Right to buy......

[b0redom]

So the Tories just announced that Right To Buy (which I didn't realise was still even a thing) is being extended to housing association tenants. What's the panel's view on this? Personally I think selling off social housing is a really bad idea because:

1) It removes a property from the pool which can't then be let to anyone else (or if it is, it will be let at private rates)
2) The houses aren't being sold at market rates, and how can it be fair that someone can suddenly get a windfall when someone else who is fractionally better off and renting a private property doesn't

I understand that owning your own house is an aspiration for most people, but it's not a right.

[kalniel]

I have concerns.

I think reducing availability of social housing is not a good thing. There is a pledge to build new housing on a one-one basis, but so far this hasn't happened despite being also part of the existing right to buy, so I doubt it would happen for this extension either. What it would seem to do is give private access to (now valuable) housing areas while forcing social housing to move into undesirable areas, possibly at a loss to the association/council.

It's a very Tory thing to do - by enabling those in social housing to get on the ladder at a good rate they aim to lift them into the wealthy. But I think the bigger issue here is housing supply and NIMBYism - so far the Tories seem to be the only major party NOT to say they will address that.

[DR]

So the Tories just announced that Right To Buy (which I didn't realise was still even a thing) is being extended to housing association tenants. What's the panel's view on this? Personally I think selling off social housing is a really bad idea because:

1) It removes a property from the pool which can't then be let to anyone else (or if it is, it will be let at private rates)
2) The houses aren't being sold at market rates, and how can it be fair that someone can suddenly get a windfall when someone else who is fractionally better off and renting a private property doesn't

I understand that owning your own house is an aspiration for most people, but it's not a right.

I completely agree with you.

[pauldarkside]

How can a government force a private company/charity to sell off its assets like this, let alone force them to sell at a loss?

The whole thing just strikes me as another opportunity to remove safety nets from those who desperately need them.

[opel80uk]

There isn't anything inherently wrong with a right to buy scheme, if the houses sold are replaced with new builds and the new houses are put back in to the social housing pool, but invariably that's not what happens. The new houses don't get built, many of the houses sold under RTB end up in the hands of rich landlords, and it just exacerbates the housing crisis, while allowing landlords to profit. According to one report I read, over a third of the stock sold under the right to buy scheme are now being renting by councils from private landlords for social housing.

It's easy to see why the policy was a vote winner though. My paternal Grandparents bought their Housing Association rented home under the original RTB for a large discount in the 80's (albeit that was a Housing Association that opted in itself to the scheme, but was able to avail of the discounts). They now have a place that is worth over a million pound in Wandsworth. Whats not to like? Except, when they die and the house is sold, that's one less property for the one of the tens of thousands on that Councils and HA's waiting lists.

Criticism, or support, of the RTB scheme (in practise, as opposed to in theory) often depends on whether one views the states responsibility as extending to being able to offer housing to those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. There is nothing wrong with arguing that it shouldn't extend to that, and the free market should be allowed to determine where people live, if they live anywhere at all, but it's disingenuous to paint that type of argument as one of concern for social mobility. That is a red herring. Real concern for social mobility wouldn't extend to anything that will almost certainly lead to increase the shortage of social housing.

On the legal side of things, I would be surprised if the Government can force what is effectively a private enterprise to sell their property at below market value.

[Biscuit]

I don't really see how this will actually help in the long term.

[kalniel]

On the legal side of things, I would be surprised if the Government can force what is effectively a private enterprise to sell their property at below market value.

Why do you think they are currently in the process of changing the compulsory purchase laws? (but these changes are actually needed too, if we are to build new garden cities etc.)

[directhex]

I don't really see how this will actually help in the long term.

It'll help. But it's not designed to help you, or indeed help the people buying under RTB - it's designed to help landlords, a major Tory bloc.

[b0redom]

There isn't anything inherently wrong with a right to buy scheme

Really? Why is it ever considered a good idea? Basically you're saying to someone if you live in an area in subsidised (by everyone else) housing for a long time, we'll let you buy the house at a massive discount (which no one else will get the chance to do). How is that fair?

if the houses sold are replaced with new builds and the new houses are put back in to the social housing pool, but invariably that's not what happens.

But then even in an ideal world, the council/government ends up picking up the bill for the difference as the RTB properties aren't sold at market rate, they're sold at a massive discount.

Many of the houses sold under RTB end up in the hands of rich landlords, and it just exacerbates the housing crisis, while allowing landlords to profit.

I don't understand how this happens. Surely it can only happen if a landlord buys it from whoever bought it as a RTB?

It's easy to see why the policy was a vote winner though. My paternal Grandparents bought their Housing Association rented home under the original RTB for a large discount in the 80's (albeit that was a Housing Association that opted in itself to the scheme, but was able to avail of the discounts). They now have a place that is worth over a million pound in Wandsworth. Whats not to like?

When I graduated I lived in shared rented accommodation. Then I moved to single rented accommodation, then, eventually I bought my own place. Should I be entitled to buy the flats I rented at a discount because I rented them for a long time?

Fortunately I've never had need of social accommodation, but I just don't understand why anyone thinks it's reasonable to sell a house at a massive discount to someone who's rented it for a long time. It just stinks of a bribe to me.

Criticism, or support, of the RTB scheme (in practise, as opposed to in theory) often depends on whether one views the states responsibility as extending to being able to offer housing to those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.

Not sure I agree here either. You either provide social housing or you don't. If you don't then that's a valid stand point. If you do, that is also a valid stand point. Neither gel with, oh you can rent it for a bit then we'll let you buy it off us at a massive discount.

What seems to have happened somewhere along the line is that long term tenants (and there's nothing inherently wrong with being a long term tenant) seem to have formed the opinion that the house is 'theirs'. In my opinion, it isn't and it shouldn't be.

[opel80uk]

Why do you think they are currently in the process of changing the compulsory purchase laws? (but these changes are actually needed too, if we are to build new garden cities etc.)

Yeah, I did think about that. My understanding is that currently when a CPO is made, the recompense is for the current value? Is this right? And if so, will the changes allow for under market prices being paid? Would be interesting to see how it would stand up with the EU, although if the Tories do form the next Government, perhaps with an agreement with UKIP, the EU may not be a consideration after any referendum.

[opel80uk]

Really? Why is it ever considered a good idea? Basically you're saying to someone if you live in an area in subsidised (by everyone else) housing for a long time, we'll let you buy the house at a massive discount (which no one else will get the chance to do). How is that fair?


But then even in an ideal world, the council/government ends up picking up the bill for the difference as the RTB properties aren't sold at market rate, they're sold at a massive discount.


I don't understand how this happens. Surely it can only happen if a landlord buys it from whoever bought it as a RTB?


When I graduated I lived in shared rented accommodation. Then I moved to single rented accommodation, then, eventually I bought my own place. Should I be entitled to buy the flats I rented at a discount because I rented them for a long time?

Fortunately I've never had need of social accommodation, but I just don't understand why anyone thinks it's reasonable to sell a house at a massive discount to someone who's rented it for a long time. It just stinks of a bribe to me.



Not sure I agree here either. You either provide social housing or you don't. If you don't then that's a valid stand point. If you do, that is also a valid stand point. Neither gel with, oh you can rent it for a bit then we'll let you buy it off us at a massive discount.

What seems to have happened somewhere along the line is that long term tenants (and there's nothing inherently wrong with being a long term tenant) seem to have formed the opinion that the house is 'theirs'. In my opinion, it isn't and it shouldn't be.

I never, ever, thought I'D be arguing for the virtues of a RTB scheme, and in practise they never work and for this reason I am vehemently against them, but there is nothing wrong, IMO, with the state helping council tenants to buy the home they live in. There is a wide body of research that suggests strong links between favourable social mobility and home ownership. The massive discounts that have been offered under RTB schemes are wrong, but there is no reason why, for example, a council couldn't offer a discount of a percentage of rent paid over the period of tenancy, to make it easier for people to purchase where they live. Reducing the discounts will of course mean that you reduce the amount of people able to take up the offer, but then I agree with whoever posted that buying a property is not a right. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that a well run RTB scheme, whereby you replace 1 sold unit with at least 1 new unit, means that you remove one person from the social housing list, and are able to house someone else that was previously on the waiting list. But to be clear, this isn't how it works in practise, and don't think a British Government of any hue can be trusted to implement it properly, so I would not support any RTB scheme. But the notion that it isn't fair, if it were to be done correctly, isn't really valid IMO, because it should ultimately benefit those who need social housing.

