A word of warning on buying council houses

[Tom Bailey]

This is spot on ... I wouldn't touch one with barge pole! When someone decent moves on, the situation changes overnight and can very often be a living hell! Even in the more affluent areas like Totley and Dore, the council estates such as Totley Brook are no go areas ... this one known to local police as the compound!

Quite right, you wouldn't want to become Ghettoised.:hihi:

[Benedictine]

Don't kid yourself that the housing boom helped anyone. I've just moved, the new house cost 2.5 * what the old one cost. Think for yourself whether I'd prefer that to be 2.5* the original cost or 2.5* the value today.

 

But you sold your old one at the same market rate, so it is even. I know that given the choice I would have rather paid 50K for house that is now worth 100k, than 100k for a house that is worth 50k, that's my situation but you still begrudge me that.

Maybe, but by taking advantage of that opportunity (which has existed for longer than the 'golden' mortgages you've missed out on, you will deprive the state and some future person who needs social housing of that house.

 

Or I will help to open up the private market by adding another property, should I sell later on, a property that will be at the foot of the market and attractive to first time buyers or people looking to downsize.

 

No it isn't. It's only good for people who own more than one house or can downsize. It's simply not good for the vast majority of homeowners.

 

Why? You are free to leave any time, buy a bigger house, get a bigger mortgage. Haven’t got the money? Then increase income or cut expenditure. Wasn’t that your advice to council tenants?

 

I don't think I criticised. You were suggesting that people in council housing can't home to buy a house privately and I disagree, you're the one being negative about them.

 

Yes you did whether you meant to or not. I could go back and list it but there’s little point.

 

At least we agree now that social housing is subsidised, and it's for this reason that I don't think there should be the additional subsidy and loss to the state of selling it to tenants. It's removing it from the use of future tenants, who you've just pointed out will continue to exist due to the nature of our society.

 

And opening up movement in the private market... And of course the council are free to build a few more properties with the profits of the sales if they wish = win/win.

 

The bottom line is that you (and other RTB deniers) are simply jealous that people like me are getting a discount on their property whereas you didn’t, even though if you were in the same situation as me you would do exactly the same thing, that’s called hypocrisy.

[Cyclone]

But you sold your old one at the same market rate, so it is even. I know that given the choice I would have rather paid 50K for house that is now worth 100k, than 100k for a house that is worth 50k, that's my situation but you still begrudge me that.

It's not even, it's nothing like even.

 

Prices a decade ago for example.

House cost 100k, new house cost 250k, difference 150k to pay.

Today, all prices are about 2.5 times.

House sold for 250k, new house cost 625k, difference to pay 375k.

 

The difference for anyone trading up is 2.5 to 3 times what it was a decade ago, and incomes haven't changed by anything like that.

 

I don't begrudge you buying a private house, go for it, you have my blessing.

 

 

Or I will help to open up the private market by adding another property, should I sell later on, a property that will be at the foot of the market and attractive to first time buyers or people looking to downsize.

Still won't be available to people who need social housing will it.

 

 

 

Why? You are free to leave any time, buy a bigger house, get a bigger mortgage. Haven’t got the money? Then increase income or cut expenditure. Wasn’t that your advice to council tenants?

I didn't claim that I was trapped (like you did), I just said that it wasn't good for anyone. The example at the start of this post explains why.

 

 

Yes you did whether you meant to or not. I could go back and list it but there’s little point.

If you're not going to prove it then I'm going to stick with the assertion that I didn't do it.

 

 

And opening up movement in the private market... And of course the council are free to build a few more properties with the profits of the sales if they wish = win/win.

Except that they won't make a profit because it's sold to you so cheaply.

 

If it were sold at a rate sufficient to replace it then I don't suppose there'd be much complaint to be made (if they did replace it).

 

The bottom line is that you (and other RTB deniers)

I think you're trying to misappropriate a media term for people who deny that something exists/happens. I know full well that RTB exists and I think the policy should probably be scrapped.

are simply jealous that people like me are getting a discount on their property

Not at all, I'm concerned at the waste of the tax money and the reduction in social housing.

whereas you didn’t, even though if you were in the same situation as me you would do exactly the same thing, that’s called hypocrisy.

It would be called hypocrisy if I did actually do it, but since I haven't it isn't.

[Benedictine]

It's not even, it's nothing like even.

 

Prices a decade ago for example.

House cost 100k, new house cost 250k, difference 150k to pay.

Today, all prices are about 2.5 times.

House sold for 250k, new house cost 625k, difference to pay 375k.

 

The difference for anyone trading up is 2.5 to 3 times what it was a decade ago, and incomes haven't changed by anything like that.

 

Well then the house market could definitely do with new property to ease the market.

I don't begrudge you buying a private house, go for it, you have my blessing.

 

As long as the property I happen to be in wasn't built by the council (80 years ago).

 

Still won't be available to people who need social housing will it.

