Council housing is so few and far between nowadays. And a large part of the problem is people buying their properties.

This isn't right. If you have the money to buy a property.. why not buy one that a family or individual is selling??? What makes things worse is the council is now demolishing entire blocks and selling them off to private companys.

Whats going to happen to the poor??? At this rate the social divide is just going to widen.

This is one of the Tories legacies that really get up my nose.

How many of the folk who have bought council houses actually keep them? most seem to buy them at a discount and then within a few years put them onto the open market to line their own pockets, or to move onto a private development, because they are now "too good" to mix with council tenants.

There ought to have been a clause entered into the sales contracts that any resales had to be sold back to the local councils at the same discounted price at which they were bought.

Originally posted by owdlad


There ought to have been a clause entered into the sales contracts that any resales had to be sold back to the local councils at the same discounted price at which they were bought.

There is a clause that says if you sell within 3 years of purchasing you have to pay back so much to the council. The right to buy scheme was a fantastic scheme to allow working class people to get a foot on the poperty ladder.

Property ownership by the massess is a relatively new concept and even as recent as teh early 60's a lot of people rented their accomodation.

House ownership leads to pride and respect for the area you live in and was also implemented to try to reduce crime figures by making people accountable.

I do however agree with the statement that councils demolishing whole swaiths of estates without much thought for what will happen to the land afterward does seem wrong but some of the areas were already pretty run down and derelict before they did this, again a direct result of residents not having respect for the area / housing authority.

Originally posted by RazorSHarp
There is a clause that says if you sell within 3 years of purchasing you have to pay back so much to the council. The right to buy scheme was a fantastic scheme to allow working class people to get a foot on the poperty ladder.
.

I should have emphasised ANY resales should be sold back to the council.

I am aware of the three year clause, but how many just clung onto their house for three years only to make a profit, a good number I suspect.

An example of this was a former neighbour of mine who bought then sold his council house, only to move into private rented accomodation, with a sizeable wad of cash from the proceeds of the sale.

The reason people buy council houses is because it is often the only affordable way that they can get onto the property ladder. But yes, people are making a heck of a lot of money out of it. I am in the process of buying an ex-council property. The current owners bought it under right-to-buy just a year ago. Even though they will have to pay back two thirds of the discount they will still double their money in a year and make £30k on the property (two bed flat!). It makes me wonder whether the price the council decides the property is worth (and then discounts) is really the market rate or is already substantially lower.

It is obviously great for people like my vendors who now have a lovely deposit on a much bigger property, but it is hell for people like me who won’t be offered a property to rent by the Council in a month of Sundays and so is left to try and buy on the open market. The only property I can even think about affording is ex-Council - and as I’ve seen to my huge disadvantage I have to pay way over the odds even for this!

You can hardly blame people for taking advantage of such a scheme.

If a council tenant wants to buy there house off the council what really get's me is the way they are asked to pay a ridiculously small amount and then as and when the house comes on to the market a few years later it is advertised at the going market value which is often three or four times higher than the council sold it at.
As far as 'pride in your area' if the council started enforcing tenancy agreements in regards to the upkeep of the property and garden then certain area's wouldn't look half as bad. Most private housing associations are quite keen on their tenants taking a certain amount of interest in the state of their property. I was walking through Woodthorpe a while ago and you could tell [I think] which houses were council properties and which were privately owned in many cases.

Yes you can blame them. Council properties should stay for the people who need them. No matter how long you've been renting one and regard it as your home, you knew that it was rented when you moved in. Anyway there's another thread on this.

good news for you lot - there is a new law that states if you now buy a council house you have to offer it back to the council before you can sell on the open market - that's within 10 years and the period to repay the discount has been extended to 5 years

What's wrong with people buying their coincil house. It is a form of privatisation and helps create a greater amout of propety ownership. I suspect few of the people who bought them regret doing so.

Originally posted by terrano
good news for you lot - there is a new law that states if you now buy a council house you have to offer it back to the council before you can sell on the open market - that's within 10 years and the period to repay the discount has been extended to 5 years

I believe you now also have to have been living in the property for 3 years before you can buy rather than 2 years.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
What's wrong with people buying their coincil house. It is a form of privatisation and helps create a greater amout of propety ownership. I suspect few of the people who bought them regret doing so.

