Outrage Over Homes Sell-off

[buytoilet]

They have a point, I rent a private house a couple of streets away from some housing assocation homes and some of the occupants are nothing but trouble i.e. load music, the freaking illegal motor bikes and underage drinking etc.

Same here, we had a housing association build on the back gardens. Place is now full of kids on scooters, broken bottles and lots of drunken shouting, fantastic.

[live in hope]

This made me laugh.

I imagine the "private home owners" living on that estate look down on those second class citizens who live in housing associations and who rent.

You know the sort. Those poor people who eat junk food rather than vegetables, who wipe their arses on the wall paper rather than use a toilet roll and who have no self respect and aspiration, which is why they don't own privately.

Yes, you know the sort. The sort who weren't stupid enough to buy a new build from Barratt Homes in April 2008.

And wont be buying anything anytime ever while the taxpayer will put a free roof over their heads.

[live in hope]

In just 9 words, this sums up everything wrong with Britain today.

Ridiculous. What is wrong in trying to keep a standard up. Its falling standards that is showing our country up around the world.

[Bloo Loo]

Imagine how the queen feels, had a whole city of chavs built on her patch, along with the crime centre of the world....the City...who wont let her in without an escort.

[bomberbrown]

[/b]

I have said nothing about the article. I responded to someone sneering about what the trouble today with Britain was.

Gee, so many armchair experts and with SO many years of experience, most of it gained on the internet. No wonder Britian is in the dumper.

I have earned MY armchair. Some of you lot have barely got out of yours.

So what was the point of your first two posts, because from what I can deduce they were making generalizations about benefit claimants/HA tenants.

Also, with all due respect Aunt Jess, please do not presume to know me, what I've done in my life or how much I've earned my armchair.

[50%deposit]

Usually you take a much, much tougher line with the chavs, lowlifes, junkies, scumbags and scroungers around your area.

Are you mellowing, or have you found a nice woman?

no, i actually live in a high security prison, its quiet, and heavily engineered. They cant hit me or do anything i could report on.

instead they use the astral plane to fry my mind.

its hard to explain.

its like the govt has done a makeover on chavs-ville. Sort of engineered the perfect integrated community, except ME. Im like John Savage from Brave New World. but I wont accept their ways. I say NO, and thats the crux of it.

i just want to live where tthe people are exactly like me, EXACTLY, excpet male and female. speak with a sqeaky voice, like reading books, like to eat cakes, hate idiots and other things, and when i move i know the first thing the govt will do is make sure that there is NO ONE like me within 10 parsecs. So i have empathy for the OP's scenario.

[cybernoid]

I have a fear that when prices are at the bottom I still won't buy because I won't be able to afford the only kind of housing I am prepared to live in... that is, where there are few neighbours and no new builds in a nice part of the country. It's madness to commit to living in any other type of property for the long term for precisely the reasons mentioned.

[Guest sillybear2]

Ridiculous. What is wrong in trying to keep a standard up. Its falling standards that is showing our country up around the world.

They bought a new build, from Barrett, in April 2008... they clearly have no concept of standards or basic common sense.

[Guest AuntJess]

So what was the point of your first two posts, because from what I can deduce they were making generalizations about benefit claimants/HA tenants.

Also, with all due respect Aunt Jess, please do not presume to know me, what I've done in my life or how much I've earned my armchair.

Call me Jess. If you are of mature years I can't see it being appropriate to call me Aunt.

No, I wasn't. As a council house tenant in my youth, I am pretty well up on what a mixed bag you get in social housing. My problem was that the building permission for a block of flats - on a mature and up-market development , as shown by the VERY high council tax banding :angry: - was gained by saying they were for young professionals: Professionals that were assumed to have to conform to the rules of civilised behaviour.

That there was a policy to give so many of the units to the social services, for rehoming/rehabilitating ex jailbirds and miscreants, was never revealed. Much like many other policies in this country , they go thru' on the nod and those most involved are expected to 'like it or lump it', when there turns out to be a significant downside.

