Stuck in clawback

bigmoma

Hi All, wondering if anyone has come across this. We bought an new house under the Afordable Housing scheme, that has a 20 year clawback on resale of house. thing is we have just realised that for the next 20 years we cant. 1. Change mortgage providers( we curently with DDC)
2. we cant top up mortgage
3. We cant consolidate our loans
4. We cnt use colateral on our home.
We feel totaly trapped, i agree with the clawback on resale but to be stuck to DDC for the next 20 years is a joke. the only way around this is to buy out which isnt an option and we dont want to sell and in any way if we did we would be even worse as we would walk away with 20 thou and sure we have put more than that into the house already. We have loans out already and between them and the mortgage its crippling us, if we could consolidate we would only hand out half what we are currently handing out a month. We had no idea when we got into this that this would happen we were just so desperate to get a home. We realy in a state!!!!!!!!!

RuggieBear

I don't think this is the right forum for you. perhaps accommodation

bigmoma

New to this i thought this was accommodation & property. I even lost the first post i put up. havent got a clue what im doing!!!!! Ta.

RuggieBear

no worries.

Boards is getting quite large these days. It can be very confusing for the new and old alike.

tbh

bigmoma wrote:

Hi all, We bought a new house under the affordable housing scheme. We have a clawback of 20 years on the resale of the property. Well what we didnt realise and were never told is that.
1. we cant change morgage providers ( we with DCC )
2. we cant top up our mortgage
3. we cant consolidate our loans
4. we cant use the colaterale in our home
Now we totaly agree with the clawback in relation to selling the property. But we feel trapped. we were corpo tenants for 10 years b4 we got this and now we are stuck for another 20 years. We have loans alredy and together with the mortgage its crippling us. If we could consolidate we would only be handing out half of what we are crrently paying out a month. surly this is wrong. the only way out would be to buy out and we certanly cnt afford that and we would be worse off. And i wouldnt dream of selling i love my home but to be so resticted money whys is putting a terrible strain on us. We in an awfull predicament with NO way out!!!!!

not to put too fine a point on it, but you have a house you couldn't afford without help. Them's the breaks.

godtabh

bigmoma wrote:

Hi all, We bought a new house under the affordable housing scheme. We have a clawback of 20 years on the resale of the property. Well what we didnt realise and were never told is that.
1. we cant change morgage providers ( we with DCC )
2. we cant top up our mortgage
3. we cant consolidate our loans
4. we cant use the colaterale in our home

Wasnt this all explained to you when you bought the house?

You say you werent told but surely this was in the contract or some legal format which you should've made your self aware off before you signed off on it

Sponge Bob

Trapping people with one mortgage lender and no topups or changes to better rates, and for 20 years, should be a hot election issue if you get yourselves organised.

Why should you be second class mortgage holders compared to most of us.

conor_mc

Sponge Bob wrote:

Trapping people with one mortgage lender and no topups or changes to better rates, and for 20 years, should be a hot election issue if you get yourselves organised.

Why should you be second class mortgage holders compared to most of us.

Why? I'm assuming DCC is Dublin City Corporation - they're a local authority, not a high-street bank.

godtabh

Its been pointed out that the person wouldnt have been able to afford the house with out the councils help and thats been off set with these conditions.

The OP should have been more informed on her decision before she commited to such a big investment.

tbh

exactly. From the OP, it sounds like they want to get credit on their house (topping up mortgage, consolidating loans etc) - but it's not (strictly speaking) their house, and that's not what the scheme is for.

jdivision

There is legislation planned that will allow you get your mortgage from high street banks or to switch it there. If you're living in DCC you should be onto Noel Ahern's office asking what the hell is going on with it, it's been promised for around two years. If at all possible you should look at getting a part-time job to help improve your financial liquidity.

tbh

to be honest, it sounds like the op is living beyond their means already. No offense OP, but the last thing you need is more credit, IMO.

dame

tbh wrote:

to be honest, it sounds like the op is living beyond their means already. No offense OP, but the last thing you need is more credit, IMO.

