[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How on earth would he get a mortgage then if he'd never worked?
If you work and have a lifetime tenancy, agree to take over the responsibility for the maintenance of the house then maybe this is the reason for the discount? It's on a sliding scale therefore if you haven't been a tenant that long the discount would be relative.
Again social housing isn't and never was for the poor and needy it's for everyone, not everyone wishes to buy and affordable rents were and are preferable to some.

There are ways and means, last thing i heard was his step son in law was looking into buying it.

When i was homeless at age 17, i applied for social housing, i was told there was a 2 year waiting list, that was in the early 1990's, so i got a job, lived in a private damp flat with no heating, then moved to a shared house, then got a better job, saved up a deposit to put on a house.

The problem is that people can't do this now because house prices are so high, there's an affordable housing shortage and selling social housing stock will only create, more homelessness.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by rubymoo

There are ways and means, last thing i heard was his step son in law was looking into buying it.

When i was homeless at age 17, i applied for social housing, i was told there was a 2 year waiting list, that was in the early 1990's, so i got a job, lived in a private damp flat with no heating, then moved to a shared house, then got a better job, saved up a deposit to put on a house.

The problem is that people can't do this now because house prices are so high, there's an affordable housing shortage and selling social housing stock will only create, more homelessness.

That would be impossible, there is no way that anyone other than the tenant can purchase a council property, if your father was too old or insolvent there would be no way of securing a mortgage in his name.
It's sad that you had that experience so young and I don't think you were advised very well by the sound of it.
I agree the housing stock should never have been sold, it is young people as you were that suffer, people on benefits who cannot get a mortgage to buy and those who do work but on 0hr contracts with no fixed monthly income, no mortgage company can lend against those.
So in reality it is those who managed to live either at home or in private rented property whilst they were on the housing list, worked and bought their houses from the council who benefited. Nobody living free or languishing on welfare would ever be in a position to purchase any property.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That would be impossible, there is no way that anyone other than the tenant can purchase a council property, if your father was too old or insolvent there would be no way of securing a mortgage in his name.
It's sad that you had that experience so young and I don't think you were advised very well by the sound of it.
I agree the housing stock should never have been sold, it is young people as you were that suffer, people on benefits who cannot get a mortgage to buy and those who do work but on 0hr contracts with no fixed monthly income, no mortgage company can lend against those.
So in reality it is those who managed to live either at home or in private rented property whilst they were on the housing list, worked and bought their houses from the council who benefited. Nobody living free or languishing on welfare would ever be in a position to purchase any property.

It actually isn't impossible, it's very easy for a tenant to say that someone is living with them.

A family member claims to be living there, provides the money for the house and the tenant then stays in it until they die or moves elsewhere, the house belongs to the buyer or at the very least is jointly owned and is more than likely to be put up for let for an expensive price or sold on for the market price.

There is nothing wrong with people in housing association properties buying the house they live in but they shouldn't get a heavily discounted price at the tax payers expense and if it's not at the tax payers expense then were is the cash coming from? also if a housing association is forced to sell at a huge discount they will then not have the funds to replace that house in the same area.

In a housing crisis the likes of what is happening now this plan just doesn't make one iota of sense.

To add to all that Cameron is attempting to sell off properties that he doesn't have a right to, he doesn't own them and shouldn't be able to force the sales, he really is attempting to buy votes with this idea.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Josy

It actually isn't impossible, it's very easy for a tenant to say that someone is living with them.

A family member claims to be living there, provides the money for the house and the tenant then stays in it until they die or moves elsewhere, the house belongs to the buyer or at the very least is jointly owned and is more than likely to be put up for let for an expensive price or sold on for the market price.

There is nothing wrong with people in housing association properties buying the house they live in but they shouldn't get a heavily discounted price at the tax payers expense and if it's not at the tax payers expense then were is the cash coming from? also if a housing association is forced to sell at a huge discount they will then not have the funds to replace that house in the same area.

In a housing crisis the likes of what is happening now this plan just doesn't make one iota of sense.

