Affordable House - don't want it anymore.

podge018

Hi

I bought an apartment from my local authority under the affordable housing scheme in 2006. It was valued at €300k, (I laughed my ass off when I seen that letter recently) and paid €150k for it. The mortgage is with the authority, not a bank. I was delighted at the time and lived there happily for 7 years.

Last year myself and my partner moved into her parents, saved like maniacs and then bought a house together where we want to stay forever. It took a bit of manoeuvring to get the bank to agree to approving my side of things with the apartment but we got around all that eventually.

I have somebody renting the apartment and it's just covering the mortgage + management fees at the moment. I could get €200+ more renting it but I know this person well and am happy that they are looking after the place. She has recently informed me however that she is looking to rent a house now and has given me a couple of months notice.

There is probably 125k outstanding on the mortgage and I would guess I would get 95k-100k for it if I was lucky. To be honest, I wouldn't say I'd sell it to easy at all.

The bottom line is I don't want this apartment anymore. If somebody could guarantee me they'd rent it for another 20 years I'd be okay with it, but I really don't want the hassle of looking for tenants, collecting rent, paying for maintenance etc etc. I just want rid really, I don't care that I can make money on it at the moment with it being a great time to rent out property.

Will the local authority buy the apartment back from me?
Will they put somebody in it renting long term?
Can I just give the keys back and say good luck?

I don't want to go to them yet as I'd rather not flag up a few things with them. They never gave me permission to rent it out, but from what I've heard have since allowed this, or turned a blind eye to it at least.

Any advice on what people in similar situations have done?

ted1

up the rent and use the added income to hire a property management company.

are you declaring your income?

Kenno90

Can you not but it on the market and see how it goes?

An apartment for 95-100k could be very attractive depending on the location etc

Baby01032012

podge018 wrote: »

Hi

I bought an apartment from my local authority under the affordable housing scheme in 2006. It was valued at €300k, (I laughed my ass off when I seen that letter recently) and paid €150k for it. The mortgage is with the authority, not a bank. I was delighted at the time and lived there happily for 7 years.

Last year myself and my partner moved into her parents, saved like maniacs and then bought a house together where we want to stay forever. It took a bit of manoeuvring to get the bank to agree to approving my side of things with the apartment but we got around all that eventually.

I have somebody renting the apartment and it's just covering the mortgage + management fees at the moment. I could get €200+ more renting it but I know this person well and am happy that they are looking after the place. She has recently informed me however that she is looking to rent a house now and has given me a couple of months notice.

There is probably 125k outstanding on the mortgage and I would guess I would get 95k-100k for it if I was lucky. To be honest, I wouldn't say I'd sell it to easy at all.

The bottom line is I don't want this apartment anymore. If somebody could guarantee me they'd rent it for another 20 years I'd be okay with it, but I really don't want the hassle of looking for tenants, collecting rent, paying for maintenance etc etc. I just want rid really, I don't care that I can make money on it at the moment with it being a great time to rent out property.

Will the local authority buy the apartment back from me?
Will they put somebody in it renting long term?
Can I just give the keys back and say good luck?

I don't want to go to them yet as I'd rather not flag up a few things with them. They never gave me permission to rent it out, but from what I've heard have since allowed this, or turned a blind eye to it at least.

Any advice on what people in similar situations have done?

How can you sell a property that you don't own? Are you not joint owners with the council? I presume you would need permission from them to sell. Is there not clawback of some of the 150k that your apapartment was discounted by?

So can you afford mortgage plus negative equity on affordable house if you were allowed sell it?

Is tenancy registered, are you paying tax on this additional income...

Moonbeam

I am pretty sure that you are in the same boat as the rest of us that bought houses many years ago and now have families and need more space and can not sell.
You are at the advantage though that your loss is not on the 300k .
I would put it on the market and see how it goes or maybe rent it under the RAS scheme.

the_syco

podge018 wrote: »

Hi

I bought an apartment from my local authority under the affordable housing scheme in 2006. It was valued at €300k, (I laughed my ass off when I seen that letter recently) and paid €150k for it. The mortgage is with the authority, not a bank.

