Britons ‘to be priority on council house lists’

Fleurpepper

Only Britons? What about the Jutes, the Picts, the Angles, Saxons, and others???

They haven't been resident long enough!

Only Britons? What about the Jutes, the Picts, the Angles, Saxons, and others???

And all Gove has to offer is building on brownfield sites in city centres. What happened to the Renters' Reform Bill? What about lack of rural housing? What's wrong with suburbs? Why don't the Tories start a massive Council house building programme? It's the only way to provide decent housing for the less well off. Priority for Brits is simply racist vote mongering, especially when Council houses are in very short supply.

My council is proposing buying back former council houses.
www.wales247.co.uk/welsh-council-proposes-buying-back-previously-sold-council-homes
Right to buy your home from the Councils has been abolished in Wales, as I believe it has in Scotland, preserving the stock of council houses, and there are also new Council homes being built here.
Over half the homes in the UK are now rented, so it’s the right way to go to keep affordable homes available in my opinion.

My Dad always worked full time but on low rural wages so a tiny rented cottage was all they could afford after he was demobbed. In 1960 they were allocated a 3 bed council house with large garden which was part of the big building scheme after the war. Lovely, roomy, bright houses which were very well built. They all went to local people who had previously lived in substandard tiny cottages.

They took massive pride in it as did all the neighbours. Dad used to show me the rent book with all the rules and regulations and impressed upon me that we all had to look after it because every time the rent man came round he would report any uncut hedges, neglected gardens or rubbish left around.

After about 30 years of paying full rent my Dad used to say they could have bought it with all the rent they’d paid.

He was left £10,000 in a relatives Will which was untold riches to us as after the rent was paid and we were fed there was nothing over. The Right To Buy Scheme had started so they decided to buy the council house using the generous discount. They managed to scrape together the extra £1,500 and bought the house for £11,500. They were so proud and knew they would stay there all their lives which they did.

So after living there 65 years my Mum had to sell her house to pay care home fees, my Dad having died a few years earlier. So there was no financial gain at all. Even when we sold the house we had to sell it cheaply as there was a restriction on it that meant only a person who had lived or worked locally for 3 years could buy it. On the open market the estate agent said we would have got double that. That restriction stays on the house forever. I think that’s fair enough because I am a firm believer in homes for locals.

I am also a firm believer that people who have lived and worked in this country should be given priority over people from other countries.

the real disgrace is not to let councils use the money from house sales to build others, ironically, its a housing policy that is now contributing to the Tories downfall, when you're at risk of loosing your home cos of interest rate hikes you're not going to vote for the gov't that got you in that position. I know the Bank of England is not political, but wages haven't kept up with inflation so people can't afford their mortgages etc now

You shouldn’t always judge ppl in bigger houses you don’t know why they not downsizing. I was in a 3 bed house both my sons had left home. The house was in my name and my ex his name was still on the house until I could get his name off I couldn’t move council wouldn’t help downsize even though I had a lawyer letter saying he couldn’t be found he went overseas to a woman he met online. I couldn’t buy it. In the end after 10yrs of trying I went to a different council im now in a 1 bed bungalow and a polish family have my house and have ruined it and drive all my old neighbours mad

I have read that the second Wilson Labour government investigated the possibility of selling Council houses because the working class were aspiring to become property owners. This was shelved by the succeeding Callaghan government but then introduced by the Tories under Thatcher. The mistake was in not permitting Councils to use the sale money to build more houses but if course the Tories used the sales to undermine the Labour vote on Council estates.

They, not there.

There don’t even have enough properties to house those who are homeless. How do you think they could deal with overcrowded people?

I understand that the law currently rules that councils/housing associations must not house a family if the accommodation means it will be overcrowded. However, they are not obliged to rehouse tenants who are already overcrowded.

It’s difficult to see how a balance can be achieved. The landlord wants to make an annual profit after all his costs are taken into account - mortgage interest, work done on the property, fees charged by managing agents and so forth. And he may need to sell at some time, when he will pay CGT on the increase in capital value whilst the property was let. The tenant naturally wants a home that is in decent repair at the lowest rent he can negotiate and for as long as he wants to live there. Letting is being made far less attractive to private landlords in order to improve tenants’ conditions and security. The interests of the two are diametrically opposed.

Surely investment in their properties will be to their own advantage though? I’m not speaking from experience here- I don’t rent or rent out - but I think that something needs to be done to make life better for tenants without reducing the number of available properties to rent.

The landlord is put to proof as regards their intentions ican. And I mean proof!
The trouble is, Doodledog, the costs which landlords can offset against rent have been pared back and what was once a profitable venture becomes far less so. Works will now have to be carried out by landlords to achieve a minimum energy rating. Landlords will be selling and I can’t say that I blame them. There is as much uncertainty for them as to whether they will be allowed to make any profit as there is for tenants on short term lets.

