Unfair First Time Buyer Scheme

[Islay]

That's wrong!

 

They can't sell even now (15years on up to 21 years apparently) without offering it back to the Government first, still now, and it's the Governments own valuation too they have to go with!

 

Also, If you had put an extension onto a property and then decided to sell or had to sell due to other commitments, should the Government be making a profit on that too???

 

It's the bigger picture too that's sheight

[Wann]

The issue is that Bill Malarkey has to be seen to be doing stuff for his constituents. Come what may, he'll be the winner.

 

It's a bit like the girl who was not allowed to have her father's house in Pulrose, when he died. Rules are rules and all that, and Douglas Corporation could only go by the rules. Then big Cretters got involved and Hey Presto! the lass gets the house and David Cretney gets his Pully sainthood endorsed.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Wann

[Islay]

No, it's the Government not having a clue what it's doing from one minute to the next, look at the state of our housing prices and inflation now.

 

The Guy who bought the five detached houses in Harcroft Meadows on the open market seen the pound notes before he even bought them, because he was a businessman who knew his arse from his elbow, that's all, took his money and disappeared back to his homelands.

[notwell]

No, it's the Government not having a clue what it's doing from one minute to the next, look at the state of our housing prices and inflation now.

 

The Guy who bought the five detached houses in Harcroft Meadows on the open market seen the pound notes before he even bought them, because he was a businessman who knew his arse from his elbow, that's all, took his money and disappeared back to his homelands.

Well I guess the builder is going to sell to whoever wants to buy them. The fact some guy bought five is neither here nor there to the builder.

 

As for government, what can they do? Apart from give people a leg up onto the property ladder and then have them moan about it,

[notwell]

That's wrong!

 

They can't sell even now (15years on up to 21 years apparently) without offering it back to the Government first, still now, and it's the Governments own valuation too they have to go with!

 

Also, If you had put an extension onto a property and then decided to sell or had to sell due to other commitments, should the Government be making a profit on that too???

 

It's the bigger picture too that's sheight

Any valuation would need to be assessed by a third party. And the owner isn't obliged to sell either.

 

The government are entitled to take their cut. Without their (our) help there is no house to have this debate.

And the funny thing is people are moaning about the house price going up in value. If the thing had gone down in value would that make the residents happier? The government take 30% of nothing?

[Islay]

You used to be confused, but now you just haven't got a clue !!

[j-c]

The issue surely is the discrepancy between what the deed says and what DOLGE or whoever think what it should say when asked.

 

We bought an FTB house 6 years ago and are needing to either sell or extend as our kids are getting bigger. Sadly we can't afford to take the buyback price and get a house on the open market so the only affordable route would be a loft conversion.

 

We consulted the department, and were told that this was totally at the discretion of the policy officer and their interpretation of the act, and yet when referring to the actual Deed and all the clauses that relate to the restrictions added by the department for the 10 year period there is nothing that states this, only not to build anything that would require planning ie a full side extension or conservatory etc.

 

So does the fact that there is nothing written in the deed mean that I can ignore what the department are telling me?

[notwell]

The issue surely is the discrepancy between what the deed says and what DOLGE or whoever think what it should say when asked.

 

We bought an FTB house 6 years ago and are needing to either sell or extend as our kids are getting bigger. Sadly we can't afford to take the buyback price and get a house on the open market so the only affordable route would be a loft conversion.

 

We consulted the department, and were told that this was totally at the discretion of the policy officer and their interpretation of the act, and yet when referring to the actual Deed and all the clauses that relate to the restrictions added by the department for the 10 year period there is nothing that states this, only not to build anything that would require planning ie a full side extension or conservatory etc.

 

So does the fact that there is nothing written in the deed mean that I can ignore what the department are telling me?

Probably not because they'll have some sort of legal charge on the house?

[FACT]

I have a £30k charge on a house in Uk. They can't do anything without my permission.

[j-c]

 

The issue surely is the discrepancy between what the deed says and what DOLGE or whoever think what it should say when asked.

 

We bought an FTB house 6 years ago and are needing to either sell or extend as our kids are getting bigger. Sadly we can't afford to take the buyback price and get a house on the open market so the only affordable route would be a loft conversion.

 

We consulted the department, and were told that this was totally at the discretion of the policy officer and their interpretation of the act, and yet when referring to the actual Deed and all the clauses that relate to the restrictions added by the department for the 10 year period there is nothing that states this, only not to build anything that would require planning ie a full side extension or conservatory etc.

 

So does the fact that there is nothing written in the deed mean that I can ignore what the department are telling me?

Probably not because they'll have some sort of legal charge on the house?