Well seeing as I am against privatisation we're obviously not going to agree :D

But anyways, yes it does create greater property ownership....but why is that a good thing? Remind me? In this case by those people owning their houses it causes problems for others who cannot do so.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I believe you now also have to have been living in the property for 3 years before you can buy rather than 2 years.

It should be even higher in my opinion. I also did not like the fact that i had to sweat on getting a large Mortgage for someone on the same area to buy it from the council at 50% the price of mine. They can then sell it after a few years making a vast profit

I have no problem with someone buying their home after maybe 10 years renting, any profit on the sale must be split in a fair way with the council (i.e homes do naturally rise in value!)

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Yes you can blame them. Council properties should stay for the people who need them. No matter how long you've been renting one and regard it as your home, you knew that it was rented when you moved in. :clap: :clap: :clap: spot on!:thumbsup: 100% i was my self homeless many years ago and was very happy that the council offered me a home etc: council homes are for those who cant afford private, not to make a lot of money on, i think its pathetic and robbery.

yet another one of the Tories legacies:gag: :rant:

And like WallBuilder has said....
As far as 'pride in your area' if the council started enforcing tenancy agreements in regards to the upkeep of the property and garden then certain area's wouldn't look half as bad.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Yes you can blame them. Council properties should stay for the people who need them. No matter how long you've been renting one and regard it as your home, you knew that it was rented when you moved in. Anyway there's another thread on this.

So what if it was rented when you moved in - you never signed a contract or anything saying you would never purchase it. If it's anyones fault it's the people who made the decision to allow the sale of the properties at the discounted rates, not the tenants who've taken advantage of a good offer.

Of course there needs to be something put together to make sure the council always have enough properties to house the people that require council help but again that's not the fault of the people buying the properties.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Of course there needs to be something put together to make sure the council always have enough properties to house the people that require council help but again that's not the fault of the people buying the properties.

Has this ever been the case though - have the Council ever had enough properties available for those that need them?

I understand what Rosie is saying, but again I would purchase a property under right to buy if I had half a chance. However I also agree that there needs to be stricter controls on right-to-buy. Not only do the discounts seem wildly disproportionate, but the valuation of the property by the council seems to be flawed as well - at least in the case of the flat I am buying.

Just a year ago the Council valued it as being worth £35k on the open market and sold it to the current owners at a discount price of £20k. Prices are not increasing at nearly the rate they once were, and certainly have eased significantly in the last year, yet I am paying the asking price of £60k! Even paying back two thirds of the discount from selling it after just a year, the sellers are making £30k profit - I really do think that the Council need to put more realistic prices on their properties when it comes to right to buy.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
So what if it was rented when you moved in - you never signed a contract or anything saying you would never purchase it. If it's anyones fault it's the people who made the decision to allow the sale of the properties at the discounted rates, not the tenants who've taken advantage of a good offer.

Of course there needs to be something put together to make sure the council always have enough properties to house the people that require council help but again that's not the fault of the people buying the properties.

Yes, it is their fault. No-one's twisting their arms to make them buy. They're just being selfish.

As with all privatisation, the few are making loads of money off the backs of the rest of us. Selling off council houses (at completely ridiculous prices, they might as well be given away) was a scandal in the 80s and it's a scandal today.

It's all greed, greed, greed. Where's the morality in all of this? Or is morality a dirty word today?

StarSparkle :rant:

Originally posted by owdlad
This is one of the Tories legacies that really get up my nose.



Yes the Tories started it but Labour have unashamedly continued it :(

Councils have also handed over their housing stock to other bodies to run it for them.

Council properties should be left to those that need them - this is a 'left' idea that I do agree with; if you can afford a property go through the regular channels of getting a mortgage.

Even if 'your' property is cheaper to purchase from the local authority (SCC in this case), I believe you should still go through the normal channels.

I think I'd better buy a Guardian (!)

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Yes, it is their fault. No-one's twisting their arms to make them buy. They're just being selfish.

You're right no one is twisting their arm but a lot of these people couldn't afford to get on the property ladder any other way and if they are given the opportunity to purchase the home they live in and make something for their family then they will. If you're selfish for wanting to help your family then so be it.

At the end of the day.. I agree with the people who are anti-buying council property.

As madowl highlighted they're homeless people living on the streets. My personal belief is that council property is for those who truely need it. Those who don't have the money to buy property... people with familys who need to take care of their children etc... because at the end of the day it isn't the bedsits and one bed flats that are disappearing thick and fast its the larger properites. Houses and maisonettes which have 2 or more bedrooms.

