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

'right To Buy'?

Recommended Posts

Can somebody define 'Right to Buy' in simple terms?

Let's take into account here some rather selective reasoning:

Most people feel that house purchase is an investment that will increase in value, not for just a home to live in;

That they are applying history to prove this while disregarding history to display that prices should fall, at some point;

That many have suffered financial disaster due to house purchase, sod them, just assess the success stories.

Opinions seem to range from despair at not being able to buy in areas with lots of well paid jobs & good schools & well maintained property that are close to family...

To opinions that are bitter towards people years ago who, for whatever reason, were in a position or felt they were forced into a position to buy a house that has now increased in value.

A 'Right' to reasonable housing is one thing, this is a concern that has been addressed in many ways in this country & is still progressing & puts us far ahead of many countries.

A 'Right to Buy' a property of your choosing in the area you choose? I doubt this will ever be the case, & why should it be?

I don't believe this ruling applies anywhere else on this planet, if so please correct my error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I hear the phrase 'right to buy' is in relation to social housing tenants purchasing the house they live in, and self-righteous gits saying there is no right to buy.

I have never heard one of the targets of these self-righteous gits express the opinion that they should somehow have a 'right to buy'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to buy gives council tenants the right to buy their home.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151285

You have to be a tenant in the place first - you don't just point and pick your house. You get what you're given. If there's alrge take up in an area it generally brings the leevl of area up as people are more likely to invest in their own home than in a rented place.

From the link:-

If your secure tenancy was in existence before 18 January 2005, or you were a public sector tenant before 18 January 2005 (and you have been a public sector tenant continuously since that time), you do not have the Right to Buy until you have spent at least 2 years as a public sector tenant. A public sector tenant is a tenant whose landlord is either a 'Right to Buy landlord'; or one of the public bodies listed under 'Other public bodies'.

For anyone else, you do not have the Right to Buy until you have spent at least 5 years as a public sector tenant.

You will only be able to purchase under the scheme if your house or flat is your only home and is self-contained.

Public sector tenant? Could this include new tenants of properties overtaken by the council after being empty for 6 months? That'd be interesting - use it or lose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody define 'Right to Buy' in simple terms?

Let's take into account here some rather selective reasoning:

Most people feel that house purchase is an investment that will increase in value, not for just a home to live in;

That they are applying history to prove this while disregarding history to display that prices should fall, at some point;

That many have suffered financial disaster due to house purchase, sod them, just assess the success stories.

Opinions seem to range from despair at not being able to buy in areas with lots of well paid jobs & good schools & well maintained property that are close to family...

To opinions that are bitter towards people years ago who, for whatever reason, were in a position or felt they were forced into a position to buy a house that has now increased in value.

A 'Right' to reasonable housing is one thing, this is a concern that has been addressed in many ways in this country & is still progressing & puts us far ahead of many countries.

A 'Right to Buy' a property of your choosing in the area you choose? I doubt this will ever be the case, & why should it be?

I don't believe this ruling applies anywhere else on this planet, if so please correct my error.

I don't believe that I have a right to buy. But as I pay taxes and national insurance I do believe that I have a right to a roof over my head and a right that the benefits system will support me if I need it to (through illness or old age). I would like to buy a property so that I have somewhere to live when I retire and do not have to pay rent out of my pension. If I am not able to support myself through home ownership then the burden falls onto the government who should have a benefits system in place to support me using the money from my tax and national insurance. This is what it is for. Whether it will or not is another question. I seriously doubt it. It would be in the governments interests to encourage home ownership and structure their policies to facilitate it so that they do not have to pay for my accomodation in my old age. Again I doubt this will be the case.

I could not give a monkeys how much my (hypothetical) house is worth. If every house was worth £1 then all of my income would be available to spend in our economy helping it to grow. So the government should want low house prices. I would not loose or gain on any house price sale as is the case now for people already on the ladder who want to move to a similar property. If somebody's house has gone up in value by £20k then the place they want to buy would also have gone up by £20k. They have gained nothing. It is in everyone interests for house prices to be affordable. The only exception to this is the banks and estate agents. All people see though is the fact that their house has gone up by £20k in the last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if your house was 100k and had doubled in value, the house you want to upgrade to which was 200k may also have doubled. Which means your now 100k free money is dwarfed by the extra 200k on the price of the new house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right to buy crusade is disturbing. When most people say they have a right to buy what they mean is that they have the right to a healthy property market and the government isn't delivering that.

Your argument is like saying there's no right to food or water. Accomodation is a right whether it is delivered by renting or buying.

You wrongly focus and pick on the people, who are on here complaining that they can't buy, because in your mind the reason they want to buy is to make money.

That's just wrong, most of the people desperate to buy on here want to, to provide suitable accomodation for their families. Not so they can make money.

The fact that all you think about is the money aspect of it concerns me...

Edited by HousePriceLottery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right to buy crusade is disturbing. When most people say they have a right to buy what they mean is that they have the right to a healthy property market and the government isn't delivering that.

Your argument is like saying there's no right to food or water. Accomodation is a right whether it is delivered by renting or buying.

You wrongly focus and pick on the people, who are on here complaining that they can't buy, because in your mind the reason they want to buy is to make money.

That's just wrong, most of the people desperate to buy on here want to, to provide suitable accomodation for their families. Not so they can make money.

The fact that all you think about is the money aspect of it concerns me...

There is a well supported thread,'streets of spain' where it begins explaining that the young are taking to the streets over their right to buy.

I am asking for straight answers for this, nobody is delivering.

Not many are madly complaining that they cannot afford to live anwhere at all, except those that loaded themselves with unaffordable debt via materialistic goods.

The complaint is that, at present, property is too expensive to buy, agreed, but why is there a right to buy a house.

Food & water are essential, yes.

A home is essential, yes.

Buying a house is NOT essential.

A house is an asset that is affordable sometimes, like it would be nice to own a ferrari, but they are too expensive new for most of us, but later on they will become affordable via second hand purchase.

My point is that at well documented times in life housing has been both affordable & unaffordable, what makes 'some folk' believe that this time of peak prices is irretrievable, why must they have some sort of 'right' to buy NOW.

This only 'some folk' because there are still houses being bought & sold, it isn't like the whole market has frozen.

Further to this, if the solution is to devalue the house price now, what becomes of those who have purchased recently, the common belief seems to be that they must all be wealthy & so can afford a drop in house prices.

It seems to me that this is a bit like having a bet on a horse race of your choice, losing all your money while some betted more wisely, then asking for all monies to be refunded & the race run again because some folk benefited but you never, or similarly guessing the winner, having no cash to put on it, but asking for the race to be re run with the same result when you have saved some cash so you can bet correctly & benefit.

As for my money concerns, I am pragmatic enough to assume that the housemarket must peak at some point,(did you see the price of gold shoot up recently due to demand then drop again due to lack of demand) then fall.

Some people have property because they have waited & prepared till the market conditions offer a favourable enough risk for them to buy, not just had an affordable property drop in their lap when they wanted it. Do you not feel that you are paying huge disservice to these by demanding that the same opportunity is given to you NOW with no thought to consequence other than self gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to buy in inner London has been an absolute disaster - plenty of council tenants in Camden and Westminster made shedloads in the 1990s on the back of ridiculously high discounts (after years of paying cheap subsidised rents at under a third of the market rate!). Council tenants still get put at the front of the queue for shared ownership schemes - why should they get a subsidy to buy a home when private sector tenants do not?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this question.

Almost everybody in this country has the right to buy.

Who is doubting this?

People frequently confuse the "right to buy" with the "ability to buy".

I have the right to buy a new Ferrari, but can't afford to.

I have the right to buy a mansion in Hampstead, but having the right isn't enough to buy that mansion in Hampstead. I need the money too.

You all have the right to buy property. You may not choose to exercise that right, or you may not be able to. But you have the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this question.

Almost everybody in this country has the right to buy.

Who is doubting this?

People frequently confuse the "right to buy" with the "ability to buy".

I have the right to buy a new Ferrari, but can't afford to.

I have the right to buy a mansion in Hampstead, but having the right isn't enough to buy that mansion in Hampstead. I need the money too.

You all have the right to buy property. You may not choose to exercise that right, or you may not be able to. But you have the right.

Aye, valid point indeed.

So the 'Right to Buy' as demanded by so many (those of you who are bleating about this term being used to purchase occupied council property please get better informed or decline to comment 'cos you are only confusing the issue with your ignorance) should actually be the 'right to have the ability to buy' & as I have commented on this must be only selected properties in selected areas.

