When the RTB policy came in, the council tenants, targeted to buy their properties, are now beginning to die. As a result, the arrangements (or lack of them) that they made when they bought their properties are becoming all too apparent. Far from there being an increase in property ownership, it would appear that for the most part these council tenants could not afford to buy the properties on their own, even with the significant discounts that were available to them. In many occasions, it now appears that an enterprising son or daughter, who was working, obtained the mortgage monies that were necessary in their own name. This arrangement enabled their parents to buy the property, with the benefit of the discount. However, at the time of the property purchase scheme, there were stringent claw back provisions if the property was transferred out of the ownership of the council tenant within a specified period of time – first 5 years and then 3 years.
This caused difficulties for the son or daughter putting up the mortgage monies, unless they went to a specialist lawyer. As the vast majority did not, in many cases the exact ownership of the property was not specified. Twenty-five years on, when the original council tenants are beginning to die, this is now causing problems.
I think the Right to Buy Policy was short-sighted by the the conservative government.
The problem with RTB as highlighted above is true. As a social worker, working with older people who can no longer live on their own and require a residential care home (which is means-tested by the council),
I personally in my practice as a social worker, have come across many cases where the son or daughter or other family relative put up the money so that the council house could be bought under RTB. In some cases, the ownership was never transferred to the person who put up the money.
The elderly parent loses mental capacity to make decisions, and it’s too late to transfer the property. With means-testing for social care (care homes) suddenly the elderly parent is deemed to be “rich” as they own a property (with a value over £23,500) so they have to pay the full cost of their residential care.
There are cases where the son or daughter expected to get the 4-bedroom council house since they actually paid for it over the years, only to see the house having to be sold to pay for case home fees because the property was still in the name of the parent. Furthermore, the council can go back 6 years to see if the person needing care intentially disposed of any property to make themselves poor.