I agree, the last thing you need to be doing is topping up your mortgage or using the collateral on your house.

Have you thought about going to MABS and getting some advice on how to budget and manage your money? What are your loans for? Do you really need a second car, holiday or whatever it is? Ask yourself questions like this and make whatever cutbacks you need to in your lifestyle. It doesn't need to be forever, just until you get your outstanding loans cleared. You should be able to manage the mortgage repayments then. Oh, and don't go getting any more loans or credit card debts until you have those paid off!

jdivision

tbh wrote:

the last thing you need is more credit, IMO.

Agreed

godtabh

tbh wrote:

to be honest, it sounds like the op is living beyond their means already. No offense OP, but the last thing you need is more credit, IMO.

I think this might be correct and the adivce about going to MABS is probably very good

bigmoma

Though i do appreciate all your comments and remarks, i really feel you are not getting the whole picture - we are paying a mortgage of E900 a month excluding the E100 a month management fees and thats not even for a big mortgage. Just wondering if one of the comments made applies to all who have mortgages "that strictly speaking its not our home", or does that just apply to me because of my situation????

The point I was trying to get across was regardless of my loans should i not be entitled to the same rights of every other mortagee and be entitled to move from my current lender, yes maybe to consolidate my loans or to get a better rate. The choice to do this has been taken away from me.

Just for the record both myself and my husband work and we are both delighted to be finally home owners.

Sponge Bob

Its all the fault of Noel Ahern , Dublin TD and minister of housing . He has known of this issue for years and has not legislated to change the situation.

Therefore you are stuck with that mortgage for the quite foreseeable future unless you, and others like you, make it an election issue .

There are a number of these schemes, affordable, shared ownership etc . They are all messy when it comes to remortgaging for a better deal .

How many loans and credit cards do you have, you said "loans" ??????

Always start with the most expensive and clear that first and also swap 18% credit cards for 0% interest ones to get a breather ??

bigmoma

Thanks sponge bob. We are going to start getting in touch with others in the same situation and bombard our tds. I myself due to expanding family circumstances could really do with extending but because of the restrictions I would have to get a private loan to do this. Which would mean having another direct debit set up. It would be handy if everything could be in the one place, it would also save on interest.

We have tried to have the clawback legislation changed to be less restricting i.e to rm or top-up or to have it reduced as a lot of residents prior to purchasing their homes here were DCC tenants. But each time we are faced with a dead end and all I am looking and hoping for is a bit of direction on where to try next.

Sponge Bob

Its election time and you are all in a form of indentured slavery to DCC thanks to Noel and his lack of competence and caring . Use that well.

iguana

bigmoma wrote:

should i not be entitled to the same rights of every other mortagee and be entitled to move from my current lender, yes maybe to consolidate my loans or to get a better rate. The choice to do this has been taken away from me.

Not if you signed a contract agreeing to terms which don't allow this. Which you must have done in order to get the house.

dame

I don't know if your mortgage is a fixed rate or not but if it is then with the current interest rate rises and changing housing market you could be better off to stay with your mortgage as it is. Your house could end up costing you a lot more in the long run if you go changing things and topping up. Could one or both of you get a second part-time job maybe? Work somewhere for one day of the weekend or do a few extra shifts at work or something? Not ideal but could help pay off the other loans. If you do succeed in changing the terms of your mortgage and do move to another provider - read all the terms and conditions fully before you sign.

godtabh

iguana wrote:

Not if you signed a contract agreeing to terms which don't allow this. Which you must have done in order to get the house.

The OP says she wasn't made aware of terms before signing it. For some thing this big that should've been the first thing she did

tbh

bigmoma wrote:

Though i do appreciate all your comments and remarks, i really feel you are not getting the whole picture - we are paying a mortgage of E900 a month excluding the E100 a month management fees and thats not even for a big mortgage. Just wondering if one of the comments made applies to all who have mortgages "that strictly speaking its not our home", or does that just apply to me because of my situation????

