Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on Reforming the Right to Buy

Updated 2 July 2025

Reforming the Right to Buy

1. At the heart of the government’s Plan for Change is the commitment to help hard working people and families to get safe and secure homes by increasing supply and delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.

2. Reform of Right to Buy is essential to deliver on this commitment. We want a scheme that helps longstanding tenants to buy their own homes, whilst protecting much-needed social housing stock, boosting council capacity and ensuring more homes are built than lost. The failure to replace the homes which have been sold under the scheme is a contributor to the urgent and rising need for social and affordable homes in most communities across the country. The cost of this has been borne not only by those low-income families unable to secure a social home, but by the taxpayer in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill.

3. That is why the government committed to better protect existing stock by reviewing the increased Right to Buy discounts introduced in 2012 and increasing protections on newly built Social Rent housing. The government acted quickly to deliver on this promise. In November 2024, we returned Right to Buy maximum cash discounts to pre-2012 levels to protect existing social housing stock, whilst ensuring long-term tenants still have a route to buy their own home. At the same time, the government increased the cost floor protection period from 15 to 30 years thereby improving councils’ confidence to scale up delivery of much needed social and affordable homes. In addition, at Autumn Budget 2024, the government confirmed that councils can retain 100% of their Right to Buy receipts, further boosting their capacity to deliver new homes.

4. The consultation which followed, Reforming the Right to Buy, considered the further reform needed to achieve a fairer and more sustainable scheme, seeking views on changes to eligibility requirements, which properties should be exempted from sale under the scheme and how rules on the spending of Right to Buy receipts could be further simplified.

5. The government is grateful for the detailed responses to the consultation and extensive and constructive engagement during the consultation period. This response, informed by the evidence submitted on our proposals, sets out a proposed package of reforms that delivers for social housing tenants, councils and wider communities alike. The proposals:

• ensure tenants who have paid in rent over many years can still purchase their home
• incentivise councils to ramp up delivery of new homes to help meet our 1.5 million commitment
• are easy for tenants to understand whilst minimising bureaucracy for councils and central government

6. We intend to bring forward legislation to implement the following reforms when Parliamentary time allows:

• Increase the eligibility requirement (currently 3 years as a public secure tenant) to 10 years, to support councils to rebuild their stock and to better ensure that it is tenants who have lived in, and paid rent on, their homes for many years that are able to own their home through the scheme.
• Prevent existing property owners, or those that have previously benefitted from the scheme, from exercising the Right to Buy unless there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. victims of domestic abuse.
• Amend discount rules so that discounts start at 5% of the property value and increase by 1% for every extra year an individual is a secure tenant up to the maximum discount of 15% of the property value or the cash cap (whichever is lower). The same rules will apply to houses and flats.  This will ensure that longer standing tenants gain a superior discount whilst better aligning the percentage discount regime to the new cash caps.
• Exempt newly built social and affordable housing from the Right to Buy for 35 years, which would have no impact on tenants wanting to buy their current homes but would significantly support councils to build. We will also update definitions for existing exemptions to remove outdated terms.
• Increase the period from 5 years to 10 years that the council has the right to ask for repayment of all or part of the discount on the sale of property.  We will also extend the period in which a local authority has the right of first refusal when a property previously bought under the Right to Buy is sold so that it applies in perpetuity.

7. The government will also amend the agreements made with local authorities under Section 11(6) of the Local Government Act 2003 on the use of Right to Buy receipts to simplify the rules and ensure that a greater proportion of receipts are used to deliver new social and affordable housing. In addition, we will extend the existing flexibilities in spending receipts indefinitely and, from 2026-27, will permit councils to combine Right to Buy receipts with grant funding for affordable housing to accelerate delivery of replacement homes.

8. The government intends to remove the formal one-for-one Right to Buy replacement target but calls on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The government will continue to monitor Right to Buy sales and council housing delivery to ensure that we are consistently delivering more than we are losing.

9. In addition, the government will undertake further policy development and analysis, building on the principles outlined in the consultation, to explore:

• More effective fraud prevention, how to mitigate vulnerable tenants being pressured into buying and how to crack down on third party backed applications.
• Reforms to the cost floor to better protect investment in existing homes.
• The current timelines for processing Right to Buy applications.
• How the Right to Buy applies in rural areas.

10. We will set out our position on these areas in due course ahead of bringing forward legislation.

Impact assessment

11. The impact of the proposed reforms will primarily be on local authorities, who are public sector bodies. We will provide a fuller assessment of the changes ahead of introducing the necessary legislation.

Overview of consultation responses

12. The consultation Reforming the Right to Buy was open for 8 weeks between 20 November 2024 and 15 January 2025 and received 964 responses. The evidence gathered has helped the government to consider what changes can be made to deliver a fairer and more sustainable Right to Buy scheme. We are grateful to all those who took the time to respond.

13. This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made, nor does it cover comments on aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation. This document sets out the changes the government intends to make in response to the main points raised in the consultation and where the government is not proposing to make changes, the reasons are explained.

14. Responses were received via the online submission portal and via email. During the consultation period the Department also engaged with stakeholders through roundtables, virtual meetings, and email.

15. We have provided a statistical summary of responses for each question where relevant. Several respondents chose not to answer some questions. For some yes or no questions there was the option of adding an accompanying qualitative response. All qualitative responses have been reviewed and have informed the response.

16. Around 19% of the responses from social tenants (and 24% of the total responses) were submitted using a template email with identical responses and wording. Responses provided in the template email at times diverged quite significantly with the views of the wider social tenant cohort. In formulating our response, we have considered tenant views both with and without the template responses.

17. The table below provide a breakdown of the general consultation responses by type of respondent.

Respondent	Total	Percent
Social Tenant	397	41.2%
Other Individuals	331	34.3%
A body representing the interests of social tenants	28	2.9%
A local authority or body representing the interests of local authorities	135	14%
A private registered provider or body representing the interests of private registered providers	27	2.8%
Another body involved in the provision or management of social housing	12	1.24%
Another organisation not listed	37	3.84%

18. The government welcomes continued engagement from all interested stakeholders as we develop the proposals and legislation for reform.

19. We will also develop a comprehensive communications package and detailed guidance, prior to any reforms being enacted, which the government recognises is essential for tenants and local authorities alike. Guidance will be published on GOV.UK.

Eligibility

Question 1

How long do you think someone should be required to be a secure tenant before qualifying for the Right to Buy?

• 5 years
• 10 years
• More than 10 years

Summary of responses

	5 years		10 years		10 years +
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	146	36.78	105	26.45	140	35.26
Local Authorities	6	4.48	57	42.54	71	52.99
All Organisations	28	12.07	91	39.22	113	48.71
All Respondents	179	18.94	257	27.20	509	53.86

20. We received 945 responses to this question and all respondents would support an increase to the time an individual must spend as a public sector tenant, currently 3 years, before they can access the scheme. The majority of respondents, 81%, would support a minimum eligibility period of at least 10 years.

21. Respondents who supported a significant increase in the eligibility period, to 10 years or more, thought:

• it would better align with the average tenancy of those buying under the scheme
• that it demonstrates a longstanding commitment to the local area
• it reduces the risk of tenancies being sought to quickly access discounted home ownership
• it supports councils in rebuilding their stock

22. Those who supported a shorter period of 5 years were of the view that it would:

• enable greater efficiencies for the management of older housing stock where a sale might be preferable to long-term maintenance
• still support the ability to reinvest capital from sales into newer, more energy-efficient homes
• still demonstrate a tenant’s commitment to their property and community

Government response

23. The consultation was clear that the government thinks that the length of time someone needs to have been a public sector tenant should increase so it is longstanding tenants, who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years, that are able to benefit from the scheme.

24. The government has carefully considered the range of responses to this question. We intend to legislate to increase the minimum eligibility period from 3 years to 10 years as a public sector tenant. Whilst the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for a greater period (53.86% though this reduces to 38.6% if the email template responses were excluded), we believe that 10 years strikes the right balance - allowing longstanding tenants who have lived in, and paid rent on, their social homes for many years the opportunity to own their home through the scheme whilst better supporting councils to preserve social and affordable housing stock. It is also the average length of tenancy of someone buying under the scheme currently.

Question 2

Should someone be prevented from exercising the Right to Buy if they have already benefitted from the Right or Buy or if they own another property?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	340	85.64	42	10.58	11	2.77	4	1.01
Local Authorities	128	96.24	4	3.01	1	0.75	0	0
All Organisations	220	94.83	9	3.88	3	1.29	0	0
All Respondents	874	90.66	61	6.33	13	1.35	16	1.66

25. We received 948 responses to this question and most respondents (91%) would support preventing someone who has either previously benefitted from the Right to Buy or owns another property from being able to exercise the Right to Buy.

26. Respondents strongly viewed the discount provided to tenants as a form of one-off assistance to support someone into homeownership. Many considered that allowing repeated purchases would undermine the objectives of maintaining and expanding social and affordable housing stock.

27. Many respondents agreed that there may be exceptional circumstances, where they may have been marital breakdown or domestic abuse, where local authorities ought to have a discretion not to apply the restriction.

Government response

28. If someone has previously benefitted from a discount when purchasing a property under the Right to Buy then, under the current scheme, the amount of the new discount is reduced by the amount of the original discount they benefitted from (section 130 of the Housing Act 1985).

29. The government has carefully considered the views on whether we should restrict access to the Right to Buy further for those that have already benefitted from the scheme or who own another property.

30. The government has concluded that existing property owners, or those that have previously benefitted from the scheme, should be prevented from exercising the Right to Buy and we will bring forward legislation to introduce this new restriction  when Parliamentary time allows.

31. We agree with the respondents that there may, however, be exceptional circumstances, such as victims of domestic abuse, where there should be a discretion afforded to local authorities not to apply the restriction. The evidence submitted to the consultation will inform the policy development to define these exceptions.

Question 3

Do you have any other views on criteria to determine eligibility for the Right to Buy?

[free text box]

Summary of responses

32. We received 809 responses to this question. Some respondents called for the Right to Buy to be abolished, and a significant proportion of local authorities and their representative bodies said that local authorities should be able to devise their own rules as to the eligibility criteria for the scheme. This included a discretion to pause the Right to Buy where local authorities deemed it necessary, for example in areas of high housing pressure.

33. Around 10% of respondents favoured introducing income assessments as part of the eligibility criteria, on the basis that individuals with higher incomes might be less in need of subsidised home ownership. They viewed this as a means to ensure that the Right to Buy would primarily benefit households unable to access home ownership through the open market.

34. Some respondents felt it was important to ensure that anyone exercising the Right to Buy has the financial means to fund the mortgage and the long-term maintenance costs of the home before sales can proceed, particularly the ongoing costs of a lease.

35. Some respondents also felt strongly that there should be stricter requirements as to how long family members needed to have lived in the property to join an application. The current scheme allows a tenant to buy the property with up to 3 members of their family, who are not joint tenants, if the property is their main home. They must have lived with the tenant for 12 months before applying to buy, except in the case of spouses or civil partners where the 12-month residential requirement does not apply. Several respondents wanted this period increased to 5 years. Respondents thought this change would restrict those seeking to profit from the scheme or seeking to take advantage of potentially vulnerable residents (e.g. elderly parents or grandparents).

36. Around 10% of respondents supported requiring tenants to either be resident in the area or to have been a secure tenant in the home they intended to purchase for the length of the eligibility period. They felt this would demonstrate commitment to the area and to the community in which the tenant intended to purchase.

37. Some respondents were also of the view that tenants who have had legal action taken against them, e.g. in the past 5 years, including those who have committed benefit fraud, should not be able to exercise the Right to Buy.

Government response

38. We acknowledge the strength of feeling both as to whether the scheme should continue, and the call for greater discretion to make decisions locally. However, the government has made clear that it is committed to the Right to Buy scheme and is not proposing its abolition.

39. The eligibility criteria for the Right to Buy are set out in the Housing Act 1985 and the government has considered the impact of the reduction in the cash discounts, the increased complexity, and the additional administrative burden as factors in deciding whether it should legislate to introduce further criteria.

40. Tenants who have legal problems with debt or outstanding possession orders cannot exercise the Right to Buy and persons with anti-social behaviour issues can already be excluded from the Right to Buy, so we are minded to not introduce further eligibility criteria for those areas. We will explore strengthening the guidance to provide further clarity in light of the responses to the consultation.

41. We will also explore how to strengthen the position either through guidance, or legislation if required, to mitigate vulnerable tenants being pressured into buying under the scheme and to crack down on third party backed applications.

42. We do not intend to take forward measures that would require tenants to be resident for the eligibility period (i.e.10 years under the reformed scheme) in the area they intend to purchase to qualify for the Right to Buy. In the context of the wider package of reforms proposed, we believe this requirement would add unnecessary complexity and administration. We believe that increasing the period that someone is required to be a public sector tenant is sufficient to help ensure that the scheme supports long-standing tenants who have made a home within their local community to buy that home.

43. Nor are we proposing to require affordability assessments to determine financial capability. Council and government guidance provides information to tenants to support them to understand the financial responsibility of homeownership. We will explore strengthening the guidance to provide further clarity in light of the responses to the consultation.

Discounts as a percentage of the property value

Question 4

What level should the percentage discount for an eligible tenant start at and what level should the maximum percentage discount be?

Minimum percentage

• 0%
• 1%
• 3%
• 5%

Maximum percentage

• 5%
• 10%
• 15%
• 20%

Summary of responses

Minimum Percentage Discount

	0%		1%		3%		5%
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	112	30.19	23	6.20	18	4.85	218	58.76
Local Authorities	61	48.03	25	19.69	12	9.45	29	22.83
All Organisations	87	40.85	47	22.07	19	8.92	60	28.17
All Respondents	458	47.51	94	9.75	48	4.98	305	31.64

Maximum Percentage Discount

	5%		10%		15%		20%
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	99	26.83	17	4.61	13	3.52	240	65.04
Local Authorities	44	34.92	33	26.19	22	17.46	27	21.43
All Organisations	71	33.49	46	21.70	33	15.57	62	29.25
All Respondents	404	41.91	108	11.20	57	5.91	327	33.92

44. We received 905 responses to the question asking what level the percentage discount for an eligible tenant should start at and 896 responses to the question asking what level the maximum percentage discount should be set at. Most respondents would support a 0% initial discount (48% of responses though this would reduce to 31.2% if the email template responses were excluded) up to a maximum discount of 5% (42% of responses but only 24% if the email template responses were excluded). However, the majority of social tenants (59% increasing to 67.4% without the email template) would support a 5% minimum discount and a 20% maximum discount (65% and up to 75% without the email template).

45. The majority of respondents who submitted additional evidence to support their answer to this question either supported local authorities having the discretion to the set their own initial and maximum discounts or having the discretion to set the maximum discount with the initial discount being set at 0%.

46. Those who supported affording local authorities a discretion to set minimum and maximum discounts were of the view that nationally set discounts do not offer the flexibility needed to ensure that discount levels align with local conditions.

47. The reasons given for supporting a 0% initial minimum discount included that it would result in greater retention of social housing stock, whist still incentivising the building of new social and affordable homes. It was also suggested that it  would provide parity between council tenants exercising the Right to Buy and private rented sector tenants looking to buy their first home.

48. Others supported a minimum discount of 5% as they considered that there was limited value in having no discount if the tenants purchasing could (by definition) afford a similar home on the open market. It was also raised that a discount lower than 5% creates a greater administrative burden to tenants and councils than the benefit the tenant would gain from the discount.

