Shared ownership con. Young lashed to the yoke and regretting every second

missbiggles1

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/jul/03/shared-ownership-buyers-frustrated-charges

Locked out of the traditional housing market, squeezed by private landlords and outbid by pension rich buy to let landlords, shared owners have the highest of hopes when they move into their Barratt boxes.

Hopes that soon turn to ashes as the grim reality of what they have signed up for sinks in.



To make matters worse many owners find their investments unsellable, locked into contracts with housing associations and unable to stair case they have no option but to remain in limbo.

Yet again the young's dreams and aspirations to own a small affordable house are sacrificed on the altar of wealthy homeowner greed. House prices must never fall and every Deed must be an early retirement lotto win.


A young person contemplates their SO purchase


A Shared Ownership new build in East London


Some baby boomers try and remember the last time they had to make a mortgage payment, and on which property

One can only wonder how long this shillyshallying will continue. Sooner or later the government may as well just introduce a 'young persons' tax'. 85% of salary deducted at source and passed straight to the generations above them. In return they can receive a token to live in a shared house with 6 other people for a month.

That second photo's from your train set!

chucknorris

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Shared ownership schemes are offered by developers, housing associations and local councils - not really private landlords? I suppose there is nothing to stop a private landlord selling half his flat and offering a subsidised rent on the share they own but why would they.

Why would I? I would consider it for the following reasons:

1. No more maintenance costs.
2. No more renewal of tenancies to deal with.
3. Reduced (net) capital gains tax, by more use of the annual allowance, for the initial half share, and subsequent further % sales to the other part owner.
4. Partially solves the problem of where to re-invest all the equity.
5. A way to remain invested in property during retirement, but experience a much more hassle free retirement (due to 1 and 2 above).


BUT

I've spotted the problem: How do you get rid of (sell) your share if they don't buy it off you, before you die? I think I would have to have a condition that they (jointly) sold the property or bought the remaining share within a time period (such as 10 to 15 years). Even that presents its own problems, e.g, if I get cancer or something equally deadly. I can see now that it just wouldn't work.

MFW_ASAP

I had a pal who bought a house with shared ownership in Bermondsey. It was a 50% deal where he had a mortgage for 50% and paid rent for the other. He was relatively young and so his lack of credit history and low-ish salary meant that the bank would only lend him a small amount (enough to cover the 50% mortgage), even though he earned anough to cover the whole mortgage.

Fast forward a few years and as his income increased, he blitzed his 50% of the mortgage and paid it off. He then obtained a mortgage on the remaining 50% of the house and bought out the housing association (at a much significantly increased amount due to HPI).

It seemed to work for him.

Aberdeenangarse

Boomerontoast wrote: »

Is she a Bilf ? :rotfl:

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

Why would I? I would consider it for the following reasons:

1. No more maintenance costs.
2. No more renewal of tenancies to deal with.
3. Reduced (net) capital gains tax, by more use of the annual allowance, for the initial half share, and subsequent further % sales to the other part owner.
4. Partially solves the problem of where to re-invest all the equity.
5. A way to remain invested in property during retirement, but experience a much more hassle free retirement (due to 1 and 2 above).

I've spotted the problem: How do you get rid of (sell) your share if they don't buy it off you, before you die? I think I would have to have a condition that they (jointly) sold the property or bought the remaining share within a time period (such as 10 to 15 years). Even that presents its own problems, e.g, if I get cancer or something equally deadly. I can see now that it just wouldn't work.

The solution is simple: you don't own your share of the house as the seller/LL, you are the sole shareholder in the company that owns the shares of the houses.

You then own a reasonably simple to value asset which should be relatively easy to sell on if wanted.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/jul/03/shared-ownership-buyers-frustrated-charges

Locked out of the traditional housing market, squeezed by private landlords and outbid by pension rich buy to let landlords, shared owners have the highest of hopes when they move into their Barratt boxes.

Hopes that soon turn to ashes as the grim reality of what they have signed up for sinks in.

And where in this dubious tale of woe are they being marched at gun-point to the "Sales Suite" and made to sign-up?

What? They're not being made to sign-up, you say?

Phew! That's a relief.

Drama llama.

Sapphire

Cornucopia wrote: »

And where in this dubious tale of woe are they being marched at gun-point to the "Sales Suite" and made to sign-up?

What? They're not being made to sign-up, you say?

Phew! That's a relief.

Drama llama.

Don't worry – he's just continuing his usual obsessive hatred theme of the older generation. Notice he never mentions speculators from abroad, who are the ones who are largely responsible for the massive increase in house prices in London. I live in London, and see the many obviously empty properties in the ugly buildings that have been erected all over the place specially for these speculators, allowing various interested parties to make huge amounts of money. Were it not for this factor, there would be far more properties to go around, and at affordable prices. But of course the OP prefers to ignore this and continue with his spiteful, jealous, ones-track rants because it suits him.

