West Berk Council lending deposits Options

[JeffG]

What do you think of today's local news item that West Berkshire Council is lending most of the deposit on a mortgage to first time buyers from their housing budget? The loan has to be repaid only when the house is sold.

Is this a good use of council tax payers' money?

[GMR]

What do you think of today's local news item that West Berkshire Council is lending most of the deposit on a mortgage to first time buyers from their housing budget? The loan has to be repaid only when the house is sold.

Is this a good use of council tax payers' money?

What happens if the house isn't sold?

[JeffG]

What happens if the house isn't sold?

I imagine exactly what the last sentence in my first paragraph says (i.e. it doesn't get paid back). I'm only quoting the report on South Today.

Hmm. Found the written report on the BBC web site here. It doesn't mention the repayment bit.

[blackdog]

This could be a reasonable way of saving money - put up a few grand for a deposit or a few grand a year to support them in subsidised housing.

Not sure how the repayment works, if WBC have a lien on the capital then the mortgage company won't have as much security as usual. Does this mean that they will lend less?

[Chesapeake]

I would imagine that if the council puts up 10% of the total purchasing price to aid the first time buyer, then when the buyer sells, the council will require 10% of the total selling price back. They could make quite a profit on this scheme whilst helping first time buyers get on the housing ladder.

Sounds quite good to me.

[lordtup]

I have nothing but support for any scheme that helps first time buyers onto the housing ladder , but surely the real issue here is the lack of old fashioned council houses ( now affectionately known as housing association properties ) ,which would serve a more useful purpose . After all the area as a whole requires manual workers on low incomes as much as high fliers so what is the point of giving mortgages to people that may well renege on them through no fault of their own , particularly in the present economic climate .

It would appear , though I may be proved wrong , that this is another gimmick dreamt up by the moguls of WBC in order to curry favour with the electorate .

Maybe I am becoming to cynical in my old age

[On the edge]

Interesting! Have to say encouraging home ownership is a good thing against today's economic model. Some of us used to live in 'council houses' - nothing wrong with the concept. Society does need manual workers, so why not pay them properly. I've always had an issue with that type of socialisim, summed up in the last verse of an old hymn. 'The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate'.

[Andy1]

What do you think of today's local news item that West Berkshire Council is lending most of the deposit on a mortgage to first time buyers from their housing budget? The loan has to be repaid only when the house is sold.

Is this a good use of council tax payers' money?

Sounds like a great scheme. Either your tax goes towards social housing which in some cases get trashed as the people in them don't care, in which case more of your tax money goes towards repair. This way the up keep is down to the buyer. I'd suggest the money WBC lend for the deposit is very little compaired to what a housing association would have to spend in up keep.

[JeffG]

summed up in the last verse of an old hymn. 'The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate,

The third verse, to be precise. But it's banned now, apparently (too politically incorrect), and most Google results for All Things B & B don't even mention it.

A member of the Anglo-Irish establishment, Mrs Alexander clearly had no compunction about keeping the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate, but even before the age of political correctness, the offending third verse was usually omitted – the Inner London Education Authority positively banned it in 1982.

Full story

[GMR]

Sounds like a great scheme. Either your tax goes towards social housing which in some cases get trashed as the people in them don't care, in which case more of your tax money goes towards repair. This way the up keep is down to the buyer. I'd suggest the money WBC lend for the deposit is very little compaired to what a housing association would have to spend in up keep.

I would image that those that wish to 'trash social housing' are a very small group. The majority look after their houses. Don't forget that there are those in private dwellings who also smash their own property.

[lordtup]

'The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate'.

Good to see the man in charge knew how to make his "children" respectful of their betters , but it is of scant consolation to someone who just can't command a decent wage even though they may work hard and conduct their lives in a responsible manner . While in agreement with those who point out the negatives , surely most tenants take a pride in their homes and those who don't can be simply turned out ( amazing how such actions concentrate the mind ) .

It is well to also take into account the fact that if everyone buys , and available properties meet the demand , then market values will tumble leading to the dreaded negative equity syndrome so loved by the prophets of doom .

Simple mathematical equation , take the GNP divide it by the population , remove exported monies ( wars , debt repayments etc ) and you get a figure / head gross . Then you start to understand why God's chosen few are so keen to keep the proletariat in their place . No , I am all for a decent wage and that money being used for to provide for the family unit , but that is some way off for some , and they are living in the present and therefore their needs are now .

No doubt someone will also raise the issue of single mothers in all this .

[Andy]

No doubt someone will also raise the issue of single mothers in all this.

If she can afford 5% of the deposit and gets approval from Newbury Building society for her mortgage, then she'll be approved

[GMR]

If she can afford 5% of the deposit and gets approval from Newbury Building society for her mortgage, then she'll be approved

Why would a single mother need to raise 5%? She will probably get a council house.

[Andy]

Why would a single mother need to raise 5%? She will probably get a council house.

Because not all of them fall into your stereotypical thinking of them being unemployed and do work as well as being a single mums and dads

[Chesapeake]

Why would a single mother need to raise 5%? She will probably get a council house.

Because, by only needing to raise just 5% for the deposit, with the council adding the other 10% to 15% that she would need to get a first time buyers mortgage, she would be able to actually buy a property thereby get herself/himself (there are single dads too) on the propery ladder, get a real sense on pride and not be throwing money down the drain in rent each month. Basically the same reasons that anyone wants to buy a house. Single parents are NO different! Thhey also want to be adding equity to their homes and therefore retiring with no mortgage/rent to pay and have something to leave their children.

Does that answer your statement for you?

[Chesapeake]

Because not all of them fall into your stereotypical thinking of them being unemployed and do work as well as being a single mums

Great minds think alike

[GMR]

Because not all of them fall into your stereotypical thinking of them being unemployed and do work as well as being a single mums and dads

I don't think of them as all the same. I was a single-parent as well. However, there are those that are like it. I didn't say everybody was like it.

[GMR]

Because, by only needing to raise just 5% for the deposit, with the council adding the other 10% to 15% that she would need to get a first time buyers mortgage, she would be able to actually buy a property thereby get herself/himself (there are single dads too) on the propery ladder, get a real sense on pride and not be throwing money down the drain in rent each month. Basically the same reasons that anyone wants to buy a house. Single parents are NO different! Thhey also want to be adding equity to their homes and therefore retiring with no mortgage/rent to pay and have something to leave their children.

Does that answer your statement for you?

My reply was tongue-in-cheek

[TallDarkAndHands...]

So WBDC fancy themselves as the new Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac?

I can see the headlines now. Council Tax up 45% to pay for the WBDC sub-prime meltdown.

[Andy1]

I would image that those that wish to 'trash social housing' are a very small group. The majority look after their houses. Don't forget that there are those in private dwellings who also smash their own property.

Which is why I said "Some" people