 

 

Sorry but what is a legal charge and how would I know about this if it is not in the relevant section of the deed? In our case we were not eligable for a grant nor a loan from the government so only share equity with the bank.

Edited October 27, 2015 by j-c

[GD4ELI]

 

 

The issue surely is the discrepancy between what the deed says and what DOLGE or whoever think what it should say when asked.

 

We bought an FTB house 6 years ago and are needing to either sell or extend as our kids are getting bigger. Sadly we can't afford to take the buyback price and get a house on the open market so the only affordable route would be a loft conversion.

 

We consulted the department, and were told that this was totally at the discretion of the policy officer and their interpretation of the act, and yet when referring to the actual Deed and all the clauses that relate to the restrictions added by the department for the 10 year period there is nothing that states this, only not to build anything that would require planning ie a full side extension or conservatory etc.

 

So does the fact that there is nothing written in the deed mean that I can ignore what the department are telling me?

Probably not because they'll have some sort of legal charge on the house?

 

 

Sorry but what is a legal charge and how would I know about this if it is not in the relevant section of the deed? In our case we were not eligable for a grant nor a loan from the government so only share equity with the bank.

 

 

Have a word with the advocate who did the conveyancing, they will probably have a copy of all the documents and can explain it in 30 minutes.

[oldmanxfella]

 

That's wrong!

They can't sell even now (15years on up to 21 years apparently) without offering it back to the Government first, still now, and it's the Governments own valuation too they have to go with!

Also, If you had put an extension onto a property and then decided to sell or had to sell due to other commitments, should the Government be making a profit on that too???

It's the bigger picture too that's sheight

 

Any valuation would need to be assessed by a third party. And the owner isn't obliged to sell either.

 

The government are entitled to take their cut. Without their (our) help there is no house to have this debate.

 

And the funny thing is people are moaning about the house price going up in value. If the thing had gone down in value would that make the residents happier? The government take 30% of nothing?

Exactly. Anyone who thought they would just get given free money by IOMG is a bell-end. I remember reading the terms of the scheme at the time. It was always clear that 30% was loaned on the understanding that the government had that stake. What did people expect? To get 30% of the purchase price for absolutely fuck all?

[asitis]

 

 

That's wrong!

They can't sell even now (15years on up to 21 years apparently) without offering it back to the Government first, still now, and it's the Governments own valuation too they have to go with!

Also, If you had put an extension onto a property and then decided to sell or had to sell due to other commitments, should the Government be making a profit on that too???

It's the bigger picture too that's sheight

Any valuation would need to be assessed by a third party. And the owner isn't obliged to sell either.

 

The government are entitled to take their cut. Without their (our) help there is no house to have this debate.

 

And the funny thing is people are moaning about the house price going up in value. If the thing had gone down in value would that make the residents happier? The government take 30% of nothing?

Exactly. Anyone who thought they would just get given free money by IOMG is a bell-end. I remember reading the terms of the scheme at the time. It was always clear that 30% was loaned on the understanding that the government had that stake. What did people expect? To get 30% of the purchase price for absolutely fuck all?

 

Far bigger entities than ordinary families have ! LOL

[oldmanxfella]

 

 

 

That's wrong!

They can't sell even now (15years on up to 21 years apparently) without offering it back to the Government first, still now, and it's the Governments own valuation too they have to go with!

Also, If you had put an extension onto a property and then decided to sell or had to sell due to other commitments, should the Government be making a profit on that too???

It's the bigger picture too that's sheight

 

Any valuation would need to be assessed by a third party. And the owner isn't obliged to sell either.

 

The government are entitled to take their cut. Without their (our) help there is no house to have this debate.

And the funny thing is people are moaning about the house price going up in value. If the thing had gone down in value would that make the residents happier? The government take 30% of nothing?

Exactly. Anyone who thought they would just get given free money by IOMG is a bell-end. I remember reading the terms of the scheme at the time. It was always clear that 30% was loaned on the understanding that the government had that stake. What did people expect? To get 30% of the purchase price for absolutely fuck all?

Far bigger entities than ordinary families have ! LOL

Yes, and can you imagine if the property market had tanked and the £80.000 house bought was now worth £40,000? All those smug bastards would be down the pub boasting to you and me about how smart they were to hand the keys back to IOMG and get their money back! The fact is you got free money to buy a house that you couldn't afford. Now you moan that you have to pay back a bigger (but not proportionately bigger) slice of your incredible good fortune because the property market has tripled since you bought. Have any of you worked out how much you will be paying you bank back in interest over a 25 year loan? Or did you not understand how mortgages work either?

Edited October 27, 2015 by oldmanxfella

[the stinking enigma]

genuine question..did these people buy these first time buyer houses from the government or the developer?