first-time buyers to get 20%

[PurpleMoonlight]

audidoody said:

They already do. They are called Council houses.

On a small scale perhaps, and they will all go to proprity cases no doubt.

We need a significant and sustained program of new properties for ordinary people that are rented out on a first come first served basis, where you have to be in employment and able to pay the rent.

Tenancies would be on a long term basis so as long as you pay the rent you can stay for as long as you wish. Tenants would be responsible for decoration and basic repairs.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 27th September 14:57

[economicpygmy]

audidoody said:

They already do. They are called Council houses.

Not anymore. IIRC there was a policy that local councils were supposed to replace the stock sold off, but they didnt.

[crankedup]

Selling off perfectly good houses at heavily discounted prices to the Council tenants at that time was always going to be a recipe for a mini housing crisis. The fact that the problem has been compounded, by the short-sighted Tory Government of the time, in that local Councils were not allowed to spend the income derived from the sale of their own housing stock.
The policy did have a few positive side benefits, ownership brings responsibility, pride of ownership brings a cared for local environment, new home owners (ex tenants) felt empowered and wealthy.

If only housing stock had been replaced for those still on waiting lists for a home.

[Chris Type R]

Seems a very odd commitment.

Could the under 40 limitation be at odds with EU law ? It seems rather like discrimination.

[Thankyou4calling]

I think we all know this won't happen.

[anonymous-user]

Apologies in advance for the long post, this is something that is annoying me beyond words at the moment, my dream of owning a small house has slipped away in the last year, when I was within 6 months of buying.

The Government are pulling so many levers, that the signalman at Clapham Junction would be amazed.

If this government were serious about affordable housing I believe they should:
1)have built more houses prior to 2011, which would have allowed a steady increase in supply and a slight fall overall in prices.
2)Put more restrictions on Buy-to-Let investors, perhaps having certain new builds exempt from Buy to Let for x amount of years.
3)Gradually seen a slow rise in interest rates, helping savers and putting the brakes on a runaway housing market.

Instead they have kept the prices high by pumping more money into the system with Help to Buy, and Help to Buy 2, so instead of houses becoming more affordable, they have in fact made them even more expensive (which I among others, was warning about a year ago), pricing some people like myself out of the market, and lending huge loan to value mortgages to people on good/joint wages with tiny deposits. It doesn't make sense.

If something is unaffordable to most, it is because it is too expensive. You don't go on a massive lending spree to people (who can't or haven't saved), getting them into more debt to sustain the high price or perpetuate the bubble.

This is unless:

1) You are trying to boost tax revenues from stamp duty, death duty.
2) Trying to boost the economy, building trade, estate agency, banking sectors.
3) Trying to buy votes from the middle aged homeowners boasting down the pub, Buy to let investors, elderly homeowners who now
believe they are 100k richer than last year.

It is a massive Ponzi scheme by the government to buy votes prior to the election, so they can say we have fixed the economy and houses are back to where they were 2008, everyone is happy, the good times are rolling again, vote Conservative.

They are beginning to realise that many first time buyers (in their 20s & 30s) have been priced out of the market, so are pulling more levers, Rent to Buy is one scheme I have heard of this week, and now this one announced today. This is all to try and alleviate the 20%+ increase chaos caused by Help to Buy (which they will not pull for fear of embarrassment) and to buy votes from this unhappy group of voters.

For me, I have saved hard for the last few years (doing the right thing). I was aiming for a 2 bed property with a garage in my local area for 170k-185k. There were quite a few on the market selling at these prices at the start of 2013. Within a months of Help to Buy 2, prices went up to 200k, now they are at 220k-230k, all in the space of 18 months. There are hardly any on Rightmove now. Suddenly there has been the massive shortage of housing, no-one was mentioning it before HTB2.

I am now sitting here, possibly able to get a 120k mortgage, with a 60k deposit, (my 185k target for a property last year which I would now be in a position to afford), now not able to buy anything but run down ex-council housing in a high crime area. It seems like everything has been done to lend huge LTVs to multiple income couples or families, but if you are single with an average salary but a 25%+ deposit you are stuffed. The government has created a situation whereby you either cannot afford anywhere, or if you are a couple you are going to mortgage yourself up to the eyeballs, so by the time you eventually pay it off you will be ready to sell it for your care home fees.

As a side note, I know someone who bought a 3 bed terraced property in Reading 2 years ago for 290k. He has just had it valued at 375k. That is an increase of 85k in exactly two years to the month. It is madness, I am sure there are many hoping for a correction, but the Government is dabbling so much with schemes to prop up the housing market who knows what is going to happen?

[Saleen836]

I remember working on some new builds a few years ago in Blandford, they were being sold to locals only for 20% less than market value to enable them to stay in the area. To say the developer cut back on a few things to keep the profit margin up is an understatement, they gave the basic of everything...1 row of tile above the kitchen worktop, 2 rows around the bath, architrave for skirting...you get the idea!

[sugerbear]

Chris Type R said:

Seems a very odd commitment.

Could the under 40 limitation be at odds with EU law ? It seems rather like discrimination.

I thought the same, being over forty this does smack of vote buying and discrimination.

Fair enough if you want to block foreign (non eu) buyers or people who already own property but to discrinate on age along seems very unfair.

Not that I would want to buy a new build :-) and not that this will ever happen if the conservatives get back in.

[98elise]

crankedup said:

Selling off perfectly good houses at heavily discounted prices to the Council tenants at that time was always going to be a recipe for a mini housing crisis. The fact that the problem has been compounded, by the short-sighted Tory Government of the time, in that local Councils were not allowed to spend the income derived from the sale of their own housing stock.
The policy did have a few positive side benefits, ownership brings responsibility, pride of ownership brings a cared for local environment, new home owners (ex tenants) felt empowered and wealthy.

