First-time buyers may be the losers in shared equity scheme

Cleaver

brit1234 wrote: »

Property developers have been ones to gain from government scheme aimed at buyers on low incomes, claims think tank

Amazing. I've heard that their next report has unearthed a link between the Pope and catholicism.

geneer

I know someone who bought on a shared equity scheme (hi heathcote). Can't imagine why he's not commenting on this one.

heathcote123

geneer wrote: »

I know someone who bought on a shared equity scheme (hi heathcote). Can't imagine why he's not commenting on this one.

Ah, I'm sorry if I'm late mate, not all of us spend all day, every day, waiting to comment on threads of interest.

Not sure what there is to say on this really that hasn't already been said.

There are some !!!!!! shared ownership deals, there are also some very good ones. Generally the !!!!!! ones (imo) are new build stuff with service charges.

Brit is very similar to you in his posting style (ie somewhat obsessive), so there's not point trying to reason with him. If you look over on the buying a house board, whenever he starts his usual rant, you'll nearly always get people dropping in and saying how well it's worked out for them.

We do see the occasional story in the papers about shared ownership, but believe it or not, you get horror stories about non shared ownership as well.

Lets not pretend you are doing anything other than sharing ownership with your bank right now.... you're just paying lots more interest.

The premise of the article seems to be that s/o has held up better in value than non s/o. Not sure why you'd get your knickers all wet about that?

heathcote123

wymondham wrote: »

If they are going down this route then can I suggest that Govt subsidise iPads as I find them expensive and I have a right to have one? Yes, it is silly to suggest, but not as silly as they have done housing wise and car scrappage etc etc etc.....

If the government thought it would be a cost effective way of getting you to vote for them, they would indeed subsidise you an ipad with your own money.

This is how it works. Silly I know, but always best to work out how to take advantage of it.

wymondham

heathcote123 wrote: »

If the government thought it would be a cost effective way of getting you to vote for them, they would indeed subsidise you an ipad with your own money.

This is how it works. Silly I know, but always best to work out how to take advantage of it.

Excellent. (going off on a tangent warning!) Here's my list then just in case anyone from Govt is following this thread I do very much want:

an iPad (along with an upgrade guarentee so when Apple replace it
every 3 months i get that as well)

a new car (just redo the srappage, but with say £5,000 trade in?)

new carpets (carpet crappage scheme maybe?)

the old rate on solar feed in tariff (i was thinking about being green then you suddenly pulled the rug out and i had to cancel!)

immediate stop of aid to countries who are wealthier than us, especially those who side with other countries against us and have a nuclear/space programme despite having children starving on the streets.

immediate freeze on immigration until someone knows whats going on

no vat on e-books

improve the chirstmas lights in wymondham, they are rubbish

stop us having to pay for ukgold - we already paid for these programmes didn't we?

'pursuade' BofE to pop interest rates back to something normal - bit fed up of seeing pence of interest being added to my ill gotten gains!

ban any schemes on private house purchases - allow house prices to settle to a reasonable level please!

make train travel reasonable - why does it cost me £100 return on a train and £20 on a bus? which shall i choose ... mmmmm (Sir Jimmy would not have allowed this!)

Do all this and you'll have my vote! :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

Ah, I'm sorry if I'm late mate, not all of us spend all day, every day, waiting to comment on threads of interest.

Not sure what there is to say on this really that hasn't already been said.

There are some !!!!!! shared ownership deals, there are also some very good ones. Generally the !!!!!! ones (imo) are new build stuff with service charges.

Brit is very similar to you in his posting style (ie somewhat obsessive), so there's not point trying to reason with him. If you look over on the buying a house board, whenever he starts his usual rant, you'll nearly always get people dropping in and saying how well it's worked out for them.

We do see the occasional story in the papers about shared ownership, but believe it or not, you get horror stories about non shared ownership as well.

Lets not pretend you are doing anything other than sharing ownership with your bank right now.... you're just paying lots more interest.

The premise of the article seems to be that s/o has held up better in value than non s/o. Not sure why you'd get your knickers all wet about that?

You do realise the article isn't actually about shared ownership?

It's about shared equity. A completely different scheme.

seriousDFW

cotleigh wrote: »

To me, all of these schemes are loud-and-clear signals that house prices are too high.

I agree. And the right solution is definitely to finally let the market correct itself. Which means some people are going to lose out, because they overpaid massively for their properties.

