Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

6538

Members
  • Posts

    5,384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 6538

  1. With respect though, that is only the reality of part of the market place. That part being the asking price (advertising) part. If you want to use "the market" to work out how to apply an actual, real-world valuation to a particular property then you need to take actual completed sale prices into account. The part of the market you quoted isn't valueless as it gives some indication of where its going but it is a long way from being the full picture. The bottom line still remains that you can tell me anything you like as to what my house is worth, as I can advertise it to you at any price I like, but if I'm not prepared to sell you it at a price you like, or am not forced to, then the whole discussion tells us not a great deal at all.
  2. No. Few people who inherit grannys house will have to take on theburdon of another mortgage becuse a) Granny will have likely cleared it years ago or, grannys life insurance will have clared it. Even then, there probably wouldn't be enough houses coming onto the market if every single house from a deceased estate had to be sold as a matter of urgency to have an effect large enough to crash the market.
  3. True but only to a certain extent. Many people will simply rent out their existing house and rent somewhere else if they can't sell or can't get what they want for their house. In reality few peole actually need to sell. The only ones who are actually forced to sell are those who fail to pay their mortgage. Okay, people who've inherited granny's house usualy need to sell because they can't aford to keep it but even then lots of peopel will hang on for quite a while until they get somewhere near their price. There aren't enough people who need to sell to affect the market enough to crash it - not by a very long way.
  4. Asking prices are essebtilly irrelevant though. It's what sales actually complete for that matters. You can put a 10 bed country pile on the market with an asking price of offers over a quid but if you aren't prepared to less then 5 million then you might not sell it. Low asking prices are very often a teaser to get people through the door in the hope that two or more of them will start fighting over it. You aren't bound by it in anyway so you may as well try it. Bottom line - if people don't need to sell then they won't and there's no way anyone can make them unless they don't pay the mortgage.
  5. Thsi si true to an extent but has to be qualified a bit, I think though. Even an increasing rate of job losses (if it comes to pass) won't have an immediate, strong effect on the housing market. Lots of people will have some form of loss of income insurance which will at least cover the interest on their payments; they will have redundancy payments; many people are in a two income household which will make it easier to pick up the slack if one looses a job; the statutory mortgage relief scheme (don't know the details of it) will help a bit; Mortgagees don't want to possess and sell peoples houses - they aren't geared up for it and lots of forced sales will reduce the price they get for them. A lot of case-law on possession and sale came out of the early '90's crash making it a more difficult and potentially costly exercise. Mortgagees and their insurers won't be overly keen on testing the limits of the law yet again. I think it was probably a lot easier for the housing market to crash in previous eras. In the days where large areas were supported by one industry, sometimes one company, a downturn in the industry concerned would put a whole community out of work. If a pit or shipyard closed then tens of thousands of people could be out of work overnight and a community could essentially die and never recover. That's far less likely to happen these days as those situations don't really exist any more. Realistically, it looks as though it will probably take nothing short of massive numbers of job losses and for people to be out of work for a quite a long time to have much effect on the housing market. A bit of a wild guess based on not a grwat deal but I'd guess that it would take a dole qeue three or four million long over a period of at least two or three years to have a severe effect on house prices.
  6. I don't think it is. Not from where I'm sitting at any rate. Like I said, the only thing that will, or could, crash the market is lots of forced sales and that's not happening. If people don't need to sell then they won't. Not saying there won't be a crash but it's not looking likely. Interest rates are very low. I think someone on here predicted 3 rate rises this year. How big is each rise likely to be - not very, so rates will still be low at the end of the year meaning people won't be pushed much more than they are at present. I'm not financial or economic expert but I can't see how any crash is going to happen this year.
  7. The title is somewhat deceptive; he didn't "foreclose" on them,or anything remotely close to it. Not a particularly significant story, really "Man takes company to small claims Court" is hardly Earth-Shattering. However, full credit to the guy for actually getting off his **** and doing something. Loads of people mooch about internet message boards whining about how crap things are and begging information from people on how to solve their problems only to do fvck all about it. Doing something usually isn't a big effort and no one is going to do it for you - not for free anyway. Nice looking house too. Edit: I'd also point out that a mortgagee requiring a mortgagor to insure the house for its full replacement value is not what you'd call unreasonable. It's standard practice in this Country and with good reason - it's the mortgagees security for the loan.