Under RTB schemes, there is a period after purchase whereby, if the property is sold within that time, the discount must be paid back. But there is nothing stopping someone selling after that period to someone else, and there was also nothing stopping anyone entering deferred sales. The end result is the same though, a social housing property is lost and, if it's not replaced by at least one unit, it means one less home for those most in need.

I think, if I read your posts correctly, the huge subsidies given to tenants is what you disagree with, and I would 100% agree with that, if that discount means that those units cannot be replaced with new units. But helping remove people living in social housing, whilst not reducing the overall amount of social housing in one explicit way that you both help with the shortage of homes, and help those in need of social housing.

[ik9000]

right to buy is a bit of an oddity IMO. A council tenant will have paid RENT to live somewhere, and had the benefits that rental brings - i.e. the landlord having to refurbish at least once every 10 years, and maintain the property to a sufficient standard. Private owners do not get these perks. Just because someone has paid their rent for x years does not somehow entitle them to buy (at a vast discount) their property. It's madness! If we're going to do this, how about a refund to the public coffers of all the costs paid out to keep their property going. Also, what property will be available to the next man who needs a council flat? I know this latest thing extends it to housing association, but this is a joke. How can they promise this? What company is going to want to take on council housing stock knowing they will have to give it away? Any maintenance budget will be (if they're practically minded) slashed as a result. Why is it all so short-termist in thinking. Modern politicians have a lot to answer for.

[kalniel]

Yeah, I did think about that. My understanding is that currently when a CPO is made, the recompense is for the current value? Is this right? And if so, will the changes allow for under market prices being paid? Would be interesting to see how it would stand up with the EU, although if the Tories do form the next Government, perhaps with an agreement with UKIP, the EU may not be a consideration after any referendum.

I've not looked into it in detail - I had the impression the changes are primarily to reduce the bureaucracy and details in working out the market prices and appeals thereof - but they could be to that effect yes.

[big_hairy_rob]

I look at this a different way. What if a private renter had a "right to buy". So why should a council or housing association tenant benefit in what is quite literally a discriminatory process.

I wonder if any studies were concluded as to whether people who bought their homes in the previous scheme are still in them.

While all the time the council and housing association queues grow due to a shortage in homes for those that need them most. The whole system needs a massive overhaul and IMO this was not the way to do it.

[ik9000]

I look at this a different way. What if a private renter had a "right to buy". So why should a council or housing association tenant benefit in what is quite literally a discriminatory process.

I wonder if any studies were concluded as to whether people who bought their homes in the previous scheme are still in them.

While all the time the council and housing association queues grow due to a shortage in homes for those that need them most. The whole system needs a massive overhaul and IMO this was not the way to do it.

too right. So person A works, earns enough to not qualify for council housing. Has to rent privately, and after 10 years of employment finally scrapes enough together to mortgage themselves to the hilt... but person b does not very much, gets subsidised housing for popping sproggs when they can't afford to raise them properly, and then somehow gets "the right" to buy their property at a discount - and after receiving lots of free benefit in the form of maintenance etc from the council in the meantime. I am baffled how this stems from a Thatcher policy as it seems so far removed from Tory grassroots as you can get!

[scaryjim]

... I am baffled how this stems from a Thatcher policy ...

Key misunderstanding of the original point of Council Housing? it was originally intended to provide affordable housing for local workers and families, and was assigned based on community involvement and family, not on "need". It was the 70's Labour governments who introduced the concept of allocating council housing on a need basis.

Thatcher was all about aspiration, and home ownership is very much an aspirational thing, while council housing had become a social, welfare thing. So, a lot of the people who got the original right to buy had worked hard, were long-standing members of a local community, and had been persuaded that part of being aspirational and middle class was home ownership. By helping them buy their property Thatcher got people hooked on to the concept of home ownership being desirable, and cleared housing stock out of local authority control.

In the mean time, she also deregulated the private rental sector, which inflated the housing market as renting out privately owned properties could suddenly become very profitable for unscrupulous landlords. It was an amazing piece of economic manipulation; increase the desire for home ownership, allow a lot of your ageing, hard-working population on to the housing ladder, then stoke a huge inflation in the price of a now-desirable commodity.