Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

230 Mr Fluffy owners accept ACT Government offer to purchase house

By Canfan - 28 January 2015 17

Chief Minister Andrew Barr has today advised that 15 houses have been purchased and more than 200 homeowners have accepted the offer made by the ACT Government to purchase their home through the Mr Fluffy Buyback Program.

The announcement comes after news last night that the ACT Government has offered a Forrest family $3 million to buy back their Mr Fluffy home. The family has not yet accepted the offer.

Barr said he is confident that the current program is fair, responsible and the most affordable.

“Even in its current form, the buyback and demolition program is on the edge of affordability for the Territory and continues to put pressure on the Territory’s budget. The Territory will not make a profit from this scheme but a loss in order of $400 million,” he said in a statement.

“However, it is important to note that the ACT community is purchasing these houses at full market value overlooking that they are affected by loose fill asbestos. Stamp duty waivers are being provided on the purchase of another property in the ACT or to repurchase the block.

“Relocation assistance packages which are up to $14,000 for a family of four (two adults and two dependents) are being provided. This allows homeowners, who without the scheme might not be able to sell their property, to move on to buy an equivalent home.”

To date the ACT Government has provided $2.5 million in financial assistance payments to families and another $1.3 million to fund asbestos assessments of properties.

Barr also acknowledged the “unknowns causing frustrations for homeowners,” including future values of affected blocks and uncertainty over when particular houses will be demolished.

“As soon as the taskforce can provide more detail, it will,” he said.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
17 Responses to
230 Mr Fluffy owners accept ACT Government offer to purchase house
1
rommeldog56 9:50 pm
28 Jan 15
#

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Report this comment

2
chewy14 9:30 am
29 Jan 15
#

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

Report this comment

3
switch 9:34 am
29 Jan 15
#

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

If they “miss out altogether,” will their house be compulsorily acquired? At a lower valuation?

Three million for a house in Forrest must be some sort of record. Large block, soon to be covered with medium density town houses?

Report this comment

4
VYBerlinaV8_is_back 11:03 am
29 Jan 15
#

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

This. If I owned a house containing Mr Fluffy asbestos and the government offered to buy it off me at full market value I’d jump at the chance. Realistically, what could be better?

Report this comment

5
Maya123 3:58 pm
29 Jan 15
#

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

This. If I owned a house containing Mr Fluffy asbestos and the government offered to buy it off me at full market value I’d jump at the chance. Realistically, what could be better?

I thought the government was only paying land value.

Report this comment

6
chewy14 5:07 pm
29 Jan 15
#

Maya123 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

This. If I owned a house containing Mr Fluffy asbestos and the government offered to buy it off me at full market value I’d jump at the chance. Realistically, what could be better?

I thought the government was only paying land value.

No, full market value of house and land.

Report this comment

7
milkman 8:06 pm
29 Jan 15
#

Maya123 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

This. If I owned a house containing Mr Fluffy asbestos and the government offered to buy it off me at full market value I’d jump at the chance. Realistically, what could be better?

I thought the government was only paying land value.

No, the government will pay the full market value for the property as if there were no asbestos present.

Report this comment

8
JC 9:05 pm
29 Jan 15
#

Maya123 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

This. If I owned a house containing Mr Fluffy asbestos and the government offered to buy it off me at full market value I’d jump at the chance. Realistically, what could be better?

I thought the government was only paying land value.

You thought wrong. Think about it, if all they did was pay land value then this whole thing would probably cost nothing as they could buy the land, clean it, sub divide and then sell for more than the original land value+clean up costs, all the while the home owner is out of pocket the cost of a building.

So no full market value of the house+land.

Report this comment

9
Postalgeek 10:48 am
30 Jan 15
#

Curious about those who haven’t lived in their house the whole time. Normal CGT rules apply?

Report this comment

10
VYBerlinaV8_is_back 11:08 am
30 Jan 15
#

Postalgeek said :

Curious about those who haven’t lived in their house the whole time. Normal CGT rules apply?

I’d think so. If you owned an investment property unoccupied due to Mr Fluffy you’d still be able to claim any losses, so presumably any gains will alos be fair game.

The only reall issue if the property was for investment would be planning which year to ‘sell’ it in, to manage to CGT liability as best you can. That said, if I had such a property and the government was taking it off my hands at full value I’d take the money and run.

Report this comment

11
Postalgeek 1:20 pm
30 Jan 15
#

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Postalgeek said :

Curious about those who haven’t lived in their house the whole time. Normal CGT rules apply?

I’d think so. If you owned an investment property unoccupied due to Mr Fluffy you’d still be able to claim any losses, so presumably any gains will alos be fair game.

The only reall issue if the property was for investment would be planning which year to ‘sell’ it in, to manage to CGT liability as best you can. That said, if I had such a property and the government was taking it off my hands at full value I’d take the money and run.

Investment or residential, I’d be taking the money and running.

Report this comment

12
watto23 4:21 pm
30 Jan 15
#

Agree, I’d be taking the money and running, but it appears for some residents, want the government to build them a new house on their land, which isn’t fair on tax payers IMO.

Report this comment

13
wildturkeycanoe 7:26 am
01 Feb 15
#

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

Report this comment

14
watto23 12:47 pm
01 Feb 15
#

wildturkeycanoe said :

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

It seems very generous and I’m glad the government wants to subdivide the blocks to increase the return they get and offset the costs. Apparently in Kambah there are 3 blocks in a row and they are concerned it will change the aesthetics of the street! Plenty of streets with medium density townhouses on them. Normal people live there and it doesn’t really make a huge difference. Developers have done it in Wanniassa and its not making the streets or suburbs worse. Its clutching at straws. If you are really concerned by your health then take the money and run. I can understand however an 80 yr old couple not moving, but well the house still needs to be demolished and delaying that makes everything difficult.

Report this comment

15
rommeldog56 2:52 pm
01 Feb 15
#

wildturkeycanoe said :

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

And what about the insurance company that undertook the remediation years and years ago – they must have insurance that can be claimed against ? Unless of course, that rediation was done to then then prevailing standards and wasnt negligance or shoddy workmanship by the contractor(s) engaged to remove the stuff. Or that statute of limitations to make a claim has past ?

In any event, the ACT Gov’t knew about it 9 years + ago – and did nothing. Thats pretty appaling and they seem to have largely escaped criticism and/or lleal action over that. Having said that, why would the ACT Gov’t care ? They can just pass the cost onto ACT Ratepayers to a greater or lesser extent !

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site