  8. They'll never give him the loan if he tells them what its for though. If he doesn't tell them then they will easily get a charge on the property and probably even if he doesn't default in any way.
  9. My link This is being done on another thread. The paper has misrepresented the case to give the impression that Human Rights legislation prevents non-paying tenents from being kicked out. That is not true, the case is about proportionality. The actual point in this case was that kicking her out is disproportunate to the aim the council is trying to achieve - that being, getting their rent arrears back. They have agreed a payment plan with her and have offered alternative accomodation in another one of their properties. That being the case, how can it be a proportunate response to evict her as it actually achieves nothing at all, She will still owe the money and be paying it off under the agreement but will be living in a different property owned by the same council.
  10. She did, it's in the part of the judgement I posted. She claimed it and it was paid and reduced some arrears she had to zero. They then wanted some additional info they she didn't provide, the claim was cancelled and subsequently reinstated some months later. The gap represents the arrears of £3.5K. She then agreed to pay it off via an arangement with the council.
  11. And the rest; The disposal of these appeals (a) Ms Powell # Mr Underwood informed the Court that Hounslow had decided, in the light of the decision in Pinnock, to offer Ms Powell suitable alternative accommodation. As before, this accommodation was to be provided on a non-secure basis. Her rent arrears would be carried forward to the new tenancy on the basis that she continued to pay off the arrears at £5 per week, subject to any changes in her circumstances which would enable her to pay more. Mr Luba said that he was grateful for this offer, and he submitted that in any event the order that had been made against his client should not stand. Evidence had been heard by the district judge in her case. But this was not a full proportionality hearing of the kind contemplated by Pinnock, and her personal circumstances had not been examined. He invited the court to allow Ms Powell's appeal. In view of the offer that had been made, Mr Underwood did not oppose this invitation in his oral argument. But in his written case, in which he invited the court to dismiss the appeal, he pointed out that the judge observed that the action taken by Hounslow was proportionate. # Had it not been for the offer of suitable alternative accommodation, there might have been grounds for remitting Ms Powell's case to the county court for consideration of article 8 proportionality. Giving effect to the order for possession would have the inevitable consequence of making Ms Powell homeless again so that the local authority's duties to her will continue, unless she were to be found to be intentionally homeless or not to have a priority need. Had there been a live issue to be examined, it would have been preferable for her to be given an opportunity for the proportionality of the order to be considered in the light of her personal circumstances. As it is, it is not necessary to reach a view on this point. An offer of suitable alternative accommodation having been made, no good purpose would be served by maintaining the order for possession or the notice to quit which preceded it. I would allow this appeal for this reason and set the order and the notice to quit aside. So, what the Court seems to be saying here is evicting her is not proportunate to the aims the council wants to achieve - which, presumably, is the repayment of the rent arrears. The council has offered alternative accomodation and an agreement is in place to pay down the arrears. The principle of proportionality is that something is not proportunate if you can achieve the desired result by less severe means. Clearly then, evicting her is disporportunate because it isn't going to make any difference as to whether council gets it's arrears paid back or not.
