SHAREDOWNERSHIP is FANTASTIC!

St00zer

mine goes up a set percentage each year. I can't remember exactly how much but when i bought the place 7 years ago i was paying £50 a month and now it's £57.

Inflation adjusted your rent is cheaper now then it was 7 years ago. Your payments have only gone up 13% in 7 years and in that period I suspect you have had a few pay rises and inflation has been higher then 13%, infact house prices have doubled in some cases in that period.

Jvic28

lvm wrote: »

You have Shared Equity rather than Shared Ownership...I have that too. Soooo much better than Shared Ownership as you can sell the property to anyone when you choose to sell up!

I can't sell to anyone when I decide to sell. I have to offer it for sale to the HA waiting list for a period of 6 weeks first.

St00zer

Shared Ownership seems to be a bit like having the benefits of a a individual living in a council house i.e. subsidisied rent without all the downsides of living in a council flat i.e. anti social behaviour, ofcourse one has to ensure their property is fully owned privately.

I would'nt buy in a block or a street where some of the properties were given to ex-local tenants as the HA could'nt sell them privately, another reason why having the location right is likely to avoid such a scenario.

PasturesNew

When I bought my SO I wasn't allowed anything larger than a studio as it was just me.... you couldn't choose. I had to apply and then a committee decided who would be offered it. It was 1990 and an experiment in SO. My rent on my half was about 3% its value. Annoyingly, next door was a council tenant in an identical place to mine and their 100% rent was the same as my 50% rent. The full price of the 2-bed the other side was just 10% more than my studio ... but I wasn't allowed to apply for it.

Every scheme is different. The rules/regs are different. The rents are different.... on every scheme. Most aren't suitable for most of the people after one.... but reading above some have some cracking deals.

St00zer

PasturesNew

I would'nt go for anything below 2 beds, whether I was single or buying as a couple. No point as it won't be something I can live in for 5-10 years minimum as it would only be a matter of time before my household grew and space would be tight. Constantly moving around can be expensive.

If I was only offered a stuido or a one bed then I would walk away.

I would'nt buy a property in a building that has council tenants next door, if you get the location right then I think there is next to no chance of this happening as in a good location you should get good demand allowing the HA to sell the properties.

Running_Horse

St00zer wrote: »

Houses are the most affordable in the last 12 years and adjusted for inflation houses are cheaper then their 2007 peak

So why not just buy one outright?

I would also think they are cheaper than the 2007 peak, regardless of inflation.

The ones it might work for are those in an expensive areas getting a forever house.

wymondham

That's great it works for you and you seem really enthusiastic which is nice in this day and age. Do keep in mind though that each person that signs up to purchase a house using a scheme is directly responsible for keeping house prices artificially high...... ;-(

poppysarah

St00zer wrote: »

I would'nt buy a property in a building that has council tenants next door, if you get the location right then I think there is next to no chance of this happening as in a good location you should get good demand allowing the HA to sell the properties.

Interesting most SO scheme property isn't a high enough standard for social housing.

Mrs_Arcanum

Some of the issues with SO is the price from some HA/builders were artificially inflated in the first place.
Where now it can be the mortgage that is harder to get.
When a S Owner dies the HA has to pick up the pieces.

MacMickster

St00zer wrote: »

San09

I have read that thread with interest : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3451895

The poster should contact their HA and find out why the HA has suggested an increase of 15%....as the user states

I have had a look at the RPI for June 2010 - June 2011 which is currently 5%. Plus 2%, equals 7%. Last year the monthly rent payable on my share was £129.50. I calculate 7% of this to be £9.07pcm. Whereas Bromford propose to put the rent up by £30.03pcm. (I appreciate that this does not sound like much but over a year this is a rise of £108.84 or £360.36!!! And what happens next year when they put it up above the amount stipulated in the contract?!)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3451895

But to be honest an extra £30 a month is hardly a disaster, how is it any different from interest rates going up 0.25 or 0.5% for someone with a mortgage?

The rent reviews in that shared ownership lease are a nightmare. 2% plus RPI every year. The initial rents may look reasonable to you now, but they may look less reasonable to buyers a number of years down the line. Add on service charges and compulsory insurance payments (which are unlikely to be competetive rates) over which you have no control and the monthly payments could quickly become unmanageable.

You are responsible for the full costs of maintaining the property in one of these schemes (whilst only owning part) and then face restrictions if you want to sell.

Shared ownership would never be my choice.