That’s why I think there could be separate arrangements for differing needs. ‘You can stay here until I need to sell up’ is different from ‘this house is for rent because I have several of them and want to make a profit’. Tenants should be able to go into the first with the right to end the lease at short notice on both sides, and the second with the knowledge that they can make it their home.

Germanshepherdsmum

At present one of the cases in which court must grant possession is if before the tenancy starts the landlord has given the tenant notice that he may want to take back possession in order to live in the property again, provided he demonstrates that he genuinely intends to do so. I can’t think anyone would say that’s unreasonable.
I believe that any further restriction on landlords’’ rights to take back possession will end in far fewer private rentals being available.

That may be but it is misused by some unscrupulous landlords and from my experience of the law in other areas, the foreseeable future is limited and if the person changes their mind, there is no recourse available. Once the Notice to regain possession is issued by the Courts, who polices the reality?

At present one of the cases in which court must grant possession is if before the tenancy starts the landlord has given the tenant notice that he may want to take back possession in order to live in the property again, provided he demonstrates that he genuinely intends to do so. I can’t think anyone would say that’s unreasonable.
I believe that any further restriction on landlords’’ rights to take back possession will end in far fewer private rentals being available.

The trouble is, though, that limiting the circumstances in which a landlord can sell will reduce the number of houses available to rent. Suppose I were working abroad for a limited time. I might decide to rent out my house while I was away, to cover the accommodation costs in my new area. If I knew that when I came home I couldn't move back in easily, or decide to sell if I wanted to stay in the new job, however, I might not bother. It makes sense to me that people should be able to come to mutually agreeable short-term agreements - maybe with someone who is working in my area short term and needs somewhere to live - but also that rents should be controlled.

Maybe there should be different arrangements for different types of tenancy - short-term ones for those who might want to sell at short notice, longer-term ones with more security, and a really push for state-owned property that can be rented with lifetime tenancies (but no right to buy). I think that rents should be controlled in all cases, however.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t understand what you’re proposing icanhandthemback, perhaps you could explain. What are the ‘unscrupulous laws’ to which you refer? Don’t you think a landlord should be entitled to take back possession if they want to sell?

Must proof read! Sorry, I meant unscrupulous landlords...my brain did a hop, skip and a jump. I do think landlords should be entitled to take back possession but maybe under limited circumstances. Not just so they can raise the rent.

I don’t know about unscrupulous laws, but it’s difficult to see how the rights of renters and private landlords can ever be successfully aligned. A tenant has a right to plan ahead and know where they’ll be living in years to come, and landlords have a right to liquidate their assets by selling up.

I don’t understand what you’re proposing icanhandthemback, perhaps you could explain. What are the ‘unscrupulous laws’ to which you refer? Don’t you think a landlord should be entitled to take back possession if they want to sell?

Germanshepherdsmum

Eventually a landlord may want, or need, to sell. Unless they can get the tenants out they can only sell at a substantially lower price. If this becomes impossible they will of course look for alternative forms of investment.

True, but that is why I think we should keep Section 21's but change the law to better protect tenants from unscrupulous laws. I am, though, wondering who protects the Landlords! My Mum had tenants who would have done anything to get a Housing Association Property because they were convinced they would be better off. When the Environmental Officer came out for the third time after spurious complaints, we explained why they kept making complaints and he went back to them pointing out that if there were problems with a Housing Association property, they would have no recourse to him and the standards were much lower. The tenants just wrecked the place when they left which cost us far more than they'd ever paid for in their deposit or any profit.

Rental property isn't the attractive investment it used to be and getting rid of the section 21 is making it less so.

Eventually a landlord may want, or need, to sell. Unless they can get the tenants out they can only sell at a substantially lower price. If this becomes impossible they will of course look for alternative forms of investment.

MerylStreep

I really don’t know know what’s going to happen to the renting sector when Section 21 is scrapped in 2023.
Landlords are selling in record numbers.

No, nor do I. I think it would be far better to look at the reasons why Landlords use Section 21's. If it is to increase the rents, it wouldn't be above the wit of the law to make it illegal to move your tenants on and then increase the rent beyond the "reasonable" amount you could legitimately charge the last tenants. If it is because tenants are complaining about legitimate problems, it could be made illegal to use a section 21 Notice.
As far as I can see, scrapping Section 21's is meant to give tenants more security which I am not against at all. When we rent out, we are keen to let our tenants know that we consider this is their home for as long as they want it providing they stick to the terms of their contract. I have only ever had to write to a tenant once but only after we had done everything to help them find a way forward with the noise problems the neighbours were complaining about including sound proofing. I would like to see a 3 counts and you're out with bad landlords for unreasonable behaviour rather than hurting the good landlords.