As to YOUR right to your armchair, then you must learn to take from a post only that which is relevant to you. A number on here speak from very little insight, understanding and/or experience of the world at large.My comments were directed towards THEM.

NB Just read that post and it DOES seemas tho' I am lumping benefits claimants together and saying they are all crap. The point was that AMONGST those claimants were a group of dubious characters, but somehow they could not be weeded out as they fell under the heading of benefits claimants - so were entitled to live there - under that ruling.

As a point: My son's mate had one of those units, but left as soon as he could because of the unsavoury element that had been allowed to infiltrate. He went to live with his girlfriend first chance he could.

MY point was that as a high-banded CT payer, why should I have miscreants on MY doorstep? When I was in a council house as a child, I did not have the opportunity to go and live in a 'swep-up' area, and BOTH my parents worked - they just did not earn very much.

Now it seems that the lowest order of society must be given access to whatever and wherever some bleeding heart deems necessary... as part of their 'rehabilitation'.

Never occurs to these half-baked theorists that those who need rehabilitating might be turning the heads of vulnerable others, or endangering lives. But then the Social Services have never been an organisation to think things thru'

Edited May 21, 2009 by AuntJess

[bomberbrown]

Call me Jess. If you are of mature years I can't see it being appropriate to call me Aunt.

No, I wasn't. As a council house tenant in my youth, I am pretty well up on what a mixed bag you get in social housing. My problem was that the building permission for a block of flats - on a mature and up-market development , as shown by the VERY high council tax banding :angry: - was gained by saying they were for young professionals: Professionals that were assumed to have to conform to the rules of civilised behaviour.

That there was a policy to give so many of the units to the social services, for rehoming/rehabilitating ex jailbirds and miscreants, was never revealed. Much like many other policies in this country , they go thru' on the nod and those most involved are expected to 'like it or lump it', when there turns out to be a significant downside.

As to YOUR right to your armchair, then you must learn to take from a post only that which is relevant to you. A number on here speak from very little insight, understanding and/or experience of the world at large.My comments were directed towards THEM.

NB Just read that post and it DOES seemas tho' i am lumping benefits claimants togather and saying they are all crap.

As a point: My son's mate had one of those units, but left as soon as he could because of the unsavoury element that had been allowed to infiltrate. He went to live with his girlfreind first chance he could.

MY point was that as a high-banded CT payer, why should I have miscreants on MY doorstep? When I was in a council house as a child, I did not have the opportunity to go and live in a 'swep-up' area, and BOTH my parents worked - they just did not earn very much.

Now it seems that the lowest order of society must be given access to whatever and wherever some bleeding heart deems necessary... as part of their 'rehbilitation'.

Never occurs to these half-baked theorists that those who need rehabilitating might be turning the hreads of vulnerable others. But then the Social Services have never been an organisation to think things thru'

And quite humbly, I re-read the Dudley News article again, and I must admit, I failed to read this bit at the end:

“When we started the development, we intended it would be for private housing and our statements were consistent with that.

“However, long after private sales to our customers were completed, changed market conditions meant we agreed to make some homes available under the new Government- backed scheme which facilitates housing associations buying from developers.”

On reflection, I must change my original opinion of these particular homeowners, they were promised a private development and Barratts reneged on that. That is out of order and they have every right to be angry.

I still stand by my viewpoint that the HA tenants should be given a chance.

Edited May 21, 2009 by bomberbrown

[kara gee]

Maybe the property owners need to work WITH the housing association on this.

Maybe the residents can be part of the selection process for chosing the new tennents for the empty houses. I know there's a lot of bad families out there, but there's a hell of a lot of good ones who are on a low income who would take care of their home and integrate well into the local community.

It could almost be like job interview style where applicants would sit in front of a board of local residents.

The home would also come with a rolling tennency starting with a 12 week probation, then rolls to a 6 month tennency, then 12 month etc.

Should appease the residents. It'd be great to be able to chose your onw neighbours.

[juvenal]

Maybe the property owners need to work WITH the housing association on this.

