Affordable housing clawback problems.

P.A.C

Hi All new to this site.
Im letting people know that there has been a lobby group set up to get the legislation amended regarding AH clawback.
Please not we do not have an issue with the anti profitering.

We have issues with the following.
1. Not being able to change mortgage provider.
2. Not being able to consolidate/top up.
3. There are no provisions made for change in family circumstances.
4. If you opt shared ownership you cannot change to a full mortgage.

In order to do any of the above you have to redeem your mortgage, ie, "buy out". This is not an option for most. We feel that the above mentioned are an infringment of our constitutional rights and is also discrimination.

patrickolee

Ian paisley would be proud of the number of negatives in that post!

Somehow I think even the O Muppet P (OMP), knows how ridiculous it is.
"new to this site" my arse, you had to register a new name in order to post? Coward! I don't mind paying for social welfare, affordable housing, medical cards, or old age pensions, but christ it irks when you hear them whinging and complaining that their "constitutional rights" are being infringed. Be grateful you got a cut price house/apartment that the rest of us payed for one way or another.

OMP, peace, be happy!

P.S. I've nothing against 'normal' afforardable housing applicants (or social welfare recip, medical card holders, OAPs).. just this eeejit

SimpleSam06

Eh if you're looking for greatly reduced house prices, you have to accept that there are terms and conditions attached to that. These terms and conditions are not hidden, you are fully aware of them before you sign on the dotted line, and they are there for a good reason, to prevent abuse of the system by speculators who get their cousin Mick to get an affordable house and turn a huge profit, among other things.

I mean you are talking about topping up an affordable housing loan - if you couldn't afford a house in the first place, wht the hell are you doing taking on more debt?

Basically your lobby group has zero chance, and thats the way it should be. You will find no support among the people of Ireland. It has nothing to do with constitutional rights or discrimination, its a business deal. Nobody forced you to take on affordable housing.

Victor

patrickolee wrote: »

Ian paisley would be proud of the number of negatives in that post!

Somehow I think even the O Muppet P (OMP), knows how ridiculous it is.
"new to this site" my arse, you had to register a new name in order to post? Coward! I don't mind paying for social welfare, affordable housing, medical cards, or old age pensions, but christ it irks when you hear them whinging and complaining that their "constitutional rights" are being infringed. Be grateful you got a cut price house/apartment that the rest of us payed for one way or another.

OMP, peace, be happy!

P.S. I've nothing against 'normal' afforardable housing applicants (or social welfare recip, medical card holders, OAPs).. just this eeejit

Just whats the problem Patrick?

Dandelion6

While I don't think there's a constitutional issue involved (not everything unfair is unconstitutional!) there are definite problems here which the above two posters seem to have completely missed. People buy under the Shared Ownership scheme because at the time of purchase they cannot meet the banks' requirements for a full mortgage - it doesn't mean that a few years down the line they won't be able to meet them and it is very unfair that at that point they cannot change over without having to pay the clawback. Indeed comments I've read from officials seem to me to indicate that this wasn't even how the scheme was intended to operate, but it was drafted that way and can't be changed without new legislation.

The change in family circumstances is also a big one. The large majority of properties available under the Affordable Housing scheme (at least in Dublin) are not family-friendly, which means that people can buy them only if they either have no intentions of having a family, or are prepared to sell up and move on in a couple years - but if they do the latter they will not qualify for Affordable Housing when they need to move on. In other words the scheme only really works for people who plan to be permanently single. That can't possibly be the only group who it was intended to work for - therefore it's a failing of the scheme.

Basically it should be possible for the scheme to work in such a way that it takes account of ordinary people's genuine changed circumstances. It should be possible to do this while still preventing abuse of the scheme (in particular, the change from Shared Ownership to a full mortgage doesn't imply abuse given that Affordable Housing applicants above the lowest income levels can get a full mortgage to begin with). It seems to me that that is what the lobby group is aiming for and I can't fathom why anyone would have a problem with this.

Sign me up.

The_Conductor

Dandelion06-

While what you say is valid for those in Affordable Housing units- the AH units are by definition exactly the same as regular units. Over the past few years over 200,000 apartment style residential units have been bought by regular punters, most of whom have many problems in common with those who availed of the AH schemes.

