Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Britains council house millionaires


Recommended Posts

P. S. Its like 2006/2007 all over again. 

 

Remember the programs about turning your 10k deposit into 1m in 10 easily flips.  They'd hsve made more working at mac donalds

 

 

This era of easy money and rubbing people's noses in it won't go much longer 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

P. S. Its like 2006/2007 all over again. 

 

Remember the programs about turning your 10k deposit into 1m in 10 easily flips.  They'd hsve made more working at mac donalds

 

 

This era of easy money and rubbing people's noses in it won't go much longer 

100% agree.  We are seeing the end of our debt based (funny) money system.  The banks are getting desperate again as many more people can see through their little scam of creating worthless currency out of thin are and then having the fooking brass neck to charge interest on it.

F*ck them and their worthless bits of plastic and numbers on a screen. 

People will refuse to "borrow" it.......then the system's over and out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article from 2017...I expect more are in the hands of private landlords now...

 

Four in 10 right-to-buy homes are now owned by private landlords

Tenants living in homes sold under Margaret Thatcher’s scheme now pay twice the rents charged by local authorities

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/08/right-to-buy-homes-owned-private-landlords

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not always in agreement with some of the opinions here - however - this is a scandal 

Social housing should remain as such in perpetuity 

I know many will say this is a Tory problem but Labour also allowed social housing to be sold off.

19 minutes ago, Wayward said:

Four in 10 right-to-buy homes are now owned by private landlords

I have no evidence to support this but assume that a lot of these may have been bought by a social housing  tenant then sold on to a landlord with a large portfolio as they will be less expensive than other houses

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mallish said:

I am not always in agreement with some of the opinions here - however - this is a scandal 

Social housing should remain as such in perpetuity 

I know many will say this is a Tory problem but Labour also allowed social housing to be sold off.

I have no evidence to support this but assume that a lot of these may have been bought by a social housing  tenant then sold on to a landlord with a large portfolio as they will be less expensive than other houses

New Labour allowed the council houses to be sold off.

Corbyn and McDonnell advocated for a nationwide program of general needs social housing at the last GE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A large number of ex council house tenants bought their homes for a big discount in London and rented the same house back to the same council that sold it..... collecting plus a thousand pounds per month guaranteed for five years......guaranteed to get the same house back in the same state as left it, rolling contract.....we'll deal with everything, take it off your hands....leave it all to us, go away and enjoy yourself.;)

Edited by winkie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good find OP.

I got a bit angry watching this show. The landlords are clearly profiting on peoples misery.

They try to justify it with "we're just providing housing", "the councils wouldn't have put this many plugs in" but they are cutting up family homes and cramming strangers together while charging rents equating to half of peoples salaries. 

Ultimately the landlords are stooges though. If they could, the banks would buy up all the properties and exploit the people directly. The problem for the banks is that this would be too obvious, so instead they have set up this middle tier of landlords to act as a buffer and obfuscate who is really profiting from all of this.

This doesn't exonerate your run of the mill landlord though. Mentioning banging up someones rent £15-£20 for a door lock with such an uncaring grin on his face is disgusting. To the poor McDonald employee or lidl shelf stacker that £15-20 is a lot of money.

The Ferrari that the landlord drives represents probably 3-5 families that have not formed as people couldn't find affordable housing to start one.

It feels like we are living in a Weimar Britain at this point. I really hope we get a second coming of Hitler to protect the people and sort this mess out.

Edit: Also interesting to note how many of the tenants interviewed were europeans who had the attitude of "yes I am fine with this". We're living in a perfect storm of banking usury, a government who doesnt care or protect the people and mass immigration driving demand up.

Edited by APerson
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the ex-LA houses in my area are student houses.

I think a lot of them will come onto the market as a lot of student blocks have gone up in the last 5 years, plus more is being built.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch this programme but the title of it sounds a tad sensationalist. Did they mention anything about all the people who bought under the right to buy and are still owner occupiers or have passed the wealth they gained down to their children? Or do we presume these people are so poor that they're somehow so thick they're unable to look after their finances. And how much more of a burden would they have been on the state if they weren't owner occupiers?

A right to buy policy for social housing is always going to be divisive but is much more divisive because of HPI and as we well know that has a lot to do with housing policy in general. They could always make it less controversial, by adding a few extra conditions like requiring a larger deposit to dissuade the feckless.  If it means the financially responible poor people are more socially mobile then it's a good thing. 

