NB:-Shocking discovery on clawback concept during sale of A/H Apartment

Folks, for what its worth, thanks for the feedback and debate. There is too much digression in the responses. I dont think there is anything left to be said on the clawback specifically.

For the effort on Brendans part:-
Your excel is an improvement on what was published (but not issued to us as part of any information pack I received). Just to make you aware, your first line suggests a payment to the council of 0 after a purchase price of 150 and a sale of 140. This is incorrect, you will be burdened for the 10k (with interest) negeq. The example could also include any (hypothetical) equity built up also if the objective is to help people understand the clawback. Appreciated nonetheless.
your first line suggests a payment to the council of 0 after a purchase price of 150 and a sale of 140. This is incorrect, you will be burdened for the 10k (with interest)


You won't be paying the €10k to the council. That is money you will have paid to your lender. Which, of course, could be the council, charging you 1.8%.

It's a long time since I was registered with this site, but I had to reregister today to respond.

I bought on the affordable housing scheme 9 years ago and made it my business to fully understand all of the implications of such a big commitment. We were given everything very clearly in writing and had face to face meetings to discuss. It seems you misunderstood, but that does not make it a scam.

I fully understood the terms and conditions around clawback. 9 years in I feel extremely lucky to finally be out of negative equity. My property isn't worth what I paid for it still, but I have 30k equity in it now. My neighbours who paid full market price are not so lucky.

As long as the council did not hold me to an unreasonable market value now, I would be happy to pay the clawback. There are thousands of people on lists for housing that need assistance from the council. Let the council's fair share return to them and let others benefit from council assistance.

We got a leg up to get on the property ladder. The sense of entitlement in your post is unbelievable and gives us all a bad name.

I'm not at all surprised that people failed to understand clawback. My own spouse still doesn't after it being explained for nearly a decade! It's not the council's fault though.

Many people also don't understand why you have to pay management fees and half the people who bought on affordable housing in my block just refused to pay until we clamped them as a management company!

I think lots of people failed to understand lots of things in purchasing property.

The sense of entitlement in your post is baffling and makes me deeply embarrassed to have bought on the AF scheme.

Others would give their right arm to be in our position.

There is no digression in this thread. People are rightfully baffled and I would imagine angered by your attitude.
My understanding (and EVERYONE I know in this situation) was that if you sold your AH unit above what you paid for you'd have to pay the CLAWBACK (28% in my case). This was because people were not to be making money of a government scheme. Totally understandable.
Well, at the risk of just repeating what others have said on this issue, that is an obvious MISunderstanding on your part (and that of everyone you know in this situation presumably).
If the clawback percentage applied to anything over the discounted price that you paid then you WOULD be making money off this scheme (in your case 72% of the sale price minus the discounted purchase price).
That makes little sense and (a) I'm not sure why anybody would expect to make such easy money and (b) if you were not correctly apprised of the details of the scheme and the clawback mechanism at the time of purchase then you only have yourself or your solicitor/advisors to blame and not the scheme itself or the powers that be.
The previous post makes it clear that not everybody in your situation was so misinformed about this issue.
Others have explained in more detail why this scheme is more than fair to you and why you really shouldn't be complaining or calling it out as some sort of scam.
If you cannot see or accept this then unfortunately that's your problem and you are wasting your time ranting about it.
zen for what its worth i can see your point.... if i didnt know better from some of the posts.. we should have filled our boots with affordable houses!!..off topic,but what the heck;)
The Housing Agency has this information on its website:

John and Mary bought an affordable home. The market value of this property was €280,000, and they bought it at an affordable price of €196,000. So, the market value discount to John and Mary, which is known as the clawback, was 30%.


Scenario 3 - If the Market Value of the Affordable Home Decreases
If John and Mary sell their home and the market value has decreased from €280,000 to €210,000 then the clawback would be based on the lower market value of €210,000 less what they paid €196,000, which is €14,000. So they have to pay back €14,000 to the local authority when they sell in addition to any money owing on their mortgage.

That's a fairly long-winded way of saying that they have to pay every euro they get over the price they paid for it up to the original market value, but it is there. A lot of people weren't aware of this when they bought (I wasn't) but the information was available if we looked for it. The legislation also sets out the formula so we could have done the maths ourselves.

Thanks Postman Pat, some mild compassion for my efforts to help peoples misunderstanding regardless of my personal experience or opinion.

The thread title is very clear, its about the clawback.

I just saw Brooklyns response. Ive seen some of your posts before and they seem coherently constructive deserving respect and the occasional reply.

So you agree with me, you say you and a lot of people weren't aware of this. You now know how this works? If I've helped anyone understand this the simple thanks wouldn't go astray.

As for the 7ft Tall SJWs hiding behind keyboards ascending on me like a pack of killer bees go do something constructive with your time. Your responses have no effect on me whatsoever. I've no idea nor do I care what your purpose is on this forum, you will not be wasting any more of my time.

This thread was read over 2 thousand times and I know some have benefited or at the bare minimum will investigate their understanding of the Affordable Housing Clawback clause.

p.s. I'm going through this sale process so I have first hand understanding on how its working as they have told me directly how it works and now I'm telling you all. If anyone has any questions about the sale process send me a PM and I'll help if I can. This thread is too long now.

