Shelter has estimated that almost 113,000 council houses will be sold off through a controversial Government scheme which will force council homes worth more than a set threshold for the region to be put on the market once they become vacant.
The money raised from the sale would then be used to fund new discounts of up to £100,000 for housing association tenants taking up the Right to Buy.
The charity has called the scheme “potentially devastating”.
It claims the London borough of Camden would be among the worst hit areas, with more than 11,700 homes facing forced sale – equivalent to almost 50% of the total council housing stock.
Kensington and Chelsea could be forced to sell a staggering 97% of its total, or over 6,600 homes, once they become vacant, according to Shelter.
But, it says, the loss of council homes would not be restricted to London – Cambridge could lose almost 46% of its total, or more than 3,200 homes, and York more than 1,400 homes or nearly a fifth of total council housing stock.
Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive, said: “At a time when millions of families are struggling to find somewhere affordable to live, plans to sell off large swathes of the few genuinely affordable homes we have left is only going to make things worse.
“More and more families with barely a hope of ever affording a home of their own and who no longer have the option of social housing, will be forced into unstable and expensive private renting.”
Don’t agree with Shelter’s stance on the PRS but on this issue they are absolutely spot on. It’s a disgraceful and misguided government policy.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I can understand why the govt want to get rid of council houses as it removed the liability of repairs, is a lot of money tied up in them which if sold they can access, removes the issues of allocation and management of the council houses from the council/govt responsibility and will reduce the cost to the council. It also does not reduce the stock of properties available to rent per se.
But it may well mean a reduction of available properties to Housing benefit tenants – the new PRS owner will have the option of who they take on or live there themselves. Perhaps disruptive tenants/bad tenants of the councils will be forced to behave or else they will be out of their accommodation as the PRS wont put up as much as the council have with bad anti-social tenants.
I think the council must keep some stock to house the most vulnerable tenants.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register