In most cases purchases of apartments were by people who simply could not afford anything bigger than their 1 or 2 bed apartment but bought anyway as a stopgap measure, intending to trade up at a later date.

Now that apartment prices are in freefall, and its very difficult to sell them period, regardless of the price sought- there is a whole new undersociety out there living in accommodation that is far from ideal for them, but which they cannot afford to move out of.

People's circumstances do change- people who availed of Affordable Housing thought that it was the best option open to them at the time- indeed, as did all those who scrimped and saved to buy their 1 bed apartment with a 2 hour commute- and now fear that they can never get married, as they cannot afford to sell or ever have a family in their current abode.

Its not a failing of the Affordable Housing scheme- that most of the properties on the scheme were only 1 and 2 bed apartments- thats simply the fact that the vast majority of housing units built in the last 10 years were 1 and 2 bed apartments. If its a failure- its a failure of the planning process, which did not insist on the building of larger units fullstop.

I personally think that it is very selfserving and unfair to try to bring pressure to bear in the case of people who purchased under the Affordable Housing scheme and now find their accommodation unsuitable a couple of years down the road, when there are at least 200,000 others in identical situations- who felt obliged to purchase when they did, but now find themselves in changed circumstances too- and irrespective of what their means are, are equally as stuck in their shoeboxes as someone who availed of the Affordable Housing scheme.

S.

gurramok

All the points raised here are the reasons i pulled out of the AH scheme last year.

To the OP, you should of researched these issues before you bought. After all its the biggest purchase of your life.
I did my research and luckily i'm not trapped in AH if my circumstances changed or i wanted to change anything.

Dandelion6

smccarrick wrote: »

I personally think that it is very selfserving and unfair to try to bring pressure to bear in the case of people who purchased under the Affordable Housing scheme and now find their accommodation unsuitable a couple of years down the road, when there are at least 200,000 others in identical situations- who felt obliged to purchase when they did, but now find themselves in changed circumstances too- and irrespective of what their means are, are equally as stuck in their shoeboxes as someone who availed of the Affordable Housing scheme.

I would have no problem making the scheme available to them too - or to anyone looking to buy a primary residence for themselves and their family and who can't afford to do so on the open market.

The fact that such people exist is an argument for making Affordable Housing more widely available, not less.

Dandelion6

gurramok wrote: »

To the OP, you should of researched these issues before you bought. After all its the biggest purchase of your life.
I did my research and luckily i'm not trapped in AH if my circumstances changed or i wanted to change anything.

Good for you, but the issue is that a lot of people are falling into this trap, whether because they didn't do the research or because they simply felt they had no other option. What objection do you have to the trap being eliminated?

okcomputer

Sign me up too, i think the change in family circumstances is the biggie that really really needs to be looked at

..problem is
...are there many 3 bed houses on the AH scheme?
...since there are not how do they solve it?

P.A.C

Dandelion06-
Pm me your details and il send the form and documents.
Thank you for your support, we have almost 100 members and we are only set up a short time. We also have support from ALL of our local TDs.
So much for we have "0 chance and will get no support from the people of ireland".

We also had a very sucessful meeting with Minister Gormley who is also in FULL support of our group. He acknowledged at the meeting that there are problems and that the legislation needs to be amended. His is looking into the matter.

Look forward to hearing from you.

P.A.C

Hi okcomputer pm me your details.
There are some 3 bed houses and apartments. Couldnt tell you where though.
This is another big problem that the majority of AH are 1 and 2 bed apartments.
Thanks for the support.

If anyone else wants to join pm me your details and i will add you to the list and send you info.

Calina

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Good for you, but the issue is that a lot of people are falling into this trap, whether because they didn't do the research or because they simply felt they had no other option. What objection do you have to the trap being eliminated?

Major objections, as it happens. The key issue is the "have to buy a house at all costs" mentality in this country which needs to be stamped out. Most people had an alternative, it's called rental and in a lot of cases - particularly with respect to a lot of the properties availalble through the schemes - it would probably have been more suitable.

Not doing the research is no excuse. Doing the research and going ahead regardless is no excuse for claiming life is unfair on this grounds. The truth is the conditions existed and the way to avoid them was to avoid the scheme. Anything else is an abdication of your own responsibility.

