All Right To Buy's should be stopped

[annbaker]

http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.%5CReports%5C230311cabrp6.doc

 

See 3.6

Also see 10.4

 

Thanks for sharing this. Most interesting but as with all these things leads to more questions. The format of the document is basically what I'd know as a business case but there are some pretty big omissions in terms of what I'd expect to see which are by their very omission a bit suspicious.

 

Para 3.6 is interesting in that previously they'd kept the freehold. I don't know the area but was there anything in particular wrong with this site e.g. was it over old mine workings ?

 

A capital loss of £1.73m is not to be sniffed at which is why I smell a rat!

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 21:58 ----------

 

I've just asked my daughter's boyfriend who lived in Thorne. His understanding is that the land in question did have problems - waterlogging being the big one. That being the case it would have cost a small fortune to fix (more than £1.73m) so may answer the question as to why it was given away.

[The Joker]

Doncaster Council bought 72 houses last year to replenish their stock. This reduces the number of cheaper end houses available to first time buyers (arguably pushing up prices by reducing supply). They also gave away numerous parcels of land to housing associations to build more houses to house council tenants. They also built a number of houses themselves.

 

I don't think Donny built that many council houses last year at all; in another post on a similar topic, it was reported that both Donny and Baaaaarnsley had built a grand total of just 9.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11029133#post11029133

[kidneystone]

What I find quite ironic as the right to buy scheme was pretty much down to the Iron Lady herself however a large percentage of those that bought their council houses were miners! Now I wonder if they'd mind handing the houses or the profits back

 

Please tell us what the percentage is and where you got the figures.

[annbaker]

I don't think Donny built that many council houses last year at all; in another post on a similar topic, it was reported that both Donny and Baaaaarnsley had built a grand total of just 9.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11029133#post11029133

 

Lil minx didn't say built tho. Said 'bought'. The land referred to in the link posted has been built on. The fact it floods regularly would suggest the council wanted rid of a white elephant

[Cyclone]

They had no value because they mostly cost more to manage than the rent being paid, and the only people they could get away with selling to was the tenants, and they mostly wouldn't bought them if not for the discount.

 

If that were true then it would be a good decision.

 

Council houses routinely and easily sell on the open market for full value though, so the council could have just put them on rightmove.

I doubt that it costs more to manage than the rent brings in either. As a large landlord they had massive economies of scale, and the only houses that sold were to the tenants with the ability to get mortgages, so not the financially inept.

[loraward]

If that were true then it would be a good decision.

 

Council houses routinely and easily sell on the open market for full value though, so the council could have just put them on rightmove.

Would they evict the tenant first.

 

I doubt that it costs more to manage than the rent brings in either. As a large landlord they had massive economies of scale, and the only houses that sold were to the tenants with the ability to get mortgages, so not the financially inept.

 

You forget we are talking about councils, it costs them a fortune to do just about everything. Benefits claimant could get mortgages for council right to buy. I know of someone that hadn't paid a penny in rent but still secured a good discount and a mortgage, and because they was claiming benefits they got help with their mortgage payments.

[harvey19]

If councils do not want to own and manage large housing stocks their are 2 courses of action.

1 Build no new houses or very few to rent.

2 Get rid of their present housing stock. If these houses are occupied the question is what to do with the present tenants who probably could not afford to save up for the deposit on a private house whilst paying council rent.

The solution is to sell them their present home at an attractive price which they can afford.

[poppet2]

If councils do not want to own and manage large housing stocks their are 2 courses of action.

1 Build no new houses or very few to rent.

2 Get rid of their present housing stock. If these houses are occupied the question is what to do with the present tenants who probably could not afford to save up for the deposit on a private house whilst paying council rent.

The solution is to sell them their present home at an attractive price which they can afford.

 

In London those tenants who have exercised their RTB, have many years later found the council have decided to demolish the estate their flat is in, and these people are left with little compensation from their compulsory purchase and unable to obtain a mortgage or buy in London.

[harvey19]

In London those tenants who have exercised their RTB, have many years later found the council have decided to demolish the estate their flat is in, and these people are left with little compensation from their compulsory purchase and unable to obtain a mortgage or buy in London.

 

Relevant facts and figures are needed rather than a sweeping statement before

this can be used to oppose house sales.

[Cyclone]

In London those tenants who have exercised their RTB, have many years later found the council have decided to demolish the estate their flat is in, and these people are left with little compensation from their compulsory purchase and unable to obtain a mortgage or buy in London.

 

A compulsory purchase means that they'll have been paid market rate for the property. Which if it's years after they've exercised the RTB will have netted them a tidy profit.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2015 at 11:33 ----------

 

Would they evict the tenant first.

Good point. But, if it's a rent paying tenant then they're making a profit, and if it's not then RTB is unlikely to be exercised. So they only ever lose out by selling the houses at a discount (not that the councils ever had any choice in the matter).

 

 

 

You forget we are talking about councils, it costs them a fortune to do just about everything. Benefits claimant could get mortgages for council right to buy. I know of someone that hadn't paid a penny in rent but still secured a good discount and a mortgage, and because they was claiming benefits they got help with their mortgage payments.

 

This is historical I assume? Under what scheme did they get help to pay their mortgage?