council homes - good/bad idea to transfer to 3rd party?

[desprateseagull]

somehow brighton&hove council have racked up a huge shortfall in their repair/renovation budget, which means they cannot afford to bring many houses in the area up to a decent livable standard.. (where did all the rent money gom then..??)

they are trying to get people to go along with the idea that only transferring the properties to a 3rd party is viable, so they (new owners) can raise funds for required works...

as far as i can see, after 5 years the rents can be set at any amount- bad news for many local workers i am sure.

my main concern is that the council are trying to wash their hands of a legal responsibility to their local residents, and failing to notice/control the shortfall. it seems there will also be less restriction on who gets a place, or how they are treated.

any thoughts?

 

[Easy 10]

Why not offer the tenants the right to buy ? The responsibility for doing up the property is then passed on to the new homeowner, and the financial burden is removed from the council at a stroke. It could offer a means to get more people on the property ladder, and people would be far more prepared to invest in home improvements for their property if they are actually paying a mortgage on it.

 

[Hiney]

Most tenants probably ALREADY have the Right to Buy, depending on how long they been a council tenant.

Whether they can afford to take up that right is another matter.

The maximum discount in this part of the world is, I think, £38,000 and even with that, there will be many people who will face a big increase in their payments when they move from renting to having a mortgage.

 

[Wardy]

I work for Eastbourne Council and we recently transfered our housing stock to a 3rd party (partly owned by the council). The reason being is that like Brighton they did not have the funds to make all the propities meet the Decent Living Standard by the 2010 deadline.

The new company is able on meeting certain standards to get grants worth millions to do the work. If it had not gone down this line, then the Council Tax payer would have had to fit the bill.

 

[Wardy]

my main concern is that the council are trying to wash their hands of a legal responsibility to their local residents, and failing to notice/control the shortfall. it seems there will also be less restriction on who gets a place, or how they are treated.

any thoughts?

The council will still have the responsibility to house homeless people. The only difference will be that you will be paying your rent to a 3rd party not the council.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Blame Maggie for all this, she stopped councils building new houses for rent. She also inroduced a rule that money got from council house sales could not be re-invested into new housing. If there was new housing always being built by the councils this would not be a problem as the houses would be up to date.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Blame Maggie for all this, she stopped councils building new houses for rent. She also inroduced a rule that money got from council house sales could not be re-invested into new housing. If there was new housing always being built by the councils this would not be a problem as the houses would be up to date.

Oh no, now you've gone and done it.

Cue Looney........

 

[Billy the Fish]

Blame Maggie for all this, she stopped councils building new houses for rent. She also inroduced a rule that money got from council house sales could not be re-invested into new housing. If there was new housing always being built by the councils this would not be a problem as the houses would be up to date.

NSC rule No. 1 Blame everything on Thatcher, even though she hasn't been in power for 16 years

 

[hans kraay fan club]

NSC rule No. 1 Blame everything on Thatcher, even though she hasn't been in power for 16 years

I think you need to go and look at your rule book again.

Rule 1, is blame Mayo, don't ever forget it.

 

[Slowhand]

I work for Eastbourne Council and we recently transfered our housing stock to a 3rd party (partly owned by the council). The reason being is that like Brighton they did not have the funds to make all the propities meet the Decent Living Standard by the 2010 deadline.

The new company is able on meeting certain standards to get grants worth millions to do the work. If it had not gone down this line, then the Council Tax payer would have had to fit the bill.

Who do you think will be footing the bill for the grants now? And now the 3rd party will own all the properties and ultimaltely make money from both rent and resale!!!

Government grants = taxpayers money!!!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Blame Maggie for all this, she stopped councils building new houses for rent. She also inroduced a rule that money got from council house sales could not be re-invested into new housing. If there was new housing always being built by the councils this would not be a problem as the houses would be up to date.

I second this.

So the council cannot fund the repairs, but the private sector can? Where is the money which the council cannot seemingly get their hands on coming from?

 

[SussexHoop]

So it's Thatcher's fault the council hasn't maintained it's existing housing stock and the solution to not maintaining the existing stock is to build more council houses that they won't maintain?

 

[Cocksucker Blue]

It was Thatchers fault that 11% cuts were made to council housing maintenance. Stands to reason that the remaining houses were gonna be pretty shabby or beyond repair by the time Tony could start to invest some money in the...hence the current problem.

 

[Screaming J]

Exactly, Tory party policy when in Government was agin Council houses. Whther or not you think that's a goood think, its actualy true.
So they did everything they could to try and destroy the concept. Firstly by allowing right to buy - which actually I don't have much of a problem with. But then they cut the money available for Councils to repair their own stock of housing and allowed only 3rd party bodies the power to borrow money. The only way Councils could raise money would be via the Poll/Council tax - not very popular.

So now lots of people have taken lots of Council housing out of the public sector you are left mostly with stuff people haven't wanted (or couldn't afford) to buy and no money or powers to do it up. So Councils have tried to persuade tenants to move to 3rd party owners. This doesn't seem an unreasonable plan to me but, in fairness, I'm not a Council tenant!

I have to say I thought there was something which stopped new owneers rom taking the properties over and then screwing tenants with big rent rises. but I'll admit I'm no expert on that.

Of course its noticeable that in 9 years of Labour in power they haven't changed the policy, so perhaps its not just an ideological Tory policy after all.

 

[Cocksucker Blue]

.....and the righjt-to-buy policy created a massive private rental market which is not only less regulated it is more expensive for tennants. What makes this even more of a farce is the fact that councils are now renting back the stock they sold off for a higher composite rate than when they first owned it....and the tories would like you to believe they are the experts on the economy.

 

[clippedgull]

Answering the thread title.

Bad.

 

[desprateseagull]

thank you. i think.

 

[Buzzer]

I think you need to go and look at your rule book again.

Rule 1, is blame Mayo, don't ever forget it.

 

[SussexHoop]

Of course its noticeable that in 9 years of Labour in power they haven't changed the policy, so perhaps its not just an ideological Tory policy after all.

But it's still all Thatcher's fault apparently.

 

[Gemini]

Sorry to drag this up but I didnt want to be 'fixtured' again

The council are still spending hundreds of thousands trying to get tenants to vote to sell to 3rd parties.
Its like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas.
After 5 years the rents will escalate.

The problem as I see it seems to be the Housing Associations will receive Government funding to help with any repair work but the council cant apply for this funding.

Why wont the Government fund the councils?
If it was Thatchers rule then why cant they change it now?
The money raised from the sale of council properties is still there & untouched as I understand it. Its up to Blair to release it surely so people have a basic decent standard of affordable housing without this gun being pointed at their heads.

I live in a HA home & the rent although less than private sector is markedly above council rent.