affordable housing offer

artie ziff

has anyone had the experience of refusing an affordable home? i'll be viewing one in citywest tommorrow but it does not look like it suits. what i'm really trying to find out is: what are the odds that i will be offered a better home if i refuse the first?

some of you will probably be thinking the begger/ chooser analogy which i understand, i'm just trying to get the best i possibly can with very limited resources.

btw. this is my first time on this website so if i've done something stupid please point it out to me

Posy

I'd recommend you have a look through the other posts on affordable housing as well. What are you viewing- an apartment, yeah? If it's Fingal CoCo; you don't get penalised for turning down an offer but if it's your first viewing I doubt you'll even be high enough on the list to get an offer.
Usually, if you hold out for what you want you'll get it eventually, but it might take another 1-2 years on the list depending on what you want and where. Three bedroom houses are especially rare. I don't think beggars/choosers applies here. It's the biggest investment you'll ever make and you're entitled to be fully satisfied with it.

The_Conductor

Following recent court actions (particularly Dunlaoghaire Rathdown's current problems), its increasingly likely that the various Co.Co's will no longer be as willing to take money in-lieue of affordable houses from developers. So- in theory there should be a better supply of properties available on the affordable housing schemes in the future. Obviously a lot of these are apartments, and for the most part are not ground floor or top floor apartments, that developers have not the same issues trying to find buyers for.

If its not suitable- irrespective of the price, do not buy it.

S.

Trinity

I think the only penalty is that you go back down the bottom of the list (if its a waiting list system)

Dont feel pressured into taking it though, the right one will come along if you are willing to wait!!

Good luck today.

podge018

No penalty with Fingal, you the property gets offered to the next in line and you stay where you were on the list. I turned down one in Lusk, a week later I was offered one in Meakstown, delighted.

Daith

With DCC they mentioned that if you turned down three offers you'll be frozen (i.e. won't be included in the lottery) for a number of months.

artie ziff

thanks folks.
as it turns out i bought the apartment on the spot. the developer told me that i could possibly be moving in as early as august so time to get my skates on with regard to getting a solicitor/ getting final approval and so on

thanks again

Trinity

artie ziff wrote:

thanks folks.
as it turns out i bought the apartment on the spot. the developer told me that i could possibly be moving in as early as august so time to get my skates on with regard to getting a solicitor/ getting final approval and so on

thanks again

COngratualtions Artie.

byte

With Donegal CoCo, if you refuse, you lose 20 points from your "score" unless you've reasonable grounds for refusing it.

Posy

I like the way there's no penalty with Fingal. It'd be unfair to penalise a large family for turning down a small apartment for example.

Trinity

Karyn wrote:

I like the way there's no penalty with Fingal. It'd be unfair to penalise a large family for turning down a small apartment for example.

I'd be really curious to see the statistics of how many singles have availed of the affordable housing and how many families.

They seem to be building more apartments than anything, not saying singles are not entitled to it but am curious!!

I was turned down myself a couple of years ago for myself and my son as they penalised me for creche fees and said i couldnt afford it, yet i had been renting for 900 a month on my own without any assistance. Boggles the mind!

jdivision

That's because there's more apartments than houses being built in many council areas. That is likely to change soon though, the weakness in housing will lead to the construction of proportionately more family homes. People are more likely to be willing to trade up to them given there's no stamp duty on new homes.

JupiterKid

What interests me about this thread is it seems to signal a growing trend of people who applied for affordable housing turning down the first place they are offered. This is a very clear sign to me of a house price crash that is only going to worsen, as everyone - potential buyers of open market and affordable housing - takes a "wait and see" approach that will further weaken house prices.

As far as I know, if the buyer of an affordable dwelling encounters negative equity when selling their house on, the local authority is obliged to make up the difference. This is the upside to the "anti-profiteering claw-back" provision under the schemes. Buyers of affordable housing are in the best position possible in these market conditions.

CelloPoint

JupiterKid wrote:

As far as I know, if the buyer of an affordable dwelling encounters negative equity when selling their house on, the local authority is obliged to make up the difference. This is the upside to the "anti-profiteering claw-back" provision under the schemes. Buyers of affordable housing are in the best position possible in these market conditions.

I doubt that very much. It would be naive for anybody to think that the CoCo are going to send a cheque in the post, for their percentage of the money lost, when the 'owner' decides they want to emigrate to Australia.

I am completely anti-affordable housing. I don't own a home in Ireland (nor do I want to in 2007). The whole scheme stinks of corruption and people who are well able to afford a good lifestyle should not be subsidised. Ownership is a privilge, not a right.

The_Conductor

JupiterKid wrote:

As far as I know, if the buyer of an affordable dwelling encounters negative equity when selling their house on, the local authority is obliged to make up the difference. This is the upside to the "anti-profiteering claw-back" provision under the schemes. Buyers of affordable housing are in the best position possible in these market conditions.

