Great Tory housing shame: Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords

[joebloggs]

:cwm23: one of the milk snatcher's legacies :NoNo:


The son of a former Tory Housing Minister and Mrs Thatcher aide during the peak years of right-to-buy owns at least 40 ex-council property :REGamblMoney01HL1:


read more here .. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338

[andy222]

I think I touched on this subject before with thatcher. Her right to buy scheme .:xxgrinning--00xx3: And I bet more people from indian and pakistani desent owns these than white british.

[Dedworth]

Michael Meacher Labour MP former Minister and house collector :-

Some 20 years ago Michael Meacher wrote, in his book Socialism with a Human Face: "Housing is not, or should not be, a status symbol, an object of conspicuous consumption, or a source of market power or wealth.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-438146/Meacher-doesnt-practice-preaches.html#ixzz2N97YDjPT

[Arthur Little]

Michael Meacher Labour MP former Minister and house collector :-


:iagree: that's rich ... Meacher the leecher! :biggrin:

[Dedworth]

:iagree: that's rich ... Meacher the leecher! :biggrin:

A bit about Meacher :-

Last I heard he owned nine rental properties.

Hasn’t everyone learned by now that it’s the right of every socialist grandee to maintain an agreeable lifestyle that permits them to look down on the little people whose interests they claim to champion?

Perhaps when he rents out his properties he even imagines that it keeps him in touch with those too poor to buy!

[andy222]

The thing is Ded rules should have been put in place when Thatcher decided to do this. Put a limit on the number of council homes people can buy. Just be a man and admit it another :censored: up under the tories. I have no problems with people buying their homes but there should be a limit.

[Terpe]

The thing is Ded rules should have been put in place when Thatcher decided to do this. Put a limit on the number of council homes people can buy. Just be a man and admit it another :censored: up under the tories. I have no problems with people buying their homes but there should be a limit.

I agree with that.
This is the first time I ever heard that anyone was allowed to buy council properties in that way.

Well, unless the council house had been originally bought by the existing tenant who then became the legal owner and sold in on after the specified time.
In which case just a regular house sale. You can't put any limitations on that.

I guess? I don't know, it's just logic

[joebloggs]

right to buy is not so straight forward, it depends on how long you've lived in the property and if the landlord has spent money on it in the last 10yrs then the discount is reduced, and some council houses are not in the most desirable locations :cwm25:

[Terpe]

right to buy is not so straight forward, it depends on how long you've lived in the property and if the landlord has spent money on it in the last 10yrs then the discount is reduced, and some council houses are not in the most desirable locations :cwm25:

Once you buy though, do you have to continue to live in it for a specific time before you can sell it on ?

[Iani]

From what I can guess, ex council houses are always in what are referred to as "less desirable locations", simply because a council estate is never a desirable location.

These then will just about always be worth less than the equivalent private built house. In a way this isn't logical, as I know streets of ex council houses which are fantastic built houses, large gardens and the areas they are in are very quiet with no trouble, however...........there you go.

So, one criteria for buy to letters is that the properties have to be affordable for them to buy it. Ex council houses tend to be affordable in the main - so are targetted by buy to letters.

And that probably is it. It's a nightmare where these :censored: buy to letters are buying up starter and second homes, and turning respectable neighbourhoods into areas of transient population, breaking social cohesion.
You can be absolutely sure of one thing - the buy to letters won't be living next to the sort of mess they will inflict on others.

[joebloggs]

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/overview

The discount you get might be reduced if you’ve used Right to Buy in the past.

You’ll usually have to repay some or all your discount if you sell your home within 5 years.

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/overview

they have not bought them from the council its impossible to buy that many, they've bought them from people who used the right to buy and bought them from the council.

[andy222]

There are always ways round it Peter.

[Arthur Little]

Once you buy though, do you have to continue to live in it for *a specific time before you can sell it on ?

Yes :icon_rolleyes: ... used to be 5 years. But that was back in the 1990s. So wouldn't be surprised if *it had since gone up to [possibly] ten.

[imagine]

i know of those who have had their council house bought with an agreement with those who financed it for them, in order to do a deal with the tenant to vacate after the 3 years of staying in the house before sale, so not to lose the discount, the person who financed it then own the house, it has been open to fiddling and in some cases in a big way,


council housing should never have been sold,,, end of

[joebloggs]

i

council housing should never have been sold,,, end of

there are always ways of fiddling or stretching the rules :icon_rolleyes:

if they could afford to buy it, they shouldn't have been in the council house :doh

and your right, they shouldn't have been sold off in the first place :NoNo:

[Arthur Little]

council housing should never have been sold,,, end of

Hmm ... well ... I would have to disagree there, Stewart ... I bought mine in 1991 - after being the sitting tenant since 1968 - and, to be honest ... :anerikke: ... I'd never have managed to get a foot on the property ladder had it not been for Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy. Indeed, I've now occupied the same house for almost 45 years.

[andy222]

You are a perfect example of how it should work Arthur. But thatcher left a lot of loopholes that people exploited. The ordinary people are held to ransom now because landlords can charge what they want.

