Typical Labour. I’m alright Jack…..

[denso13]

and allow people to determine a strategy based on evidence rather routine.

Which is what happens. All good then.

 

[motorbiking]

In the public sector?

 

[ajohn]

Not a very smart way to plan maintenance. if only someone had written computer software to model failure rates and allow people to determine a strategy based on evidence rather routine. Oh wait... There is lots of it.

Your assuming they were idiots. Afraid not. Take repaint every 3 years. It would not be a good idea to wait for rot to set in. Experience of that will have been gained and other factors as well. Also what paint to use.

Mrs T described the sell of as short term housing stock. In real terms she was passing the maintenance aspect to the owner. Also probably considering rental price increases - not a good way to get elected.

My parents house was built by a company that was also building council houses in the same area. The general buillding standards of the private houses was inferior. It also seems that in some areas tcouncil houses were built using none standard buldings practices which means that people could not get a mortgage on them. I am not sure of that. I vaguely remember comments on the subject. May have changed.

 

[denso13]

In the public sector?

Of course.

 

[denso13]

Your assuming they were idiots

Everyone beneath him are idiots. He knows everything don't you know.

 

[motorbiking]

Everyone beneath him are idiots. He knows everything don't you know.

If all your posts have a common theme, what are we to conclude?

 

[denso13]

"We"? Lol, get over yourself...

 

[blup]

I don’t disagree with the suggested policy, I just find it ironic and hypocritical that the person that is suggesting it has enjoyed the policy herself.

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.

I don’t understand the logic of this, it would be owning a house in name only and almost impossible to value or mortgage it

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I don’t understand the logic of this, it would be owning a house in name only and almost impossible to value or mortgage it

Quite! It would be little different to the process of renting a home. I certainly would never have invested the time, and money which have in this place, knowing that at some point in the future, it could go back to council ownership.

 

[jj4091]

It also seems that in some areas tcouncil houses were built using none standard buldings practices which means that people could not get a mortgage on them. I am not sure of that. I vaguely remember comments on the subject. May have changed.

Yes you are quite right in this area some council estates were built with a steel frame in the cavity and it was discovered by surveyors when Mrs T started the sell off that the frames had rusted away. Mortgage companies would not look at them until they had been retrofit repaired by the council or the poor suckers that bought them before the defects were discovered.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Your assuming they were idiots. Afraid not. Take repaint every 3 years. It would not be a good idea to wait for rot to set in. Experience of that will have been gained and other factors as well. Also what paint to use.

That's where homeownership comes in, and being a practical type. The council never bothered painting the windows at all, for it must have been a decade. They were on the point of suffering rot, when we bought it, I then painted the front, which took the worst battering every two years, which helped extended their life, until I got around to replacing the lot.

You cannot beat experienced eyes on site, making decisions, as to what needs doing and optimally just when it needs to be done.

For instance, someone I know, living in a council property, for years had a persistent leak from the bath. As it was council property, they didn't bother too much, just let it continue. It rotted the floor, and the joists, A simple leak, which any sensible homeowner would have had fixed, before too much damage, cost the entire bathroom to have to be ripped out, joists, ceiling and floor replaced, and a new bathroom to be fitted. No one renting a property, feels anything like the same sense of responsibility, as someone who has money tied into the property.

 

[crystal ball]

That's where homeownership comes in, and being a practical type. The council never bothered painting the windows at all, for it must have been a decade. They were on the point of suffering rot, when we bought it, I then painted the front, which took the worst battering every two years, which helped extended their life, until I got around to replacing the lot.

You cannot beat experienced eyes on site, making decisions, as to what needs doing and optimally just when it needs to be done.

For instance, someone I know, living in a council property, for years had a persistent leak from the bath. As it was council property, they didn't bother too much, just let it continue. It rotted the floor, and the joists, A simple leak, which any sensible homeowner would have had fixed, before too much damage, cost the entire bathroom to have to be ripped out, joists, ceiling and floor replaced, and a new bathroom to be fitted. No one renting a property, feels anything like the same sense of responsibility, as someone who has money tied into the property.

I have rented various properties over the years and reported any problems to the owners, don't tar everyone with the same brush

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I have rented various properties over the years and reported any problems to the owners, don't tar everyone with the same brush

I accept that, but my comment still stands - an owner with their money in a property, looks after it much more carefully, than would a renter.

 

[Mottie]

I don’t understand the logic of this, it would be owning a house in name only and almost impossible to value or mortgage it

Not really. They would have a stake in the house which would grow. Just that they wouldn’t profit 100% when they only paid, for example, 60%. They'd be the owners and if it was say, a 3 bed house and if all the kids had left home, they would have security from the council bedroom tax or being forced into smaller accommodation. Seems totally fair to me.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Just that they wouldn’t profit 100% when they only paid, for example, 60%.

There is already a restriction on profiteering, from the resale. It has to remain in the owner's possession, for a number of years, after purchase. Otherwise, an amount has to be paid back to the council, from the sale.