AIBU to totally disagree with 'the right to buy'?

Lots of piping ready in place too, DJ The wine would have to be piped through quickly into the water supply system and not allowed to accumulate and sink the flask(s) Drink up!

Why can't a working class person who works just the same hours and probably more be able to buy their own house? Or is that only for the affluent?

Oh dear I also forgot to mention that wealthy people have accountants that help them dodge so many taxes its laughable.

If what they pay for it will be used to build a replacement that someone who DOESN'T want to buy can rent, no reason at all.

All those chips must make it very difficult to get your shoulders into your clothes.

Why can't a working class person who works just the same hours and probably more be able to buy their own house? Or is that only for the affluent
Maybe because some people earn more than others, some people have 2 wages and no children, some have several, some only have 1wage -have you never asked yourself why some people earn more than others?

We brought our house in 1982, paid for it in 4 years, enjoyed tax relief and now I'm told that the house is worth £180,000.

Why am I telling you this, "Get in first, because if you don't others will".

The amount of ideologist on this forum is pleasing but not in the world that I live, here you take, take, take and sod everybody else.

MOnica is the only one dealing in facts, Long may she post.

I think the point is that living in a council house (or housing assoc) is fine. You get a lower than market rent, you get all your maintenance done and unlike the private sector, you have a decent landlord who won't rip you off (many private ones do e.g. keeping deposits for trivial reasons, not to mention failing to deal with damp etc). If you don't like the street you're in you can apply for a swap.
I know there are council estates that are not great to live on, but people still stay rather than launching out into the private sector.
So why should these relatively lucky people be given what is effectively a cash gift from the public purse?

'Take take take and sod everybody else'
Wow! We really don't live in the same world!
What an unpleasant start to the day - I'm out of here!

I will repeat myself - If they pay an amount which will build a replacement for the person in the queue who will not be able to get a house at a reasonable rent when that one is taken out of stock, and if councils have a policy of building more - that is OK.

This housing is needed, it doesn't make sense for an authority with a long list of people waiting for a house to sell without replacing. No car hire firm would do that.

But if they get it at a knockdown price which will not pay for replacing it, then they are standing on others to get it. Not on the wealthy, but on those who could be living unexploited in these houses that are maintained for them automatically. (The quality of the maintenance is a whole new subject, I know that authorities vary on this)

The question of people selling on as soon as possible at an enormous profit could be solved somehow - already there is a limit in the contract on how soon they can be resold, perhaps that could be made longer. There could be a clause that if resold within a certain time they must be first offered back to where they were bought from at the original price plus the average house percentage price rise in that area. That would keep them in the housing stock.

Re maintenance of council houses - I said I know that these are automatically maintained. I also know from experience that many tenants do their own maintenance, keep house and garden immaculate, and are never behind in paying their rent, so I hope that no-one in this thread starts implying anything else.

Good idea Elegran especially with the restriction on the potential profit. It is just wrong to profiteer at the expense of other needy families deprived of reasonable housing.
Councils are among the first to be blamed though for taking the easy way out , they have passed the buck to the housing associations and nobody can deny the appalling shortage of fair rent housing. Surely it was also a source of income to local authorities?
However to put all the blame on immigration is to miss the point. And however unequal our society might be regarding who can afford to buy a house or not, that is just the way things are. What you earn, where you live and work, all play a part and ironically I suspect the onward sale of local authority housing at a huge profit is a major factor in the unavailability of affordable starter homes.

I have mixed feelings on this, on the one hand I don't approve of selling off council houses at all, on the other hand my parents bought their council house so as a family we benefited from the policy. It was wrong that none of the money raised could be used to build more council houses. Perhaps if the policy is to continue there should be some restrictions about length of tenancy and all of the money raised should go to build new houses. My parents had been council tenants for almost 40 years when they bought their house. Setting a time limit of 25 years tenancy would discourage so much speculation and ensure some housing remained for rental.

Not me Elegran some people e.g. my next door neighbours, spend a fortune improving house and garden. They do this, in part, because they have a guaranteed lifetime tenancy. It is their home. Unlike rented accommodation.

Yes it is ridiculous. I know of several people who bought at knockdown prices (or carried on renting but sub letting) housing is a precious resource.

I am also alarmed at the vulnerable people I hear of being persuaded out of their council houses, bu social services, and sent off to rent privately up north. This frees up a large council house in the south eats (for work) for incoming migrant families.

Those being moved on then have no security whatsoever and find themselves in colder, darker areas of the country where they have no support networks.

The government is boasting that has found homes for 20.000 refugees but at what cost to local communities?

I think it is ok to have the "right to buy" but I don't understand the huge discounts. If I rented privately, the LL would, understandably, be most bemused at giving me a huge discount because I had taken advantage of him/her doing all the maintenance over the years, paying the mortgage, etc. I realise that not everybody has a choice whether they buy or rent but why should some people who are lucky enough to have social housing (which have lower rents than private) get a huge benefit whilst others who haven't been lucky enough to be given social housing don't?