 

It will because it will help to ease the market overall. The council are free to build more houses with the money if they so choose. There is plenty of spare council land doing nothing but weeding over, I say sell more, build more and create jobs in the process.

 

but looking I didn't claim that I was trapped (like you did), I just said that it wasn't good for anyone. The example at the start of this post explains why.

 

OK, but I bet many people are and you can now see how your ‘advise’ previously was not helpful. If one of your neighbours or family members felt trapped in such a way I bet you wouldn’t tell them to work harder.

 

If you're not going to prove it then I'm going to stick with the assertion that I didn't do it.

 

No, I can’t be bothered, quite frankly, to trace back over 4/5 pages of ‘them’, ‘I worked hard…’etc, etc (implying that people in 'subsidised council rented accommodation' didn't) and ‘increase income, cut expenditure’ nonsense, I don’t really care about it anyway.

 

Except that they won't make a profit because it's sold to you so cheaply.

 

Except that they haven’t sold it ‘so cheaply’ I’m sure you’re ignoring half of my posts. The council will have received from me (not including the bank’s cut of course) around 85k. That’s 85k for a property currently valued at £62,500, that’s a profit of over 20k, at current values, which more than takes into account repairs. If you consider, again, that the property was built 80 odd years ago, it has netted the council quite a sum over the years.

 

If it were sold at a rate sufficient to replace it then I don't suppose there'd be much complaint to be made (if they did replace it).

 

See above.

 

I think you're trying to misappropriate a media term for people who deny that something exists/happens. I know full well that RTB exists and I think the policy should probably be scrapped.

 

That’s your opinion, but seeing as you have had no direct experience of being in council property and clearly only scraps of Daily Mail/The Sun headlines hearsay on the RTB process, maybe you’re not best placed to make that judgement?

 

Not at all, I'm concerned at the waste of the tax money and the reduction in social housing.

 

Why? What are you concerned for? You think people buying council houses at above market value is costing the tax payers money? Can you not think of any other areas where tax payers are genuinely losing out, like those huge corporations who are paying 1% tax for instance?

 

It would be called hypocrisy if I did actually do it, but since I haven't it isn't.

 

No, but if you was in my situation you would do exactly the same thing and why shouldn’t you?

 

Another thought is of course that because you got your houses so cheaply, maybe you should have to pay more money to the struggling banks, who clearly got the wrong end of some mortgage deals. Or you could donate some to the tax payer…

[laineyiow]

In the 70's/80's I and my then husband lived in a Council house. We had the option to buy under the RTB scheme. We made enquiries and were going through the motions when my OH was made redundant. We then decided to use some of his redundancy money to buy a house in the "private sector" and to be honest I am so glad we did as we were able to buy a much better house than the one we were living in at the time.

 

That was, of course, in the days when property wasn't sky high and before deposits required a mortgage in themselves!

 

But, I have to say had it not been for my hubby being made redundant we most probably would have bought the Council house as it would have been the only way we would have got onto the property ladder.

 

The only thing I have against RTB is the fact that Central Government took all the money and didn't give it back to the Councils thereby allowing them to build new properties.

[Cyclone]

Well then the house market could definitely do with new property to ease the market.

So you're not concerned about how you'll be reducing the stock of social housing. In fact you're just going to pretend it won't happen and ignore the issue all together?

 

As long as the property I happen to be in wasn't built by the council (80 years ago).

As long as you pay full price for it.

 

 

 

It will because it will help to ease the market overall. The council are free to build more houses with the money if they so choose. There is plenty of spare council land doing nothing but weeding over, I say sell more, build more and create jobs in the process.

Except with the discount you won't be paying them enough to build a new house.

 

 

 

OK, but I bet many people are and you can now see how your ‘advise’ previously was not helpful. If one of your neighbours or family members felt trapped in such a way I bet you wouldn’t tell them to work harder.

I would still argue against council housing being called a trap.

 

 

No, I can’t be bothered, quite frankly, to trace back over 4/5 pages of ‘them’, ‘I worked hard…’etc, etc (implying that people in 'subsidised council rented accommodation' didn't) and ‘increase income, cut expenditure’ nonsense, I don’t really care about it anyway.

I didn't, but if you don't care then you'll be happy to accept that.

 

 

Except that they haven’t sold it ‘so cheaply’

Yes, they have, that's why a discount is applied. What do you think discount means?

I’m sure you’re ignoring half of my posts. The council will have received from me (not including the bank’s cut of course) around 85k. That’s 85k for a property currently valued at £62,500, that’s a profit of over 20k, at current values, which more than takes into account repairs. If you consider, again, that the property was built 80 odd years ago, it has netted the council quite a sum over the years.

Completely irrelevant. If it's sold today with a discount to you (or anyone) then it has clearly been sold cheaply as the council is not getting the return it could if it were sold at market value.

