modey Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The first time buyers scheme has always worked for the government and no one else, made a nice little profit of us, we got a grant of £13,000 to buy one, they got £70,000 back when we sold it to get a bigger house. For us it was a high interest LOAN not a grant as we were told when we bought it They did actually change the grant system after the f**k up of harcroft meadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William_Hartnell Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Time after time for every person the scheme has helped I hear examples of how it is being appallingly managed. This appears to stem from the scheme not actually having in place any proper rules or legislation just a set of guidance notes which is being interpreted ad hoc by civil servants within the department. In this case a common sense approach is all that is needed. The gent has just lost his life partner and perhaps an exception to the guidance notes is the order of the day. The common sense approach would seem to allow the gent to repay any outstanding financial assistance in the form of a grant or loan back to the department over a manageable period of time. The property will remain under all the other standard guidance for the scheme i.e. retuned to the department if sold within 10 years etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 In this case a common sense approach is all that is needed. The gent has just lost his life partner and perhaps an exception to the guidance notes is the order of the day. The common sense approach would seem to allow the gent to repay any outstanding financial assistance in the form of a grant or loan back to the department over a manageable period of time. The property will remain under all the other standard guidance for the scheme i.e. retuned to the department if sold within 10 years etc. The approach in this case would appear reasonable although it may appear initially to be harsh. I agree it may call for revision to the guidance notes or rules but I would be expect changes to apply in cases where the property was in one name and the remaining partner was a long time partner of the deceased and they had children who were still minors or if they were from a previous marriage the remaining partner was legal guardian of. Basically where a parent died I would not want the kids also to be thrown out of the house if they viewed the surviving adult as their parent or person was going to care, look after and bring them up. In this case it does not sound like that is the case. It gives the impression that the kids have grown up. Also as a divorcee who previously owned a house and whose kid(s) I believe live with his first it does not sound as if he meets the demographic that first time buyers houses are aimed at. Finally it does serve as a reminder of the importance of having a will and ensuring it is up to date. I think it is still the case that marriage nullifies any previous wills which is a point that is eay to overlook. I have to admit that our wills are straight forward in that basically everything goes to the spouse if the other is still alive or the kids or their kids. The most important though we did though ensure in including was our wishes with regard to who would be responsible for our kids if we both died. This was agreed with the relevant party but we did not want an argument to erupt between different family members or from different sides of the family if the situation arose. The paper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 it will be interesting to see if a vote chaser gets onto this one like the girl from pully who lost her father and was ( according to the rules ) supposed/going to be evicted. a vote chaser jumps on band wagon and has a whine and low and behold after a 'reassesment' she then quallified for the house?? maybe it will pass that someone 'forgot' to put this blokes name on the deeds in the first place and it will magically appear on them? Bingo! Fail Quayle's campaign sorted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The first time buyers scheme has always worked for the government and no one else, made a nice little profit of us, we got a grant of £13,000 to buy one, they got £70,000 back when we sold it to get a bigger house. For us it was a high interest LOAN not a grant as we were told when we bought it They did actually change the grant system after the f**k up of harcroft meadow The old scheme was a 70/30 shared ownership scheme - just some people decided they should be able to get a subsidised house and keep the lot and make a tidy profit for themselves from the use of public money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The first time buyers scheme has always worked for the government and no one else, made a nice little profit of us, we got a grant of £13,000 to buy one, they got £70,000 back when we sold it to get a bigger house. For us it was a high interest LOAN not a grant as we were told when we bought it They did actually change the grant system after the f**k up of harcroft meadow The old scheme was a 70/30 shared ownership scheme - just some people decided they should be able to get a subsidised house and keep the lot and make a tidy profit for themselves from the use of public money. yes, the old scheme meant that whenever went to sell the property on, be it in 5 years or 30 years, the goverment get a nice little profit from a first time buyer,not have them pay the loan back with interest, oh no too easy The problem with that scheme was that this was never explained to any resident of tht estate when the houses were bought, they were all told it was their after 10 years, like the current scheme, there was, and still is a legal battle going on between the lawyers regarding this. why shouldn'tpeople in the first time buyers propertys be allowed to sell on and get a bigger house when they can afford it without having to give the goverment back over 6 times what was borrowed in the first place? In the new scheme aren't people allowed to do exactly that now, get a subsidised house and then make a nice tidy profit after 10 years?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 because it was a shared equity scheme. How anyone can beleive that when they only pay for 70% of a house they can pocket all the profit is beyond me. Its fairly obvious that the other part owner (in this case Government but it could be anyone - a parent, partner or whoever) will be entitled to their share of the profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfbaked Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The first time buyers scheme has always worked for the government and no one else, made a nice little profit of us, we got a grant of £13,000 to buy one, they got £70,000 back when we sold it to get a bigger house. For us it was a high interest LOAN not a grant as we were told when we bought it They did actually change the grant system after the f**k up of harcroft meadow The old scheme was a 70/30 shared ownership scheme - just some people decided they should be able to get a subsidised house and keep the lot and make a tidy profit for themselves from the use of public money. yes, the old scheme meant that whenever went to sell the property on, be it in 5 years or 30 years, the goverment get a nice little profit from a first time buyer,not have them pay the loan back with interest, oh no too easy The problem with that scheme was that this was never explained to any resident of tht estate when the houses were bought, they were all told it was their after 10 years, like the current scheme, there was, and still is a