Jump to content

Unfair First Time Buyer Scheme


UnbelievableTekkers
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they weren't told about the 30 per cent, then they have something to moan about.

I have little doubt that the advocates who were employed to do the conveyancing and advice would have clearly pointed this out.

 

Who were the advocates involved, btw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they weren't told about the 30 per cent, then they have something to moan about.

 

Easily enough to determine.

 

Re-read the documents signed when the properties were purchased.

 

If it doesn't include the 30% payback clause, then there isn't liability.

 

If it does, then the tax payer wants 30% of the sale price to fund hospitals, schools, 1st time buyer schemes etc.

 

The scheme was designed to help youngsters starting out.

 

After 10 years that's been achieved.

 

TBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they weren't told about the 30 per cent, then they have something to moan about.

It is up to the client to understand the position of any agreement. There was and is nothing complicated about it. The 30% will have been in there. When the clients signed the forms for the scheme it would have been clear (to anyone who can read).

 

All the first time buyer schemes were fucking cushy and a gift to the people receiving the benefit. Whilst one set might be able to look at another set and say "their scheme was better than ours" the reality is that ALL parties received a bloody huge foot onto the property ladder at NO expense to them.

 

Also, I don't see the issue with the 30% anyway. Let's say the price of the house was £100k and they were given £30k. They have, in general, a small mortgage that will be a fair way paid off. That house is now worth, say £260,000.

 

If they sell they have to repay the government 30% of the original (£30k) and 30% of the equity (160,000*30%=£48,000).

 

So, they have a sale price of £260,000 - £78,000 = ££182,000. Minus any remaining mortgage.

 

Those people put, if I understand it correctly, next to fuck all deposit down, have the benefit of £112,000 of free equity, their own home (which they cound not have had without a handout) and the chance to move on and people are moaning?

 

Time to move into the real world. I'm not jealous, I couldn't care less. But where it does get a touch annoying is that ANYONE can moan about the foot up they got into Harcroft.

Edited by notwell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems started when people realised that the law firm who were handling the legal side didn't tell people about the 30% clause. And when people found out, they felt betrayed. Can you imagine having something happened to you like this? People here ( who were on that scheme ) don't feel like we own our homes.

 

 

You see that's the bit I genuinely don't get. At around the same time, I was looking to buy a house. I looked into applying under the scheme and, as a complete layman with no legal experience or even a particularly good vocabulary, got the forms and read them. In doing this I knew that the scheme entailed a 70/30 per cent ownership scheme fixed for all applicants and grant assistance on a sliding scale depending on income.

 

How is it that I didn't get past the application form yet still knew what the deal was yet some purchasers went through the whole process and claim to be in the dark?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly BigDave

 

Let'e be honest - if the paperwork ommitted that clause then we'd know about it already and it would be in court.

 

Also, it isn't the role of the advocate to point out the 30% equity. Their role is to to handle the conveyancing of the property to ensure it has fit and proper Freehold Title, planning, services and register any legal charges as required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If they weren't told about the 30 per cent, then they have something to moan about.

 

Easily enough to determine.

 

Re-read the documents signed when the properties were purchased.

 

If it doesn't include the 30% payback clause, then there isn't liability.

 

If it does, then the tax payer wants 30% of the sale price to fund hospitals, schools, 1st time buyer schemes etc.

 

The scheme was designed to help youngsters starting out.

 

After 10 years that's been achieved.

 

TBT.

 

Sounds like "fair comment" TBT.

 

The only however is that legal documents need translating and perhaps the advocate acting for the purchaser did not 'flag up' that the scheme had been modified(?).

 

As an example I know of a clause in a will where a beneficiary of a will was left "the choice of his grandfathers watches. I would have thought that would have meant one watch whereas it it was interpreted to mean he had all the ones he wanted.

 

I have sort advice from advocates when I've been unable to 'translate' documents , particularly in relation to conveyancing/ covenants/"trusts".

 

At the end of the day an advocates "opinion" is only an "opinion" and two advocates can have 2 mutually exclusive "opinions"....... and if "yours" gets it wrong you are "stuffed" and you need to spend "Brewsters" to get it sorted (if you're lucky) , in the UK . I suspect it could be worse on this island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Registry records I googled show that 42 Harcroft Meadows sold for £70,500 on 26/06/2001 so I'm not that far out on the numbers at all. Those houses have made shit loads since they were built.

So what was the deal? 30% grant from the government?

Yes. So 30% of £70,500 is £21,150 which might have been the grant. What's a house there worth now? About £275,000? So the 30% pay back if you move is £82,500. It's not bad for an interest free loan over 15 years on an asset that has gone up nearly 400%. Moaning fuckers.

 

 

Wow. Hat's off to no. 42 - I didn't pay that little or get that much of a grant. And worth £275,000 you reckon? Fucking hell. No wonder the market is in a shit state.

 

how on earth these kennels [thats what they are ffs] are valued at these silly prices just reinforces my view that house prices have a long way to drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly BigDave

 

Let'e be honest - if the paperwork ommitted that clause then we'd know about it already and it would be in court.

 

Also, it isn't the role of the advocate to point out the 30% equity. Their role is to to handle the conveyancing of the property to ensure it has fit and proper Freehold Title, planning, services and register any legal charges as required.

The role of the advocate, if I'm paying, is to act for me , and to point out all the 'upsides' and all the 'rakes in the long 'grass'.