The whole idea should be scrapped if you ask me.. You can take pride in where you live without actually having to own the place. Its just depends on the individual.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
You're right no one is twisting their arm but a lot of these people couldn't afford to get on the property ladder any other way and if they are given the opportunity to purchase the home they live in and make something for their family then they will. If you're selfish for wanting to help your family then so be it.

The point is, council houses/flats were built to house those in need, who couldn't afford to buy or rent privately.

They're supposed to be there as a safety net for people who otherwise risked being homeless.

When they're sold to the tenants, they disappear forever into the private sector, and will never again be available to those in severe need. They are quite simply lost to public housing stock.

They were originally paid for by the public, so they belong to the public. What right do local authorities/governments have to sell them to individuals, especially at stupid prices that are a slap in the face to everyone else? At least have the decency to charge market rates/near market rates for them? Otherwise, it's just a bonanza giveaway to whoever happens to be the lucky tenant at the time. They benefit, the rest of us lose.

It's just so "I'm all right Jack". Sod the rest of you.

If you can afford to buy, then you don't need a council property. Leave them for people in genuine need who have no other choices.

StarSparkle

The point is that people who cant afford to buy on the normal market can sometimes afford to buy through the right to buy scheme. It may benefit individuals who are looking out for their own interests, but on the wider scale it generates asset wealth for people who would be asset poor otherwise - its wealth redistribution!

The reason it's an issue is that there hasn't been development of new capacity or modernisation of existing council properties over the last twenty (ish?) years. We'll have to wait and see whether what's planned will be enough to redress the present problems.

It's a much bigger set of factors than right to buy alone tho' - Council misjudged things by knocking down so much without replacements, but the boom in house prices, buy to let etc weren't totally predictable and have had a big impact.

There should be some accountability for the situation at the moment (8000+ homeless applications per year), but (imo) blaming people taking the opportunities given thru right to buy misses the point.

I have always been against the cheap sell off of council houses, but I wouldn't blame the tenants who choose to take up the option to buy their houses as if they don't others will.

Sheffield Council know that there is a high demand for council houses, especially 3 bedroom ones. So how do they justify demolishing St Georges estate and selling off the land for expensive private housing? Did they have an option of allowing a housing association to build affordable houses to rent on the land?

quite...

we should have a web chat with councillors section up here and we could ask them.

that would be democratic e-government in action.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
[B]The point is, council houses/flats were built to house those in need, who couldn't afford to buy or rent privately.

They're supposed to be there as a safety net for people who otherwise risked being homeless.

When they're sold to the tenants, they disappear forever into the private sector, and will never again be available to those in severe need. They are quite simply lost to public housing stock.



is there any need for any 'public' / social housing stock in the ownership of the local authority?

when up to date, well maintained social housing is provided through both block provision ( i.e. via Housing associations and ALMOs) or on an ad hoc basis ( responsible private landlord s who accept housing benefit recipients)


They were originally paid for by the public, so they belong to the public.


they were paid for by the council, and belong to the council, Nothing belongs 'to the public' excpet a few museum collections and country hosues


What right do local authorities/governments have to sell them to individuals, especially at stupid prices that are a slap in the face to everyone else?


it is their property to do with as they see fit


At least have the decency to charge market rates/near market rates for them?


what is the market rate for council property?

originally it was much reduced compared to similar size and condition properies where it was the occaisional property that was brought, now with parts of some estates almost entirely right to buyed ....


Otherwise, it's just a bonanza giveaway to whoever happens to be the lucky tenant at the time. They benefit, the rest of us lose.


ask Tony B liar why he hasn't changed the rules?


It's just so "I'm all right Jack". Sod the rest of you.

If you can afford to buy, then you don't need a council property. Leave them for people in genuine need who have no other choices.


by that standard only those whose income is sufficient ly low to require assistance with housing costs need social housing ?

Blame the people who are setting the rules and making the sales, not the people who exercise the 'right to buy'. At the end of the day, sometimes this world is 'every man for himself' and if you're offered a rung on the property ladder to benefit yourself and your family you have to take it. Sadly we can't all be overly moral charitable people at the expense of our own happiness and security.

People who buy their property off the council often can't afford to buy elsewhere - they won't be paying much more on the mortgage than their rent was beforehand so its not a case of if they can afford to buy they don't need a council property.