Do you have any reference to this?
I have a funny feeling this provision is not applied in a similar manner in the different councils (SDCC for example does not make any reference to it). If you could provide a link (or multiple links) detailing this provision and how it would apply, I'd be grateful. Kind regards, Shane

Jonnie_Onion

He's right.

If you look up the relevant law (forget what its called) on the statute books, it clearly indicates that if the property is sold for less than the original market price, that the local authority has to reduce the clawback so that the seller is not out of pocket. This covers all affordable housing schemes with this 20 year clawback.

CelloPoint

Jonnie_Onion wrote:

He's right.

If you look up the relevant law (forget what its called) on the statute books, it clearly indicates that if the property is sold for less than the original market price, that the local authority has to reduce the clawback so that the seller is not out of pocket. This covers all affordable housing schemes with this 20 year clawback.

I wonder will the CoCo send you a cheque when you run out of claw-back?

JupiterKid

I did some research on affordable housing some years ago and I distinctly remember reading from the original legislation in 1999, that in the case of negative equity upon resale, the local authority would make up the difference, if any, between the resale price and the originak selling price - effectively a reverse of the "calw back" in a capital appreciation situation. If you're unsure, check with the Housing Policy section of the DoE.

I don't think that this provision applied however to Shared Ownership scheme houses, and as so many houses under the affordable scheme were purchased through Shared Ownership, this is an unclear area that needs to be looked at.

Jonnie_Onion

CelloPoint wrote:

I wonder will the CoCo send you a cheque when you run out of claw-back?

They can only reduce the clawback to zero. Any more and you start to take the hit.

Jonnie_Onion

Here's a link:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0009/sec0009.html#partii-sec9

See 3(d)

don't think that this provision applied however to Shared Ownership scheme houses, and as so many houses under the affordable scheme were purchased through Shared Ownership, this is an unclear area that needs to be looked at.

Shared ownership has the same clause in the 2002 Act.

The_Conductor

Jonnie_Onion wrote:

He's right.

If you look up the relevant law (forget what its called) on the statute books, it clearly indicates that if the property is sold for less than the original market price, that the local authority has to reduce the clawback so that the seller is not out of pocket. This covers all affordable housing schemes with this 20 year clawback.

That is a bit ridiculous, why should someone who gets assistance towards buying a property have this sort of safety net, when everyone else is facing the prospect of negative equity and has no recourse to these sort of schemes.

I imagine that its talking about absolute figures though- so at current rates when inflation is factored in, without any fall in price, there is a real fall of 5% (there or there abouts). Even so- it does seem a little odd that this sort of benefit is being offered to one group of people, particularly when the number of ordinary punters suffering from negative equity is lengthening by the day. Most people who have bought in the very recent past have gotten shoebox apartments that are essentially unsaleable at any price whatsoever.

If safety nets such as this are available to purchasers of affordable housing units, it is only fair that there should be some sort of a serious revision of the bankruptcy laws here. If you or I were to default on our mortgage- we cannot simply hand the keys back to the bank and walk away. We are tarred by an 1888 law which has never been properly revised (for personal bankruptcies- commercial bankruptcy law is a different matter).

The consequences of being declared bankrupt in Ireland include:

1. All of the bankrupt debtor's property at the date of the making of the bankruptcy order (called the " order of adjudication ") transfers to the Official Assignee with the exception of necessaries up to a value of €3100 or more if the court allows; all property which the bankrupt acquires after the date of the order of adjudication transfers to the Official Assignee if and when the Official Assignee claims it (for a 12 year period);

2. The bankrupt's salary or pension is liable to being appropriated by the court for the benefit of the creditors subject to any provision the court may make to meet the family responsibilities and personal situation of bankrupt;

3. If (s)he obtains credit of €650.00 or more without disclosing the bankruptcy, the bankrupt is guilty of an offence;

4. If (s)he is employed/trades in a name other than that in which s(he) was adjudged bankrupt without disclosing the latter name , the bankrupt is guilty of an offence;

5. If the bankrupt acts as a director, manager, auditor, liquidator or receiver of a company without leave of the court, s(he) is guilty of an offence ;

6. The bankrupt has certain legal obligations in connection with the administration of his/her estate, including the delivery up of his accounts or papers to the Official Assignee when requested; the delivery of his/her property to the Official Assignee, the filing of a statement of affair the giving of every reasonable assistance to the Official Assignee in the administration of his/her estate; and the disclosure to the Official Assignee of any property acquired by the bankrupt since the date of the bankruptcy order (for a 12 year period).

It does seem slightly extraordinary that purchasers of affordable housing are given a safety net of the magnitude that now seems to be possible- particularly in the current climate. Of course it was most probably never envisaged that 4-5000 people a month would enter a position of negative equity, but that is what is happening at the moment.

