Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
irrationalactor

Shared Ownership Vs Right To Buy

Recommended Posts

Just had a Conservative electoral candidate advise me to look at Shared Ownership.

Leaving aside the fact that after years of work and saving I don't see why I should need any help to house myself, I realised that this scheme bears some striking similarities to our old friend Right to Buy.

Two buyers. Both have been renting while saving a deposit. Both are buying a housing association/social/ex-council flat. Both are paying 30% or so of the 'market value'.

But the council tenant will have been paying a social rent all those years of saving, and once he's paid his 30% he's free and clear.

The other buyer has kept his head above water in the unregulated world of private rentals. Once his 30% is paid the housing association's 70% share will still be hanging over his head. That's twice as much again to find before retirement, or to pay rent on forever.

I realise Right to Buy has been rolled back - the maximum 100k discount doesn't amount to 70% in London's insane bubble, and the Right to Acquire for newer housing association tenants is much less generous.

But still - two government schemes (both schemes supported by the Conservatives), two buyers, two ex-social flats. Both paying a discounted price. One buyer free and clear, the other is renting until retirement or paying out twice as much again. How on earth can the government justify this difference? Impoverishing yourself in order to get to the head of the council list may as well be a lottery win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had a Conservative electoral candidate advise me to look at Shared Ownership.

Leaving aside the fact that after years of work and saving I don't see why I should need any help to house myself, I realised that this scheme bears some striking similarities to our old friend Right to Buy.

Two buyers. Both have been renting while saving a deposit. Both are buying a housing association/social/ex-council flat. Both are paying 30% or so of the 'market value'.

But the council tenant will have been paying a social rent all those years of saving, and once he's paid his 30% he's free and clear.

The other buyer has kept his head above water in the unregulated world of private rentals. Once his 30% is paid the housing association's 70% share will still be hanging over his head. That's twice as much again to find before retirement, or to pay rent on forever.

I realise Right to Buy has been rolled back - the maximum 100k discount doesn't amount to 70% in London's insane bubble, and the Right to Acquire for newer housing association tenants is much less generous.

But still - two government schemes (both schemes supported by the Conservatives), two buyers, two ex-social flats. Both paying a discounted price. One buyer free and clear, the other is renting until retirement or paying out twice as much again. How on earth can the government justify this difference? Impoverishing yourself in order to get to the head of the council list may as well be a lottery win.

You are looking for some moral logic in the policies on offer- there is none. All of these schemes have a single amoral purpose- to purchase votes. Those who 'own' their own homes tend to vote Tory- hence we have the new Help to buy scheme, another taxpayer funded vote rigging exercise.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But still - two government schemes (both schemes supported by the Conservatives), two buyers, two ex-social flats. Both paying a discounted price. One buyer free and clear, the other is renting until retirement or paying out twice as much again. How on earth can the government justify this difference? Impoverishing yourself in order to get to the head of the council list may as well be a lottery win.

Depends where you live. You don't have to always have to impoverish yourself to get Council housing, just move to an area of low housing demand (which invariably means no jobs). Also in a position where you can immediately accept a Council tenancy. Whilst strictly speaking social housing is for people in need, quite often there aren't enough needy people around when a flat comes up, so someone much further down the list gets a chance. You would be surprised how nit picky some of these people 'in need' are. Having local and family connections helps.

The problem with both schemes of course is once they have been sold, they are no longer 'affordable.' This wouldn't be so bad if the stock was being replenished as fast as they were being sold but we all know the plan is to destroy social housing and get us all housed by the mom and pop Rachmans looking for a return (and many HA's are little better).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a Conservative electoral candidate advise me to look at Shared Ownership.

Leaving aside the fact that after years of work and saving I don't see why I should need any help to house myself, I realised that this scheme bears some striking similarities to our old friend Right to Buy.

Two buyers. Both have been renting while saving a deposit. Both are buying a housing association/social/ex-council flat. Both are paying 30% or so of the 'market value'.

But the council tenant will have been paying a social rent all those years of saving, and once he's paid his 30% he's free and clear.

The other buyer has kept his head above water in the unregulated world of private rentals. Once his 30% is paid the housing association's 70% share will still be hanging over his head. That's twice as much again to find before retirement, or to pay rent on forever.

