Anna Glypta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 A tenfold profit is a poor return if the expected ROI over that period through renting housing is a twenty fold profit. There's nothing twisted about it, the problem is that you've no idea how an organisation or business should be looking at it's investments. By comparison with gold they have had a poor return on the investment, but gold is a risky investment and they are obliged to provide a service which requires them to invest in housing... Given that they're obliged to provide that service, selling off the means to do so seems to be rather foolish. You've got a really weird way of looking at house sales. If a BTL landlord sells up, and they sell for less than they purchased the house, do you think they consider that to be a profit? Is it even likely that they'd accept a sale at significantly under the market value, of course not because they want to maximise their return. The sale of the house is completely separate to any amount of money made through renting it, and even that money isn't a good return on the investment. So the house generates a lower than market rate of return throughout it's lifetime of rental, and is then sold off below market value at the end. The council consistently make a poor return on the money they had to invest. Those who can afford to go out and buy private should do so now, or at least should be offered no discount on buying a council house. I'm not sure you actually bother to read entire posts, I've said several times that I'd changed my mind and that the RTB would be acceptable if it was modified to ensure that the houses were replaced. The problem with it is the reduction in social housing, that can be solved without completely scrapping it. Making a profit or a loss on any house is irrelevant unless you take into account how much it would have cost to live elsewhere. Buying an ex-council house is the first and only possible first step for many buyers. They can live in a property for a few years whilst saving what they would have paid in rent, and use it as a stepping stone to something better. In that respect they are probably one of the best buys on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Those who can afford to go out and buy private should do so now, or at least should be offered no discount on buying a council house. I'm not sure you actually bother to read entire posts, I've said several times that I'd changed my mind and that the RTB would be acceptable if it was modified to ensure that the houses were replaced. The problem with it is the reduction in social housing, that can be solved without completely scrapping it. How many council houses would need to be sold (given the discounts) to enable councils to build one new one? Another way could be to suspend the RTB where a serious need for social housing can be demonstrated. If the tide turns in the future it can be reinstated. For instance in Aberdeen it has been suspended for 10 years in places designated with 'Pressured Area Status'. Tenants were consulted, and the council can reinstate if the situation changes. Sheffield council is desperately short of social housing (if the numbers on their housing register are to be believed), so perhaps ought to consider it. Not sure our government would agree though! For info: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/CouncilNews/ci_cns/pr_pressured_area_220512.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 That's the problem MsM, I don't think they should ever apply a discount that meant that they couldn't build a replacement house. The lowest sale price should be the cost to replace the house being sold. Yes, that seems like a logical thing to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Making a profit or a loss on any house is irrelevant unless you take into account how much it would have cost to live elsewhere. The council as an organisation doesn't live anywhere, so the ROI for housing doesn't have to include the cost of living anywhere... Buying an ex-council house is the first and only possible first step for many buyers. Buying an ex-council house is only tangentially related to the RTB. They can live in a property for a few years whilst saving what they would have paid in rent, and use it as a stepping stone to something better. In that respect they are probably one of the best buys on the market. That would be buying a council house, not an ex-council house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Those who can afford to go out and buy private should do so now, or at least should be offered no discount on buying a council house. And who are these people who would turn down the opportunity to buy their own house at a discount (having paid rent for years and years)? Not me. Not you, as you have already admitted you would do the same, not anybody of any sense, maybe a wannabe Mother Teresa or the insane? A tenfold profit is a poor return if the expected ROI over that period through renting housing is a twenty fold profit. There's nothing twisted about it, the problem is that you've no idea how an organisation or business should be looking at it's investments. By comparison with gold they have had a poor return on the investment, but gold is a risky investment and they are obliged to provide a service which requires them to invest in housing... Given that they're obliged to provide that service, selling off the means to do so seems to be rather foolish. You've got a really weird way of looking at house sales. If a BTL landlord sells up, and they sell for less than they purchased the house, do you think they consider that to be a profit? Is it even likely that they'd accept a sale at significantly under the market value, of course not because they want to maximise their return. A tenfold profit is a tenfold profit, it is not a bad investment, particularly when making a profit was not the main objective. The sale of the house is completely separate to any amount of money made through renting it, and even that money isn't a good return on the investment. So the house generates a lower than market rate of return throughout it's lifetime of rental, and is then sold off below market value at the end. The council consistently make a poor return on the money they had to invest. No it isn't. The council's main objective is not to try to follow Lord Sugar but to provide a service. With the money gained in rental and sales they are free to build more properties. As I said before it is a potential win/win. I'm not sure you actually bother to read entire posts, I've said several times that I'd changed my mind and that the RTB would be acceptable if it was modified to ensure that the houses were replaced. The problem with it is the reduction in social housing, that can be solved without completely scrapping it. That makes sense only it would add a hell of a lot of extra complications and delays. As it is we have been waiting 9 month since the first valuation (longer since applying) and the process is far from complete, in fact we have not even signed the mortgage application yet. That's over 3k in extra rent while we have waited and god knows how much more until completion, so I would hate to have a load of extra strings to get through - the council aren't going to pick up any speeding tickets that's for sure, utter shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Buying up council houses should not be allowed in the first place, whole thing is a mess. House up the road was a council house, now suddenly is being rented out to a "lady of the night" with all sorts coming over. Not very nice for the elderly folk living up there I tell thi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 There's a massive difference between the right to apply and the right to have. Having social housing is not a right. You originally stated; "social housing is not a right" And I replied: "Yes it is as anybody, given a few exceptions, has the right to apply for one." Then you agreed; "Applying for social housing is a right (at the moment), having such a house is not or everybody who applied would get one." Then I said; "Glad you agree" Then you replied; "I'm not sure you understood my point. Applying doesn't guarantee that you will get it. So the right to apply can exist forever, but hopefully the right to actually be granted social housing will be restricted to those that actually need it." The I replied; "But I do understand your point, the fact is though it is still a right that everyone can exercise and just because there is no guarantee that you would get one doesn't detract from the fact that it is right. One that is also regulated by law." Then you said; "Nobody has ever disputed that though. Social housing is not a right." Then I pointed out this: "Yes it is as anybody, given a few exceptions, has the right to apply for one." And then you said; "There's a massive difference between the right to apply and the right to have. Having social housing is not a right." What was being discussed was the right to apply and not the right to have as you well know, so stop trying to twist the words to suit your agenda and stick to answering what was originally written. I think the comment twisted logic was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 There's a massive difference between the right to apply and the right to have Yes. The RTB is a statutory right. But no-one has an inherent right to 'have' (= acquire) anything; the right has to arise somehow, e.g. granted by statute law. Once one acquires anything, one does then have a right to it- as that's what 'ownership' means. OK? Distinguish between right and privilege. Start by reading Hohfeld's analysis (it's not too hard to follow!) here: http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 There's a massive difference between the right to apply and the right to have Yes. The RTB is a statutory right. But no-one has an inherent right to 'have' (= acquire) anything; the right has to arise somehow, e.g. granted by statute law. Once one acquires anything, one does then have a right to it- as that's what 'ownership' means. OK? Distinguish between right and privilege. Start by reading Hohfeld's analysis (it's not too hard to follow!) here: http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld I agree, and its particularly pertinent to this discussion as the Right to Buy is not available to people who have been unable to get a council tenancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 as the Right to Buy is not available to people who have been unable to get a council tenancy. Er, it is. RTB applies to most public-sector landlords' properties. A public-sector tenant (even if L is not a Local Housing Authority) can use all such public-sector-tenancy periods as a basis for claiming RTB discount. There are a few statutory exceptions, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.