Bearing in mind that the Labour Party have now adopted the Conservative stance in that they are pro-council house sales, I know what a deluge of abuse I am likely to get on this one ;) however;

I totally disagree with the selling of council houses. They should be for people who cannot afford to get a foot on the private property ladder and lets face it with the rising cost of housing that is likely to include more and more people.

Councils are forced to sell properties at prices well below their market value only for the individuals concerned to make vast profits at the council tax-payers expense...... the council is left to pay debt charges on properties after they have been sold. Greedy money grabbers who then sell and buy on a private estate. Not only have they made a dirty great profit they have also robbed somebody else of the opportunity of renting that house.

Why are private landlords not forced to sell their properties at knock down prices to long term tenants also?

Barricades up and wait.

The problem seems to be that the Council doesnt have the money for renovation and repair so when a house falls below the standards where someone can live in it it has to be either sold or torn down. However there are some limits on buying a council house (at least under the Homesteading scheme) which is that you have to live in the house for at least 3 years and cannot sublet it.

This doesn't mean that I disagree with you - I think the Council should hold a pool of housing for those who can't afford to house themselves any other way - it seems to be yet another attack of short-termism :(

I totally disagree with the principle of the sale of council housing.

unfortunately, the thatcher government made them legal. so folk can buy and sell them as they wish.

It is my opinion that, with particular regard to the fact that the laws relating to C-H sales, means that selling council housing stock off, simply depletes what is available to those who need social housing.

what you will see is that most of the C-H stock in the "decent" areas, like Crosspool, Dore and Totley etc, is bought up. That means that folk who perhaps need rehousing, from so-called sink estates, are trapped, with no means of getting out of the sink-housing into decent housing.

I say, that, rather than allow the housing stock, transfered out by private sale, to be lost, it should be mandatory that the property acquired through a social -housing sale be sold back to the council (or housing assoc') at the cost at which it was bought, (plus inflation).

This means that social housing is not lost to those who need it.

And the grasping, and the greedy, cannot sell on at massive, and obscene profits. (eg an ex council house, bought for about 5 or 10 thousand cannot be sold on for 120,000, as I have seen done to a colleague) yet, the vendors still have enough money to put down, towards a house on a non-social-housing estate if they wish to be "Upwardly Mobile".

PT

I agree with it, its a great base for first time buyers and it brings more of a stability to those who wish to stay in their council house for the foreseeable future.

Although to stop the cash hungry people you should have to sell the house back at the price you bought it if you sell it too soon

I think that all houses should be privately owned or rented. Market forces do the job of keeping the ex-council houses cheaper for people who don't have much money. In Totley for example, ex-council 3 bed semis only go up for sale for about £120k. 3 bed semis in the same area that aren't ex-council are around £50k more.

Originally posted by t020
I think that all houses should be privately owned or rented. Market forces do the job of keeping the ex-council houses cheaper for people who don't have much money. and what about the people who can't afford 'even' £120k? For the poorest (actually not even just the poorest) who can't afford to buy? It just removes 'decent' homes from the housing stock available. That was the whole point of Thatchers changes - dont forget councils were legally barred from re-investing the money from sales in new housing, it forced people into buying homes, leading to the utterly absurd state of the housing market today.

Like all such shifts in the market, the ones who got in early have done quite nicely, the ones who didn't get shafted.

btw - have you seen how much private rents are?

I suppose if I lived in an ex-council house worth 'tween £60 to 80k that I could pick up for £20k, I'd think it was a great thing.

If I didn't live in such a property, I'd be complaining that the £60,000 loss the council has just made could pay for three teachers / nurses / policemen or any combination of the above.

I suppose the viewpoint of a person will depend on whether all those £££ are going into their backpocket or somebody elses.

erm.....i live on one of these 'sink estates' and we are in the process of buying our council property. We have lived in it for many years, our children were born and raised here, so we want some security so we can stay here. its a crap estate, and the house is going cheap, but its very old and unmodernised. Its going to cost us about £15k to get it up to scratch. When you buy the property you HAVE to remain the owner for a minimum of 3 years...if you re-sell it in that time you have to pay back to the council the discount you bought it from them for.
So, our house is valued at approx 38k, we get a 40% reduction for the length of time we have been tennants (paying the council rent for the dump). its gonna cost us to upgrade it.....so if we sell it in 3 years, we wont get that much more for it, cos houses on council estates DONT increase in value as much as a house in, for example, Dore/Totley/Crookes etc. Would be nice to be able to expect to sell it for 60-80k!!!!!!!
why the hell shouldnt we be allowed to buy?

