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

Cian53 · 21-10-2016 11:12am

In our case the house is down on paper as a new build but was built by a person in his spare time...jus wondering where we wil stand now that house wasn't built by registered builder but is a first time buy and new house for us?

Grassey · 21-10-2016 11:17am

Pretty sure I saw something referenced last week where self build also were in scope. Or houses that were build pre July 19th but hadn't had anyone live in them since completion, and contract for sale signed after July 19th would be in scope.

Pedro32561 · 21-10-2016 6:22pm

stickman22 wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea how it will work. Our case is we have have signed contracts (just this week)for a new build to be completed in spring, how do we go about getting the rebate or do we need to wait until the mortgage is being drawn down. We really don't understand much about the ins & outs except we qualify now as we are taking out a 76% mortgage..

According to the Finance Bill, you will be able to make an application to the Revenue from 1st January 2017, providing various details, including the contract you have signed. In your case the grant will be paid directly to your bank account. For others who will sign contracts post 1st January 2017, the payment will be made directly to the contractor.

stickman22 · 21-10-2016 7:32pm

Brilliant Pedro thanks for that

cronos · 21-10-2016 7:57pm

Can't find anything in the Finance bill preventing you from taking a loan of LTV of 70%, then paying off say another 20% the next day in lump sums with the bank? Would everyone read it that way?

Pedro32561 · 21-10-2016 8:30pm

cronos wrote: »

Can't find anything in the Finance bill preventing you from taking a loan of LTV of 70%, then paying off say another 20% the next day in lump sums with the bank? Would everyone read it that way?

True. I couldn't see anything in there that would prevent that.

CramCycle · 21-10-2016 10:11pm

Pedro32561 wrote: »

True. I couldn't see anything in there that would prevent that.

Same here and if I were in that boat, I certainly would. Would seem idiotic not too. Although I can see stupidity and comfort over riding common sense and people doing this and saddling them with a higher mortgage after blowing a load of the spare dosh.

cronos · 21-10-2016 10:33pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Same here and if I were in that boat, I certainly would. Would seem idiotic not too. Although I can see stupidity and comfort over riding common sense and people doing this and saddling them with a higher mortgage after blowing a load of the spare dosh.

That's why having a LTV limit is a stupid idea in the first place. Only people who will benefit will be the banks.

Eireann81 · 22-10-2016 10:27am

Grassey wrote: »

Pretty sure I saw something referenced last week where self build also were in scope. Or houses that were build pre July 19th but hadn't had anyone live in them since completion, and contract for sale signed after July 19th would be in scope.

I'm hoping that's the case. Plenty of houses around that were built years ago, but never finished. Makes sense to get these houses sold, finished, and occupied.

flashforward · 22-10-2016 10:17pm

Eireann81 wrote: »

I'm hoping that's the case. Plenty of houses around that were built years ago, but never finished. Makes sense to get these houses sold, finished, and occupied.

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

Eireann81 · 22-10-2016 10:23pm

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 · 22-10-2016 10:24pm

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 · 22-10-2016 11:59pm

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 · 23-10-2016 10:10am

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 · 24-10-2016 4:22pm

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 · 24-10-2016 4:39pm

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 · 24-10-2016 5:11pm

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 · 24-10-2016 6:16pm

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 · 24-10-2016 7:05pm

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 · 24-10-2016 10:19pm

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

CramCycle · 24-10-2016 10:48pm

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 · 01-11-2016 10:00pm

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

ixus · 01-11-2016 10:33pm

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 · 01-11-2016 10:44pm

Thanks for the link.

jjdonegal · 03-11-2016 10:59am

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

pilly · 03-11-2016 11:09am

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 · 03-11-2016 11:48am

pilly wrote: »

Still too high at 500k imo

Agreed. It's a little less ridiculous though.

morrga · 03-11-2016 11:50am

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 · 03-11-2016 11:55am

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 · 03-11-2016 11:56am

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 · 03-11-2016 12:07pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:17pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:22pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:23pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:24pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:25pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:28pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:28pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:31pm

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 · 03-11-2016 12:32pm

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.

morrga · 03-11-2016 12:32pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Nobody is entitled to live anywhere.

And to think social housing couples openly reject houses they are given lol.

Change entitled to want then.

Earleybird · 03-11-2016 12:35pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

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.

Exactly ðŸ–’

Michael D Not Higgins · 03-11-2016 12:37pm

Worst case: someone needs the 20k rebate to make the minimum deposit requirements for a 600k house (the actual point of the scheme). Minimum deposit is 98k, which means they have a deposit of 78k saved and a salary of 143k.

pilly · 03-11-2016 12:39pm

morrga wrote: »

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.

So in other words it's obviously a very expensive area that you want to live in, that's fine and dandy. You're will entitled to make that choice, no-one is saying you can't. But if it's the choice you make then you shouldn't get assistance from the government to do so because if you can afford to buy over 500k then you don't need it.

morrga · 03-11-2016 12:43pm

pilly wrote: »

So in other words it's obviously a very expensive area that you want to live in, that's fine and dandy. You're will entitled to make that choice, no-one is saying you can't. But if it's the choice you make then you shouldn't get assistance from the government to do so because if you can afford to buy over 500k then you don't need it.

We want to live in South Dublin on the Wicklow border. Carrickmines or Shankill hardly the Dalkey, Killiney profile. My point is the govt deem it ok to support couples in North Dublin who earn the same salaries as ourselves.

morrga · 03-11-2016 12:44pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Worst case: someone needs the 20k rebate to make the minimum deposit requirements for a 600k house (the actual point of the scheme). Minimum deposit is 98k, which means they have a deposit of 78k saved and a salary of 143k.

10% deposits are allowed.

Stheno · 03-11-2016 12:45pm

morrga wrote: »

We want to live in South Dublin on the Wicklow border. Carrickmines or Shankill hardly the Dalkey, Killiney profile. My point is the govt deem it ok to support couples in North Dublin who earn the same salaries as ourselves.

They deem it OK to support couples all over the country tbh
The support is available to you too just not in you preferred area

Earleybird · 03-11-2016 12:46pm

morrga wrote: »

We want to live in South Dublin on the Wicklow border. Carrickmines or Shankill hardly the Dalkey, Killiney profile. My point is the govt deem it ok to support couples in North Dublin who earn the same salaries as ourselves.

I think you're missing the point. If you can afford to purchase a house for over 500k why would you deserve a grant? It doesn't matter where you're from. I remember you asking was the grant per house or per couple in a previous thread, at some point you need to realise you just sound plain greedy.

Stheno · 03-11-2016 12:47pm

morrga wrote: »

10% deposits are allowed.

Not without an exception over 220k I thought?

morrga · 03-11-2016 12:48pm

Stheno wrote: »

They deem it OK to support couples all over the country tbh
The support is available to you too just not in you preferred area

Thank you. You are getting my point.

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

Comments