  12. Some of the judgement relating to Ms Powell, I've not read through it all and offer no comment yet; The facts (a) Ms Powell # As already noted, the local housing authority was satisfied that Ms Powell was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a priority need, and was not satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally. She was given a licence by the London Borough of Hounslow ("Hounslow") to occupy a two bedroom ground floor flat at 15 Pine Trees Close, Cranford from 2 April 2007. She and her two sons Zaid, born on 3 April 2005, and Nour, born on 14 April 2006, were noted on the agreement as the occupiers. A claim for housing benefit was received by Hounslow on 4 April 2007 in which Ms Powell indicated that she had a partner named Mr Ahmad Sami who normally resided with her. By letter dated 11 May 2007 Hounslow wrote to Ms Powell stating that there were arrears of rent and warning her that this could lead to termination of her licence to occupy the property. But on 14 May a credit of housing benefit was received which reduced the arrears to zero. There was a further period when the payments fell into arrears, but they were fully cleared by a payment of housing benefit on 3 December 2007. # On 5 February 2008 Hounslow's housing benefit section wrote to Ms Powell asking her to provide it with information in connection with her claim. On 7 March 2008 it wrote to her stating that the information which it had asked for had not been provided. As a result the housing benefit claim was terminated from 23 December 2007. On 10 March 2008 Hounslow's income recovery officer wrote to Ms Powell informing her that there were arrears of licence payments and asking her to attend for an interview on 17 March 2008. Ms Powell did not attend as she had an interview at about the same time and on the same day with the Department of Work and Pensions. On 17 March 2008 Hounslow sent a letter to Ms Powell with a notice to quit. On 20 March 2008 she attended its offices and discussed the arrears with one of its officers. On the same day a letter was sent to her setting out the possible effect on Hounslow's homelessness duty towards her were she to be evicted due to rent arrears. # On 28 April 2008 Hounslow's housing benefit section sent Ms Powell a housing benefit form. It was received on 12 May 2008 and payment of housing benefit was resumed on 26 May 2008. But there were substantial arrears of rent, represented by some 11 weeks' rent, which were not covered by the initial credit of housing benefit and which remained unpaid. On or about 19 September 2008 Hounslow issued a claim for possession of the premises, relying on the notice to quit dated 17 March 2008. It was explained that there were arrears as at 30 June 2008 of £3,536.39. The matter came before Deputy District Judge Shelton on 14 May 2009, who heard evidence from witnesses, including Ms Powell. He found that the measures that had been taken by Hounslow were reasonable and proportionate (in the Doherty sense), and granted possession of the premises to Hounslow. Having heard submissions as to her personal circumstances, he required Ms Powell to give possession of the property on or before a date 14 days after the date when the order was made. # Ms Powell was granted permission to appeal against the judge's order by Mummery LJ on 2 July 2009, with a stay of execution on condition that Ms Powell paid off the arrears at £5 per week. Her appeal was heard as one of five appeals by the Court of Appeal in March 2010. It held that the decision in Ms Powell's case was lawful, as the circumstances were not highly exceptional in the context of the homelessness legislation: [2010] EWCA Civ 336, para 76. Her appeal was dismissed and the judge's order was stayed pending the filing of a notice of appeal to this Court. # Ms Powell's current position is that she is 23 years old and that her household consists of herself, her partner Mr Ahmad Sami and their four children, Zaid who is now 5, Nour who is now 4, Taysier who was born on 13 July 2007 and is now 3, and Laila who was born in July 2009 and is now 1. The family is in receipt of various benefits including housing benefit which covers all of the rental liability. In December 2009 the family was moved from 15 Pine Tree Close so that disrepair within the premises could be dealt with. Work was completed in April 2010, and the family returned to the premises and has remained in occupation ever since.
  13. People are always asking me on here what I am, what I do, where I've lived, etc? Usually a question related to the subject matter we happen to be discussing at the time - as if it makes a deifference to the value and quality of the issues I'm raising. Seriously though, surely an EA will be too busy applying too much hair gel or polishing his Beemer to be able to learn obscure legal precidents relating to possesion and sale of repo's?
  14. I can certainly imagine it happening and this is happening quite a lot, believe me. Lenders are putting a lot of these very attractive looking deals out there to give the impression that they are available and that they are doing lots of lending becase lending = good, at present. Fact is though when you come to actually securing the funds they may not be too willing to front up the cash. All they need to do is decide that the property in question isn't really worth as much as you say it is so you have to stump up more deposit, or they'll decide that you aren't quite as good a risk as they said you were once they've done a full credit check os up the rate or something.
  15. I'm not sure that they are. If you sign a tenancy and produce kids during it I don't think you can be kicked out because of it.
  16. Hang on though - we've done this before months ago. Mortgage "offers" are not really the point. The proof of the pudding is actually getting this "offer" upon completion. A mortgage offer is not a contractual offer in the sense that either party is bound by it. A bank can advertise pretty much any financial product it wants but actually getting it out of them is a different matter.
