Are we first time buyers?

Hev41

Myself and my husband are now in our mid-late 30s and don't think there's any prospect of owning a property. We're just getting back on our feet and hoping to build up savings but will never get 20% of a house that will be suitable for our family. We are looking the local council home loan as a possibility but don't think we'll be first time buyers.

I owned a property which I sold for very little profit (a couple of thousand) in 2008, a year after we married. My parents bought it in 2002 (I paid the mortgage but was in parents' names) and then it was a family transfer to me in 2004 when the mortgage was in my name.

mr_seer

Hev41 wrote: »

Myself and my husband are now in our mid-late 30s and don't think there's any prospect of owning a property. We're just getting back on our feet and hoping to build up savings but will never get 20% of a house that will be suitable for our family. We are looking the local council home loan as a possibility but don't think we'll be first time buyers.

I owned a property which I sold for very little profit (a couple of thousand) in 2008, a year after we married. My parents bought it in 2002 (I paid the mortgage but was in parents' names) and then it was a family transfer to me in 2004 when the mortgage was in my name.

I'm afraid you aren't Hev. If either borrower ever owned a property previously then both are non FTBs

Glenbhoy

mr_seer wrote: »

I'm afraid you aren't Hev. If either borrower ever owned a property previously then both are non FTBs

According to the legislation your application can't be treated as a ftb application, which really serves to highlight the pitfalls of succumbing to populism with this differential treatment of ftb's. Shame too as it was so nearly something which was done right for once.
If they wanted to differentiate (which is a bad idea in any case), instead of using the revenue definition of a ftb as they have done, they should have simply said applicants who currently own a property, although really, if they felt the need to differentiate it should have been on valuations alone, eg 10% below 200, 15 below 300 etc.
Using the revenue definition is thoughtless and smacks of laziness imo, that definition is a legacy from when ftb's saved money on stamp duty, ftb grant and the like. (Apologies for the rant).

TrishSimon

You can't be classified as a FTB so therefore would be in the 20% bracket, the council loan you are talking about is called the Home Choice Loan and I spoke to a broker about it last week and he said although its there he hasn't dealt with them on mortgages for 18 months as they are very difficult to deal with and hardly give out any mortgages however he did say he and some other brokers were having a meeting about the home choice loan.
Your best bet would be to go and get some advice from broker and or bank and see what they think.

seamus

“first-time buyer” means, subject to paragraph (2), a borrower to whom no housing loan has ever before been advanced;

It's a pity that the mortgage had been transferred to you in 2004. If you'd continued to just pay the mortgage without transferring it, you would qualify as a FTB.

If we had a crystal ball though...

MarkAnthony

Back in the day we (wife and I) managed to get a mortgage where I was liable for the mortgage but not the property owner, this was a blatant stamp duty dodge.

I suspect things have been well tightened up at this stage but perhaps worth exploring.

suds1984

In my case, I've been gifted a house in the past but have never had a mortgage in my name- would I be considered a first time buyer even thou I already own a property?

seamus

suds1984 wrote: »

In my case, I've been gifted a house in the past but have never had a mortgage in my name- would I be considered a first time buyer even thou I already own a property?

For the purposes of getting a mortgage, yes.

highgiant1985

seamus wrote: »

For the purposes of getting a mortgage, yes.

If the property was registered in the posters name they are not a first time buyer. This would mean for the purposes of mortgage they would not be a first time buyer. They already own a property the bank / revenue will not see them as a first time buyer.

BOI Link: https://personalbanking.bankofireland.com/borrow/mortgages/faq/

A First Time Buyer is defined as a person who has never before, either on his or her own or with others, purchased a house, a site to build a house, or an apartment, in Ireland or abroad. In the case of a joint application, both parties must be First Time Buyers for the mortgage to be a First Time Buyer mortgage.

Open to correction if you can highlight why you believe they would be assessed otherwise.

seamus

highgiant1985 wrote: »

If the property was registered in the posters name they are not a first time buyer. This would mean for the purposes of mortgage they would not be a first time buyer. They already own a property the bank / revenue will not see them as a first time buyer.

Open to correction if you can highlight why you believe they would be assessed otherwise.

