Buyers Who Will NEVER Own Their Homes

thequant

Soaring house prices mean a generation of buyers will only be able to buy a fraction of their home, a banking body has warned.
Many buyers will be forced into shared ownership deals, where the rest of their property is owned by housing associations or local developers.
They then have to pay rent on the part they do not own. These deals are already common in parts of the country where house prices are high. But a report from the Council of Mortgage Lenders said in future this could be a way of life for many.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2745774/Buyers-never-home-Soaring-house-prices-means-generation-able-buy-fraction-property.html#ixzz3CWwkVpbG

In_For_A_Penny_2

Very considerate of you for our visually impaired readers, but maybe turn the font size down a bit?

padington

The royal family also cause this happening to lots of people. Hardly anyone owns their own property on the Isles of Scilly, it's all mostly owned by the duchy. You pay a large premium and a lease and have to cowtow to the duchy's representatives if you want to stay on.

wymondham

Schemes are great aren't they, they make people who can't afford believe they can...

Running_Horse

A lot of new builds are coming on the market in Cambridge, but priced as shared ownership based on pre build prices. Now if they were all built and the market allowed to find its own level, maybe prices would drop to a more affordable level.

30% of a two bed flat:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32068386.html?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Fmap.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DREGION%255E274%26insId%3D4%23_includeSSTC%3Don%26auction%3Dfalse%26locationIdentifier%3DREGION%255E274%26previousSearchLocation%3DCambridge%26radius%3D0.0%26searchLocation%3DCambridge%26searchType%3DSALE%26useLocationIdentifier%3Dfalse%26box%3D0.11818%2C0.14689%2C52.18726%2C52.19626%26popupPropertyId%3D32068386&fromMap=true

Plus rent and service charges.

thequant

wymondham wrote: »

Schemes are great aren't they, they make people who can't afford believe they can...

Not sure of the problem with these schemes, the poor have never been able to afford their own homes, at least schemes give them a chance of owning some of it.

alberty

Are buyers protected if the investor/developer who owns a stake in your shared ownership home decides to double the rent, or refuses to sell it when you've saved enough to buy them out? Wouldn't this scheme be more attractive to buyers if there was no rent component, just slowing buying out the part the developer owns, at a rate higher than mortgage interest rates.

Bantex_2

thequant wrote: »

Not sure of the problem with these schemes, the poor have never been able to afford their own homes, at least schemes give them a chance of owning some of it.

where I am even the relatively well off cannot afford to own either.

wymondham

thequant wrote: »

Not sure of the problem with these schemes, the poor have never been able to afford their own homes, at least schemes give them a chance of owning some of it.

is some better than none? They too can experience the problems of not being able to move on if need be?

thequant

wymondham wrote: »

is some better than none? They too can experience the problems of not being able to move on if need be?

I think so, the immediate impact should be that these people will feel that they have a stake in society and are more likely to better respect their surroundings.


Long term, these people who come from lineages where the last time they owned "property" would have been a cave. Will be in position to bequeath something to their children. Even if they staircase at 25% per generation, they will own outright in a 100 years.


Which would be significantly better progress than they have made in the last 2000 years from when civilisation first came to our shores.

moneyinmypocket

Better to own a little than none at all.