• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Things that make you SAD thread.

Goves own whataboutery on the subject appals me. I agree action needs taking, but not exclusively in the social housing sector. Increased regulation of provate sector rented housing, and investment in environmental health depts is urgently required;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukuk-england-manchester-63641438
My wife spent over a decade in social housing only leaving at the end of last year. There is no excuse for the conditions that lad lived in, but as a broader point budgets have been stripped to the bone by a combination of lack of government investment in the social sector and RTB reducing stock. Shapps in particular destroyed it
 
I worked in social housing for 7-8 years, & agree with all you say.
Part of the issue really, is that since Thatcher, no government, of any persuasion has had a defineable housing policy imo. Which has resulted in an over reliance on a wholly unregulated private sector to fill the gap, which makes a ton of money with no real investment or oversight.
 
Thatcher gets much maligned for RTB but it lifted a lot of people up and in theory was a good thing.

The mistake was the corrupt bastards trousered the money (and went to jail in some cases) without building new homes.

Nobody has ever rectified that. That's baffling.
 
I work for the council and over the past few years we have been buying back a few of the RTB properties then letting as affordables rather than socials
 
I work for the council and over the past few years we have been buying back a few of the RTB properties then letting as affordables rather than socials

It’s a very emotive subject but I’ve an interest in this area. Private landlords I know have been offloading properties and getting out of that investment sector for a while, but the imminent tax hikes will take things to a new level altogether. Landlords won’t get much sympathy regarding tax increases but as they steer their ships accordingly it’ll be the most unfortunate ones following in the wake that suffer.

Just curious as to your policies? The councils I’m familiar with require discounts to be repaid if a RTB is sold within 5 years, with the council retaining the first refusal buy back option should the property be sold within 10.

My understanding is if the council decides they will ‘buy-back’, they will sometimes use an independent investor who will in fact purchase the property and the seller is not aware or has no choice in this matter - in other words, the council desperately needs rental property but can’t finance the purchases themselves, so enters into a contract with an ‘approved’ independent investor (who purchases the property) and the council ’supply’ the tenants?

I know first hand this to be the case with at least one council and suspect this is going on elsewhere? This practice presents as the council’s regaining and thus increasing its housing stock and supposedly taking tenants away from the vulnerability of the private sector, when in fact that is not the case at all - it’s just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Making ’approved’ investors very rich on the back of council contracts to supply tenants doesn’t sit well at all and is a far cry from what we are led to believe is happening.

It would be a great shame if this is normal practice that is deliberately being kept under the public radar, but hopefully it isn’t?
 
I don't know to be honest as I am not involved in that side of things at all, I am more Wolverhampton Homes and the other end of the chain so to speak once that process has been completed but you may well be right that this is the same system as being employed by other councils. In some cases the resident stays in situ, in others the property is returned to the housing stock and in some they are used for temporary accommodation
 
Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

There‘s no economical equation involving purchasing a property at a market value and subsequently letting it to a council tenant at below the open market value that would be of interest to any investor. The setup costs, ongoing fees and (evidently increasing) taxes, plus eventual CGT erode any worthwhile margins even at OMV rental rates. Purchasing a property to be let affordably (to the tenant) makes no financial sense whatsoever.

In essence, the tenants must be paying the council an ‘affordable’ rent, who in turn pay a larger contracted fee (to the ‘approved’ landlord) with the difference being made up by the local council tax payer.

There is clearly no easy solution to this, but people need to be aware in those circumstances it’s not the landlord that takes the hit, it is the council.

Just who these deals are being struck with and what the true levels are will be a closely guarded secret, but it’s a murky business and one that needs looking in to,
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63635721

the coroner is right, how does a 2 yo die as a result of their housing.
This is a national issue. It urgently needs addressing - ignoring it is a false economy.
The incumbent govt aren't likely to be willing to act sadly.
Government has called this an "avoidable loss" writing to every council, housing association & social landlord. The brass neck of this austerity imposing fecker for 12 years now, which has caused thousands of preventable early deaths beggars belief.
 
That's really tough. Sorry to hear of your bad news. Does he have people, family with him?
Yeah, he's got family. I'm over in Oz atm and had a drink with him last weekend. I shall be seeing him soon enough.
 
Back
Top