It's my understanding that should you sell the house, you'll have to pay the €150k that they put up.

podge018

Baby01032012 wrote: »

How can you sell a property that you don't own? Are you not joint owners with the council? I presume you would need permission from them to sell. Is there not clawback of some of the 150k that your apapartment was discounted by?

So can you afford mortgage plus negative equity on affordable house if you were allowed sell it?

Is tenancy registered, are you paying tax on this additional income...

I do own it, the council are not joint owners.

There's only clawback on any amount I sell it for over 300k.

Yes I could afford mortgage + NE but selling it isn't going to happen any time soon imo.

Yes it's registered etc.

Now I've answered all those (unncessary) questions any chance I might get some to mine?

TheDriver

they are necessary questions because I don't see how any organisation is going to let someone simply walk away from their property and debts, especially if you can afford it. Have you approached the council regarding modified payments etc

knucklehead6

podge018 wrote: »

I do own it, the council are not joint owners.

There's only clawback on any amount I sell it for over 300k.

Yes I could afford mortgage + NE but selling it isn't going to happen any time soon imo.

Yes it's registered etc.

Now I've answered all those (unncessary) questions any chance I might get some to mine?

if you only paid 150 for it and the place was valued at 300, then i hate to be the one to tell you but the council own half of it.

Leroy42

Not really sure what question you are asking.

You could simply call the council and tell them the situation and they will tell you what needs to be done.

I think the main problem is that many posters won't exactly like the fact that you got a cut price house, rented it out, bought your own and now are asking can you just give the keys back!

As you say, you don't want to flag things up, so basically you are looking for advice to avoid following the rules. I think that's against the charter and even if it isn't its a bit rich of you to have such an attitude to those that did reply.

Will the local authority buy the apartment back from me? they might for 95k or whatever the rest of the market is willing to pay.
Will they put somebody in it renting long term? Anybody can put their property up to be rented by the council. However, since you were happy to forego €200 pm to have a reliable, caring renter adjusting to renting it to anybody the council wants seems a stretch. (not sayuing that council tennant will not look after it but rather you have no control over who rents it)
Can I just give the keys back and say good luck? Give the keys back to who. You got a half price home and now you've got your owen house the coucil should just take it back? Are you being serious? If you give the keys back do you not think the council will look for the balance of the mortgage?

Ray Palmer

I thought you were not allowed rent these out unless special exemption was applied for? Aren't you paying rent to the council on the half they own?

podge018

They don't own half of it. I didn't think I'd have to go into the workings of a dead scheme but.. builders were obliged to give 10% (I think) of new developments over to the Council for use in the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes (2 different schemes btw). The properties didn't cost the council a penny afaik. The valuation of 300k was purely administrative, nobody paid the difference between it and what I paid. I fully own it.

GetWithIt

knucklehead6 wrote: »

if you only paid 150 for it and the place was valued at 300, then i hate to be the one to tell you but the council own half of it.

The OP is correct. That was simply the way the Affordable Housing scheme was constructed.

Now a "value" of 300K is what is probably the questionable element. When a lot of these were flogged there were notional values assigned to them. Even in the bubble these values were at odds with what the market would bear.

Fairly well documented here:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=82145

kitten_k

i got my home through the affordable housing scheme too (mortgage with a bank). As far as I am aware I am not allowed to rent it to anybody else and if I sell up before a certain amount of time I need to pay a percentage to Dublin City Council.

ted1

knucklehead6 wrote: »

if you only paid 150 for it and the place was valued at 300, then i hate to be the one to tell you but the council own half of it.

no that is shared ownership.this is affordable housing. 20% of all housing developments was for social housing, the council got these and sold them on at cost, so the council has no interest, however to stop profiteering they put in a claw back.

podge018

I'm asking on the basis of the massive waiting lists for housing I know there is in the area.

