Shared Ownership and Lodging

kratosthegreat

Cakeguts wrote: »

It might not be as simple as that. Because it is a flat you will have a lease from the landlord ( the landlord owns the building that the flat is in.) Some landlords put clauses into leases that say that the flats in their buildings can only be used as the lease holder's home and cannot be sublet to tenants. So you will have to check what your lease from the housing association says about your lease of its flat. These rules apply even if you own 100% of the lease. While you own the lease to this flat the housing association will remain your landlord because they own the building and you will be subject to their rules about leases.

I have and you can sub-let.

kratosthegreat

On a side note, Shared Ownership has worked out extremely well for me. You find lots of horror stories. That's because people are more willing to write and vent about negative experiences than positive ones. Shared ownership is just as risky as owning a property outright in the sense if it goes down you end up in negative equity and if it goes up you end up in a decent profit.

Is staircasing expensive? As a fraction of the total property price, not really.

You have rent to pay, but my mortgage, rent and service charge combined were very reasonable. If you were looking for an equivalent property elsewhere in the city it is in, to rent, I would literally be paying double monthly. Service charge has gone up once in two years.

And I got what has turned out to be a very high value property with an extremely small deposit.

The new-build flat has had zero problems and the housing association is very responsive.

I couldn't rate my own shared ownership experience highly enough, but it should be a property that it always likely to have high demand: is there lots of development in the area? Lots of good jobs nearby? Good Transport link? City centre with private parking? Quality Building? Due diligence is always needed of course.

kratosthegreat

eggha wrote: »

i read the posts in this thread. If you wish to set out your life story and its possibilities across several threads then please make it clear there is continuity in your threads. None of your posts in this thread make mention of staircasing to 100%, they deal only with the inability to sub let and your desire to find a loophole to allow you to break that condition. Meantime you have been told what "main residence" means in reality in the context of the question you asked, and thus why you run several risks by letting it ...

BTW if you staircase to 100% it is no longer a SO property. My response dealt with it whilst it is SO - if you read it properly

I think you should go back and read post number 7 in which I clearly state I would be purchasing 100% as someone else mentioned tax evasion. You then quoted my post which was in response to Pixie5740 who asked me what was the point of staircasing up to 100% (which was in response to post number 7). That was the context of my post that you quoted - the context that I would have 100% and the reasons for me doing it.

Do you go always go to the last post of a thread and assume it is in the context of the original post (because those people are really annoying)? Sorry it just seems like you don't like being wrong, and you are wrong. Read the posts. You have failed to read the discussion and the progression and therefore got completely the wrong context. Am I not allowed to first ask about sub-letting under shared ownership then progress the conversation to talk about sub-letting under 100%? Is that not a natural progression, is it completely off-topic? Do I need to start a new thread because you said so? Do one pal.