Let's define the 'right to have the ability to buy' then please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

............. Most people feel that house purchase is an investment that will increase in value, not for just a home to live in;

AND, therefore most people are wrong! A house is not a true investment, not in the same sense as say buying shares in an IPO. Since when did increases in UK house prices add value to peoples lives like say investing in a medical company that invents, manufactures and markets a pacemaker.

House prices can only increase in value when someone else is able to pay. That means all increases in house price are effectively passed on to FTBs and those moving up the chain. When house prices escalate in value faster than infaltion and wages it's effectively a ponzi scheme. In the UK its become acceptable to pass on unreasonable costs to our young and those moving up the tree. As we have seen before in earlier postings one prime cause of the escalation in value is interest rates, but thats only part of it. The whole market is systematically pumped with fiscal policy steriods and there is only one reason - most MPs and most adults in UK own a house. If you dont then you are seen as a cash cow to be herded into huge debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right to buy is a stupid thing born from tory 1980s vote snatching.

if your renting a council house - yes you have the right to buy -

a private house you idiot. if you want to rent, rent a council house.

if you want to buy stop renting a council house and go buy a private house.

why they gave them away for peanuts is amazing.

still. everyone stood about doing nothing while torism ravaged our country.

now we pay the final price. no houses, no trians, leaking water, no dentistry.

hahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right to buy is a stupid thing born from tory 1980s vote snatching.

if your renting a council house - yes you have the right to buy -

a private house you idiot. if you want to rent, rent a council house.

if you want to buy stop renting a council house and go buy a private house.

why they gave them away for peanuts is amazing.

still. everyone stood about doing nothing while torism ravaged our country.

now we pay the final price. no houses, no trians, leaking water, no dentistry.

hahahaha

Absolutely correct, in the 80s the rental market was about 30% from the local council, presently it is about 10%, we're all knocking the economic policies now, but the policies of bygone days are material in shaping the current trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 'Right to Buy' as demanded by so many (those of you who are bleating about this term being used to purchase occupied council property please get better informed or decline to comment 'cos you are only confusing the issue with your ignorance)

Have we got the term confused then? Does it have a new name now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we got the term confused then? Does it have a new name now?

Thought we had covered this, I'll try to simplify, for the pedantic;

Why is it assumed that there is a 'right' to purchase a property of the standard you feel you deserve in an area you consider suitable at at price you feel able to afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are arguing over semantics and you know it.

They are marching for an opportunity to buy. The same opportunity you had and their elders had.

That opportunity has been taken away from them by spiralling prices.

You can go round and round in circles over whether they should use the word "right" but it doesn't change the fact that excessively high house prices are a huge social injustice.

I hope you're not contending that the opportunity to buy hasn't been taken away, if you are that mislead I suggest you try this:

The Would You Be Priced Out calculator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to buy what you want and where you want is an impossibility, we all want a bit more than we can get, however I think whats happened over the last 20ys or so has left people with niether the ability to buy anything no matter how hard they work nor able to rent decent accomodation for reasonable rent in the area they work or their family live, ie something is intrinsicaly wrong and badly astray, suspect the transfer of property of all sorts has been to the richer chapies in society and to the evil empires (banks etc) hiding in the background. I read recently that in 1960 the banks owned about 20% of all uk property via mortgages (thats ownership) by 1995 it was about 37%, no figures for today but I suspect very much more, in other words we are regressing. We live in a flat in outer london, were lucky weve nearly paid it off, however both of us have worked for 20yrs each and still cant afford the risk of buying a house in the same area for which you would need £400K, there are a few people in our street who bought their houses back in the 1960's, one in particular was an accounts person in a local company (not a qualified accountant) who bought the house on one wage and bought up a family, someone doing a similar job today would be earning about £12k in this area and would barely be able to aford a single room in a house full of 'let out into the comuntiy' lunatics. So for those of you who have applauded very low interest rates, less than the real inflation rate, dont realise that this is what ultimatly tranfers the wealth back to the banks, interest rates go down, prices are bidded up and if you want to get on the ladder then you have to pay more, or your deposit is a smaller percentage of the ownership and the bank gets a larger holding. ie they are out to eat us all and are being helped by the right wing policies of a so called labour government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought we had covered this, I'll try to simplify, for the pedantic;

Why is it assumed that there is a 'right' to purchase a property of the standard you feel you deserve in an area you consider suitable at at price you feel able to afford.

