Right to buy gave sector a bad image
Share
In 1957 my family, like many others, left the slums of north London for the brave new world of a new town.
We moved to an estate with 245 families, where the doctor, office worker, factory worker and teacher lived together surrounded by beautiful parkland.
Four different architectural firms had been commissioned to create a mix of housing types and designs – all built to Parker Morris standards. Yes, the doctor had the four-bed detached house. Some people had garages, some didn’t. Some families lived in flats.
What we all had in common was that we rented our houses from the development corporation and we all felt part of the same community. We all went to the same purpose-built comprehensive schools – schools so good that many of us became the first members of our families ever to go to university. No talk of chavs here! The fact that we all lived in social rented housing was just not an issue.
It only became an issue when the right to buy led to the best council houses being snapped up by those who could afford them, and those who could not were left with only the less desirable housing to choose from.
With unemployment and long-term worklessness isolating people even further the ghetto was born – a direct result of housing policy.
The assumption that we should, could or must all be homeowners, and if we are not there is something wrong with us, is a very recent one.
There is nothing wrong with rented housing, there is nothing wrong with being a tenant, there is nothing wrong with mono-tenure estates per se.
But there is everything wrong with concentrating the poorest and most socially disadvantaged people in one place and then blaming them for being there!
Gill Brown, chief executive, Brighter Futures
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
Richard | 01/01/2010 7:17 am
Of course if you choose to rent all your life then when you retire you’ll still be living by the bye-or-leave of another, their idea of fuel efficiency, and insulation and precious little security. Even a modest rent until death at today’s prices will be £168,000 which will probably make you dependant on state benefits such as Council Tax and Housing Benefit unless your pension covers them which reduces your pension to means tested minimum. Each successive generation of your family will inherit no property wealth and therefore lack that social mobility. What your saying smacks very much of John Healy only his reason is “we failed to build homes now I’ve got a massive affordability problem“. Decent landlords, proscription of private landlords would be a start, thinking along the Dutch lines of mixing communities would be another idea, but with all respect what we have had for at least the last 20 years in Britain is open door policy on immigration without the proper infrastructure being put in place, for gods sake Labour PPG3 was to force people into high density city housing with little or no parking and place a moratorium on building where people wanted to live. If you support massive immigration you also support bye-bye green fields, as your home was built on what was once a green field. 20 years of government stupidly! The ostrich with it’s head in the sand.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack Davies | 06/01/2010 5:48 pm
Perhaps you wont be living on a by your leave basis.
Take the example of a social rent of £400 pcm, a private rent of £800 pcm and a mortgage of £1200 - 1500 pcm on a 2-bed property in London.
If you choose to stay in a social rent property you will be paying out £800 - £1000 less per calendar month, or not compounded a saving of about £500k over a lifetime - yes half a million smackers. What a pleasant asset to leave to your children rather than the potential burden of a house.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 07/01/2010 5:02 pm
Richard - absolutely spot on.
Jack Davies - "What a pleasant asset to leave to your children rather than the potential burden of a house"
Err...you are new here aren't you? Are you seriously suggesting that social tenancies can be left to children? You seriously need to wise up and read the law on allocation. Children have absolutely no right to inherit the social tenancy of their parents. In most cases they are booted out by the RSL when the parents die. Check out past forum posts eg
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ForumThread.aspx?threadcode=181&PageNo=1&SortOrder=oldfirst&PageSize=20#comments
The children inherit nothing but an eviction notice. Why do think families buy in the first place? In many cases, so they can leave an asset to their kids. This is NOT the case with social tenancies and you clearly know nothing about the subject if you suggest that it is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 07/01/2010 6:03 pm
ILAG - you need to read Jack Davies comment again. He says the option is leaving a house that may be a burden (if you are a homeowner) or leabe then £500k cash from being a social housing tenant.
Yet you choose to (a) fundamentally misinterpret what he says and (b) make derogotory coments about him being new.
So as usual your opinion is tarried with your blind hatred of social tenants.
Oh and by the way, as a matter of fact, a social tenancy can be succeeded by ones children - so you even got that wrong too!
In fact Jack Davies point is a very interesting counterpoint to your seemingly de facto point that RTB is the only way for tenants to climb the social ladder. I would have thought leaving half a million (and I note JD figures dont assume any interest - so they would be more!) to ones children is a far better legacy that helps them climb the social ladder.
Sp not only does RTB give the sector a bad name its not the wonderful ladder climbing exercise you claim - Welcome Mr Davies!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 07/01/2010 6:18 pm
ILAG - it would help if you could read!!!
The distinction above in JDs point is between a homeowner leaving a house as an asset (that may be a burden) or leaving them £500k in cash. I note his figures assume no interest as well so the £500k is an underestimate.
However, ILAG, you choose to fundamentally misread his comments and also make dismissive remarks in your usual blind hatred of social tenants and the social housing model.