[joebloggs]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54388000/gif/_54388267_housebuilding_464.gif



the blame lies with thatcher look at the drop in number of council houses being built from 1980 to 1995 , its gone from 75,000 to nearly 0 :doh

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936

[imagine]

Hmm ... well ... I would have to disagree, Stewart ... I bought mine in 1991 - after being the sitting tenant since 1968 - and, to be honest ... :anerikke: ... I'd never have managed to get a foot on the property market had it not been for Thatcher's 'Right to Buy'. Indeed, I've now occupied the same house for almost 45 years.

i bought and lost my private house through divorce separation years ago,

i bought my council house here in scotland, through the right to buy, without the sale of council housing i may not have been able to buy again,

so i have benefited,

but it does not change my opinion that council housing should never have been put for sale in the 1st place,
alternatives could have been thought of, such as low cost housing, maybe via gov grants,
houses built cheaply with arrangments for no tax on the building materials or any taxes involved in building or of the propertys first sale, grants for council tenants to buy these houses freeing up under occupied council housing, im sure there are many alternative ideas

[Dedworth]

The thing is Ded rules should have been put in place when Thatcher decided to do this. Put a limit on the number of council homes people can buy. Just be a man and admit it another :censored: up under the tories. I have no problems with people buying their homes but there should be a limit.

As Joe says the individuals,companies and Michael Meachers that are now landlords bought them legally from those who had already purchased them. There are always going to be haves and have nots, maybe some sort of covenant should have been put in at the offset saying that the homes should remain owner/their family occupied.

Vast swathes of privately owned rented properties are being paid by the taxpayer to house immigrants, asylum seekers etc

[andy222]

As Joe says the individuals, companies and Michael Meachers that are now landlords bought them legally from those who had already purchased them. There are always going to be haves and have nots, maybe some sort of covenant should have been put in at the offset saying that the homes should remain owner/their family occupied.

Vast swathes of privately owned rented properties are being paid by the taxpayer to house immigrants, asylum seekers etc

It was just another good idea with no thinking of the consequences. Nice graph Joe.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Arthur Little]

You are a perfect example of how it should work Arthur. But thatcher left a lot of loopholes that people exploited.

True, Andy ... very true!


The ordinary people are held to ransom now because landlords can charge what they want.

:iagree: ... thing IS, though, in many cases, it's not just former council houses that are being snapped-up :nono-1-1: it's very often, older [tenement-style] flats - some of which've lain derelict for years. And, sad to say, most end up being refurbished to a bare minimum standard by the likes of Pakistani/Indian landlords who then lease them out to [mainly] college/university students at truly extortionate rents. Here in Perth, for instance, it happens
all the time. :cwm23:

[andy222]

And you have to blame the estate agents who rent the properties on their behalf for taking their cut of the prophet. It all adds up.

[Dedworth]

And you have to blame the estate agents who rent the properties on their behalf for taking their cut of the prophet. It all adds up.

Profit Andy :biggrin: - no islam nonsense here please

[andy222]

:laugher:Sorry profit.:icon_lol:

[Dedworth]

:laugher:Sorry profit.:icon_lol:

I bet it was Arthur's mention of 'stani landlords

[joebloggs]

it just shows from the graph none of the money from the sale of the houses went to build new ones :doh

maybe the councils should have been forced to build new houses, it would have created jobs and new houses. and I'm sure they could have made a profit as it would probably be cheaper to build a new house compared to what they got for the sold council house even after any discount.. so where did the money go :Erm:

[Arthur Little]

I bet it was Arthur's mention of 'stani landlords

That's right ... :anerikke: ... blame me! :laugher:

[andy222]

it just shows from the graph none of the money from the sale of the houses went to build new ones :doh

maybe the councils should have been forced to build new houses, it would have created jobs and new houses. and I'm sure they could have made a profit as it would probably be cheaper to build a new house compared to what they got for the sold council house even after any discount.. so where did the money go :Erm:
In some torys back pocket no doubt.:cwm25:

[imagine]

I'm sure they could have made a profit as it would probably be cheaper to build a new house compared to what they got for the sold council house even after any discount.. so where did the money go :Erm:

i remember when i worked for bradford council, they said the council houses built just after the war,were built using a loan and the local council was still paying the loan back then in my 20s,
so idoubt they made very much on the sales

[andy222]

Looking back I think one of the reasons was the houses were costing too much too maintain But like as been said they were never replaced by councils. Instead PRIVATE builders eg Barrets and Wimpey built houses and apartments. This in turn led to people buying them to let. And that is where some of the extortionate rent payments came from.

[Iani]

And another thing, why were council houses built to look so damned ugly? Was this a deliberate policy to depress the people who lived in them?
A private housebuilder would never build properties which looked like many council houses, because no-one would buy them, and it can't be down to cost of making something look ok, the extra cost (if any) must be tiny

[Arthur Little]

And another thing, why were council houses built to look so damned ugly? Was this a deliberate policy to depress the people who lived in them?

:yeahthat: certainly was the case back in the 1950s, Ian ... when the amount of standardised funding allocated to local authorities by central post-war governments proved woefully inadequate to meet the construction costs of widespread, large-scale council housing developments using anything other than the cheapest building materials.


A private housebuilder would never build properties which looked like many council houses, because no-one would buy them, and it can't be down to cost of making something look ok, the extra cost (if any) must be tiny

Don't agree there, I'm afraid :nono-1-1: ... from what I've seen here in Perth, the bulk of private sector housing nowadays is becoming increasingly similar in appearance to the above-mentioned '50s style council estates. Seems to me, the days of the substantial, infinitely more pleasing to the eye, stone~built, detached villa and/or bungalow - so reminiscent of the earlier 20th century - are long since gone! :bigcry:

[imagine]

Looking back I think one of the reasons was the houses were costing too much too maintain .

in many council areas, the maintenance was put out to private contract, instead of direct works,
some contractors ripped off councils, so became more expensive, also when parts of council estate houses are sold, it means that the council houses are not side by side so to speak, and makes for more expense to maintain