Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Conan Troutman, Jul 12, 2017.
Not always that simple
No - it's not always that simple for your one property landlord either, who has decided to go for bricks and mortar rather than the stock exchange for a pension, who get tenants who wreck the place and then naff off owing rent.
I am 100% against the right to buy policy; it is wrong on every level in my opinion but how much blame for this situation is apportioned to the government and how much is apportioned to those who benefited from social housing, bought the property at below market rate, then sell on to make a profit?
It seems that all sorts of people can dip in and out of Thatcherism when it serves their purpose.
I know that not all privately rented properties are ex council homes but I wonder how many ex council homes have ended up in the hands of private landlords.
The value of investments can go down as well as up
So has the right to buy policy been wrong from day one?
Well I beg to differ.
You must therefore mean that my dad, who had by the time he bought it, and had paid in rent 3 or 4 times over its actual value , should not have been allowed to buy the house, release the council from the burden of repairing it, and thereafter put money into making it look something to be proud of ?
Perhaps only the rich can dip into Thatcherism. We ought to keep the lesser sorts down where they belong eh?
I'm glad that you embrace the concept of investment.
Well seeing as I don't know your Dad then I don't think I can mean him - I'm not singling out an individual, I'm commenting generally on a policy I think should never have been introduced.
I don't agree with right to buy on any level; social housing should be for those who can't afford to buy a property of their own. The argument you have applied to your Dad could equally be applied to somebody who has rented privately for years - the key difference is that they would have to pay full market value. This is going off topic slightly because the point I'm making is that social housing should never have been sold off.
I have no issue with people having aspiration, quite the opposite really so not sure how you have taken only the rich should dip into Thatcherism from my comments? If you read any of my politically related posts you'll be in no doubt about my views in this regard.
R2B was completely flawed with no eye on the future and it has served up a lot of the problems in terms of Housing that we have today. It's intention I guess was to make Thatcherite aspirational working class people regardless of it's impact on the nation. Quite possibly the most expensive and disastrous policy, both in financial and human terms, in the last 40 years.
Sent from my iPad using Barnsley FC BBS Fans Forum
Your friends have not sought advice, or have been poorly advised.
If they contact environmental health the council will send out an assessor, who will list basically everything wrong with the property from a health and safety perspective, track the Landlord and provide them with the list of improvements.
If the Landlord doesn't make the improvements, the council will do it them themselves, at an inflated cost. Not only do the council do this reactively, they are proactively leafleting some of the less good areas in Wombwell, Town centre & Goldthorpe asking tenants what is wrong with their houses, which is a good thing in my opinion. These same areas they are leafleting will most likely have selective licensing enforced by this time next year.
The Landlord from your stories policy of 'don't like it move out' is what's known as a 'retaliatory notice' which is illegal now. If anyone actually wants any advice on anything to do with rental property PM me!
I don't see how this would free up any social housing stock whatsoever. The council are not buying properties, or building them.
Nor have I ever heard of an investor purchasing a council property direct from the council in Barnsley/surrounding in recent years.
I think it would free up social housing stock because people who currently are forced to rent a council home would be able to buy the much cheaper houses instead.
Why do people always say 'he had paid to rent it so deserves it cheap'.
Logically that means if I rent from a private landlord I should be able to force them to sell it to me for next to nothing after
Really and how does that work? I am a second home owner (it was my wife's parents home)- which is let out on a long term let. Actually at below the rate we could get if we chose to increase the rents - but we dont want to make it hard for the existing renters. If you increased the tax on it all that would happen is the rent would have to increase or we sell - but that would mean the current occupants would need to be kicked out - not sure how that benefits anyone. The problem as always is there are many decent landlords who charge reasonable rents for property - but a sizeable minority are exploiting the system and they are the ones that make the headlines. "Nice landlord doesn't increase the rent for 3rd successive year doesn't make the front page of the daily express"
It would help because it would mean another home available to purchase.
If there are 25m properties in the UK and 25m households then there is one each. The price surely drops and people can own their own home giving them assurances and control over their own life.
If there are 25m properties in the UK with 10m of them owned by private landlords that only leaves 15m available to buy which pushes the price up significantly forcing the poor out of the property market.
You only have to look at the ridiculous property prices in London, it isn't because more people live in London than there are homes, it's because people have more than one property significantly reducing supply and forcing prices up
But not everyone wants to or can afford to purchase homes. We deliberately chose not to sell so we could rent the house at a reasonable rate - its in a seaside resort so we could rent it out much higher as a holiday let. The current owners would not be in a position to buy the house so if everyone sold where would they live. You need a rental market and a home buyers market. The fundamental problem is the fact that Thatcher sold off council housing and refused to allow the proceeds of the sales to be used to build more. Increasing taxes on private landlords will just force rents still higher
You can't get cheaper than purchasing a council home if you already live there.
I think there's a misconception that investors in this area drive values up, whereas if you think of a street of terraces and investor will not pay the 'going rate' for one of these. This, in actuality, drives the value down. A good example is if you own say, the nicest two bedroom terraced house on princess street in town, your only likely purchaser is an investor, a first time buyer will not buy on there because it's a bit rough. And an investor will only pay in line with the rent he can achieve...
I know two people who rent from their council, have sub-let the property and live in large houses that the bought from the rent paid to them. One of the guys ( in Fife) has now three houses he sends out excluding the council house.
Not an expert on council rent T&C's but surely that must contravene them If someone is renting a council house and then subletting then they should have their agreement terminated.
My Private rent agreement prohibits subletting and I know the current occupiers are not doing it, I'd "evict" them if they were
The problem with Right to Buy was not offering people the opportunity to take older social housing properties away from the councils and give tenants the opportunity to buy a place of their own. The problem was not investing all of the money made in building new social housing properties. If going back 40 years R2B had been on a one-out one-built basis we would probably not have any of the problems we have now with housing.
THE BARNSLEY FC
BBS FANS FORUM
Separate names with a comma.