It was an affordable housing scheme, meant to advantage people who couldn't afford to get property any other way. The council are not a profit making organisation out to screw their customers.

ted1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I thought you were not allowed rent these out unless special exemption was applied for? Aren't you paying rent to the council on the half they own?

That was a rule however the council do realise that peoples situation has changed and realised that they dropped the ball by selling one and two bed room apartments as "homes" to single or young couples.

I know people who have shared ownership and afffordable houses let out to people on RA. so they are paying rent with one hand and collecting a mortgage with the other.

podge018

ted1 wrote: »

so they are paying rent with one hand and collecting a mortgage with the other.

exactly! It's crazy that they wont take it off my hands.

Ray Palmer

ted1 wrote: »

That was a rule however the council do realise that peoples situation has changed and realised that they dropped the ball by selling one and two bed room apartments as "homes" to single or young couples.

I know people who have shared ownership and afffordable houses let out to people on RA. so they are paying rent with one hand and collecting a mortgage with the other.

I know people doing it too but they believe they are doing so against their agreement. One person I know applied to be allowed to do it after she was warned she had to do it. There was a threat of claw back, I suspect that happened and she didn't tell people.

Not aware you can do it without agreement.

Different organisation paying RA rent than collecting mortgage and rent. DSP do not check with the local councils if they have agreements in place on such properties. Just because people do it doesn't make it correct or remove liability or stamp duty either

Ray Palmer

podge018 wrote: »

exactly! It's crazy that they wont take it off my hands.

Except they aren't

dpofloinn

The builders did have to set aside a % of the homes for the scheme but they could buy out of their obligations. Any way that is besides the point

If you sell your affordable home within 20 years of buying it, you must pay back to the local authority an amount known as the ‘clawback’. If you sell within the first 10 years, you must pay back the full percentage (in your case 50%) from the sale that you got as a discount when you bought your home. If you sell it between 10 and 20 years after purchase then the claw back reduces by 10% every year

If the market value of the home decreases below the original affordable price of the home, and the home is sold at this lower price, then no clawback is payable to the local authority

superleedsdub

I am in a similar situation to the OP. I bought a 1 bed apartment in 2007 off SDCC, I met my now wife in 2008 and moved into her house in 2010.

I contacted the council in 2010 and requested some clarifications on the clawback:

1. If the property is in negative equity there is no clawback, i.e. so in my case I would not owe the council anything if I sold it below what I mortgaged it for in 2007 (not the then market value)
2. If I was to sell the property the council would have to sign off on this
3. I cannot sign up to any long term rental initiatives with the council
4. They were not in a position to buy the property back from me at that point in time (that may have changed)

I put the apartment up for sale and the best offer was €50,000 below what I paid for it, not being able to afford to incur this loss, I then called up the council and asked could I rent it out. After a lengthy process, I was granted special permission from the council and have to apply each year to extend this permission. I basically told them the truth, I was getting married, my wife already had a house, we wanted to have a family and the apartment was too small for this.
As part of this permission, I have to show the council proof that I am not claiming back tax relief at source and that I have registered the tenancy with the PRTB.

I would love to sell the property as it is a pain in the neck, however, I feel I am luckier than alot of people out there with NE properties and am thankful the council agreed to let me rent it out. Luckily for me, the rental market is strong out there.

Just a quick word of warning, I talked to a friend with sources in SDCC and he advised that I do not rent it out without their permission as they check with the PRTB to see if their properties are rented. I have heard many stories of people renting out AH homes without issue, but I would fear that this may catch up on them down the line. As it stands I am fully compliant with revenue and the council so it gives me some sense of relief.

NinjaTruncs

Wasn't there a 10 year period where the council could claw back some of the difference, I think it was a sliding scale where after 10 years there was nothing to return to the council. This was to stop people getting a unit and selling it straight away and pocketing the difference, between AMV and price paid.

If you bought in 2006 you may be best to hold on another 2 years and only move it once that 10 year period is up. Like someone else said, just up the rent and get a property agent to look after it for you.

podge018

Clawback is a non-issue people, cheers.