The OP appears to have serious issues, possibly to do with something in his past, and might be advised to obtain treatment rather than spouting his one-note venom on this forum at regular intervals.:cool:

Mummyisbeauty

Sapphire wrote: »

Don't worry – he's just continuing his usual obsessive hatred theme of the older generation. Notice he never mentions speculators from abroad, who are the ones who are largely responsible for the massive increase in house prices in London. I live in London, and see the many obviously empty properties in the ugly buildings that have been erected all over the place specially for these speculators, allowing various interested parties to make huge amounts of money. Were it not for this factor, there would be far more properties to go around, and at affordable prices. But of course the OP prefers to ignore this and continue with his spiteful, jealous, ones-track rants because it suits him.

The OP appears to have serious issues, possibly to do with something in his past, and might be advised to obtain treatment rather than spouting his one-note venom on this forum at regular intervals.:cool:

A lot of properties are sold off plan to people who live in other countries. A lot will never be occupied by a tenant as they are just as investment as they think the prices will always go up.
Personally I wonder if introducing a extra sales tax for 'non eu' purchasers would be a good idea like the one they have introduced in Hong Kong may be a good idea.

As for the generation before us fleecing us I worry more for my childrens and their childrens generation. It's only gonna get worse in every respect.
Not enough schools, doctors, dentists etc

Sapphire

Mummyisbeauty wrote: »

A lot of properties are sold off plan to people who live in other countries. A lot will never be occupied by a tenant as they are just as investment as they think the prices will always go up.
Personally I wonder if introducing a extra sales tax for 'non eu' purchasers would be a good idea like the one they have introduced in Hong Kong may be a good idea.

As for the generation before us fleecing us I worry more for my childrens and their childrens generation. It's only gonna get worse in every respect.
Not enough schools, doctors, dentists etc

Yes – agree with what you say. Personally, I don't see much evidence of 'boomers fleecing the current generation', as the OP is always implying. I'll leave aside the fact that people who grew up in the 2–3 decades after the war did so in many cases in conditions that were immeasurably worse than those of their children (they were often conditions of REAL poverty), and with far fewer benefits, and that they have generally worked incredibly hard over many decades (often starting at the bottom) to achieve what they have achieved, and have a very strong work ethic. Yes, there are some affluent, high-achieving people in that generation, but there are also very many affluent people in the generation that followed – and buying up properties as BTLs as well as for homes to live in. If they can do it, there's no reason why the OP can't – he just needs to put in the effort to achieve such an aim, if that is what he wants, instead of allocating blame to people he has a pathological hatred of, no doubt for his own deep-rooted reasons.

I certainly believe the foreign investors who are buying up swathes of London (to the great detriment of the city, and something we are going to bitterly regret) should be taxed. They can afford it, and it's not fair to the indigenous citizens of this country to allow such a situation to fester. In fact, I cannot believe that so many of the buildings that now blight the landscape in London received planning permission – they are ugly and of low quality, and will not stand the test of time, despite being marketed as 'luxury apartments', something that's going to become a dirty-word phrase in time. I'm sure that many people's palms were greased to enable such monstrosities to be erected…

I get utterly fed up with phrases such as 'We are going to build more homes', when what this means is that they are going to build more 'luxury apartments' for extremely wealthy foreigners to buy up like sweets, then sit on without using them. The fact that historical areas in London such as Soho and Camden and many others are being utterly destroyed in this process is disturbing to me. Fine, do it in derelict industrial areas, like some in the East End – but leave our heritage alone. It is important. (The heritage of the place is also the thing that draws many visitors, who spend money in London – if it is ruined, the economy could be badly affected.)

Also agree with your comments about the infrastructure for the next generation that will follow yours – I think there are just too many people populating our small British Isles (especially London!) and the infrastructure is already seriously creaking. (I know that in my area, for example, there is just a tiny railway station serving an area that has become incredibly crowded during just the last few years. Travelling to various parts of London during the rush hour is an absolute nightmare.) Such issues will get worse if they continue to try to cram people into too small a space.

Apologies for the long message, but your one sparked off various thoughts in me.

Linda_D_2

Sapphire wrote: »

The OP appears to have serious issues, possibly to do with something in his past, and might be advised to obtain treatment rather than spouting his one-note venom on this forum at regular intervals.:cool:

Yes he has some very serious issues that we've all tried to help him with to no avail.
We're lucky to live in a very wonderful country with many opportunities for everyone.
However instead of analysing why his life is such a failure, ruggedtoast blames others, it's always someone else's fault and never his to why he has nothing.

If he was to get treatment, he'd only get nasty and envious at the therapist who will obviously have a lot more money and success than him:(