not really,.... Brendan mentioned that there are two different shared ownership schemes prior 2003 and post 2003, and I think the article may be related to the prior-2003 case only but I am not too sure as they don't mention that in the article at all.
Also, the Clawback relates to a different scheme ... Affordable houses (houses owned or built for council and sold at affordable price ...lower than the market the market price at the time of sell). Shared Ownership relates to houses bought from the open market (at the market price .... without any discount) and the Clawback doesn't apply in this case ... unless you bought the Affordable house through the Shared Ownership Scheme .... that I think complicates the situation a lot.
1-The scheme is called Affordable Housing, not shared ownership. That's the first thing you need to understand. You can pay for your affordable housing in one of two methods; shared ownership or Full Annuity.
2-I'm aware of how the clawback works (now) but not the scheme in its entirety, neither back then or now, allow me to explain.
The horrendous manner in which this entire scheme was orchestrated swindled people like me out of everything they worked for. As said Brendan struggled to interpret it using terms like "misnomer" and he an avid financial guru, I even gave him my contract to peruse. Look at all the lost souls on this forum still trying to come to grips with it! No one knows how it works despite the thread name.
They tried one other time to swindle me when they issued repo orders. They "offered" me "voluntary surrender", which I discovered was Orwellian doublespeak for "voluntary repossession" I was ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS at a meeting in Civic offices when they tried to pull that stunt. How I contained myself I'll never know. They tried to gauge my level of intelligence to see if I would fall for what was simply, hand back the bloody keys and accepting a Bill of 40k arrears! WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE! I told them no, you can take me to court and I'll take the stand and tell the judge what you put me and my family through for absolutely no reason whatsoever,...
After dropping my file for bankruptcy on the table DCC eventually consent to allowing me to lease out my unit! It was an arbitrary decision all along, after sending me on a 7 year wild goose chase with TD's and Ministers to get permission because they said it was in legislation! Shame on them.
Now that I'm allowed lease and despite months of asking, I'm not even being told how they are accruing the interest on the arrears! they wont give me a full mortgage account print out. I had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get my mortgage account details from them. They opened up a SECOND account to deal with the INTEREST on the arrears, it showed that the money I'm paying from the rent received is going off nothing! I pay them 800 p/m and THE NEXT DAY, they were putting 800+ in added interest!!!!! I should have just went bankrupt.
In a nutshell, no one knows how this scheme works and that aint no coincidence. There was no comprehensive Affordable Housing Information package given to anyone to review. The policy on arrears are a closely guarded secret too, it seems they can do what they want, they stuck the hydraulics under that second account and once more I'm on mortgage protest (my tenant abandoned the property anyway).
So the long and short of it
No one knows how shared ownership works, because for a start, that's not even what the scheme is even called and that's saying something.
Did clients have full involvement of solicitors at conveyancing? I see Local Authorities are seeking SO clients to sign waivers in relation to legal advice in restructuring processes. Unconstitutional I would have thought?
I am hoping someone might be able to help me and in turn help others with how Shared Ownership works. I bought under the Affordable Housing scheme in 2007 via Fingal. There was a very small element of Shared Ownership involved, around 5%. I was under the impression that I could sell like any other person but when I went to do so it turns out there is a 99 year lease (now 87 and possibly termed sub-lease) with Fingal as opposed to others who bought with no Shared element i.e. 100% Affordable got 999 lease. This 99 year term is causing an issue as my buyer wants longer 999 type term. My Solicitor is awaiting info from Fingal with how to sort this but in the meantime I have done some reading around and have come across something on the net which sounds like a similar situation in South Dublin CoCo (not Fingal), see below.
"It is envisaged that some of the Apartments will be sold to purchasers who will acquire them under shared ownership leases (as defined in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992) for terms of 99 years (hereinafter referred to as “Shared Ownership leases”). In the interests of securing the harmonious operation of the Scheme the Council is desirous of ensuring that in respect of an Apartment acquired by means of a Shared Ownership lease the said Shared Ownership Lease is granted by the Council as a sub-lease derived from an Apartment Lease so that in the event of the lessee under the Shared Ownership Lease electing to purchase the Council’s reversion on the said Shared Ownership Lease the said lessee will acquire the residue of the term created by an Apartment lease but not the fee simple estate in the Apartment."
The term created on the above Apartment lease was 500 years.
My question is does anyone have any thoughts on this? In my simple mind the above explanation makes sense in that once I pay off the shared element (only €9k now) the 99 is cancelled out and the 999 kicks in. I am hoping that Fingal can just give me some sort of undertaking so I can sell now and somehow my buyer gets the benefit of the 999 once all is paid off. I am under pressure and just want to try to sort this out so thanks in advance, Toose.