In the past I have been reluctant to advise fixing for all but the most security minded clients. My reasoning is that it is like going to the casino. Most folks end up worse than if they hadn’t gone but it is the stories from those who win that make us go back! I also believe that you are betting against the bank expert in working out whether you will pay less to the bank over the long run.
BUT having said that I now believe it more likely that rates will move upwards instead of down wards and am seeing more articles supporting this.
I am currently fixing my most recent purchase using a 3 year product at 5.89%.
I might also add not to go cheap…buy good quality brushes and rollers. Cheap ones leave marks and the bloody bristles keep coming out in the paint. Whilst you can pick them out there is always one you don’t find until it’s dry []
I would also recommend a more expensive paint such as Dulux 101 wash and wear I think it’s called. Goes on better than the cheaper stuff.
Please forgive me if I have offended you. That was meant to be friendly advice not a suggestion that you were less than honest. I worded it badly as I often do. My fault entirely.
But spreading misinformation? That is a little harsh isn’t it? [] Everything I have written is true. They are auditing and requiring three months proof.
Anyway to move on.
The spirit of the legislation is to assist people to buy a home.
If they purchase a home for a week or a month and then rent it out I would suggest that in some cases it wasn’t really their intention to buy a home at all but to purchase a rental property with the assistance of the FHOG. I wont be knowingly involved in that. I consider it unethical.
I know that the guidelines specify no minimum period.
I also know that the auditors are becoming quite aggressive about targetting people who have misused the FHOG and anecdotal evidence suggests that the period of proof requested is for a three month period. I would hate to think that I caused a client trouble over $7000 because I encouraged him to claim the FHOG for something that was never intended as a home.
I don’t think there would be too much problem if it was occupied for three months from the 11 month period. I believe the reason the act was worder within 12 months was to allow any existing lease to expire before an owner moved in and this could conceivably be for 11 months after purchase.
I am not suggesting that this 3 month period is right or wrong. But it is happening.
Once again sorry if I offended you – I never really intended to.
Populations under 10 000 can cause problems with some lenders – this is not a show stopper though as there are other lenders who do not consider population size and lend at normal rates.