If only housing stock had been replaced for those still on waiting lists for a home.

Selling houses off doesn't cause a crisis. The same number or people/families live in the same number of houses. All its done is change who owns it. In a simple example a family living in a council house for years, decides to buy it and continues living there. Nothing has changed except the council now has some money, and the person who bought it has taken on the debt.

If the councils had then built more houses with that money then the net effect would have been positive.

[7mike]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I appreciate location is everything but ffs, I lived near Reading for over twenty years, glad to see the back of it. For 375k I'd take this any day.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

even if the décor is a bit Laura Ashley

[Chris Type R]

7mike said:

I appreciate location is everything but ffs, I lived near Reading for over twenty years, glad to see the back of it. For 375k I'd take this any day.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

even if the décor is a bit Laura Ashley

I have family near there. Lovely area, and very different to what the same money would buy in the South East.

[JagLover]

98elise said:

Selling houses off doesn't cause a crisis. The same number or people/families live in the same number of houses. All its done is change who owns it. In a simple example a family living in a council house for years, decides to buy it and continues living there. Nothing has changed except the council now has some money, and the person who bought it has taken on the debt.

If the councils had then built more houses with that money then the net effect would have been positive.

If anything it improved the situation for many young couples looking for their first step on the housing ladder.

The real issue is house building being held back for decades by planning constraints, virtually unrestricted immigration since 1997 and a policy of cheap money.

Edited by JagLover on Sunday 28th September 14:11

[turbobloke]

Chris Type R said:

7mike said:

I appreciate location is everything but ffs, I lived near Reading for over twenty years, glad to see the back of it. For 375k I'd take this any day.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

even if the décor is a bit Laura Ashley

I have family near there. Lovely area, and very different to what the same money would buy in the South East.

Yes indeed there are some very nice places offering good value along the Todmorden-Bacup-Rawtenstall-Tupsarse way, but it's not so good for the tube

[dandarez]

Did Cameron say:
'Young people ...under 40'!

That's a good one, politician's eh?

All those who have a 40th birthday this week 'Happy Birthday ...old fart.'

Almost sounds like there's an election around the corner.
Oh, wait a mo...

[anonymous-user]

My 40th is January.

Will that mean I will have to pay 40k more for a property because I am a few months older. Cameron really is a cretin.

[Chris Type R]

turbobloke said:

Yes indeed there are some very nice places offering good value along the Todmorden-Bacup-Rawtenstall-Tupsarse way, but it's not so good for the tube

The family is in Hebden Bridge.

I work from home 98℅ of the time, so something like this would be fantastic. Meetings in the Smoke would simply require an overnight. If only I could convince the missus to leave behind her existing friend network.

[princeperch]

On the cusp of exchange on my 1 bed flat. Agreed sale price is 435 and I paid 250 for it nearly exactly
3 years ago. Not done a thing to it.

First time buyers are delighted to be buying it from me apparently and have just under a 130k deposit and can't be any older than 25/26.

I'm in the wrong job...

[Campo]

What is it with this lot and their desperate scramble to get everyone mortgaged to the hilt on overpriced housing?

20% off will just mean the exact same people will be able to pay 20% more for the same housing. Do they really think the house building industry is not going to take advantage of this?

Lastly, why the cap at 40 - where on earth did they get this age from?

[7mike]

turbobloke said:

Chris Type R said:

7mike said:

I appreciate location is everything but ffs, I lived near Reading for over twenty years, glad to see the back of it. For 375k I'd take this any day.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

even if the décor is a bit Laura Ashley

I have family near there. Lovely area, and very different to what the same money would buy in the South East.

Yes indeed there are some very nice places offering good value along the Todmorden-Bacup-Rawtenstall-Tupsarse way, but it's not so good for the tube

Yes, it's hell not being near the Tube, so inconvenient having to drive up here

[crankedup]

98elise said:

crankedup said:

Selling off perfectly good houses at heavily discounted prices to the Council tenants at that time was always going to be a recipe for a mini housing crisis. The fact that the problem has been compounded, by the short-sighted Tory Government of the time, in that local Councils were not allowed to spend the income derived from the sale of their own housing stock.
The policy did have a few positive side benefits, ownership brings responsibility, pride of ownership brings a cared for local environment, new home owners (ex tenants) felt empowered and wealthy.

If only housing stock had been replaced for those still on waiting lists for a home.

Selling houses off doesn't cause a crisis. The same number or people/families live in the same number of houses. All its done is change who owns it. In a simple example a family living in a council house for years, decides to buy it and continues living there. Nothing has changed except the council now has some money, and the person who bought it has taken on the debt.

If the councils had then built more houses with that money then the net effect would have been positive.

I said 'it was a always going to be a recipe for a mini housing crisis'. Recipe meaning just one ingredient toward an objective, unintended or not.
We do not have the same number of people living in houses though do we. Owing to (partly but large) council house sales those houses are no longer available to those people who cannot afford to buy their own house, this is part of the 'mini housing crisis' I speak of. Those that purchased thier council house did so at a very heavily discounted market value, so more subsidy from the Tories using tax payers money. The Tory Party now recognise this issue regarding low housing stock and high values and try to address it with 'help to buy' and now the proposal if they win the next G.E. to offer a 20% discount on a house price to a certain group of people who match a pre-determined criteria.
The fact is the Tory Government of the 1980's ordered the sale of council houses, at the same time ordered local councils to ring fence that sales money and not to be used to replenish housing stock.