As for selling up and keeping the profit - when they buy they don't know what their circumstances will be years ahead and may have no choice in selling and moving. If they sell the house back to the council at the original selling price, with the increase in house prices what hope do they have of buying again, especially as they would have to purchase on the open market.

Originally posted by zippy



what is the market rate for council property?

originally it was much reduced compared to similar size and condition properies where it was the occaisional property that was brought, now with parts of some estates almost entirely right to buyed ....


Well it seems obvious to me that the Council don't have a clue about the true market rates of their properties. What do we think has happened in the case I highlighted earlier (of the ex-council flat valued by the Council at £35k last year and just bought for £60k) - has there been a natural increase in the value or did the Council significantly under-value it when they sold it under right-to-buy last year? As someone who has been looking for a property in Sheffield for just over a year I haven't seen ANY 2-bed properties, ex-council or otherwise, on sale for as little as £35,000 - so I think it is more to do with under-valuation on the Council's part. I'm not sure why they do this when they then knock a third off the price anyway.

Right-to-buy has released a huge amount of money into the property market, which has helped to contribute to the massive increase in house prices in recent years. Unfortunately one of the side-effects of right to buy has been the pricing out of the property market of that part of the population who are not disadvantaged enough to be offered a council property but who now find that they don't earn enough to raise a mortgage for an average house on the market. This has in turn led to a boom in the demand for privately rented properties as these people have no alternative as they can't buy and they can't get a Council property. And as a result of this house prices have increased even more as the buy-to-let brigade gets bigger and more profitable all the time.

In response to Zippy's post:

I guess it all depends on the colour of your politics.

From my Socialist standpoint, one of the prime duties of the State is the provision of housing/accommodation for ALL of its people. In practical terms, this means there should always be a supply of council properties for those who have no other reasonable means of having a roof over their head.

Utilising the property of private landlords or even housing associations does not exempt councils from carrying out this basic duty, to my way of thinking.

Of course council property essentially belongs to the public, as does anything 'owned' by the government. Who do you think pays for it in the first place? Neither the government nor the councils have any moral right to sell off ANY of those properties - they are a resource for the whole community, not just their current tenants.

And the community is being robbed blind when council property is sold off at such ridiculously low prices. Tenants then, of course, sell when the property doubles or triples in value after a year or two.

Apart from anything else, as Banesmabes rightly suggests in her last post, this is one of the reasons why the property market has boomed out of all control in recent years, and why many people on average incomes don't stand a chance nowadays of getting a mortgage for a decent house.

And there are no council houses left for them to rent - they are forced to turn to the tender mercies of the 'buy-to-let' landlords. Naked capitalism wins again. :(

StarSparkle

i'm amazed anyone at all gets to even rent a council house, let alone buy one, i've been bidding for 3 years and had zero offers. I guess its because i work for a living so not entitled to anything.

Council housing is strange. Nowadays you have to be checked out which can take years.

The fact you're working probably doesn't effect you too much. You are either not valid yet and/or are being out bided by points and/or priority.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Go down to to one of the housing offices and ask whats going on. Check that they are counting you as valid - just in case.

Originally posted by Kaylsx
Council housing is strange. Nowadays you have to be checked out which can take years.

The fact you're working probably doesn't effect you too much. You are either not valid yet and/or are being out bided by points and/or priority.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Go down to to one of the housing offices and ask whats going on. Check that they are counting you as valid - just in case.

Ive been down, but i only have 3 points (3 years) so i'm entitled to pretty much nowt. I've even bidded for 'rubbish' properties in areas that i wouldnt live in if they paid me, and still someone beat me! (that wasnt meant to sound snobby)

As recently as 4/5 years ago, there were loads of empty council properties in Sheffield that no-one wanted. This was the same as in lots of northern areas. Right to buy was great for people in some parts of the city, but not so good in others. If you were lucky enough to have been housed by the council in Dore or Totley for instance, you were likely to see your property soar in value almost immediately. None of the money raised by right to buy was allowed to be used to build more council properties.
One of the problems with council housing is that it became the last resort for many people. Lots of us remember parents and grandparents living in council properties but the trend has changed. Most people with a choice now choose to buy on the open market, so on a typical council estate there will mainly be elderly people, people who have been housed because of their vulnerability (homelessness, long term illness, disability etc) and people on low incomes.
The government wants to see more economically and socially mixed areas, so where demolition is happening, the new build is usually part for sale and part social housing through housing associations. There are lots of housing associations in Sheffield, so for anyone wanting to rent perhaps they are worth a try?