To add to all that Cameron is attempting to sell off properties that he doesn't have a right to, he doesn't own them and shouldn't be able to force the sales, he really is attempting to buy votes with this idea.

Exactly this happens alot here in London, family members raise the cash, the tenant then buys off the Council for cash, then sell on at a vast profit and relocates to a cheaper area outside of London.

[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by Josy

It actually isn't impossible, it's very easy for a tenant to say that someone is living with them.

A family member claims to be living there, provides the money for the house and the tenant then stays in it until they die or moves elsewhere, the house belongs to the buyer or at the very least is jointly owned and is more than likely to be put up for let for an expensive price or sold on for the market price.

There is nothing wrong with people in housing association properties buying the house they live in but they shouldn't get a heavily discounted price at the tax payers expense and if it's not at the tax payers expense then were is the cash coming from? also if a housing association is forced to sell at a huge discount they will then not have the funds to replace that house in the same area.

In a housing crisis the likes of what is happening now this plan just doesn't make one iota of sense.

To add to all that Cameron is attempting to sell off properties that he doesn't have a right to, he doesn't own them and shouldn't be able to force the sales, he really is attempting to buy votes with this idea.

That's what my stepmum and dad were on about doing

I now think there's a hidden agenda, sell off the social housing stock, and let all the homeless, vulnerable, people as well as those on low incomes and living in poverty eek out their own existence, it wouldn't surprise me if trailer parks started to pop up everywhere like in America.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Josy

It actually isn't impossible, it's very easy for a tenant to say that someone is living with them.

A family member claims to be living there, provides the money for the house and the tenant then stays in it until they die or moves elsewhere, the house belongs to the buyer or at the very least is jointly owned and is more than likely to be put up for let for an expensive price or sold on for the market price.

There is nothing wrong with people in housing association properties buying the house they live in but they shouldn't get a heavily discounted price at the tax payers expense and if it's not at the tax payers expense then were is the cash coming from? also if a housing association is forced to sell at a huge discount they will then not have the funds to replace that house in the same area.

In a housing crisis the likes of what is happening now this plan just doesn't make one iota of sense.

To add to all that Cameron is attempting to sell off properties that he doesn't have a right to, he doesn't own them and shouldn't be able to force the sales, he really is attempting to buy votes with this idea.

Only the person on the tenancy agreement can purchase the property, if names are added a new tenancy agreement will be drawn as you can no longer add names or transfer a tenancy in England.
If you die the house no longer passes to any adult children living in the property either which could happen once under the old rules.
I don't understand why it's at tax payers expense?

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Only the person on the tenancy agreement can purchase the property, if names are added a new tenancy agreement will be drawn as you can no longer add names or transfer a tenancy in England.
If you die the house no longer passes to any adult children living in the property either which could happen once under the old rules.
I don't understand why it's at tax payers expense?

No it definitely is possible, I know people that have done it and by reading this thread so do others here.

A house still gets passed down here, and if someone stays (or claims to) in the property for 6 months the house/tenancy can also be transferred to them even if the original tenant still stays there and then purchased.

And the article above states in bold that the NHF said the subsidy will cost tax payers Ł5.8bn

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Josy

No it definitely is possible, I know people that have done it and by reading this thread so do others here.

A house still gets passed down here, and if someone stays (or claims to) in the property for 6 months the house/tenancy can also be transferred to them even if the original tenant still stays there and then purchased.

And the article above states in bold that the NHF said the subsidy will cost tax payers Ł5.8bn

Ah yes the cost of renting elsewhere yes I get it now.
It's not possible in Leeds anymore.

'If you have taken over the tenancy following the death of the previous
tenant the tenancy does not go to someone else if you die. We may
agree to give them a new tenancy under our Letting Policy and allow
them to stay in the property but there is no automatic right to stay.
17 Introductory Tenants DO NOT have this right. You get this right if you become a secure tenant.
.8 If the tenancy passes to a member of your family and the home is bigger
than they need this is one of the grounds for possession. We will offer
them a suitable alternative property. If they do not accept that offer we
have the right to ask the Court to give us possession of the property.'

