Typical Labour. I’m alright Jack…..

[Mottie]

When my SIL moved years ago, the people buying her house were renting from a housing association, the HA wouldn't let them buy their house, but gave them a hefty wedge of cash to buy my SIL's house. I wonder if they still do this, and whether it could be a way around not being able to sell HA or council properties?

When we moved in 1990, we had the same. People were coming out of a housing association house and were given money towards buying ours. On the day, there was a major hold up. We didn’t know but they had tried to get away without paying their last months rent so the HA wouldn’t release the funds to their solicitor. We had to sit outside our new house for a couple of hours with all our belongings in a removal truck waiting for the money to come through. They had to run around begging friends and relatives to rake up the last months rent. They did it at the last minute and the money was released but from the day they moved in, they never paid the mortgage and the house was eventually repossessed. They went back into rented accommodation.

 

[motorbiking]

I suspect they never paid their friends back either

 

[ReganAndCarter]

They need to keep the council houses for all the migrants. Soon they're going to run out of 4* hotels.

 

[THFC]

It doesn't go far enough for me.

IMO, they should abolish RtB for all social housing, like Scotland and Wales did, not just new builds.

 

[ajohn]

The joint ownership schemes are pretty good really - if they can be found. A very young lady was interviewed rather recently who had one. The only way she could get on the ladder.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think that anyone who buys a council house should be able to live in it for life but that it should pass back to the council on a similar discounted basis when they die or move on.

Council houses, at least around here, which have gone into private ownership, have generally had a considerable investment made in them by the private owners. Investment, which the council simply would not have made. The house, able to be taken back by the council, would be a massive disincentive, to spend anything on a home. ,

 

[Mottie]

Council houses, at least around here, which have gone into private ownership, have generally had a considerable investment made in them by the private owners. Investment, which the council simply would not have made. The house, able to be taken back by the council, would be a massive disincentive, to spend anything on a home. ,

They are not for making a profit on Harry but if someone wants to put in a swimming pool and a jacuzzi or over develop it in relation to other houses in the street, more fool them. Allowances could be made for general improvements such as extensions etc (not decorations) which will affect the current value and if the occupier got say, a 40% discount when buying, then that percentage discount should be applied on the return price to the council. Don’t forget, the council wouldn’t let it out in the condition it was returned in, no matter how good the owner thought it was. It will need refurbing to a standard along with gas and electrical checks etc. I many cases, I’d imagine they might have to undo a lot of the work done by a previous owner.

 

[Vinty]

Council houses, at least around here, which have gone into private ownership, have generally had a considerable investment made in them by the private owners. Investment, which the council simply would not have made. The house, able to be taken back by the council, would be a massive disincentive, to spend anything on a home. ,

Council houses that have been bought by their tenants tend to be better looked after.
By abolishing the right to buy, the government are just going to create ghettos.

 

[denso13]

By abolishing the right to buy, the government are just going to create ghettos.

Nonsense, RTB has already been removed in some parts of the UK some years ago. The suggestion in England is only for new council houses, not existing.

 

[Notch7]

When we moved in 1990, we had the same. People were coming out of a housing association house and were given money towards buying ours. On the day, there was a major hold up. We didn’t know but they had tried to get away without paying their last months rent so the HA wouldn’t release the funds to their solicitor. We had to sit outside our new house for a couple of hours with all our belongings in a removal truck waiting for the money to come through. They had to run around begging friends and relatives to rake up the last months rent. They did it at the last minute and the money was released but from the day they moved in, they never paid the mortgage and the house was eventually repossessed. They went back into rented accommodation.

They sound like Reform voters

 

[Mottie]

Council houses that have been bought by their tenants tend to be better looked after.
By abolishing the right to buy, the government are just going to create ghettos.

I’m not saying abolish the right to buy, I’m saying give the councils first opportunity to buy them back at the market price at first same discount when the tenant moves on.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Council houses that have been bought by their tenants tend to be better looked after.
By abolishing the right to buy, the government are just going to create ghettos.

Much better looked after, and much more economically too. When the council, many years ago, decided to do a full refurb of these houses, they reroofed 1 in 3 of them, leaving the 2 in 3 rooves untouched. I asked why at the time, and the answer was it was just a completely random reroof policy. The 2 in 3, many of which are now private, still have their original rooves, with no issues, 40 years later.

My roof, is the original one. Earlier in the year, I had a roofer friend replace 100 tiles which were chipped, from my stock of tiles. No chance of leaks, because there are three layers of tiles, over the entire roof. The new rooves, only have two tile thick rooves.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Much better looked after, and much more economically too. When the council, many years ago, decided to do a full refurb of these houses, they reroofed 1 in 3 of them, leaving the 2 in 3 rooves untouched. I asked why at the time, and the answer was it was just a completely random reroof policy. The 2 in 3, many of which are now private, still have their original rooves, with no issues, 40 years later.

My roof, is the original one. Earlier in the year, I had a roofer friend replace 100 tiles which were chipped, from my stock of tiles. No chance of leaks, because there are three layers of tiles, over the entire roof. The new rooves, only have two tile thick rooves.

Am I reading this right?

New tiles have been laid over existing tiles, twice ?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Am I reading this right?

New tiles have been laid over existing tiles, twice ?

No, you need to put your spectacles on..

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Much better looked after, and much more economically too. When the council, many years ago, decided to do a full refurb of these houses, they reroofed 1 in 3 of them, leaving the 2 in 3 rooves untouched. I asked why at the time, and the answer was it was just a completely random reroof policy. The 2 in 3, many of which are now private, still have their original rooves, with no issues, 40 years later.

My roof, is the original one. Earlier in the year, I had a roofer friend replace 100 tiles which were chipped, from my stock of tiles. No chance of leaks, because there are three layers of tiles, over the entire roof. The new rooves, only have two tile thick rooves.

What does that say ?