Right to Buy, Discrimination?

ugly

LE
Moderator
I joined my council queue in 1984. If they still have a record of me, I would fully expect them to laugh in my face if I tried to claim some sort of need :) :)
Why? If you need accommodation then the council should provide even if it’s temporary, if you can privately rent then you aren’t an emergency case but should still progress up the list!
I don’t know if where I live is different but thirty years ago we were on the list as urgent despite having a flat that we owned. The council understood that we couldn’t buy a bigger place and were stuck with neg equity!
We accepted a place on an association list but the job market changed and I was able to buy a big enough house and rent out my pokey flat. The association came up with a place the day after we moved so I thanked them and asked to be taken off their list and to give the house to others!
It hasn’t stopped me registering my sons on the council list
 

Aphra

War Hero
Why? If you need accommodation then the council should provide even if it’s temporary, if you can privately rent then you aren’t an emergency case but should still progress up the list!
I don’t know if where I live is different but thirty years ago we were on the list as urgent despite having a flat that we owned. The council understood that we couldn’t buy a bigger place and were stuck with neg equity!
We accepted a place on an association list but the job market changed and I was able to buy a big enough house and rent out my pokey flat. The association came up with a place the day after we moved so I thanked them and asked to be taken off their list and to give the house to others!
It hasn’t stopped me registering my sons on the council list
You're right that there's nothing stopping anyone registering but once they get to the point of proving they are eligible and meet the relevant criteria, they'll be required to attend in person to sign the tenancy agreement.

As you can see from other answers, criteria vary around the country and by type of property sought but ultimately there are certain hoops to be jumped through once a person gets to the point of being offered a tenancy. One thing to note is that most social housing providers only offer introductory tenancies nowadays, with the right to terminate the tenancy if the tenant breaches the terms, and only after the new tenant has proved themselves are they offered an Assured Shorthold (secure) tenancy. This seems to work well for my HA as nightmare tenants tend not to be able to play nicely for the 12 months (minimum but can be extended) required to get an AST.

If nothing else, your lads will have as much chance as anyone else who has been on the list the same length of time and meets the other criteria. They may never need to take up any offered property but there's nothing to lose by being registered.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
You're right that there's nothing stopping anyone registering but once they get to the point of proving they are eligible and meet the relevant criteria, they'll be required to attend in person to sign the tenancy agreement.

As you can see from other answers, criteria vary around the country and by type of property sought but ultimately there are certain hoops to be jumped through once a person gets to the point of being offered a tenancy. One thing to note is that most social housing providers only offer introductory tenancies nowadays, with the right to terminate the tenancy if the tenant breaches the terms, and only after the new tenant has proved themselves are they offered an Assured Shorthold (secure) tenancy. This seems to work well for my HA as nightmare tenants tend not to be able to play nicely for the 12 months (minimum but can be extended) required to get an AST.

If nothing else, your lads will have as much chance as anyone else who has been on the list the same length of time and meets the other criteria. They may never need to take up any offered property but there's nothing to lose by being registered.
If you want accommodation then attend and sign otherwise you don’t really need it

Back to the OP, the surplus quarters went in the late 80’s early 90’s and to sell anymore would remove the chance of reuse by service families so I’m against that on principle!
However as a canny jnco showed me in 1988 when he got a flat in London from a council that doing a two year tour in NI unnacompanied whilst his wife went on the list and lodged with friends until a flat was made available was a clever workaround!
He did his resettlement before the tour ended and was hgv driving on good money with a council flat whilst we were still stagging on!
 
F*cking “real world” I have seen more of the “real world” in the last 39 years to make your average civvies toes curl in their suburban sleep ^~

Nah I am basically asking a question, seen as we do have a bit of a problem with homeless ex Forces, not all of who are at the forefront of educational achievers or nice family homes when they join.

My pension before I get out of bed in the morning, is circa £16,000 above the average annual salary and over the last 4 decades I have put measures in place to ensure that I will ‘manage’.

But unlike me the Army isn’t for everyone. Some kids get off their Arrse, get out of their sink estates and try something different. They subsequently find the Army isn’t for them (it’s not for everyone), do the minimum time and find themselves back where they came from, minus accommodation.

I raised a question for debate and got some cracking responses, unfortunately some people just can’t help themselves, can they ^~
Well, regarding your homeless veterans whine. An organisation tried to set one up in Liverpool and failed to get Housing Benefit eligibility. Meaning the property that was bought for over £1million is now basically useless. HB eligibilty meant they could then claim over £1,000/month rent as a supported accomodation residence rather than market rate (£300-£400) per month). The "tenants" they had were basically drunks and junkies who just happened to have served. They were trying to force these people on veterans with a genuine need for temporary housing. And that is the main problem - people with genuine needs are expected to turn a blind-eye and babysit wastes of resources. The people running them know this and are perpetrating the decline of people in genuine need. So the few genuine cases that needed help were put in false sense of security and then had to find themselves somewhere else. Any help anyone needs should always be short-term and concentrated on them. No-one appears to do that.
 
