HovelinHove

Need for the tiniest violin ever

Recommended Posts

Thorn   
1 minute ago, Democorruptcy said:

You could argue that equally applies to "owners" with a mortgage renting from a bank. I rent but feel free enough.

True as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riedquat   
4 hours ago, Habitationi Bulla said:

Theyd have paid interest on their mortgage, that 153k wasnt all to keep so o speak? Ive just done a quick RM search and it seems closer to £1300 is the going rate for 3 beds in this area. I'd presume 800PCM was close to the going rate at the time, being as rents are more related to wages.

The article states the person potentially buying wanted 1200pcm not 1100pcm as i stated, and they were to buy it at 240k after an agent valued it at 310k.

But like a say the thing learned here is do not help anyone out.

Do not "help" anyone out by wanting to end up with a lot of money from your "help" seems to be the message. If £800 per month covered the mortgage at the time it still will (unless they've done something stupid), they do not appear to have lost out in any way from this "help" and are whinging that they can't squeeze more out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Habitationi Bulla said:

It would seem to me that the main thing to learn from this is don't help people out.

They could have bought it, booted him out and charged market rent on 6 month AST's

I'm hardly a fan of landlords, from my dealings with them most are utter to55ers, but this one strikes me as one of the few that isn't.

Apologies for not towing the line.

Agree with you I've read the article and seems like it is the tenant who is the wrongun here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah-so   
5 hours ago, Habitationi Bulla said:

Thatd be illegal. And it states there was no rent forever agreement.

But the court ordered it as they found some case law dating back 90 and 60 years

It is not illegal to buy a house at a discount. That is exactly what those 'we buy any house dot com' companies do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kibuc   
19 hours ago, Habitationi Bulla said:

To be fair theyve done the man a favour and he's taken them for a ride, theyve even offered to sell it back well below market value.

No.

Such.

Thing.

"They needed some cash to fund their new three-bedroom villa in Torremolinos and explained the situation to Mr Gregory. Mr Harding offered to sell the home to Mr Gregory for £60,000 less than the £310,000 valuation."

They wanted to sell quickly. Market value of an asset you're in a rush to sell is obviously lower than if you could affort to wait and attract more offers.

Market consists of all entities interested in selling or buying given good or service. You always sell at the market value. It's just that if you're only pitching to one buyer, then you're selling on a different market than everybody else.

Edited by kibuc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash4781   
18 hours ago, Blod said:

Sorry but that rent would have easily over the interest on a loan for the property when they bought it for him. Their complaint is that they only did that so they could take the capital gains on his property for themselves, and now due to their poor due diligence they can't and have tried to force him out through the courts. Would he have agreed to this if he had known that they could just evict him, I doubt it as it would not have offered him the secure tenure that he needed and desired.

I couldn't see tenancy agreement discussion in the article but I don't expect this would be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement we all know but something else. I don't know exactly what sale and leaseback companies do but presumably the solicitors drew something similar up at the time that both parties agreed to.

Edited by Ash4781

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ash4781 said:

I couldn't see tenancy agreement discussion in the article but I don't expect this would be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement we all know but something else. I don't know exactly what sale and leaseback companies do but presumably the solicitors drew something similar up at the time that both parties agreed to.

This is classic DM, omit key facts and spin the story to generate outrage, especially amongst their HPI-mad / BTL readership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funn3r   
3 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

That's an eggcorn.

It's toe the line (toeing the line here, obvs).

Or are you refusing to toe the line on the conventional spelling of toe? That would make you quite the iconoclast.

Hmm that's strange. I am a spelling nazi and I too always thought toe was a misspelling of the correct tow. Think you are actually right with toe though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil321   

I have some experience of this type of arrangement and this seems to be an example of amateurs attempting to do something that required more research and due process before they entered into this. 

If I entered into any such arrangement I would expect massive discount (ie at least 50% off) market price....and as a tenant I would expect a cheap tenancy for life (or even free living). Either party thinking they are going to get anything other than this is kidding themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.