Can anyone explain pros and cons of part ownership?

Josie145

I would not advise anyone to do this unless for a very short time to build some equity and then move on otherwise you will become stuck. Legally you have no protection not even as a private tenant does, if you default on the rent the HA can evict you through the courts and take the 100% property back thereby you lose any equity built up see Midland v Haart this is now caselaw

The HA on the whole does nothing but take money they are not responsible for anything you are responsible for 100% repairs they take 50% profit the new builds are bad workmanship and fall apart after a few years so are not as attractive to buyers.

Legally there is no real "ownership" you are just a tenant that paid a hefty deposit to get a secure tenancy how secure this is depends on you making payments on time! You cannot sub-let the property and rent elsewhere if your circumstances change and they are very restrictive, its unlikely you will ever own the property unless you inherit money or win the lottery not many people can buy the 100%. They are a scheme that has not worked

Also the rent increases and service charges that the HA does nothing about eventually bring your payments to that of a full mortgage had you bought elsewhere

Either rent or buy 100% stay away from this stupid scheme that should be abolished.

phemark

Josie145 wrote: »

if you default on the rent the HA can evict you through the courts and take the 100% property back thereby you lose any equity built up see Midland v Haart this is now caselaw

yea.... that doesnt happen. HA cant take equity that you have put in the property. Of course, if you own them a lot of rent, then they probably can use that equity to cover it, but they wont take away it in any other way.

Same thing with renting - if you stop paying, you still need to pay your debts, or with mortgage - stop payments, and bank will take it

Please research a bit, before shouting these non-sense claims

Danfuss

The case referred to is Richardson v Midland Heart[2007]. It confirmed that, in a shared ownership lease, a landlord is entitled to possession for rent arrears because the leaseholder is an assured tenant with no right to a share of the original capital paid.

Bonniepurple

Josie145 wrote: »

I would not advise anyone to do this unless for a very short time to build some equity and then move on otherwise you will become stuck. Legally you have no protection not even as a private tenant does, if you default on the rent the HA can evict you through the courts and take the 100% property back thereby you lose any equity built up see Midland v Haart this is now caselaw

The HA on the whole does nothing but take money they are not responsible for anything you are responsible for 100% repairs they take 50% profit the new builds are bad workmanship and fall apart after a few years so are not as attractive to buyers.

Legally there is no real "ownership" you are just a tenant that paid a hefty deposit to get a secure tenancy how secure this is depends on you making payments on time! You cannot sub-let the property and rent elsewhere if your circumstances change and they are very restrictive, its unlikely you will ever own the property unless you inherit money or win the lottery not many people can buy the 100%. They are a scheme that has not worked

Also the rent increases and service charges that the HA does nothing about eventually bring your payments to that of a full mortgage had you bought elsewhere

Either rent or buy 100% stay away from this stupid scheme that should be abolished.

Our SO has meant that we could afford children, that DH could go self employed, and that I could work part time. Yes, there are niggles, and it's not somewhere that I would want to stay in until I die, but it is good for now. Equally, if it turns out that we do end up staying here until the end, then it is fine. It's a good area, nice neighbours (some 100% with mortgage, some 100% without mortgage, some btl, some 50% with mortgage, some 25% without mortgage). As we're social housing, we pay a reduced rent of £357.51 for 75% of a 3 bed and garage. If we rented privately we would be paying £700+ a month, and have less freedom and security.

I think there is a big difference between "shared ownership - social housing" and "shared ownership - pay rent to the developer".