As it happens, I didn't agree with the affordable housing schemes in the first place as I thought they were unfair and would also indirectly cause problems as the bubble started to deflate. Clawback is a fair way of ensuring that the scheme is not abused. I see no reason for it to be reversed at this stage.

gurramok

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Good for you, but the issue is that a lot of people are falling into this trap, whether because they didn't do the research or because they simply felt they had no other option. What objection do you have to the trap being eliminated?

Err, they had option not to buy or rent like everyone else does.
Ignorance is no excuse, they knew the penalties of the scheme, it was outlined by the councils in the documentation.

I have no objection to changes as outlined by P.A.C.., but the clawback thing is there for a reason to avoid profiteering. Reforming it rather than abolishing it is better.

On the topic of 3 bed houses, its the councils that want most people to live in apts now so you will have a very tough time campaigning for houses instead of apts being built.

Mr. Presentable

P.A.C wrote: »

Hi All new to this site.
Im letting people know that there has been a lobby group set up to get the legislation amended regarding AH clawback.
Please not we do not have an issue with the anti profitering.

We have issues with the following.
1. Not being able to change mortgage provider.
2. Not being able to consolidate/top up.
3. There are no provisions made for change in family circumstances.
4. If you opt shared ownership you cannot change to a full mortgage.

In order to do any of the above you have to redeem your mortgage, ie, "buy out". This is not an option for most. We feel that the above mentioned are an infringment of our constitutional rights and is also discrimination.

How is it discrimination? How does it violate the constitution? If I want to move I have to pay what I owe on my house. I really don't get your gripe. The state, and through them, the taxpayers, are housing you and you feel that's not enough? Next thing you'll want to choose where you can get your subsidised property.

There's an old phrase that springs to mind. "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". You're getting something for nothing, something I and other tax payers are facilitating for you. You ought to be grateful, not so hand-outish.

Your point 3, does it mean that when you get your 3 bed house because you have kids you will happily reduce to a 1 bed apartment when they leave home? Didn't think so.

Dandelion6

Calina wrote: »

I didn't agree with the affordable housing schemes in the first place

Yes, that seems to be the undercurrent running through most of the objections in this thread.

gurramok wrote:

I have no objection to changes as outlined by P.A.C.., but the clawback thing is there for a reason to avoid profiteering. Reforming it rather than abolishing it is better.

If I'm not mistaken that's exactly what PAC is calling for.

Mailman

Marital break-up is not pleasant at the best of times but if you are in affordable housing it can leave you near destitute as the partner who has cut and run will demand their share of the equity in the property leaving you holding the baby in more ways than one.
The Council have to be bought out (at the top of the market) and a mortgage taken out with another financial institution which when you are on limited means isn't usually forthcoming.

County Councils are taking the two bed apartments that the developers can't shift on the open market and selling them on the affordable housing scheme to people at the family formation stage in their life and entering in to mortgages of twenty five years or more.
OK the prospective purchaser should be mindful of this when entering the contract but it wouldn't be such an issue if the County Councils were providing three bed homes with a small garden rather than 600 sq. ft. apartments to the public. A small 3-bed semi or terraced house would run to maybe 800 sq. ft. but the extra couple of hundred square feet is all the difference between being able to raise a family and not.
In a country where transaction costs on housing are high and re-entry costs through Stamp duty are obscene purchasers really need to be getting the right house first time.

Don't even get me started on the fantasy market prices that are being assigned to these affordable apartments at the moment; I'm at the stage where I honestly believe that the scheme has been distorted by the councils to provide a revenue stream to the councils as they know that a large proportion of the apartments will have to be sold on by the occupier before the councils interest in them has been discharged.

Cantab.

Mailman wrote: »

I'm at the stage where I honestly believe that the scheme has been distorted by the councils to provide a revenue stream to the councils...

"A revenue stream for the council"? A revenue stream for the councillors perhaps...

Mailman

Cantab. wrote: »

"A revenue stream for the council"? A revenue stream for the councillors perhaps...

No, for the Council. As good as rates taxation.

jdivision

I think legislation was drafted by the Dept of Justice to allow affordable home purchasers to change lenders but it was never put on the list of legislation to be passed by the Oireachtas due to other legislation taking precedence