rent with redemption

In the light of the economic crisis, although it is appropriate, with the consent of the State, of the funds that the EU had made provision for the recovery of Italian companies, banks have seen fit to buy government bonds with high yields, and closed almost definitely lines of credit to consumers. Today it is estimated that out of ten applicants for a mortgage, only one manages to get it and what’s more he is allowed only 60% of the value of the property, but that’s not all, must demonstrate the remaining 40% of the purchase of the property. Some might say that even before, the bank gave you 100% of the value of the property but reached a maximum of 80%, it is true as it is true it was less rigid in the evaluation of the property, so that the 80% corresponded to the value of final sales. Currently it is not expedient, banks, give money to the consumer with a refund within thirty years, the mortgage does not make as titles. So, what’s going on, the Italians are adapting and buy the property with the formula of the ransom, widespread in northern Italy. How it works: will sign two contracts: a lease and an option to purchase. The lease provides for a fee higher (by 50%) since the increase is as a provision in case the tenant decides to buy the house at the end of the lease. In the option agreement, the tenant, at maturity, you can purchase the home at a price set at the time of subscription. If, on expiry of the lease, the tenant decides not to buy the house will lose share plus rent paid. But if the tenant in the natural duration of the lease can not get a mortgage and have not won a lottery, will have super paid a rent to the landlord will be free to sell the property to a third party ……… mhmh! There is clearly something wrong! The leases with purchase should always be accompanied by the option contract to purchase, but not separately, but as part of the lease itself, in which it is made quite clear what is the amount of the monthly and one in which down payment for the purchase of the property. Yes, in advance and not to deposit the purchase, in fact the lease with purchase is nothing more than an agreement of purchase subject to the condition, that a certain condition is true, such as the release of the mortgage, and as the possession the property is given immediately to the promissory buyer, it is right to be recognized to the owner a rent until the completion of the sale. So if the condition on the basis of the contract does not come true, it is right that the tenant will be refunded the amount paid in advance for the purchase of the property, as it is right that the seller, if taken by the demonstrable need of having to sell in the short term causes that occurred, may sell the property to a third party without having to pay twice the amount advanced. In these terms, the rent to own, does not seem the best to the housing market recovery. Maybe you should find a greater prevalence of the sale of the bare ownership in installments. In fact, in addition to having a lower price, the buyer would pay in installments which should be proportional to the age of the seller that will retain the right of usufruct, in order to modulate the payment as if it were a real loan is for ‘ amount of installments both for the selection of rates and both for the duration. It is seen that, today, those who sell the bare ownership is driven by basic economic reasons also, then it would not be a bad idea to receive a monthly salary, maybe thirty years, continuing to live in their own home without paying rent.