Buying out Fingal County Council - possible ?

Totally. My situation has changed since I bought the place, now I can't rent my 1 bed, and I can't live there with my girlfriend in six months. I also can't sell it, as no one will buy the sodding thing. I'm worse off than if I'd bought the thing outright.
 
ontour said:
Does the clawback cause you other problems? For example do you pay higher mortgage rates than you would be otherwise eligible for?
Click to expand...

I can't shop around for mortgages, I was locked into a choice of 3 providers, I can't remortgage, apparently, without paying the clawback. I can't rent my 1 bed and move to somewhere bigger if my situation has changed.

Those three things are part of the provisions of the agreement. When you add that I can't sell the place due to the market, I'm stuck with an apartment I can do nothing with.
 
So the campaign should be to remove the restriction on renting the property. If they limited that to a two year restriction on renting that should cover most of the people who want to or need to move on. Removing the rental restriction is to the advantage of the council by protecting their financial interest in the property, removing the clawback would potentially remove a future income. Like the people who bough AH, most councils are also dealing with huge losses on this scheme and would be loath to remove any potential clawback that could offset some of that loss.
 
ontour said:
So the campaign should be to remove the restriction on renting the property. If they limited that to a two year restriction on renting that should cover most of the people who want to or need to move on. Removing the rental restriction is to the advantage of the council by protecting their financial interest in the property, removing the clawback would potentially remove a future income. Like the people who bough AH, most councils are also dealing with huge losses on this scheme and would be loath to remove any potential clawback that could offset some of that loss.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be the best option for me. I don't anticipate prices getting back up to where I'm ever going to make a profit on the place. I'd just like to be able to do something with it to service the mortgage until I can sell it for what I paid.Edit: Well, I wouldn't mind taking a loss of a bit either, but the whole scheme at the moment seems like an anchor.

There's no one to talk to about it, I've tried the Propertypath, and they're not interested in discussing anything other than that I should sell, which I've been trying to do, but it's impossible. trying the TDs and councillors at the moment.
 
Ontour, I wouldn't class this little discussion as a 'campaign'. Nothing will need to be changed in the Housing Acts in order for affordable homeowners to be able to purchase their own homes. At the moment the problem lies in the uniform application of the Housing Acts. Once the 2009 Act passes all stages in both houses this will be possible. Anyone who is serious about taking this step, and they should in the next three years, will be looking beyond AAM and have their solicitor liaise with their local authority.

You're correct in saying that the purpose of the clawback was not to make money, it is to discourage the sale of property within a short period of time by reducing the potential for profit. You're also correct in saying that there is no disputing the fact that the risk of owners profit-taking is no longer a concern. At the time that the housing acts were drawn up for these schemes the issue of falling house prices was addressed. You have to remember that these local authorities do not act on a commercial basis. They received the properties from developers for the amount that the affordable homeowners paid, and they will not lose a penny through an affordable homeowner buying them out.
 
Questionable said:
You have to remember that these local authorities do not act on a commercial basis. They received the properties from developers for the amount that the affordable homeowners paid, and they will not lose a penny through an affordable homeowner buying them out.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the price paid to the developer is not based on the price that the affordable homeowner was / is willing to pay. The councils (stupidly IMHO) did not act as intermediaries for a single transaction instead there were two transactions, one where the council buys the unit from the developer for an agreed price and a second where the council sells the unit to a qualifying affordable home purchaser. The councils were left with stocks of units that they had bought from developers and then the prices crashed. The prices of these unit will be below the price paid so they will make a loss. Some of this loss may be offset by future clawbacks. Removing this clause is like the councils tearing up a lottery ticket before the draw date, it will probably be worthless but there is a chance of getting something out of it.
 
ontour said:
My understanding is that the price paid to the developer is not based on the price that the affordable homeowner was / is willing to pay. The councils (stupidly IMHO) did not act as intermediaries for a single transaction instead there were two transactions, one where the council buys the unit from the developer for an agreed price and a second where the council sells the unit to a qualifying affordable home purchaser. The councils were left with stocks of units that they had bought from developers and then the prices crashed. The prices of these unit will be below the price paid so they will make a loss. Some of this loss may be offset by future clawbacks. Removing this clause is like the councils tearing up a lottery ticket before the draw date, it will probably be worthless but there is a chance of getting something out of it.
Click to expand...

The stock that local authorities have been left with since prices fell in the past two years is a small percentage of the amount of units shifted during the whole period that the Affordable Housing Scheme has been running. The vast majority of units shifted, which were sold prior to this drop in the housing market, were not sold at a loss - they were passed on at cost price, as developers were obliged to do in order to receive planning permission. The units left now, will, obviously, be have to be reduced in price in line with the fall in the market, otherwise they'll be left with them, and this is where the local authorities will take a hit.

