« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 6: Summary
A summary of the main findings is given below.
Reasons for Exercising the Right to Buy
Those respondents who had purchased their council property through the Right to Buy cited the location and size of property as key factors prompting them to do so. Most respondents would not exercise their Right to Buy unless the location was ideal. Indeed, an 'ideal' location was the most important factor for many. An ideal location was one where the local neighbourhood was characterised by good social order. Additionally, in the case of families, the availability of a good local school was sometimes mentioned. Some older respondents looked for convenient local access to shops and public transport. For a few respondents, an ideal location was also one they were familiar with, for instance, a neighbourhood where they had grown up and where their relatives still lived. Some tenants awaiting 'transfer' from council properties in less-than-ideal locations (ones characterised by anti-social behaviour, such as drug dealing, vandalism and noise disturbance) to ideal locations said they would consider exercising their Right to Buy if and when their transfer request had been granted.
An ideal size of property was also very important. Most respondents would be reluctant to exercise their Right to Buy if the type of property was not ideal. An ideal property was usually one that was 'large enough' for its occupants. In particular, respondents living in families often looked for a minimum of one bedroom for the parent or parents, and one for each child or for every two children of the same sex. 'Three bedrooms' were often specified. By contrast, for a few respondents, an ideal property was a smaller one with fewer bedrooms than the one they had been renting. These respondents were preparing for retirement or old age, and had often had children grow up and move out of the family home.
In addition, many tenants would like their own front door rather than a shared entrance. The drawbacks of communal entrances featured in many accounts of anti-social behaviour and discouraged tenants from buying. This was especially the case regarding communally-entered multi-story blocks of flats. Families in particular also would like a garden for their children to play in.
Respondents reported that 'ideal' properties, especially those in preferred locations, were becoming increasingly unavailable to rent or buy from the council. This was due to earlier tenants exercising their Right to Buy and buying up many of these properties at a greater rate than they bought less ideal properties. Flats in 'rougher' areas remained unsold and, sometimes, unoccupied.
The Right to Buy was described as offering a good opportunity for 'investment'. However, investment was not seen in monetary terms of making profit, but variously in terms of: being able to provide offspring with an 'inheritance', the sense of 'security' of having permanent ownership and assets, and being able to improve the home in ways which would increase the quality of life. For older respondents in particular, the Right to Buy provided an opportunity to formalise their attachment to their home.
The discount on a council property's estimated market value offered by the Right to Buy scheme was rarely mentioned as a reason for exercising the Right to Buy. Hypothetically, this may be because this discount is taken for granted and seen as implicit to decisions to buy. Certainly, the discount awarded was seen as substantial, both under the preserved and modernised Right to Buy.
Reasons for Not Exercising the Right to Buy
The reasons given by respondents for not exercising the Right to Buy, to an extent, correlated inversely with the reasons given for exercising the Right to Buy, as outlined above. As before, respondents gave more than one reason.
- Some tenants who had not exercised their Right to Buy explained that the location of the house or flat they rented from the council was not ideal
- Some explained that the house or flat they rented from the council was too small: it had too few bedrooms
- One or two mentioned that the type of property rented was not ideal. For instance, they did not want to buy a flat in a multi-storey block.
- Respondents also mentioned that financial limitations prevented, or discouraged, them from acquiring a mortgage. Most often these limitations were caused by dependency on benefits, or sometimes, on low and unreliable pay. Half the tenants who were single parents in the sample were currently living on benefits alone and consequently considered themselves to be unable to exercise their Right to Buy.
- Lack of confidence was mentioned as a factor by a great many respondents who had not exercised their Right to Buy. This strongly correlated with lack of family history of home buying and ownership. Respondents often could not specify why, or in what areas of home buying and ownership, they lacked confidence.
Respondents also mentioned positive reasons why they had not exercised the Right to Buy. Being able to rent accommodation suited their current stage of life and personal circumstances. This was acknowledged by some parents, including single parents, who considered themselves fully-occupied raising young children with neither the time nor money to consider buying at present. A young man not yet ready to 'settle down', and an older couple about to enter retirement, also gave explained why for them, renting was an ideal and flexible option.
The Effect of Family Housing History on Right to Buy Motivations
The findings suggest 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.
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. Often, they were conscious of breaking a family pattern of non-home ownership by doing so. These accounts suggest that, for some families, Right to Buy has prompted a generational shift, from a culture of long-term rental to a culture of home ownership.
Awareness and Understanding of Right to Buy
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, had the greatest awareness and understanding. Respondents were not familiar with the terms preserved Right to Buy or modernised Right to Buy. There was limited awareness of the changes represented by the move to the modernised Right to Buy or the implications of these.
Experiences of Exercising the Right to Buy
Respondents who had exercised the Right to Buy generally found the process of buying a home through Right to Buy easy, straightforward and relatively quick. Just a few difficulties were reported, regarding securing finance, and the length of time taken. However, the decision to buy a property for the first time was a significant psychological step, particularly for the many respondents who had little or no family history of home ownership. In reality, once properties had been bought, owners had few problems. The monthly costs of ownership, including mortgage payments, were found to be less or equivalent to the monthly costs of renting. There were no accounts of Right to Buy owners falling into mortgage arrears or homes being repossessed. Home owners generally took their responsibility for repairs and maintenance in their stride.
Awareness of the Costs of Ownership versus Renting
Those respondents who had not exercised their Right to Buy were usually much less aware of the possible cost of home ownership. Consequently, they were often unable to make informed comparisons between the cost of buying and the cost of renting. Some respondents - particularly those few respondents who did not know anyone who had exercised the Right to Buy - guessed that a monthly mortgage payment would cost more than monthly rent, for the same property. They were often unsure and anxious about the possible additional costs of ownership. In particular, single women and female single parents felt discouraged from buying property by vague concerns about the cost of repairs and maintenance, and uncertainty about how to arrange for these to be carried out.
The Impact of Right to Buy
The Right to Buy scheme had impacted on respondents' lives in various ways. In the case of individuals and families who had exercised their Right to Buy, the impact was overwhelmingly positive. Commonly described impacts include the following:
- Right to Buy made it possible - or easier - for tenants to become home owners for the first time. Right to Buy had made house buying more affordable, particularly in its original form which offered substantial discount on the property's market value.
- Right to Buy had a significant impact on tenants' attitudes and expectations regarding home ownership. It provided encouragement and support to people who otherwise lacked confidence in home buying and home ownership. This impact was often described as affecting the wider family, beyond the Right to Buy purchaser and also subsequent generations: the sons and daughters of Right to Buy purchasers were likely to have greater expectations of, and confidence in, home ownership
- Having exercised their Right to Buy, new home owners had the freedom and motivation to carry out home improvements. Repairs could be carried out more quickly and to a higher standard than before. Home improvements were linked to improved quality of life, sense of achievement, responsibility and self-respect.
- Right to Buy improved mobility. As home owners, respondents could choose to move to another property or neighbourhood by selling their Right to Buy property and buying another property on the open market. For many, just knowing that moving home was a possibility was a valued 'impact' in itself. By contrast, as tenants on a council transfer list, respondents had found it increasingly difficult to secure a move to their desired areas or type of property. Some spoke of having to wait years for the chance of a transfer. For some older purchasers, Right to Buy reassured them that - as owners - they were free to stay in their home for as long as they wanted.
- Right to Buy impacted on respondents' finances in a range of positive ways, including providing a future 'inheritance' for children. More generally, respondents often reported a new sense of 'financial security'. No respondent spoke of Right to Buy having a negative impact on their finances, for example, difficulty paying mortgage payments or other costs of home ownership. Most respondents who had exercised their Right to Buy found the overall cost of buying through Right to Buy to be less or similar to the cost of renting. However, a few older respondents who had bought their home through Right to Buy many years ago had since paid off their mortgage and consequently, their monthly disposable income had increased.
- For many of those respondents who had exercised their Right to Buy, the scheme had had significant and long-lasting impact on their sense of self and their personal life. Home ownership bestowed a sense of pride and increased social responsibility. At least one respondent mentioned that home ownership gave her an incentive to remain in paid employment, in order to pay the mortgage. Unlike a council tenant, she could not fall back on welfare payments as she would risk losing her home.
Respondents did not see making 'profit' as one of the impacts of Right to Buy. Those respondents who had subsequently sold their Right to Buy property and bought another on the open market were prompted to do so by 'life changes' - a new birth enlarging the family, retirement, older age, children leaving home, the death of a partner - rather than by the opportunity to make profit and move up the property ladder. They had often remained in their Right to Buy property for many years before selling it.
There were also accounts of the Right to Buy scheme having positive impacts on neighbourhoods and wider society. Generally, an increasing level of home ownership on a council estate improved the appearance and fabric of the neighbourhood and reduced the likelihood of anti-social behaviour. In some areas, Right to Buy encouraged owners to live in an area for longer and to become more 'settled down'. This then made the neighbourhood more stable.
However, some impacts of Right to Buy - direct or indirect - were less positive. In particular, many respondents - especially tenants - spoke of Right to Buy having depleted rental stock. Those people who preferred to rent, or who needed to rent due to their personal circumstances, lost out as a result. The depletion of council housing stock was apparently exacerbated by the greater rate of purchase of the type of property often viewed by respondents as 'ideal' (typically 'family homes', with three or more bedrooms, own front doors and gardens). Properties in 'ideal' areas were also in increasingly rare supply. This left tenants and would-be-Right-to-Buy-purchasers unable to find their ideal home. Consequently, two Right to Buy purchasers had reluctantly bought less-than-ideal properties.
Furthermore, some respondents linked the skewed depletion of council stock to increasing polarity in the perceptions of different council estates. Whilst areas where many properties had been bought through Right to Buy improved and moved 'up market', areas where most properties remained council-owned deteriorated both in terms of poor housing conditions and anti-social behaviour.
As a further knock-on impact, the type of tenants living in largely council-owned areas had sometimes been seen to change over the years since Right to Buy was introduced. Low-income families with young children and additional babies on the way, including single-parent families living on benefits, were one type of respondent likely to suffer as a consequence. Facing long waiting lists for transfers, these families could find themselves living in small multi-storey flats in rough areas characterised by drug dealing, frequent vandalism and noise.
« Previous | Contents | Next »