dmcg90 wrote: » Hi all, Question for you. I've signed my contracts and got a scan of that back from my solicitors. Should I wait until the builder's solicitors sign and return the contracts and scan that into the Revenue system or proceed with the contracts that only I have signed? Cheers!
dzwx wrote: » I don't get it, how hard is to come up with a scheme that will help buyers buy but at the same time won't brig prices up, just don't get it at all, don't think I ever will
theboringfox wrote: » I didn't raise any point on income multiple or affordability. The rule for a deposit is there to ensure there is sufficient equity in house. No reason regulation should be different if first or second time buyer. I think it's infair to call their decision stupid. I didn't get caught up in it so hard to know but I was only 23. Few years older and I might have been. Easy with crystal ball. Are people stupid also for not buying in 2012 or 2013 at bottom of market by that logic? If I was benefitting from first time buyer grant I'd think it was great and be delighted to get 5% back. However? I wouldn't think it's fair just because I pay tax. It"s totally unjust and hopefully will soon be gone.
Alter_Ego wrote: » Even if the seller adds 5% to the price, firstly, FTB's are still bound by the 3.5 salary multiplier, secondly, this means as a FTB you only need to fund 10% of that increase with the deposit. For example house costs 200,000, you need 20,000 deposit. House costs 210,000, you need 21,000 deposit. Your friend didn't 'get caught' in negative equity. He/she made a stupid decision in the past and now he/she has to pay for it. Shame is I also have to pay for it through USC, so as they say "tough sh*t".
theboringfox wrote: » ya it is going to go. getting bad press and any positive impact will take too long to measure. it is not fair to give one sub category of buyer a boost anyway. first time buyers of new houses is small % of electorate and it just really annoys a lot of people to see some tax payers get this payout. And theres the potential they are not even benefitting and it just gets added to the price (seller gains). I saw a friend caught in negstive equity with young family trying to move from apartment. For a new house costing 400k he needs 80k deposit and is competing with FTBs who need only 20k in effect!
mjp wrote: » Looks like one of first thing Varadkar is planning on doing is getting rid of help to buy scheme. Will be carrying out a review first to see if scheme is having a negative impact on house prices but be pretty certain that that will be the case. Anyone looking to claim should do so in quick time because he doesn't mention that he has any other scheme to directly replace it.
Jellybaby17 wrote: » We were in the same situation, we tried to fight against it but they wouldn't back down We needed the other 5 % for something else but nearly lost the house so we paid in the end Thankfully our revenue has come through and been paid to the developer so when we draw down our mortgage we will give them the rest we owe them minus the extra 5 % and get it back It is a horrible situation and you are right they should not be allowed get away with it If we couldn't come up with the five percent we would have actually lost the house even though from the start they said they accept help to buy Horrendous
Cracker86 wrote: » We are in the course of challenging it, surely if they don't back down we could report them to revenue who really should remove them from their approved developer list, although I wouldn't hold my breath on that
Tuhula wrote: » It goes against the whole idea of the scheme. Not sure if people challenged it and the developer backed down.
Aph2016 wrote: » Can't believe they are getting away with this.
Tuhula wrote: » We actually didnt challenge as we are putting the 5% from the Revenue towards the funding, so technically funding 15% in cash (our 10% and Revenue 5%) and rest from mortgage...however before we put down the booking deposit we were told we would have to put down the full 10% and claim back the 5% after contracts signed... i believe everyone in the development were told the same thing .. without the 5% from Revenue, we wouldnt have been able to get the house, so to us, it worked out well.
Cracker86 wrote: » Did you challenge the developer on it or was it just as convinent to pay the 10%. I ain't in a position to pay the 10% so really need the delevoper to stop digging their heels.
Tuhula wrote: » Yep same with us, in the process at the moment. Had to pay the full 10% and uploaded the contracts then last week, got approved this week from Revenue and the 5% should be with the developers in the coming days.
Aph2016 wrote: » Thanks for replying. I guess our Solicitor will have to go back argue the case.
Cracker86 wrote: » Our builder tried to pull this aswell, We advised them through our solicitor that the principal aim of the grant is to aid buyers the deposit as opposed to allowing people to take a smaller mortgage and that the grant is to assist with the buyers cash flow not the builders. Just waiting to hear back now so hopefully we can proceed
REFLINE1 wrote: » Lots of builders trying to pull this stunt as it helps with their cashflow. i dug in my heels via our solicitor and they relented but i know others who bought at same time had to pay the 10%.
Aph2016 wrote: » Can someone clear this up for me. Solicitor said we have to pay the full 10% deposit in cash and that the builder will take the HTB off the remaining balance of the house. Surely this can't be correct?
Blingy wrote: » Nope. While idea is that you can use the htb scheme to help pay the full deposit. We paid half he deposit and the htb scheme will make up the difference.
