Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Nickolarge

£350K Council House Sells For £60K

Recommended Posts

Daily Mail article

This is the sort of waste of public money that should be stopped.

The tenant should have been satisfied to have such a nice place on the cheap courtesy of his local council but no, he has to exercise his "right" to buy it costing the taxpayer a fortune in legal fees not to mention the loss of a property worth many times the price he is paying.

Nearly everyone in that town should be up in arms....but they won't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had the right to buy it, and was denied it at the time, I say good on him... Shame it took 15 years and a law degree.

Yes. I don't agree with the RTB policy (sorry Maggie, many good things but not that one) but if it's there then the council should follow the rules.

IMO he should have been awarded compensation and not just costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I don't agree with the RTB policy (sorry Maggie, many good things but not that one) but if it's there then the council should follow the rules.

Maggie's policy was that all money raised from selling council houses went to build more council houses. If there had been a 1-to-1 rebuild then housing in this country would be very different now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shopuldn't the title at least be

"£60k house goes for £60k"?

Well as its discounted, and he could sell it on the open market for a lot more ... then no.

But fair play to him its everyone for themselves and the goal is to f_ck/play the system.

I dont wish him good health though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I don't agree with the RTB policy (sorry Maggie, many good things but not that one) but if it's there then the council should follow the rules.

IMO he should have been awarded compensation and not just costs.

I agree. On reflection the Right to Buy policy was a mistake - especially on the terms of huge discount offered. Good luck to him if the policy is still law! I and anyone else who never had a council house, have not been given any free money to buy a house although we have paid for this sort of person to have subsidised housing. This particular house is said to be two bedrooms but looks like a 4 bedder ex vicarage. In Sussex that would go for about £650k (with 4beds) depending on exact area.

We now have a shortage of homes for those on low incomes yet a taxi driver, who is past young family age is there with an 80% discount on a very attractive home. I agree with Mr Cameron, that the RTB policy should be reconsidered and also whether people should just be given council housing for life, whatever their income. I reckon a review each 7-10 years should be undertaken and if appropriate, some should move to private rented or buy a similar terraced/semi for themselves. This would alleviate the housing list and be fairer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plummet expert

Its more the point that he heard about it internally whilst he worked for the council, and the property was never offered to the general public hence he seemingly got it through dubious methods.

Wonder if they can find the council worker who corruptly signed it off to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie's policy was that all money raised from selling council houses went to build more council houses. If there had been a 1-to-1 rebuild then housing in this country would be very different now.

Total cr@p.

The right to buy specifically prevented councils spending the receipts on new housing by law. The mad bitch wanted (and succeeded) in getting rid of a "problem" - social housing and privatising it via housing associations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie's policy was that all money raised from selling council houses went to build more council houses. If there had been a 1-to-1 rebuild then housing in this country would be very different now.

It would indeed but 1-1 was never going to work:

i) Cost of building a new one outweighs the discounted price

ii) With the transfer of most council housing stock to Housing Associations clawbacks to councils were put in place on RTBs. So when a RTB happens the discounted proceeds may be £80k of which the council gets about £60k and is very happy with it. So the HA, being the only local body now building social housing, has just lost a house and has £20k to build a new one. With good grants 4 RTBs = 1 new house; that's where a lot of the stock has gone.

There are many other problems with RTB including the responsibility of the council / HA to manage estates. So in somewhere nice with loads of RTBs it is managing facilities and cutting the grass when it may only own a third of the houses. Administration and costs per owned property rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discount is capped to 27k - so they've used the value when they first said no... which seems unfair as he could resell it now for 350 and only have to pay back the 27k discount. Thats the bit thats wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discount is capped to 27k - so they've used the value when they first said no... which seems unfair as he could resell it now for 350 and only have to pay back the 27k discount. Thats the bit thats wrong.

Well, that is the compensation of which I spoke then. Good, and I hope the council at least discipline somebody for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would indeed but 1-1 was never going to work:

i) Cost of building a new one outweighs the discounted price

Why would that be?

If my council home is valued at 130K that is surely the retail price is it not?

A discount of 30k (the discount I would get) would bring it down to something like the wholesale price of 100k is that not the case?

Why would councils have to pay more than wholesale prices to build? (unless council members, land owners and builders belonged to the same lodge of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would that be?

If my council home is valued at 130K that is surely the retail price is it not?

A discount of 30k (the discount I would get) would bring it down to something like the wholesale price of 100k is that not the case?

Why would councils have to pay more than wholesale prices to build? (unless council members, land owners and builders belonged to the same lodge of course)

With those figures then yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play to this guy in all honesty.

He was told he had a Right to Buy, he applied, he was rejected on unfair grounds.

No-one here would complain if he has been allowed to buy in 95 for 63k and was selling up now for 350k+ the fact that he has bascially achieved the same whilst fighting the government for 15 years and gaining a 2:1 law degree should only be commended.

Yes we are paying for this stupidity out of public coffers, but remember that was because of the local councils incorrect appraisal of the land as consecrated and as a right of way path - not because the tennant was incorrect.

If everyone was this savy and fought as hard for their rights we would be in a better place.

Don't blame the tennant, blame the RTB and the government for its idiocy over 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shopuldn't the title at least be

"£60k house goes for £60k"?

Some people just dont get it. It was "worth" £93,000 in sterlings purchasing power in 1995. Its "worth" £350,000 in sterlings purchasing power today. He got it today for a discount of £33,000 on the 1995 value. The court is ignoring the effects of inflation and money debasement. He should be entitled to buy it today at a discount from the £350,000 "value" of current valuations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people just dont get it. It was "worth" £93,000 in sterlings purchasing power in 1995. Its "worth" £350,000 in sterlings purchasing power today. He got it today for a discount of £33,000 on the 1995 value. The court is ignoring the effects of inflation and money debasement. He should be entitled to buy it today at a discount from the £350,000 "value" of current valuations.

Rubbish, he should have been offered the RTB back in 1995 not rejected on incorrect grounds, why should he have to pay the inflated price because the local council incorrectly considered his home as being exempt from the scheme on invalid grounds? THEY were in the wrong, HE was not. His application for RTB was made in 95 and unfairly rejected, if he has put in a new application in 2010 and was rejected then i would agree, but in a 15 year legal case you take the asset value starting point as the beginning of the case, not the value of all assets at the end date once judgement is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.