The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 3: Motivations for Exercising or not Exercising the Right to Buy

Motivations for Exercising the Right to Buy

Respondents who had exercised the Right to Buy described various motivations behind their decision to buy their property from the council. All respondents gave more than one motivation or reason. To summarise, these related to:

• Location
• Suitability of property
• Investment
• Repairs and improvements
• Discount
• Rent rises

Each of these reasons is discussed in turn below.

Location

Location was recognised by many respondents to be a key factor affecting their decision to buy their council property. Many Right to Buy purchasers considered the location of the property they had bought to be ideal, particularly in terms of 'good social order' and decent neighbours. Good social order was associated with the absence of anti-social behaviour, including vandalism, drug dealing and drug taking, public drunkenness or alcoholism, littering, noise including shouting and revving motorbikes, theft, joy riding, violence and street gangs. This was often referred to in terms of ' nice', 'peaceful', or 'trouble'.

For example, one older man claimed:

"I would never move from here. I would never go back into town again. This is nice and peaceful and quiet. I'm only quarter of an hour from the west end so you couldn't get much better than that. There's my nearest neighbour (pointing to the wall, left). You're not looking at someone else's home and they don't look at your home. I get on well with the neighbours."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, Edinburgh, Interview 02

Many respondents described great variation in the social behaviours witnessed on different estates. Neighbouring estates, and even neighbouring streets, could vary significantly. It seemed that parents of school age children looked for a particularly high degree of social order before buying, and, sometimes, a 'good' local school within walking distance. For example, a woman with three young children lived as a council tenant in her ideal location - rural Stirlingshire. However, she lived in a top floor, two bedroom flat. She had been unable to get a tenancy in a more suitable property, for instance, a ground floor flat or house with more bedrooms, without leaving this location. Instead, she was offered a council house with three bedrooms in what she considered to be a 'troubled' area. She explained that her children were attached to the local school and she was concerned about the effect of local peer pressure on her children if they moved to another area. Therefore, she had reluctantly chosen to buy her existing, 'unsuitable' flat.

As this suggests, when deciding whether to buy a property or not, an ideal location could sometimes override unsuitability in terms of property size or condition. For example, one man in Aberdeen described how he and his wife, while still tenants, were offered a choice of council houses in different areas of the city, which they might transfer to. The house they chose, in contrast to the others, was in poor decorative order inside with broken kitchen units. However, the fact that the neighbouring houses, many of which had already been bought under Right to Buy, looked well-kept and tidy made the location very desirable. This was the respondent's key reason for choosing to rent the property. The couple then spent a lot of time and money on repairing and renovating the house to a high standard. Later, they bought the house. Like their home-owning neighbours, they now planned to stay in the neighbourhood indefinitely.

A few respondents stated that their familiarity with the location and its inhabitants had been, or would be, an important factor in their decision to buy. They had grown up in the neighbourhood and still had close relatives living there. The extended family operated as a support system and so it was important that family members lived near each other. For instance, one older woman living in a flat in Edinburgh described how neighbouring family members had minded her other children while she took her son to regular hospital appointments. More generally, they had allowed her to 'live her life'. Later, she helped care for frail, elderly relatives living nearby. A woman and her adult daughter described how they lived in houses on the same terrace. Along with other family members in the area, they often congregated at the mother's house:

"Everybody comes here and you sit. We usually sit in the kitchen, round the table and you blether and you put the world to rights...It's a family home."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, rural Perthshire, Interview 24

The daughter and her husband were renting but hoped to buy a house in the same area.

Suitability of Property

Several Right to Buy purchasers mentioned that the property they had rented was ideal and that this had influenced their decision to buy it.

For respondents with children, an ideal property was one that had enough bedrooms: specifically, a bedroom for each child, or a bedroom for every two children of the same sex, plus a bedroom for the parent or parents. Respondents with children also sometimes wanted a garden and their own front door, although they recognised that this aspiration was increasingly unrealistic.

A few older respondents took into account considerations regarding older age when deciding whether to exercise the Right to Buy or not. Some reckoned that a flat that was not on the ground level might be unsuitable in later life and therefore should not be bought. For example, one older couple in rural Perthshire described how they had waited until they had exchanged their flat in a multi-storey block for a council house and then bought the latter.

Nevertheless, as described above, some respondents had chosen to buy an unsuitable property because of its ideal location. It should be noted that, whilst respondents gave examples of an ideal location overriding the unsuitability of a property, no examples were given of the suitability of a property overriding the unsuitability of a location.

Investment

Quite a few Right to Buy purchasers mentioned that 'investment' had been a factor in their decision to buy. However, the term 'investment' was used in relation to quite different goals, none of which concerned straightforward financial profit making.

When probed further, 'investment' was described in various terms, including:

• Inheritance - being able to leave the property to children after death
• Security - the permanence of owning a home and holding assets
• Quality of life - the opportunity to improve the fabric of the property beyond council standards

For older respondents in particular, the Right to Buy provided an opportunity to formalise their attachment to their home. One woman described this attachment:

"As I walked into the house, I just had an affinity to it and I thought 'this is mine'. And I loved it all the way through (renting and owning). If I hadn't divorced and hadn't met my new partner I'd still be there."
Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, Edinburgh, Interview 03.

No respondent described investment in terms of being able to create financial profit, for instance by selling the property for a higher price than they had bought it. However, some respondents mentioned that they had effectively stepped onto the property ladder by exercising their Right to Buy. By this, some implied simply that they had become owner-occupiers. A few others implied that the Right to Buy allowed them to progress up the property ladder by moving into more expensive housing in the future. For example, a couple who sold the house they bought through Right to Buy explained how this sale had allowed them to move on to a better house.

"We had a nice house which we bought and therefore had a nice house to sell. (Without the Right to Buy) it would have just been a lot harder for us financially to get here."
Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, Edinburgh, Interview 54

Others spoke of Right to Buy providing long term gain in a more general sense. For example, one woman who had exercised her Right to Buy before buying a larger flat on the private market, explained:

"To own your own property was a beneficial thing in the long run. It might not be initially, but eventually, yes."
Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, Edinburgh, Interview 53

Repairs and Improvements

A few respondents explained that repairs and improvements related to their decisions to buy their property. The nature of this relationship varied. To summarise, a rented property's poor state of repair could either encourage or discourage purchase. The home owner's responsibility for carrying out repairs could also either encourage or discourage purchase.

A rented property's good state of repair was described only as an encouragement to buy. However, some respondents mentioned that the fact their council house or flat had been in a poor state of repair encouraged them to buy it: once it was their property, they could justify spending their own money on repairs. Moreover, some respondents - including both owners and tenants - considered the responsibility of repairs and maintenance to be an advantage of ownership, rather than a disadvantage. They explained that, as tenants, they had waited many months for the council to carry out repairs. Some repairs remained undone, others were patched up in 'bodged jobs'. Ownership 'allowed' householders to pay for repairs themselves, and therefore to arrange for repairs to be done promptly and to a higher standard. For example, one Right to Buy purchaser said that he bought his flat in Glasgow because rent had been increasing and yet he had been unable to get the council to carry out outstanding repairs. Once he had bought the flat, he felt able to spend his own money making improvements.

For a few respondents, the fact that, as tenants, they had spent a considerable sum of money carrying out repairs and improvements to the property encouraged them to buy. Two respondents, one in Aberdeen and one near Edinburgh, explained that they had paid considerable amounts of money themselves to repair and improve their council-owned homes. This then prompted them to buy the properties and become owners.

A good state of repair was occasionally mentioned as a factor encouraging tenants to buy. For example one tenant's council flat was relatively new. This reassured her and her husband that few repairs would be required at their expense. Consequently, they were encouraged to buy in the future.

Discount

Very few respondents who had exercised their Right to Buy reported explicitly that the discount on market value awarded under the scheme had been a key reason for buying. Those who mentioned the discount described it as a fundamental or even taken-for-granted reason for their purchase. It was apparent that many respondents were aware of the discount and, despite not mentioning it as a 'reason' for purchase, saw it as substantial.

Rent Rises

A few Right to Buy purchasers in areas as diverse as Govan, Edinburgh, Glasgow and rural Perthshire mentioned that a factor influencing their purchasing decisions had been the prospect of council rent increases. Some respondents mentioned that paying rent was equivalent to 'losing money'.

"I thought 'The rents will go up all the time anyway' so we thought we'd just go ahead (with the purchase)."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, Edinburgh, Interview 60.

Motivations for Not Exercising the Right to Buy

Respondents who were tenants gave various reasons for not exercising the Right to Buy. Most respondents gave more than one reason. Lack of confidence sometimes seemed to underlie other stated reasons for not buying. In summary, the reasons given for not exercising the Right to Buy were as follows:

• Financial limitations
• Lack of confidence
• Unsuitability of property
• Location
• 'Lifestage' or personal circumstances
• Poor state of repair
• Responsibility for repairs and maintenance

Each of these reasons is discussed in turn below.

Financial limitations

Several respondents who were tenants with the preserved Right to Buy said that financial limitations were the main reason that they had not bought their home. Specifically, they were limited by lack of money or income with which to secure and pay a mortgage. For example, the household income of one respondent who cited financial limitations came from her husband's wage. She thought that this income would be too low to cover mortgage payments. Also, it could not be depended on as her husband was in poor health and might not be able to work for much longer.

Other tenants were living on welfare benefits alone. (These included single parents who were looking after their children full-time.) They therefore did not think they could afford, or would be eligible for, a mortgage. One or two had accumulated debts in the past, including in one case, rent arrears, and saw these as preventing them from considering buying.

Similarly, some respondents who were tenants with the modernised Right to Buy also reported having financial limitations which might discourage or prevent them from buying their home in the next few years. Low or inconsistent income was linked to living on benefits, or part-time and irregular work. One respondent had been unable to secure a mortgage when attempting to buy a previous council property.

Few of the respondents who cited financial limitations as a reason why they had not bought their home showed a strong desire to be able to buy their house. Most expressed a clear lack of confidence in house buying and ownership.

Lack of confidence

Several tenants, both those with the preserved and those with the modernised Right to Buy, said that lack of confidence discouraged them from buying their own home. These respondents usually had little or no family history of home buying and ownership. Their lack of confidence often took the form of a general feeling, rather than specific, practical concerns about certain aspects of home buying or ownership. However, respondents mentioned the following in relation to lack of confidence:

• General lack of understanding about home buying and ownership
• Never having considered the possibility of buying
• Looking for reasons to 'put off' considerations of buying
• Being daunted by the purchase process
• Being confused by mortgage options
• A sense of vulnerability and having 'no one else to rely on' (The respondents who reported this happened to be female single parents and women living on their own.)
• Concerns about being able to make mortgage payments if they became ill or were made redundant. (A few respondents explained that rental payments, unlike mortgage payments, were covered by the welfare system in times of illness and unemployment. The home was therefore not at risk.)
• Worries about how to carry out repairs and maintenance, or how to arrange for these to be carried out privately
• Confidence in the rental process contrasting with lack of confidence in buying

Those respondents who lacked confidence had usually not looked into the opportunity to exercise their Right to Buy. For example, they had not asked the Council for more details of the Right to Buy scheme, enquired about the house or flat's market value, or found out about mortgage repayment structures. Their lack of confidence was mostly grounded in the lack of experience, family history and awareness.

Unsuitability of property

Several of the tenants with the preserved Right to Buy mentioned the unsuitability of the property as a key reason for not having exercised the Right to Buy. Some of these tenants had applied to transfer to more suitable properties and remained on waiting lists. Their top priorities were more bedrooms, especially in the case of those with children living at home, followed by a garden and private front door. Three respondents with the preserved Right to Buy mentioned the unsuitability of their current home as a reason for not buying. In the case of one young family, their multi storey flat - although described as being in an ideal, semi-rural location - was too small.

A few respondents with the modernised Right to Buy also mentioned the unsuitability of their home as a reason they might not buy in the future. Specifically, they were deterred by the home's size (too small, or in one case too large and therefore 'too expensive to run or to buy') and type (a shared-entrance when a private one was better, a flat when a house was preferred or the lack of a garden).