I have sympathy for your situation, and I take your point, but you are in a special situation. You've been helped to buy a house by the DCC. If you didn't like the terms and conditions, you didn't have to take the deal. The fact is, for whatever reasons, you obviously wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage from a high street bank -why? Cause you can't afford it. That's why the terms are the way they are - you are getting the money to get a house, not so you can borrow more money. That's not to punish you, it's to protect you.

Sponge Bob

at least a campaign of sorts would make others aware of the pitfalls.

Mind you if the mortgage itself is on good terms I would also insert a statutory clause that said you could not remortgage to worse terms than you are on now . Thats to protect the stupid from the cconsequences and to force mortgage issuers to compete for the business on good terms.

If the OP was paying 4% on their mortgage now (for example) they could not improve on that no matter who they go with so I would not let them remortgage .

Remortageing to better terms should be allowed and a one off increase in the size of the mortgage lump of up to 20% should also be allowed, this is not only if a person wishes to consolidate (once off) but if they wanted to start a business and needed a van and stock.

Moonbeam

900 euro mortgage repayments per months are low esp between 2 people.

The reason your mortgage isn't so high is that you got a discount on your house ,once Dcc are giving you good rates and not ripping you off I really don't see why you have any reason to complain.

Zambia

I am afraid I have to concur , if affordable housing was really just a standard mortgage it makes it unfair for the rest of the us trying to get a mortgage through the high street.

I dont know enough about the affordable housing scheme to say more anyone have a good link ?

tbh

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/buying-a-home/help-with-buying-a-home/affordable_housing_scheme/?searchterm=affordable%20housing

The Affordable Housing Scheme is a scheme in Ireland that aims to help lower income households to buy their own homes. The Scheme allows lower-income house buyers the chance to buy newly constructed homes and apartments in areas where property prices have created an affordability gap for lower income house buyers. These properties are then offered for sale to eligible first-time purchasers at prices significantly less than their actual market value.

The local authorities provide land on which new houses are built and sold. Your local authority will generally advertise the availability of houses for sale under this Scheme in the local press or perhaps on local radio. If there are more eligible applicants than houses, the local authority will determine the order of priority, taking account of household circumstances, etc.

The houses are usually bought with a mortgage provided by the local authority . Some banks also provide mortgages for affordable homes. The loan can be up to 97% of the price of the house, subject to repayments being no more than 35% of the household net income. Net income is your income after tax and social insurance (PRSI). Some private lenders have proposed special affordable housing mortgages. However such mortgages will generally offer up to 97% of the purchase price and may not have maximum limits (unlike local authority loans which are capped at 185,000 euro (effective January 2006). Applicants for private sector affordable mortgages must be pre-approved by their local authorities for a suitable property (See Rules below).

Households may be entitled to a mortgage subsidy depending on their income in the previous tax year. If they are surrendering a tenant purchase house, a local authority house or a house provided by a voluntary body, they have the option of going for the mortgage subsidy or the Mortgage Allowance Scheme .
Rules

You qualify for the Affordable Housing Scheme if :

* you are in need of housing and your income satisfies the income test below, or
* you are registered on a housing waiting list with a local authority, or
* you are a local authority tenant or a tenant purchaser and you want to buy a private house and return your present house to the local authority, or
* you are a tenant for more than one year of a home provided by a housing association under the Capital Loan and Subsidy Scheme and you want to buy a private house and return your present house to the housing association.

The income test only applies to people mentioned in the first bullet point; if you are covered by the second, third or fourth bullet points, you are exempt from the income test.
The income test

* Single income household

If your gross income (before tax) in the last income tax year was 40,000 euro or less (effective January 2006), (previously the limit was 36,500 euro), you are eligible.

