Right To Buy HA legal challenge

What a stupid backward ridiculous idea.

 

Please post something sensible

Whats wrong with the idea? For every rented house lost by this stupid policy then surely another house should replace it for those who need rented accommodation? Or is it better somehow for the total available rented stock to diminish eventually to zero?

Whats wrong with the idea? For every rented house lost by this stupid policy then surely another house should replace it for those who need rented accommodation? Or is it better somehow for the total available rented stock to diminish eventually to zero?

You've changed that slightly - my objection was to a private landlord having to build a house having had his/her former house taken off him and sold. It is wrong as far as I can see.

From a point of view of the tenant (owner to be) it is a terrific idea. Having a house compulsorily purchased from the owner (soon to be not the owner) it is plainly wrong.

The diminution of the stock is a misapprehension. the house or flat is still there providing accommodation. It is just in different ownership. There is the same amount of housing, just cause a private person owns it, doesn't mean it disappears into thin air. Surely even a lefty can see that

Not true. Not even close to being true.

 

Trustees of charities are required to act in the best interests of the charity of which they are a trustee. So if a charity exists to provide affordable homes there is little to stop them selling homes at whatever price they choose.

 

I've never heard of Oxfam charging market rate for vacines and food parcels.

housing associations tend to provide housing for rent at affordable rates.

selling their properties off doesn't really help that

in addition, housing associations borrow money against future income from rents. if forced to sell their houses off servicing the loans becomes impossible and they all go bust.

. . .For every rented house lost by this stupid policy then surely another house should replace it for those who need rented accommodation? Or is it better somehow for the total available rented stock to diminish eventually to zero?

It was mentioned on Radio Sheffield earlier this afternoon that hundreds of council houses were sold in Barnsley and Doncaster under the right-to-buy scheme in the last year, but only nine have been built.

It was mentioned on Radio Sheffield earlier this afternoon that hundreds of council houses were sold in Barnsley and Doncaster under the right-to-buy scheme in the last year, but only nine have been built.

But the houses are still there right? Providing accommodation to a family still right? So where is the problem?

But the houses are still there right? Providing accommodation to a family still right? So where is the problem?

There was a man on the news earlier and he appeared to think that once sold the house no longer existed. He couldn't get is head round the fact that even if it wasn't sold it still wasn't available for someone on the social housing waiting list.

The diminution of the stock is a misapprehension. the house or flat is still there providing accommodation. It is just in different ownership. There is the same amount of housing, just cause a private person owns it, doesn't mean it disappears into thin air. Surely even a lefty can see that

it may not disappear into thin air, but it does disappear from the stock of housing available to people at at the bottom of society. anyone aspiring to buy a house should go and buy one and free up the ha property for someone who cant.

given that a significant proportion of ex-council house properties seem to have ended up being rented out then the "owning your own home" reason for this seems a little false. also, as the rents for these properties is likely to be higher than the rents when under council/ha control, the taxpayer will be footing the cost through a higher housing benefit bill

it may not disappear into thin air, but it does disappear from the stock of housing available to people at at the bottom of society. anyone aspiring to buy a house should go and buy one and free up the ha property for someone who cant.

 

given that a significant proportion of ex-council house properties seem to have ended up being rented out then the "owning your own home" reason for this seems a little false. also, as the rents for these properties is likely to be higher than the rents when under council/ha control, the taxpayer will be footing the cost through a higher housing benefit bill

But the tenant that buys it is one of those people from the bottom of society, and its very likley the only way they could ever own their own home instead of renting.

You've changed that slightly - my objection was to a private landlord having to build a house having had his/her former house taken off him and sold. It is wrong as far as I can see.

 

From a point of view of the tenant (owner to be) it is a terrific idea. Having a house compulsorily purchased from the owner (soon to be not the owner) it is plainly wrong.

 

The diminution of the stock is a misapprehension. the house or flat is still there providing accommodation. It is just in different ownership. There is the same amount of housing, just cause a private person owns it, doesn't mean it disappears into thin air. Surely even a lefty can see that

lefty??? I will let that pass as I assume thats your way of trying to put someone down who has the cheek to disagree with you and show you the real world

The amount of RENTED accommodation goes down everytime a rented property is sold off and not replaced. So the amount of housing available to be rented goes down. Even an obsessed tory can see that, or is the definition of rented housing different in the tory world?

---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 21:31 ----------

But the houses are still there right? Providing accommodation to a family still right? So where is the problem?

If someone can afford to buy an house then they should buy one from the plenty that are available to be bought and leave the ones that are designated for rental to those that can only afford to rent. also, what about those who start to buy, find that they cannot afford the repayments and end up giving that house to the bank. Where do they live after your wonderful scheme has run its course, under bridges I suppose?

---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 21:35 ----------

But the tenant that buys it is one of those people from the bottom of society, and its very likley the only way they could ever own their own home instead of renting.

And what do those who cannot afford to own their own home do for housing once those who can afford to own have bought up all the rented stock? I know, its the streets for them, after all they dont count in the brave new btory world do they?

lefty??? I will let that pass as I assume thats your way of trying to put someone down who has the cheek to disagree with you and show you the real world

 

The amount of RENTED accommodation goes down everytime a rented property is sold off and not replaced. So the amount of housing available to be rented goes down. Even an obsessed tory can see that, or is the definition of rented housing different in the tory world?

 

If someone can afford to buy an house then they should buy one from the plenty that are available to be bought and leave the ones that are designated for rental to those that can only afford to rent. also, what about those who start to buy, find that they cannot afford the repayments and end up giving that house to the bank. Where do they live after your wonderful scheme has run its course, under bridges I suppose?

The amount of rental properties goes down but also the number of people wanting to rent goers down. Each rental property sold reduces the number wanting to rent by one. And the people renting are renting because they can't afford the silly prices that were caused by people buying houses to rent out.

---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 21:43 ----------

l

 

And what do those who cannot afford to own their own home do for housing once those who can afford to own have bought up all the rented stock? I know, its the streets for them, after all they dont count in the brave new btory world do they?

What would they do if the house wasn't sold, its not like they can live in it whilst its occupied by a tenant that can't afford to buy an house at today's full market value.