Without sounding cruel – they’re all in possession of a property bought at a huge discount at tax payers expense through the now defunct help to buy scheme.
It’s not the fault of the social landlord and shouldn’t be down to the ex-social landlord or SG to rectify because the situation would be the same if they’d bought the house privately and private buyers won’t get help with RAAC from public funds.
Someone that’s had years of tax payer funded discounted rent, then a huge tax payer discount on purchasing a property who is now looking (again) to the tax payer to fund RAAC removal is a bit beyond the pale. At some point people have to realise that SG isn’t there to subside every aspect of their life at the cost to others.
I feel sympathy but ultimately it’s not SG’s problem to solve this anymore than it would be in a house bought privately.
“traces of RAAC” how is that a problem?
Isn’t RAAC shielded from rain stable?
>RAAC concrete house was meant to be our forever home
tbf, it still could be.
If you buy a home you are responsible for it. As tax payers we have already paid for the house to be built, then paid for it to be sold and now we should pay to have it repaired?
It is really harsh but if my roof fell in I wouldn’t be expecting the SG to pay for a new one.
Edit: fixing a load of typos, like tonnes, my god that barely made sense.
I’ve mixed feelings here as you cannot expect a normal homebuyer to be an expert in longevity of different construction techniques.
But, [looking at these houses](https://maps.app.goo.gl/XqosCvCi7sMqGjxZ8), it surely is the case that any competent surveyor would have been able to note that these are not long life, built to last dwellings. Looks like very non-traditional construction, of the sort only intended to last a few decades.
So I’d want to know how and what people were advised before buying – as I’ve typically found surveyors and mortgage lenders to be pretty conservative about this kind of thing.
I think there’s an opportunity to reverse some of the impact of help to buy here.
There should be a scheme whereby they can sell the properties back to housing associations etc at the price paid + interest at ROI from point of purchase. They retain a tenancy as part of the scheme; and for any relevant schemes, they regain their First Time Buyer status.
It puts the property back into the social housing pool, and puts the owners into the position they were in prior to the RAAC dangers being uncovered
What we can’t do is socialise losses to protect privatised profits
The issue is that these people were sold a property that the councils had been told had a limited lifespan when built but were sold on without that warning
If say the houses had been built with another defect, that the council knew about, say asbestos, then they would be entitled to compensation?
Surely a survey would have picked this up?
Even if the structure has devalued. The land and permissions likely have gained in value a lot.
It’s almost like right to buy was a fucking terrible idea
10 comments
Without sounding cruel – they’re all in possession of a property bought at a huge discount at tax payers expense through the now defunct help to buy scheme.
It’s not the fault of the social landlord and shouldn’t be down to the ex-social landlord or SG to rectify because the situation would be the same if they’d bought the house privately and private buyers won’t get help with RAAC from public funds.
Someone that’s had years of tax payer funded discounted rent, then a huge tax payer discount on purchasing a property who is now looking (again) to the tax payer to fund RAAC removal is a bit beyond the pale. At some point people have to realise that SG isn’t there to subside every aspect of their life at the cost to others.
I feel sympathy but ultimately it’s not SG’s problem to solve this anymore than it would be in a house bought privately.
“traces of RAAC” how is that a problem?
Isn’t RAAC shielded from rain stable?
>RAAC concrete house was meant to be our forever home
tbf, it still could be.
If you buy a home you are responsible for it. As tax payers we have already paid for the house to be built, then paid for it to be sold and now we should pay to have it repaired?
It is really harsh but if my roof fell in I wouldn’t be expecting the SG to pay for a new one.
Edit: fixing a load of typos, like tonnes, my god that barely made sense.
I’ve mixed feelings here as you cannot expect a normal homebuyer to be an expert in longevity of different construction techniques.
But, [looking at these houses](https://maps.app.goo.gl/XqosCvCi7sMqGjxZ8), it surely is the case that any competent surveyor would have been able to note that these are not long life, built to last dwellings. Looks like very non-traditional construction, of the sort only intended to last a few decades.
So I’d want to know how and what people were advised before buying – as I’ve typically found surveyors and mortgage lenders to be pretty conservative about this kind of thing.
I think there’s an opportunity to reverse some of the impact of help to buy here.
There should be a scheme whereby they can sell the properties back to housing associations etc at the price paid + interest at ROI from point of purchase. They retain a tenancy as part of the scheme; and for any relevant schemes, they regain their First Time Buyer status.
It puts the property back into the social housing pool, and puts the owners into the position they were in prior to the RAAC dangers being uncovered
What we can’t do is socialise losses to protect privatised profits
The issue is that these people were sold a property that the councils had been told had a limited lifespan when built but were sold on without that warning
If say the houses had been built with another defect, that the council knew about, say asbestos, then they would be entitled to compensation?
Surely a survey would have picked this up?
Even if the structure has devalued. The land and permissions likely have gained in value a lot.
It’s almost like right to buy was a fucking terrible idea