nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2017-21 help to buy scheme - megathread. All help to buy discussion here please

PedroDublin

Hello everyone, what do you think the purchase date mean on the new help to buy scheme? Contracts signed by buyers, contracts received, mortgage withdrawal, closing date..... I have seen different things on different news

Find more posts tagged with

new house

help to buy

first time buyer grant

htb

Quick Links

Comments

Eireann81

flashforward wrote: »

Does anyone know when this will be clarified? When will an official document be released for this?

The bill defines a qualifying residence as follows:

‘qualifying residence’ means a new building which was not previously
used, or suitable for use, as a dwelling, and—
(a) which is occupied as the sole or main residence of a first-time
purchaser,
(b) in respect of which the construction work is subject to the rate of
tax specified in section 46(1)(c) of the Value-Added Tax
Consolidation Act 2010, and
(c) where the purchase value is not greater than €600,000;

Source: http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/161020%20Finance%20Bill%202016.pdf

CramCycle

flashforward wrote: »

Does anyone know when this will be clarified? When will an official document be released for this?

It seemed to be the clear implication that this would be the way it would happen. It would be the one huge benefit if it inspired some building companies to buy up ghost estates and unfinished houses cheap and finsh them off. Certainly be far quicker than complete new builds if a few people pull the finger out.

flashforward

Eireann81 wrote: »

flashforward wrote: »

Does anyone know when this will be clarified? When will an official document be released for this?

The bill defines a qualifying residence as follows:

qualifying residence means a new building which was not previously
used, or suitable for use, as a dwelling, and
(a) which is occupied as the sole or main residence of a first-time
purchaser,
(b) in respect of which the construction work is subject to the rate of
tax specified in section 46(1)(c) of the Value-Added Tax
Consolidation Act 2010, and
(c) where the purchase value is not greater than 600,000;

Source: http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/161020%20Finance%20Bill%202016.pdf

A 'new building' confuses me here. There are a lot of unfinished house (in estates and also detached countryside dwellings) from the mid-late 2000's.
Do these count as 'new' houses in this case?
I'm also not clear what impact clause B would have with regards to an unfinished house?

athtrasna

The bill is published but won't be voted on for some time and changes will be made at committee stage. I wouldn't get too hung up on individual clauses at this stage, further changes to this scheme have already been signalled.

cronos

I'm worried I'm going to get a bit screwed for having saved too much. Was hoping to take a 70% LTV then pay some more with lump sums.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1024/826453-help-to-buy-scheme/

Michael D Not Higgins

cronos wrote: »

I'm worried I'm going to get a bit screwed for having saved too much. Was hoping to take a 70% LTV then pay some more with lump sums.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1024/826453-help-to-buy-scheme/

I still haven't heard of any way in which they would stop someone doing that. In effect the only limit is the person's income and qualify for the mortgage on the LTI of 3.5.

cronos

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I still haven't heard of any way in which they would stop someone doing that. In effect the only limit is the person's income and qualify for the mortgage on the LTI of 3.5.

Neither have I. However I asked the bank about it and they seemed to suggest that it may come. Here's what they said.

"The finite detail of how the tax rebate is going to be rolled out, and processed by the Pillar Banks has yet to outlined. I'm sure there will be stringent guidelines that will need to be adhered to in order to avail of the rebate, which may address you query, and the scenario put forward. Unfortunately, we are unable to give you a more constructive reply to your query, until the Central Bank provides us with further detail."

The_Conductor

cronos wrote: »

I'm worried I'm going to get a bit screwed for having saved too much. Was hoping to take a 70% LTV then pay some more with lump sums.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1024/826453-help-to-buy-scheme/

Simples- get the lender to add an early redemption clause into the mortgage to enable you to part redeem the mortgage at your leisure after its been drawn down (but make sure its in keeping with the LTV limits (suggested as a lowest of 70%) at the outset.

The aim of this- is to encourage house building- its almost a coincidence that its politically being sold as a 'First-Time-Buyer' grant- however, its an excellent vote buying ploy..........

We need to construct roughly 10 times our current construction rate number of properties per annum- to provide a sustainable number of properties (i.e. immediately we need about 35k properties- tapering down to 22-25k after 35k units are delivered for approx 4-5 years).

