Media reports over the weekend suggest that the government is to introduce a 'buy as you go' system in the Autumn Statement allowing housing association tenants the right to contribute to the purchase of their home through monthly rent payments.
The Observer - citing the National Housing Federation and quoting unnamed "senior government sources" - says monthly payments from tenants in some 335,000 housing association homes could be split between rent and equity purchase.
The proportion of each could vary over time, suggesting that long-term tenants could contribute increasingly more towards the eventual purchase of their property.
The policy is believed to be a way to address a dilemma for many tenants, who typically pay 47 per cent of their take home income in rent - thus effectively denying them the opportunity to save for a deposit to purchase on the conventional market.
"Senior government sources said Downing Street was determined to improve the lot of long-term renters, and that Theresa May has told cabinet that it is her priority" says The Observer.
The government’s own English Housing Survey shows that between 2010 and 2015 the number of homeowners in the north of England has dropped by more than 130,000 – two-thirds of the decline across the country.
Younger households in the north have been hardest hit with 90,000 fewer homeowners under 45 in Yorkshire, and 100,000 fewer in the north-west, says the newspaper.
.png)
.jpg){kind=logo}
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
This is not good at all, I think it is frightening and government is being manipulated into potentially one of the biggest scams ever!
At the moment the deposit holding system isn't enforced or working properly, so why should future house buyers trust these huge landlords with even more of their money?
The tenants could open a regular savings account themselves and get what interest they can, tax free! AND, at least FSA is bound to support banks and institutions that go bankrupt? Or another option could be to contribute to their state old age pension, which is still one of the best investments ever.
To me it's government actively encouraging people to 'give 'these huge landlords free money' to mis-manage and what happens if they go ' bust'? Who is going to compensate these people? This has the potential to be ruthless capitalism at it's most deceptive, and cynical.
What if the tenants move move and decide not to buy? All I can see is huge administration fees being raked off from the poor 'again for administration fees and management ' of their hard earned money.
You do know this is only for housing association tenants?
Hi Terry,
I have lived abroad for a while and to be honest I'm not sure what the difference is between a housing association, and another way of renting? But the sad situation is that whatever seems to be introduced whether it is cashing in a pension, or being a leaseholder, or tenant, there always seems to be people who own nothing, and do very little who try to reduce whatever you have through 'fees' and charges which are just ridiculous, -- and a total lack of control of these 'vulture' fees and 'vulture' attitudes; through legislation and regulation.... from either government or local authorities. I'll go and try and find out more about HAs, but as I said, these days I wouldn't trust anyone with my home AND savings at the same time. No way!
Great if you can get a HA property in the first place!
In 2010 the private rented sector over took the public rented sector for the first time so how does this help the majority of tenants?
Sounds like a terrible rebranding of Right to Buy, which has been - and continues to be - a disaster.
There are a lack of housing association homes, council homes and affordable housing to begin with, selling off more of the stock ain't going to help.
Hmm...sounds like a pretty dreadful idea. What is it with this government and housing?
They think gimmicky schemes that don't really solve the problem are what is needed. They're wrong.
Gimmicky schemes based on attracting as large a section of the electorate as they can, is what politicians do... for the most part
There is a germ of a good idea here, but when all the practicalities are considered it becomes less of a workable idea.
Any sales of Housing Association properties should bring in at least enough money to build a replacement property. They are getting a lower rent in the first place and then they get to buy at an amount too low to build a replacement. This is what went wrong with Thatcher's sale of Council Houses. By all means - allow them to buy and at a discount but come on! Get enough to build another.
Please login to comment