Moving From Shared Ownership to 100%

zen said:

I love sarcastic hypocrisy. One min you advocate AH, next min you criticise it.

Click to expand...

Nobody's advocating or criticising anything, just setting out facts. All of which were available to the purchaser at the time of purchase.

Finally, no landlord has any right to enter or bring "their" guests into their clients property so I dont know what you mean here.

Click to expand...

You referred to "their half of their property" (your emphasis). In a true half-and-half situation (joint tenancy) the person owning that half would have such rights.

dmrules said:

Hi, just want to clear something...Why people are talking about clawback in SO case?Wasn't it that council set the amount you could buy the house for? In my case 220k and i bought the house for 200k on open market...so where is the clawback?
thx

Click to expand...

dmrules - there are different buying scenarios with S.O. of which one is buying a house under A.H. with a S.O. - it doesn't matter where you get your mortgage from, if you buy under A.H. there is a clawback rule.

HI nathan, you just did what loads of people put in for but didnt get a chance and at the time you were lucky, so although its costing to get out of SO your still doing ok, best of luck with it

Brooklyn said:

You referred to "their half of their property" (your emphasis). In a true half-and-half situation (joint tenancy) the person owning that half would have such rights.

Click to expand...

So what are DCC? Are they joint tennant or landlord?

If they are a landlord then they cant bring anyone in but should pay % management fee.
If they are a joint tennant they can bring anyone in and definitely should pay %.

Someone back me up here?!
Am I not making any sense? You are S/O I'm fighting your corner! As I said, I would challenge them if I were s/o

Zen, the problem is that you're trying to pigeonhole the Council-purchaser relationship into categories that you recognise. The point is that Shared Ownership creates an entirely different category, which is neither a true co-ownership nor a true landlord-tenant relationship. It is a unique relationship the nature of which is set out in the contract that the parties sign when they enter into it.

The fact that one of the parties might have mistaken the nature of the relationship would only be cause to set aside the contract if the other party misrepresented it, and it would be hard to argue that they did that when the terms of the relationship are there in black and white. It's your own responsibility to make sure you understand those terms before you sign.

alaskaonline said:

You get a "discount" on the house under the A.H. scheme and it is up to the buyer if they chose S.O. or a normal Bank Mortgage.

Click to expand...

According to sunday times yesterday my affordable appartment is now worth abt 90k less than I paid for it. Stupid of me to buy when I did I suppose.

Brooklyn said:

Zen, the problem is that you're trying to pigeonhole the Council-purchaser relationship into categories that you recognise. The point is that Shared Ownership creates an entirely different category, which is neither a true co-ownership nor a true landlord-tenant relationship. It is a unique relationship the nature of which is set out in the contract that the parties sign when they enter into it.

The fact that one of the parties might have mistaken the nature of the relationship would only be cause to set aside the contract if the other party misrepresented it, and it would be hard to argue that they did that when the terms of the relationship are there in black and white. It's your own responsibility to make sure you understand those terms before you sign.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments. Some of the masses may (in hindsight) now understand that they were either not intelligent enough or that they have been miss-informed at the time of signing. I would not sit back and accept that the contract created a new grey category that maintains the councils interests in the light of what is going on now in our little country.

Does this category have a name for revenue purposes? How do they pay tax on the rental portion to the revenue? It must be called something. Or maybe they dont pay tax on the rental part?...

We have already bailed out the banks who are now head hunting the very same people who cant pay their mortgages. Its a different ball game now. I think the S/O people should organise themselves and challenge this.

Feel free to tell me to mind my own business but are you S/O? I assume not, otherwise you would at least agree in principle that this could, in theory be challanged. I understand the bindings of contract law but as I said many new precedents have been set.

adm2006 said:

According to sunday times yerterday my affordable appartment is now worth abt 90k less than I paid for it. Stupid of me to buy when I did I suppose.

Click to expand...

Declining property prices affect pretty much everyone, A.H. or not. My friend bought a house on the open market five years ago for 375k. it's now valued 210k.

zen said:

I would not sit back and accept that the contract created a new grey category

Click to expand...

It's not a "grey" category. The terms of the council's interest are set out clearly in the contract. On what basis do you think it could be challenged, when the terms are all there in the documents people signed?

Feel free to tell me to mind my own business but are you S/O? I assume not, otherwise you would at least agree in principle that this could, in theory be challanged.

Click to expand...

I bought on s/o and am now on 100%. That's quite an easy way to get out of it.

I understand the bindings of contract law but as I said many new precedents have been set.

Click to expand...

What new precedents have been set that would override the basic principles of contract law?

Ok so you moved to annuity, I started with annuity. This might help the OP with his decision.

As for new precedents if you watch the news every day you will see unprecedented events unfold every minuite of every day that make the members of the public suffer finanically. Larger corporations, government bodies etc.. are or have broken contractual regulation.

Anyway, I think you and I have said enough on a topic that does not even affect us. I appreciate your input, you had very valid points so lets just agree to disagree.