OldNotWIse

podge018 wrote: »

They don't own half of it. I didn't think I'd have to go into the workings of a dead scheme but.. builders were obliged to give 10% (I think) of new developments over to the Council for use in the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes (2 different schemes btw). The properties didn't cost the council a penny afaik. The valuation of 300k was purely administrative, nobody paid the difference between it and what I paid. I fully own it.

You've paid the full 150k mortgage on it so?

podge018

thanks for your reply superleedsdub, I know I'm going to have to say it to them, but I also know they're allowing it now so what are they going to do if they check with the PRTB? Force me to move back in.

Looks like my best bet is to hang onto it for a while longer until my outstanding loan comes into line with a more realistic selling price.

I do think there's a case to be made to local representatives about this though. Perfectly fine 2 bed apartment in a decent area, be ideal for a single parent with up to 2 kids.

podge018

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You've paid the full 150k mortgage on it so?

nice one smartarse, you know what I meant. What a horrible place this is really, must be some people stung badly with their properties and can't wait to pounce on others. I asked a few questions re. a council's chances of taking this off my hands or whatever, and I get barraged with people asking me if I'm paying tax on the income and straining to tell me (incorrectly) that I half own the place. Some shower.

mikom

podge018 wrote: »

nice one smartarse, you know what I meant. What a horrible place this is really, must be some people stung badly with their properties and can't wait to pounce on others. I asked a few questions and I get barraged with people asking me if I'm paying tax on the income and straining to tell me (incorrectly) that I half own the place. Some shower.

You should ask boards.ie for your money back.

podge018

I don't want any money, couldn't be further from the truth. Like I said I could be making a profit on the rent at the moment. I paid a £10,000 deposit, kitted out the shell of a property it was, have paid the mortgage for 8 years and I'm willing to hand it all back just to forget about it and write it off as a lesson learned.

Leroy42

Podge018, just because you don't like the answers no need to get snarky.

You have been given plenty of good advice. Why do you feel the council should take it off your hands?

As you have said, you own the property but for some reason you think the council should come to your aid simply because the house doesn't suit you anymore.

Should everybody be allowed to do this. What about the other people who paid in full for the property and now want to move. Should the council buy that as well?

You have said in our OP that you don't want the hassle of renting it. So you are faced with a simple issue. Either sell the house and find some way to fund the shortfall in the mortgage or hold onto the property until such time as the market prices equals or better the amount owed.

Do you think there is another way?

ted1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I know people doing it too but they believe they are doing so against their agreement. One person I know applied to be allowed to do it after she was warned she had to do it. There was a threat of claw back, I suspect that happened and she didn't tell people.

Not aware you can do it without agreement.

Different organisation paying RA rent than collecting mortgage and rent. DSP do not check with the local councils if they have agreements in place on such properties. Just because people do it doesn't make it correct or remove liability or stamp duty either

Dublin city pay for my wifes tenant and collect the mortgage off my wife.

She had the house before we were married, they know its rented. they know that they are paying the rent. They know if she sold it she couldn't pay them back. They know that there is no alternative.

what has stamp duty go to do with it? that has being paid.

why would they check if an arrangement is in place?

OldNotWIse

podge018 wrote: »

I don't want any money, couldn't be further from the truth. Like I said I could be making a profit on the rent at the moment. I paid a £10,000 deposit, kitted out the shell of a property it was, have paid the mortgage for 8 years and I'm willing to hand it all back just to forget about it and write it off as a lesson learned.

You owe more than its worth, so how is "handing it all back" doing anyone a favour? You would essentially just be walking away from your debt.

The_Morrigan

I would appreciate if people would adhere to the charter and remain civil in here.

fricatus

podge018 wrote: »

Like I said I could be making a profit on the rent at the moment.

Well why don't you then? Not being smart, but this seems like the wisest course of action if what you say is true.

Contact a management company and tell them you want them to let it out for you. Ring around a few places as some give you a better deal than others.

I would go with one that takes a fixed percentage of the rent every month, rather than the first month's rent and then a percentage (as this acts as an incentive to bring in a string of short-term tenancies rather than one stable long-term one).

