yellowroses
Registered User
- Messages
- 55
Contrary to what stonecoldk stated, once you breech ANY contract it becomes null and void and gives the drawer of the contract full discretion of what to do.
I don't have my contract to hand, but from memory the way it works is that clawback will apply for 20 years. If you rent out your place, the period for which clawback applies will be extended by the number of years you've rented out. My memory is also that clawback reduces by 10% a year from year 10 of living in your affordable home? I never hear mention of this, is it correct? I think there's actually very little in the contracts about this, it all comes to legislation. But it's what we were told at the time.
Your saying if you breach ANY contract the ONLY thing one can "choose" to do is bring you to court to honour the original terms and conditions? I dont think so, they can tear up the agreement?
Unless that's in your contract, they couldn't do that without an order of the court.The council also told me that “technically” they could also make you pay the original market value of the house/apartment
I don't see why it's so confusing. With Fingal, if they allow you to rent it out you are signing an additional contract that modifies the first. Under the "blind eye" approach, you're still formally bound by the original terms. It's possible that the Council's acquiescence to your breach of the principal residence term could be viewed by a court as acceptance of a change to the terms, but that hasn't been tested AFAIK. So there is an element of "at your own risk" if you don't get the Council's written agreement to let you rent out. But the last thing the councils want is to get in litigation with their AH purchasers which is (I assume) why people who rented out in the past were given options like "pay us back the clawback and we won't take to court to enforce that term". It's effectively an out-of-court settlement for damages.So I'm very confused with the bendy/greysih approach in your first response compared to the second statement "the formal contractual position remains that you can't rent out, full stop".
How can councils act independently on a state ran scheme with universal T&Cs?
How can councils act independently on a state ran scheme with universal T&Cs?
which is (I assume) why people who rented out in the past were given options like "pay us back the clawback and we won't take to court to enforce that term". It's effectively an out-of-court settlement for damages.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?