The clawback clause is not being torn up. Every affordable homeowner signed the contract when they bought their unit, which references clearly the relevent provisions of the housing acts how the clawback kicks in when the price increases and decreases. Its there in black and white. If the local authority does not act in accordance with this it is a breach of contract.

Local Authorities are not commercial bodies, they are designed to provide a service and are not there to make a profit, there was no return envisaged from any of these authorities making these properties available to homeowners, who, otherwise, would not have been able to afford a house on the open market.

Once the 2009 Act passes through the Oireachtas, which is now a formality, it will open the door for affordable homeowners to release themselves from their clawback for the cost of their fees, once current market value has reached what they paid. In most cases where this will happen the owners will find themselves in negative equity themselves, so they will have been exposed to a loss.

What'll happen now - those who wish to buy themselves out of the contract will, the house will be theirs now instead of in 20 years time.
 
Questionable said:
The stock that local authorities have been left with since prices fell in the past two years is a small percentage of the amount of units shifted during the whole period that the Affordable Housing Scheme has been running. The vast majority of units shifted, which were sold prior to this drop in the housing market, were not sold at a loss - they were passed on at cost price, as developers were obliged to do in order to receive planning permission. The units left now, will, obviously, be have to be reduced in price in line with the fall in the market, otherwise they'll be left with them, and this is where the local authorities will take a hit.

The clawback clause is not being torn up. Every affordable homeowner signed the contract when they bought their unit, which references clearly the relevent provisions of the housing acts how the clawback kicks in when the price increases and decreases. Its there in black and white. If the local authority does not act in accordance with this it is a breach of contract.

Local Authorities are not commercial bodies, they are designed to provide a service and are not there to make a profit, there was no return envisaged from any of these authorities making these properties available to homeowners, who, otherwise, would not have been able to afford a house on the open market.

Once the 2009 Act passes through the Oireachtas, which is now a formality, it will open the door for affordable homeowners to release themselves from their clawback for the cost of their fees, once current market value has reached what they paid. In most cases where this will happen the owners will find themselves in negative equity themselves, so they will have been exposed to a loss.

What'll happen now - those who wish to buy themselves out of the contract will, the house will be theirs now instead of in 20 years time.
Click to expand...

Just on the bolded bit, it wasn't made clear at the time or on the website what the expectation would be regarding the clawback if the price of the aff. house fell. At least, that was my experience. The implication (which I can't be annoyed about, it was my responsibility for getting into my own mess) was that the only way was up for house prices.

On Remortgaging, I got an email from Pat Rabitte's office, with the text of a letter from south dublin C. Co.

'
23/10/2009
Your Reference:
Dear Deputy Rabbitte,
I refer to representation received on 14/10/2009 in relation to affordable housing clawback.
I refer to your letter dated 12th October 2009 in relation to the above. Please note Section 99 of the
Planning and Development Act 2000 states that the amount due under the clawback becomes payable
upon resale of the affordable housing property. There is no direct reference to re-mortgaging in the
legislation.
In relation to borrowers wishing to sell their affordable home the Council advise borrowers to put their
home up for sale, once they have gone sale agreed on the property the Council request details of the
sale agreed price. Upon receipt of these details the Council will forward them to the Dublin City Council
valuation office who will determine whether the sale price is fair and reasonable. If they deem it to be fair
and reasonable the Council will issue details of the amount due under the clawback based on that sale
price.
Over the last two years the Council has seen decrease in the sale prices of affordable housing
properties. This has resulted in the Council reducing and as much as possible preventing borrowers
suffering a loss.​
Yours Sincerely'
 
Buyout Fingal County Council - possible?

Hey all,

I've read a number of your threads regarding this and yes the Council have moved the goalposts to suit their needs.
I have reviewed that letter the council produced for that change and there are some interest points the provides a loop hole should you wish to seriously consider trying to remortgage.

If you want to know i'm more then happy to discuss these options as I have been battling to remortgage for a number of years.
reply with your email address and i'll get back to you privately.
 
Hi Dondo, I too have been trying to remortage for quite some time. I would really appreciate you sending me a quick email @ starsky_h@hotmail.com when you have a moment. Thanks in advance
 
Martin Ferris T.D. posed the following question to the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley:

"To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to bring forward legislation to allow existing local authority mortgage holders to remortgage without triggering the clawback; and if he will make a statement on the matter."

