The Student Room Group

Why does the right to buy scheme lead to more homelessness?

I think left wing politicians were wrong to demonise the Right to Buy scheme in the Opposition Debate.A council house owner buying their home doesn't lead to homelessness as they would already need their council house so you can't give it to someone who needs the house(therefore the number of council houses available wouldn't decrease but the total number would) and Right to Buy schemes can save the poor a lot of money as they too can benefit from no rent/mortgage payments after 30 years-currently the mortgage/rent rules disadvantage the poor because they have to keep paying rent payments forever until they retire whereas mortgage owners are free after 30 years.

I think it was a badly argued attempt to attack privatisation, something which I think is generally really bad but in the case isn't so bad(maybe we could make the rules stricter preventing them from selling it onto the housing market).

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Dalek1099
I think left wing politicians were wrong to demonise the Right to Buy scheme in the Opposition Debate.A council house owner buying their home doesn't lead to homelessness as they would already need their council house so you can't give it to someone who needs the house(therefore the number of council houses available wouldn't decrease but the total number would) and Right to Buy schemes can save the poor a lot of money as they too can benefit from no rent/mortgage payments after 30 years-currently the mortgage/rent rules disadvantage the poor because they have to keep paying rent payments forever until they retire whereas mortgage owners are free after 30 years.

I think it was a badly argued attempt to attack privatisation, something which I think is generally really bad but in the case isn't so bad(maybe we could make the rules stricter preventing them from selling it onto the housing market).


I think the bigger problem here is the fact that there just aren't enough homes being built to counteract the number lost through Right to Buy - that's the case in London at least, and I'm sure elsewhere. At the end of the day, yes, a tenant in social housing has a great opportunity to buy their home, but it means one less place to help deal with an ever-growing waiting list for social housing.

As for the argument about them falling into private hands, if they are subsequently rented out at market value, rather than at a social rate, many of those who are less well-off will be simply unable to afford the rents.
This thread is perfect proof that we in this country do not learn from our mistakes. It's like Thatcherism all over again and we just constantly go around in circles of red and blue arguing like spoilt children. Rather than play privy to it, it's just easier to leave.
Reply 3
Original post by Tappouni
I think the bigger problem here is the fact that there just aren't enough homes being built to counteract the number lost through Right to Buy - that's the case in London at least, and I'm sure elsewhere. At the end of the day, yes, a tenant in social housing has a great opportunity to buy their home, but it means one less place to help deal with an ever-growing waiting list for social housing.

As for the argument about them falling into private hands, if they are subsequently rented out at market value, rather than at a social rate, many of those who are less well-off will be simply unable to afford the rents.


No it doesn't as if they don't buy their house council still has to provide them a council house to live in-my family lives in a council house if we bought the house there wouldn't be any more or less houses to allocate people to as my family is already using this house

I think we could agree to put restrictions on right to buy schemes preventing them falling into private hands though.
(edited 8 years ago)
cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Because it's massively depleted the social housing stock.
Original post by DaveSmith99
Because it's massively depleted the social housing stock.


Yes but, either way, people are inhabiting those houses. The same people, even.

Ownership is irrelevant to the number of people who are housed.
Original post by Rinsed
Yes but, either way, people are inhabiting those houses. The same people, even.

Ownership is irrelevant to the number of people who are housed.


The issue is that when the social housing stock is depleted, people have to turn to the private rental sector, which some people cannot afford.
Original post by DaveSmith99
The issue is that when the social housing stock is depleted, people have to turn to the private rental sector, which some people cannot afford.


But the people who buy their social houses were unlikely to be imminently turfed out of them, to make way for someone new. So the situation is in practicality unchanged.
Original post by Rinsed
But the people who buy their social houses were unlikely to be imminently turfed out of them, to make way for someone new. So the situation is in practicality unchanged.


The difficulty in securing a council house now compared to before right to buy says differently.
Original post by DaveSmith99
The difficulty in securing a council house now compared to before right to buy says differently.


Oh, and that has nothing to do with the increasing shortage of housing supply in general over the same period?

Correlation does not imply causation, that's pretty basic.
Original post by Rinsed
Oh, and that has nothing to do with the increasing shortage of housing supply in general over the same period?

Correlation does not imply causation, that's pretty basic.


Of course it does, the cost of rent has risen so many people need subsidised housing, they try to get a council house but get shoved on the end of a 10,000 long waiting list because the council has sold almost all of its housing stock, or worse they aren't even allowed to join it.
Original post by DaveSmith99
Of course it does, the cost of rent has risen so many people need subsidised housing, they try to get a council house but get shoved on the end of a 10,000 long waiting list because the council has sold almost all of its housing stock, or worse they aren't even allowed to join it.


And how would that be different if there were no right to buy? The people who bought would still be living there, there wouldn't be any extra houses to go around.
Original post by Rinsed
And how would that be different if there were no right to buy? The people who bought would still be living there, there wouldn't be any extra houses to go around.


Because the councils would have a far larger stock of housing to provide for people? Because councils wouldn't have been forced into selling their assests at a loss and prevented from replenising them?
Original post by DaveSmith99
Because the councils would have a far larger stock of housing to provide for people? Because councils wouldn't have been forced into selling their assests at a loss and prevented from replenising them?


I feel like this is going in circles. You're just repeating yourself now.

Same number of houses. Same number of people.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think of it another way...yes, someone is still living in a house bought under Right-to-Buy, but if you're able to actually foot a mortgage to pay that off, then perhaps it's time to give it up to someone on the waiting list, who is less well-off? If you just sell it off, there's fewer places for the people who need a place to live, at social rent rates.
Original post by DaveSmith99
Because the councils would have a far larger stock of housing to provide for people? Because councils wouldn't have been forced into selling their assests at a loss and prevented from replenising them?


Maybe they should abolish the right of "succession" (ie inheriting a council house) in that case. It may as well be private property whilst this is permitted.
Original post by DaveSmith99
Because the councils would have a far larger stock of housing to provide for people? Because councils wouldn't have been forced into selling their assests at a loss and prevented from replenising them?


How are they selling their assets at a loss? Are you really of the belief that housing primarily built before 1980 is sold (even factoring in the discount) for less than it cost to build/acquire? Going on that London should be filled with £20,000 3 bed semis.

Councils are also able to build social housing if they wish. Many simply opt not to for various reasons.
The councils under the original right to buy did not get the money from the sales, which were effectively seized and sold by central government.

under the suggested new rule, they would have to sell at a discount farm greater thN the cost of replenishment.

afaik there is no "inheritance" of council houses, partners who are tenants in common can stay but kids have no rights once over 18.

Councils have have been forced to rent or buy back houses which they were forced to sell
at far greater cost to them than if they had held onto them
At the minute, the Right To Acquire rule applies to housing association houses, rather than the Right To Buy. The Right To Acquire law means that if someone wants to purchase the HA home they have been renting, they'll be offered a discount which is normally around £10,000. Not many people do this because for the sake of £10,000 you're probably just going to go to a third party instead and buy your house because there tends to be more variety with the houses rather than a bog standard HA house. Extending the right to buy means that the discount will be a lot larger, with the maximum discount being around £80,000, meaning people who had previously been discouraged by the small discount will now want to buy their HA house.

Quick Reply

Latest