I understand not wanting to have to deal with the hassle, but this way, the only hassle is the tax return, and there's no avoiding that!

podge018

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You owe more than its worth, so how is "handing it all back" doing anyone a favour? You would essentially just be walking away from your debt.

People need housing.
The council haven't enough.
I don't need this one.
They sold it to me after paying €0 for it.
They are profiting from me on the back of a scheme designed to help people.
I know I am looking for a get out of jail free card, and I could go into how hard done by I am that they valued the place incorrectly and they shouldn't have given a small apartment to a young lad with his whole life ahead of him boo hoo etc etc, but I'm not, that was my decision and I've learned a lesson.

It would just seem to me to be advantageous to both parties for them to take the keys off me. I know it shounds simplistic and would be great if everyone in a spot of bother could do it, but it's not a bank I'm dealing with, they have no loyalty to shareholders. This was their badly run scheme.

The_Conductor

Guys- Podge018 asked a question- he did not invite your snide comments and abuse. If you don't have information to impart to him- please keep your opinions and sarcasm to a minimum.

Regards,

The_Conductor

Ray Palmer

ted1 wrote: »

Dublin city pay for my wifes tenant and collect the mortgage off my wife.

She had the house before we were married, they know its rented. they know that they are paying the rent. They know if she sold it she couldn't pay them back. They know that there is no alternative.

what has stamp duty go to do with it? that has being paid.

why would they check if an arrangement is in place?

The DSP pay RA after taking it over from the HSE. Neither are the Dublin city Council.

Stamp duty is different for investment properties so if you start renting within a set time stamp duty can and will be clawed back with fines if not declared.

A number of laws have been changed for RA and the tax office to communicate. There is a claw back clause for renting out a discounted property out. RA don't check if this is complied with at the moment. It can happen in the future.

Knowing and agreeing are not the same thing. An officer may know something but they may not inform the other organisation it doesn't mean you are correct or not liable. All I am saying is has this been checked.

Look at this way, a private LL buys a house and rents it out pays higher stamp duty and full price. Your wife paid less stamp duty and less for the house yet can rent it out for the same amount. That is a massive gain with penalties and punishment as that was not why the scheme was set up. Seeing as you can't even see why this is a problem I would certainly be checking compliance with all agreements. To me it sounds like your wife is liable for stamp duty and claw back on the discounted property.

They generally allow it if the person can't afford the property and has to move out. Not so keen on somebody buying a separate property and making a profit off the discount social housing. I am pretty sure you don't get out of this under 10 years.

Leroy42

podge018 wrote: »

People need housing.
The council haven't enough.
I don't need this one.
They sold it to me after paying €0 for it.
They are profiting from me on the back of a scheme designed to help people.
I know I am looking for a get out of jail free card, and I could go into how hard done by I am that they valued the place incorrectly and they shouldn't have given a small apartment to a young lad with his whole life ahead of him boo hoo etc etc, but I'm not, that was my decision and I've learned a lesson.

It would just seem to me to be advantageous to both parties for them to take the keys off me. I know it shounds simplistic and would be great if everyone in a spot of bother could do it, but it's not a bank I'm dealing with, they have no loyalty to shareholders. This was their badly run scheme.

You are right that people need housing
While the council haven't enough this is more to do with no having the resources to afford the houses rather than simply not wanting them
The council did pay for the house. Not directly but part of the planning system we had (if that is not too grand a term for it) was that a certain % of units had to be handed over for social housing. In effect, the rest of the residents have paid an extra cost so that you could have your house at an affordable price. Do you think the builder just gave it away?
They are not profitering at all. In effect they have taken on 50% of the cost. They are down €150k on the deal. If you stay in it long term you get to keep any sale proceeds. If anything you have been the beneficiary of this deal.
You asked them for the apartment, you entered into a legal agreement and you have enjoyed the benefits of that decision for the last 8 years. Exactly how are you hard done by? Anybody else buying the same apartment would now be in NE to the tune of 200K, you are in for roughly 30K. Sounds to me like you got a free gaff for 8 years, and then had 170k debt written off.

it would certainly be advantageous to you. You have to remember that the council have already paid in part for this property(while handing ownership to you) and now you want them to buy you out at an over the market rate. So going in to the deal you were happy for them to reduce the value of the apartment, but on leaving the deal you want them to increase it. WOuld you have been happy if the council wanted 400k for a 300k apartment?