I realise Right to Buy has been rolled back - the maximum 100k discount doesn't amount to 70% in London's insane bubble, and the Right to Acquire for newer housing association tenants is much less generous.

But still - two government schemes (both schemes supported by the Conservatives), two buyers, two ex-social flats. Both paying a discounted price. One buyer free and clear, the other is renting until retirement or paying out twice as much again. How on earth can the government justify this difference? Impoverishing yourself in order to get to the head of the council list may as well be a lottery win.

right to buy without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are looking for some moral logic in the policies on offer- there is none. All of these schemes have a single amoral purpose- to purchase votes. Those who 'own' their own homes tend to vote Tory- hence we have the new Help to buy scheme, another taxpayer funded vote rigging exercise.

If we've already given up on responsible government then where's the party angling to buy my vote?

I suppose someone must think shared ownership is a good idea - but how many votes can there really be in it? Are people really so willing to do anything for a 'home' that they'll sign no matter how bad the terms are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right to buy without question.

Naturally - you get a big discount and you actually own the place (well the bank does initially).

Shared ownership - all the disadvantages of ownership but almost none of the advantages. Plus you may end up paying a rip off rent to your HA which goes up by RPI annually and pay full service charge/repairs costs even if you only own 25%.

There is no comparison!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally - you get a big discount and you actually own the place (well the bank does initially).

Shared ownership - all the disadvantages of ownership but almost none of the advantages. Plus you may end up paying a rip off rent to your HA which goes up by RPI annually and pay full service charge/repairs costs even if you only own 25%.

There is no comparison!

Shared ownership is the worst of both worlds IMO. You are basically taking out a mortgage to 'buy' your secure tenancy. Basically its legalised 'key money.' Appalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RtB is absolutely disgusting, literally giving "poor" people a free £100k on top of all the other tens of thousands of pounds they have received from the taxpayer. Should have never been introduced, should be scrapped immediately. One of many reasons why its financially better to be 'poor' than lower-middle or middle-class these days.

Shared ownership only looks bad in comparison to RtB, but then so does literally everything related to housebuying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RtB is absolutely disgusting, literally giving "poor" people a free £100k on top of all the other tens of thousands of pounds they have received from the taxpayer. Should have never been introduced, should be scrapped immediately. One of many reasons why its financially better to be 'poor' than lower-middle or middle-class these days.

Shared ownership only looks bad in comparison to RtB, but then so does literally everything related to housebuying.

Good morning Central Office!

Stop trolling forums and go back to work Smyth. Sure Tory HQ have better things for you to do. Nigel Evans is wanting a hand out. Go spin that.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RtB is absolutely disgusting, literally giving "poor" people a free £100k on top of all the other tens of thousands of pounds they have received from the taxpayer. Should have never been introduced, should be scrapped immediately. One of many reasons why its financially better to be 'poor' than lower-middle or middle-class these days.

Shared ownership only looks bad in comparison to RtB, but then so does literally everything related to housebuying.

It`s the world turned up-side-down innit!

I guess you`re the bloke who always gets in the wrong queue at supermarkets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Central Office!

Stop trolling forums and go back to work Smyth. Sure Tory HQ have better things for you to do. Nigel Evans is wanting a hand out. Go spin that.

I thought RtB was Thatchee's big idea? That and cosh the miners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s the world turned up-side-down innit!

I guess you`re the bloke who always gets in the wrong queue at supermarkets!

Where do I claim this 'free £100k?' then I could buy two, one to rent ...as you do. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a private renter that is ineligible to even go on my local council housing register for social housing i cant say im keen on anyone being allowed to buy social housing full stop let alone with a discount.

I do feel a bit frustrated at times, locked out of secure tenancy renting and the bizarre thing is unlike a fair percentage of social tenants i would actually be paying my own rent :D , having said that i understand why im excluded but it still leaves a nasty taste in the mouth when i know plenty of people on much higher wages than me with council houses for life if they wish

In true HPC style i refuse to buy into the ponzi at this point in time or indeed possibly ever so just have to suck up private renting and the possibility of being evicted with 2 months notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   217 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.