How to get on the property ladder in 2 years.

IveSeenTheLight

ninky wrote: »

out of interest, who pays for the property maintenance etc in a 'shared ownership' scheme. does the other 'shared owner' (i.e. landlord) cough up for their percentage? if not, that sounds like a total con to me. plus, who decides when maintenance actually needs doing on the property?

Sorry I don't have any specific experience of shared ownership schemes.
As I understand it, it essentially is as a result of not being able to afford thoe whole propoertion of your home.

Its probably (but I'm guessing) that you own or are paying for a percentage (say 75%) of your home at that time but have all of the ownership responsabilities i.e. maintenance.

Should you sell, you only receive 75% of the selling price (and then clear off the mortgage) whilst the remaining 25% goes directly to the partner.

Should house prices rise and you want to buy, you'd have to pay 25% of the new valuation
Should house prices fall, you have to pay 25% of the original purchase price.

this will be why people in shared ownership schemes have a vested interest in prices remaining stagnant or falling as opposed to rising if they aspire to purchase the remaining 25%.

But then, as I say, the above is my limited interpretation and may not be fully correct as I've not been involved in these schemes.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

But then, as I say, the above is my limited interpretation and may not be fully correct as I've not been involved in these schemes.

No, you are not correct.

You are mixing up shared equity and shared ownership, and getting them both wrong.

If you want to buy another 25% in shared ownership, the house is revalued and you buy at the market price, whether that's higher or lower than your original purchase price.

So as prices fall, extra chunks become cheaper to buy.

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

you believe that someone should be able to go on multiple foreign holidays a year and then be able to immediatley afford a property when they've had enough.

this is just typical - they expect, but when they can't get what they want they blame others because they can't afford to buy.

a tattoo of this on the forehead might help

chucky wrote: »

owning a home is not a right for anybody, it is something that requires hard work, planning and sacrifices.

ninky_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Almost always the house buyer is responsible for property maintenance on their share and the landlords share as well.

could this be the way forward for btl landlords? sell tenants a proportion of the home, get rent for the rest and off load all the costs and responsibilities of maintenance onto the tenant. plus the tenant is pretty much stuck unless they can sell up.

what a total and utter con....

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I've always been sensible with my money; my main extravagance is probably travel and entertainment (sports, theatre, cinema etc- I want to make the most of living in London). Otherwise I'm very frugal- packed lunch at work, spending ~£3 a month on PAYG for a knackered old phone, no car or fancy gadgets etc.

I sometimes laugh to myself though, as I find myself weighing up whether to buy own brand bog roll (£1.59 for 4) or Andrex (£1.89). With the 30p I save each month, it's only 8333 years til I save up the extra £30k I need for a deposit on a London flat!

wotsthat

ninky wrote: »

could this be the way forward for btl landlords? sell tenants a proportion of the home, get rent for the rest and off load all the costs and responsibilities of maintenance onto the tenant. plus the tenant is pretty much stuck unless they can sell up.

what a total and utter con....

I'm not sure it's a con as you have to assume that people go into these with their eyes open. However, they do seem to combine the disadvantages of buying and renting whilst offering very few of the advantages.

doire_2

chucky wrote: »

the most important point in the whole article. owning a home is not a right for anybody, it is something that requires hard work, planning and sacrifices.

Yeap. Saving hard for that all important deposit. Not expecting the banks to lend silly money again. Poeople should become more responsible. If you want it that bad you will save for it.

doire_2

PROPERTY_LANDLORD_CLASS wrote: »

We had to scrimp save and work hard to get our deposits together why the hell can't the 'i want it now' generation. Want a dream house, knuckle down study, work hard and save.

You and sibley are the ones constantly moaning for 100% mortgages so make up your mind. Should people save hard or expect banks to throw money at them?

ninky_2

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not sure it's a con as you have to assume that people go into these with their eyes open. However, they do seem to combine the disadvantages of buying and renting whilst offering very few of the advantages.

perhaps con is the wrong word - although the same could have been said for ppi and look what happened there.

maybe some people are just so desperate to be on the property ladder (or the illusion of being on the property ladder) that they are willing to go along with whatever conditions even if they don't really make sense.

doire_2

PROPERTY_LANDLORD_CLASS wrote: »

Ideally both methods would provide more FTBs with their dream home. Right now they have to save hard UNTIL the banks are forced to open up their vaults. It's not rocket surgery this.

And who is going to force them? :rotfl: