Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

ingermany

Members
  • Posts

    1,590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ingermany

  1. 8 minutes ago, TryingToWin said:

    renegotiate rent, lol.

    Dude if Halifax says tomorrow that the price of a house is ZERO. Nothing. Do you think that means rent goes down to zero?

    That doesn't change the amount of homes available and the amount of people who need to live in them.

    It is the renters who are "bidding up" the price of rental accommodation based on what they are willing to pay to live there. It is not related to the mortgage costs or house values in the slightest. Its the same as rent controls. Yea put them in, if you want everyone to end up living in shoe boxes.

     

    "Negative equity" my ****, if you can keep the place for 25 years you make money compared to someone who keeps their deposit in cash. No exceptions. This will only change if immigration policy changes.

    "No exceptions. This will only change if immigration policy changes."

    Like next year,  with Brexit? LoL

    Actually, I agree with most of what you say. Negative Equity is only going to hit the recent buyers and the very leveraged, including BTL and "home owning" equity releasers. Psychological impact will be huge though. It will make selling houses like selling high end diesel cars. Nobody wants to be left with a high priced deprecating asset. 

     

     

     

     

  2. Yes...just heard David Lord Willets on radio 4 as I was driving to work....nearly made me steer into oncoming traffic. This is the man who brought us "graduate tax" who now wants to give all 25 year olds a 10k bung to spend on a help to buy deposit. A blatant and obvious attempt to further inflate house prices for the benefit of his friends at Persimmon.  Presumably 26+ year old English graduates would be totally screwed over by this.  We don't need more arbitrary state subsidies. We need to make work more profitable than sitting on an inherited housing portfolio. This means land value taxes to partly replace PAYE, a controlled reduction in house prices, less state subsidy for land ownership, and a level playing field across the UK and between generations. Start by removing all interest from student debt and raising repayment thresholds. Not by giving a 10k gift to a single cohort. 

     

  3. Err. Yes I think there is corruption here. 

    Something worth 50k was "bought" from a developer for 500k with government funding 95k to cover "the deposit"....Taxpayers money which was given to the developer. Money that has now vanished. Into the developer's bonuses. That is an obvious scam. Surely the Treasury is not that stupid? 

    All government subsidies are vulnerable to this sort of gaming. The cash just vanishes. The declared prices and values can be set at any random sum because there is no free market. Government is the guaranteed market maker. It is a clear scam and a fraud. 

  4. 12 hours ago, mrtickle said:

    It is your civic duty to report them, which you can do anonymously, and I am deadly serious not joking.

     

    Totally agree. I think HMRC are waking up to this though. I get a monthly "we are here to help landlords" email from HMRC in spite of fact I receive no rent. My uni student daughter inhabits the property rent free.....but the emails are unnerving. They clearly know I own a property that I don't live in. Most LL's would take the hint and declare any income. Any who don't should be prosecuted. 

  5. These distress signals are being sent more and more frequently now. Outrage, disbelief, denial, anger and fear.  Truth is that real businesses that build and rent residential property will do well. Finance costs should be offset against tax because these are a legitimate expense in building and developing new living spaces. Good luck to them. 

    Amateur leveraged BTL is not a real business. It is leveraged property investment with a rental income spin off, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer with government lending, tax breaks and benefits payments. Government is right to pull the supports away. They gave 2 years notice that goalposts were going to be moved. That has given ample time for landlords to sell up into a still buoyant market. Those who have held on are going to be ruined by their own greed, and they know it. All this foaming at the mouth about the plight of poor tenants is just frustration at their own impending losses. Frankly it is entertaining and I hope there is more of it. Mail online remains one of the few unmoderated comment pages where you can still wind these people up. 

  6. 31 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

    Does that mean there is going to be a house price crash?

    Definitely

    1. Graduates with 60k debts and 25k salaries cannot get a 500k mortgage. Even with HTB on steroids they would have to significantly increase the national debt to continue shovelling cash to buiders and house owners to just maintain price stability. 