The 20k incentive will push up demand for the limited current supply of units- adding to their price- and enabling developers access funding to actually start building again.

The big thing that is going to happen right here, right now- is a massive cohort of prospective first time buyers are about to discover there is nothing for them to buy- so extra 20k in their hands or not- they simply aren't going to have anything to spend it on- and are going to clamour to their local politicians to have the scheme relaxed to enable them to buy second hand properties (when the whole knux of the scheme is to give construction of residential dwellings a good kick in gonads).

I'm curious as to what the Central Bank are going to come out with - but it was incredibly short sighted of the Minister not to discuss the scheme with them in detail before announcing it in the budget- what the hell did the Minister think he was doing?

The days of the Central Bank rolling over and doing what the politicians of the day want them to do- and act as a political rubber stamping shop- are over- and for that we should applaud them.

cronos

The_Conductor wrote: »

Simples- get the lender to add an early redemption clause into the mortgage to enable you to part redeem the mortgage at your leisure after its been drawn down (but make sure its in keeping with the LTV limits (suggested as a lowest of 70%) at the outset.

The aim of this- is to encourage house building- its almost a coincidence that its politically being sold as a 'First-Time-Buyer' grant- however, its an excellent vote buying ploy..........

We need to construct roughly 10 times our current construction rate number of properties per annum- to provide a sustainable number of properties (i.e. immediately we need about 35k properties- tapering down to 22-25k after 35k units are delivered for approx 4-5 years).

The 20k incentive will push up demand for the limited current supply of units- adding to their price- and enabling developers access funding to actually start building again.

The big thing that is going to happen right here, right now- is a massive cohort of prospective first time buyers are about to discover there is nothing for them to buy- so extra 20k in their hands or not- they simply aren't going to have anything to spend it on- and are going to clamour to their local politicians to have the scheme relaxed to enable them to buy second hand properties (when the whole knux of the scheme is to give construction of residential dwellings a good kick in gonads).

I'm curious as to what the Central Bank are going to come out with - but it was incredibly short sighted of the Minister not to discuss the scheme with them in detail before announcing it in the budget- what the hell did the Minister think he was doing?

The days of the Central Bank rolling over and doing what the politicians of the day want them to do- and act as a political rubber stamping shop- are over- and for that we should applaud them.

Early redemption clause... Thank you I didn't know what it was called, that's very helpful.

If you saw my post immediately before your post you will see what the bank said to me when I asked about it today. Suggests they think the Central Bank might try to block this approach. Don't see why they would though as it has nothing to do with them really as far as I see it.

Larsso30

Can anyone explain LTV and the 70% please in simple terms?

CramCycle

Larsso30 wrote: »

Can anyone explain LTV and the 70% please in simple terms?

Loan to Value.

Your house is worth 100,000 euro on the open market and this is what you agreed to pay. While sometimes this is not the price it goes for, the bank and valuation nearly always give it the value that you paid overall.

There for if the bank gave you 70,000, and you stumped up the difference of 30,000, the loan to value would be 70%.

If the bank gave you 80,000 and you covered the other 20,000, the LTV would be 80%.

Aph2016

Do we have any idea when there will be more information about this?

ixus

Aph2016 wrote: »

Do we have any idea when there will be more information about this?

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/q-a-will-revenue-pay-help-to-buy-rebate-directly-to-me-1.2847137

The latest. Keep an eye out for Finance Bill adjustments. I search it every other day. Looks like if u sign contract this year, u get tax relief returned, from 2017, builder gets it direct. Unreal.

Aph2016

Thanks for the link.

jjdonegal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/first-time-buyers-scheme-to-be-lowered-to-500-000-1.2853191

pilly

jjdonegal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/first-time-buyers-scheme-to-be-lowered-to-500-000-1.2853191

Still too high at 500k imo

Earleybird

pilly wrote: »

Still too high at 500k imo

Agreed. It's a little less ridiculous though.

morrga

Why should couple A living in North Dublin and work in Company ABC Ltd in the City Centre be entitled to the grant over couple B living in South Dublin also working in ABC Ltd and both earning the same salaries.

Are couple B not entitled to live where they grew up? This is clearly discriminatory based on geographical location.

