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

Or maybe there is the appetite durhamjen but not the steady jobs/funds/willing lenders to back them up.

I live in the North West and Council Housing (now Housing Trust) properties. Are not that difficult to get! People driving very expensive cars get them? Their families are living in large detached houses. They spend more upgrading them than the owner occupiers next to them can afford. Housing Trust is happy about this as it saves them bothering. No doubt when they have lived in them long enough they will use Right to Buy.

I'm not surprised!

I disagree so much with it that years ago I wouldn't let my husband 'lend'his parents £8000 to buy their council house after about 40 years. Not popular with the family for a while after that. .....

I have thought from the start that this was a crazy idea. If you sell off all or most of the social housing then surely it stands to reason that, in the future, there is going to be a shortage of such homes. This scheme would only work if the monies raised from the sales was used to build more social housing.
I was brought up in what was then called a 'council house'. I never felt ashamed of my home, although my Mother always wanted to own her own house. She did so in the end by saving hard and buying on the open market although my Dad worked in the building trade before it was very well paid and they didn't have much money.

As is generally the case, the answer to "AIBU to....." is yes. The scheme is the only chance for many people to get on the housing ladder, and as someone with NO chance ever to afford to buy, despite my husband working hard, i would love that opportunity. The problem isn't the right go buy scheme in itself, but the fact that the income earned from it hasn't been invested back into providing more social housing stock, so however many years it is down the road here we are with a woefully underfunded, inadequate and dwindling social, affordable housing stock, and a whole generation of renters who see no chance of them ever having anywhere decent to call their own.

Lilyflower I am not quite clear over what you want to see happening You say "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."
Were these council houses or privately rented?
If they were council owned the people living in them would have gone through the assessments and be deemed people who needed housing. If they are privately owned then the person making money is the landlord who will be collecting their housing benefit.

Well, well, I must say its a good job we have mass immigration so we have someone less fortunate than ourselves to blame instead of the ineffective governments making stupid policies that allow for affordable housing stock to be reduced and not replaced.

No you are not being unreasonable - the selling off of council houses begun by Thatcher has been the major reason for the state we are in today, with thousands of people paying top whack for insecure tenancies.

It's a particular issue I believe in London where people have been known to buy their property then cash in to the tune of millions. It's immoral.

I'm a private landlord in the north, I provide beautiful homes for people at a reasonable rent & would never on principle buy ex council housing.

One thing I would point out though is that the Daily Mail where you read the article isn't the best source of balanced, reasoned views. I have no idea whether the story about Arthur Scargill is true or not but the article from what you said sounded aimed at smearing a left wing figure rather than exploring the issue properly.

Apparently over the last three years, only 1% of council tenants have bought under right to buy, so there's not a big appetite for owning their own homes.

speye.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/labour-rtb-suspension-and-anti-inspirational-guff/

X post Elegran (it takes ages to type and post on this tablet)

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.

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?

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.

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

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 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.

Sorry, 'couldn't'.

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.

Good post Lozzamas

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!

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?

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?

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.

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.