I disagree with RTB. My parents rented a council house when they were first married, benefited greatly from it and moved on as fast as they could, others then rented and benefited. My Gran rented similarly but in the private sector, after renting for 60 years she died, nothing to leave her kids, she didn't have a right to buy - that was all normal for the majority. My in laws bought their council house after renting for 40 years, FIL died, huge asset passed on to all and sold privately at a profit - removing the house from public stock forever. My point? RTB takes housing stock out of the rental market, the generations before ours did not expect the majority to buy, rental has always been the norm- until our generation bought - what's wrong with renting and social housing?? We have no prospect of building social housing again, no land, developers corner the market etc. etc. Housing Assocs must not be allowed to sell their assets to tenants in the same way. I thought some of what Thatcher did was OK but not this policy - short sighted vote buyer was the intention here!

Good post Lozzamas

While I can understand all the arguments offered in support of offering subsidised, public, rented housing to poorer people and agree with some of them I'd like to offer an anomaly which was highlighted by my daughter when she worked her socks off at university, gained a first class degree and then took a job in the centre of London which entails long hours and exhaustive effort. She pays tax and her student loan and so is a real contributor to the society in which she was raised and will put in decades of contributions.

When she started work she found a flat in Zone Two but had to pay £1,300 a month (shared) rent and then travel costs after her taxed income. When she and her boyfriend looked to buy a property nearby they were looking at a mortgage of around £400,000 which they coudln't afforfd on starting salaries. They visited many properties and were struck by how many families who were not working were being subsidised by the state to live in flats and houses which my child and her BF would have liked to buy as the properties were nearer their work.

Why should those paying out be pushed to the back of the queue to kill themselves working for those who do not contribute? Why should the workers live in properties either hours away from their jobs or in nearer locations but with swingeing travel and accommodation costs when others who are not contributers get the prime housing locations?

The problem was exacerbated by the order of prioritising 'needs' for social housing over time spent on the council queue. The time for reassessing whether those needs are valid and up to date is long overdue.

Curmudgeonly, this may sound, but my DH and I have paid 76 years' worth of tax between us, been law abiding, altruistic, moral and responsible and we feel that in many ways our children are being sidelined and punished when they might have been expected to have at least an equal chance of being treated fairly. Our children are being punished for our civic virtue.

Sorry, 'couldn't'.

I am very against the selling of council houses. Don't want to bore people but we married and bought our first home (flat) in 1969 (cost £950) deposit was £100 (we saved £1 a week for that), sold it for £1,250 two years later after improving it. Used profit for deposit on a wreck of a house which cost £1,900). Got grants to do it up and lived there happily and started family for six years but needed third bedroom so sold it for £12,500 and relative built three bed bungalow for us for £12,000 (land cost £2,500). Five years later needed fourth bedroom so sold it for £45,000. Family grew up so we down-sized and sold for £108,000 and bought ground floor flat for £70,000 in new development. Ten years later we sold it for £180,00 and are now in a small semi with large garden which suits me. Were we lucky? Of course we were as we seemed to buy and sell at the right time but there was a lot of hard work involved and we always had to wait to afford things like a decent car, holidays etc while our friends who had started out renting private and then getting council houses and had then bought (paying £8,000 for three bed houses which are now worth £150,00) could afford these things. I don't mean this to be a rant but to illustrate how things were and the fact that you could choose which way you wanted to go. I just appreciate that we could do what we wanted and are able to enjoy our retirement in a house which suits us.

In my opinion, the only way it would be ethical for tenants to have a "right to buy" their council or housing association properties would be if private tenants were given the same "rights"! I can't see this happening any time soon, can you?

I am not against it per se, particularly as councils may want to reduce their housing stock.
However, a proportionately reduced price when a person has been a long-term tenant is one thing, a knock down price is wrong.

I don't think the money should be used for anything other than to provide more social housing, perhaps through HA if the councils are unable to build new homes in their areas.
That would result in more new homes for those who need them and, for those able to purchase at a reasonable price, the security of owning their homes if they wish.

I know more people rent on the Continent but home-owning in the UK has always been the ambition of many people and we do need more affordable rental property too, not private rentals.q

Lilyflower Are you saying there should be no local authority or housing association rented accommodation at all, then? That everyone should either buy or rent privately? That is what your post sounds like.

This thread is about whether the houses which are now being rented out by LAs and HAs should be sold to sitting tenants or kept in the rental sector. I am not sure that their existence or non-existence is really relevant to that discussion.

This is not relevant either, but I take exception to your implication that all LA and HA tenants are contributing nothing to society. There are some who are not, but the majority are people just like you and me, going to work, paying taxes and bringing up their familes. They have the same low opinion of layabouts and scroungers as you do.

How did they know that the people in the properties they visited were being subsidised?

I can understand that you feel frustrated that your DD cannot afford to purchase a property near her work in London Lilyflower and it is a real problem caused by house prices having escalated out of control in London.
However, it does not follow that those living in council or social housing in London are not working and contributing tax.