Shared ownership/equity is a scam.

and_another_thing...

brit1234 wrote: »

HAMISH_MCTAVISH / Egg_custard how many false/ duplicate accounts have you created now, it smells of desperation.

One of my friends with a shared ownership flat is having difficulty because they have had a child and need to move to a bigger place. Shared ownership has this made this far more difficult and costly, they are pretty much trapped in a flat that is too small.

Another story was a much published flat on a certain Kirsty Allsop show. Where she bragged about how good the scheme she did not mention the neighbours. New developments by law have to have a percentage of social housing. In this development you would be paying a fortune to live next door to some of the most violent anti social people in the area. I won't name the block but it has made the decent residents lives hell.

If you buy in the 'normal' way without the assistance of a SE/SO scheme then you do have to consider whether the size of the property you buy will cope with a new/growing family. Forethought is also obviously needed when purcahsing through a SE/SO scheme. Your friend is in a tricky situation but they should have made sure they understod that the selling process would be difficult BEFORE they bought.

If you are concerned about having problem neighbours and presume that problem neighbours are likely to be social tenants then don't buy a SE/SO property in a new development where social tenants make up a % of the residents.

No one is forcing people to buy a SE home. And no one is forced to buy a SE home of a certain size or in a particular development.

In my case, my SE flat is by no means a 'luxury' flat but two flats in my street have been sold in the past year. Based on prices they sold for the estate agents valuations are pretty realistic. Even if I don't sell for 35 - 40K profit and only manage a 'mere' 10-15K profit I would STILL be in a better position to buy somewhere new with my partner.
My partner and I could even live in my current flat together and 'staircase' to own 100%. I am left with more options and money than if I had continued to rent.

WelshNic

brit1234 wrote: »

New developments by law have to have a percentage of social housing.

That is true but only over a certain number of dwellings.

brit1234 wrote: »

In this development you would be paying a fortune to live next door to some of the most violent anti social people in the area. I won't name the block but it has made the decent residents lives hell.

Quite possibly one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on the internet.

ukcarper

Orpheo wrote: »

I would suggest that the £35K is the average and not the flat. If the reverse is true then please describe how the 'average London flat' is calculated.

It's average flat according to Land Reg you will have to ask them how it is calculated.

ukcarper

brit1234 wrote: »

I think you will find that figure highly distorted by central London luxury flats and shared equity projects.

I servilely doubt that is the case of flats in the suburbs especially west London.

Houslow up £19k
Ealing up £27k
Kingston up £39k

and_another_thing...

ukcarper wrote: »

Houslow up £19k
Ealing up £27k
Kingston up £39k

I have no idea of the official figures for where I live, Wandsworth, but I'm sure they follow this pattern.

PasturesNew

Egg_custard wrote: »

...the 'bottom rung of the ladder' houses seem to me to be as affordable in comparison to wage levels as they were when I bought my first house nearly 15 years ago.

I happen to remember how much flats were round the corner from me in 1997... they were £26k. Today the same flat is £125k.

In 1997 a single person, working full-time in retail, or as an office admin person could have bought one with a £9k wage and 3x earnings. Today they'd need to be earning £25k and borrowing 5x earnings. In my town, I suspect those who were earning £9k in retail are now earning £12k for the same job... not £25k.

Those flats reached £145-150k at the peak, although the last one to sell did sell at £115k. But 'unaffordable' to an average single person .... the type of person who, in this town, in 1997, could have bought one.

brit1234

brit1234 wrote: »

Another story was a much published flat on a certain Kirsty Allsop show. Where she bragged about how good the scheme she did not mention the neighbours. New developments by law have to have a percentage of social housing. In this development you would be paying a fortune to live next door to some of the most violent anti social people in the area. I won't name the block but it has made the decent residents lives hell.

WelshNic wrote: »

Quite possibly one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on the internet.

ignorant - lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

Actually I know the individuals, their crimes, their criminal convictions and the effect on the other residents in this block. I have the detailed knowledge. Now tell me why this is the most ignorant things your ever read?

ukcarper

and_another_thing... wrote: »

I have no idea of the official figures for where I live, Wandsworth, but I'm sure they follow this pattern.

Looking on Land Reg site they have increased £47k from the lowest point in 2009.

and_another_thing...

brit1234 wrote: »

Actually I know the individuals, their crimes, their criminal convictions and the effect on the other residents in this block. I have the detailed knowledge. Now tell me why this is the most ignorant things your ever read?

Then why didn't you mention that you had 'detailed knowledge' your post?

Anyway fact remains that the people who bought SE/SO properties in this development did so at their own risk. They surely would have been aware that they would be living amongst social tenants. We all do, there are social tenants everywhere in social housing and renting through private landlords. Some social tenants are violent and anti-social but so are some private renters and homeowners. There are problem neighbours everywhere and they could make your property difficult to sell whether you bought through a SO scheme or not.

WelshNic

brit1234 wrote: »

ignorant - lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

Actually I know the individuals, their crimes, their criminal convictions and the effect on the other residents in this block. I have the detailed knowledge. Now tell me why this is the most ignorant things your ever read?

Yes, of course you do :rotfl:

Go on, name it, surely it's your duty to warn people off this awful place, especially if it's a shared ownership development.