Building Societies lost sight of what should have been their main priority

DURING the 1950s I spent many hours on the smokefilled top decks of buses, travelling across the city from my home at Frenchay, to my school, Merrywood, at Novers Hill, Knowle.

You couldn’t see through the bus windows because they were usually covered in condensation.

I spent the time thinking about how we all relied on the goodwill of others and imagining what the world would be like without it. Sadly, I now think that time has come. There are thousands of people unable to afford the most basics, a roof over their heads and food to eat.

What has changed? Building societies lost sight of what should have been their main priority of providing affordable mortgages that left enough of a man’s wages to live on. They started taking a wife’s earnings into account, so they could lend more which meant house prices went up.

I bought my house in 1968. I could only borrow two and a half times my annual salary. There was no worry about how to pay the mortgage when my wife became pregnant. My wife never had to go to work. I didn’t have a highly paid job, only average earnings working for Bristol City Council.

I borrowed extra money for central heating and double glazing and still managed to pay the mortgage off before time. We never owed anybody anything, paid all our bills on time, and still do.

We had two children, had good camping and caravan holidays in this country. Not ones abroad that we could brag about to our friends.

This would not have been possible if the building society had irresponsibly lent us more money than we could reasonably pay back.

There was a long list of people waiting for a council house. Perhaps a wait of several years before they were offered one.

In spite of this obvious need, Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy. This allowed long- term tenants only to buy their houses at a massive 60 per cent discount.

This had to be done in the tenant’s name, but no one asked where the money came from. Many relatives saw this as a good investment and bought their mother’s or grandmother’s houses for them. It was theirs to do what they like with after three years and could be resold at the full market price.

At the Horfield and Lockleaze estate where I worked, the 4,800 houses that we had, became only 3,300 in less than ten years.

In many cases the local authorities were still paying off the money they had borrowed to build them.

Local authorities were not allowed by the government to build new houses with the money from the houses they had been forced to sell.

This Right to Buy still exists and it is still happening.

People in rural areas and at the seaside complain that their young people are forced to move because they can’t afford to live there. Many of the quaint old cottages are second or holiday homes, empty for six months of the year, deserted in the winter. Sold to the new owners by the same people who are now complaining that their young people have to move out!

The term affordable houses means nothing. Even below market price is still far too much for most people. Affordable housing is seen as an investment for those with the money who then sell again for as much as they can get.

I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps I should ride about on the top deck of buses more.

P Collins Bristol