It takes a lot more than a few abusive and dismissive remarks to make me withdraw my helping hand. Look at that RTE Documentary "Ireland's property crisis" for crying out loud.... did that echo a generation who were all "well informed" beforehand?
I wasn't being abusive or dismissive. I'm interested to know what you think of my point that clawback should be rightfully paid back to the council so that others can be helped with affordable housing as we have been.

I think you have actually been quite dismissive yourself of others observations that you are much luckier than many. I understand that you seem to have been stressed by your experience of AF, but your misunderstanding doesn't make it a scam. Different perspectives and experiences given weren't abusive. You used very emotive language and I think you got quite restrained responses.

I have read back through the entire thread and I can't see a single post that contained either dismissive or abusive remarks.

I don't agree that there was anything confusing about how the scheme worked. The fact that you misunderstood the scheme doesn't mean it was confusing. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

Hopefully you can now see that there was no scam here and that the operation of the scheme has actually worked out very much in your favour the way things have panned out.
My solicitors advice is....

If you bought your property for 150k and are offered 150k, just take it. Don't waste your time trying to negotiate above that figure as anything above that figure will be confiscated as I've been trying to explain.

I don't know anything about the clawback so not commenting on that. Is that solicitors advice good though?
If you're offered €150K by one person and somebody else offers €170K and you sell for €150K are you not gifting €20K to the buyer, so there'd be some tax implications somewhere.

If you borrowed 150 there is absolutely no point selling or pitching for anything above 150 as it will be confiscated (unless of course you go past the 20 year stint, and even that I'm not sure about). This is not the clawback. The clawback will only kick in on sales above the original market value which property prices have not reached 2007/8 levels. Most wont ever pay the "clawback" but may pay the confiscation.

DCC are calling the confiscation and clawback the same thing, they're not! They are two different instruments that kick in during a sale. I know this, because I'm doing it.

They did this with me before when they offered "voluntary surrender" when in fact it was "voluntary repossession".


In my case the first sale fell through. Upon discovering about the confiscation I OBVIOUSLY reduced the price to the exact cent that I borrowed so I could get the sale done quicker as I needed to get out of this entrapment. There was nothing in it for me to sell it higher!

So there is no gift to no one. Its a private sale.

There was no confiscation
There was no clawback
The new buyer got it a LOT cheaper
The council got all their money redeemed in full almost 10 years before the mortgage term.
I got to sell it quicker because of the reduced price and I get to walk away.

As long as the loan is redeemed by the sale proceeds its all ok and above board.

Hope that helps.
Not trying to have a go or cause an argument but if you sell a property below market value then there is a gift and there are tax implications regardless of whether it is a private sale or not.
Not trying to have a go or cause an argument but if you sell a property below market value then there is a gift and there are tax implications regardless of whether it is a private sale or not.
But the council have to sign off on the sale price before its sold so would disagree with your statement above.
  • Like
Reactions: zen
But the council have to sign off on the sale price before its sold so would disagree with your statement above.
That wouldn't make a difference to any tax implications arising from the sale. I am not suggesting the property was sold below marked value just pointing out that if a property is sold below marked value there are tax implications.
Guys your digressing from the thread topic

The unit is being sold at the market value as per "man with the clipboard" who arbitrarily decided it's value by licking his finger and putting it in the air.

The sale has been approved by the council. I'm now pending the closure of the sale.
To close off, my point is

Don't pitch your unit above what you paid for it as it will be confiscated, plain and simple folks I can't do any better than that.

Tax implications and market value etc..?? Feel free to open a different thread on that matter
Of course anyone with a social conscience might like to actually get a fair deal for those coming up the affordable housing ladder behind them . When I sell my affordable apartment I'd love to get a few bob more for it than I paid and add to the budget to help the thousands of people still on housing lists.

I've benefitted hugely from affordable housing. Congratulations for being able to move on free from debt, without the trap of negative equity. You are luckier than lots of people who bought on the open market!

Hopefully affordable housing purchasers won't be misled by your scam theory and see the opportunity they've had and indeed have to contribute now to others coming behind them.

Hopefully others will know that not all of us who bought on affordable housing have a sense of entitlement and unwillingness to give anything back.
Ps. The money owed to the council above the original purchase price is not 'confiscated', it is 'clawed back' as per original clawback agreement. No scam here at all. It's all there in the original documents we received. What a misleading thread this has been.

This thread actually belongs in the 'letting of steam' forum. It's so inaccurate and misleading. You bought an apartment that didn't suit your long term needs. You've felt trapped and hard done by terms and conditions that we all accepted when we bought on the scheme. There has to be terms and conditions, without them the scheme is open to abuse. It seems your failure to understand clawback has been the final straw for you, but that's not the council's fault. I think this thread has actually been irresponsible in that it might cause some purchasers stress to think we've been scammed. We haven't.
I think this thread has actually been irresponsible in that it might cause some purchasers stress to think we've been scammed. We haven't.

I believe anyone reading the thread will come to the same conclusion that there is no scam here.