JDs point is well made and evidenced and also makes a strong counterargument to ILAgs persistently held view that RTB is the only way up the social ladder. What is best to leave your children - a house or £500k (plus 40 years of interest) in cash? A no-brainer. That is unless anyone believes a RTB property will be worth more than £500k plus 40 years interest - didnt think so!!!
So not only does RTB give social housing a bad name, it is also a worse financial option to have as a legacy for your children. Jack Davies - you are very welcome here with such comments.
Oh and by the way ILAG, it is distinctly possible for ones children to succeed to their parents teancy - so you got that wrong too!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 09/01/2010 1:07 am
Err..how many tenants leave their kids £500K in a will? How ridiculous. Does not even bear comment. You have clearly not even bothered to read the forum post I referred to. It is now commonplace for children of social tenants to be evicted upon death of the parents. Your posts are laughable. Defending the system you make money out of. So transparent you are!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 11/01/2010 12:46 pm
ILAG - 'commonplace?' No, unless you have figures on the numbers of successions and the number of evictions - please find them and discuss as a separate thread here - if not stop deflecting.
What doesnt deserve comment is your weak attempt to change the subject of this thread, the bad image RTB gave social housing. Perhaps if you were open to discussion on anything to do with RTB - and your closed mind clearly isnt - you would even read other peoples ie Jack Davies, comments properly.
I note you have not disputed the scenario presented above or the different scale of costs differing tenures above present. There is a linked one I have posted in last few days that says RTB costs HB and additional £1.5bn a year for the same number of properties too - yet no comment there.
Attacking the messenger is all that is left when your arguments fail isnt it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 11/01/2010 7:26 pm
"the bad image RTB gave social housing"
Social housing professional don't like RTB and moan and bitch about this constantly. Except when it comes to RTB receipts. Then they moan and bitch when they don't get enough of them because RTB has fallen off a cliff thanks to the policies of this government. Double standards as per usual.
Looking at the text of this letter, it bemoans the passing of a golden age "where the doctor, office worker, factory worker and teacher lived together surrounded by beautiful parkland...The fact that we all lived in social rented housing was just not an issue."
But let's look at the date. It was 1957. Way before the 77 Rent Act and 80 Housing Act which created secure tenancies. Way before the socially toxic NeoMarxist "needs" based allocation policies became law. What chance on earth now would a "doctor, office worker, factory worker and teacher" have in obtaining a social tenancy? None whatsover. Being in a job would exclude them. Not enough "need" obviously. All social tenancies must be given to benefit claiming individuals and families as only they can show enough "need". Hardly any surprise then that 70% of all social housing tenants nationally are on benefits. I imagine that if one looks at recent allocations the figure is closer to 100%. So when the author says "There is nothing wrong with rented housing, there is nothing wrong with being a tenant, there is nothing wrong with mono-tenure estates per se" the author is correct. However when author says "But there is everything wrong with concentrating the poorest and most socially disadvantaged people in one place and then blaming them for being there!" this surely is an implicit criticism of "needs" based allocation rather than RTB? As it was needs based allocation that led directly to this situation. Not RTB. Being a social housing professional however, it is much easier to blame RTB than look closer to home. At the same policies you "professionals" have brought into the sector and support so vigorously in the pages of this forum. Double standards and a triple helping of smug hypocrisy all round.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 12/01/2010 9:58 am
ILAG – Lets take your wild assumption that ‘social housing professionals’ are some form of united group. They wouldn’t have the double standard you claim as RTB receipts or part of them, go to councils but not to council housing departments. A different thing altogether.
Needs based allocations – Your usual nonsense where you prefer subjective allocation according to the whim of an individual housing officer that is wide open to abuse on racial, conflict of interest, backhanders and fraud and massive legal challenge. This comes from you who has profited massively at the hands of all other social housing applicants – something even you right wing cronies in the press admit too.
I have stated many times in the past – I, me, one individual not part of any group – that RTB is and was wrong for a whole host of reasons. The latest one of these is that RTB costs the taxpayer about £1.5bn a year in additional HB over what would have been in payment if the country hadnt had to use three time the number of private rented units it now does at an average 63% premium or added cost.
So if needs-based allocation is Neo-Marxist then the Neo-Conservativism that is RTB costs the country an additional £1.5bn each year and grows with every RTB sale. Note im not even counting the cost of discounts or loss of national assets here!
But if needs based allocation is Neo-Marxism in action surely the Thatcherite and Neo-Conservatism would change it – Yet all the major Housing Acts were created and passed when which political party was in office – it must be those Neo-Marxist Conservatives !
The only hypocrisy is those that profit financially from national assets at the expense of everyone else - ie you and your ilk - blame your political and other opponents when the reality is its your political allies nay heros that created the mess you describe
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment