Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
sean

Buy a house for a pound...

BBC Linky. Seems like a good idea to me.
Nick

I saw that. Couldn't spot the downside, but there's bound to be one. Seems daft that the council have this redundant stock that they can't find a better way of releasing. Wonder if they're banned from spending the pounds on new houses...
Rob R

I saw that. Couldn't spot the downside, but there's bound to be one.


You have to live in Stoke on Trent for a further five years?
zigs

We had to price for major works on a house that the Daily Mail gave away for a .

It was just on the point of collapse.
vegplot

I reckon you could double your investment in a year.
Nick

But, you'd get land, with planning permission implicit, regardless.

I take the point about Stoke, tho.
oldish chris

didn't they once do something similar in Newcastle Upon Tyne many years back? Saved an area from dereliction IIRC.

The thing about towns like Stoke is, that if you have a half decent job you can enjoy a reasonable standard of living (as long as you don't get the sack that is). A young couple, in work and having a bit of spine could do well with one of these houses.

I think I came across a similar idea being proposed for one or two boarded up streets in Liverpool.
sean

Keys handed over in Liverpool
earthyvirgo

I saw that. Couldn't spot the downside, but there's bound to be one.


You have to live in Stoke on Trent for a further five years?

OK, Stoke itself might not be idyllic but it's a spit from some lovely countryside.

EV
Toffer

Stoke overall is not as bad as people think, Cobridge however (which is the bit where these houses are) has only a Machine Mart and a particularly rough red light district. Nick

Fair enough. But is there a downside as well? sally_in_wales

why only people earning over 18k? Lots of decent people working full time and earning far less Mad The are essentially saying 'no self employed' Mad Nick

It's a joint income of 18,000. They must have picked it for a reason. Would it be a level of benefit, or something, that would preclude ownership, or whatever? Or maybe they have assumed that would mean the people couldn't afford to do the renovations?

Write, and ask. It's a council so they'd have to tell you if you made a FOI request.
Pilsbury

why only people earning over 18k? Lots of decent people working full time and earning far less Mad The are essentially saying 'no self employed' Mad
its probsbly down to the fact that the referb on each house is expected to cost over 35,000 and if they didnt take steps to ensure the people given the house had a fair chance of repaying or even qualifyimg t borrow that much on the first place they would be slated for giving someone a hpise and forcimg them into a debt they couldnt afford.
There is a limit to the number of properties they can give away so they can afford to set some fairly strict conditions i would of thoight.
DorsetScott

why only people earning over 18k? Lots of decent people working full time and earning far less Mad The are essentially saying 'no self employed' Mad
its probsbly down to the fact that the referb on each house is expected to cost over 35,000

That was my thoughts. Whilst it excluded a lot of people from being able to apply, the entire point of the exercise was regeneration of the area. If a person couldn't afford to repay the loan to renovate the property then the regeneration would surely fail?

Also, how does it exclude self employed people any more than full time employees? If a self employed person earnt the wage range that was specified then surely they could apply?
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home