  17. Job losses are growing but not at a huge rate. Same sort of story with interest rates. You need more than that to set off a huge crash in the property market. Interest rates would have to rise to far higher levels than they are now and lots of people will have to be made jobless before enough properties are forced onto the market. Other factors which will slow down a crash are that lots of people will have loss of income insurace to cushion the blow and the fact that as intetrest rates are currently very low it will take a long time for them to get to levels which will really hurt. Also, the statutory schemes to help prevent loss of your house will help a bit. Unless we get huge job losses and huge rate rises over a fairly short period then a crash as far from inevitable, I would think. The other factor is that lenders don't want to take houses into possesion. That's not what their business model is about and it will end up costing them lots of money. Moreover, many lenders especially those at the sub-prime level only do one thing - lend on mortgages - and have no clue about how to go about possessing properties because they never anticipated it being necessary. In the old days of the big banks doing it they could more afford to because they have massive amount of resorces in terms of cash and personell and lawyers on retainer to exploit. The tremendous fvck up the "mortgages to chavs" boys made when dumping loads of properties on that yank auction company a couple of years back and which is going to come back to bite them is a case in point. It may well drop another 20% but it may take 10 or 15 years - who knows? Fact is though that I don't see signs that it's particularly imminent and few that a "crash" will happen at all, if by crash you mean a rapid large fall.
  18. Oh yes, this is all quite true and it still is in line with the rule of obtaining best price in Silven. The important thing is that he must obtain the best price reasonably obtainable on the day of sale, regardless of whan that day may actually be and he is under no duty to try and make it a day most advantageous to the mortgagor. A mortgagee is under no duty at all to actually sell a property or to sell it at any particular time or with a view to obtaining any specific price. He may sell it at whatever time he chooses or not at all and is perfectly entitled to wait until such time as he feels is most advantageous as long as he obtains the best price at the time it is actually sold. The only thing he cannot do is sell it for an under value simply to clear off his mortgage, well there are one or two other things he canot do - such as sell it to him self or an associate but that isn't really relevant here. The longer he waits though the bigger his loss may turn out to be as he is responsible for maintaining it, insuring it and is responsible for making good any loss it may cause to others. If a pipe bursts and floods someone elses property it may end up costing him. The mortagor has a right to redeem the mortgager (to pay it off and regain possession) right up until a contract is exchanged with a new purchaser and the mortgagee must maintain the property in at least the same condition in which it was when he took possession.
  19. A valuer - usually the auctioneer. It's in their interest to set it high as they will probably be getting paid by commission and will most likely be acting as estate agent too. Even considering that, lots of these prices have exceeded the guide price. That doesn't seem indicative of a full on crash of the market.
  20. And maybe they'll find a reason to change it back again in the near future? Perhaps it suits their agenda to push that line this week - is the DG negotiating a purchse, one wonders?
  21. So aren't creating the demand. So people can't buy even if they want to. Not if people are holding back there isn't, see my first point above. There may be huge desire to buy but there is no demand in a supply & demand sense until someone offers some money up. There is huge demand for new Ferraris but few can afford them so the "demand" is actually desire. Huge desire is not going to cause the price of a new Ferrari to fall. Which means people cannot buy so there is no demand. Erm??? The only thing that will precipitate a martket crash is lots of forced sales - people who absolutely have to sell. There aren't many, certainly not enough to crash the market and that doesn't look like chaging any time soon. If interest rates rocket then I'll start believing in more imminent forces sales.
  22. Hang on - I thought there was a huge house price crash in progress? Clearly not given that almost all of the properties mentioned went for more than the guide price, some substantially more. Shouldn't people be picking stuff up for peanuts by now?
  23. Are they though? Not by much from where I'm sitting. The fact is that the only thing that will bring about falls of any significance is lots of forced sales and they aren't happening and, quite honestly, aren't likely to any time soon. Interesting how the BBC are now paragons of truth now that they are saying what people here want to hear. No offence.
×
×
  • 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.