This response from Minister John Gormley states that the new act will only apply to future affordable homes, not to existing ones.

"While provision has been made in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 to allow purchasers under the new Affordable Dwelling Purchase Arrangements to re-mortgage or top-up their mortgage without triggering the clawback, the Act does not provide this facility for purchasers under existing affordable housing or shared ownership arrangements. I have requested my Department to arrange to have the provisions necessary to address this matter included in the first appropriate legislative vehicle that becomes available."

I think they changed the goal posts in order to avoid the flood of administration that would inevitably be required if a lot of people were to decide to re-mortgage, rather than for financial reasons.

Does anybody else have more news on this unfair situation? What is the legal situation for existing affordable home participants? How can the council go back on an agreement?
 
Questionable said:
Ontour, I wouldn't class this little discussion as a 'campaign'. Nothing will need to be changed in the Housing Acts in order for affordable homeowners to be able to purchase their own homes. At the moment the problem lies in the uniform application of the Housing Acts. Once the 2009 Act passes all stages in both houses this will be possible. Anyone who is serious about taking this step, and they should in the next three years, will be looking beyond AAM and have their solicitor liaise with their local authority.

You're correct in saying that the purpose of the clawback was not to make money, it is to discourage the sale of property within a short period of time by reducing the potential for profit. You're also correct in saying that there is no disputing the fact that the risk of owners profit-taking is no longer a concern. At the time that the housing acts were drawn up for these schemes the issue of falling house prices was addressed. You have to remember that these local authorities do not act on a commercial basis. They received the properties from developers for the amount that the affordable homeowners paid, and they will not lose a penny through an affordable homeowner buying them out.
Click to expand...

Hi Questionable

When you state that with the new act people will be able to purchase their share of the equity from the council. Just wondering where you see that in the act / where you came upon that information.

Thank you
Johnny
 
Questionable said:
The stock that local authorities have been left with since prices fell in the past two years is a small percentage of the amount of units shifted during the whole period that the Affordable Housing Scheme has been running. The vast majority of units shifted, which were sold prior to this drop in the housing market, were not sold at a loss - they were passed on at cost price, as developers were obliged to do in order to receive planning permission. The units left now, will, obviously, be have to be reduced in price in line with the fall in the market, otherwise they'll be left with them, and this is where the local authorities will take a hit.

The clawback clause is not being torn up. Every affordable homeowner signed the contract when they bought their unit, which references clearly the relevent provisions of the housing acts how the clawback kicks in when the price increases and decreases. Its there in black and white. If the local authority does not act in accordance with this it is a breach of contract.

Local Authorities are not commercial bodies, they are designed to provide a service and are not there to make a profit, there was no return envisaged from any of these authorities making these properties available to homeowners, who, otherwise, would not have been able to afford a house on the open market.

Once the 2009 Act passes through the Oireachtas, which is now a formality, it will open the door for affordable homeowners to release themselves from their clawback for the cost of their fees, once current market value has reached what they paid. In most cases where this will happen the owners will find themselves in negative equity themselves, so they will have been exposed to a loss.

What'll happen now - those who wish to buy themselves out of the contract will, the house will be theirs now instead of in 20 years time.
Click to expand...


Apologies wrong Quote...
 
Questionable said:
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 (Part 5, Section 92, Para. 1)
Click to expand...


Hi Questionable,

Am I missing something ?
From:
HOUSING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2009

92
.—(1) For the purposes of sections 86, 87, 89 and 90, the market​

value of the dwelling concerned shall be determined by the housing​


authority or, where the purchaser does not agree with the market

value so determined, by an independent valuer nominated by the
purchaser from a panel of suitably qualified persons, established by
the housing authority, who are of a class or description prescribed​

under section 95.

Is this the document you are looking at ?​

Thanks a million​
 
Buying out the clawback

Has anyone been successful in buying out the clawback from the Council? It seems unfair that we can't seek to buy them out without selling the property.
 
Hey,

If anyone has been successful with buying out the terms fro the CO CO can they please let me know.

I have met with South Dublin Co Co & they said that the old way I can get out of the clause is if I sell the house to a third party.

If I re-mortgage I can only do so if the bank agree to take on the terms and conditions of the claw back.

All I want is to be able to rent the house if I want to live elsewhere in the years ahead.

I think it crazy I can sell the house for 130,000 to a third party & it's the end of it, where if I gave them the 130,00 myself they won't let me out of my contract.

With the way huse prices are I feel it's nearly better to sell my little home & cut my losses which is the last thing I wanted :(

Any news would be great!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top