Government response

49. The government set out in the consultation that it would amend the current percentage discounts to better align with the new maximum cash discounts which came into force in November 2024.

50. Under the current rules, upon becoming eligible for the scheme, tenants currently benefit from a discount starting at 35% of the property value for houses and 50% for flats and which then increases in line with the number of years of tenancy, up to a maximum of 70% of the property value. However, percentage discounts are subject to the maximum cash cap.

51. The government acknowledges that many respondents would support setting the percentage discounts at 0% for the initial discount and a maximum discount of 5%. This would mean the tenant exercising the Right to Buy paying full market value in the first year of their qualifying period. The government has, however, stated its commitment to the Right to Buy and to delivering a fairer, more sustainable scheme that will enable social housing tenants to own their own homes, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership.

52. The government also notes the arguments put forward by many local authorities that they should have the discretion to set discounts locally. However, since November 2024, the maximum cash discount levels have been set regionally to better take into account local housing markets and, in particular, the necessity to protect London’s housing stock given the significant levels of housing need in the capital. Going further and allowing discounts to be determined locally would be difficult within a national scheme. It could also result in a wide variation in discount levels between localities. The government does not think that this would be fair and does not intend to move to local discount levels.

53. Balancing the range of views submitted to this question, the government intends to set the minimum discount to 5% of the property value and the maximum discount at 15% of the property value or the cash cap (whichever is lower).

Question 5

Do you agree that the same rules governing percentage discounts should apply to flats and houses, and that the discount should increase by 1% for every extra year that an individual has been a public sector tenant, up to the maximum?

• Yes
• No [Please explain]
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	291	75.39	67	17.36	28	7.25
Local Authorities	106	80.30	22	16.67	4	3.03
All Organisations	178	78.76	38	16.81	10	4.42
All Respondents	713	73.96	173	17.95	50	5.19

54. We received 936 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (74%) would support the same rules governing percentage discounts to be applied to flats and houses and that the discount should increase 1% for every extra year that an individual has been a public sector tenant.

55. The proposal of a 1% increase in the discount for every year that an individual has been a public sector tenant up to the maximum discount or the cash cap, whichever is lower, was felt by many to strike the right balance of rewarding long-term public sector tenants while maintaining scheme sustainability.

56. Those respondents who supported applying the same rules governing the percentage discounts to flats and houses noted that the policy rationale for retaining different rules no longer existed. The Housing and Planning Act 1986 made changes to the Right to Buy scheme to make the policy more attractive. Sales of flats had lagged behind houses and this contributed to the decision to introduce differential rates of discount. Respondents felt having the same discount rules would create a simpler, fairer scheme that would be easier to administer and that would provide greater clarity to tenants who may exercise the Right to Buy.

57. Those who supported retaining different rules for discounts acknowledged that the current rules lead to greater complexity, however, they were of the view that the discount for houses should be lower than flats to support retention of larger family homes.

58. Others argued that it would be fairer to retain the difference and afford a higher discount for flats as a tenant who is purchasing a flat is purchasing a leasehold property and stands to incur service charges for the maintenance of communal areas, including lifts, compared to those purchasing a normal freehold with a house.

Government response

59. The government will apply the same percentage discount rules for flats and houses on the basis that this will result in a simpler and fairer scheme.

60. The discount will increase by 1% for every extra year that an individual has been a public sector tenant, up to the maximum, to ensure that those tenants that have contributed the most rent over the years receive the highest level of discount.

Question 6

Do you agree that cash caps should be retained alongside discounts capped at a percentage of the market value of the home?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	173	45.29	123	32.20	86	22.51
Local Authorities	127	96.21	2	1.52	3	2.27
All Organisations	196	86.73	15	6.64	15	6.64
All Respondents	646	67.01	156	16.18	129	13.38

61. We received 931 responses to this question and the majority of respondents (67%, though only 31% of social tenants would support retention of the cash caps if the email template responses were excluded) would support the retention of cash caps alongside discounts capped at a percentage of the market value of the home.

62. Respondents noted that the removal of the cash caps would result in areas with higher houses prices having discounts significantly in excess of the current cash caps introduced in November 2024, negatively impacting housing stock and ultimately increasing the current pressures on local authorities to address local housing need.

63. These respondents were of the view that percentage-only discounts could lead to unsustainable losses in capital receipts needed for replacement housing.

64. Other arguments put forward in support of the retention of cash caps included that they offer clarity for both councils and prospective purchasers in their financial planning.

Government response

65. The consultation proposed to retain cash caps to avoid excessive discounts in high value areas and ensure that the scheme remains sustainable. The majority of respondents supported this proposal, and the government intends to retain them under the reformed scheme.

66. Factoring in the increased period of eligibility proposed above, this would mean that after 10 years, a tenant would become eligible to buy their home with an initial 5% discount. The discount would increase up to a maximum of 15% of the property value (after 20 years of tenancy) or the cash cap (whichever is the lower). This will ensure that longer standing tenants gain a superior discount whilst better aligning the percentage discount regime to the new cash caps.

Exemptions

Question 7

Do you agree that the current exemptions to the Right to Buy scheme should be retained? If yes, please outline any changes that should be made to the exemptions.

• Yes [please outline if you also think there should be changes or additions]
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	234	60.62	106	27.46	46	11.92
Local Authorities	128	96.67	3	2.27	1	0.76
All Organisations	201	88.55	18	7.93	8	3.52
All Respondents	737	76.45	133	13.80	64	6.64

67. We received 934 responses to this question and the vast majority of respondents (76.45%) would agree that the current exemptions should be retained.

68. Respondents agreed with the policy position set out in the consultation that the current properties listed in the exemptions are those in short supply and the exemptions need to be maintained, subject to amendments being made to certain definitions where the language used is outdated.

69. Some respondents asked for the removal of the exemption for properties where the landlord is a housing trust or housing association, so these properties would be brought within the scope of the scheme.

70. Several respondents were of the view that all properties in rural areas or areas with populations of 3,000 or less should be exempted from the scheme.

71. There were calls for a greater discretion to be afforded as to the types of property which should be exempt from the scheme from several local authorities and their representative groups, in order to reflect local supply and demand. Respondents felt this would allow local authorities to protect property types that are most needed in their areas based on their local housing waiting list, such as large family homes, adapted properties, and those in rural or village locations.

72. Other types of property that respondents thought should be exempted included bungalows and ground floor properties, due to their unique role in providing accessible housing for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Respondents noted these properties are often in high demand because they offer single storey living, which is essential for those with mobility issues.

73. Some respondents also called for large properties with four or more bedrooms to be exempt from the scheme, as these properties have a low turnover of void stock, are in demand, and are costly from a new-build perspective to construct.

74. Some local authorities would also support the exemption of flats from the Right to Buy, as they see difficulties arise in terms of maintenance and fire safety works where blocks of flats are not of the same tenure.

Government response

75. The current exemptions will be maintained under the reformed scheme, on the basis that these properties are in short supply and exemptions need to be maintained but the government will seek to amend the outdated language in some of the definitions which are not commonly used today, such as sheltered housing with resident wardens.

76. The government does not propose to expand the current exemptions to include bungalows, flats, or larger homes. This would have a disproportionate impact on the availability of the scheme to tenants, which we do not think is justified in the context of the wider package of reforms.

77. The government will not be extending the Right to Buy scheme to housing associations. Learning from the two pilots of the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme indicates that extending the Right to Buy to housing associations would further deplete social and affordable housing stock, disincentivise investment in social and affordable housing and be extremely costly to the taxpayer since the government would be required to compensate housing associations, as private bodies, for the discounts.

78. We note the arguments put forward to provide further protections for properties in rural areas, given the challenges in replacing this stock. The rural designations provision was introduced in 1985 to protect access to property for rural communities. This enables local authorities to include restrictions on homes sold under the Right to Buy so they can only be resold to local people or the former landlord. We will explore whether changes are needed to these provisions to better protect rural social and affordable housing stock.

Question 8

Should newly built social housing be exempt from the Right to Buy? If yes, please explain why the existing cost-floor provisions are insufficient.

• Yes [please explain]
• No

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	233	58.7	156	39.3	8	2
Local Authorities	126	95.45	6	4.55	0	0
All Organisations	204	88.31	27	11.69	0	0
All Respondents	753	78.11	186	19.29	25	2.59

79. We received 961 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (78%) would support newly built social housing being exempted from the Right to Buy. If the email template responses for this question were excluded it would result in a more balanced response from social tenants, 49.23% would support an exemption and 48.3% would oppose an exemption.

80. Respondents expressed concern that newly built homes are an attractive purchase for tenants, which impacts negatively on the assumed viability that had been used in the development of the site and creates a loss of long-term income to council Housing Revenue Accounts. Respondents noted when the home is sold so quickly after construction it results in local authorities losing the ability to accrue rent over the borrowing period and therefore pay back any debt.

81. Concerns were also raised that allowing newly built homes to be sold removes social and affordable housing stock that is needed to meet local community needs, and often after having provided a tenancy for only one household.

82. Some respondents commented that whilst the additional cost floor protection, increased from 15 years to 30 years in November 2024, has been welcomed, it does not act as a proper incentive to local authorities to develop new social and affordable homes. The cost floor only covers the historic building cost of the unit at the time of construction and 30 years does not cover the typical debt repayment period.

Government response

83. The government’s manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the Right to Buy and introducing an exemption was supported by the vast majority of respondents on the basis it will give councils greater confidence to build new homes and provide greater protection than the existing cost floor rules. The government intends to legislate to introduce an exemption for newly built social and affordable housing when Parliamentary time allows.

Question 9

If yes, how long after construction should newly built social housing be exempt from the Right to Buy?

• 10 years
• 15 years
• 20 years
• 25 years
• 30 years
• Permanently
• Other

Summary of responses

	10 years		15 years		20 years		25 years		30 years		Permanent
Group	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%
Social Tenants	89	28.1	22	6.94	22	6.94	12	3.79	23	7.26	117	36.9
Local Authorities	6	4.58	7	5.34	13	9.92	4	3.05	23	18.3	67	48.1
All Organisations	21	9.72	10	4.63	18	8.33	9	4.17	39	18.0	94	43.5
All Respondents	110	11.4	37	3.84	52	5.39	22	2.28	104	10.8	458	47.5

84. We received 846 responses to this question and a wide range of views were given as to a suitable period of exemption for newly built homes. A permanent exemption for newly built social housing was the most popular response, supported by 47.5% of respondents (which decreases to 31.6% of respondents and only 13.3% of social tenants if the email template were to be excluded), followed by an exemption of 10 years (11.4%) and 30 years (10.8%).

85. Respondents were of the view a permanent exemption would provide local authorities with the strongest incentive to build new housing stock and helps to mitigate the financial risk associated with investment in new supply. This is on the basis that if the property is sold any future rental income is lost, which would leave the local authority saddled with the outstanding debt to pay off.

86. Some respondents were of the view that any period of exemption should be based on an evidenced viability appraisal that shows the period over which the scheme rental income would pay back the costs of delivery. Others supported local authorities being given discretion to determine the length of any exemption.

87. Some respondents suggested that 50 years would be an appropriate length for any exemption in line with the likely investment time frame. Others saw 30 years as a viable period of time (10.8% of respondents). These respondents noted that local authorities are not aiming to repay debt taken on to finance new homes for at least 30 years and an exemption of over 30 years would enable recovering of investment. Those who supported 30 years noted this is also likely to be around the point when further significant investment may be required, that it aligned with the current cost floor provisions and Housing Revenue Account Business Plans.

Government response

88. The government recognises that a permanent exemption for newly built homes was the most popular response but has concerns that a permanent exemption will essentially start to phase out Right to Buy.

89. We do, however, agree that given the payback period on most new developments is at least 30 years the length of any exemption needs to match this. The government intends to introduce an exemption of 35 years for newly built social and affordable homes from the Right to Buy to ensure that councils are not losing homes before they have recovered the costs of building them. Such an exemption will have no impact on tenants wanting to buy their current homes but will significantly support councils to build much needed social and affordable homes to meet future housing need.

Question 10

How can council investment in retrofitting or improving homes to a high standard be protected under the Right to Buy scheme?

• Amendments to the cost floor [please explain]
• Exemption for homes that have been retrofitted or improved to a high standard [please explain including length of any exemption]
• Other

Summary of responses

	Amendments to the cost floor		Exemption for homes that have been retrofitted or improved to a high standard		Other
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	198	49.87	96	24.18	77	19.40
Local Authorities	52	38.52	82	60.74	22	16.30
All Organisations	90	37.66	124	51.88	40	16.74
All Respondents	490	50.83	346	35.89	134	13.90

90. The majority of respondents (50.8%) would support council investment in retrofitting or improving homes to a high standard being protected via amendments to the cost floor (excluding the email template from the responses would mean 35.8% supported amendments to the cost floor and an increase in the support for an exemption to 46.9%).

91. Respondents noted that the financial challenges associated with retrofitting or improving homes to a high standard, especially in the context of net-zero targets, are already significant for local authorities. They argued that the potential sale of improved properties through Right to Buy undermines the long-term sustainability of such investments and that specific safeguards are needed with greater protection than the current provisions offer.

92. Respondents also cited instances where the amount spent on the property to undertake a retrofit, or the cost floor figure, is higher than the market value of the property, meaning not all costs associated with the acquisition and repair of the property will be recovered.

93. Many respondents suggested that cost floor calculations should take into consideration annual inflationary rises. In their view, given up-to-date market values are used to calculate the current value of the Right to Buy property, similar inflationary adjustments should be made to the cost floor calculations.

94. A number of respondents supported an exemption on the basis that it would incentivise local authorities to invest in upgrading existing stock and improve housing quality, knowing that their investments would be safeguarded. Others had reservations about an exemption, because it could increase tenant resistance to having their home improved. These respondents noted that it is already a significant issue for many retrofitting schemes, and even if the parameters were drawn narrowly, tenants may become aware of this possibility and so resist new works out of concern that it would bar them from the Right to Buy.

95. There was an acknowledgement that this would be a complex area for reform and terms such as ‘high standard’ would need to be clearly defined, else it could lead to perverse outcomes. Some respondents suggested that due to this complexity, the government should carry out further work to develop and evaluate alternative options.

Government response

96. The cost floor limits the discount on Right to Buy properties to ensure that the purchase price of the property does not fall below what has been spent on building, buying, repairing, or maintaining it over a certain period of time.

97. It is vital that social and affordable homes are retrofitted quickly and to a high quality. Councils should be incentivised to complete these works to benefit their current and future tenants and tenants should not be fearful of asking for these works to be undertaken for fear of losing the Right to Buy. As such, we do not propose to exempt properties that have been recently improved from the Right to Buy scheme but will carry out further policy development with stakeholders to consider reforms to the cost floor provisions. We want to ensure that the cost floor provisions protect council investment in maintaining homes whilst not disincentivising tenants from undertaking improvement works.

Question 11

If answering on behalf of a council, would exemptions to market rent homes have a significant impact in allowing more cross-subsidy for the building of affordable housing?

• Yes
• No

Summary of responses

Option	Total	Percentage
Yes	147	15.25%
No	148	15.35%
Not Answered	669	69.4%

98. We received 295 responses to this question and the responses were finely balanced. Those respondents who provided further evidence is support of their answer agreed that exemptions to market rent homes would have a significant impact in allowing more cross-subsidy for the building of social and affordable housing. They thought it would provide income streams that support broader affordable housing, provide certainty of long-term market rent income and protect market rent portfolios that can be used to leverage additional investment.

Government response

99. The government is keen to explore how local authorities can be best supported to secure alternative streams of revenue and capital income, so that they can play a bigger role in delivering much needed social and affordable housing. The government therefore intends to exempt market rent homes held in the Housing Revenue Account from the Right to Buy, to allow more cross-subsidy for the building of social and affordable housing.

Restrictions on properties after sale

Question 12

Should the time period in which the council has the right to ask on the sale of the property for repayment of all or part of the discount received be increased from 5 years to 10 years?

• Yes
• No [Please explain]
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	192	50	162	42.19	30	7.81
Local Authorities	126	94.74	6	4.51	1	0.75
All Organisations	191	84.89	24	10.67	10	4.44
All Respondents	694	71.99	193	20.02	40	4.15

100. We received 927 responses to this question and the majority of respondents (72%) supported increasing the discount period to 10 years (though the majority of social tenants, 50.15%, would not support this proposal if the email template responses were excluded). Those in support of the proposal commented that it aligns better with typical housing market cycles and trends.

101. Respondents felt that a longer repayment period would allow councils to better recoup their investments in properties sold under the Right to Buy scheme. They commented that, given public funds are often used to subsidise these discounts, extending the timeframe provides more opportunity for local authorities to recover costs if a property is sold shortly after purchase.

102. Others noted that increasing the repayment period can deter speculative buying, where individuals purchase properties for profit rather than as a primary residence. They would support a longer period to ensure commitment by the purchaser that helps ensure that homes are occupied by those who genuinely need them, rather than being flipped for financial gain.

Government response

103. The government will increase the time period in which the council has the right to ask for repayment of all or part of the discount received to 10 years, thereby encouraging people buying under the scheme to retain the property and to discourage profiteering.

Question 13

Do you have any other views on restrictions that might apply to a property following its sale under the Right to Buy?

[Free text box]

Summary of responses

104. We received 651 responses to this question. The majority of respondents would support the introduction of restrictive covenants relating to properties being rented privately after its sale under the Right to Buy (354 responses). There were a range of views as to how a restrictive covenant could be applied.

105. Many would support restrictions to ensure that properties bought under the Right to Buy scheme cannot be rented out in the private rented sector. Some respondents would support the property being let but only as a social or affordable home.

106. Respondents felt properties ending up in the private rented sector sits at odds with the main purpose of the Right to Buy scheme, which is to support home ownership. They were of the view that letting restrictions would address the management issues associated with privately rented homes previously purchased through the Right to Buy scheme and promote sustainable home ownership.

107. Other respondents would support the discount attached to the first sale of the property under Right to Buy being passed on in perpetuity, thereby allowing an affordable home ownership product to be retained in the market.

108. Other restrictions respondents raised included requiring the home to be the sole and primary residence for at least 10 years after it has been purchased and for the local authority’s right of first refusal when the property is sold to apply in perpetuity.

109. Some respondents would not support the introduction of letting restrictions as they felt it perpetuates a stigma attached to social housing by imposing restrictions on the leaseholder or freeholder, depending on whether the public sector tenant has purchased a flat or a house, and that there should be no policing as to whether someone can rent their property. Others felt that a letting restriction would fail to recognise that someone’s circumstances may potentially change, such as having to move for a job, and they may want to rent out their property rather than be forced to sell.

Government response

110. The government acknowledges the desire of many respondents to introduce restrictive covenants to prevent properties purchased through the scheme from being let out. However, the government continues to believe that tenants should broadly be able to live in and enjoy their home in the same way as any other homeowner. The government does not therefore intend to introduce any covenants restricting a home being let out. Such covenants would not be fair to the longstanding tenants who have paid in rent over many years who will purchase under the scheme.

111. The government is also not proposing to introduce a perpetual discount for homes bought under the Right to Buy. This would be a significant move away from the current model, under which the property sold under Right to Buy is a home which can broadly be bought and sold in the same way as other market properties and disproportionate given the wider reforms that the government will be taking forward on eligibility and discounts.

112. The government does, however, agree that we should strengthen the ability of councils to buy back homes when people sell homes previously bought under the Right to Buy. We will extend the local authority’s right of first refusal when the property is sold so that it applies in perpetuity.

Replacement targets

Question 14

Should there be a target for all council homes sold under the Right to Buy to be replaced, as far as possible, with a home of the same size, tenure and/or location as the home sold? Please provide detail to support your answer and indicate which consideration is the most important (tenure, size or location).

• Yes [please explain]
• No [please explain]
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	281	74.14	52	13.72	46	12.14
Local Authorities	47	36.43	77	59.69	5	3.88
All Organisations	111	49.78	99	44.39	13	5.83
All Respondents	684	70.95	177	18.36	65	6.74

113. The majority of respondents (71%) supported the idea of a target for replacement homes being delivered on a like-for-like basis and avoiding a net reduction in the housing supply.

114. Respondents who supported a like-for-like target thought it was critical to ensure the long-term sustainability of affordable housing stock and to meet the housing needs of local communities. Other respondents who supported replacements being on a like-for-like basis felt that size and location were less important than tenure and any replacement should be provided as Social Rent housing.

115. Several respondents raised concerns that like-for-like replacement are not often financially viable for local authorities and are dependent on land that is available at the time of development. Some noted that the evaluation of the Midlands pilot of the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme for housing associations had already demonstrated that it is not possible to replace homes sold on a like-for-like basis due to rising land and construction costs.

116. Others advised caution against locking-in local authorities to develop housing to meet a like-for-like replacement target when that might not be responsive to housing demand in the local area. Local authorities used several examples to illustrate this point in their responses, noting that a high percentage of sales are of 3-bed family homes, while current demand prioritises smaller 2-bed or larger 4-bed homes.

Government response

117. The current national one-for-one replacement target on additional sales was introduced in 2012 when there was no wider expectation placed on councils to build. Whilst almost three quarters (71%) of respondents to the consultation would support replacement homes being delivered on a like-for-like basis and in the same area as the previously sold off stock, the government acknowledges that a like-for-like replacement is not always financially viable.

118. The government wants to work in partnership with councils to maximise housing delivery and has taken steps to improve the capacity, capability and confidence of councils to build. The government has also permitted councils to retain 100% of Right to Buy receipts with greater flexibility on how to spend them to accelerate delivery of new social homes.

119. We intend to remove the formal one-for-one Right to Buy replacement target but call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The government will continue to monitor Right to Buy sales and council housing delivery to ensure that we are consistently delivering more social and affordable housing than we are losing.

Right to Buy receipts

Question 15

If answering on behalf of a council, do you have any evidence to demonstrate the impact of increased flexibilities around spending of Right to Buy receipts in accelerating and boosting replacement homes?

[Free text box]

Summary of responses

120. We received 177 responses to this question. Respondents welcomed the increased flexibilities and felt they had the potential to be a key factor in accelerating delivery of replacement homes and greater innovation in addressing housing shortages. Many respondents felt it was too early to evidence their positive impact and wanted to see longer-term certainty rather than the flexibilities only being in place for a 24-month period.

121. Some respondents said the lifting of the acquisition cap had sped up the delivery of replacement homes. A respondent provided an example of having secured 10 additional new build homes from developers because of the increase in flexibilities, with the possibility of a further 12 being acquired before March 2026. Others felt the flexibilities have been extremely helpful particularly in the current market where Registered Providers are not purchasing Section 106 obligated affordable units.

122. Other respondents said that the increased flexibilities means that certain schemes have now become viable. One respondent included evidence that “being able to use 100% of Right to Buy receipts for replacement affordable housing for 2024/25 & 2025/26 has moved two schemes….to be viable”.

