We're looking into it (for the new build option, not the 95% guarantee option). We'd prefer to buy an existing property as they're cheaper than new builds, but depending on what we find we may end up with a new build.
As I see it, from a personal perspective...
PROS:
- Can get a property with 5% deposit, which is still quite a big sum here in the south east
- The 20% equity share from the government is interest-free for 5 years, then 1.75% for the 6th year, then it rises after that. Still, "free" money for 5 years, essentially.
- Having 25% deposit available means you can get lower interest rates and therefore afford a bigger mortgage/house price or have more money available to pay down the mortgage/20% loan quicker
- The 20% loan is an equity share, so if your house drops in value, the amount you owe back for the 20% drops too (not sure what happens if this occurs while you're paying it off, though...say the original 20% value is £30k and you've already paid off £25k, what happens if your house drops in value and 20% is now only £20k? Somehow I can't see the gov't handing you £5k back.)
CONS:
- The 20% stake goes up when your property value does. So if you initially have a balance of £20k to buy the place and the property's value goes up 10%, you now owe £22k to the government.
- Only certain lenders/home developers work with the scheme
- New builds are significantly more expensive than existing houses.
From a more general taxpayer perspective, I think it's mostly CONs.
The scheme encourages house prices to rise as more people can afford larger mortgages - that doesn't necessarily make it any easier to get on the property ladder. And guaranteeing someone's mortgage with taxpayer money (for the 95% mortgage eligibility part that's just kicked in) seems like madness to me.