:confused:

If the council brought new houses to replace the ones they were selling to tenants it would be fine, but I don't think they are, are they? So it makes a ridiculous situation where new people applying for a house have very little chance of getting one.

I would like 'a' home.

Right now I do not have the means to pay for private rent because they are set too high by letting agents and landlords for housing benefit to pay for the full rent, which can leave a shortfall of about £100 per week. And from my income support money I find that money from where exactly?
It is all very well people sat there saying - get a job, but to get a job you need to know where you live, and what school your kids may go to, to adequately ararnge a child minder.
I fully appreciate there are people out there who take advantage of these systems - but tarring everyone with the same brush leaves other families vunerable.

I certainly do not have th means to buy a house and am having trouble getting a council house...what hope do people in similar situations have if the council sell off all their properties??

Cardboardboxes R Us?

Moon Maiden

Well said Moon
The longer this stupidity is forced onto the councils the worse it will get and less hope there will be for people who through no fault of their own are unable to buy a house. Sadly it is the greed of people in general and the working man/woman is their own worst enemy.

Quality council housing stock in Dore and Totley is all gone , the sitting tenants at the time have made a mint at our expense. The council is left wth the more undesireable properties and the poor sods who can't afford to buy have no chance of a good rental because they've all been sold.
Of course if you look at what's happened in picturesque rural areas this policy has often been a complete disaster for local people who can't rent from the council any longer. It's much the same for areas of high property prices like Westminster. Of course in this case the sitting tenants often weren't even allowed the chance to buy... they were moved out for renovations to take place only to find that their homes were then flogged to the wealthy as soon as the work was completed

Originally posted by t020
I think that all houses should be privately owned or rented. Market forces do the job of keeping the ex-council houses cheaper for people who don't have much money. In Totley for example, ex-council 3 bed semis only go up for sale for about £120k. 3 bed semis in the same area that aren't ex-council are around £50k more.

Yes... and lets bring back work-houses for those stupid people who can't afford to rent privately or buy! :D

Actually, although I know this is very unlikely to happen, I think the government should be building more houses for rent (either council or housing association).

In my opinion the tragedy is not in the sale of council homes, but in the illegal barring of the reinvestment of monies accrued from this for new housing stock.
After all if someone buys a fifty year old council house then surely the council rent's that have been accrued over all those years will have already paid for that property ten fold and more.
Especially when you consider that the market prices for those houses at that time was approximately £1200 and that was for the posh ones!

Originally posted by Patchy
Yes... and lets bring back work-houses for those stupid people who can't afford to rent privately or buy! :D

Actually, although I know this is very unlikely to happen, I think the government should be building more houses for rent (either council or housing association).

Indeed, we don't need all these pointless Yuppie complexes like West One et al, we need more acommodation for students, and other people who are in need of housing.

Originally posted by bulldog D
In my opinion the tragedy is not in the sale of council homes, but in the illegal barring of the reinvestment of monies accrued from this for new housing stock.
After all if someone buys a fifty year old council house then surely the council rent's that have been accrued over all those years will have already paid for that property ten fold and more.
Especially when you consider that the market prices for those houses at that time was approximately £1200 and that was for the posh ones!

What I discovered, in a conversation with a housing officer from the council, was that, oh, yes, by george! the housing should have been paid for, many times over...

BUT (and here's the rub!!!) the mid-war council houses of districts like Firth Park, Shiregreen, Parson Cross, Manor, Arbourthorne, Wybourn et-al were built through funds raised, on something like a fifty -year mortgage that the council took out in the 1920's and 30's so, in truth, they (the council) have only just finished paying for them in recent years.

Apparently, social landlords could get these special longer-term, lower-repayment mortgages, for the purchase of/ building of these properties, where Joe Public couldn't.

so, Boots, or Gleesons, or whoever built the properties, and the council bought them off the builders for a couple of hundred pounds. at most (judging by the sale of similar housing in the private sector, nearby, built to the same designs, going for the 'exorbitant' sum of £300 in 1939 !!)

PT