Right To Buy to end

[Coutts 10]

And private tenants need security of tenure, low rents and landlords who carry out repairs promptly and without cutting corners.

 

jb

 

Private landlords WANT to give tenants security of tenure, but only the RIGHT tenants, good tenants. Rents are taken care of by the council, they can't be too low otherwise the landlord won't be able to make a profit. Without a profit he won't want to be a landlord in this sector. And as we now know, landlords are the ONLY ones stepping up to the plate to help those on benefits so if you alienate the private landlords, better find a tent and a field sharpish.

[barleycorn 10]

Private landlords WANT to give tenants security of tenure, but only the RIGHT tenants, good tenants. Rents are taken care of by the council, they can't be too low otherwise the landlord won't be able to make a profit. Without a profit he won't want to be a landlord in this sector. And as we now know, landlords are the ONLY ones stepping up to the plate to help those on benefits so if you alienate the private landlords, better find a tent and a field sharpish.

That's where references come in. I'm not suggesting that private tenants should be given more security without giving something back either* or that landlords couldn't evict for breaches of contract.

 

jb

 

* for example five year secured tenancies could be offered on the basis that the tenant takes contractual responsibility for certain aspects of repair and maintenance and that these are carried out to a suitable standard.

[Mecky 10]

So no matter how much anyone or any organisation complain the council are probably very pleased that many council houses were sold and relieved them of the responsibilities of collecting rents, maintenance, modernisation etc. and employing staff to carry out these duties.

 

No, not at all. I suspect the council look like to expand it's housing stock, escpecially since they've been forced to sell off housing

 

---------- Post added 27-06-2014 at 12:22 ----------

 

It's an expensive way for the council to acquire homes though..they'd have to buy at market rate but only be able to rent out at local authority rate..unless you're proposing they rent at market rate for the property as well..wouldn't it be cheaper for the council to build a house instead of buying one? Genuine question...

Not if they CPOd them at the price at which they were sold

Edited June 27, 2014 by Mecky

[Coutts 10]

That's where references come in. I'm not suggesting that private tenants should be given more security without giving something back either* or that landlords couldn't evict for breaches of contract.

 

* for example five year secured tenancies could be offered on the basis that the tenant takes contractual responsibility for certain aspects of repair and maintenance and that these are carried out to a suitable standard.

 

It doesn't even have to be too strict on the tenant. If a person is a nice person and a good courteous tenant, it should make no difference if they are working or not. There are some very nice people on benefits who landlords love having as tenants. As long as they look after the property and the landlord gets direct payment, there isn't a problem. A good landlord WANTS the tenants to feel like they are home. Good private landlords want their tenants to be happy and settled. Iron out a few wrinkles and it could be a wonderful situation. It could be so different.

[truman 10]

No, not at all. I suspect the council look like to expand it's housing stock, escpecially since they've been forced to sell off housing

 

---------- Post added 27-06-2014 at 12:22 ----------

 

 

Not is they CPOd them at the price at which they were sold

 

Don't they have to buy at market price for a CPO and aren't there other costs involved?

 

"Homeowners should be offered an amount that covers the market value of the property, professional fees, moving costs and a payment for the disturbance."

 

From here

 

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/buying-and-selling-property/18252/compulsory-purchase-property-your-rights

Edited June 27, 2014 by truman

[donkey 10]

Private landlords WANT to give tenants security of tenure, but only the RIGHT tenants, good tenants. Rents are taken care of by the council, they can't be too low otherwise the landlord won't be able to make a profit. Without a profit he won't want to be a landlord in this sector. And as we now know, landlords are the ONLY ones stepping up to the plate to help those on benefits so if you alienate the private landlords, better find a tent and a field sharpish.

 

You can't make such sweeping statements about either landlords or tenants. You get good and bad ones in both groups. I can't agree that private landlords 'save' tenants from homelessness. The houses would still be there if the landlords didn't buy them.

 

The increase of private landlords pushes up house prices, thus making home ownership unaffordable to more and more people, who are then forced to rent from the professional landlords who, in turn, are then able to use those rents to buy more property and push the prices up even further.

 

Paying rent to someone else for profit ultimately means that their mortgage gets paid off by other people, and those people who paid for it end up with nothing to show for their labours. I can only see one party truly benefits from such transaction.

[barleycorn 10]

You can't make such sweeping statements about either landlords or tenants. You get good and bad ones in both groups. I can't agree that private landlords 'save' tenants from homelessness. The houses would still be there if the landlords didn't buy them.

 

The increase of private landlords pushes up house prices, thus making home ownership unaffordable to more and more people, who are then forced to rent from the professional landlords who, in turn, are then able to use those rents to buy more property and push the prices up even further.

 

Paying rent to someone else for profit ultimately means that their mortgage gets paid off by other people, and those people who paid for it end up with nothing to show for their labours. I can only see one party truly benefits from such transaction.

Renting is not necessarily a bad thing, it can even leave you better off than if you bought a house.

 

Interesting calculator here:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=2&

 

jb

[harvey19 541]

Many council houses have been paid for many times over the construction costs.

Never forget that when RTB was brought in many people could not afford to save for a mortgage whilst paying rent.

Mortgages were not easy to get, I think a building society stipulated you had to have been saving with them for a defined period and would only lend you two and a half times the husbands basic wage.The wife's wage was not taken into consideration.

I think the interest rate was about 15%

Many tenants had made improvements to their council houses at their own expense.

[truman 10]

. I can only see one party truly benefits from such transaction.

 

How about people who want to rent for the "freedoms" it gives..eg. you don't have to commit to a particular area as you do when buying...your work may take you all over the country..you've no chance of a council house in a particular area unless you've been on the list for ages so if work takes you there a private rent is ideal...not all private rental is bad...

Edited June 27, 2014 by truman

[psynuk 10]

The right to buy was another way of simply giving tax money away; house built with tax, sold at bargain price, and then could be resold for profit later.

 

I would love it if the government would simply give me 50% of my house price!

 

The cost of local ex council houses is not far off non-council now and so a lot of people have simply been handed a massive wad of cash by tax payers

[barleycorn 10]

Many council houses have been paid for many times over the construction costs.

Never forget that when RTB was brought in many people could not afford to save for a mortgage whilst paying rent.

Mortgages were not easy to get, I think a building society stipulated you had to have been saving with them for a defined period and would only lend you two and a half times the husbands basic wage.The wife's wage was not taken into consideration.

I think the interest rate was about 15%

Many tenants had made improvements to their council houses at their own expense.

The same could be said for privately rented houses but you won't find many private landlords eager to sell their properties off at knock down prices. I wonder why?

 

jb

[harvey19 541]

The same could be said for privately rented houses but you won't find many private landlords eager to sell their properties off at knock down prices. I wonder why?

 

jb

Probably because the private landlord rents out housing to provide the owner with a profit and means of income.

The council's housing stock was/is massively larger and so has correspondingly larger running costs and responsibilities.