* Two income households

Multiply the gross income (before tax) of the higher earner in the last income tax year by 2.5 and add the gross income of the other earner in the last income tax year. If the answer is 100,000 or less (effective January 2006), (previously the limit was 92,000 euro), you are eligible.
Mortgage subsidy scheme

If your gross household income is less than 28,000 (effective January 2006), (previously the cut off was 25,500 euro), you will be entitled to a subsidy that will reduce your mortgage payments. This subsidy will be paid to the local authority. The subsidy is between 1,050 and 2,550 euro per year.

A household that does not qualify under the third and fourth categories above (i.e., a household that does not qualify for this subsidy) may instead qualify for the Mortgage Allowance Scheme .
Selling your house

If you sell your house within 20 years, you will have to pay the local authority a percentage of the proceeds of the sale. This percentage is expressed as the percentage difference between the sale price and the market value of the house. This amount will be reduced by 10% each year after you have owned your home for 10 years. So, if you sell your home after 20 years, you will not have to pay anything to the local authority.
Additional sources of affordable housing

In addition to the Affordable Housing Scheme, affordable housing is provided under Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2002. Part V allows a local authority to require developers to set aside up to 20% of new developments of five or more houses for social or affordable housing . Each local authority has to include these provisions (i.e., the commitment to providing a percentage of social and affordable housing) in its housing strategy, which form part of the development plan for its area.

Development plans are essentially blueprints for planning and development in your area. They include the local authority's objectives for the use of particular areas where you live (i.e., residential areas, industrial areas, agricultural areas, etc.). The plans are drawn up by the local authority in consultation with interested groups (including citizens) and are available from your local authority to view if you wish. You can read more about development plans here .

While up to 20% of any new housing development can be set aside for social/affordable housing, the local authority will determine the exact percentage, given the level of social need in the area. It may decide for example, that zero percent of the overall development is appropriate.

This provision of a percentage of affordable or social houses applies to any development of 5 or more homes, so now, any time that 5 or more homes are being developed, the local authority will decide how much (if any) will be affordable, social, voluntary, housing etc. This is determined in consultation with the developer, taking into account the appropriate percentage in the development plan.

There are no rules about where affordable houses should be located in new developments. It is for the local authority to decide which homes should be designated as affordable housing, as appropriate. For example the affordable houses may be peppered through the development/estate or may be grouped in pairs, in areas, etc. The proximity of these homes will all depend on what the local authority approve as most appropriate for the area and most appropriate for the residents of these homes.
Eligibility for Part V housing

You are eligible to buy an affordable house provided under Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2002 if 35% of your income is not sufficient to enable you to buy a house . If you get your loan from the local authority and your gross household income was below 28,000 euro in the previous tax year, you will be entitled to a subsidy that will reduce your mortgage payments. This subsidy will be paid to the local authority. The subsidy is between 1,050 euro and 2,550 euro per year. A clawback similar to that which applies under the Affordable Housing Scheme is payable if the house is sold with 20 years of purchase.

CiaranC

bigmoma wrote:

Hi All, wondering if anyone has come across this. We bought an new house under the Afordable Housing scheme, that has a 20 year clawback on resale of house. thing is we have just realised that for the next 20 years we cant. 1. Change mortgage providers( we curently with DDC)
2. we cant top up mortgage
3. We cant consolidate our loans
4. We cnt use colateral on our home.
We feel totaly trapped, i agree with the clawback on resale but to be stuck to DDC for the next 20 years is a joke. the only way around this is to buy out which isnt an option and we dont want to sell and in any way if we did we would be even worse as we would walk away with 20 thou and sure we have put more than that into the house already. We have loans out already and between them and the mortgage its crippling us, if we could consolidate we would only hand out half what we are currently handing out a month. We had no idea when we got into this that this would happen we were just so desperate to get a home. We realy in a state!!!!!!!!!

If you could do all these things with an afforable housing mortgage, everyone would simply cut back on their income until they qualified driving every mortgage lender in the country out of business.

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

luckat

Bigmoma, can you sell the house and buy another one with a different mortgage?