Originally posted by Kaylsx
Council housing is strange. Nowadays you have to be checked out which can take years.

The fact you're working probably doesn't effect you too much. You are either not valid yet and/or are being out bided by points and/or priority.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Go down to to one of the housing offices and ask whats going on. Check that they are counting you as valid - just in case.

Everyone is able to join the housing register whether you are working or not, there is no question of you being ‘valid’. They also no longer run a points system. They simply decide who gets a property by looking at priority and then waiting time. If two people with priority have bidded then the one who has been waiting longest gets it. If no one with priority has bid (very unusual), then it goes to the person without priority who has waited the longest. No one who works full-time and is not at risk of homelessness (even if they are paying through the nose for private rented accommodation) will get put on the priority list – so you’ll generally wait until the cows come home before you are offered anything.

Similarly, housing association properties are often very difficult to get, and it’s not unknown for them to have longer waiting times than the Council.

I live in Shiregreen and have recently purchased my house under the right to buy scheme. Whilst I fully understand the plight of lower income families and homeless people, anyone living in Shiregreen will have noticed a large amount of properties that remain 'boarded up'. When I applied to be re-housed, the Council suggested I select Shiregreen/Firth Park as my priority area as the property in those areas was readily available. That was very true. If you need housing, there is housing. I am sorry but I do not believe folk who say they have been bidding for years without being rehoused. I am not a priority case and don't have children, but was housed in the space of about 8 weeks. Its more to do with choice and wants rather than needs. I needed to be housed, so I accepted what they offered.

I've lived in council flats and now I share an ex-council house with my partner. Most of the houses on our side of the hill have been bought, there's very few who still rent.

However, hardly anyone has moved since they bought the houses, many of the families have lived here for years. They're hard working folks for the most part, paid full rent when the properties were council owned, and took the opportunity to buy when it presented itself. I'm ashamed to say that our house is probably the most run down of the lot at the moment, and it's not exactly in bad repair! People have bought, maintained, and take pride in their houses....people who, at the time, could not have purchased their own property any other way.

There's still plenty of two and three bedroomed council-owned properties around here, but no one seems to wants to rent them :rolleyes: . On the other side of the hill, there's boarded up houses, all council owned. Over the field towards Manor Top, the council has left properties empty, the roofs have been stripped and kids frequently set fire to them. They've been that way for ages, and will probably be that way until the council gets around to demolishing them!

Yes, there will be people who used the 'right to buy' as a way of making a quick buck, but don't tar us all with the same brush!

Originally posted by Eleri


Yes, there will be people who used the 'right to buy' as a way of making a quick buck, but don't tar us all with the same brush!

Nobody's tarring you with the same brush. Im sure everybody is aware of the fact that the majority of ex-council tenants who have taken advantage of 'right to buy' are not doing it just to purely sell on the property for a higher price.

My personal problem is with the council, the goverment and the whole scheme itself. Council housing should be kept for those who truely need it. It can be very frustrating when you're looking for a property only to find the areas or the housing you need/want has for the majority of it been sold off to people who have the money to further better their living conditions.

I just think the whole schemes a scam. Some weird messed up insentive to get people to so called 'better' themselves. Except there are people working on low income struggling to pay the bills and feed the kids.. but having to worry about housing on top of this - ridicolous

The great old concept of the council housing has been superceded by housing associations and local authority housing trusts. Anyone is eligible to apply; but if you are able bodied and hardworking you don't stand a chance. Priority is given to Chavette mothers and work-shy "disabled" (stubbed toe at work 5 years ago and have been unable to work since) types who work the system. So much for the "Working Class". Kev.

Originally posted by kev21662
Anyone is eligible to apply; but if you are able bodied and hardworking you don't stand a chance. Priority is given to Chavette mothers and work-shy "disabled" (stubbed toe at work 5 years ago and have been unable to work since) types who work the system.

Whoa.. okay now ur taking it too far. I admitt some people are doing complete scams. And yes prioirty seems to override everyone else. Prioritys hard to get though and some people genuinely can't work.. Though I got to say it really is very irritating when priority over-rides 12years worth of points. But what can you do?

