Could I sue for being mis-sold

suited-aces

mandbaby wrote: »

No, of course not. And nor do they provide 25% of the mortgage, or 25% of the thousands I spent on the place to improve it (fire, carpets, landscaping the garden, etc, etc, etc)

is this for real?

moneybunny123

suited-aces wrote: »

is this for real?

No, of course not! Don't you get sarcasm. I was merely responding in the same vein as the ridiculous question that was posed to me. Duh!

moneybunny123

melmo wrote: »

I'm no expert but I am a FTB and I wouldn't even bother looking around a house with tenants, as I'd be worried that it might take months go actually get them out if they decided not to go and had to be evicted

I can sort of see why this might worry you, but you shouldn't tar all tenants with the same brush. My tenant is a single mum and cares deeply about my house - (she wishes she could afford to buy it, but she can't as she has poor credit rating and can't prove her earning yet as she works for herself.)

I really wouldn't let tenants put you off LOOKING at somewhere - some are actually nice people, you know

dtaylor84

mandbaby wrote: »

No, of course not! Don't you get sarcasm. I was merely responding in the same vein as the ridiculous question that was posed to me. Duh!

But they did provide 25% of the mortgage - without their money the mortgage would be 33% higher!

moneybunny123

dtaylor84 wrote: »

But they did provide 25% of the mortgage - without their money the mortgage would be 33% higher!

The mortgage would be higher than that actually, if I'm being as pedantic as you, as I provided a £64k deposit. My mortgage was for £50k, and without their money it would have been £88k.

But, like Suited Aces before you, you missed the point. I'm not complaining that they provided 25%. I'm complaining that I wasn't informed of all the pitfalls of the shared equity scheme and, pardon my ignorance, I thought that's what you pay a solicitor for - to point out pitfalls. If they HAD, I wouldn't have gone for the deal. End of. And I can say that hand on heart.

pinkteapot

If you had bought normally (i.e. not on a shared equity scheme), you'd actually be worse off if you sold now at a lower price than you paid.

Suppose you had bought a house for £100k and now had to sell it for £80k. You're down £20k.

Suppose the same house was bought under shared equity - you pay £75k and the developer pays £25k. It sells for £80k and you get £60k and the developer gets £20k. You lose £15k and the developer loses £5k.

With shared equity, you lose less if the price goes down and gain less if the price goes up.

The only real downside here is if you want to sell it fast at a low price and the developer blocks the sale to wait for a higher offer. In that regard it's the same as joint-owning a house with anyone.

Flyboy152

mandbaby wrote: »

The mortgage would be higher than that actually, if I'm being as pedantic as you, as I provided a £64k deposit. My mortgage was for £50k, and without their money it would have been £88k.

But, like Suited Aces before you, you missed the point. I'm not complaining that they provided 25%. I'm complaining that I wasn't informed of all the pitfalls of the shared equity scheme and, pardon my ignorance, I thought that's what you pay a solicitor for - to point out pitfalls. If they HAD, I wouldn't have gone for the deal. End of. And I can say that hand on heart.

But what pitfalls? It seems to me that you were in a win-win situation.

moneybunny123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But what pitfalls? It seems to me that you were in a win-win situation.

Do you REALLY believe that? So when people come on this forum and ask about Shared Ownership, you're an advocate for it, are you? Because from everything I've read on here in the last few days and other people enquiring about it, it seems that 99% of people advise to steer clear. So why is that, if I am in a win-win situation?

And the pitfalls? How about being tied to only one (expensive) lender for 25 years? Or not being able to sell to whom I want, when I want. As I said before, I've wondered whether or not to cut my losses NOW before they get worse. I realise I've made a loss, but have to live with that. Whilst it IS incredibly frustrating, it isn't the end of the world. You live and learn (or in this case, live, learn and lose). But the developers wont allow this because of THEIR loss. Well, they ALSO entered a contract knowing full well it could go IN their favour, or against them. It's currently going against them and, I imagine, will continue to for the forseeable. But they want me to hang on to it. Ok, so I have the hassle of keeping the house, managing the tenants, maintaining a house I no longer have an interest in, all because they want to make a profit on THEIR investment. Who's being one-sided now then, them or me?

Flyboy152

mandbaby wrote: »

Do you REALLY believe that? So when people come on this forum and ask about Shared Ownership, you're an advocate for it, are you? Because from everything I've read on here in the last few days and other people enquiring about it, it seems that 99% of people advise to steer clear. So why is that, if I am in a win-win situation?

Because you took a shared risk. This reduced your exposure and you have gained from it. It is only now, because you want to change the terms of your partnership with the developers, to their detriment, that you now see it as you have lost out; which, in reality, you haven't. The same applies to many of those who write on these boards to make similar complaints. The other side, of course, is that the majority of complaints are for a particular government scheme, not the sort of arrangement you have. To answer your question though; yes, fundamenatlly, I do think that shared ownership is a good idea (some schemes are better than others), your case illustrates, perfectly, the reason why it is.

And the pitfalls? How about being tied to only one (expensive) lender for 25 years?

Since when? You are not tied to that lender at all, unless you were foolish enough to sign a piece of paper that forces you to. That would your own fault, not the scheme's.

Or not being able to sell to whom I want, when I want.

But you can, but you have to have the agreement of your partners as well. Kind of stands to reason.

As I said before, I've wondered whether or not to cut my losses NOW before they get worse. I realise I've made a loss, but have to live with that. Whilst it IS incredibly frustrating, it isn't the end of the world. You live and learn (or in this case, live, learn and lose).

But you haven't lost as much as you could have, as was perfectly demonstrated by Pinkteapot earlier, which is why you have ended up winning.

But the developers wont allow this because of THEIR loss.

And why should they? Why should they lose and you win. The point of partnership is that all partners accept the same proportionate level of risk.

Well, they ALSO entered a contract knowing full well it could go IN their favour, or against them.

As did you.

It's currently going against them and, I imagine, will continue to for the forseeable. But they want me to hang on to it.

But why should be the one to gain and they be the ones to lose.

Ok, so I have the hassle of keeping the house, managing the tenants, maintaining a house I no longer have an interest in, all because they want to make a profit on THEIR investment. Who's being one-sided now then, them or me?

Well boo-hoo, why shouldn't they majke "a profit on THEIR investment?" It is the whole point of being a business. However, it is not one sided, is it? If they make a profit, you make one too. If you make a loss, so do they?

moneybunny123

You have missed so many of my points it's incredible.