I was in a similar situation with my first house - I bought it with a Corporation loan (a system now defunct) and paid *huge* interest for the time. Though actually I could have switched, I just didn't want to.

Finally I sold it and bought a bigger place with the price I got for it.

As for refinancing, borrowing against your house, etc, I can't help on that - it's always seemed to me to be a most incautious way to go on. My home is the one thing that I'll never put at risk.

Zambia

luckat wrote:

Bigmoma, can you sell the house and buy another one with a different mortgage?

I was in a similar situation with my first house - I bought it with a Corporation loan (a system now defunct) and paid *huge* interest for the time. Though actually I could have switched, I just didn't want to.

Finally I sold it and bought a bigger place with the price I got for it.

This sort of scuppers that unless it increased in value imensly

tbh wrote:

If you sell your house within 20 years, you will have to pay the local authority a percentage of the proceeds of the sale. This percentage is expressed as the percentage difference between the sale price and the market value of the house. This amount will be reduced by 10% each year after you have owned your home for 10 years. So, if you sell your home after 20 years, you will not have to pay anything to the local authority.

By the way tbh thanks for the run down

chump

What's the rate on the loan you have to stick with?

To be honest I have no sympathy. You signed the dotted line. You got a swell deal. Now it seems you're over extending yourself and want to eat into the value of your home (which you got at a bargain price).

Victor

We don't know your exact situation, but I'm sure there are options for expanding families.

I think have a chat with www.mabs.ie and go from there.

warrenaldo

Hey BigMomma - Im on the affordable Housing list for SDCC for the past year. I have been wondering about the clawback. You mentioned in an earlier post that you can buy your way out? What do you mean?

If you say have a 20 year mortgage with them. But pay it off in 15 years. Does the clawback not apply anymore?

bigmoma

Hi Warrenaldo,

To answer your question - regardless of whether you clear your mortgage early the clawback stands for the 20 years. For example my neighbour has a nine year mortgage and the clawback will apply to her for another eleven years after her morgage is paid.

antoinolachtnai

How much did you pay for the house originally, how much discount did you get on it? So if you sold your house today, how much would you have to pay for the clawback?

The_Conductor

Look- you bought the house from the council at what was considered below fair normal market value. The idea of the clawback is to stop people who have received this assistance from benefiting unfairly by placing their house on the open market and receiving the open market price for the house- as the intention of the scheme is to house people who are not able to afford to house themselves, not to change their financial circumstances by allowing them to make a quick buck by selling off their subsidised house. As time progresses- the council gradually releases their interest in the property until at a point in the future you are able to stand on your own feet- in this case 20 years.

This is an implicit understanding backed up by a legally binding contract. The council is not obliged to sell you the house at below market value - it does so to house you- not to make you better off financially. If you wanted the financial freedom that you now profess to desire- you should have carefully weighed up what your obligations under the scheme were/are and decided when in possession of all the facts whether this was for you or not. You signed a contract, you are contractually bound to abide by the contract. In exchange you purchased a house for below its fair market value.

If you want to move away from the contract you signed- do it in the manner prescribed in the contract- i.e. accept that there is a clawback and plan accordingly.

I'm sorry, it really sounds like its a case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it. If you were not willing to accept that you were tying yourself up for a set period of time and had obligations towards the council which was assisting you in purchasing the property- you should not have signed the contract. You signed it.

Its difficult for a lot of people to accept that you could simply walk away from your contract- when you were given an opportunity that a lot of us never had......

Do-more

antoinolachtnai wrote:

How much did you pay for the house originally?

tbh wrote:

such mortgages will generally offer up to 97% of the purchase price......local authority loans which are capped at 185,000 euro (effective January 2006).

You say that your monthly repayments are €900 so if you have borrowed the full €185,000 your interest rate is only 1.6%, more likely you have borrowed less, in which case you have bought your home for a real knock down price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one or both of you are made unemployed, you will also receive a mortgage subsidy from DCC so you effectively also have income protection built into your repayments.

