Labour slammed as another minister cashes in on Right to Buy scheme
4 weeks ago | 7 comments
Better to build new homes than subsidise BTL landlords claims Housing Secretary
8:05 AM, 8th July 2026, 3 weeks ago
24
Categories:
The government claims it’s better “to spend taxpayer’s cash building new homes than subsidising buy to let landlords”.
In a speech to the Lloyds Social Housing Forum, Housing Secretary Steve Reed claimed Right to Buy has led to taxpayers subsidising private landlords by paying housing benefit on homes that taxpayers also paid to build.
The government have announced a number of reforms to Right to Buy such as increasing the minimum eligibility period from three to ten years before tenants can apply to buy their home.
Subsidise private landlords
Mr Reed said: “There are over a million families on council housing waiting lists and we’ve seen a near-doubling of the housing benefits bill since 2010.
“Taxpayers pay tens of billions in benefits to subsidise private landlords to rent out homes that taxpayers also paid to build.
“Today, over four in ten homes sold under right-to-buy are rented out privately. That’s the same home now rented out to tenants at twice or three times the rent compared to when it was a council home. And taxpayers pick up the bill for the difference.
“This government has started to turn the tide. At the core of our plan is the simple common sense that it’s better to spend taxpayer’s cash building new homes than subsidising buy-to-let landlords.
“We’re radically overhauling right-to-buy to protect the social housing stock and stop newly built homes being sold off.
“To be clear again, we support the aspiration of tenants who want to own their own home, but we also support the aspiration of the million-plus people on council waiting lists to have somewhere decent where they can afford to live.”
Under the Right to Buy reforms, the government has announced that discount rules will be amended, with discounts starting at 5% of the property’s value and increasing by 1% each year up to a maximum of 15% of the property’s value or the cash cap, whichever is lower.
A 35-year exemption will also apply to new-build social homes, meaning they cannot be sold under Right to Buy until 35 years after completion.
Meeting the Decent Homes Standard by 2035
Elsewhere in the speech, Mr Reed announced the government would launch a consultation on extending the Right to Manage to housing association tenants.
It currently only applies to leaseholders and people living in council-managed homes.
Mr Reed also said the Decent Homes Standard would provide the social housing sector with long-term regulatory certainty, with both private and social landlords required to meet the standard by 2035
Tags:
council housing, decent homes standard, right to buy, Right to Manage, social housing, Steve Reed
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
House prices rise after May's fall - LloydsRelated Articles
Government sets out reforms to Right to Buy
3 months ago | 6 comments
Think tank calls for crackdown on landlords profiting from Right to Buy
11 months ago | 3 comments
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2246
12:18 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Marlena Topple at 08/07/2026 – 12:12
I agree with that as long as the right to buy is not at a massive discount from market value and if the value of the assets is cycled back into more social housing, not into public sector wages or pensions.
Where I live social housing tenants get a subsidised rent, for years, and then having paid a subsidised rent, for years they get a massive discount on buying their council house. I don’t blame the tenants as it’s the best deal in town in the housing market and many of us would do it if we could.
Member Since November 2019 - Comments: 182
1:19 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
The Answer is simple if the Government wants to solve the Housing Crisis .
Encourage and Support Private Landlords , It certainly worked for Thatcher . People need places to live now.
How long is it going to take the Government to Build enough houses to House everyone . 15 20 years.
Member Since November 2019 - Comments: 182
1:27 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
I have just checked on line and according to Co pilot
There are 50 000 – 60000 Landlord properties being sold off a month.
Why is the media not letting people know what is going on.
And why is The Government not protecting the people who voted for them many of these will be in Labour areas.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2246
1:31 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Northernpleb at 08/07/2026 – 13:19
Yes I agree: Just as it is correct that it is GOVERNMENT driving rent up it is also true to say that the government cannot house everybody who needs or wants to be housed without help from the private rented sector: Penalising the private rented sector, pursuing inflationary policies, driving out competition and driving rents up also drives up the benefits bill.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 104
3:17 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
What I don’t understand is that if you sell one council house and use the money to build another one you still have the same amount of council houses. Why not keep the ones you have and build more. Simples.
Member Since October 2018 - Comments: 16
4:05 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 09:55
some other thoughts,“Today, over four in ten homes sold under right-to-buy are rented out privately. ”
Probably true, but so what? They had the cash when they sold each one, providing funds to build more, should they choose to do so.
“That’s the same home now rented out to tenants at twice or three times the rent compared to when it was a council home.”
Of course this is true! Many were sold in the 80s and 90s so the rent would have been much lower then. It would be much higher now if the council still owned it!
Additionally, where I am the ex council PRS properties are much better spec, looked after better, and PRS landlords have much higher costs to maintain and service tenants needs than the council spends.
So the point is..?
“And taxpayers pick up the bill for the difference”
Why? This implies that all ex council properties in the PRS are rented to tenants recieving HB and ultimately funded by the tax payer. This is blatantly not true.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2246
4:09 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
That’s right: It’s the same home rented out to tenants at twice or three times the rent compared to when it was a council home. So what does that tell you about the ability of governments to turn over assets effectively in order to achieve a purpose – the purpose being housing people.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2246
4:11 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jack Craven at 08/07/2026 – 15:17
I think that’s a valid argument except that where I live, if the council were able to sell the 3 bed semi detached properties they have at market value and build flats instead, without having to pay tax, then they’d probably have 3 x 2 bed flats, or 2 x 3 bed flats instead. The question being, how effectively do councils use their assets to house the greatest number of people who need a home, or the greatest number of families.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 104
4:47 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/07/2026 – 16:11
They could change the 3 bed semi into a HMO when the current tenants leave thereby housing 3 people
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2246
4:58 PM, 8th July 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jack Craven at 08/07/2026 – 16:47
They could do. But that’s not what happens where I live.
What happens is that if the tenant leaves then the council won’t sell the 3-bed semi, they’ll put another single family in there, and if the family they put in to the property turns into a single person family then that single person family stays there. But if they’d been able to sell, keep the equity without paying tax on the grounds that they were going to reinvest in housing they’d be able to house at least twice the number of people, maybe more.
I think that one of the problems historically may have been that if the council sold the property they didn’t necessarily get to keep the funds. But in fact, if any council sold any property I would not necessarily trust them to put the money back into housing, as opposed to flexi-time, ‘working from home’, a four-day week for the same amount of money (claiming an increase in productivity), or enhanced public sector pension benefits.
So rather than just assume that the fix to the problem is building more council housing I’d like the government to take a look at who houses the most people per £1M of assets invested. It could end up being a housing association, it might be a private company, it could be a charity, but it won’t be Shelter.