But equally, buyers have a responsibility to pay the right price. I believe far too many eager buyers have forced prices up by being willing to pay well over the odds just to get on the property ladder.

There is a distinction here between buyers willing to pay whatever price they need to to get their 'dream home' or 'forever house' or whatever Kirstie and Phil call it, and FTBs who are agreeing to pay ridiculous sums to get a poky, poor-quality new-build.

Someone mentioned that new-builds go through the same valuation process as other properties so arguments such as mine are invalid. I honestly fail to see how many of these new-builds are valued SO highly for what they are. All I can assume is that valuers place a premium on things being 'new' that far exceeds what it is actually worth.

I also wonder what price is actually paid for new-builds, because I know negotiation takes place. Does anyone have even anecdotal evidence about how much you can get off the asking price of a new-build, because I assume the prices are hiked up - I can't imagine anyone paying the number on the price tag!

robmatic

seriousDFW wrote: »

I agree. And the right solution is definitely to finally let the market correct itself. Which means some people are going to lose out, because they overpaid massively for their properties.

But equally, buyers have a responsibility to pay the right price. I believe far too many eager buyers have forced prices up by being willing to pay well over the odds just to get on the property ladder.

There is a distinction here between buyers willing to pay whatever price they need to to get their 'dream home' or 'forever house' or whatever Kirstie and Phil call it, and FTBs who are agreeing to pay ridiculous sums to get a poky, poor-quality new-build.

Someone mentioned that new-builds go through the same valuation process as other properties so arguments such as mine are invalid. I honestly fail to see how many of these new-builds are valued SO highly for what they are. All I can assume is that valuers place a premium on things being 'new' that far exceeds what it is actually worth.

I also wonder what price is actually paid for new-builds, because I know negotiation takes place. Does anyone have even anecdotal evidence about how much you can get off the asking price of a new-build, because I assume the prices are hiked up - I can't imagine anyone paying the number on the price tag!

People who buy new-builds seem happy to pay the premium. I don't get it myself. When I was looking to buy in 2010 I viewed a couple of new-build developments not too far from where I ended up, but didn't take my interest any further when I realised that I could get something bigger in a nicer part of town for about 20% less.

That's why I'm sceptical about the shared equity schemes that the developers offer. They enable you to buy but the properties are effectively overpriced by the amount of equity that the developer puts in.

seriousDFW

robmatic wrote: »

People who buy new-builds seem happy to pay the premium. I don't get it myself. When I was looking to buy in 2010 I viewed a couple of new-build developments not too far from where I ended up, but didn't take my interest any further when I realised that I could get something bigger in a nicer part of town for about 20% less.

That's why I'm sceptical about the shared equity schemes that the developers offer. They enable you to buy but the properties are effectively overpriced by the amount of equity that the developer puts in.

Quite. The only real advantage I can see for buying these new builds which are too small for purpose is that because of the shared equity schemes, people are able to get on the ladder with a smaller deposit. Buying a non-new-build requires you to have a bigger deposit yourself to get rates which cause you to be able to pay the mortgage each month.

pararct

seriousDFW wrote: »

I agree. And the right solution is definitely to finally let the market correct itself. Which means some people are going to lose out, because they overpaid massively for their properties.

But equally, buyers have a responsibility to pay the right price. I believe far too many eager buyers have forced prices up by being willing to pay well over the odds just to get on the property ladder.

There is a distinction here between buyers willing to pay whatever price they need to to get their 'dream home' or 'forever house' or whatever Kirstie and Phil call it, and FTBs who are agreeing to pay ridiculous sums to get a poky, poor-quality new-build.

Someone mentioned that new-builds go through the same valuation process as other properties so arguments such as mine are invalid. I honestly fail to see how many of these new-builds are valued SO highly for what they are. All I can assume is that valuers place a premium on things being 'new' that far exceeds what it is actually worth.

I also wonder what price is actually paid for new-builds, because I know negotiation takes place. Does anyone have even anecdotal evidence about how much you can get off the asking price of a new-build, because I assume the prices are hiked up - I can't imagine anyone paying the number on the price tag!

Other parts of this board are full of stories where (mortgage) surveyors have found new build properties not to be worth the sum which has been agreed in the sale nor the amount needed for the mortgage.

The general advice has been try to negotiate with the builder. It would appear that after initially being unresponsive they will shift their position.

Interestingly in most cases the aggrieved party (the mortgage applicant) blames the surveyor for 'cocking up' the valuation......:rotfl:

What does this tell us about the naivety of the property buying population in the UK?