Houses in North Dublin well below 500k, houses in South Dublin above 500k.

Earleybird

morrga wrote: »

Why should couple A living in North Dublin and work in Company ABC Ltd in the City Centre be entitled to the grant over couple B living in South Dublin also working in ABC Ltd and both earning the same salaries.

Are couple B not entitled to live where they grew up? This is clearly discriminatory based on geographical location.

Houses in North Dublin well below 500k, houses in South Dublin above 500k.

Perfectly entitled, but why do they need to spend more than 500k? Plenty of houses and apartments for less in South Dublin; but if you have the money to buy in a more expensive area then you're less in need of a grant.

CramCycle

pilly wrote: »

Still too high at 500k imo

They would never lower it more as it would either be an admission that they got the number wrong or capitulation that FF are more on the ball.

I would have went lower and down to 350000

pilly

morrga wrote: »

Why should couple A living in North Dublin and work in Company ABC Ltd in the City Centre be entitled to the grant over couple B living in South Dublin also working in ABC Ltd and both earning the same salaries.

Are couple B not entitled to live where they grew up? This is clearly discriminatory based on geographical location.

Houses in North Dublin well below 500k, houses in South Dublin above 500k.

I disagree, plenty of houses in South Dublin below 500k. People are wildly exaggerating the price of houses in Dublin.

listermint

morrga wrote: »

Why should couple A living in North Dublin and work in Company ABC Ltd in the City Centre be entitled to the grant over couple B living in South Dublin also working in ABC Ltd and both earning the same salaries.

Are couple B not entitled to live where they grew up? This is clearly discriminatory based on geographical location.

Houses in North Dublin well below 500k, houses in South Dublin above 500k.

So its your assertion that because house prices are higher in one area we should accommodate keeping them high.
Plenty of lols there.

morrga

Earleybird wrote: »

Perfectly entitled, but why do they need to spend more than 500k? Plenty of houses and apartments for less in South Dublin; but if you have the money to buy in a more expensive area then you're less in need of a grant.

New builds? Where?

We don't want an apartment. We are 8 years in an apartment. Time to move on just the same as couples in North Dublin will. We want a family home for a long term settlement. Duplexes and apartments are not suitable for families.

Name a development with a family home below 500k?

morrga

listermint wrote: »

So its your assertion that because house prices are higher in one area we should accommodate keeping them high.
Plenty of lols there.

With or without this grant, prices will always be higher in south Dublin.

pilly

morrga wrote: »

New builds? Where?

We don't want an apartment. We are 8 years in an apartment. Time to move on just the same as couples in North Dublin will. We want a family home for a long term settlement. Duplexes and apartments are not suitable for families.

Name a development with a family home below 500k?

Citywest is one I can think of off the top of my head.

Earleybird

morrga wrote: »

New builds? Where?

We don't want an apartment. We are 8 years in an apartment. Time to move on just the same as couples in North Dublin will. We want a family home for a long term settlement. Duplexes and apartments are not suitable for families.

Name a development with a family home below 500k?

I could name 10, just take a look on daft and you'll see them all. I think the trouble you have is that you want to live in a particular area and get 20k for yourself in the process. If you want a bigger better house then you don't get the grant. Why would you deserve one spending over 500k as a first time buyer. Ridiculous!

morrga

pilly wrote: »

Citywest is one I can think of off the top of my head.

That's west Dublin, disastrous commute to work and not where we're from. But this is proving my point. You're saying we should leave the area we are settled in. I'm saying this is not fair compared to every other couple who don't have to leave their area.

ThisRegard

morrga wrote: »

Are couple B not entitled to live where they grew up? This is clearly discriminatory based on geographical location..

Nobody is entitled to live anywhere.

Stheno

There's 21 new developments on daft with houses under 500k in south county Dublin including knocklyn and rathfarnham.

Where is it you want to live?

Michael D Not Higgins

A 500k house with the max deposit allowed under the scheme of 30% would still require savings of 130k (+20k top up from government) and combined salary of 100k.

At 600k, it's 160k saved (+20k) and salary of 120k. I wouldn't feel too bad for the people in the 100k-120k bracket who can't get the 20k rebate for their 500k-600k house.