legal battle going on between the lawyers regarding this. why shouldn'tpeople in the first time buyers propertys be allowed to sell on and get a bigger house when they can afford it without having to give the goverment back over 6 times what was borrowed in the first place? In the new scheme aren't people allowed to do exactly that now, get a subsidised house and then make a nice tidy profit after 10 years?? Correct! At least that is my plan, I will have paid everything I owe the Government in terms of top up loan etc so it will be just me and my mortgage. I think I should be able to look for another house maybe a little bigger and then that leaves my old FTB to someone else looking to get on to the ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The problem with that scheme was that this was never explained to any resident of tht estate when the houses were bought It was on the HPAS application form. I saw it with my own eyes, clear as day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverfoxie Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The problem with that scheme was that this was never explained to any resident of tht estate when the houses were bought It was on the HPAS application form. I saw it with my own eyes, clear as day. I didn't notice it, and I certainly didn't have it pointed out to me, or explained to me. It could have well been on the form but written in such jargon that we didn't pick up on it??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The problem with that scheme was that this was never explained to any resident of tht estate when the houses were bought It was on the HPAS application form. I saw it with my own eyes, clear as day. The 70/30 ownership mighht very well have been on the form but as was to explained to us by the advocates at the time of purchase, the goverments 30% ownership was supposed to decrease over a period of ten years where after ten years the buyer would own the property in full and would only have to pay back any grant. The fact that this has been a dispute with a group of the residents and the advocates (which i won't name) tells you something was amiss with that grant scheme, also the fact that said advocates had to hand it to thier own lawyers to deal with and the guy who dealt with all the purchases suddenly left the company I'd have no arguments with the goverment having taken 30% if it was explained at the time of purchase, which i can assure you it wasn't Anyway the scheme helped me to get on the property ladder, just glad to not be tied to it anymore and it's nice to know that big changes WERE made after the f**k up of harcroft meadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Though it seems like a good idea at first glance, I cant help but think that the First Time Buyer scheme is wrong for a couple of reasons at least - It artificially keeps the price of starter homes at a high level and government intervention in the economy like this never works out well. The other is - This is aimed at low income people/family's? That is the bit I am struggling with, if your income is not sufficient to buy a house, does that not just mean you cant have your own place unless you increase your income? You are being assisted to buy something you actually cant afford - madness IMO. Add in that home ownership is an expensive business, what with property maintenance and re decoration etc, no doubt these new First Time Buyer Houses are brand new and require little maintenance at the moment but in a few years we may well find these estates looking rather run down. Why should people/family's be subsidised by the taxpayers to get a house when they cant really afford it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfbaked Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Though it seems like a good idea at first glance, I cant help but think that the First Time Buyer scheme is wrong for a couple of reasons at least - It artificially keeps the price of starter homes at a high level and government intervention in the economy like this never works out well. The other is - This is aimed at low income people/family's? That is the bit I am struggling with, if your income is not sufficient to buy a house, does that not just mean you cant have your own place unless you increase your income? You are being assisted to buy something you actually cant afford - madness IMO. Add in that home ownership is an expensive business, what with property maintenance and re decoration etc, no doubt these new First Time Buyer Houses are brand new and require little maintenance at the moment but in a few years we may well find these estates looking rather run down. Why should people/family's be subsidised by the taxpayers to get a house when they cant really afford it? alot of people or should I say most on the FTB list can reasonable afford the mortagages on these houses otherwise the bank would not agree to give mortagages to them. Its mostly help with the deposit that first time buyers need in the form of the grants and low interest top up loans that the government provide. High rent in the private rental market make is so difficult for reasonable earning citizens to be able to save a deposit these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 alot of people or should I say most on the FTB list can reasonable afford the mortagages on these houses otherwise the bank would not agree to give mortagages to them. Its mostly help with the deposit that first time buyers need in the form of the grants and low interest top up loans that the government provide. High rent in the private rental market make is so difficult for reasonable earning citizens to be able to save a deposit these days. The deposit is there for a reason, to show to the mortgage company that you can save/ pay the mortgage. This was only overlooked recently, in the last 10 years or so, when people were getting 100% mortgages. If you cant save up the deposit yourself then, again I would say you cant really afford the house. When you actually get on the ladder its not supposed to be that tight, things like having a family crop up and you are than faced with the loss of one income for at least 6 months quite possibly a lot longer until the children go into full time education. Oh! hold on! don't some want subsidised child care too? - see where I am going with this? Government intervention is just so, so wrong. If you cant afford it, you just cant, end of.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 alot of people or should I say most on the FTB list can reasonable afford the mortagages on these houses otherwise the bank would not agree to give mortagages to them. Its mostly help with the deposit that first time buyers need in the form of the grants and low interest top up loans that the government provide. High rent in the private rental market make is so difficult for reasonable earning citizens to be able to save a deposit these days. The deposit is there for a reason, to show to the mortgage company that you can save/ pay the mortgage. This was only overlooked recently, in the last 10 years or so, when people were getting 100% mortgages. If you cant save up the deposit yourself then, again I would say you cant really afford the house. well that's totally wrong because we were paying £600 a month to rent a flat and couldn't afford a deposit for the house, the grant we got paid the deposit and we lived in the house for 10 years before selling it and moving into a bigger house.. so we quite clearly could afford to pay a mortgage, just living in rented accomadation makes it impossible to save a deposit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.