Surely being able to buy a council house is a good idea. Bricks and mortar is a sound investment and it means you will not have to worry about paying the rent when you are old. Will also leave behind something for your kids when your gone. As for selling for a profit - this happens in all aspects of life. If you can make profit from a house do it - everyone needs food on the table

Originally posted by Kaylsx
Prioritys hard to get though and some people genuinely can't work..

Priority isn't that hard to get actually. I know of people who got their parents to lie about throwing them out of the house just so they could get a council flat immediately. People in my family have been put on priority even though they owned their own home, were in no rush to move and never asked to be given priority. Another friend was put on priority simply because she told the Council that she thought her current relationship was ending and she therefore wanted to move out.

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Surely being able to buy a council house is a good idea. Bricks and mortar is a sound investment and it means you will not have to worry about paying the rent when you are old. Will also leave behind something for your kids when your gone. As for selling for a profit - this happens in all aspects of life. If you can make profit from a house do it - everyone needs food on the table

I don't think most people would begrudge anyone buying a home and making a fair profit out of it. What is galling however is the way the Council vastly under-values their properties and then applies a huge discount on top - which means someone can effectively double their money (or more) in a year (even after paying back part of the discount). It's not exactly fair on people who scrimp and save for huge deposits on normally priced homes bought on the open market, who then don't make nearly as much profit. By all means have right-to-buy, but make the prices more realistic and maybe extend the condition on paying back discounts to 5 years rather than the current three. And most importantly, ensure that there are still enough council homes left to house people who are neither interested in or capable of buying a home.

Originally posted by banesmabes
Priority isn't that hard to get actually. I know of people who got their parents to lie about throwing them out of the house just so they could get a council flat immediately. People in my family have been put on priority even though they owned their own home, were in no rush to move and never asked to be given priority. Another friend was put on priority simply because she told the Council that she thought her current relationship was ending and she therefore wanted to move out.

What the hell... That's a joke. I know lods of people who have tried to apply for priority on health grounds and its got them nowhere even though they really needed it.

Okay now Im even more annoyed. What the hell has gone wrong??? Scams and 'Oh me and my boyfriend are gonna split up' gets priority whereas general problems don't get you anywhere!!! Jokers

did anyone else used to live at kelvin flats?

am i the only one with a perverted nostalgia for tower blocks?

When I marrrid In 1961 there was no hope of getting a council house. Marrried couples had lived with their parents for 13 yrs which was the amount of time you had to wait on the council list.
So with no chance of rentng ocuncil property, all the couples I know saved the deposit in order to buy their own home.

Of course there was aways work available. If I left a job on a Friday I and could start a new one on the Monday.

I have always thought that coucill houses should be left available for the people who could not afford to buy thier own and nothing has changed my mind.

I think Margaret Thatcher brought the ruling in to divide the party and bring down the Labour votes.

hazel

Originally posted by hazel
I have always thought that coucill houses should be left available for the people who could not afford to buy thier own and nothing has changed my mind.

I think Margaret Thatcher brought the ruling in to divide the party and bring down the Labour votes.

hazel

Thankyou... Clearly this individual knows what shes on about :clap: :thumbsup:

It's funny that people are critising the Tories for creating a scheme that actually benefits the less well off rather than richer members of the population. It's a mass redistribution exercise, which is no doubt why Labour, after nearly a decade in power, hasn't sought to cancel the scheme.

IMO such sales should end unless there is an excess of council housing stock and proceeds should be ring-fenced to improve the remaining properties or to provide specialist modern social accomodation, e.g. more suitable council housing for the elderly.

Valuations should also reflect true market price: The discounts are often very generous. This wouldn't deter people genuinely wanting to own their current home but would no doubt deter people out to make a quick buck.

Jerry

Right to Buy is a scandle.

In principle I have nothing against people being allowed to buy their council houses. What I object to is public assets, which were built using public funds, being given away at silly prices.

The houses should be sold at market value and the proceeds used to either refurbish other council houses, or buy/build more council houses, depending on local needs.

the sale of council houses is wrong these houses were built so low payed people could live in something other than a slum,they were not built for people to make a profit on,with this crap council knocking hundreds of homes down on shirecliffe and the cross and rising house prices where on earth are low paid workers going to live soon,and dont say buy somewhere, i earn 11,000 a year so 3.5 my salary is about 39 grand whats that gonna buy a caravan?