On the face of it you are in a better position longterm than most on higher incomes who have to purchase at market prices.

Consult MABS and sort out your credit issues and look at the glass being half full!

jdivision

Do-more wrote:

You say that your monthly repayments are €900 so if you have borrowed the full €185,000 your interest rate is only 1.6%

That can't be right, my mortgage is for e142,500 and I'm paying e800 a month at an interest rate of more than 4 per cent

dame

I may be wrong but I think what probably happened is that since the OP and hubby lived in a council house for a number of years before getting their own on the affordable housing scheme, they just weren't used to paying a mortgage and haven't learnt how (or are unwilling) to scale back on their lifestyle spending.

Sleipnir

OP, Does that mean you'll have your mortgage paid off in 20 years time?

chump

jdivision wrote:

That can't be right, my mortgage is for e142,500 and I'm paying e800 a month at an interest rate of more than 4 per cent

what's the mortgage term for bejaysus sake...

Rebeller

tbh wrote:

exactly. From the OP, it sounds like they want to get credit on their house (topping up mortgage, consolidating loans etc) - but it's not (strictly speaking) their house, and that's not what the scheme is for.

This comment reflects the misinformed view that most people have of affordable housing. It seems that many of the posters here are confusing social housing with affordable housing. It also perhaps hints at a certain level of snobbery towards those who are unable to pay exploitative open market prices.

The OP owns his or her house in exactly the same manner that any commercial bank mortgage holder does. DCC do not own her house.

He or she incurs the same risk of losing her home if mortgage payments are not made. He or she has exactly the same repayment responsibilities as any other mortgage holder.

Affordable houses are sold to eligible candidates at cost price. While this ultimately involves a subsidy expressed in the discount compared with the full open market price, it does not equate to a "hand-out".

The successive failure of Fianna Fail (they have been in government for 39 of the last 50 years after all including 17 of the past 20!) to regulate the housing market to ensure that housing property does not became the speculative commodity it has resulted in large numbers of gainfully employed, double income households being unable to purchase their own homes.

In a State with such weak and almost non-existent tenant protection legislation home ownership is the goal of most families and individuals.

The views expressed by many posters in this thread reflect the typical Irish attitude that if you acquire something at less than the usual price you should not expect to receive the same quality of service or be subject to the same conditions as others who have purchased at full market value.

The purpose of the affordable housing scheme is to enable those who would not otherwise be able to own their own homes to do so. It is not intended to provide a source of speculative capital which buyers can use to get a foothold on the open market property ladder, hence the charge on the title (clawback provision) of all such affordable homes.

While I have no objection to the existence of this clawback provision I do oppose the idea of tying homeowners to a single mortgage provider for life. Affordable house mortgage payers should have the same freedom as everyone else to shop around and change providers.

OP, I am very surprised by your claim that you were not made aware at the time of purchase of the restrictions inherent in all affordable house acquisitions. One of the standard conditions outlined in all schemes provided by the various local authorities around the country is that you need to provide written confirmation from your solicitor upon acceptance of the offer confirming that he or she has explained the terms of the purchase contract to you. Perhaps you were so caught up in the joy of the moment that you overlooked this?

The reason you are unable to re-mortgage or otherwise use your home as collateral for any other loan is the charge placed on the title (the clawback provision). No commercial lending institution will accept a house with such a charge as collateral for the reason that in the event of them having to call in the debt for default and sell the house they would be unable to freely dispose of the house in order to generate maximum value to recover the debt due. It' like owning a field through which your neighbour has a legal right of way. Certain prospective buyers of such a field would think twice knowing that their future use of the field for any development would be restricted by the obligation to allow your neighbour access to the property.

As others have said I would lobby your TD about the "tied to one lender" restriction. However, it will not be possible to get out of the clawback provision.

