We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Ex Council Houses
Comments
-
IMHO It depends what you mean by stigma! If you mean you shouldn't be put off buying one just because it's an ex-council house then I'd agree. I'd happily buy an ex-CH in a nice neighbourhood. I'd also agree that they are sometimes very well-built and often have much bigger gardens.
However, in this area it seems to be the case that any ex-CH will be valued and marketed at less than a similar house(often less substantial with smaller garden) that has always been privately owned. Even in the city centre, there can be two parallel streets, one ex-CH (where most, if not all, are now privately owned) and another which has always been private, and the ex-CH houses will sell for significantly less. That is not to say that they will be cheap... in Cambridge city centre it is not unusual for ex-CHs to sell for over 1/4 million pounds but that's in comparison to historically private properties of a similar size nearby going for over 1/3 million! :eek: Obviously location matters to a HUGE extent... an ex-council house in a 'good' area of the city can fetch prices above a private house in a 'rougher' part but overall they don't seem to command such high prices and I can only think there is still some stigma attached.
There are a couple of other reasons I can think of why ex-CHs are cheaper and I'm not sure if this is peculiar to this area or nationwide... namely a lot of ex-CHs here are made of some sort of concrete construction (not sure of the technical terms) and some building societies are reluctant to lend on them because of this. This puts some buyers off too... along with the cladding that often adorns ex-CHs... private houses appear to be more likely to be traditional brick (in this area at least).
In our (very long) house hunt we've looked at lots of ex-CHs and even when they have been privately owned for more than twenty years they are still seen as ex-CHs and the price dropped accordingly. Possibly it is because people worry that nearby houses will still be occupied by council tenants and there is prejudice against them. However, from what I've read, I think I'm right in saying that all new developments of a certain size have to provide some 'social housing' and perhaps, once this is common, being a council house tenant will lose it's stigma. Maybe in 100 years time it will all be very different!
Not sure if any of the foregoing waffle is of any relevance/use to the OP though!
Thats our current problem is that we live in the south and most of the houses that are decent and a fair size and that we can afford are probably going to be ex council (therefore being in our price range) but for some reason our lender requires and additional deposit. I agree most council houses are definetly built better than the current cardboard houses that are popping up in our area.
There might be a credit crunch happening but it's certainly not affecting the current prices of houses in the are we live in but then saying that we are probably living in an extremely overpriced area of the country.0 -
one of the issues with ex local authority property, is that it can sometimes be of 'non standard construction, and thus not as easy to gain a mortgage on as other property
here's an example of what I'm talking about
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-17658953.rsp?pa_n=3&tr_t=buy
and from property bee
19th Apr 2008- Price changed: from '£84,950' to '£82,500'
- Subtitle changed: from '3 bedroom house' to '3 bedroom semi-detached'
- Price changed: from '£89,950' to '£84,950'
It's a health benefit ...0 -
That is the first time I have ever heard such a thing.Sorry - I've re-read the question and I suppose it does not make my question clear.
What I am trying to find out - if you are apply for a mortgage to buy a property that was once owned by the council but from what you can work out has had 4 previous owners (say in the last 10 years) one of the requirements from the lender is that because the property is ex council they require a 10% deposit but if it's not ex council they only require a 5% deposit. We are FTB and are not linked with other council properties or currently living in one.
Hope this makes more sense
Have you been told this by a broker? Or somebody at work/in the pub?
So far as I was aware, there was no difference in what you'd be allowed to borrow.
However, recently, things have changed. I didn't think there were ANY 95% mortgages any more. I thought they required 10% minimum no matter who you are and what the house is.
I am wondering if you enquired, say, a month ago, about a mortgage on "a house" and were told 5% deposit ... and have since found a council house, asked again and were told 10% deposit. That would explain it as the rules to obtain a mortgage are tightening weekly at the moment.
I could understand a mortgage company requiring a larger deposit at present perhaps, because the risk of an ex-CH in falling house price times is greater than the risk of a non-ex-CH.0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »That is the first time I have ever heard such a thing.
Have you been told this by a broker? Or somebody at work/in the pub?
So far as I was aware, there was no difference in what you'd be allowed to borrow.
However, recently, things have changed. I didn't think there were ANY 95% mortgages any more. I thought they required 10% minimum no matter who you are and what the house is.
I am wondering if you enquired, say, a month ago, about a mortgage on "a house" and were told 5% deposit ... and have since found a council house, asked again and were told 10% deposit. That would explain it as the rules to obtain a mortgage are tightening weekly at the moment.
I could understand a mortgage company requiring a larger deposit at present perhaps, because the risk of an ex-CH in falling house price times is greater than the risk of a non-ex-CH.
Unfortunatly I wish it was something that we were told in the pub it would have not cost us as much as it has! The whole story is a post and entirely different thread all together but one which I will post one day. The short version of the story is we got a mortgage agreeded in principle for £180 000 on about the 20th March. Found a lovely repo house on about 5 April - offer was accepted 9 April. Stated the ball rolling with signing the mortgage documents almost immediatly even before the offer was accepted. Due to the house being a repo everyone wanted it to complete really quickly, date agreed was the 9th May. The valuation of the property eventually happened on 1 May - no problems were found. It was only when the lender was looking at our package in order to grant the mortgage offer did they come back to us and say there were not happy with 5% because it was an ex council house. They have basically said that we can get a mortgage of £180 000 with 5% deposit with no problem as long as it's not an ex council house if it's ex council we have to have 10% deposit.
Sorry not just a short version after all!:rotfl:0 -
that sounds a real blow sealady... what rotten luck! Is it purely because it's ex-Ch or is it of 'non-standard construction' which is common in CHs?“A journey is best measured in friends, not in miles.”
(Tim Cahill)0 -
I am surprised. They've become spooked between your first enquiry and now.
I think this might be a question best on the mortgage board, where more mortgage brokers et al hang out.
I want to tell you to check what your mortgage offer said and suggest that if you challenge them then they might back down because the original mortgage offer was good to go ... but I am completely inexperienced and unknowledgeable about the inner workings of mortgages in principal and actual mortgages, except where an actual valuation comes in lower. I'm guessing they were OK about the valuation, just moving the goalposts about the %age LTV.
I'd suggest posting on the mortgage board and naming the company (you can do it in big hints rather than using their full and real name if you don't want to spell it out precisely). Perhaps you can ask them if they have experienced anything similar and how they recommend you proceed.
Good luck!
Bunch of c***s eh!!0 -
Is it purely because it's ex-Ch or is it of 'non-standard construction' which is common in CHs?
I'd expect a NSC to come in at 20-25%, especially now.
The OP does say "no problems were found" with the valuation (which would have also been a survey). So I don't think this is the case probably.0 -
PN I think that's what I might do! One of the mortgage brokers on here has been brillant in helping us out. He is not the one who originally try to sell us the mortgage!
We are hoping to find out all the exact information on Monday and then we will spill the beans.0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »I am surprised. They've become spooked between your first enquiry and now.
Maybe they've ran out of dosh!Originally Posted by PasturesNew
Bunch of c***s eh!!
Possibly a 'bunch of fools' ! you could pay a £million for an ex council property, Pfttt,0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.6K Spending & Discounts
- 245.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.7K Life & Family
- 259.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards