Extension of Right To Buy Scheme

[Mr Bloom]

Like Bob Crow, who was the General Secretary the RMT and earnt £145,000pa while still living in his council house paying just £150 a week rent.

 

Until social housing is for people who need it, its always going to fail to provide the support its meant too.

 

Exactly, and someone who can afford to buy, doesn't need it, do they?

 

Or are people happy with plundering the public purse yet again to furnish the private sector with wholesale bargains for them to profit from?

 

Let's not forget, as well, as soon as interest rates rise rapidly, many of these properties will fall in to the hands of the bank.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mr Bloom

[Berberis]

Exactly, and someone who can afford to buy, doesn't need it, do they?

 

Or are people happy with plundering the public purse yet again to furnish the private sector?

 

I firmly believe social housing should be for people who need it. But as, by the example I gave (which is extreme I know) some people do not. Maybe a large proportion do not need it, but rather then turfing them out and putting even more pressure on the private sector rents (read higher rents per month for all), allowing these people to buy their property enables them to take ownership. This not only creates a wealth of low prices housing, it also takes away the burden of maintenance from the councils and housing associations.

[Grandad.Malky]

This not only creates a wealth of low prices housing, it also takes away the burden of maintenance from the councils and housing associations.

 

The main point being .. it takes stock from social housing that will never be replaced meaning more money for private landlords.

[geared]

The main point being .. it takes stock from social housing that will never be replaced meaning more money for private landlords.

 

It will never be replaced because the cash from the sales is piddled up the wall.

 

The original idea was sell off the old stock and use the proceeds to build new.

Old housing stock is abit of a headache for councils, it needs regular maintenance and periodic overhauls. both which need an army of workmen to attend to.

 

New builds require much less maintenance and won't need an overhaul for a good decade unless there is damage.

 

Problem is all the money from the sale of the housing stock was chucked away on other projects and few new housing was built.

[PeteMorris]

It will never be replaced because the cash from the sales is piddled up the wall.

 

The original idea was sell off the old stock and use the proceeds to build new.

Old housing stock is abit of a headache for councils, it needs regular maintenance and periodic overhauls. both which need an army of workmen to attend to.

 

New builds require much less maintenance and won't need an overhaul for a good decade unless there is damage.

 

Problem is all the money from the sale of the housing stock was chucked away on other projects and few new housing was built.

 

I can't remember exactly, but wasn't there some kind of clause where the government wouldn't allow the councils to spend the proceeds from the sale of council houses to build new ones?....Or it might just be my imagination

[geared]

I can't remember exactly, but wasn't there some kind of clause where the government wouldn't allow the councils to spend the proceeds from the sale of council houses to build new ones?....Or it might just be my imagination

 

I'm not sure, would have to look into it now you mention it.

I thought the opposite but could be well wrong.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 11:46 ----------

 

No you're quite right, I'm all confused.

 

Half the proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes.

The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England. This trend was exacerbated by a government imposed ban on local authorities using their revenues from council house sales to fund new housing

Edited April 14, 2015 by geared

[PeteMorris]

I'm not sure, would have to look into it now you mention it.

I thought the opposite but could be well wrong.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 11:46 ----------

 

No you're quite right, I'm all confused.

 

Speaks volumes doesn't it?.....I'm pleased I actually remembered that <smug grin>....hahaha

[Anna B]

there's nothing wrong with selling these houses as long as the money is ploughed back into building more houses.

 

The discount needs looking at. Maybe there is other help you could give the home buyer rather than a discount. Or maybe make the time in residence longer before you qualify.

[PeteMorris]

there's nothing wrong with selling these houses as long as the money is ploughed back into building more houses.

 

The discount needs looking at. Maybe there is other help you could give the home buyer rather than a discount. Or maybe make the time in residence longer before you qualify.

 

Yes, but....(gawd..sound like a teen)....Going on past evidence, that definitely wasn't the case!

[truman]

Yes, but....(gawd..sound like a teen)....Going on past evidence, that definitely wasn't the case!

 

According to the Tory manifesto the houses bought under the new scheme would have to be replaced on a one for one basis..