Good luck.

tbh

good post rebeller. one point:

The views expressed by many posters in this thread reflect the typical Irish attitude that if you acquire something at less than the usual price you should not expect to receive the same quality of service or be subject to the same conditions as others who have purchased at full market value.

no, I'd argue that the views expressed by the majority is that you should not expect to be able to borrow money secured against an asset which you cannot afford yourself - you've made that point yourself.

dame

Rebeller wrote:

This comment reflects the misinformed view that most people have of affordable housing. It seems that many of the posters here are confusing social housing with affordable housing. It also perhaps hints at a certain level of snobbery towards those who are unable to pay exploitative open market prices.

The OP owns his or her house in exactly the same manner that any commercial bank mortgage holder does. DCC do not own her house.

He or she incurs the same risk of losing her home if mortgage payments are not made. He or she has exactly the same repayment responsibilities as any other mortgage holder.

Affordable houses are sold to eligible candidates at cost price. While this ultimately involves a subsidy expressed in the discount compared with the full open market price, it does not equate to a "hand-out".

The successive failure of Fianna Fail (they have been in government for 39 of the last 50 years after all including 17 of the past 20!) to regulate the housing market to ensure that housing property does not became the speculative commodity it has resulted in large numbers of gainfully employed, double income households being unable to purchase their own homes.

In a State with such weak and almost non-existent tenant protection legislation home ownership is the goal of most families and individuals.

The views expressed by many posters in this thread reflect the typical Irish attitude that if you acquire something at less than the usual price you should not expect to receive the same quality of service or be subject to the same conditions as others who have purchased at full market value.

The purpose of the affordable housing scheme is to enable those who would not otherwise be able to own their own homes to do so. It is not intended to provide a source of speculative capital which buyers can use to get a foothold on the open market property ladder, hence the charge on the title (clawback provision) of all such affordable homes.

While I have no objection to the existence of this clawback provision I do oppose the idea of tying homeowners to a single mortgage provider for life. Affordable house mortgage payers should have the same freedom as everyone else to shop around and change providers.

OP, I am very surprised by your claim that you were not made aware at the time of purchase of the restrictions inherent in all affordable house acquisitions. One of the standard conditions outlined in all schemes provided by the various local authorities around the country is that you need to provide written confirmation from your solicitor upon acceptance of the offer confirming that he or she has explained the terms of the purchase contract to you. Perhaps you were so caught up in the joy of the moment that you overlooked this?

The reason you are unable to re-mortgage or otherwise use your home as collateral for any other loan is the charge placed on the title (the clawback provision). No commercial lending institution will accept a house with such a charge as collateral for the reason that in the event of them having to call in the debt for default and sell the house they would be unable to freely dispose of the house in order to generate maximum value to recover the debt due. It' like owning a field through which your neighbour has a legal right of way. Certain prospective buyers of such a field would think twice knowing that their future use of the field for any development would be restricted by the obligation to allow your neighbour access to the property.

As others have said I would lobby your TD about the "tied to one lender" restriction. However, it will not be possible to get out of the clawback provision.

Good luck.

So a "subsidy" does not equal a hand-out. Why do farmers get stick about getting subsidies from the EU then? If it's a subsidy, not a hand-out, then why don't we all get a subsidy so we can buy our house for less? After all, all farmers get the same subsidy per head of cattle etc.

It's a way for the councils to get at least some of their tenants out of council houses and into paying their own mortgages. It means the council have less people to house and if the people are at least paying cost price for their house, then they're not costing the council forever.

By the way, a subsidy has to come from somewhere.....stamp duty from the rest of us?

Victor

dame wrote:

So a "subsidy" does not equal a hand-out. Why do farmers get stick about getting subsidies from the EU then? If it's a subsidy, not a hand-out, then why don't we all get a subsidy so we can buy our house for less? After all, all farmers get the same subsidy per head of cattle etc.

.....

By the way, a subsidy has to come from somewhere.....stamp duty from the rest of us?

Other people get a subsidy in the form of mortgage interest relief, which low earners may not be fully able to avail of.