Ah, understood. You're saying that some people are claiming a moral right to buy a house, as you say, at prices they can afford, where they want to live.

Do you have any evidence of your claim? Can you point me to a thread on here where people demand this right? I sometimes meet people like yourself who tell me that there is no moral right to buy, but I've never met anyone who claims there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are arguing over semantics and you know it.

They are marching for an opportunity to buy. The same opportunity you had and their elders had.

That opportunity has been taken away from them by spiralling prices.

You can go round and round in circles over whether they should use the word "right" but it doesn't change the fact that excessively high house prices are a huge social injustice.

I hope you're not contending that the opportunity to buy hasn't been taken away, if you are that mislead I suggest you try this:

The Would You Be Priced Out calculator.

You are dismissing important points from history.

Had you been trying to buy early 70s, you wouldn't have been complaining, whereas late seventies you would be saying it isn't fair.

This would continue till mid 80s where you could buy easily, whereas late 80s you would have been saying it isn't fair.

This would continue till late 90s where you could buy easily, whereas 2006 you are saying it isn't fair.

I see no signs of a trend here. ;)

You may have been able to totally dismiss the fact some feel that there will be a reduction in asking prices (you should check out a site called housepricecrash).

The same opportunity you had and their elders had.

This is the attitude I abhor for being so childish, there were the opportunity there AT TIMES.

We haven't spent the last 40 years shuffling between houses like we change our socks.

Can you not understand this, there are peaks & troughs.

Why must the prices come down NOW just because you want them to?

There is still this I should have it now because I deserve it feel.

Ah, understood. You're saying that some people are claiming a moral right to buy a house, as you say, at prices they can afford, where they want to live.

Do you have any evidence of your claim? Can you point me to a thread on here where people demand this right? I sometimes meet people like yourself who tell me that there is no moral right to buy, but I've never met anyone who claims there is.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=30177

Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but could you sound any more like the angry old codger going on about how kids expect everything on a plate these days.

The current trend is to massively shift the tax, pension and housing burden onto the younger generations, plus the obvious demographic implications. Your generation may be the first in history to be richer than the following generations. So get off your soap box, ditch your dogma about kids being greedy and realise this is a valid point.

The same opportunity you had and their elders had.

This is the attitude I abhor for being so childish, there were the opportunity there AT TIMES.

We haven't spent the last 40 years shuffling between houses like we change our socks.

Can you not understand this, there are peaks & troughs.

Of course that is understood, no one is denying that, that isn't what this is about...

This is the worst boom ever in history, not like the ones you had to endure in the 70's and 80's. Worse by a factor of 4 over the seventies, worse by a factor of 2 over the 80's (and that's _after_ factoring out inflation).

The length of this boom is also significantly longer than the previous booms.

This was a completely preventable boom.

People have needs for housing in a finite time span they can't wait for ever. The length of this boom has put many people, particularly those trying to start families or with families, into an extremely difficult situation.

Hence they rightly protest that their opportunity to buy has been quashed by unparalleled speculative activity in the housing market (since 2000 the BTL sector has gone from 5% to 22% of the market). That is also something you never had to endure.

I also might add we have government who appear to be doing everything they can to perpetuate the boom. And this is why people need to protest, because that is their government working against them.

Why must the prices come down NOW just because you want them to?

And house prices should stay high simply because you and a raft of speculative investors want them to?

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=30177

There is still this I should have it now because I deserve it feel.

No that is your take on it, and you have to remember that is a different culture with different expectations so it's folly to translate it directly here.

Edited by HousePriceLottery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean of course that the younger generation now is actually expected to live long enough to collect a pension, so are expected to pay towards it, also take into account that given so many go to uni, take gap years & work far less hours, than the old codgers who were supposed to pay into a pension but die before they ever got to receive it.

This was a completely preventable boom.

How! Of course we saw it coming due to history so could have stopped it, Yeh right! like you can see a crash coming due to history, but are conveniently ignoring it.

Why does any of this mean you should buy a house.

Why do you only blame BTL & attach no fault to the first wave of FTB this century who paid any price to 'get on the ladder'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean of course that the younger generation now is actually expected to live long enough to collect a pension, so are expected to pay towards it, also take into account that given so many go to uni, take gap years & work far less hours, than the old codgers who were supposed to pay into a pension but die before they ever got to receive it.

Ah now you've dodged my point on you lot being the first generation to leave their children poorer than them. Nice epitaph for you all.

