8 months ago | 3 comments
A council with the biggest social housing waiting list in England has come under fire for buying back ex-council homes for millions of pounds.
The Big Issue reports Newham council sold off 130 properties for £10.6 million, only to buy them back for £33.3 million, losing £22m on homes it had owned just a few years previously.
As previously reported on Property118, the number of council homes being sold under the Right-to-Buy scheme is set to hit its highest level in 20 years.
According to The Big Issue, a loophole in the Right-to-Buy system means that if homes are sold back to councils more than five years after the original sale, councils are unable to reclaim the discounts they were forced to offer.
In one example, Newham Council sold a property under Right to Buy in June 2015 for £49,300.
In March 2021, the council bought back the same home for £320,000, more than six times the price it sold for.
Green councillor Areeq Chowdhury told The Big Issue that the Right-to-Buy scheme is fundamentally flawed.
He said: “People will be astonished to find out that their money is being spent in this way in Newham, with such a massive waiting list, so many people homeless and living in temporary accommodation. It’s not good, if you think about £22m, that’s money which in an ideal world could be used on housing the homeless, but instead it’s used to create wealth.
“A choice has been made to buy back these properties at a loss, rather than fund the other public services the council has decided to cut.”
However, Newham Council insists that buying back former council homes is still cheaper than alternatives such as purchasing on the open market or building new homes.
A Newham Council spokesperson told The Big Issue: “Most of the former council properties we’ve bought back are flats in council-owned blocks. These were sold under Right to Buy, which by law required us to sell to the tenants at large discounts.
“To repurchase, we must pay current market value, often much higher due to discounts and property inflation.
“Buybacks make sense for councils for several reasons:
“The government has responded to concerns about Right to Buy and the shortage of social housing nationwide. Discounts are now less generous, and councils have greater flexibility in using funds to provide homes.
“Alongside buybacks, we also have ongoing programmes for delivery of new build homes and regeneration.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government previously told Big Issue: “There are simply not enough social homes because of the housing crisis we inherited, and we are giving councils greater flexibility to use Right to Buy receipts so they can build and buy more homes.
“Our priority is to reform the scheme to better protect social housing stock and support councils to deliver new homes.
“We will continue to support long-term tenants to buy their homes, alongside building the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation – backed by £39 billion investment.”
Although the Labour government has not abolished Right-to-Buy, it sharply reduced the maximum discount in last October’s Budget, cutting it from £136,000 to £16,000 in most London boroughs, and from £102,000 to £38,000 outside the capital.
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
Previous Article
Unoccupied rental properties – What insurance covers
8 months ago | 3 comments
9 months ago | 3 comments
2 years ago | 31 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since February 2025 - Comments: 69
11:19 AM, 25th November 2025, About 5 months ago
“money which in an ideal world could be used on housing the homeless, but instead it’s used to create wealth”
The money has been used to get former Council tenants on the housing ladder. That is what the Conservative government intended when they introduced Right to Buy. The main problem is that local authority finances have changed so dramatically over the intervening decades that any perceived loss of public funds looks awful.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 754
12:05 PM, 25th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Kate Gould at 25/11/2025 – 11:19
The narrative usually continues along the lines of ‘private sector landlords are buying up council homes cheaply to make a profit’.
No, they didn’t and haven’t. The people who benefited from the right to buy discounts were the then qualifying council tenants who enjoyed a subsidised rent, followed by a discounted capital purchase of their property. They then sold on the property to other buyers in the market, whether or not they were landlords.
Just another example of how landlords are frequently but falsely vilified in the media.
Member Since March 2022 - Comments: 365
2:40 PM, 25th November 2025, About 5 months ago
I think that Councils were essentially required by the Government to sell to qualifying tenants at well below market rates under right to buy (still are)
and the councils didn’t even get the proceeds to invest in building new properties. So, any criticism about this Council losing money on the sales is unfair. They simply had no choice.
Now the Council are doing something sensible buying the properties back as even though the properties have risen in price many times they are still cheaper than new builds. I wonder who is actually selling their ex council properties? I understand that some 40% of these ended up in the PRS. Is it PRS landlords selling up vacant properties or evicting in order to sell? While getting out of the PRS may be enough incentive for some landlords, are inducements being offered by the council? Could such a scheme be increasing homelessness if landlords are evicting to sell.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 97
4:11 PM, 25th November 2025, About 5 months ago
So in a few years time will the tenants be able to buy these houses under the right to buy scheme and start the whole fiasco again ?
Member Since March 2023 - Comments: 1506
7:25 AM, 26th November 2025, About 5 months ago
This is not a loophole, it is the regulations. Don’t like it change the regulations