As in my post above, the new lending regulations state that:

“first-time buyer” means, subject to paragraph (2), a borrower to whom no housing loan has ever before been advanced;

Someone who has owned a property, either because it was gifted to them, or purchased outright, is a FTB for the purposes of the new lending regulations.

Of course, the banks are free to have their own definition of what a FTB is. But as there are no longer any government-backed incentives for FTBs, the above definition is the only one that applies anymore.

However, even Revenue's own defunct definition applies to this guy: http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/stamp-duty/certificates/first-time-buyer.html
In Revenue's eyes someone who has owned a house but never purchased nor built one, is a FTB.

MouseTail

highgiant1985 wrote: »

If the property was registered in the posters name they are not a first time buyer. This would mean for the purposes of mortgage they would not be a first time buyer. They already own a property the bank / revenue will not see them as a first time buyer.

Open to correction if you can highlight why you believe they would be assessed otherwise.

They are a first time buyer. They have never purchased a property. Revenue definition here http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/stamp-duty/certificates/first-time-buyer.html

highgiant1985

MouseTail wrote: »

They are a first time buyer. They have never purchased a property. Revenue definition here http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/stamp-duty/certificates/first-time-buyer.html

Possibly lack of knowledge on my part...

but even though the property is being gifted to the person surely they have to register the property against their name as part of the gifting process. In my mind that is the purchasing element. The fact that someone else pays or they bought outright with cash makes no difference. There is a transfer of ownership with the poster becoming the new owner. Therefore there was a sale and purchase.

I'm no expert on this so could well be wrong but just giving my thoughts on how I see it.

I've read through that revenue link. I don't see where in particular you can say that says this poster is exempt..

I get my view from

"who has not on any previous occasion, either individually or jointly, purchased or built on his/her own behalf a house (in Ireland or abroad) and"

The person completed a purchase by transfer of ownership in my view.

highgiant1985

seamus wrote: »

As in my post above, the new lending regulations state that:

Someone who has owned a property, either because it was gifted to them, or purchased outright, is a FTB for the purposes of the new lending regulations.

Of course, the banks are free to have their own definition of what a FTB is. But as there are no longer any government-backed incentives for FTBs, the above definition is the only one that applies anymore.

However, even Revenue's own defunct definition applies to this guy: http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/stamp-duty/certificates/first-time-buyer.html
In Revenue's eyes someone who has owned a house but never purchased nor built one, is a FTB.

OK understand where you're coming from and fair enough on the new lending regulations quote but (late edit to my post above) the BOI link shows the first time buyer is someone who has not purchased property before. That is the bank view of it. If that's the bank view then it doesn't matter how that was financed. If the property was gifted is there not a transfer of ownership to the poster? In my view by completing that transfer of ownership the poster has purchased the house. Regardless of if the person was gifted the property or purchased outright they would need to complete the purchase of the property themselves.

Again I'm open to correction but I don't see any detail in the revenue link mentioned for this particular case.

highgiant1985

summary: Poster is best to check it with the bank. Some posters think they will be seen as a first time buyer. I have doubts but hope for posters sake I'm wrong.

MouseTail

You are wrong highgiant, a transfer of ownership does not equal a purchase of property.

cerastes

Hev41 wrote: »

Myself and my husband are now in our mid-late 30s and don't think there's any prospect of owning a property. We're just getting back on our feet and hoping to build up savings but will never get 20% of a house that will be suitable for our family. We are looking the local council home loan as a possibility but don't think we'll be first time buyers.

I owned a property which I sold for very little profit (a couple of thousand) in 2008, a year after we married. My parents bought it in 2002 (I paid the mortgage but was in parents' names) and then it was a family transfer to me in 2004 when the mortgage was in my name.

Had prices dropped so much by 08?
I cant see how a house bought in 02 was only worth marginally more after costs in 08, while many houses werent being sold as prices hadnt dropped or people hoped they wouldnt fall much more, Id thought at that point they still had not fallen, until 10/11.
I thought the low was 12/13. My own house fell quite a bit in price, but to twice what it cost rather than 4 times at the peak.
I know this may have been dependant on location and circumstances, but why did you decide to sell?