    2. BOMD is going to be constrained by care and health costs. The state can no longer afford to finance subsidies to house owners,  or social care costs for those with income and assets. Gifts to children will run into anti money laundering measures. The tax man needs HPI profits to pay adult social care bills. You won't be allowed to give the gains to your children. Those family homes will be sold to pay care costs. 

    3. Amateur BTL is going to be taxed into extinction. Competition in that part of the market will be all about a scramble to sell without incurring crippling losses. It's a liquidation sale. 

    4. Without escalating starter home prices and with more forced sales of larger properties to pay the taxman and local authority there will be a long term drop in prices.  

    5. Money may get cheaper to borrow....but it can't get much cheaper. Unless government does a Zimbabwe to maintain nominal HPI in a worthless currency, I can't see how they can stop the falls now. It's a miracle they kept it at bay for 10 years.  

     

     

  7. 3 hours ago, Grab_Some_Popcorn said:

    Hmmm... So why are IO loans still being sold? Are banks now having to explain in clearer terms what the customer is signing up to?

    case study 4

    After visiting a new housing development, Miss E and Mr F were advised by the onsite broker to take out a ten-year interest-only mortgage. Miss E’s father later complained that the couple hadn’t understood what they were signing up to. He said they’d tried to sell their flat, but the market value was lower than the mortgage balance.

    At the time Miss E and Mr F took out the mortgage, they’d both been in low-waged jobs. Miss E, who had learning difficulties, had been living with her parents and Mr F had been renting. In our view, they couldn’t have afforded to save towards repaying their mortgage - and from what we saw, the broker hadn’t done enough to explain the consequences of having an interest-only mortgage. It didn’t seem the couple could have afforded any type of mortgage that would have enabled them to buy a property in that area.

    We told the broker to refund the costs of setting up and ending the mortgage. And we said that if Miss E and Mr F sold their property for its market value within a year, the broker should pay the difference between the selling price and the balance of the mortgage.

  8. 4 hours ago, TonyJ said:

    I thought, after long discussion in a previous thread, that this is a non-story,, and will very likely create minimal instances of compensation, unlike PPI. The advert looks desperate, created by lawyers desperate for work.

    You're right. I added a similar thread a month ago. However...if you look at the recent Financial Ombudsman decisions there are many successful claims linked to IO mortgages allegedly mis sold. And against banks for not clearly explaining to customers that if they stop paying a  mortgage the amount owing will increase every month. 

  9. 4 hours ago, Just_Do_It said:

    I find it unbelievable that banks are forced to compensate investors in holiday homes which haven't increased in value.  Ayou able to provide a link for this?

    Decision Reference DRN5618451 - ombudsman decisions
    PDFwww.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk 

     

    Mrs H vs Express Mortgage Solutions. Plaintiff got interest only loans for 2 investment properties one of which was in Bulgaria. Lost money then successfully argued that the lender should have known better. Got her money back. 
     

  10. Regulators and Financial Ombudsman Servicehave already agreed this in principle. Also to compensate those who were given self cert loans based on fabricated income declarations. They have also started to make banks compensate those who invested in holiday homes that haven't increased in value. 

    It really was a one way bet. 

  11. Guardian today:   Struggling credit card holders could save £1.3bn under new rules

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/27/credit-card-holders-new-rules-fca

    FCA is starting to ramp up debt write offs to keep people borrowing and spending. Anything to stop house prices from adjusting. Your home is at risk if you don't repay your debts....or maybe not.  More forbearance is on the way. 

    The rules for creating and obtaining money via credit are being re-written and changes are apparently retrospective. 

     

  12. And after IO, self cert, MEW, and OAP mortgage mis-selling windfalls, prepare for HTB mis-selling 

     

    Of all the examples,  HTB most closely meets mis-selling criteria. Loans of LTV higher than the lenders themeselves calculate as affordable and safe. Possibility to repay dependent on rising property value. There will be massive wholesale compensation. Once government stops selling it. 