The_Conductor

Jonnie_Onion wrote:

They can only reduce the clawback to zero. Any more and you start to take the hit.

Hmmm- even still, it is remarkably generous. But then again, the number of people who have purchased apartments and other shoe boxes over the past few years, with no intention whatsoever of staying in them longterm, on the contrary intending to trade up to their little house with its garden and 2.5 kids- is quite startling.....

It doesn't really matter what happens. Be they purchasers of affordable houses, or ordinary punters paying top dollar for their abodes, there are going to be a lot of terribly dissappointed people out there.......

byte

Whatever happened to buying a home (for life) and not just a house "just to get a foot on the property ladder"?

I hate moving house with a passion, and when I move again, I intend it to be my last time moving, unless there is an extreme reason for me to do so!

Trinity

byte wrote:

Whatever happened to buying a home (for life) and not just a house "just to get a foot on the property ladder"?

I hate moving house with a passion, and when I move again, I intend it to be my last time moving, unless there is an extreme reason for me to do so!

I'm with you on that one. This will be my 3rd move in 3 and a half years and my son begged me for it to be the last time so when i do buy a house please god it will be for keeps unless there is something wrong with the house or the area etc but i should know that before i move in!!

Jonnie_Onion

byte wrote:

Whatever happened to buying a home (for life) and not just a house "just to get a foot on the property ladder"?

I hate moving house with a passion, and when I move again, I intend it to be my last time moving, unless there is an extreme reason for me to do so!

Unfortunately most people can't afford a suitable home for life when the pressure to buy first takes hold.

jdivision

There is no cost to the local authority if the affordable house price falls from its full market value unless it falls below the price at which it was sold to the affordable housing owner who is then liable for the difference. If the homeowner sells on at a price above which he or she paid for the property, the local authority makes a profit.
JupiterKid, turning down affordable housing usually has nothing to do with wait and see approach. It's to do with finding the right property. I bought my apartment while residential prices were still rising but I still had turned down two others before that one.

Jonnie_Onion

Of course there's a cost to the local authority. Normally if a house is sold in the first 10 years they get the full clawback - the difference between what they paid the develper and what the buyer paid the local authority.

In the case of negative equity this clawback is reduced, so they lose money.

jdivision

In almost all cases, the affordable homes buyer pays what the local authority paid for the house plus an administration charge. The clawback is to discourage profiteering, nothing else.

starky

smccarrick wrote:

Most people who have bought in the very recent past have gotten shoebox apartments that are essentially unsaleable at any price whatsoever.

Was some one holding a gun to there heads at the time? No, they made the choice thinking that they were also going cash in on the property madness that has gone on here, it was a risk, thus far it has not paid off, not to say it wont in time of course.
I disagree about not being able to sell at any price what so ever, they can of course sell and take the negative equity hit if they cant afford to keep up a mortgage or really want to get out of the property market, of course they will end up owning a small fortune, but put your hand in the property market fire and you may get your fingers burnt (sound familiar?? try London 1980’s), every one has been warned about this happening for years, but the “It wont happen here, it just cant, Ireland is totally different to that, blah blah blah” attitude has kept people disillusioned

smccarrick wrote:

That is a bit ridiculous, why should someone who gets assistance towards buying a property have this sort of safety net, when everyone else is facing the prospect of negative equity and has no recourse to these sort of schemes.

Now hang on a minute, you are missing the point, Affordable housing is not there so people can make a quick buck, its there for people who genuinely want to own there own home, and live there long term. Although I appreciate this may be an alien concept in this country, do you not buy a house to make 100k a year?? Affordable housing schemes are stringent and ridged in there structure and there is no possible way to make money from them in the short term. Go and have a go at the developers/solicitors/auctioneers/investors, and leave the pittance of Affordable home buyers out of it, its developers/solicitors/auctioneers/investors and their pure greed that has caused this property mess.

podge018

Seems to be lots of misconceptions here.

I bought a 2 bed apartment for 155k which had a market value of 310k at the time.

If I sell it tomorrow for 310k everyone is happy.

If I sell it tomorrow for 350k I make 20k, and the council makes 20k.

If I sell it for 280k (most likely!) nobody makes a loss.

If I sell it for 155k nobody makes a loss.

If I sell it for 140k I am then liable for the 15k difference.

I have yet to see any predictions by people claiming that property value will fall to 50% of the current level so I reckon we're fine.

iguana

podge018 wrote:

If I sell it for 280k (most likely!) nobody makes a loss.

If I sell it for 155k nobody makes a loss.

So someone who bought an affordable house has no incentive to get the highest price possible in a falling market. And if they really want to sell that apartment (say they've lost their job but have been offered another one abroad) what is to stop them just putting it on the market for €155k to get a quick sale and their money back even though there might be a few willing buyers at €200k? So the council is down €65k. That can't be right.