If you want accommodation then attend and sign otherwise you don’t really need it

Back to the OP, the surplus quarters went in the late 80’s early 90’s and to sell anymore would remove the chance of reuse by service families so I’m against that on principle!
However as a canny jnco showed me in 1988 when he got a flat in London from a council that doing a two year tour in NI unnacompanied whilst his wife went on the list and lodged with friends until a flat was made available was a clever workaround!
He did his resettlement before the tour ended and was hgv driving on good money with a council flat whilst we were still stagging on!

I have just spent the last 2 years as a welfare/housing officer with access to weekly housing stats. Housing shortages, where they exist, have far more to do with condition of as opposed to lack of stock.
 
Well, regarding your homeless veterans whine. An organisation tried to set one up in Liverpool and failed to get Housing Benefit eligibility. Meaning the property that was bought for over £1million is now basically useless. HB eligibilty meant they could then claim over £1,000/month rent as a supported accomodation residence rather than market rate (£300-£400) per month). The "tenants" they had were basically drunks and junkies who just happened to have served. They were trying to force these people on veterans with a genuine need for temporary housing. And that is the main problem - people with genuine needs are expected to turn a blind-eye and babysit wastes of resources. The people running them know this and are perpetrating the decline of people in genuine need. So the few genuine cases that needed help were put in false sense of security and then had to find themselves somewhere else. Any help anyone needs should always be short-term and concentrated on them. No-one appears to do that.

Whine? Where?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I have just spent the last 2 years as a welfare/housing officer with access to weekly housing stats. Housing shortages, where they exist, have far more to do with condition of as opposed to lack of stock.
I had to drive through Corby a few times in the 90's and lots of houses that looked like council were boarded up with steel shutters
 
I have just spent the last 2 years as a welfare/housing officer with access to weekly housing stats. Housing shortages, where they exist, have far more to do with condition of as opposed to lack of stock.
This brings up a problem. Why is there not a direct agency dealing with specifically the armed forces? Thereby forwarding deserved veterans in need of help to places that are over-run by underserving veterans. If someone was discharged SNLR due to drugs and violence, then they aren't the MoD's responsibility.
 
If you are Army, you would be based or barracked, the RAF are stationed
If someone were in the army their rifle wouldn't 'Jam' - they'd get a stoppage. They also wouldn't refer to one particular deployment being 'better' than another. Nor would they claim that you could empty a magazine of ammunition into a member of the Taliban and them to keep walking forward.

Jam
Magazine
Better deployments

....and yet here we are.

I have more confidence that @CAARPS is based/stationed in London than I do that you ever deployed to Afghanistan.
 
If someone were in the army their rifle wouldn't 'Jam' - they'd get a stoppage. They also wouldn't refer to one particular deployment being 'better' than another. Nor would they claim that you could empty a magazine of ammunition into a member of the Taliban and them to keep walking forward.

Jam
Magazine
Better deployments

....and yet here we are.

I have more confidence that @CAARPS is based/stationed in London than I do that you ever deployed to Afghanistan.
Well, I was, whether you like it or not. And regarding my veteran status and getting privilieges for housing etc, I actually found it a hindrance.
 
Now it seems low paid & Income Benefit Claimants can count their benefits as "income" to become 1st time home buyers.
I seem to recall having to save up & then work for each cent of mine but hey ho...."ye olde fashioned" me eh?
I'm sure there will be legitimate circumstances for some......
High risk for lenders I'd have thought.
Benefits are a very transient ever changing matter.
Mind you, so are jobs
Let's see in future how they manage to maintain these houses unaided if so poorly paid.
Can they even afford the compulsory Buildings Insurance never mind Contents?
.

I'll leave all you industrious hard working non benefits assisted tax payers to keep your heads down and noses to the old grindstones.:( Every little helps. Carry on chaps.
You keep our HMS Great Britain afloat.
I don't want any whingeing from any of you about the £100.00 fill up to get to work either...be grateful.

HMS Great Britain will tell you when you can retire some day if you live long enough which of course she hopes you do not. Cannot have you turning into wastrel overheads can she?
It's appreciated by those multi squillionaire sorts @ No11.
All together now.......

"Rule Brittania......."
 
Last edited:
Now it seems Benefit Claimants can count their "income" as wages to become 1st time home buyers.
I seem to recall having to work for mine but hey ho...."ye olde fashioned" me eh?
I'll just leave it at that.

If this is what the current Conservative Government comes up with - they should have got rid of Boris earlier in the week

Archie
 

Aphra

War Hero
Now it seems low paid & Income Benefit Claimants can count their benefits as "income" to become 1st time home buyers.
I seem to recall having to save up & then work for each cent of mine but hey ho...."ye olde fashioned" me eh?
I'm sure there will be legitimate circumstances for some......
High risk for lenders I'd have thought.
Benefits are a very transient ever changing matter.
Mind you, so are jobs
Let's see in future how they manage to maintain these houses unaided if so poorly paid.
Can they even afford the compulsory Buildings Insurance never mind Contents?
.

I'll leave all you industrious hard working non benefits assisted tax payers to keep your heads down and noses to the old grindstones.:( Every little helps. Carry on chaps.
You keep our HMS Great Britain afloat.
I don't want any whingeing from any of you about the £100.00 fill up to get to work either...be grateful.

HMS Great Britain will tell you when you can retire some day if you live long enough which of course she hopes you do not. Cannot have you turning into wastrel overheads can she?
It's appreciated by those multi squillionaire sorts @ No11.
All together now.......

"Rule Brittania......."
From what I can see, this is a proposal intended to 'help' working, low paid people get a chance to own their home, aided by extension of Right to Buy legislation to include housing associations. We're talking about people currently eligible for Universal Credit to top up their earnings and which, as anyone working in the advice sector knows, is a very movable feast. This would include those who do so-called menial jobs and those on zero-hours contracts so carers, supermarket staff, cleaners, delivery drivers, NHS, education and adjacent staff and the hospitality sector to name a few.

The proposal seems to be saying that the level of income, including Universal Credit, should be considered in its entirety when assessing mortgage affordability. As some may know, certain welfare benefits are already included by some lenders but those tend to be disability related, in cases where the individual won't be likely to suddenly become able. All lenders, private companies and mutual societies have their own lending criteria and no amount of policy suggestions by any politician is going to change that if shareholders can help it. The 100% mortgages of years ago taught lenders to be risk-averse, as did the Northern Rock fiasco.

Like many here I lived through the 80/90's boom in the sale of social housing. My job gave me a close-up look at how it worked in practice and for the public sector branch I worked for, it offloaded huge tracts of poorly built, poorly maintained housing that would otherwise have been a massive drain on the public purse. My area was Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, and Cleveland, all areas which, when Right to Buy was enacted, had huge social housing holdings. They don't have those huge holdings now, and what they did have they have hived off to housing associations.

I wouldn't be worrying about this latest proposal because, while it sounds like a vote winner, just as RTB was, there is a lot more information available more widely these days. Anyone can go online and easily find out the pitfalls of home ownership, information which they would, years ago, have had to pay a solicitor to provide. Add that to reluctance from the finance and housing sectors, the advice and guidance sectors and it really doesn't have legs, certainly not as currently envisaged.

It looks to me like another of the government's great ideas that no-one has thought through in practical terms and probably won't come to anything once it has to be closely examined by those who would have to put it into practice.
 
From what I can see, this is a proposal intended to 'help' working, low paid people get a chance to own their home, aided by extension of Right to Buy legislation to include housing associations. We're talking about people currently eligible for Universal Credit to top up their earnings and which, as anyone working in the advice sector knows, is a very movable feast. This would include those who do so-called menial jobs and those on zero-hours contracts so carers, supermarket staff, cleaners, delivery drivers, NHS, education and adjacent staff and the hospitality sector to name a few.

The proposal seems to be saying that the level of income, including Universal Credit, should be considered in its entirety when assessing mortgage affordability. As some may know, certain welfare benefits are already included by some lenders but those tend to be disability related, in cases where the individual won't be likely to suddenly become able. All lenders, private companies and mutual societies have their own lending criteria and no amount of policy suggestions by any politician is going to change that if shareholders can help it. The 100% mortgages of years ago taught lenders to be risk-averse, as did the Northern Rock fiasco.

Like many here I lived through the 80/90's boom in the sale of social housing. My job gave me a close-up look at how it worked in practice and for the public sector branch I worked for, it offloaded huge tracts of poorly built, poorly maintained housing that would otherwise have been a massive drain on the public purse. My area was Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, and Cleveland, all areas which, when Right to Buy was enacted, had huge social housing holdings. They don't have those huge holdings now, and what they did have they have hived off to housing associations.

I wouldn't be worrying about this latest proposal because, while it sounds like a vote winner, just as RTB was, there is a lot more information available more widely these days. Anyone can go online and easily find out the pitfalls of home ownership, information which they would, years ago, have had to pay a solicitor to provide. Add that to reluctance from the finance and housing sectors, the advice and guidance sectors and it really doesn't have legs, certainly not as currently envisaged.

It looks to me like another of the government's great ideas that no-one has thought through in practical terms and probably won't come to anything once it has to be closely examined by those who would have to put it into practice.
however some will have discounts for being tennents so long,sell for profit piss the money away and then demard re housing
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top