 kids ? does each one have a "human right" to their own place ?
Did your beloved Labour Party ban The Right To Buy in their 13 years ? NO. Did they give everyone in the Uk the "right" to their own place ? NO.
Some HA's maintain their own waiting lists but some take people from the council waiting list. New developments for HA's where grant is concerned usually have 100% nomination rights for the council.
I'm not sure of the exact criteria needed to get on a waiting list. You get priority if you considered vulnerable. Such as homeless families or individuals where young children are concerned or serious health issues.
Social rents are considerably cheaper than private rents. I reckon around social rents are generally around 60% to 70% of private rents.
Funding of HAs has changed dramatically in the past three years. Below might help you with 'my version'.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/housing-association-bonds-snapped-up-in-record-time/6528910.article
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/housing-associations-double-bond-financing/6527297.article
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/bromford-raises-60m-in-private-placement/6523115.article
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/housing-association-offers-retail-bonds-to-raise-cash-for-new-homes/6528887.article
Plenty more like that.....
Also HAs have quite extensive land banks or are able to purchase them from other developers fairly easily. Planning permissiosn has been an issue but the last Coalition Government made it a lot easier for housing to be built and this Governement have promised to take that further.
Of course selling properties on the open market is to help raise funding for new housing. Approximately every £14k they receive (in London) allows them to finance a nice shiny new property. And with old converted Victorian houses selling for up to £1m in large parts of London, you will find them able to build 70 replacement properties. A sensible way of increasing their Housing Stock I think you'd agree?
So self funding, rather than being funded by the tax payers
Since then I've had to work my arse off to save up a deposit with my partner over 5 years (bugger all possible a month), got to the stage where we we're scrabbling around for affordable flats, had to mortgage ourselves to the hilt to even get on the ladder and had absolutely no help at all from the government bar that 2 months job seekers. Nothing for being a first time buyer, other than getting firmly shafted.
Over the past years at times ive worked 16 hour days, 7 day weeks, had to invest deposit savings in my own education and career, had 4 years with 10 days holiday each year just to get where I am. All of that time I have to pay full rental prices.
I do struggle to see why if I had to do all of that, others get the opportunity to have a 35% discount on a property with low rates. Where was my helping hand?
On top of that, more properties on the market will naturally bring down prices so that this asset I've worked hard for is worth less in 5-10 years than it would have been.
Shouldn't people who buy these properties have to jump through the same hoops, pay the same market prices and put in the same level of effort?
Its illogical, like calling someone selfish for objecting to a 50% tax rate when they are not 50% taxpayers. Or objecting to benefit fraud when they are not on benefits.
I don't support this limited form of RTB as it looks to me like a naked form of pre-election bribe, albeit I doubt it had much positive impact for the Tories, and as others have said, it does not address problems with the housing supply at all.
I can't see how the housing shortage can be addressed whilst we have unlimited immigration and I don't recall any politicians properly addressing this during the election campaign. You'd have to be building 200,000 plus homes each year just to mark time. That's every year in perpetuity. And I say that as someone who is open-minded about the Tories' EU referendum.
I've got a house. Does that make me selfish?
The reason that council/HA housing is now so restricted is that this has happened on an enormous scale. Lewisham Council had around 36000 properties in the late 80s. It now has around 15000. Some have been shifted into the HA sector through transfers, but loads have gone under Right to buy, or been demolished to make way for private developments (like the estate next to Lewisham Station was). I'm pretty sure similar figures apply in greenwich or Southwark. It used to be that anyone could be on the Housing Register, but now it is restricted depending on each council. I know about Lewisham as I live here and there is an income restriction and a savings restriction before you can join the register. If you have savings of more than £16k I think the assumption is that you can sort out housing for yourself. If you have an income of more than that, likewise. You also have to have a local connection through living here or working here. Other councils will vary but all will have similar restrictions.
The shortage of housing is also already costing all of us who live in the London or the South East, as councils spend out loads of money on B&Bs and renting former council places off landlords for the homeless (which was something Lewisham used to pride themselves on avoiding - not any more). Extending Right to buy will make this worse.
Sorry to get personal, but there is so much cobblers being talked here. It is nothing to do with security and pride, it is about getting a big hand out from the state. And when you say why shouldnt people get a hand up I agree. But why only the ones who are lucky enough to live in social housing? Why should landlords hand over some portion of market rates? Why should housing associations or councils hand over to a select few? They also have had to maintain the properties while the tenants who are now making a quick buck have been living there for peanuts. Your family have had use of a public asset for many years and now you want it. Cheap. Crack on, but don't pretend it is fair.
I couldn't be bothered to go through the links you posted, I read Inside Housing every week so are aware of its contents. If you have read recent editions and comment from the NHF you would have read that HA's financial ratings will be reduced as they will have less stock to borrow against.
If you believe the Governments spin on the a new build for every sale then you will be disappointed or maybe not. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Most HAs are limited companies so how are shares owned? Trustees? Unless by local or central government, I cannot see how Tories can force them to sell their assets cheap. It would be like labour ordering Harrods to cut their prices by half so Joe Bloggs can afford their stuff.
A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.