Co-Ownership

x12yhp

wanchai wrote: »

Be honest. Could you afford your house, or one in your street, if you were to buy it now without CO? The answer is probably yes.

And to add to that... think that when it was bought, thanks to the use of public money to give a boost, someone else who could probably have afforded without it, was priced out. That meant that an individual who could afford a house upon their own merit, could not. The property 'value' was thus raised to a level beyond where the market could support it and the big bubble was inflated a bit more. I microcosm, I know.

At the end of it, no matter what anyone says, co-ownership is simply another way of someone getting hold of something that they have not earned and cannot afford... and beyond the mortgage madness which existed, it is actually costing total strangers (i.e. tax payers like me) money!!

grogdog

saverbuyer wrote: »

This is a scheme designed for people who can't afford a house to get it. It is a scam designed to try and inflate house prices.

There is currently no quota. Anyone can apply.

If you have had a missed payment in the last 6 months you are automatically rejected. If you have, then save the fee and don’t apply.

If you have more than 5K of savings (over the deposit) you can't apply.

You still need a deposit for the share you want to buy.

You have to pay co-ownerships fees and your own for each time you buy a share.

You pay 100% to maintain the property and all ground rent and service charge. You pay all repairs.

Only one lender offers co-ownership mortgages. Ulster Bank. You will not have the option to change mortgage provider and will be stuck at the rates they offer.

I’ll say it again, This and scheme like it are designed to keep prices high and enable people (who have to prove they can’t afford a house) get one. Much better to save a deposit and buy something you can afford.

this is incorrect, you can do co-ownership with Ulster Bank without having any deposit.

the part you mention about missed payments in last 6 months is pretty standard across the board now and not specific to anything to do with coownership.

leskerr

Co-ownership worked out very well for me.

Surely any mechanism that reduces the amount paid as rent and increases the amount of ownership is a good thing?

Les

wanchai_2

The house price crash is doing that much more effectively than CO. Lower priced houses = shorter, smaller mortgages. :rotfl:

x12yhp

leskerr wrote: »

Co-ownership worked out very well for me.

Surely any mechanism that reduces the amount paid as rent and increases the amount of ownership is a good thing?

Les

Why? You couldn't afford the house without the use of tax money (which I have contributed to). But CO has put you into that property, it has meant that someone else who could have afforded on their own was priced out and, now, it has meant that a bunch of tax money has been lost to depreciation.

It has benefitted you and only you.

saverbuyer

grogdog wrote: »

this is incorrect, you can do co-ownership with Ulster Bank without having any deposit.

the part you mention about missed payments in last 6 months is pretty standard across the board now and not specific to anything to do with coownership.

Above 75% you do require a deposit, below you do not. I'm sure most would prefer to own more than 75% of their home.

On the missed payments, it would be for the banks underwriting department to decide if you can pass with a missed payment in the last 6 months, if you have a good deposit and meet affordability comfortably them in all likelihood you will get a mortgage.

Co-ownership has zero discretion in the above scenario. You miss a payment in the last 6 months; you can not avail of the scheme, end of.

leskerr

x12yhp wrote: »

Why? You couldn't afford the house without the use of tax money (which I have contributed to). But CO has put you into that property, it has meant that someone else who could have afforded on their own was priced out and, now, it has meant that a bunch of tax money has been lost to depreciation.

It has benefitted you and only you.

Yes, it benefited me. I think that's a good thing.

It also benefited the tax man (and therefore you)
- rental income
- appreciation on property value.

Property prices can go up as well as down!

I don't believe co-ownership has had a significant effect on house prices, as you appear to think.

Les

saverbuyer

leskerr wrote: »

Yes, it benefited me. I think that's a good thing.

It also benefited the tax man (and therefore you)
- rental income
- appreciation on property value.

Property prices can go up as well as down!

I don't believe co-ownership has had a significant effect on house prices, as you appear to think.

Les

There we around 4500 first time buyer sales last year.

There were around 1000 co-ownership sales last year.

Nearly 25% of the market is co-ownership.

That is the sort of intervention which will drive prices up. Nearly a quarter of all sales to FTBs would not have happen without state intervention.

It is an endless circle. If someone can't afford a house I don't feel that my taxes should be used to enable them to buy a house.

House prices are probably at 2004 levels. That’s a lot of co-ownership in negative equity. That's a lot of tax money lost.

Don't underestimate the negative effects of this scam.

x12yhp

leskerr wrote: »

Yes, it benefited me. I think that's a good thing.

It also benefited the tax man (and therefore you)
- rental income
- appreciation on property value.

Property prices can go up as well as down!

I don't believe co-ownership has had a significant effect on house prices, as you appear to think.

Les

Ok... at the moment there is no appreciation in value. If you went CO today the tax payer would have lost money tomorrow because the property will be worth less. For a great many people, this is not just small, those buying a few years back will have lost 10s of k of their own money, not to mention the same of the tax payer. The rent paid is not even close to adequate to cover this shortfall.

In terms of the effect on the market, saverbuyer has responded already but, even without that, it is the sentiment. You couldn't afford the house yet you got a handout which most others could not get, you got a house whilst others who are actually in a better position are unable to do so and you helped to fuel the market to its totally absurd levels which we now know have done very few people any good. How on earth is that good for the greater society?

walls_c_2

If I was on the dole, claiming housing benefit on a housing association house I'd be rediculed for the milking the system. I try to make a good life for my children by giving them a stable home to grow up in and I'm still ridiculed for milking the system. The scheme is there for people to avail of. I'm a taxpayer also. Im not saying I'm entitled to it but I applied and was accepted. Sometimes I wished I had waited a few more years and saved myself a fortune (!) but that was the right decision at that time.
The banks were just as irresponsible in the times of the high house prices - giving out 100% mortgages as if they were sandwiches. I wasnt a mug and I didnt go for this product - the Co-Ownership scheme was a much more affordable approach for the longterm.