Local Authorities supporting Lend a Hand mortgages

Turnbull2000

http://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/lifestyle/property-news/new-lloyds-tsb-and-nottinghamshire-county-council-mortgage-scheme-to-help-first-time-buyers-1-5445558

This scheme is perhaps the only means by which thousands can reach their dream of a home of their own.

Nottinghamshire County Council has set aside £15m for the Local Lend a Hand scheme, which will be available in local branches of Lloyds TSB from today.

The scheme will help at least 500 first-time buyers to purchase their dream home with a deposit of just 5%.

First-time buyers often say that raising a deposit is the biggest challenge they face when looking to take their first steps onto the property ladder.

“The County Council is delighted to be working with Lloyds TSB launch such an exciting scheme, which will be such a huge help to people looking to get onto the housing ladder for the first time.

“The Local Lend a Hand scheme will make a dream home a reality for more than 500 individuals, couples or families. It’s good news for taxpayers too - not only is it a safe investment, it will stimulate home ownership and benefit numerous businesses that rely on a thriving housing market.

If lenders offered 95%-100% mortgages at reasonable rates, these measures wouldn't be necessary of course. The Treasury must keep pressing for their return.

CLAPTON

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

http://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/lifestyle/property-news/new-lloyds-tsb-and-nottinghamshire-county-council-mortgage-scheme-to-help-first-time-buyers-1-5445558

This scheme is perhaps the only means by which thousands can reach their dream of a home of their own.





If lenders offered 95%-100% mortgages at reasonable rates, these measures wouldn't be necessary of course. The Treasury must keep pressing for their return.

I thought is was government agencies that forbade high LTV mortgages

Dribley

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

This scheme is perhaps the only means by which thousands can reach their dream of a home of their own.

Has your sister got a scheme to help you move out of her home?

michaels

In what way is it a safe investment?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

I thought is was government agencies that forbade high LTV mortgages

They've realised that their actions in requiring higher bank capital withholding have caused problems which need to be reversed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4456361

Graham_Devon

Meanwhile, Nottinghamshire Council have cut Social Care, Daycare and Young Offender work. (4th Feb 2013, BBC).

Not sure how I feel about all of this really. I think I'd rather see more helped with the services that have been cut than a handful helped with buying a house.

An effect of those cuts are a 6 year old with autsm losing the ability to access speech therapy to help him speak. I dunno, I just can't be on the side of helping people buy a house when others could be help with the money in other ways.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

In what way is it a safe investment?

Default rates of less than 1%, and realised loss rates a fraction of that.

About as safe as you can get.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Default rates of less than 1%, and realised loss rates a fraction of that.

About as safe as you can get.

At the moment they are, yer. But at the moment we have unprecidented support mechanisms.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Meanwhile, Nottinghamshire Council have cut Social Care, Daycare and Young Offender work. (4th Feb 2013, BBC).

But this scheme is not as if the council is gifting a deposit is it? As per the article it's a cash backed indemnity - on which the council will earn interest.

james_toney

Graham_Devon wrote: »

At the moment they are, yer. But at the moment we have unprecidented support mechanisms.

and the government will continue with these,
support for houses and prices will remain, wrong or right they will remain for years to come.

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

But this scheme is not as if the council is gifting a deposit is it? As per the article it's a cash backed indemnity - on which the council will earn interest.

Which as I said, is fine.

But they still have to write this cash off for the period of being guarantor. They can't now go and spend it. So, as long as everyone pays and no one ever defaults or misses payments, yes, it will be profit making (ignoring any admin costs).

BUT, it's £15m of taxpayers money that cannot be used for services.

If councils were awash with cash, or even continuing current services I wouldn't take issue. But doing this while cutting services, especially care services I find a little hard to agree with, especially as it only helps a relative few (and that in turn will increase the cost to those who don't get the help).