£365,000

[Deleted member 18243]

I don't really understand why people who live in homes subsidised by the state should have any sort of discount when wanting to buy it.

The amount of discount is based on how long you've lived in the property. Long term tenants might have paid the value of the house several times over in rent already.

It mostly created a special type of sub-prime mortgage company who then rob the ex-tenants for most of the discount in higher interest charges anyway.

At one time you could borrow interest-free from the council to buy your house; and there was also a complicated part rent and part mortgage arrangement you could enter into with them if you couldn't afford the whole amount. I don't know if this still happens.

 

[JohnD]

The amount of discount is based on...

that wasn't the question.

I don't really understand why people who live in homes subsidised by the state should have any sort of discount when wanting to buy it.

 

[Notch7]

wow, gasguru's managed to find a press cutting that's less than 20 years old!

Funny that, on another thread JohnD is trying to prove a point by referencing 1980, nearly 40years ago.

 

[motorbiking]

The amount of discount is based on how long you've lived in the property. Long term tenants might have paid the value of the house several times over in rent already.

The rent is to rent the property and is usually always significantly below market value. They are paying a fee for the benefit of enjoying the property and having it properly maintained. Secondly if you want to treat their rent as if it was a kind of mortgage then you'd need to apply interest or account for the NPV is some way. As I understand it a person living in a council house for 10 years gets around 40% discount, on top of their below market rent. Compare them to someone on a 100% mortgage for 10 years and the difference is huge. its simply too generous and create a market for right to buy/sub-prime lenders who hoover up the discounts in fees.

 

[^woody^]

I don't really understand why people who live in homes subsidised by the state should have any sort of discount when wanting to buy it. It mostly created a special type of sub-prime mortgage company who then rob the ex-tenants for most of the discount in higher interest charges anyway.

One factor is that as property gets older, it requires more maintenance and component replacement, and such work gets inherently more intrusive and costly as major components reach life-end.

This puts a large financial strain on the local authority or housing association, not just for paying for it but is not helped by the fact that the costs of significant components may not be recouped (via rent) for decades to come - if at all. And after all this the expenditure may not actually increase the value of the asset.

So it can be beneficial to off-load such property and let a new owner bear the maintenance costs and deal with any valuation fluctuations.

If the property is part of a block, then selling the leasehold has further advantage in that the costs of maintaining the actual internals are removed, but the costs of maintaining the block and common parts can be recharged back to the leaseholder.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And the justification in those circumstances for forbidding councils to use the money from the sales to build new houses is what, exactly?

How many businesses would accept an edict which said that if they sold of old plant because it was getting rickety and took a lot of looking after that they couldn't use that money to go out and buy new equipment?

How many people would be happy with a law which said that if they sold an old car they couldn't put the money towards a replacement?

 

[durhamplumber]

And the justification in those circumstances for forbidding councils to use the money from the sales to build new houses is what, exactly?

How many businesses would accept an edict which said that if they sold of old plant because it was getting rickety and took a lot of looking after that they couldn't use that money to go out and buy new equipment?

How many people would be happy with a law which said that if they sold an old car they couldn't put the money towards a replacement?

Ok...i consider myself suitably offended by you calling me " a traveller"..presumably you mean it as an insult,along with most things you spout..Tip.....call me gyspy,,but even that is not that offensive!!..sorry to disappoint you.

 

[JohnD]

If Woody really believed that nonsense, he would be offering to sell some of his flats and houses below market value, to save himself money.

 

[Nige F]

At one time you could borrow interest-free from the council to buy your house; and there was also a complicated part rent and part mortgage arrangement you could enter into with them if you couldn't afford the whole amount. I don't know if this still happens.

I don't know about the 0% but shared ownership was around in the early 80's ( we got a house on the open market, half and half with our local council )Then subsequently there were a couple of half arsed Government "initiatives" on a similar basis but nothing to write home about.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And the justification in those circumstances for forbidding councils to use the money from the sales to build new houses is what, exactly?

How many businesses would accept an edict which said that if they sold of old plant because it was getting rickety and took a lot of looking after that they couldn't use that money to go out and buy new equipment?

How many people would be happy with a law which said that if they sold an old car they couldn't put the money towards a replacement?

Ok...i consider myself suitably offended by you calling me " a traveller"..presumably you mean it as an insult,along with most things you spout..Tip.....call me gyspy,,but even that is not that offensive!!..sorry to disappoint you.

Firstly, why did you quote me like that when it wasn't directed at you, it wasn't in response to anything you'd written, and it was nothing to do with what you went on to write?

Secondly, WT* are you still acting as if it is credible that you don't know I wrote "fellow traveller", or what that means? What do you hope to achieve by that continued idiocy?

 

[transam]

Ok...i consider myself suitably offended by you calling me " a traveller"..presumably you mean it as an insult,along with most things you spout..Tip.....call me gyspy,,but even that is not that offensive!!..sorry to disappoint you.

Take any notice of BAS he can't help it ? IMHO he has Tourette's

 

[^woody^]

If Woody really believed that nonsense, he would be offering to sell some of his flats and houses below market value, to save himself money.

That's how social landlords work Johnny boy. Nothing to do with me.

BTW, sucessive governments, Labour governments, have failed to stop RTB, cap the discounts, or refuse to accept a hefty chunk of the sale revenue to the detriment of local councils.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Take any notice of BAS he can't help it ? IMHO he has Tourette's

a) I don't.

b) If I did, please show, with reference to genuine clinical data, why that would mean that DP had to ignore "fellow" in "fellow traveller", and why he has to keep on pretending I said something I didn't, and why he has to keep on pretending that he hasn't seen what the term means.


Additionally, an explanation of why you think it is right to post things which are so egregiously logic-free as to beggar belief would be interesting.

 

[transam]

What does eregiously mean

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not going there.

Suffice it to say it's another word which I would expect everybody to know.

Have I got too high an expectation of people on this forum?