Several tenants reported that it was increasingly difficult to find a council property suited to a family as many of these had already been bought by others through the Right to Buy. This had decreased their chances of securing the tenancy for - and also being able to buy - a suitable council house. For example, a married woman with three children, including two teenagers, living at home, described how her family currently lived in a rented, two-bedroom terraced house. She and her husband were keen to buy but were awaiting a transfer to a larger house in the same area.

"The Council have actually put me on the list for a four bedroom house in X. There is not a hope in hell in the next twenty years in me getting that because there's only one four bedroom house left in X which the Council still owns…If we are still in the same situation towards the summertime next year, I think we're going to have to be forced to buy the house which I don't want."
Tenant with the modernised Right to Buy, rural Perthshire, Interview 14.

Unsuitability of location

A few respondents with the Right to Buy mentioned the unsuitability of the location of their current home as their reason for not buying, now or in the future (a few of these had applied to transfer their council property). Some estates were well-known for their high degrees of anti-social behaviour. Typically, this included vandalism, drug dealing, violence, noise disturbance and gangs hanging out on the streets late at night. Tenants were reluctant to buy properties on these estates. For instance, a single mother living on benefits on an Aberdeen estate explained that even if she had an income and could afford to buy here, she would not:

"It would be alright if you didn't have the gangs standing at the top of the street and if the area was quieter. Then more folk would maybe buy their properties. But you get your cars damaged, the front door and everything. So I wouldn't recommend it (buying here)."
Tenant with the modernised Right to Buy, Aberdeen, Interview 05.

She reported that very few properties in the area had been bought. Most were multi-storey flats and remained empty of tenants. Exceptionally, one nearby flat had been bought and was later put up for re-sale on the private market. It remained unsold for over two years.

Anti-social behaviour was not the only reason that an area was seen as less suitable than another. One example concerned a single father who lived with his young son in a tenement flat on a busy main road with no access to parks. He wanted to move to a council property near to his son's school in another part of the city. This location would be more convenient for getting to and from the school and his son would be free to play with school friends after school in the quiet side streets and local park. The reduction in time spent on the twice-daily 'school run' would help the father to find a job. He could then save money and plan to exercise his Right to Buy.

'Lifestage' or personal circumstances

Several respondents who were tenants with the preserved Right to Buy cited their stage of life and other personal circumstances as a reason why they had not bought their flat. For some, renting was the ideal option at the current time and preferable to buying. For example, a few single parents explained that they were out of work and living on benefits because their infant and primary-school age children currently needed a level of care that would not allow them to take on a job. Once their children were older, they would have more opportunity to find paid employment and, therefore, consider buying their home. Another respondent was retired and did not want to start a mortgage, for the first time, as she approached old age.

Other tenants had not really considered the option of buying but when asked, considered that their circumstances prevented it. For example, a married woman with young children found her current stage of life so hectic and chaotic that it was difficult for her to look ahead and plan.

A few respondents with the modernised Right to Buy also reported that their stage of life and other personal circumstances were reasons why they were unlikely to buy their home in the next few years. A couple where one partner earned the household income and was close to retirement made the decision not to take on the long-term responsibility of a mortgage. Although they had previously exercised their Right to Buy when living in southern England, and had positive experiences of being home owners, at this later stage in their lives they preferred to rent. A younger man in his early thirties thought that he might consider buying a property in a few years time, once he is more 'settled down'. For now, he was happy to rent.

Poor state of repair

Poor state of repair of the property discouraged some tenants from buying their home. For example, one respondent, a tenant in a four-in-a-block in Aberdeen, said that the poor state of the walls and plasterwork in her flat was one reason why she and her husband were discouraged from buying:

"The house is not 100%. If you're going to buy a house privately, you would buy one that's not falling down. The council have a cheek sometimes, asking us (to buy) when all the repairs would land on our back and we've had the house for so many years and they've not repaired them."
Tenant with the preserved Right to Buy, Aberdeen, Interview 08.