I may remonstrate against landlords for having been able to borrow ridiculous sums of money like they have in recent years and not giving a crap about the welfare of their tenants but I'm not going to beat up on them for just buying what's on the open market.
 

Edited by spacedin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2020 at 13:07, mallish said:

I am not always in agreement with some of the opinions here - however - this is a scandal 

Social housing should remain as such in perpetuity 

I know many will say this is a Tory problem but Labour also allowed social housing to be sold off.

I have no evidence to support this but assume that a lot of these may have been bought by a social housing  tenant then sold on to a landlord with a large portfolio as they will be less expensive than other houses

Well, if sold within the first 10 years after, they have to be offered back to the council or another local social landlord. Only once theyv'e refused can they be sold on the open market. They'd then be like any other property being sold but yes many would obviously be in poorer/cheaper areas. 

Edited by spacedin
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, spacedin said:

I didn't watch this programme but the title of it sounds a tad sensationalist. Did they mention anything about all the people who bought under the right to buy and are still owner occupiers or have passed the wealth they gained down to their children? Or do we presume these people are so poor that they're somehow so thick they're unable to look after their finances. And how much more of a burden would they have been on the state if they weren't owner occupiers?

I decided to watch it last night. Absolutely nothing about the persons who sold them on the open market.

One of the 'wideboys' with his portfolio of ex-LA houses in Manchester was seem driving in a white Range Rover at the start of the programme but half way through we are treated to see him take delivery of a red Ferrari (F430?), although I suspect it was just for effect. I can't imagine that many 32 year old landlords with a mortgaged portfolio are cleaning up to the extent that is broadcast. He is filmed living in a fairly plain looking newbuild apartment flat and has an impressive collection of expensive trainers. He does get his pants pulled down at the start when a tenant flits from a messy rental, owing £6k. £15k to bring the house back up to code, however I wonder to what extent he is genuinely reinvesting in his houses on an ongoing basis.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MattW said:

I decided to watch it last night. Absolutely nothing about the persons who sold them on the open market.

One of the 'wideboys' with his portfolio of ex-LA houses in Manchester was seem driving in a white Range Rover at the start of the programme but half way through we are treated to see him take delivery of a red Ferrari (F430?), although I suspect it was just for effect. I can't imagine that many 32 year old landlords with a mortgaged portfolio are cleaning up to the extent that is broadcast. He is filmed living in a fairly plain looking newbuild apartment flat and has an impressive collection of expensive trainers. He does get his pants pulled down at the start when a tenant flits from a messy rental, owing £6k. £15k to bring the house back up to code, however I wonder to what extent he is genuinely reinvesting in his houses on an ongoing basis.

 

I see. 

Apologies for the rant btw, it's not been a well thought out policy given how much money is having to be paid out in housing benefit to private landlords to house people that really should be in social housing but the whole picture is rarely portrayed. 

I will also admit that I am biased as I live in social housing and have the Right to Buy but am thinking about moving to a new area so have held off. Would be absolutely gutted if I lost it but then there's always the open market but it would mean I'd have to move hundreds of miles away as I couldn't afford to buy otherwise where I live in the south.

Edited by spacedin
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattW said:

I decided to watch it last night. Absolutely nothing about the persons who sold them on the open market.

One of the 'wideboys' with his portfolio of ex-LA houses in Manchester was seem driving in a white Range Rover at the start of the programme but half way through we are treated to see him take delivery of a red Ferrari (F430?), although I suspect it was just for effect. I can't imagine that many 32 year old landlords with a mortgaged portfolio are cleaning up to the extent that is broadcast. He is filmed living in a fairly plain looking newbuild apartment flat and has an impressive collection of expensive trainers. He does get his pants pulled down at the start when a tenant flits from a messy rental, owing £6k. £15k to bring the house back up to code, however I wonder to what extent he is genuinely reinvesting in his houses on an ongoing basis.

 

I just saw it on Catch-up i cannot also believe he is making as much money as he says he is, but he had 0_cashJPG.jpgwads of notes

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, prozac said:

I just saw it on Catch-up i cannot also believe he is making as much money as he says he is, but he had 0_cashJPG.jpgwads of notes

Wow! that is a big bag of paper......are the notes still valid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spacedin said:

I will also admit that I am biased as I live in social housing and have the Right to Buy but am thinking about moving to a new area so have held off. 

I live in social housing too. I could be offered RTB from November @ 3 years tenancy but I don't think I'll accept it. 

 

1 hour ago, prozac said:

I just saw it on Catch-up i cannot also believe he is making as much money as he says he is, but he had wads of notes

Like the Ferrari, just to make himself look good. Or bad. Which leads me onto another point to ponder on. Was he taking people's rent in cash? ? I've always paid rent either by standing order or Diect Debit. I wonder what could be going on there? ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattW said:

I live in social housing too. I could be offered RTB from November @ 3 years tenancy but I don't think I'll accept it. 

 

Like the Ferrari, just to make himself look good. Or bad. Which leads me onto another point to ponder on. Was he taking people's rent in cash? ? I've always paid rent either by standing order or Diect Debit. I wonder what could be going on there? ?

I too wondered about all that cash. It makes me think he's showing off and if so he's really stupid. Using up that quantity of cash isn't that easy. It's just about possible somebody seeing that could start off an investigation. If he's caught with it on him and can't prove whence it came he could be saying goodbye to it.

The sort of person who needs to tell viewers he's got a Ferrari likely has the sort of personality disorder that would lead him to show off the cash in this way. I once had a neighbour a bit like him so I think I recognise the type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, prozac said:

 0_cashJPG.jpg

Is that a picture from the actual broadcast of him showing off his cash? or is it just a picture of a wad of cash you found and posted for demonstration purpose?

If the former, while considering roughly how much money that actually is (a few multiples of £100k, perhaps more), then there's a certain amount of time someone leaves it before happening to go past the bank and pop in to deposit their earnings, and he looks way past that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle of allowing a long-term tenant to buy their council home that they and their family most probably have lived in for many years and would continue living in for years to come is a good one.....they probably paid in rent over the years more than any discount they received......selling a property that was effectively blocked is a good one.

What was wrong was that not enough new secured social housing was built and the sold homes were allowed to be turned into BTL property at many times more than the old rents were.

As I understand it council housing is not for life (or more), it is limited to five years and reviewed......why even MPs on their generous salaries have been known to live in and rent a social home.....paying social rents.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, winkie said:

The principle of allowing a long-term tenant to buy their council home that they and their family most probably have lived in for many years and would continue living in for years to come is a good one.....they probably paid in rent over the years more than any discount they received......selling a property that was effectively blocked is a good one.

What was wrong was that not enough new secured social housing was built and the sold homes were allowed to be turned into BTL property at many times more than the old rents were.

As I understand it council housing is not for life (or more), it is limited to five years and reviewed......why even MPs on their generous salaries have been known to live in and rent a social home.....paying social rents.;)

The law should be if you rent you get the right to buy at 10% off the current market rate after 2 years. 20% after 4 years. Also no fault evictions should be prohibited to stop LLs from kicking people out to stop them from buying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, APerson said:

The law should be if you rent you get the right to buy at 10% off the current market rate after 2 years. 20% after 4 years. Also no fault evictions should be prohibited to stop LLs from kicking people out to stop them from buying.

No do not agree, I believe rents and property increments should be aligned to CPI inflation......I believe a person earning an average wage in a particular area should have an opportunity to buy an average home without helping scheems that only keep prices high and stop thousands from ever buying, moving or moving anywhere any time soon.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, byron78 said:

Thatcher's legacy. 

Did help a lot of families onto the ladder back then to be fair.

Sadly also made it a hell of lot harder for every generation since.

Maybe it's all about Land ownership. Perhaps the real problem is the premise under which council housing is / was needed.

Perhaps the Feudal rulers used taxpayers money to placate the growing storm of disgruntlement after WW1. It was starting to become a very real threat to the elite at the time. Likewise post WW2, if they made the mistake of sticking the finger up to those who fought, once returned.

Homes_Fit_For_Heroes_1400x.jpg?v=1518249002&f=1&nofb=1

Perhaps the selling off of council housing is the intention in order to get things back to the norm of feudalism. Instead of seeing ownership of land of the country in a way that reflects people's contributions, or simply having the price of land as a reflection of the real economy in a free market not afflicted by fiat money, they had council housing instead as a barrier for the way the fuedalists wanted to keep things. So there was council housing and feudal owners of more land than a person needs who did f*ck all with it, with little in between.

That's just a theory I had.

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.

  • 419 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.