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.
In essence, Zen was happy for the tax-payer to subsidise 25% of the purchase price of the house.
I think it's a bit inaccurate to say the tax payer subsidised 25% of purchase price. I'm not an expert on Part V, but my understanding is developers were obliged to make a certain percentage available for affordable housing. The council didn't hand over 25% of purchase price for each affordable unit. If prices rise the council should make a profit and tax payers benefit?
The county council have to approve the sale price, with the property price register its a lot easier to track the sale value of houses so I can't see the cc letting it go too cheaply.From reading this thread it seems there is an opportunity for someone who bought an AH house to sell it for its purchase price to someone they know who could then flip it for a handy profit with the CC losing out on any gain...Does the CC have any say in the selling price as they surely have the most to gain/lose out?