One respondent reported that she had been unable to buy her previous home, a council flat, because extensive outstanding repairs meant that a mortgage would not be awarded. She was unable to get the council to complete the repairs. To pay for the repairs herself would have been prohibitive. In the end, she had given up the tenancy and bought a house, which was ex-Right to Buy and in good order, on the private market.

Responsibility for repairs and maintenance

Several tenants who had not exercised their Right to Buy saw the responsibility for repairs and maintenance as a disadvantage associated with home ownership. In combination with other factors, this dissuaded them from buying.

As suggested above, this view often linked to a general lack of confidence in home buying and ownership. In particular, some female respondents expressed significant anxiety and concern about the possible cost of repairs. They seemed to think this cost might be unmanageable yet had no idea how much it might be. Those concerned about the unpredictable cost of repairs often had no history of family home ownership. Throughout childhood and adulthood, they had lived in properties rented from the council or private landlords. They lacked confidence in basic do-it-yourself and in how to arrange for repairs to be carried out by trades-people. No female respondent living with a steady male partner expressed overt anxiety about repairs. Furthermore, no male respondent shared these feelings. Rather, several men were distinctly confident and at ease with the idea of carrying out repairs, even when the repairs cost a lot. The remaining male respondents, and the remaining female respondents, expressed more neutral feelings, being neither concerned nor overtly confident about responsibility for repairs.

The Effect of Family Housing History on Right to Buy Motivations

The research did not explicitly aim to explore the effect of family housing history on Right to Buy motivations. However, once the fieldwork began, housing history soon emerged as a significant factor. The level of detail regarding family history given in the interviews varied by respondent. In a few accounts, it was unclear to what extent a family had a history of home ownership or not. However, the findings suggested that family housing history can exert a powerful influence on attitudes, expectations and behaviours regarding home ownership.

Many of the respondents had come from family backgrounds where there was no, or little, history of home ownership. Their parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents had rented their housing either from the council or from private landlords. This lack of previous home ownership in a respondent's family background often inhibited respondents from purchasing, rather than renting, a home:

"When I was brought up - I've got four brothers and four sisters - there was absolutely no chance that you were going to buy a house. You were never going to buy a house."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, Edinburgh, Interview 60.

"You were frightened to take the risk, frightened to take the chance."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, Glasgow, Interview 31.

Some tenants explained that this lack of history, or an associated lack of confidence, was one of the reasons why they had not exercised their Right to Buy. However, many respondents with no, or little, family history of home ownership had bought a home - often for the first time - through the Right to Buy. (In fact, the two examples above were from respondents who had exercised their Right to Buy.) Often, they were conscious of breaking a family pattern of non-home ownership by doing so. Several spoke about having been influenced or encouraged by close friends, colleagues and neighbours who had exercised the Right to Buy. Some tenants who had not exercised their Right to Buy also reported that they knew people who had exercised the Right to Buy. However, to generalise, this typically comprised just one or two acquaintances or neighbours rather than several close friends.

Re-sale purchasers of ex-Right to Buy properties spoke less of the influence of family history. Many of these respondents had never been council tenants themselves, nor had their parents. Rather, they had been brought up in privately-owned homes and expected to be home owners themselves. To an extent, home ownership seemed to be the expectation - and the norm - within their wider family too. Home ownership was sometimes preceded by a few years living in a private rented flat during the late teenage years and twenties.

General themes emerged overall from those interviews where a family history of non-ownership was mentioned. To summarise, lack of family history of home buying and ownership was associated variously with:

• An increased sense of risk. This 'risk' was often ill-defined but sufficient to deter purchase.
• The perception of buying as a 'big step' which 'doesn't feel safe'.
• The view that buying is not 'normal' for the respondent or his or her family.
• Confusion or lack of knowledge about the buying process.
• More specifically, confusion or lack of knowledge about the financing of house purchases. In particular, the way mortgages work was unknown as was the typical cost of monthly mortgage payments.
• Lack of knowledge of, and difficulty estimating, the practical scope and cost of the homeowner's additional responsibilities, in particular, responsibility for repairs and maintenance.
• Related to the above, anxiety at the thought of carrying out repairs and maintenance, or arranging for these to be carried out. However, a few tenants were used to carrying out repairs and maintenance despite their lack of family history of ownership. These respondents were male and had worked in manual or semi-manual jobs.
• The council being regarded as a reliable source of secure, safe rental housing -at least, in the past.
• Renting offered a few, particularly younger, respondents the flexibility they desired. These respondents felt they were not ready to settle down, and did not want to be tied to a property.