Maybe the residents can be part of the selection process for chosing the new tennents for the empty houses. I know there's a lot of bad families out there, but there's a hell of a lot of good ones who are on a low income who would take care of their home and integrate well into the local community.

It could almost be like job interview style where applicants would sit in front of a board of local residents.

The home would also come with a rolling tennency starting with a 12 week probation, then rolls to a 6 month tennency, then 12 month etc.

Should appease the residents. It'd be great to be able to chose your onw neighbours.

Ironically, isn't this what happens in the most exlusive and expensive Manhattan apartment blocks? Didn't Madonna get a thumbs down from one group of residents?

[Guest AuntJess]

And quite humbly, I re-read the Dudley News article again, and I must admit, I failed to read this bit at the end:

On reflection, I must change my original opinion of these particular homeowners, they were promised a private development and Barratts reneged on that. That is out of order and they have every right to be angry.

I still stand by my viewpoint that the HA tenants should be given a chance.

NB whenever "I" talk about the lower orders, i speak of those who are social outcasts because of the anti-social /criminal behaviour. I would never judge someone on poverty - even tho' I was - to some extent. My parents were poor but decent. WE had to live with the dregs 'cos we had no choice - we lived in council property. Small comfort when one grows up, works one's ass off, saves - instead of squandering, then finds oneself living within 100 yards of people you'd shudder to have your children anywhere NEAR. Just 'cos the social services are - once again - bleeding for the wrong people.

Once again topsy-turvy Britain rules OK.

[Ski]

They have a point, I rent a private house a couple of streets away from some housing assocation homes and some of the occupants are nothing but trouble i.e. load music, the freaking illegal motor bikes and underage drinking etc.

Actually they have no point at all.

- I don't expect that in the contract that then entered into with Barrets that it places clauses on who Barrets can sell the remainder of the properties to.

- Datum anecdotal evidence is just crap.

[@contradevian]

Never really understood this argument, given that it never stopped people buying council housing. Maybe thats the problem. Housing associations should just be allowed to buy random properties, rather than have a whole block or street have the stigma of "social housing."

Then again a mate of mine (UK born, always worked and contributed) had to fight to get his flat in Thamesmead, but they had no difficulty finding room for Somali "asylum seekers."

[Leonard Hatred]

Don't talk rot!

When you have kids and one of them runs into the kitchen carrying a dirty hypo needle that s/he's been playing with, and has to have an HIV test, maybe you'll realise that often - lowered house prices are strongly related to - much of the time - lowering quality of life/ safety for families.

So many people talk a load of bilge till they've had a family and seen things thru' a father's/mother's eyes.

Once again, my point was that the article was more concerned with house prices rather then anything like this.

[Jester]

They have a point, I rent a private house a couple of streets away from some housing assocation homes and some of the occupants are nothing but trouble i.e. load music, the freaking illegal motor bikes and underage drinking etc.

Yes they DO have a point. Let's face it - most people are fine, most people want the same things in life, but it only takes 1 to ruin it all for everyone else.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

I live in London and this is happening big-time near me but in typical London fashion is simply causing a feed-back loop. New housing and abandoned repos gets given to association/council who simply fill them with asylum seekers, this causes local home values to go down further and the cycle intensifies.

Two years from now it will be a major ghetto judging by the levels of state dependency occurring.

Just a repeat of the mistakes of the 1960s, but this time by the private sector.

[Rosepetal]

"Ere, you know them poshers next door?"

"Yeah, Trace..."

"Well I've been meanin to 'ave words with 'im. All I 'ear 'im doin' is effin' an' blindin' about the mortgage payments an' that. An' last night I reckon he was smackin' 'er about, tellin' er not to waste money on "******ing organic soap"!"

"Bloody 'ell, I reckon I'll 'ave words with 'em about it, I can't 'ave my Jay-Harley an' Chardoney listenin' to that, it'll bring back memories of their dads. Not the way I want my nippers brung up....."

"Oi! Chardoney, get out of the street and in the back garden if you're goin' to smoke fags. I don't want the neighbours seein' you smokin' before you look sixteen. Have some respect."