  13. 11 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

    FSCS is there to repay deposits in the event that the bank fails, not to pay fines. 

    The claims conglomerates are saying if the bank goes bust the liabilities incurred thru mis-selling will be met thru FSCS.  And even if the mis-selling lender has ceased to exist FSCS assumes liability.  This is what they have published. Not sure how true. It is done to encourage claims against now defunct lenders. 

  14. 11 hours ago, oldsport said:

    Case studies 3 and 5  on the FOS website make me concerned that it's not going to be that straightforward.

    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/interest-only-mortgage-case-studies.html

    We were also pretty confident on here that the landlords would lose against West Brom. I have a very bad feeling!

     

    Yes. There is collusion to compensate. Banks are concerned that forced sales and repos will hit house prices, which underpin all of lenders net worth. Preferable to rescue anyone in debt to the point they might lose their home or be forced to sell.  There are no rules, apart from the one that says property only goes up in value. 

     

    I see FOS  ordered a bank to compensate woman who bought an off plan holiday let investment that went belly up.  Buyer and seller were protected. The lender was made to pay up the full amount of the loan on basis that they should not have allowed the woman to borrow money for an investment that didn't grow. If that is not a sign that mis-selling is being redefined I don't know what is. 

  15. 45 minutes ago, frankvw said:

    oooh. Nice. Iain Dale on LBC now, saying that he is one of those who has no means to meet the interest only mortgage capital demand (in his case, 6 years away - LBC hosts earn around £250-1M per annum). Usual call from experts and callers for borrowers to be given government assistance, reduced mortgage expenses and discounted conversion to extended repayment mortgages due to 'mis-selling'. Your tax money, their fecklessness. More government and bank moral hazard. My blood is pretty much boiling after R4 Bank of England show yesterday and now the LBC show this afternoon.

    Enjoy!

    Th a claims lawyers are deep into this already.  I suspect a deal had already been agreed with regulators to compensate IO,  self certs, MEW customers, and high risk borrowers.  The law firms are trawling now in all these categories. FOS is already upholding mis-selling claims.   

  16. There is probably a genuine mis-selling case. Lenders were only willing to advance 60 to 80% of asking price. If not for HTB loan the property would have been 40% cheaper. Buyers are being gazumped by the Prime Minister in cahoots with corporate construction giants. For that reason I doubt if anyone can be forced to repay the deposit loan because it only covers the price fixing negotiated between the government and builders. 

  17. 16 minutes ago, HowMuch! said:

    how are they out of pocket, they have had the exclusive use of the property for the period... the equivalent rent should therefore be taken into consideration?

    And the Financial Ombudsman seems to be siding with borrowers.  Customer stupidity seems to be no defence. 

     

    Broker must pay £60k over mis-sold interest-only mortgage - FOS

    Written by Adam Cadle
    05/01/2018

    Mortgage broker, Advance Mortgage Funding, must pay a former client more than £60,000 after an adviser provided unsuitable mortgage advice in 2009, the Financial Ombudsman Service has said.

    In its decision the FOS said the client, Mrs M, used a loan to buy an overseas property with Harlequin with the intention of using the rent from the property to meet repayments.

    The property was never constructed and Mrs M lost her money as a result. Advance Mortgage said it wasn’t required to give advice on the suitability of the investment but the FOS sided with the complainant.

    Defending its decision, the FOS said the mortgage was not suitable for the situation

    In a written final ruling on the case, ombudsman Sue Wrigley said she upheld the complaint because Mrs M she was not fully advised of the risks in repaying the mortgage.

    Wrigley added: “Without the mortgage I don’t think Mrs M would have invested in the Harlequin property.

    “She didn’t have any other savings or investments she could have used.

    “So I think it’s more likely than not, that but for the unsuitable mortgage advice, Mrs M would not have invested in the overseas property and would not now be left with a mortgage she can’t afford to repay.”

    The FOS said the only way to make the situation right is to put Mrs M in the position that had she never taken out the mortgage.

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.