For several respondents who had bought their property through Right to Buy, Right to Buy provided the first introduction to home ownership in their family. Sometimes, respondents' brothers and sisters had exercised their Right to Buy within a few years of each other, influenced by their siblings' example.

For other respondents, their own parents - previous council tenants - had been the first in the family to exercise the Right to Buy. This had set an example and influenced the respondents to buy as well.

In a few cases, there were accounts of the adolescent and adult children of respondents who had exercised their Right to Buy developing their own expectation of home ownership. Unlike their parents, when leaving home, these children expected to buy a house or flat on the private market without renting from the council first (although they might first rent private flats or rooms for a short spell in their late teens and early twenties, particularly if studying.).

These accounts suggest that, for some families, Right to Buy prompted a generational shift, from a culture of long-term rental to a culture of home ownership.

Awareness and Understanding of Right to Buy

To an extent, awareness and understanding of Right to Buy varied by type of respondent.

Those who had exercised the Right to Buy, or who were interested in exercising their Right to Buy in the near future, showed the greatest awareness and understanding. Typically, this included understanding the basic conditions for eligibility and the system for discounting property price. These respondents had gained personal awareness and understanding of Right to Buy from having exercised their own Right to Buy. Their sources of information included local council representatives, local council leaflets, newsletters and letters, adverts and solicitors. Most also mentioned additional, less 'official', sources of information such as newspaper articles, television, relatives, neighbours, friends and colleagues at work. In particular, many were influenced by information received from parents, relatives, neighbours and friends who had exercised the Right to Buy.

Tenants, both those with the preserved or modernised Right to Buy, varied in their awareness and understanding of Right to Buy. There was a general awareness that Right to Buy provided a discount on the market value of the house, and that a minimum length of tenancy was required. (One or two respondents suggested three years minimum.) However, many were vague about the details of Right to Buy, particularly if there was no experience of Right to Buy amongst their family or close acquaintances, or if they believed they were at a stage in their life where buying a property was not a viable option and therefore 'not worth knowing'.

For example, one respondent with the preserved Right to Buy who knew very little about Right to Buy was a single parent whose income came from benefits. She had previously been declared bankrupt and described herself as trying to 'get back on her feet': to even consider the Right to Buy would be beyond her capacity at this stage in her life, psychologically. There was no history of home buying or ownership in her family history.

In general, most tenants with the modernised Right to Buy were very vague about the terms and conditions of Right to Buy, even though the changes made to the scheme in 2001 would directly affect their home-buying opportunities. For instance, they were typically unaware of the amount of discount awarded or even whether they were currently eligible to exercise the Right to Buy or not. None mentioned the date at which they would become eligible to buy their council property.

One exception to this general vagueness was a man who was a single parent, whose mother had exercised the Right to Buy years beforehand, and who fully intended exercising his own Right to Buy as soon as he was back in employment. He had a detailed understanding of the terms and conditions of the Right to Buy as they related to his own case. The other exception was a woman who was unaware of whether she was eligible or not for the Right to Buy, and who showed no interest in buying her own home, but nevertheless knew that the rules regarding eligibility had somehow been changed in 2002.

For most tenants, awareness and understanding of Right to Buy came from word of mouth from neighbours, friends and colleagues, and sometimes newspapers and television. Several reported that they had not received any information about the Right to Buy from their local council. However, at least one acknowledged that it was possible that mailshot information from councils about the Right to Buy, for instance, in the form of newsletter articles, might have been discarded without being read.

Right to Buy purchasers who had sold their Right to Buy property had a fairly high general awareness and understanding of Right to Buy. They could describe most of the scheme's main features - including, in the case of one respondent, the fact that once a council property was bought, maintenance became the owner's responsibility. However, respondents in this group usually did not give the same level of detail as purchasers still in their own homes. Some acknowledged that their understanding of Right to Buy had diminished because it was no longer relevant to them. Current sources of information tended to be occasional newspaper, television or radio references.

Awareness of the 'modernised' and 'preserved' Right to Buy

All respondents were asked if they were aware of recent changes to Right to Buy. Only a few respondents (around five) were aware that changes had been made. Of these, very few could recount any detailed understanding of the changes involved in the 'modernising' of the Right to Buy. A couple of respondents remembered receiving mailshots from their council about the changes, but could not understand them: "You get leaflets but they don't make any sense." (Tenant with preserved Right to Buy, Aberdeen, Interview 09). No respondent was familiar with the terms 'modernised' and 'preserved' Right to Buy.

Understanding the costs of purchasing a home

Respondents were asked to compare the overall cost of purchasing a home, either through Right to Buy or on the open market, relative to the overall cost of renting a home, either from the council or from a private landlord. In addition respondents were asked what specific costs they considered to be involved in home ownership, compared to renting a property.

Generally, council properties were thought of as cheaper than private properties, both for renting and purchasing. Nevertheless, some respondents who had had recent experience or knowledge of rented council property expressed the view that this too has become expensive in recent years. Indeed, some believed that all housing costs had rocketed in recent years. A woman who had bought and sold her council house in Edinburgh said "I'm glad I'm not starting off now, because it must be a real nightmare for a young couple [to buy] a house." (Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, Edinburgh, Interview 45).

Many respondents were aware that home ownership came with additional costs compared with renting. Repairs and maintenance work were the most commonly mentioned. The additional need to pay for building insurance was often mentioned by those who live in a house purchased from the council. Other costs, such as legal and surveyor fees were also mentioned by a small number of respondents.

Few respondents specifically mentioned the possibility of having to pay for larger repair or maintenance costs, such as those for communal areas. Respondents who did tended to be Right to Buy purchasers who had already had some experience of repairs or maintenance to common areas. A small number mentioned paying for these repairs but did not describe the cost as a problem. One purchaser reported that he had not had to pay for certain repairs. Although it was unclear why he had not been responsible for these costs, it is possible that the council had been continuing to pay for communal repairs after his purchase.

Whilst the cost of communal repairs had not been a problem for these respondents, there was one incident where repairs were not carried out due to lack of cooperation from other owners. One purchaser explained that he had wished to have repairs done to the windows in a shared stairwell, but that the other residents in the block had been unwilling to pay.

Those respondents who were renting a council property were less aware of the costs of buying and renting. Some of this group thought that renting a council property would be the cheapest option. Conversely, some tenants, particularly those who knew people that had exercised their Right to Buy, believed that buying their council property would be cheaper than renting. However, often these tenants expressed some concern about the additional costs of ownership.

It is possible that tenants' views of renting being much cheaper than buying through Right to Buy stemmed from their lack of knowledge of the real costs of repairs, insurance and maintenance and how affordable these might be. Whilst tenants were aware that if they owned a house they would be responsible for these additional costs, they did not seem to be able to estimate what these costs might amount to. Many expressed concerns over the costs of repairs. Respondents who had had recent repair work carried out by the council, or who thought that their council house required work, were often worried about the amount of work that they would become responsible for if they owned their property. Women who lived in rented council properties without a partner, including those with children, were often concerned about the costs of repairs. For example, a single parent from Inverness imagined that buying would be cheaper than renting in the long run, however she had concerns about the additional payments for repairs.

"Once you bought it is all on your shoulders, so there is that nervousness about it because it costs a lot of money to just get things fixed once they start going wrong."
Tenant with modernised Right to Buy, Inverness, Interview 30

However, two tenants were unperturbed by the prospect of having to pay for repairs if they owned their property. These tenants had already undertaken maintenance or repair work on their rented property themselves and were not frightened by the additional costs. One tenant had carried out extensive D.I.Y in his council flat. For example, he had built a partition to create an extra bedroom. He was not concerned by the costs for repairs or maintenance. Owning a house would make no difference to him, as he currently carried out all such work himself. Another respondent, a single retired woman from Glasgow, did not seem concerned about the costs of repairs or maintenance. Although she was a tenant, she had previously owned a home, which she sold after her husband died.

