Social Housing

Where it went wrong was introducing Right to Buy and not replacing the housing stock for the next generation.

The sales proceeds were not used to build enough affordable homes (as in cheap, not today's definition) and many Right to Buy properties have been sold on so many times that they are now rented back to councils at extortionate rates by private landlords.

Research recently showed 65% of Right to Buy properties are now owned by private landlords.

Supply and demand absent. Combined with concentrating jobs in the SE instead of spreading development around the country more evenly. You can buy and rent cheaply in areas with no jobs!

Not everybody is able, or wants, to buy a property and in many other countries, such as Germany, I believe quite significant numbers of people rent. But, from what I've read, what they pay is much more affordable, and there is far more protection for tenants.

In this country I feel sorry for anybody who doesn't already own their own home - and also people who have recently bought at inflated prices and are struggling with high mortgages. Those who have not yet bought will be hard pushed, unless they have very substantial incomes, to save for a deposit and service a mortgage - even with the government's assistance with deposits.

As everybody knows and says, what we need is more housing. I think there should be exploration of the idea of land tax. It is often the few people who own significant amounts of undeveloped land who also own land in towns and cities. It is in their interests for the price of land to keep increasing because they not only have an appreciating asset but they also benefit from the increased rental of residential and commercial properties built on the developed land they own in towns and cities. I also think that there should be an examination of whether all land designated as green belt should maintain that status.

quizqueen This government has already raised the Inheritance Tax threshold to £500,000 per person and £1,000,000 per married couple. It was formerly £325,000 per person/£700,000 per married couple. The estates of the majority of home owners in this country did not attract inheritance tax because the value of their homes fell below these thresholds, and I think the same is probably still true despite the rise in house prices. An exception is in London where house prices are substantially higher than the rest of the country. In a country such as this where, relative to income, rents are very high and tenure is extremely insecure, most people would prefer to buy. It is generally not out of choice that they don't - it is because they can't afford to.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/13/under-35s-in-the-uk-face-becoming-permanent-renters-warns-thinktank

By the Resolution Foundation, chaired by David Willetts.

My daughter who lives in a shared ownership property because they cant afford to buy an entire house in our area has just told me that some mortgage providers now deduct £17,000 per child from the total amount they are prepared to loan you ( I cant remember the x ?? salary equation) .

Has anyone else heard this?

www.housing.org.uk/press/press-releases/older-people-disabled-people-and-most-vulnerable-to-lose-68-a-week/

The figures at the bottom of this link are worrying. Housing Associations have stopped building individual units or have stopped the sites altogether doesn't get mentioned much in mainstream media. It's just the number of houses to buy that seems important.
I assume that this was another of the government's unintended consequences. At least I hope they haven't done it on purpose. There are going to be a lot more homeless this year.

I agree with Wilma the right to buy is going to escalate the problems.

The changes will result in fewer rented homes that are affordable for low-income working households. Our younger families are really going to struggle in the next decade.

As a nation we enjoy a stock of just under 4 million homes owned by local authorities and housing associations. English social housing is already in decline and recent analysis suggests that a further 350,000 social rented homes might be lost through the right to buy (RTB) over the next decade. This gives us some sense of scale of the development challenge that lies ahead.

We need to be asking “what are the consequences of such a focus on building homes for owner occupation? “ As a nation we desparetly need a mix of tenures, to meet the wide range of needs in the market including a wider choice of housing for older people especially to encourage down sizing.
We also know that patterns of work are changing, there are more households working a range of multiple jobs for shorter-term contracts. It is obvious that these households will continue struggle to access home ownership especially in the South East and major urban areas. The rural areas have been aware of this for years as younger members of the family have had to move away to obtain better paid jobs.

The renting versus buying argument is is becoming redundant. Young people can't afford to rent either. We are currently paying part of our son's rent for him but this can't go on indefinitely. His situation isn't going to improve because his rent will probably rise quicker than his wages. His fiancee has found a job but because there is no work locally they are paying a fortune for petrol to get her there. Still 94th on the Council list. Nice to know we're all in it together.

These comments on the web this morning highlight further the barriers different sectors of housing face.

More than 46,000 people have taken up the chance to buy their home through Right to Buy since 2012, with councils delivering replacement properties on a one to one basis ahead of schedule.

This will soon be extended to housing association tenants, after the government and the National Housing Federation reached a voluntary deal back in October 2015.

