Monday, 21 April 2014

Proposed Right to Buy Amendments...

Posted in: Need to Know | Ask the Experts

18/01/2012 9:59 am

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

F451

F451

Location: Europe
Posts: 182

18/01/2012 10:18 am

An automatic offer to repurchase should be the first covenant attached to Right-to-Buy. This would allow the local authority a mechanism to keep the 141 pledge by the government, so long as the government does not continue to make off with the proceeds of the sales, with buy-backs.

A anti-subletting covenant would be useful in ensuring that taxpayer funds were really used to give tenants a hand up and not give a prospective buy-to-let landlord a hand out.

The tenure conversion idea, where a struggling home owner can convert to a tenancy, was one of a few positives to be thought of by Labour - but it needs greater backing and funding to make it have a real effect. However, as a mechanism to increase the availability of affordable housing there is the potential for up to 4 Million homes to be purchased and rented back under such a scheme, as this is the estimate by lenders of the numbers in mortgage difficulty currently. Now whilst the owner will be the immediate tenant, what is avoided is the owner needing to be placed by the local authority into private sector accomodation as homeless etc, or for the local authority to do what it has had to do since the Tories ensured RTB as a regressive action, and use a social let to rehouse the failed owner.

The additional bonus of course would be that by increasing the social housing stock by such a factor would restore the original flexibility and cost saving volume that once existed. This would allow truly affordable rents (saving masses from the benefit bill) and also the prospect of moving within the stock as one's housing needs change over time (reducing under and over occupancy issues).

Of course, nothing like this would ever be agreed to as it would undermine the sole objective behind each of Shapps's policies, namely the total erradication of social housing and the social exclusion of those associated with it.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Salt & Vinegar

Salt & Vinegar

Posts: 2

18/01/2012 12:58 pm

I agree with the diea for Section 141 therefore extinguishing current assured tenancies through people exercising their RTB, but then the LA getting back their stock (eventually) for social re-use.

Anti-subletting - this could not be for the life of the tenancy - it would be extended admittedly.  But otherwise could hamper the rejuvination of the housing market as eventually with RTB lettings/sales clauses expiring movement within the housing sector will increase (much like when it was first introduced) - I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad.  Just the probable thoughts of the government.

I'm assuming when the consultation ends (02/02/12) we will see the results thereafter.  I don't see the new legislation being pushed through for the start of the new financial year as they expect though.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

18/01/2012 1:47 pm

What about a RTB amnesty so all those who purchased but would now like to change their mind can revert to being tenants of the Council, including all those thousands who now are private tenants paying extortionate rents to rip-off landlords. How can an ex-council home be let out at over £1,000 per week be justified in this day and age when the neighbouring home is still be rented out by the council for £135 per week (Westminster City Council property)

If the government is so convinced that private renting is popular put it to a referrendum for private tenants, and to add spice make it a transfer ballot: Private Landlord / Council / Housing Association / Co-op. I bet that they are too scared to offer the choice.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

18/01/2012 2:49 pm

The reason Shapps does not care about the details is he knows full well that the majority of those persuaded to buy will simply be repossessed down the line and provide another cheap house for dear private rent. Why he doesnt just give his friends a blank cheque book instead.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

25/01/2012 11:18 am

Scrap the right to buy and preserve houses for those who need them.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Rate this topic (4 average user rating)

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

Most recent posts

  • From I am The Secret Housing Officer, 11/04/2014 9:49 am in new homeswap tenancies instead of inheriting previous tenants?

    Tenants of Registered Providers do not have a legal right to exchange unlike Secure Local Authority tenants who enjoy a Right to Exchange under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985. For tenants of RP's their rights reagrding exchanging will therefore be found in the detail of their contract (tenancy) with their landlord.

  • posted Anonymously, 10/04/2014 8:27 am in Signed new agreement, but mistake in rent

    No they shouldn't, they should build new homes or invest in current stock improvements

  • From Housing Troll, 09/04/2014 11:08 am in Joint Tenancy

    You are not being bullied, the council is fulfilling its legal duty, although perhaps they have not explained this well enough?

  • From Housing Troll, 04/04/2014 3:40 pm in Mutual Exchange Withholding of Consent to Exchange

    Yes. It may well be the case the son succeeded due to a legal or contractual term, depending on the tenancy agreement. Perhaps it was even a policy decision which did not take the adpatations into account (unlikley but possible). 

  • From Miss Muffett, 02/04/2014 2:47 pm in Help with challnege of Service Charges??

    Sorry, typo in title - should obviously be challenge!!

  • From Eve Steadman, 25/03/2014 6:51 am in Terrible service from housing assoc

    Further to my previous post: I would like to form a contact/pressure group of Metropolitan residents (South), which includes my own area, Cambridge. Please spread the word and provide ideas as to how all those residents may be contacted, and how we could establish communication independedently of this forum. Do many or any residents read Metropolitan's Facebook page?

  • From Macca57, 24/03/2014 4:10 pm in Tenancy succession

    Many thanks for your reply, much appreciated

  • posted Anonymously, 24/03/2014 10:29 am in Service Charge Increase Legal? Moral?

    Legal: It is alawys a mistake to think of change of service charge cost as an increase - is it the correct cost for the services provided? & are those costs reasonable (i.e. for the service you recieve are the costs in the right ball park)

  • posted Anonymously, 21/03/2014 4:31 pm in Please help... Mutual exchange

    Enlightening.

  • From H4rdwork, 21/03/2014 1:06 pm in HELP!! Working as a Housing Officer in Supported Living

    Sara, you'll impress if you show you've researched a topic and part of the job that's new to you, and ask intelligent questions about how that organisation manages risk, compared to your research.