123. Respondents noted that the increase flexibilities had permitted development on small brownfield sites which are in their ownership, and it has given them more capacity to develop housing without Homes England funding. One said the flexibilities had supported the development of a small new build scheme providing four new family homes whereas previously restrictions on borrowing ability had made this more challenging.

Government response

124. The evidence provided indicates that the increased flexibilities have accelerated and facilitated delivery of replacement homes. The government recognises that local authorities need longer term certainty on the receipts flexibilities to maximise their effectiveness/impact and to give local authorities the confidence to invest.

125. To accelerate the delivery of replacement homes and to provide local authorities with greater control over their assets, the flexibilities that were introduced in July 2024 - to remove the cap on the percentage cost of the replacement that can be funded from Right to Buy receipts (previously 50%), to remove the cap on acquisitions (previously 50%), as well as permitting councils to combine receipts with s106 to fund replacements – will continue indefinitely.

126. Local authorities are encouraged to make the best use of these flexibilities to maximise Right to Buy replacements and to achieve the right balance between acquisitions and new builds.

Question 16

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that combining receipts with grant would accelerate and boost delivery of affordable housing and how the risk of double subsidy would be mitigated?

[Free text box].

Summary of responses

127. We received 226 responses to this question. Respondents were of the view that given strain on local authorities’ Housing Revenue Accounts and their limited capacity for borrowing, councils need the flexibility to combine Right to Buy receipts with Affordable Housing Programme funding and other grant sources to accelerate housing delivery.

128. Many respondents (153) thought that the ability to combine Right to Buy receipts with other affordable housing funding streams would facilitate projects which would otherwise not happen, and would particularly help to address viability challenges due to site conditions. Respondents commented that development costs are currently high because building is taking place on brownfield sites and land remediation is having to be undertaken before starting the building of the houses.

129. Several respondents provided evidence demonstrating that combining funding streams and grants had accelerated and boosted delivery of affordable housing. The examples included repurposing empty apartment blocks to provide flats for young people with Section 106 funding from the local authority, funding from Homes England and using charitable donations to bring forward a scheme that would not have been viable just using one funding pot.

130. Another respondent included evidence which estimated that allowing the combination of Right to Buy receipts with Affordable Homes Programme funding could facilitate the construction of up to 4,800 homes across 10 local authority areas.

Government response

131. The government wants to support councils to increase and accelerate the delivery of new social and affordable housing. As such, and in recognition of the pressures on Housing Revenue Accounts, from 2026-27, the government will allow local authorities to combine Right to Buy receipts with grant funding to maximise council take up of the new Social and Affordable Homes Programme.

Question 17

How long should councils have to spend their one-for-one receipts?

• 3 years
• 5 years (current rules)
• 8 years
• 10 years
• More than 10 years
• Indefinitely

Summary of responses

	3 years		5 years		8 years		10 years		10 years+		Indefinitely
Group	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%	Tot	%
Social Tenants	75	18.9	104	26.2	22	5.54	31	7.81	83	20.9	46	9.07
Local Authorities	0	0	14	10.4	8	5.93	44	32.6	11	8.15	54	40
All Organisations	13	5.44	41	17.2	14	5.86	63	26.4	15	6.28	67	28
All Respondents	107	11.1	190	19.7	52	5.39	124	12.9	267	27.7	127	13.2

132. We received 867 responses to this question. There was clear preference from local authority respondents that councils should have a minimum of 10 years to spend one-for-one receipts, with 40% suggesting that they should be allowed to retain their receipts indefinitely.

133. Respondents were of the view that requiring money to be spent within 5 years, as under the current rules, incentivises councils to focus only on the smaller sites or acquisitions. Given the complexities and barriers involved in housing development, respondents noted that local authorities need sufficient time to plan and implement projects and a longer time frame supports the delivery of more complex and harder to deliver schemes, particularly regeneration schemes. Some suggested that sites within estates need greater consultation with residents, which increases the timeframe. The length of time that rural schemes can take to proceed to development was also given as a reason for having as longer timeframe as possible. Local authorities also commented that there are often delays in development perhaps due to the loss of a contractor, and schemes that have had initial costs funded by 1-4-1 receipts get stalled.

134. Local authorities cautioned that with the discount levels reducing, the number of Right to Buy sales will reduce, and it could take several years to build up the funds for a development.

135. Respondents agreed that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that funds are used effectively for housing developments.

136. Some respondents felt that a 5-year timeframe for spending receipts is already more generous than the provision for Housing Association Recycled Capital Grants, which are required to be reinvested within a 3-year period. They raised concerns that extending the timeframe could result in further delay of the provision of replacement social housing.

Government response

137. The government is keen to balance the benefit of a longer time frame for spending receipts, supporting the delivery of more complex and harder to deliver schemes, with the need to have a mechanism in place to ensure that funds are used effectively for housing development. The government agrees with those respondents who cautioned against extending the timeframe for spending receipts to such an extent that it results in further delay of the provision of replacement social and affordable housing.

138. The government will extend the period that Right to Buy receipts must be spent to 10 years (increased from 5 years), for receipts generated from 2027-28. Any receipts from 2027-28 onwards that are not spent within the 10 years will be returned to government to be spent by Homes England or the Greater London Authority for the provision of social and affordable housing. Any receipts generated prior to 2027-28, will continue to be subject to the current time frames i.e. to be spent within 5 years.

Question 18

Should unspent replacement receipts be returned to the relevant Mayoral Combined Authority as happens currently with London Boroughs and the GLA?

• Yes [please explain]
• No [please explain]
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	170	42.8	84	21.2	99	24.9	44	11.1
Local Authorities	37	27.4	70	51.9	20	14.8	8	5.9
All Organisations	70	29.3	94	39.3	44	18.4	31	13
All Respondents	459	47.6	225	23.3	181	18.8	99	10.2

139. We received 865 responses to this question. Under the current scheme, any additional receipts returned by a local authority to the government will be passed to Homes England or, for London boroughs, the Greater London Authority, for them to invest in replacement stock. Local authorities can bid for these returned receipts.

140. Respondents who supported unspent replacement receipts being passed to the relevant Mayoral Combined Authority suggested that this would ensure that receipts were used to provide housing near the locality of the local authority that was not able to spend the receipts on replacement homes.

141. Other respondents cautioned that returning unspent replacement receipts to a combined authority could mean that housing is then delivered further away from the location the receipts were generated from. This could essentially allow combined authorities to build away from areas of highest need. They suggested that receipts should specifically have to be spent in the same borough or equivalent sized area.

142. The majority of local authorities (51.9%) would neither support unspent replacement receipts being passed to the relevant Mayoral Combined Authority nor were they supportive of the current scheme, on the basis that local authorities are best placed to use their local knowledge and make decisions about the type and location of new homes in their local area.

Government response

143. Whilst acknowledging the majority of local authorities would support the permanent retention of receipts, the government is not proposing to permit receipts to be retained indefinitely nor is it proposing to require unspent receipts to be passed to the relevant Mayoral Combined Authority. Given the move to increase the time period for spending receipts and the forecast reduction in sales following the reduction in the cash discounts, the quantum is likely to be too small to justify the additional administration involved in transferring unspent receipts to Mayoral Combined Authorities. Non-London unspent receipts will therefore continue to be allocated receipts to Homes England; however, we will ask Homes England to redistribute these to projects as close as possible to the authority that originally received those receipts.

Question 19

Should the local authority share and buy-back allowance be incorporated within replacement receipts?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	189	47.6	27	6.8	149	37.5	32	8.06
Local Authorities	56	41.5	40	29.6	32	23.7	7	5.2
All Organisations	92	38.5	51	21.3	64	26.8	32	13.4
All Respondents	478	49.6	83	8.61	318	33	85	8.82

144. We received 879 responses to this question with nearly half of respondents (49.6%) supporting incorporating the share and buy-back allowance within replacement receipts.

145. Local authorities can retain a small portion of the receipts to use towards the cost of buying-back former council homes. Some homes bought under buy-back are added to the council’s rental stock, but others are bought for demolition under estate regeneration schemes. A portion of receipts can also be for any capital purpose (local authority share) calculated to approximate what authorities would have retained had the pre-2012 system continued. Both of these portions of receipts can be retained unconditionally, so they do not have to be returned if unspent. Respondents provided examples as to how the local authority share has historically been used included topping up of the General Fund, to fund existing stock capital programmes and to top up the Disabled Facilities Grant that funds housing adaptations.

146. Respondents who supported incorporating the buy-back allowance and local authority share into the replacement receipts felt it would simplify the process and ensure that receipts are recycled to maximise the funds available for delivery and replacement housing.

147. Respondents who would not support incorporating these shares within replacement receipts acknowledged that it could result in efficiency savings; however, they would not support their inclusion if it meant this share of the receipts would be returnable if not used. They felt there is a risk that these receipts could be repaid if the supply of land is not available to develop and that local authorities may need to borrow additionally to maintain investment needs if they receipt can no longer be used for any capital purpose.

Government response

148. The government welcomes the breadth of responses to this proposal and acknowledges that respondents’ opinion was generally positive although noting concerns that this change could result in this portion of the receipts being returnable if not used. The government is intent on reforming the current receipt arrangements to maximise the proportion of Right to Buy receipts that can be used to support the delivery of replacement housing and will incorporate the local authority share and buy-back allowance within replacement receipts.

Question 20

Do you agree that the total attributable debt should be calculated by multiplying the average attributable debt of each authority’s housing stock?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	73	18.4	35	8.8	180	45.3	109	27.5
Local Authorities	52	38.5	21	15.6	50	37	12	8.9
All Organisations	83	34.7	30	12.6	86	36	40	16.7
All Respondents	207	21.5	85	8.8	358	37.1	314	32.6

149. We received 650 responses to this question. Whilst 38.5% of local authorities would support this measure, the majority of respondents (37.1%) and social tenants (45.3%) replied “Don’t Know”.

150. Respondents who responded “Yes” to reforming the process for calculating attributable debt agreed that it would simplify a currently complex calculation reducing administration for councils.

Government response

151. The government will simplify the process for calculating attributable debt to reduce administrational demands on councils and central government.

Question 21

Should the requirement to return 75% of mortgage repayments that relate to pre-2012 sales be ended?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

Group	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	225	56.7	61	15.4	88	22.2	23	5.8
Local Authorities	94	69.6	1	0.74	29	21.5	11	8.15
All Organisations	141	59	17	7.11	52	21.8	29	12.1
All Respondents	650	67.4	80	8.3	170	17.6	64	6.64

152. We received 900 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (67.4%) including 56.7% of social tenants and 69.6% of local authorities would support ending this requirement. Only 8% of respondents would support retaining it.

153. Those respondents who agreed with the proposal to end the requirement thought that it would remove the complexity of having to record actions relating to pre-2012 Right to Buy sales and noted that there are a very low level of pre-2012 mortgages repayments that are returned.

Government response                                                                   

154. When the Right to Buy was established, tenants had the right to a mortgage from their local authority to help with the purchase. This right subsequently was removed by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. When a local authority receives a Right to Buy mortgage repayment or a repayment of a Right to Buy discount that relates to a sale that took place before 1 April 2012, 75% of those receipts are still returned to central government. These amounts are now small, with £377,132.31 collected in 2023-24 and £293,734.77 collected for 2024-25 based on current returns.

155. The government will end the requirement to return 75% of mortgage repayments that relate to pre-2012 sales and these funds can be retained by councils to support the delivery of new social housing.

Question 22

Should the Secretary of State be provided with a power to set the rules governing the use of Right to Buy receipts by general determination?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	72	18.1	190	47.9	112	28.2	23	5.8
Local Authorities	74	54.8	33	24.4	22	16.3	6	4.44
All Organisations	111	46.4	57	23.9	45	18.8	26	10.9
All Respondents	252	26.1	439	45.5	208	21.6	65	6.74

156. We received 899 responses to this question. Whilst a significant proportion of respondents would not support the Secretary of State having the power to set the rules governing the use of Right to Buy receipts by general determination, most local authorities, who this change would impact, were in support.

157. Local authorities noted the administrative efficiencies that could be realised if there was no longer a need for a revised section 11(6) retention agreement to be issued to every stock holding local authority or the need to lay amendment regulations whenever the rules are changed. However, respondents cautioned that the government should ensure that local authorities are consulted and well-informed of any changes to the rules governing Right to Buy receipts by general determination.

Government response

158. The government agrees that administrative efficiencies could be realised for councils and central government if there was no longer a need for a revised section 11(6) retention agreement to be issued to every stock holding local authority or the need to lay amendment regulations whenever the rules governing receipt retention are changed. The government will therefore provide the Secretary of State with a power to set the rules governing the use of Right to Buy receipts by general determination.

Question 23

Should Arm’s Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) be permitted to use Right to Buy receipts to deliver new affordable housing?

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Summary of responses

	Yes		No		Don’t Know		Not Answered
Group	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Social Tenants	107	27	159	40	98	24.7	33	8.31
Local Authorities	81	60	21	15.6	20	14.8	13	9.63
All Organisations	121	50.6	42	17.6	44	18.4	32	13.4
All Respondents	297	30.8	406	42.1	180	18.7	81	8.40

159. We received 883 responses to this question. The majority of respondents would not support this proposal (42.1%), however the majority of both local authority respondents (60%) and organisations (50.6%) would support ALMOs being able to use Right to Buy receipts to deliver new affordable housing.

160. Respondents who supported ALMOs being permitted to use Right to Buy receipts to deliver new social and affordable housing felt the current restriction preventing council-owned companies from using receipts to provide new housing has no defensible rationale. They view the current arrangements as preventing organisations, that are well-placed, from making significant contributions to building new social and affordable homes. In a similar vein, others would support the flexibility for councils to transfer Right to Buy receipts to organisations for which they have a controlling interest, where these receipts would be used in a way that contribute to delivering like-for-like replacement homes.

161. Respondents who disagreed thought that sole focus of any ALMO should be on management of stock and estates and that delivery of new stock should remain a “strategic landlord” function.

Government response

162. The government acknowledges the role that ALMOs have played in increasing housing supply and as such intends to permit them to use Right to Buy receipts to deliver new social and affordable housing.

Question 24

Do you have any other views on the rules governing Right to Buy receipts that have not been covered by the questions above?

[Free text box]

Summary of responses

163. We received 248 responses to this question. Many respondents felt there was no longer a need to retain the 5 elements that are used to calculate the level of an authority’s additional retainable receipts, if the use is ringfenced either to acquiring homes or building new homes. They felt receipts need to be treated as a resource to be managed as part of the local authorities Housing Revenue Account Business Plan to deliver replacement properties in the most flexible and cost-effective way to meet local need. They also noted that significant government grant will be required over and above Right to Buy receipts to ensure councils can deliver additionality required.

Government response

164. The current rules as to how local authorities must use receipts are complex and result in significant administration for councils and central government. That is why we are proposing to move to one single pot of receipts (after covering transaction costs and paying down debt) with all conditions supporting delivery of new social and affordable housing. The government has already enabled councils to retain the portion of their Right to Buy receipts that was previously returned to HM Treasury. As set out above, we will also allow councils to combine receipts with grant funding and extend existing flexibilities in spending receipts indefinitely to accelerate and increase the delivery of new homes.