More than £20billion is committed to housebuilding over the next five years in order to help the government meet its target of one million new homes.

This includes £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable homes, including 200,000 Starter Homes offered with at least a 20% discount to young first-time buyers and 100,000 affordable homes for rent.

However, Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive, blasted the findings: “These figures are a stark reminder that for millions of families and young people it’s becoming utterly impossible to create a stable future in a place they can really call home.

“Instead of being able to put down roots, more and more people are stuck spending vast amounts of their income on rent, while house prices continue to rocket out of reach.

“Despite being in power for six years, this government has made little progress on the underlying cause of our housing crisis – the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable homes. It doesn’t have to be like this, but things will only change when we start building homes that people on ordinary incomes can actually afford.”

Alan Ward, Chairman of the RLA said: “Landlords do not spend their time looking for opportunities to evict a tenant. It’s time to end the scaremongering on this.

“More can be done to help landlords offer longer term tenancies without the need for compulsory three or five year tenancies.

"We are calling on the government to use the Housing and Planning Bill to remove barriers preventing landlords from offering longer tenancies, including mortgage and leasehold conditions that may prevent this.

“Notable increases in the average length of time tenants stay in a private rented property show the system already enables longer tenancies that so many are calling for. Landlords are already meeting tenants’ requirements and there is no need heavy handed legislation that would disrupt supply of badly-needed accommodation."

I understand that the Government give Local Councils a new homes bonus as an incentive to build. Obviously it is getting harder to build in the larger Cities so smaller towns and rural areas have to step up. Small developers are given financial help to start building, green belt is becoming meaningless - often a local council's refusal to give planning permission is overturned by the Government on appeal by the builder. Where I live, one new development when built about 6 years ago, was advertised in London as being a new borough of London, 'only an hour away' but that is just the train time from here to King's Cross, without the journeys either end! Plus, the cost of the train fare is horrendous. However, so far the new homes built elsewhere around the town have all been sold so we shall have to see how the next 5,000 go down. They seem to include a mix of social housing in amongst the ones for sale, but needless to say no sheltered housing.

Those figures look very impressive, Granddaughter.
£8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable homes.
That's £20,000 per home. I wonder how many builders can do that.

Not one Jen

Presumably that does not include the cost of the land.

Even excluding the cost of the land it would be impossible.
Have you ever watched the £100,000 house?
They always exclude the land, usually built on a corner of their parents' land.

Trouble is that much of the new housing will got to people who are quite rich, particularly in the south.
The money should have gone to help Housing associations. Instead they are going to get hammered by right-to-buy 2016-style.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/02/25/david-cameron-must-take-responsibility-for-the-surge-in-roug
Showing the increase in homelessness since the government came to power.

In an article in today's Independent Nick Clegg tells how LibDem efforts to increase provision of social housing were rebuffed by the Tories because "all it does is create more labour voters"

Thatcher's introduction of the right to buy whilst preventing councils from using the proceeds to build replacement homes was all about creating more Tory voters - and it worked. Now many left out in the cold are paying the price.

The LibDems did put country before party and paid a heavy price. The sad truth is that so many voters do not see through parties which ruthlessly pursue their own self interest.

Perhaps Cameron thinks the homeless will want one of his help to buy properties he is so proud of

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/27/david-cameron-sink-estates-fund-turns-out-to-be-loan

This is a nice one.
Cameron forgot to say this when he announced it last month.
He is such a hypocrite.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/11/just-dont-say-it-too-loudly-but-this-is-peoples-quantitative-easing-on-its-way/

London housing going to be built using People's Quantitative Easing.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/14/family-of-four-crammed-into-a-bedsit

For eighteen months.

DS was recently offered a chance to apply for a two bedroomed council house with a rent of £800 a month. This is apparently "affordable" for people on low incomes.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/young-families-priced-out-rental-markets-in-two-thirds-uk

This is for two bedroomed homes. Not just your son, Deedaa.
I had a letter from Shelter today, so was discussing homelessness with my grandson, as there was also an article about it in the i.
He was most upset about it - and about the fact that if I gave too much money to Shelter, I might be homeless myself. I had to reassure him that it wouldn't happen. Couldn't even jokingly say yet.

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=589620561&fref=nf

Well done, Stella Creasy.

Sorry, that link did not work properly.

tompride.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/labour-mp-throws-boss-of-dodgy-poverty-charity-out-of-parliament/

This one should.