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

Cornucopia

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Not insulting, really. I used to be young, I have children and nephews and nieces who are young adults. I listen to them.

I give you the Iphone 2/3/4/5/and 6 on a contract.
I give you the BMW 1 series on easy finance.
I give you a package holiday to the sun.
I give you Fur Coat and no erm knickers (to coin my gran's turn of phrase)

But can you blame them ? So many factors. No survey, no deposit, no need for DIY, a garden, a place to park the car, a guarantee, built in kitchen appliances, instant zero stress gratification that satisfies their believe in thier own entitlement. and a bit of snobbery.
But above all NOT enough research. Not enough financial education.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Most people only gain maturity, including maturity in financial matters, with age.

I'm sure many of us made these errors of understanding, of planning and of strategy in our youths and speaking personally, it turned out okay in the end.

Buying a (first) property is always going to be a testing moment for young people. There are potential lifestyle changes, financial responsibilities, longer-term security all to play for. I'd hate to see that swept away in a misguided attempt to impose a level of killjoy puritanism that isn't really necessary.

PasturesNew

Cornucopia wrote: »

So why don't people buy those £70k houses instead of the new builds?

My friend and I bought houses at the same time some years back. Hers an entire new build; mine 100 years old.

I never got to enjoy my house as it was a constant moneypit. For starters I had to have half the walls replastered and have DG fitted throughout and to have CH fitted for the first time. And that was just the start of it. I had 100 years' worth of bodges to work around and resolve problems for.

Meanwhile, she was sitting in her clean/shiny house enjoying it.

Retrospectively, I'd have preferred to have bought hers to mine, just for the simplicity and minimal issues.

After 7 years I bailed out and sold mine, disappointed at having had to live in a grotspot for 7 years. It's now been 15 years and she's still enjoying her clean/shiny house.

Graham_Devon

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

No survey, no deposit, no need for DIY, a garden, a place to park the car, a guarantee, built in kitchen appliances, instant zero stress gratification that satisfies their believe in thier own entitlement. and a bit of snobbery.
But above all NOT enough research. Not enough financial education.

Not sure what type of shared ownership you are describing while claiming others are illterate, however...

Shared ownership does require a deposit.
Shared ownership does require a survey.
Shared ownership does require DIY (unless you don't want to do a thing, ever).
Not all, infact, probably the few have built in appliances.

As for "instant gratification" I'm not sure how that really compares to buying any other roof.

Theres just a plethora of people who think they know better than others, trying to make out others are stupid, while seemingly not having a clue what they are talking about.

boliston

Can't really see what's so bad about shared ownership - people have said difficult to sell but why any more difficult than selling a house with a 100% share. Surely anything that provides affordable homes can only be a good thing and should be welcomed.

Graham_Devon

boliston wrote: »

Can't really see what's so bad about shared ownership - people have said difficult to sell but why any more difficult than selling a house with a 100% share. Surely anything that provides affordable homes can only be a good thing and should be welcomed.

"Afordable housing" will be welcomed - so long as it simply pushes prices up even more.

One particular poster on here suggesting shared ownerships "prays on the gullable buyers vanity" will praise help to buy until the cows come home.

Of course, help to buy is the same sort of scenario, though worse in some cases in a financial sense. It gives you something you cannot afford without taking out extra financial commitments to pay further down the line.

BUT, it pushes house prices up, as every single level headed person suggested it would the say it was announced. So that scheme is fine.

boliston

Not sure why affordable housing will push up prices as it's aimed at the budget end of the market, with a fairly basic spec - no en-suites, no fancy fittings, often no parking - the idea is to give people basic "no frills" homes.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

"Afordable housing" will be welcomed - so long as it simply pushes prices up even more.

One particular poster on here suggesting shared ownerships "prays on the gullable buyers vanity" will praise help to buy until the cows come home.

Of course, help to buy is the same sort of scenario, though worse in some cases in a financial sense. It gives you something you cannot afford without taking out extra financial commitments to pay further down the line.

BUT, it pushes house prices up, as every single level headed person suggested it would the say it was announced. So that scheme is fine.

Help to buy/ shared ownership are different sides of the same coin. They both deal with the symptoms of a shortage of housing rather than the cause. At least if supply increases HTB will whither on the vine but SO will continue to trap the gullible because it will always offer the illusion of being able to buy more than you think you can afford. SO is obviously a joke - people who can afford to buy at least part of a house but getting a taxpayer sub on the rent part- what's that about?

Not heard any figures on HTB lately. I assume they're still insignificant? 73,000 to date; not even worth talking about.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Help to buy/ shared ownership are different sides of the same coin. They both deal with the symptoms of a shortage of housing rather than the cause. At least if supply increases HTB will whither on the vine but SO will continue to trap the gullible because it will always offer the illusion of being able to buy more than you think you can afford. SO is obviously a joke - people who can afford to buy at least part of a house but getting a taxpayer sub on the rent part- what's that about?

Not heard any figures on HTB lately. I assume they're still insignificant? 73,000 to date; not even worth talking about.

As I said, people don't have a clue what they are on about.

Shared ownership rent is not subsidised by the taxpayer.

Shared EQUITY (what you support), supplied by Homebuy is subsidised by the taxpayer. Usually this involves a 70% mortgage and a 30% loan/rent arrangement. Shared equity is a completely different model.

Have a read:
http://www.pennymatters.co.uk/sharedequity.php

lessonlearned

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

This.

Of course it is appreciated not everyone can do this. However at the very least a shared ownership scheme does offer security of tenure, which if you have a family might be a significant plus.

But of course, once again Toasty has taken a one sided view and has just gone on yet another mindless rant, without bothering to think things through.

There is a place for shared ownership, at both ends of the market, ie low income FTBs and also for some retirees who need to move into affordable sheltered housing.

I Ve been looking at this option for my father. Very nice appts in a retirement complex.

Shared ownership is not a new phenomena. The complex I looked at for my father were built over 30 years ago. As for resale, they sell like hot cakes.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, people don't have a clue what they are on about.

Shared ownership rent is not subsidised by the taxpayer.

Shared EQUITY (what you support), supplied by Homebuy is subsidised by the taxpayer. Usually this involves a 70% mortgage and a 30% loan/rent arrangement. Shared equity is a completely different model.

Have a read:
http://www.pennymatters.co.uk/sharedequity.php

The shared ownership model allows buyers to buy a share of a house and pay a subsidised rent on the remainder. Shared ownership products are usually delivered with the help of government funding (the taxpayer) via the Homes and Communities Agency.

Most sales literature for shared ownership points out the subsidised rent element as one of the benefits to the occupier.

I suppose you might argue it's not 'taxpayer' subsidised but it doesn't take much of a thought exercise to work out where the sub comes from.

You used to be in SO? Check out the sales literature you received. Check the website of the housing association.

AIUI the criteria for shared ownership are contradictory. People have to effectively qualify for social housing whilst simultaneously qualifying for a mortgage.

The 'advantage' is that people who qualify for social housing are housed at a lower cost to the public purse when compared to the provision of social housing. As someone who thinks we have enough social housing but the qualification criteria are too loose it just means I'm being asked to waste less money than usual.

Shared equity receives a tax payer sub too? Guess what? I knew that.