No Fault Evictions

[Jacob]

It was a great idea and a way to offload rentable housing stock to people who wouldn't have been able to own their own home any other way.

A lot of it ended up as rental properties but badly run without the back up of the resources of the local authorities.
Those that didn't buy stayed put and formed "sink" estates of the less well off and otherwise troubled.
The money raised by the sell off was not put back into housing - whch was basically the cause of the massive house price inflation with which we still are living.

It was pronbably cost-effective too, as all the maintanance costs for the councils were gone.

It created the housing crisis now with us. A massive cost as it is and will cost even more to put right.

"The selling of council housing was an absolute scandal that should never have been allowed. People had council houses because they could not afford, or get , a mortgage for whatever reason. The councils were made to sell the houses at heavy discounts and were not allowed to reinvest the money in more social housing."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/29/how-right-to-buy-ruined-british-housing

 

[Jacob]

Jacob's comments are mostly just opinions veiled as assertions. Most other commenters use the 'pinch of salt' strategy.

Stick to the issues - having an opinion about the quality of a person's opinions tends to means you have just lost the plot.
Amounts to "attacking the messenger instead of the message" when you haven't got any counter arguments or are in denial about the facts.

 

[Lons]

............. there is a massive industry of misinformation out there, often with malign intent, not simply due to ignorance.

Some of it perpetuated on here by person or persons who shall remain nameless.

 

[Jester129]

Did anyone take note of what Jacob just said? Quote: "when you haven't got any counter arguments or are in denial about the facts."
Pot or kettle?????

 

[Scruples]

Stick to the issues - having an opinion about the quality of a person's opinions tends to means you have just lost the plot.
Amounts to "attacking the messenger instead of the message" when you haven't got any counter arguments or are in denial about the facts.

That's a trite remark, Jacob. We all have opinions, on most topics, but we all don't assert them as truth all the time. For example, a quote from the Guardian?

 

[Jacob]

That's a trite remark, Jacob. We all have opinions, on most topics, but we all don't assert them as truth all the time. For example, a quote from the Guardian?

Stick to the issue instead of dodging it?
What do you think was wrong with my quote from the Guardian? n.b. It shared an opinion widely held by the experts in the field.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If it were an opinion widely held by the experts in the field published in The Telegraph and you disagreed with it you'd say it was a lie.

 

[paulrbarnard]

A lot of it ended up as rental properties but badly run without the back up of the resources of the local authorities.
Those that didn't buy stayed put and formed "sink" estates of the less well off and otherwise troubled.
The money raised by the sell off was not put back into housing - whch was basically the cause of the massive house price inflation with which we still are living.

It created the housing crisis now with us. A massive cost as it is and will cost even more to put right.

"The selling of council housing was an absolute scandal that should never have been allowed. People had council houses because they could not afford, or get , a mortgage for whatever reason. The councils were made to sell the houses at heavy discounts and were not allowed to reinvest the money in more social housing."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/29/how-right-to-buy-ruined-british-housing

I disagree that selling off council housing was a scandal. It enabled many people to get on the property ladder. The problem was not building more with the money received from the sale. Had that happened we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I believe one of the biggest problem with council housing is that it often gives people with reasonable incomes cheap housing for life. It should be means tested - if people actually wish to live there and pay a market rent, fine, but it shouldn't be a lifetime of cheap rent. I had an acquaintance who earned three times what I earned, two holidays a year, a brand new car ever few years, and I was through my taxes subsididsing his house. That cannot be right, and of course it does nothing towards housing other people. If the rent was income related the council's income would be higher and more properties built and paid for.

 

[Jacob]

I disagree that selling off council housing was a scandal. It enabled many people to get on the property ladder.

But in the end made it impossible for many more and hugely increased rents for the houses taken over by the rental market.

The problem was not building more with the money received from the sale.

That and a lot more action on the council house building front.
In the end a small number of new home owners benefitted but those could not afford it were hugely disadvantaged, and still are.

 

[paulrbarnard]

But in the end made it impossible for many more and hugely increased rents for the houses taken over by the rental market.

That and a lot more action on the council house building front.
In the end a small number of new home owners benefitted but those could not afford it were hugely disadvantaged, and still are.

You seem to have problems with math. The council houses that were bought didn’t instantly become unoccupied. The same number of people were still living in houses. The number of people renting went down and the number owning went up. It was a net zero situation.
If that income had been reinvested in more council built and owned properties the cycle could have been repeated and that would also have controlled rent and property price increases as well as increasing availability to support the rising population. It’s not too late to introduce something like this and it is a very socialist policy. I wonder if the current government would have the balls to do it.

 

[Jacob]

You seem to have problems with math. The council houses that were bought didn’t instantly become unoccupied. The same number of people were still living in houses. The number of people renting went down and the number owning went up. It was a net zero situation.

Except that rents went up, security of tenure went down, maintenance and care worsened, estates tended to become sink estates

It’s not too late to introduce something like this and it is a very socialist policy. I wonder if the current government would have the balls to do it.

I agree.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Estates tended to become sink estates? The ones around here are infinitely better since half the properties were sold.

 

[Jacob]

Estates tended to become sink estates? The ones around here are infinitely better since half the properties were sold.

It varied apparently. In the early days council estates/flats had a mixed community but some became "social housing" (horrible term!) for the needy only.

 

[Scruples]

Except that rents went up, security of tenure went down, maintenance and care worsened, estates tended to become sink estates

I agree.

I'm afraid that is an error, certainly in my neck of the woods. The council houses sold off to the occupants improved in quality and brought the area up from sink estates to residential estates of a higher standard.

Stick to the issue instead of dodging it?
What do you think was wrong with my quote from the Guardian? n.b. It shared an opinion widely held by the experts in the field.

The 'expert' opinion was in error. The Guardian...is the Guardian...enough said.

 

[williams1185]

it now appears that the government are considering approaching landlords with certain types of property to buy them at over market rate with the intention of wait for it housing some of the illegal immigrants underlying agenda or what , go after landlords to make it no longer viable then come out with this unbelievable

 

[paulrbarnard]

it now appears that the government are considering approaching landlords with certain types of property to buy them at over market rate with the intention of wait for it housing some of the illegal immigrants underlying agenda or what , go after landlords to make it no longer viable then come out with this unbelievable

Did you mean “over market rate”? I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

[Blackswanwood]

it now appears that the government are considering approaching landlords with certain types of property to buy them at over market rate with the intention of wait for it housing some of the illegal immigrants underlying agenda or what , go after landlords to make it no longer viable then come out with this unbelievable

Can you point us to where this news has come from please?

 

[Scruples]

A lot of it ended up as rental properties but badly run without the back up of the resources of the local authorities.
Those that didn't buy stayed put and formed "sink" estates of the less well off and otherwise troubled.
The money raised by the sell off was not put back into housing - whch was basically the cause of the massive house price inflation with which we still are living.

It created the housing crisis now with us. A massive cost as it is and will cost even more to put right.

"The selling of council housing was an absolute scandal that should never have been allowed. People had council houses because they could not afford, or get , a mortgage for whatever reason. The councils were made to sell the houses at heavy discounts and were not allowed to reinvest the money in more social housing."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/29/how-right-to-buy-ruined-british-housing

People created the housing crisis. People who marry, have kids, divorce, need two homes instead of one. Sounds like a common theme, right? There would never be enough council houses;They would just allow more to break up and know they'd be given a roof.

 

[Ozi]

Stick to the issue instead of dodging it?
What do you think was wrong with my quote from the Guardian? n.b. It shared an opinion widely held by the experts in the field.

On the subject of dodging the question, who should pay for malicious damage to social housing?