shared equity .... that's a con right ?

Cakeguts

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

I lived in Wilmslow in the late 80's. There is currently a house for sale about two doors up from where I lived which is identical with mine.


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-58610642.html

t's on for £510k atm. I'm pretty certain it wouldn't fetch a lot more around here.

As it is still on the market there is no guarantee that is will fetch that in Wilmslow.

Kynthia

Your son is not the type of buyer that shared ownership is designed for. It is for those that have a need to settle long-term in a particular area, and renting is too unsettled for them (particularly if they have children, want to make somewhere their home and decorate, don't want to risk being forced to move by the landlord selling away from their school). They would be unable to but a property that meets their needs for years, if ever. These people benefit in being in the area they need, in secure housing they can make their home and possibly benefit slightly from property increases.

Anyone who doesn't want to stay long, rent it out, or can afford somewhere non-shared ownership would be taking a risk buying as it's almost certainly not the best financial decision for them.

Prothet_of_Doom

marksoton wrote: »

It really isn't.

Well if I compare Warrington, or Widnes with Macclesfield there is a stark difference.
Preston Vs Prestbury ?
Bolton Verses Bollington ?

Prothet_of_Doom

Kynthia wrote: »

Your son is not the type of buyer that shared ownership is designed for. It is for those that have a need to settle long-term in a particular area, and renting is too unsettled for them (particularly if they have children, want to make somewhere their home and decorate, don't want to risk being forced to move by the landlord selling away from their school). They would be unable to but a property that meets their needs for years, if ever. These people benefit in being in the area they need, in secure housing they can make their home and possibly benefit slightly from property increases.

Anyone who doesn't want to stay long, rent it out, or can afford somewhere non-shared ownership would be taking a risk buying as it's almost certainly not the best financial decision for them.

Indeed. There are properties in his price range so it's academic.

As an aside, are new houses almost always sold as leasehold ? It does seem like the builder wants to have his cake and eat it.

kingstreet

If it's shared ownership, it has to be leasehold as I said.

Newbuild generally is not usually leasehold today, unless there's a specific reason (landowner is a former duchy/estate). Where I lived in Liverpool in the 80s was built on land owned by the Sefton estate and they retained the freeholds for all the property built on the land.