[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

They haven't stopped

“I’m delighted we’ve got lots more properties lined up for other families and we won’t be stopping there. Next month we’ll be launching a new housing company because we’ve got thousands of properties which can be brought back to life and we’re doing that because the demand is there. People want to get on the housing ladder and Liverpool is still regenerating, still growing and very much an attractive place to work and live.

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...ight=one+pound

There doesn't seem to have been much in the media between 2012 and now.

I hope all towns follow Liverpools lead.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...ight=one+pound

There doesn't seem to have been much in the media between 2012 and now.

I hope all towns follow Liverpools lead.

Wouldn’t that be going against Labour’s so-called policy and desires to preserve council housing stock. Instead they sell them off at a ridiculous price, effectively giving them away, to those that can afford to do them up. The council should be doing them up to preserve council house stock shouldn’t the they!

If it’s a less expensive way of buying a home then it’s a less expensive way for the council to preserve their stock. Just giving them away is a prime example of labour saying one thing and doing another.

[Cherie]

so an update on this as there was a news item on it this morning, Stoke are releasing 12 more houses today, in addition to buying the house for a £1.00 the council give a grant of 30K to get the house back into living condition, they give it to a contractor to complete the work and the homeowner can choose the fixtures and fitting, taps, kitchen etc. All the homeowner has to do is paint it...and put in any carpets/curtains and obviously furniture and the homeowner only moves in when the property is finished.

The 30K is then paid back in the form of a mortgage on the property, so the person interviewed was paying 400.00 a month in rent, is now paying 200.00 for their mortgage...and has their own home.

When asked about the area she said they knew they were buying in a run down area the the council work with the police the ensure the residents are safe

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Wouldn’t that be going against Labour’s so-called policy and desires to preserve council housing stock. Instead they sell them off at a rediculous price, effectively giving them away, to those that can afford to do them up. The council should be doing them up to preserve council house stock shouldn’t the they!

If it’s a less expensive way of buying a home then it’s a less expensive way for the council to preserve their stock. Just giving them away is a prime example of labour saying one thing and doing another.

again from the news item the council buy the stock from people who no longer live in them and want them sold, getting them back into liveable condition does not cost them anything as the 30K grant will be paid back via the mortgage, and in the longer terms helps regenerate the area and also provides council tax and takes the family off the housing list

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Cherie

again from the news item the council buy the stock from people who no longer live in them and want them sold, getting them back into liveable condition does not cost them anything as the 30K grant will be paid back via the mortgage, and in the longer terms helps regenerate the area and also provides council tax and takes the family off the housing list

I just feel that the council would be better off doing them up themselves to replenish their stock, as they are so desperate for housing stock, which once sold will be lost to their stock forever, in exactly the same way as council housing purchased by tenants is - something Labour say they will stop because it is is a loss to their housing stock. It makes no sense to me.

How can they stop one whilst supporting another which result in the same effect - a loss of council house stock

Don’t get me wrong I am not against the idea in theory, just as I am not against council tenants buying their council homes - but I am against such blatant hypocrisy from the labour government.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Cherie

so an update on this as there was a news item on it this morning, Stoke are releasing 12 more houses today, in addition to buying the house for a £1.00 the council give a grant of 30K to get the house back into living condition, they give it to a contractor to complete the work and the homeowner can choose the fixtures and fitting, taps, kitchen etc. All the homeowner has to do is paint it...and put in any carpets/curtains and obviously furniture and the homeowner only moves in when the property is finished.

The 30K is then paid back in the form of a mortgage on the property, so the person interviewed was paying 400.00 a month in rent, is now paying 200.00 for their mortgage...and has their own home.

When asked about the area she said they knew they were buying in a run down area the the council work with the police the ensure the residents are safe

that sounds like an ideal solution. To the majority, refurbishing a derelict property is just too daunting a prospect to take on. This method can be taken on by anyone.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I just feel that the council would be better off doing them up themselves to replenish their stock, as they are so desperate for housing stock, which once sold will be lost to their stock forever, in exactly the same way as council housing purchased by tenants is - something Labour say they will stop because it is is a loss to their housing stock. It makes no sense to me.

How can they stop one whilst supporting another which result in the same effect - a loss of council house stock

Don’t get me wrong I am not against the idea in theory, just as I am not against council tenants buying their council homes - but I am against such blatant hypocrisy from the labour government.

Good point

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Wouldn’t that be going against Labour’s so-called policy and desires to preserve council housing stock. Instead they sell them off at a ridiculous price, effectively giving them away, to those that can afford to do them up. The council should be doing them up to preserve council house stock shouldn’t the they!

If it’s a less expensive way of buying a home then it’s a less expensive way for the council to preserve their stock. Just giving them away is a prime example of labour saying one thing and doing another.

Where are the councils getting the money from to bring these homes back up to the *decent homes standard? Not central government that's for damn sure. Although this appears perhaps not ideal initially for social housing If the area regenerates more people will want to live there, so they can build new modern energy efficient council properties to meet that demand. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.

It is Liverpool undertaking this initiative but it could be several other boroughs Labour and conservative that have issues with defective housing stock.

* https://england.shelter.org.uk/housi..._a_decent_home

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I just feel that the council would be better off doing them up themselves to replenish their stock, as they are so desperate for housing stock, which once sold will be lost to their stock forever, in exactly the same way as council housing purchased by tenants is - something Labour say they will stop because it is is a loss to their housing stock. It makes no sense to me.

How can they stop one whilst supporting another which result in the same effect - a loss of council house stock

Don’t get me wrong I am not against the idea in theory, just as I am not against council tenants buying their council homes - but I am against such blatant hypocrisy from the labour government.

Most councils don't have £30k per property to spend on houses to keep, though, they're flat broke. The point of this is, the £30k is a mortgage-style loan that the new owner of the house pays back with interest (i.e. the council actually makes a profit).

[thesheriff443]

No such thing as a free lunch!
The reason these houses are derelict is no one wants to live there, there are no jobs either

Why do you think the council themselves would not renovate these houses?
Developers don't want these houses either as there is no money to be made.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

No such thing as a free lunch!
The reason these houses are derelict is no one wants to live there, there are no jobs either

Why do you think the council themselves would not renovate these houses?
Developers don't want these houses either as there is no money to be made.

The houses were due to be demolished and the site used for redevelopment. The people who moved out some time ago had already received more than the sale value so they could buy property elsewhere. When the redevelopers didn't meet the deadline, they decided to sell the site on to people who needed homes.

Housing redevelopers were never given a choice to purchase these properties. They were never on the market.