Also, the councils don't want to move people from council housing, they want to sell the housing so as to create a mix of owned and rented properties. Otherwise you just end up with ghettos.

gurramok

*SNOB* alert!
Guess some people like Donal Lynch prefer ghetto's rather than integration which is vitrolic and outrageous.

---

From http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1760015&issue_id=15151

Put me down for a Killiney pad and affordable yacht

IT'S just so unfair. They're now building 'affordable' housing in that haven of the rich and famous, Killiney.

By 'affordable' they mean, of course, that only first-time buyers who are earning a pittance can be placed on the list. So an impoverished young couple who never even thought to want to live in Killiney gets a place for about 200 grand less than the market price, whereas someone like me, who has always dreamed of overlooking the sea from my own bay win-dow, is not in with a chance.Which just goes to show - again - that it's no goodbeing middle class in this country. If neither rich nor poor but slightly intelligent, with a reasonable job and an average income, you have to fight for everything.

Whereas if you're a bit thick, from the inner city with a job that pays buttons, they lower the bar so you can get into university with fewer points and then allow you to have a house around the corner from Bono.

And you can't really allow an area like Killiney to be pulled down by blow-ins so the Government would probably have to supplement their affordable housing with affordable K Club membership and affordable yachts.

It sends out the wrong message to social climbing wannabes, like me. It says, "If you really want to move up in the world, don't bother trying - because sooner or later some politician will take pity and you'll get a free leg up."

Donal Lynch

---

godtabh

gurramok wrote:

*SNOB* alert!
Guess some people like Donal Lynch prefer ghetto's rather than integration which is vitrolic and outrageous.

---

From http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1760015&issue_id=15151

Put me down for a Killiney pad and affordable yacht

IT'S just so unfair. They're now building 'affordable' housing in that haven of the rich and famous, Killiney.

By 'affordable' they mean, of course, that only first-time buyers who are earning a pittance can be placed on the list. So an impoverished young couple who never even thought to want to live in Killiney gets a place for about 200 grand less than the market price, whereas someone like me, who has always dreamed of overlooking the sea from my own bay win-dow, is not in with a chance.Which just goes to show - again - that it's no goodbeing middle class in this country. If neither rich nor poor but slightly intelligent, with a reasonable job and an average income, you have to fight for everything.

Whereas if you're a bit thick, from the inner city with a job that pays buttons, they lower the bar so you can get into university with fewer points and then allow you to have a house around the corner from Bono.

And you can't really allow an area like Killiney to be pulled down by blow-ins so the Government would probably have to supplement their affordable housing with affordable K Club membership and affordable yachts.

It sends out the wrong message to social climbing wannabes, like me. It says, "If you really want to move up in the world, don't bother trying - because sooner or later some politician will take pity and you'll get a free leg up."

Donal Lynch

---

I thought you were Donal Lynch for a minute until I finally got logged in to the Independent site.

Your title says it all

dalk

Donal Lynch wrote:

By 'affordable' they mean, of course, that only first-time buyers who are earning a pittance can be placed on the list.

Must be nice to look on earnings of up to €55k a year for a single person, or up to €75k for a couple (the income limit to apply for Affordable Housing) as being a 'pittance'...

jdivision

chump wrote:

what's the mortgage term for bejaysus sake...

20 years I think

BC

dalk wrote:

Must be nice to look on earnings of up to €55k a year for a single person, or up to €75k for a couple (the income limit to apply for Affordable Housing) as being a 'pittance'...

Its up to 65K in DCC for a single person. Hardly a pittance.

The_Conductor

dalk wrote:

Must be nice to look on earnings of up to €55k a year for a single person, or up to €75k for a couple (the income limit to apply for Affordable Housing) as being a 'pittance'...

Two graduate recruits in the civil service on the midpoint of the salary scale (after 8 years as Executive Officers (graduate recruitment level)) would still comfortably qualify for affordable housing, as indeed would 2 Gardai, 2 Teachers or 2 Nurses......

What does that say?