Council housing - right to buy

[MrsDoyle]

If you have been a council tenant for thirty years do you have an ethical "right" to buy your house? I know you have a legal one but I was just wondering how people felt about this these days.

[Guest posiedon]

I have never agreed with Thatchers "right to buy" policy, although my mother and two of my brothers took advantage of it (many years ago)

There will always be a need for social housing for those not in a position to buy, and every council house sold in one less available to such folk.

 

My wife and I were given a council property while we looked for something to buy, when we found a house and bought it we gave up the council house so that somebody else could use it as a springboard onto the property ladder.

We could have bought it and made a nice profit on the re-sale but we didn't.

 

If you plan on buying the house and never moving, I would have no ethical problem with that.

[shetlandpeat]

It was a bad move to sell off housing stock like that, especially at such low prices.

Mind, those that did buy were less inclined to go on strike for fear of loosing their cheap house. Those still in council owned property were reasonably safe.

[MrsDoyle]

Neither of these replies really addresses or answers my original question. Poseidon, you were given a council house but admit to being in a position to buy a private one, in fact, not just to buy one house, but able to consider buying two. You obviously can afford to take the high moral ground and refuse to make a profit on buying your council one.

I'm not sure what you are saying Shetlandpeat. The sale of council houses is not in itself a cheap buy since any discount afforded to the council tenant reflects the number of years they have paid rent on the property. And are you suggesting that only people living in coucil houses are the ones who go on strike and what strike are you talking about - The miners' strike?

[Ghostrider]

Ethically I don't really have a problem with council houses being sold, but like all Thatcher's ideas, while they maybe weren't all that bad at the outset, by the time they were put in to force they'd been messed around with until they became potentially good ideas enacted in the worst possible way. IMHO the sales should have been done rather differently, and had they been, the problems that have resulted would have been prevented, and the question of ethics would barely have arisen.

 

a) No discount on sales of housing under 25 years old - At 25 years buildings are hitting the point significant refurbishment/modernisation/maintenance/repair is looming. There is some logic in unloading those and older at a favourable price on to folk who are willing to invest in the upgrades themselves, or don't consider any modernisation/refurbishment necessary, and investing in new build, rather than public funds, possibly as much as half the value of the house itself being ploughed in to it just to maintain the status quo.

 

Lower sales discounts. At least 30% should have been knocked off what was givem, at the levels given it was an incentive to buy if you could find any possible way of financing it, rather than a bonus to folk who wanted to buy.

 

c) For every house sold by a council, the government, having forced the situation upon councils, should have insisted that one new build was completed for every house sold, say within a maximum window of five years of the sale having occured. And they should have undertaken to fund the balance between the selling price received and at least the actual value of the sold property on the open market, preferably the balance between selling price received and actual replacement cost.

 

Any fool could have forseen that forcing councils to sell their housing stock with little or no allowance made to replace it, would eventually lead to a situation where a housing shortage occured, and those least able to afford accomodation would suffer the greatest, which does bring ethics in to the equation.

 

Had the pricing structure been somewhat less favourable to buyers, the whole process would have been slower, and the problems caused more gradual and easier to address. Had an adequate replacement program accompanied the sale legislation, as I believe it should have, I don't see how any problems would have arisen anyway.

 

I can understand why some folk might say that if sitting tenants buy their council house, and remain in it for the rest of their natural, then thats okay. But if a sitting tenant buys, then sells on ASAP just to make a fast buck, that's "wrong". I can't say I agree with the opinion though.

 

Certainly its fair enough to question the ethics of someone who sells on ASAP, as they're not using the system as we are led to believe it was intended to be used, but in many ways I don't see what they're doing as being any more "wrong" than someone who buys, and stays on until grave time under the present system.

 

A house that someone stays on in is "dead" for an undetermined period of time until those folk are through with it, then it'll very likely hit the market just like the sold ASAP one. At least the sold ASAP one creates movement in the housing market reasonably quickly, presumably the seller will very likely take what they get for the house, add a bit more on, and buy another house somewhere else. The house they've sold may very well be bought by someone trading up from a smaller lower value place or from a rental, which is then freed up for someone else further down the totem to upgrade in to.

 

The only folk I'm seeing who aren't benefitting from allowing council houses to be sold, are those on a fixed income who can never hope to achieve home ownership or enter the private rental market. The very folk social housing was created for in the first place, and its not selling existing stock that's the problem, its selling existing stock without having any meaningful replacement program in place to ensure that there is adequate housing available for those people.

 

You've got to ask yourself, if no council houses had ever been sold, would all of those people who are living in bought former council houses right now have bought their own house elsewhere anyway? I would be reasonably sure a significant proportion wouldn't have. The chances are they'd have been paying rent to the council rather than mortgage repayments to a lender, and a very similar housing shortage would have existed today, as more or less the same folk would be in the same houses. You have X number of folk requiring accomodation, you have Y bed spaces of accomodation, does it really matter whos name is on the deed if Y is a number lees than X? The question keeps coming back to the lack of new build in the last 2-3 decades, at least former council houses have allowed some folk the opportunity to enter the property ladder as home owners, from where one would hope they will in time move upwards to something bigger and better, thus freeing up a property at the cheaper end of the market for someone else to do as they did. When they very likely wouldn't have been able to consider doing so if only other than former council properties comprised the market.

 

Talking of ethics, social housing was created for those who were on fixed and/or very low income, who simply could not afford to own their own accomodation, or pay private commercial rents. Yet we seem to be in a situation these days that regardless of who you are, or what your means are, you can apply for, and if you are lucky enough to want one in an area where there's little demand, you will be given a house, just for the asking. Is that ethical?