 

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the "scheme" just saying the legalese verbiage sometimes needs translating , way back I'm advised lawyers got paid per page of drawing up freehold/leasehold titles .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Exactly BigDave

 

Let'e be honest - if the paperwork ommitted that clause then we'd know about it already and it would be in court.

 

Also, it isn't the role of the advocate to point out the 30% equity. Their role is to to handle the conveyancing of the property to ensure it has fit and proper Freehold Title, planning, services and register any legal charges as required.

The role of the advocate, if I'm paying, is to act for me , and to point out all the 'upsides' and all the 'rakes in the long 'grass'.

 

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the "scheme" just saying the legalese verbiage sometimes needs translating , way back I'm advised lawyers got paid per page of drawing up freehold/leasehold titles .

 

 

Honestly, there was no need for any "translation" of "legalese verbiage". They should have known and accepted the conditions before they were even offered a place on the scheme. As I said, reading the application form told me all I needed to know. There was no jargon or room for interpretation in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Exactly BigDave

 

Let'e be honest - if the paperwork ommitted that clause then we'd know about it already and it would be in court.

 

Also, it isn't the role of the advocate to point out the 30% equity. Their role is to to handle the conveyancing of the property to ensure it has fit and proper Freehold Title, planning, services and register any legal charges as required.

The role of the advocate, if I'm paying, is to act for me , and to point out all the 'upsides' and all the 'rakes in the long 'grass'.

 

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the "scheme" just saying the legalese verbiage sometimes needs translating , way back I'm advised lawyers got paid per page of drawing up freehold/leasehold titles .

 

That is wrong I'm afraid.

 

Before someone gets to the legal stage they must apply to the scheme, be offered a house, and complete the paperwork. That paperwork will have the information on the 30% in it. No question about it.

 

Now, whether someone needs to engage the services of a lawyer/independent party separately to review that paperwork before they apply is a different matter. But once you have applied and a house has been given to you then the job of the lawyer is to do the conveyancing. Not examine the content of the initial agreement you signed to apply for a house.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The houses in 2000 ish were bought for between £75,000 - £85,000 depending on how many bedrooms.

The GRANT was to top up the amount of the loan, this was anything from £10,000 - £20,000.

I know of three individuals who paid their grant back to the Government because it removed the first charge on their property, so they could put extensions on the property without the government having future intrest, to me that means the charges against the property is released, so technically they can sell anytime.

The ownership was supposedly 70/30 for the first five years including the buy back scheme so that the Government could buy back the property to the same value as purchased under the (pre emption right), however, the Harcroft residents didn't get informed this included a clause to say it's up to 21years the Government has the chance to buy the property back at 70/30. The deeds DID NOT state that.

Some of the residents have been allowed to build extensions with planning approval granted and yet the Government are also wanting 30% of the lot if they sell.

 

Don't forget there was approx 20 detached (open market) houses on that development and they were on the market for approx £145,000, I know one guy who bought five and sold each one 7years later for approx £255,000 making approx £110,000 profit, who's the greedy bastard now??? Yet the Government allowed that to happen!!! Joke!!!

 

Obviously Advocates are there to advise on clauses and what's within the deeds, that's what they get paid for, there is no doubt this was a cock-up, all the other FTBS are anything from 5 - 10years with there added clauses.

 

Anyhow good luck Harcroft residents to get this sorted one way or another and especially for those who want to move on, can, without future restrictions. 15 years is long enough.

 

Be easier to of bought a farm, especially with better Grants too... Ohh but that doesn't count does it...

Edited by Islay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The houses in 2000 ish were bought for between £75,000 - £85,000 depending on how many bedrooms.

The GRANT was to top up the amount of the loan, this was anything from £10,000 - £20,000.

I know of three individuals who paid their grant back to the Government because it removed the first charge on their property, so they could put extensions on the property without the government having future intrest, to me that means the charges against the property is released, so technically they can sell anytime.

The ownership was supposedly 70/30 for the first five years including the buy back scheme so that the Government could buy back the property to the same value as purchased under the (pre emption right), however, the Harcroft residents didn't get informed this included a clause to say it's up to 21years the Government has the chance to buy the property back at 70/30. The deeds DID NOT state that.

Some of the residents have been allowed to build extensions with planning approval granted and yet the Government are also wanting 30% of the lot if they sell.

 

Don't forget there was approx 20 detached (open market) houses on that development and they were on the market for approx £145,000, I know one guy who bought five and sold each one 7years later for approx £255,000 making approx £110,000 profit, who's the greedy bastard now??? Yet the Government allowed that to happen!!! Joke!!!

 

Obviously Advocates are there to advise on clauses and what's within the deeds, that's what they get paid for, there is no doubt this was a cock-up, all the other FTBS are anything from 5 - 10years with there added clauses.

 

Anyhow good luck Harcroft residents to get this sorted one way or another and especially for those who want to move on, can, without future restrictions. 15 years is long enough.

 

Be easier to of bought a farm, especially with better Grants too... Ohh but that doesn't count does it...

Every one of those residents was able to buy a house because of that FTBS. Without the scheme not one of them would have had a house there. And if I'm not mistaken the purchase prices were favourable (versus open market pricing) at the time?

 

Genuinely don't see the issue. They can all still move. And be thankful that the tax payer subsidised them into those houses in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...