Would I be allowed a help to buy ISA?

Steve_xx

Sam_J12 wrote: »

Why do people responding to a query have to be so aggressive and/or condescending? The OP asked a reasonable question and has behaved fine. Other posters have been rude - and it is quite common on this board :-(

The responses have been straightforward and accurate and without aggression. However, the OP remarks in response to the responses could be construed as somewhat aggressive. The OP has used aggressive language in most of their responses. They've used words like "stupid", "crazy" and "unreasonable". Yet nobody responding to the OP has used such language so I hardly think you can accuse the responders of aggression.

Sam_J12

Steve_xx wrote: »

The responses have been straightforward and accurate and without aggression. However, the OP remarks in response to the responses could be construed as somewhat aggressive. The OP has used aggressive language in most of their responses. They've used words like "stupid", "crazy" and "unreasonable". Yet nobody responding to the OP has used such language so I hardly think you can accuse the responders of aggression.

Its just the tone of the messages comes across as aggressive and condescending. Personal opinion obviously, but I would feel the same as OP in this situation.

jimjames response in the very first reply was fine and all that was required.

Steve_xx

Sam_J12 wrote: »

Its just the tone of the messages comes across as aggressive and condescending. Personal opinion obviously, but I would feel the same as OP in this situation.

jimjames response in the very first reply was fine and all that was required.

The tone of the replies have been straightforward and accurate. No aggressive language has been used by the responders. The only aggressive tone/words used was by the OP who has implied that the responders thought he/she was "stupid", "crazy", "unreasonable". Therefore it is the case that the OP has imagined how the responders viewed his/her question.

PawelK

Steve_xx wrote: »

I did not imply that your question was stupid. I asked you what, "technically" you regarded your own status to be. On the one hand you say you've bought a property with a friend some time ago. At that point you would have been a first time buyer. Now, you ask can you be eligible for this scheme when the scheme is explicitly aimed at first time buyers. I ask you again; do you actually think that you qualify as a first time buyer or are you actually a second time buyer at this point who wishes they were a first time buyer?

Your mention of "some other schemes" is not relevant to the rules governing this scheme and it's this scheme that you've asked the question about.

What perhaps he meant is that even thought he already bought a property x years ago, ot wasnt a sole purchase but with someone else so perhaps buying on your own would be differently classified as joint purchase.

colsten

Some people have a knack of never getting any help from me ever again.

PawelK

colsten wrote: »

As you had (part) ownership of a property in the past, you are not eligible for the HTB ISA. Whether you should have known better when you bought into that property or not is really neither here nor there.

The declaration you would have to sign:

http://www.helptobuy.gov.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/help-to-buy-isa---eligibility-of-ftbs.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I hope you won't at some stage in the future post here that you didn't know better than making a false declaration to a bank, a solicitor and to the HMRC.

Thanks for the link colsten.

One thing that caught my attention is wording about land. I assume it is not about never owning a property but land as a whole concept so it protects land as well (in case if someone owned just a land in the past)?

MARTYM8`

PawelK wrote: »

Thanks for the link colsten.

One thing that caught my attention is wording about land. I assume it is not about never owning a property but land as a whole concept so it protects land as well (in case if someone owned just a land in the past)?

So if you owned a field worth £5 in Angola 20 years ago you might be ineligible?:D

I assume most people will assume it means a house - hence more potential for confusion. This presumably also applies to commercial property.

Given all the threads on here the HMRC could spend years checking up on all this potential mistakes. Or maybe HM Treasury just want to get those houses sold, rake in the stamp duty and see more banks making profits on mortgage lending.

There is enough property fraud including money laundering going on as it is around buy to let and foreign ownership - it will probably be low on their list of priorities.

colsten

I don't know why they mention land. May be it's the lowest common denominator they are using.

MARTYM8`

colsten wrote: »

I don't know why they mention land. May be it's the lowest common denominator they are using.

And will they bother to check if the property you owned or land you owned was outside the UK. Easy enough perhaps to check our land registry - but abroad?

EU nationals resident in the UK are eligible for the help to buy isa - how many of those may have owned property or land in their own country. Will HMRC bother to check these cases e.g. did they own a field in Brno or Poznan in 1987 for two weeks?

In reality it will be low on their list of priorities methinks.

Why not just say a house in the UK - so much easier and checkable!

colsten

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Given all the threads on here the HMRC could spend years checking up on all this potential mistakes.

HMRC will check nothing themselves as the entire administration has been outsourced to the company that was appointed to manage the bad Northern Rock and B&B mortgages, UKAR Corporate Services Limited.