5k+ homes bought with HTB1 in 6 months

Graham_Devon

And we have some figures too.

The average price paid was £194,000.

The average equity loan was £38.7k

Don't have much of an issue with HTB1. However, the average price paid is a key statistic. This average appears to have increased markedly since HTB1 was first launched. Builders all appear to have seen their average prices rise by 20-30k since the introduction of help to buy. So the question would be, are they now just more expensive, even though more are getting built?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25033277

wotsthat

Beat me to it - I'll delete mine but add some comments here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25033277

Some 5,375 new homes were bought in six months in England using the initial phase of the government's flagship Help to Buy scheme, figures show.

Of these, 92% were sold to first-time buyers, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said.

The average price of a property bought under the scheme was £194,167, with an average equity loan of £38,703.

New homes still represent a fraction of house sales across the UK, which has topped one million in 2013 - the first time it has reached six figures since 2007.

Assuming these buyers wouldn't have been able to buy without the scheme that's £208m worth of taxpayer loans to build 5,375 homes. Better value than building council houses aka political playthings?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So the question would be, are they now just more expensive, even though more are getting built?

An economic recovery was always going to remind us that the normal rules of supply and demand still apply.

Not enough houses being built - nothing's changed in that respect.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Assuming these buyers wouldn't have been able to buy without the scheme that's £208m worth of taxpayer loans to build 5,375 homes. Better value than building council houses aka political playthings?

Not sure you can compare it to council housing as council housing is designed for a completely different purpose and aimed at a completely different set of people.

This is designed to help people buy.

Council and HA housing is designed to support those who don't have the means to buy.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure you can compare it to council housing as council housing is designed for a completely different purpose and aimed at a completely different set of people.

This is designed to help people buy.

Council and HA housing is designed to support those who don't have the means to buy.

Without HTB 5000 or so households would have been without the means to buy so the question stands.

What's best? The taxpayer lending £208m to allow people to provide their own housing or the taxpayer spending money to build homes and rent them out directly.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Without HTB 5000 or so households would have been without the means to buy so the question stands.

What's best? The taxpayer lending £208m to allow people to provide their own housing or the taxpayer spending money to build homes and rent them out directly.

Neither is "best".

Firstly, we shouldn't need taxpayer guarentees to enable people to buy a home. This is, remember, a response to a problem.

Secondly, this will not do anything for those who don't have the means to buy and therefore require "supported" housing described here as council housing.

Therefore, as I say, you can't compare one to the other. They are different issues for different circumstances. We need both building for those who can afford to buy and building for those who don't have the means. It's not an "either or" scenario.

theEnd

wotsthat wrote: »

What's best? The taxpayer lending £208m to allow people to provide their own housing or the taxpayer spending money to build homes and rent them out directly.

It's hard to say. Is the £208m enabling more houses to be built or simply more profits to builders?

Probably somewhere in between. Don't have a huge issue with HTB1, but HTB2 looks dangerous.

I'm also surprised by the low numbers in HTB1. Less than 1k homes per month. Significant?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Neither is "best".

Great news, that's 5,375 people that didn't want to rent who have been given the opportunity to own their own home.

Some 5,375 new homes were bought in six months in England using the initial phase of the government's flagship Help to Buy scheme, figures show.

Of these, 92% were sold to first-time buyers, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said.

I'd love to know why people would want to stop others making their own decisions about buying a home for the families.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Therefore, as I say, you can't compare one to the other. They are different issues for different circumstances. We need both building for those who can afford to buy and building for those who don't have the means. It's not an "either or" scenario.

It's why I don't like the idea of council housing as a solution. Think how you've used 'those who don't have the means' - and this is just an internet forum - think of the fun and games a politician could have with that.

If it means people who are vulnerable and incapable of providing their own housing then fair enough but everyone else can try their hand in the private sector as far as I'm concerned like other grown ups do.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's why I don't like the idea of council housing as a solution. Think how you've used 'those who don't have the means' - and this is just an internet forum - think of the fun and games a politician could have with that.

If it means people who are vulnerable and incapable of providing their own housing then fair enough but everyone else can try their hand in the private sector as far as I'm concerned like other grown ups do.

It means just that. Everyone who doesn't have the means.

It would include the vulnerable (if they don't have the finances).

But it would also incorporate loads of others. Basically, all those on housing benefits - afterall, they receive housing benefits as they cannot afford to house themselves, for a whole host of reasons.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

I'd love to know why people would want to stop others making their own decisions about buying a home for the families.

I don't know anyone who does want to stop someone making a decision on buying a house?