In the past and present the working population has borne the cost of pensions (quite rightly I might add). Now the younger half of the workforce are being asked to continue to do that and bear the cost of their own pension. That is a change and don't pretend otherwise.

How! Of course we saw it coming due to history so could have stopped it, Yeh right! like you can see a crash coming due to history, but are conveniently ignoring it.

Well this site sprung up several years ago, did they not see it coming?

Interest rates should not have been kept so low in order to avoid an unavoidable recession, lending policies should not have been so lax.

Anyway as much as I enjoy a good debate I'm running out of time to participate in this one as I have to tidy up my home so I can go through the ignimony of having the owners peer through my families stuff (I'm not kidding). Let's look at what we do agree on and dont.

1. Yes there is no right to buy

2. There is a right to expect suitable accomodation (be it rented or owner occupied)

3. Renting has serious disadvantages over buying (particularly for families)

4. People have a right to protest if they feel the government are not delivering, this is what is happening

5. I do not agree with your assertion that people feel they have a right to buy because they want to do so for monetary gain, I believe it is because of 3.

6. We're not a bunch of greedy kids wanting more more more, in fact many people who feel motivated to protest are in my age group 30-40.

How does that work for you?

Edited by HousePriceLottery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah now you've dodged my point on you lot being the first generation to leave their children poorer than them. Nice epitaph for you all.

In the past and present the working population has borne the cost of pensions (quite rightly I might add). Now the younger half of the workforce are being asked to continue to do that and bear the cost of their own pension. That is a change and don't pretend otherwise.

Well this site sprung up several years ago, did they not see it coming?

Interest rates should not have been kept so low in order to avoid an unavoidable recession, lending policies should not have been so lax.

Anyway as much as I enjoy a good debate I'm running out of time to participate in this one as I have to tidy up my home so I can go through the ignimony of having the owners peer through my families stuff (I'm not kidding). Let's look at what we do agree on and dont.

1. Yes there is no right to buy

2. There is a right to expect suitable accomodation (be it rented or owner occupied)

3. Renting has serious disadvantages over buying (particularly for families)

4. People have a right to protest if they feel the government are not delivering, this is what is happening

5. I do not agree with your assertion that people feel they have a right to buy because they want to do so for monetary gain, I believe it is because of 3.

6. We're not a bunch of greedy kids wanting more more more, in fact many people who feel motivated to protest are in my age group 30-40.

How does that work for you?

I don't really want to delve into pensions, separate difference of opinion altogether.

Lower interest rates may or may have not made a difference.

This is similar to a driver of a high performance sports car ploughing into a group of schoolkids then blaming the car salesman.

You can present the population with the means & they are free to choose what to do with it.

Any other option is communism.

Free trade will always produce those more advantaged & those less, unfortunately.

Check this link

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1156461

This is fairly interesting, it maintains that prices still haven't got as high as the 80s yet.

On your points 1 - 4, I agree.

5 I reckon a bit of both.

6 No of course I agree, you're not kids at all, you've been at school from age of 4 till 23, you're all grown up boys & girls now.

Seriously this is what is causing a lot of problems, leaving school anything up to 10 years later than used to be the case 40 years ago is causing huge social discrepancies regarding earning powers & starting families.

I guess the best way round this is to raise the pension age so that a minimum of 50 years is worked as it used to be. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free trade will always produce those more advantaged & those less, unfortunately.

Indeed but when markets become distorted that is the job of regulation. Monopolism, unfair practises, foreign government subsidies etc. etc. need to be sorted out by regulation. This I believe is a case where regulation is merited as the BTL gold rush shows no signs of abating and is causing significant market distortions with far reaching repercussions for the ordinary person on the street.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1156461

This is fairly interesting, it maintains that prices still haven't got as high as the 80s yet.

Usual stuff though as it's based on historically low interest rates. Until mortgages are fixed for term at a specific interest rate you cannot contend that unprecendented price levels are affordable in anything other than the very short term.

Seriously this is what is causing a lot of problems, leaving school anything up to 10 years later than used to be the case 40 years ago is causing huge social discrepancies regarding earning powers & starting families.

Yes I'd agree, and this is why many of us have this desperate need to get on the ladder. We're starting families so near to the end of reproductive lives that we don't have the luxury of waiting around for the right time to provide a home for them. So we're stuck between a rock and hard place.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 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.