Not sure how you can say the scheme was badly run. You provide no evidence of it. But regardless, what has the running of the scheme got to do with this? The scheme has worked for you and that should be all that matters to you.

ted1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The DSP pay RA after taking it over from the HSE. Neither are the Dublin city Council.

Stamp duty is different for investment properties so if you start renting within a set time stamp duty can and will be clawed back with fines if not declared.

A number of laws have been changed for RA and the tax office to communicate. There is a claw back clause for renting out a discounted property out. RA don't check if this is complied with at the moment. It can happen in the future.

Knowing and agreeing are not the same thing. An officer may know something but they may not inform the other organisation it doesn't mean you are correct or not liable. All I am saying is has this been checked.

Look at this way, a private LL buys a house and rents it out pays higher stamp duty and full price. Your wife paid less stamp duty and less for the house yet can rent it out for the same amount. That is a massive gain with penalties and punishment as that was not why the scheme was set up. Seeing as you can't even see why this is a problem I would certainly be checking compliance with all agreements. To me it sounds like your wife is liable for stamp duty and claw back on the discounted property.

They generally allow it if the person can't afford the property and has to move out. Not so keen on somebody buying a separate property and making a profit off the discount social housing. I am pretty sure you don't get out of this under 10 years.

stamp duty is 1% for both investors and owner occupiers.

No one is talking about selling and making a profit.

My wife and i have recently being audited and are fully tax complaint, we even have piece of paper from revenue that says so. (they had being looking for 37k but ended up issuing a cheque)

DSP may have taking it over, but before they did Dublin City were issuing cheques.

Baby01032012

One of my "unnessary" questions I asked the OP remains unanswered- has the income earned been declared for tax purposes. It is bad enough that the OP thinks just because a council is allowing certain people with adorable housing to let out their houses that it is ok not to seek permission. And the idea that 300k was a notional value.. I wonder how the other 90% that paid the full asking price feel about that

Peterx

The full market value aspect is complicated by the fact that the affordable apartments were not fitted out to the same standard as the ones sold on the open market.
In fact they were not fitted out at all in some cases.

The scheme was a well meaning one on the government's part which was badly executed by councils who were bullied by developers who despised it and here we have the results.

On a wider planning point, no planning authority should have allowed one bed apartments be available to anyone bar student accommodation and elderly sheltered+supported accommodation.
As to the OP's situation, the response from your fellow AH seems to be the approach. Tell the council, get agreement to rent it, become tax and PRTB compliant and carry on.

superleedsdub

podge018 wrote: »

thanks for your reply superleedsdub, I know I'm going to have to say it to them, but I also know they're allowing it now so what are they going to do if they check with the PRTB? Force me to move back in.

One thing the council could do is check with revenue to see if you are still claiming back mortgage interest relief on the property and if you paid the NPPR.
If you are fully compliant to date with Revenue, then the council may be bothered taking further action. I`m not sure what your tax situation is regarding the property (none of my business :-) ) but in my opinion it is very beneficial for anyone in this situation to declare your income on the property and deduct ALL the expenses that revenue allow.

Ray Palmer

ted1 wrote: »

stamp duty is 1% for both investors and owner occupiers.

No one is talking about selling and making a profit.

My wife and i have recently being audited and are fully tax complaint, we even have piece of paper from revenue that says so. (they had being looking for 37k but ended up issuing a cheque)

DSP may have taking it over, but before they did Dublin City were issuing cheques.

1% now not then, they can claw back the stamp duty that should have been paid. The profit has and is in the rent. Profit it or not you weren't meant to rent the property out ever. Allowances were made for those in distress and you and your wife would not qualify.