 

Could it not be argued that anyone in a financial position to consider buying the council house they're in shouldn't qualify for one in the first place. Surely its unethical to have social housing blocked up by folk who are in a financial position to realistically consider servicing a mortgage, when folk worse off are waiting for somewhere to live.

[Colin]

Once a council allocates someone a house, it's pretty much for life anyway so, what does it matter if the tenant buys it or not?

If they buy to sell on, the house will be pretty much at the bottom end of the market anyway and, in theory, should be available to 1st time buyers.

 

The big problem with Thatcher's 'right to buy' policy is that, at the same time, she prevented councils from using the revenue generated to build new stock.

This caused inflation in the housing market that still exists today.

 

Let's face it, if you buy a car, it loses value. If you buy a television, it loses value. Why should a house be different?

[JustMe]

Mrs Doyle wrote

I'm not sure what you are saying Shetlandpeat. The sale of council houses is not in itself a cheap buy since any discount afforded to the council tenant reflects the number of years they have paid rent on the property.

Well yes that statement is true and I would be fine with that except that people who spent years renting privately, often at rents that were much higher than equivalent council rents, have to pay full market value if they manage to enter the housing market. Right to buy yes but at only a nominal discount from market valuation if any discount at all.

[daveh]

This could be a controversial comment but I will make it.

I was a council tenant once, many years back and stayed in a council flat for some two years or so whilst desperately saving up for a deposit on our first house; a very small one but our own. I was very grateful for being allocated the flat and only ever saw it as a temporary tenancy until we could afford to move on.

 

What I think is wrong is for a council tenant to move completely out of an area in a council housing swap with someone who then moves into the area. A council property is initially allocated by a local authority based upon the need of a tenant and his/her family but, after a council housing swap, that tenancy is taken over by another family who may fall below the criteria necessary in that locality. It is the concept of a council house tenancy being a transferrable perk that I think is wrong.

[shetlandpeat]

I have not been able to get a council house, so I have been forced to rent on the private market. If I were to buy this house from my landlord, he will not take into account the 35,000 pounds I have already given him or the length of time I have been here. I have never had enough money to buy a house on my wages alone.

Social housing gave many the opportunity to lay down roots. Yes the miners strike was around the 80's when Thatcher was in, along with many other strikes. Selling this stock was riddled with bias. As with the homes for votes scandal, and the Shetland link. It went on for years, and still goes on. The surcharge, to my knowledge was never paid.

The strike thing was mentioned in the 80's, and was never disproved.

Many who were on strike were low paid manual workers, and many were council tenants or had Board houses.

Also, folk who bought their houses then had to pay for the maintenance of the house, something they were not always prepared for. The repossessions started, and who gained, the banks as they sold off houses for market values.

It was typical of the GOV at the time, trying to wash their hands of social responsibility. Hence the privatisations, trying to PFI services, selling off assets and not really caring for people.

We all paid towards social housing one way or another, so either sell none or open the market and drive down the cost of housing.

[Guest Anonymous]

If you have paid out £35,000 in rent then you could easily have paid a mortgage whether or not you were deemed trust worthy enough by the banks to get one has damn all to do with Thatcher, and has everything to do with how you have treated past creditors. Have a look at your past deeds and then reconsider why you had to rent privately.

[JustMe]

I certainly see where daveh is coming from when writing about council houses having become a transferable "perk" but is not the current Westminster government trying to make it easier for people to move council houses to get work?. Not so sure how that is going to work as big estates in the North East of England empty without many people wanting to move into them.

 

Couple of transfers I think are sensible and ought to be allowed are people wanting to downsize within their own area and people willing to move out of the areas of high demand such as someone who has retired and would be happy to move from Lerwick to somewhere a bit more remote.

[JustMe]

If you have paid out £35,000 in rent then you could easily have paid a mortgage whether or not you were deemed trust worthy enough by the banks to get one has damn all to do with Thatcher, and has everything to do with how you have treated past creditors. Have a look at your past deeds and then reconsider why you had to rent privately.

I think you ought to withdraw that statement. shetlandpeat says he paid £35k in rent but he does not say over how long a period which makes your assumption meaningless so why not do the gentlemanly thing and apologise. And of course paying a high rent may well mean you could afford a mortgage but could well mean you could not save up the deposit.

[Guest Anonymous]

as has been mentioned on here before a deposit was not needed a year or so ago

 

if he paid out 35 grand over say ten years then he had very cheap private rent, and there for nothing to complain about.

 

if he paid it over 5 years then he should of had a mortgage, that is if he had a decent credit rating

[paulb]

as has been mentioned on here before a deposit was not needed a year or so ago

 

if he paid out 35 grand over say ten years then he had very cheap private rent, and there for nothing to complain about.

 

if he paid it over 5 years then he should of had a mortgage, that is if he had a decent credit rating

funny i have always paid a deposit. you would be very unwise even when they were throwing debt at us to take out such a big morgage.

 

what is wrong with renting its the commonest form of accomidation in europe.

it was stupid to sell them off cheap and then not replace. i don't care which party was in its really simple you don't sell off your assests cheaply. especially the popular/more valuable ones. i wonder how many billions the public housing sector lost out on.

we used to live in an ex council house i think they sold it for 19k we sold it for 100k. we bought it repoed at roughly 30. but if you can get a morgage its a lot cheaper.

[Guest posiedon]

^ WTF Does that even mean?^

And please capitalise the I, how many times do you need to be asked? It's not difficult.