Excellent!

[Haventaclue]

This is nothing to do with 'generalising', or dishing social housing. Its blatantly obvious that the care taken of a property and its surrounding environments by owner occupiers, is far higher than care taken by a tenants. Irrespective if theyre social housing, or private rental etc.

I remember when council housing first started to be sold off in th 80's. It was brilliant to see the transformation. Hanging baskets arrived in their hundreds. Our council estates have only improved since the option to buy was introduced, and despite a few dodgy design decisions, (one house has horses heads on the gateposts, another has roman columns on the porch), the estates in general are unrecognisable from what they were in the 70's.

Never in a hundred years would these 'tenants' have invested in the upkeep of their homes, and their surrounding gardens (I do love all the pampas grass) unless they were 'owners'. Tenants are just that. Tenanted for a short period and of course the property in general declines. Thats why they call it 'fair wear and tear' in the TA's.

Now it may be that all the HPC forum 'tenants' of course have done nothing but 'improve' the properties theyre renting for purposes of this debate...................... Yeh right.

[Spirit]

As predicted long ago on here, the same thing is happening across the country...

'It's like living in a zoo'

Shocked residents who bought their own homes on Shepton Mallet's prestigious new Avalon estate are seething with indignation after finding their new neighbours now moving in are mainly housing association tenants.

They are furious that Bellway Homes, developers of the 69-home estate in Hitchin Lane, has not had the decency to officially notify them of their decision to sell off the bulk of the remaining empty homes, originally zoned for private buyers, to the Hastoe Housing Association.

For they were assured when they bought their homes last year that the majority of the remaining homes would go to private buyers.

The residents say they have nothing against housing association tenants - it is the fact that living on an estate now predominately zoned for social housing will devalue the homes they paid for when they were under the assumption the estate was largely for private buyers.

"It has wiped thousands off the value of our homes," said one.

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/shepton/ne...il/article.html

[ingermany]

Good story.

It demonstrates the often repeated mantra that a home should be a place to live, not an investment. These disgruntled buyers have lost absolutely nothing and have no cause to complain. They paid what they believed to be a fair price for a roof over their heads, and that is what the builder has provided. It is totally irrelevant to the buyers if the builder has provided a similar home to council tennants on the same street. If you buy a house it does not give you the right to control who lives in adjacent houses. If you want that right you need to buy the whole street. There are to many whiners and whingers in this country.

[ingermany]

And another thing. Maybe someone should remind the whining "mortgage owners" that if the neighbouring homes had not been bought by Housing Associations (the Government) at inflated prices, the builder would have been forced to sell them at real market value to real FTBs. That would have meant 50-60% less than the mugs who bought in 2007 paid. The value of investments can go down as well as up. The scandal here is not that a few deluded snobs have some unwelcome chavvy neighbours. It is that the Government has intervened in the housing market to force prices up and stop then from dropping, thereby keeping FTBs priced out of home ownership.

[Lone_Twin]

The only problem I have wth this is I absolutely gaurantee that the HAs have been bent over a barrel and paid far more (of tax payers money) than these crappy properties are worth.

Some middle management feckwit, in position through length of service rather than merit will have been handed the million quid chequebook and told to "get a good deal".

One fee parking space and a set of £500 white goods per property and the ink is already dry. I know these types, couldnt screw a price down if their lives depended on it.

[Bloo Loo]

And another thing. Maybe someone should remind the whining "mortgage owners" that if the neighbouring homes had not been bought by Housing Associations (the Government) at inflated prices, the builder would have been forced to sell them at real market value to real FTBs. That would have meant 50-60% less than the mugs who bought in 2007 paid. The value of investments can go down as well as up. The scandal here is not that a few deluded snobs have some unwelcome chavvy neighbours. It is that the Government has intervened in the housing market to force prices up and stop then from dropping, thereby keeping FTBs priced out of home ownership.

another "expense" on taxpayers money to keep values up... the price paid by the HA SHOULD have been the real market value.