Dublin city council do not issue the cheques and never have. It was the HSE before DSP.

I doubt you have a tax compliance cert based on what you have being saying as you are still unaware of the system.

Even if you take all the money out of it and the regulation do you not see how you did not enter into the spirit of the agreement. Certainly not entering into the spirit of what it was for.

podge018

Baby01032012 wrote: »

One of my "unnessary" questions I asked the OP remains unanswered- has the income earned been declared for tax purposes. It is bad enough that the OP thinks just because a council is allowing certain people with adorable housing to let out their houses that it is ok not to seek permission. And the idea that 300k was a notional value.. I wonder how the other 90% that paid the full asking price feel about that

It was answered. Yes. Can you answer me now, what does it matter to the issue at hand?

ted1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

1% now not then, they can claw back the stamp duty that should have been paid. The profit has and is in the rent. Profit it or not you weren't meant to rent the property out ever. Allowances were made for those in distress and you and your wife would not qualify.

Dublin city council do not issue the cheques and never have. It was the HSE before DSP.

I doubt you have a tax compliance cert based on what you have being saying as you are still unaware of the system.

Even if you take all the money out of it and the regulation do you not see how you did not enter into the spirit of the agreement. Certainly not entering into the spirit of what it was for.

you can talk about the spirit all you want, but you don't seem to have actual working knowledge of the scheme.


Here are the facts.

The scheme enabled those on low incomes to purchase homes.
being low income would generally apply that the participants weren't the brightest or were young and naive.
the apartments and houses on offer were mostly 1 and 2 bedrooms, they also were the smaller ones in each block, the runt of the litter one might say.

The council selling a 1 or 2 bed is not in the spirit of the scheme as its meant to be a a "home"

people were entered into 20 year contracts, but yet the application was based on their current situation. So what 3 beds that were on the scheme were not offered to single people.

these single people have since had kids got married and often the partner may have their own property, so there is no need for the existing one that no longer meet the needs of the family to be a home.

now due to the fact that the market has nose dived there is no way for the shoe box to be sold, so either its rented out and the mortgage is paid or its left empty and the mortgage is not paid.


And tell me this do yo work for revenue or are you tax specialist? because I can guarantee you that myself and my wife are 100% tax complaint as per recent audit.

trinewbie

Peterx wrote: »

The full market value aspect is complicated by the fact that the affordable apartments were not fitted out to the same standard as the ones sold on the open market.
In fact they were not fitted out at all in some cases.

The scheme was a well meaning one on the government's part which was badly executed by councils who were bullied by developers who despised it and here we have the results.

On a wider planning point, no planning authority should have allowed one bed apartments be available to anyone bar student accommodation and elderly sheltered+supported accommodation.
As to the OP's situation, the response from your fellow AH seems to be the approach. Tell the council, get agreement to rent it, become tax and PRTB compliant and carry on.

Some were kitted out to the exact same spec as those sold on the open market. Myself and partner purchased apartment in Ballintyre through the affordable housing scheme in 2008, at a purchase price of e275K which was the same finish spec as those sold at e460k+ on the open market. The developers used the AH scheme to get rid of units which were less desirable to the open market, north facing, ground floor, fronting out onto carparks etc.

We recently sold the apartment as we are planning on starting a family and need more room than that offered by a two bed apartment. Despite the fact we purchased at 275k, we were still in a significant amount of negative equity. We were lucky to be in the position to sell, use savings to clear the negative equity and draw a line under it and move on. We lost around 50k on this venture, but a 50k hit is a whole lot more palatable than the 230K plus that we would have had to take if we had purchased at an open market rate initially.

I genuinely feel sorry for good friends who purchased in the same block of apartments as us at the open market price, friends who are now looking to start families and need space, but are trapped due to the massive negative equity they are in. They don’t have the option of handing the keys back and walking away from their debt just because they don’t want the place anymore.
OP, if you have had the initiative to save up a lump sum to purchase a new house, why not do the same again to clear any NE that you might be left in after sale of the apartment?