You have the right to pass your tenancy to another person (called an Assignment). Certain conditions apply to this right. Generally you can only pass your tenancy in this way to someone who would have the right to take over your tenancy if you died (succession). Please ask your Neighbourhood Housing Office for more details.

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/Tenancy...Jan%202014.pdf

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Josy

It actually isn't impossible, it's very easy for a tenant to say that someone is living with them.

A family member claims to be living there, provides the money for the house and the tenant then stays in it until they die or moves elsewhere, the house belongs to the buyer or at the very least is jointly owned and is more than likely to be put up for let for an expensive price or sold on for the market price.

There is nothing wrong with people in housing association properties buying the house they live in but they shouldn't get a heavily discounted price at the tax payers expense and if it's not at the tax payers expense then were is the cash coming from? also if a housing association is forced to sell at a huge discount they will then not have the funds to replace that house in the same area.

In a housing crisis the likes of what is happening now this plan just doesn't make one iota of sense.

To add to all that Cameron is attempting to sell off properties that he doesn't have a right to, he doesn't own them and shouldn't be able to force the sales, he really is attempting to buy votes with this idea.

Spot On.

Selling any kind of 'Social Housing' like selling 'Council Houses' is totally wrong and cannot be justified.

It aggravates the UK's Housing Crisis creating more 'homeless' people, rewards certain people who lack the will, ambition and initiative to 'better' themselves, and punishes all hard-working people who do have those qualities by depriving them of any similar financial 'gifts' from the state. Yet, a greater percentage of the latter actually PAID the greater amount in taxes which the government is now giving to the former.

This is a resurrection of the same tactics Thatcher utilised with so much success in the 1980's and for the very same reasons:

1) It converts huge numbers of probable traditional 'Grass Roots' Labour voters to the Tory cause.

2) It increases the Housing shortage therefore strengthening the businesses of the largely Tory voting Private Landlords, by increasing 'Demand' over 'Supply' - thereby causing and justifying consequential rent increases.

3) Already prohibitively high 'House Prices' do not by themselves mean a property boom, because for this to be achieved adequate numbers of home-owners have to move up the 'Property Ladder' - something which is a slow process when those at the bottom cannot sell their homes because of a dearth of 'First Time Buyers'. This 'Social Housing' sell off will 'kick start' the 'Boom' because a lot of the suddenly 'Noveau Riche' buyers of those massively discounted 'Social Houses' have considerable 'instant equity' and no matter what 'caveats' the government put in place as prerequisites for buying, there are myriad ways for artful property finance companies to circumvent all impediments to realising that equity, and so a lot of these buyers will eventually sell and move on or become 2nd property owners.

What is forgotten, is that 'builders' of the very same 'Social Housing' now being 'sold off' received all manner of weird and wonderful tax incentives (more tax payers money) when they were building them in the first place.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That would be impossible, there is no way that anyone other than the tenant can purchase a council property,

No - it is easily possible. There are a number of ways to circumvent this, just as there were in the 1980's Thatcher 'Right To Buy' disgrace.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

No - it is easily possible. There are a number of ways to circumvent this, just as there were in the 1980's Thatcher 'Right To Buy' disgrace.

I know someone who bought his parents' council house. They were still covered under the rules that say they can't sell it for so long or they have to repay the equity, I think it was 3 years... but anyway, it is possible.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

I know someone who bought his parents' council house. They were still covered under the rules that say they can't sell it for so long or they have to repay the equity, I think it was 3 years... but anyway, it is possible.

True, but it does not even have to be a relative or even anyone remotely connected to the tenant or the property. There are many Property Companies who specialise in this - I could do it myself but don't agree with it.

There were numerous 'Right To Buy' tenants in the 1980's who were not interested in buying the property who 'sold' their 'Right To Buy' to specialist companies for a 'few grand upfront'. A system of 'Special' contracts are used to achieve this legally.