Blow for new home hunters as Help to Buy ends

THOUSANDS of first-time buyers could miss out on the Government’s Help to Buy scheme after its deadline for applications was quietly brought forward.

The flagship programme was introduced in 013 by then Chancellor George Osborne and offered buyers purchasing new-build homes a loan worth 0 per cent of the property price. It was due to end in March 0 3 after a House of Lords committee questioned the effectiveness of the £ 9billion project.

But buyers hoping to take advantage of the scheme will now have to reserve their properties by the end of October – at least two months earlier than anticipated.

The new deadline was briefed to builders by the Government’s housing body Homes England in a call earlier this month.

Buyers were previously under the impression that they had until the end of the year to reserve a home. This process involves identifying a plot and putting down hundreds of pounds as a holding deposit.

David O’Leary, policy director at the Home Builders Federation, said: ‘A few thousand potential homeowners are having the ladder pulled away with little warning.’ Homes England

‘Having the ladder pulled away with little warning’

said the deadline for new applicants was updated on the Government website on May

0. The body insisted there was never any formal deadline for the scheme.

The Help to Buy scheme has helped around 361,000 people purchase a new-build home, according to figures from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

It allows first-time buyers to get on the property ladder with a deposit of as little as 5 per cent of the property’s value. The Government then provides a further 0 per cent equity loan, or up to 40 per cent in London. The loan is interest-free and lasts for five years.

The scheme has been criticised for inflating house prices. A House of Lords built environment committee published a report earlier this year concluding that Help to Buy had failed ‘to provide value for money’. The report said: ‘This funding would have been better spent on increasing housing supply.’