AlekSmart

trinewbie wrote: »

.

I genuinely feel sorry for good friends who purchased in the same block of apartments as us at the open market price, friends who are now looking to start families and need space, but are trapped due to the massive negative equity they are in. They don’t have the option of handing the keys back and walking away from their debt just because they don’t want the place anymore.
OP, if you have had the initiative to save up a lump sum to purchase a new house, why not do the same again to clear any NE that you might be left in after sale of the apartment?

Agreed trinewbie,and that still gets me wondering what do such people do in the rest of Europe...what specific elements in Mainland European Social Systems has allowed,and continues to allow,Family life to prosper without a profusion of 3-Bed Semi-D's ?

This thread is a real eye-opener in so many ways...:)

The_Conductor

AlekSmart wrote: »

what specific elements in Mainland European Social Systems has allowed,and continues to allow,Family life to prosper without a profusion of 3-Bed Semi-D's ?

That would be- people predominantly rent.
Accommodation is predominantly apartments.
An average 2 bed apartment in France or Germany is over 60% bigger than an average Irish 2 bed apartment.
In France or Germany- facilities and amenities are provided for those with young families- such as playgrounds on-site for children, good public transport, access to local schools (I could go on and on)

In Ireland we allowed silly building regulations that allowed the building of a multitude of tiny inappropriate apartments, in areas where people don't want to live- with population densities such that it is uneconomic to provide reasonable public services. We have every little village playing parochial politics with the next village over, each county competing with every other county- and the rest of the country against Dublin. The whole Irish psyche is structured in such a way that we are ungovernable, no-one thinks of the bigger picture- what is good for Ireland as a whole- and parish pump politics rules supreme.

Until such time as the political system is dismantled, so there is no 'our man in Leinster House' attitude- we're screwed.

OldNotWIse

The_Conductor wrote: »

That would be- people predominantly rent.
Accommodation is predominantly apartments.
An average 2 bed apartment in France or Germany is over 60% bigger than an average Irish 2 bed apartment.
In France or Germany- facilities and amenities are provided for those with young families- such as playgrounds on-site for children, good public transport, access to local schools (I could go on and on)

In Ireland we allowed silly building regulations that allowed the building of a multitude of tiny inappropriate apartments, in areas where people don't want to live- with population densities such that it is uneconomic to provide reasonable public services. We have every little village playing parochial politics with the next village over, each county competing with every other county- and the rest of the country against Dublin. The whole Irish psyche is structured in such a way that we are ungovernable, no-one thinks of the bigger picture- what is good for Ireland as a whole- and parish pump politics rules supreme.

Until such time as the political system is dismantled, so there is no 'our man in Leinster House' attitude- we're screwed.

I was in Brazil with the OH a while back. The famiy have an apartment. Seemed normal enough going in, but when you actually got in, like you said, it was huge. No boxrooms or galley kitchens or tiny bathrooms where you couldn't swing a cat. What really impressed me was they have a communal living area downstairs with a large indoor and outdoor recreation area with kitchen, barbeque area, pool, play area for the kids etc that can be booked by residents for use in advance for parties, bbq's etc. Pretty impressive but normal apparently. Then again, they pay huge maintenance fees, which is something we dont pay here.

Rachiee

Wait til you are in there the ten years then you don't have to pay any money back to the council upon selling, yes you have the hassle of renting it out for the next few years but it will make the selling a lot less complicated when you don't have to contend with the clawback. Pretty sure you are not supposed to be renting those places out but as has been mentioned the scheme is no longer in operation so its probably nothing to worry about.

gazzer

kitten_k wrote: »

i got my home through the affordable housing scheme too (mortgage with a bank). As far as I am aware I am not allowed to rent it to anybody else and if I sell up before a certain amount of time I need to pay a percentage to Dublin City Council.

I think you only pay a percentage back if a profit is made. e .g if you bought the house from the council for €150,000 and sold it for €200,000 the council get some of the profit but if you sell for €100,000 (if that is the market value) then you dont have to give the council any money