Public Sector Equality Duty

Question 25

Do you believe any of the proposals set out in this consultation document could negatively or positively impact individuals who have a protected characteristic? Please explain your rationale, and evidence your thinking where possible.

Summary of responses

165. Respondents cited Age as the characteristic that would be most impacted (17.12%), followed by Disability (15.35%), Race (7.16%), Sex (6.64%), Pregnancy and maternity (6.43%), Marriage or civil partnership (4.25%), Religion or belief (4.05%), Gender reassignment (3.73%) and Sexual Orientation (3.42%).

166. Some respondents raised that increasing the eligibility period to 10 years could have a negative impact on younger social tenants since they would have to wait longer to purchase a property through the Right to Buy. They used an example of someone obtaining a public sector tenancy at 18, not qualifying for the Right to Buy until they were 28 under the reform proposals. Others were of the view that the proposals would protect social housing stock and improve the replacement rate of those sold under the Right to Buy and this would assist younger people to secure a permanent home.

167. Other respondents thought that the proposals would negatively impact those public sector tenants who have disabilities who wanted to buy the adapted home that they are living in. They suggested further engagement with the supported housing sector, tenants and disability advocates to ensure that the reforms do not inadvertently discriminate against tenants with a disability.

Government response

168. Public bodies have a duty under section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (the ‘Act’) to consider the needs of people who share particular protected characteristics. This is known as the public sector equality duty (PSED). In carrying out their functions, public bodies must have due regard to the need to achieve the following PSED objectives set out under the Act:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct prohibited by or under the Act
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a particular protected characteristic (other than marriage or civil partnership) and people who do not share it
• foster good relations between people who share a particular protected characteristic (other than marriage or civil partnership) and people who do not share it

169. The protected characteristics that should be considered are:

• age
• disability
• sex
• gender reassignment
• marriage or civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• Race
• religion or belief
• sexual orientation

170. When making policy decisions on reforming the Right to Buy, the government must have due regard to the PSED objectives outlined above and consider the equalities impacts on people with shared protected characteristics.

171. MHCLG does not hold data on the protected characteristics for all specific groups that may be impacted by this policy, although data is available on the makeup of the social rented sector more broadly. Evidence in this PSED assessment is informed by responses to this consultation, the government’s broader continued engagement with local government and tenants and using official government statistics and analysis carried out by the department.

172. The government’s objectives for these reforms are to deliver a fair and sustainable Right to Buy scheme that enables council tenants to access homeownership, but that provides value for the taxpayer and does not erode council housing stock.

173. Increasing the eligibility period, reducing percentage discounts and introducing an exemption for newly built social housing will mean fewer tenants will be able to exercise the Right to Buy but more social housing stock will be retained by local authorities and available to meet future homelessness and temporary accommodation pressures.

174. The changes proposed would have no direct impact on people with protected characteristics. They would also not directly advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Nor would they have any direct impact on relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

175. This is because the policy proposals would impact all public sector tenants equally, including those sharing particular protected characteristics.

176. In terms of indirect impact, the implications from the available demographic data on social renters is that any policy affecting the social rented sector as a whole is likely to have a particular impact (whether positive or negative) on women, older people, people with disabilities and those who identify as Christian because these groups are all over-represented in the social rented sector.

177. Respondents felt that young people would be particularly impacted by the reforms owing to the increased period of eligibility. The age profile of lead tenants in council owned social housing is similar to the age profile for all housing. In 2022-23, 36% of household reference persons in council owned social housing were aged between 45 and 64. 34% of households had a household reference person below 45, and 29% were 65 or over. The reforms are therefore more likely to impact those over 45. According to English Housing Survey 2022-23, the average (mean) age of first-time buyers was 34 years.

178. The policy changes are intended to have a net positive beneficial impact on groups from all protected characteristics since they would result in more homes being retained within the social housing stock. An increase in the proportion of homes available long term at the very lowest rents could benefit these groups. This would represent a long-term benefit since more social housing will be available to meet future housing pressures.

Next steps

179. The government will amend the agreements made with local authorities under Section 11(6) of the Local Government Act 2003 on the use of Right to Buy receipts to simplify the rules and ensure that a greater proportion of receipts are used to deliver new social and affordable housing. In addition, we will extend the existing flexibilities in spending receipts indefinitely and, from 2026-27, permit councils to combine Right to Buy receipts with grant funding for social and affordable housing to accelerate delivery of replacement homes.

180. We will bring forward legislation to implement the proposals to increase eligibility requirements, reduce discounts as a percentage of the property value, exempt newly built social housing and to tighten the restrictions on properties post sale as described in this document and summarised in the table below.

Area	Current Scheme	Proposed Reform
Eligibility	The individual must be a secure tenant and spend 3 years as a public sector tenant.	Someone will have to be a secure tenant and spend 10 years as a public sector tenant.
Eligibility	If someone has previously benefitted from a discount, the discount on the next property is reduced by the amount of the original discount.	Someone who owns a home or has previously benefitted from Right to Buy will be prevented from exercising the Right to Buy, unless there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. victims of domestic abuse.
Percentage Discounts	Houses - initial discount is 35% of property value for tenants with 3-5 years public sector tenancy. After 5 years, the discount goes up 1% every extra year, up to a maximum of 70%. Percentage discounts are subject to the cash cap. Flats - initial discount is 50% for tenants with 3-5 years public sector tenancy. After 5 years, discounts go up 2% every extra year, up to a maximum of 70%. Percentage discounts are subject to the cash cap.	Houses and flats - initial discount of 5% of property value for tenants with 10 years public sector tenancy. The discount increases 1% every extra year of tenancy, up to a maximum of 15%. Percentage discounts will be subject to the cash cap.
Exemptions	Certain properties are exempt from the Right to Buy in legislation due to being in short supply/ more difficult to replace. Properties in areas covered by a rural designations provision can only be resold to a local person or bought by a local council.	Certain properties are exempt from the Right to Buy in legislation due to being in short supply/ more difficult to replace but definitions updated to remove outdated terms. Newly built social and affordable housing will be exempt from the Right to Buy for 35 years. Market rent homes held in the Housing Revenue Account are exempt from the Right to Buy.
Protecting investment in homes retrofitted or improved to a high standard	The Cost floor protects council investment in building, buying and maintaining stock over a 30-year period.	The government will consider reforms to the cost floor provisions to better protect investment in retrofitting homes.
Restrictions after the property has been purchased	If a property is sold within the first 5 years, the council has the right to ask for repayment of all or part of the discount received, on a sliding scale depending on how many years after the original sale. After 5 years, the property can be sold without repaying any of the discount received.	If a property is sold within the first 10 years, the council has the right to ask for repayment of all or part of the discount received, on a sliding scale depending on how many years after the original sale. After 10 years, the property can be sold without repaying any of the discount received. Councils will have an indefinite right of first refusal when the property is sold.
Receipts generated by the sale of a property	Whenever changes are made to Right to Buy receipt rules a revised section 11(6) retention agreement usually has to be issued to every stock-holding council.	Set rules governing the use of receipts by general determination.

181. The government intends to remove the formal one-for-one Right to Buy replacement target but calls on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The government will continue to monitor Right to Buy sales and council housing delivery to ensure that we are consistently delivering more Social Rent homes than we are losing.

182. In addition to the package of measures and increased receipt flexibilities proposed above, the government will undertake further policy development and analysis, building on the principles outlined in the consultation, to explore:

• more effective fraud prevention, how to mitigate vulnerable tenants being pressured into buying and how to crack down on third party backed applications
• reforms to the cost floor to better protect investment in existing homes ahead of bringing forward legislation
• the current timelines for processing Right to Buy applications
• how the Right to Buy applies in rural areas

183. The government looks forward to continuing to work with all those with an interest in improving the scheme to make sure that these plans for reform are robust and deliverable.