Those who currently live in a property they had purchased through Right to Buy often reported that their monthly costs, including mortgage payments, were slightly less than the monthly rent had been. A few other respondents said that the monthly payments for buying their council property were around the same or slightly more than their rent had been. Additional costs such as building insurance were included in respondents' comparisons.

Long term benefits and cost savings were recognised by some respondents who had exercised their Right to Buy. A purchaser from Inverness reported that, with insurance, his monthly payments increased after purchasing his council house. Nevertheless, he felt that over time it had still been cheaper for him to buy.

"I would say that anyone who's in a position [to buy their council house] should buy it, because rent's dead money. If you can buy, it's an investment."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, Inverness, Interview 27

Amongst those who had sold the house they bought through Right to Buy, although many recognised that renting may have benefits, such as not having to pay for repairs or maintenance, the long-term benefits of home ownership were important. They explained that over time, buying their council house might work out cheaper than renting. Furthermore, to varying degrees, the very status of 'ownership' was itself implied to have an intrinsic value. Being an owner altered a person's position or status in a way that was imagined to have lasting impact. An owner was seen to be more independent, more in control of his or her life and circumstances. Sometimes, this was described in financial terms. For example, one man from rural Perthshire explained:

"If you buy a house, it costs you money over a period of years. But surely it must have made you money. There has got to be something at the end of it that you won't have if you rented. [Renting] is what I call dead money".
Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, rural Perthshire, Interview 52.

At other times, respondents spoke of the status of ownership without alluding to financial implications. For example a woman from Edinburgh explained:

"Being able to move from one area to another. There is no way I would have been able to move out of a council house. So I would say it gives you your freedom."
Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, Edinburgh, Interview 49.

Purchasers of properties through Right to Buy generally appeared to be aware of the additional costs of repairs and maintenance. On the whole, they took these in their stride. Some Right to Buy purchasers described how they had included the additional costs of home ownership, such as insurance and legal fees into their calculations when they considered purchasing their home. Some had made numerous improvements to their home after purchasing it from the council, such as installing double-glazing, central heating, insulation, new kitchens, and bathrooms and general redecorating. In some cases these improvements had been funded through re-mortgaging their property.

Repairs to common areas were also acknowledged as an additional cost incurred by home owners. These costs were generally not considered to be problematic. A few had already paid for common repairs. These were generally organised by the council. For example a retired woman from Edinburgh who lived in a flat had had repairs on her roof.

"We have had a big roof repair but again it is shared between 12 people. When there was maybe only seven house owners [in the block of flats] , the council pays a share for the council tenants."
Right to Buy purchaser still in purchased home, Edinburgh, Interview 11.

Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, one respondent, in Edinburgh, expressed concern about the state of common areas such as the stairwell and external areas. She lived in a multi-storey flat, where the majority of flats were owned. Initially repairs to communal areas were organised by the council, but as more tenants exercised their Right to Buy, the council stopped these repairs. Despite her attempts to arrange repairs, other owners in her block were unwilling to pay for these repairs. She expressed concern that the value of her property might decrease as the fabric of the building deteriorated.

Purchasers of ex-Right to Buy properties commented very little on the costs of repair work. Those who did spoke of repairs in terms of renovation, suggesting the costs incurred were viewed positively, perhaps as a way of protecting or improving their investment. This view of repairs was also expressed by some purchasers of Right to Buy properties. A woman from rural Perthshire who had sold the home she purchased through Right to Buy explained that home owners were responsible for any repairs in their home.

"You've got to keep the property maintained and improved yourself. There's nobody going to do that for you. So that in order to protect and enhance your investment, you've got to do [it]."
Right to Buy purchaser who subsequently sold their Right to Buy property, rural Perthshire, Interview 52.

« Previous | Contents | Next »