 

 

 

That’s your opinion, but seeing as you have had no direct experience of being in council property and clearly only scraps of Daily Mail/The Sun headlines hearsay on the RTB process, maybe you’re not best placed to make that judgement?

Surely these papers are most commonly read by council house tenants?

 

 

 

Why? What are you concerned for? You think people buying council houses at above market value is costing the tax payers money? Can you not think of any other areas where tax payers are genuinely losing out, like those huge corporations who are paying 1% tax for instance?

Are you suggesting that I'm only allowed to dislike one thing at a time?

Of course I'm concerned about large companies avoiding paying their tax, that doesn't mean I can't dislike the RTB policy as well.

 

 

 

No, but if you was in my situation you would do exactly the same thing and why shouldn’t you?

From a personal point of view you're quite correct, I'm not suggesting that any individual shouldn't exercise the right they've been given.

I am suggesting that the RTB should be ended because it's a mistake.

 

Another thought is of course that because you got your houses so cheaply, maybe you should have to pay more money to the struggling banks, who clearly got the wrong end of some mortgage deals. Or you could donate some to the tax payer…

I'm not sure that makes any sense, my house wasn't cheap, it was just less expensive than it is today and I have just paid the government a large chunk of stamp duty.

[Benedictine]

Except with the discount you won't be paying them enough to build a new house.

 

Yes, they have, that's why a discount is applied. What do you think discount means?

 

Completely irrelevant. If it's sold today with a discount to you (or anyone) then it has clearly been sold cheaply as the council is not getting the return it could if it were sold at market value.

 

Weird. The council have/will have received ABOVE market value for my property (85k, for value 62,000K) and that is 'completely irrelevant?' I'm just wasting my time here.

So you're not concerned about how you'll be reducing the stock of social housing. In fact you're just going to pretend it won't happen and ignore the issue all together?

 

As I said previously: It will because it will help to ease the market overall. The council are free to build more houses with the money if they so choose. There is plenty of spare council land doing nothing but weeding over, I say sell more, build more and create jobs in the process.

 

There are also Housing Association properties available for people who need them.

 

I would still argue against council housing being called a trap.

Does that mean you wouldn't tell your neighbour or family member to work harder if they felt trapped in house inflation you described?

 

Surely these papers are most commonly read by council house tenants?

More generalisations attacking people who live in council property.

From a personal point of view you're quite correct, I'm not suggesting that any individual shouldn't exercise the right they've been given.

I am suggesting that the RTB should be ended because it's a mistake.

Well at least you wouldn't pretend otherwise like the poster earlier.

[Cyclone]

Weird. The council have/will have received ABOVE market value for my property (85k, for value 62,000K) and that is 'completely irrelevant?' I'm just wasting my time here.

No they won't. If you purchase your property it will be at the market value with a large discount applied.

Past rent that you've paid is not part of the value they'll get from selling you the house.

 

As I said previously: It will because it will help to ease the market overall. The council are free to build more houses with the money if they so choose.

Which as I previously said would assuage any concerns about the sale, so long as the sale price was sufficient to replace the house sold.

There is plenty of spare council land doing nothing but weeding over, I say sell more, build more and create jobs in the process.

If it's true then I agree.

 

There are also Housing Association properties available for people who need them.

This is just another branch of social housing, it doesn't alter anything.

 

 

Does that mean you wouldn't tell your neighbour or family member to work harder if they felt trapped in house inflation you described?

I'd probably try to be more helpful rather than just stating the obvious. I might help them investigate how they could improve their income through training or moving jobs.

 

 

More generalisations attacking people who live in council property.

You were happy to attack me by implying that I read them... But you don't like it when I turn it around:suspect:

[Benedictine]

No they won't. If you purchase your property it will be at the market value with a large discount applied. Past rent that you've paid is not part of the value they'll get from selling you the house.

 

Of course it is, they will have got 85k for a 62k house, that's not a bad bargain for them in my book. Not to mention the money in rent for 70 years previously...Did you pay over the market value for yours?

This is just another branch of social housing, it doesn't alter anything.

 

The Housing Association is basically a large private landlord. It's another avenue for people to rent. People can't purchase Housing Association houses even though many have been led to believe they could.

 

Also your 'subsidising' business of council Vs private rent, failed to take into account the fact that council houses are not fully furnished like the majority of private counterparts. This is fairly reflected in the price difference.

 

You were happy to attack me by implying that I read them... But you don't like it when I turn it around

 

I didn't attack a whole segment of the population, rather I reasoned that some of your points appeared to tally with headlines found in such papers.

[Cyclone]

No they haven't... They've been renting out a house and have made less than the market rate for that.

They then sell the house to you for less than market rate.

 

They may have made a profit on the entire thing, but the profit is smaller than it should have been due to both the rent and the sale being subsidised by the taxpayer.

It's clearly not an efficient use of a state resource to sell it off cheaply just because the original cost of building it has been recouped.