Typical Labour. I’m alright Jack…..

[Mottie]

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.

Maybe there is, for a number of years but my suggestion will keep the housing stock available in the future to the LA when the purchaser moves on or dies. No different in practice to shared ownership. What happens then when the tenant moves on or dies?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

What happens then when the tenant moves on or dies?

If you mean should they die, before the time limit, then I'm not sure what happens. If they move and sell, the last I heard, was that they have to pay an amount back to the council.

 

[blup]

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.

Apart from the status of being a home owner I can’t see what the red benefits would be over renting. Family members not on the tenancy but had had lived there could be protected

 

[Mottie]

Apart from the status of being a home owner I can’t see what the red benefits would be over renting. Family members not on the tenancy but had had lived there could be protected

I've already said. Increase in value on their percentage share of the property, protection from being moved to a smaller property when the LA needs the house for a larger family, not having to pay bedroom tax when kids move out.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Apart from the status of being a home owner I can’t see what the red benefits would be over renting.

An odd thing to say, with so many obvious benefits!

It can be much more expensive initially, but you reap the benefits of that investment later in life. As a renter, you need permission for doing many things with the home, other than within building regs, and planning, I can do pretty well whatever I want, as and when I decide, plus whatever I spend on the place, adds to its potential value. Leave a rented property, all you get back, is maybe your deposit.

 

[blup]

An odd thing to say, with so many obvious benefits!

It can be much more expensive initially, but you reap the benefits of that investment later in life. As a renter, you need permission for doing many things with the home, other than within building regs, and planning, I can do pretty well whatever I want, as and when I decide, plus whatever I spend on the place, adds to its potential value. Leave a rented property, all you get back, is maybe your deposit.

Generally better to own property but not so sure when you are left with no asset when the property has to be sold/transferred back

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Generally better to own property but not so sure when you are left with no asset when the property has to be sold/transferred back

Not something which can happen, with properties already sold off, but they could make it a condition for the future.

Many people have had their fingers burned, buying ex-council properties, after serious issues have been later discovered.

 

[Notch7]

In the public sector?

The public sector is far more efficient than the private sector.

 

[Notch7]

Then account for why only 1/3 of rooves were replaced, and chosen completely at random? How do explain them not replacing any of the rooves, still in council ownership since then, how do you account for none of the privately owned ones needing replacement either?

Council or housing association

 

[Notch7]

Housing benefit is now a massive cost to councils….the money goes straight to housing assiciations

It would be far better if councils had their own housing stock, it would save a huge amount of money.

Just imagine how much gain in asset value those 1.5m homes would have been that Thatcher sold.

 

[fillyboy]

It would be far better if councils had their own housing stock, it would save a huge amount of money.

Hundreds of thousands of social housing tenants owe money to their local authority, with the number of homes in rent arrears increasing by 8 per cent from 2019 to 2023, increasing pressure on cash-strapped councils and leaving those in debt facing homelessness.


Freedom of Information (FOI) data from 82 local authorities – around a third of the number of councils which own social housing – shows more than £240m was owed in rent arrears in June/July this year. This is up from £147m owed in 2019, according to analysis from payment specialists Access PaySuite.

 

[crystal ball]

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.

Not in my case and probably many others

 

[Vinty]

.

 

[Vinty]

I'm not a roofer.

But I can read..... because there are three layers of tiles, over the entire roof .

That says, in the language that I speak, .

There are 3 LAYERS of tiles
Over an ENTIRE roof

I think he is referring to headlap.
Single lap interlocking tiles are double at the point where the tile sits on top of the tile below, thats the head lap.
Plain tiles and slates are double lapped, that gives you 3 layers of slate at the headlap.

 

[Mottie]

Generally better to own property but not so sure when you are left with no asset when the property has to be sold/transferred back

You or your beneficiaries are left with the increase in value in your percentage share of the property, just as you would be with a shared ownership property.