Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

CaptainJ

New Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptainJ

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Ahh, Thank you - I don't think this is widely publicised (probably for obvious reasons). A lot of people seem to assume that putting £50k max per bank means their money is safe ... this is quite clearly not the case.
  2. That reference appears to be only to the scenario where the government effectively nationalises a bank, the FSCS pays too much for this, and this is later determined. It doesn't seem to deal with what happens if the limit of 4.2 Billion is exceeded. This limit is new to me; I hadn't heard of it before - does anyone have more information, is it annual, per collapsed institution or something else?
  3. Support for Mortgage Interest is no doubt has the potential to increase repossessions when the govermnent sorts out the rate, or people come off it. I had no idea the figure was so high... Because the rate the government pays is so high it's actually quite a good deal to be on SMI (together with other benefits). The most stupid part if you ask me is that the rate being so high most people don't make any contribution to their mortgage. Not having to contribute a penny to your mortgage is a dangerous thing to get used to. I'm not convinced about the shell companies BTW. I have a feeling the number would be very low on these or we would have heard more about it.
  4. I am gobsmacked by this and to be honest slightly doubtful. I hadn't heard anything like it. I can definitely say if it was happening that not all the major banks have been doing it. (I had heard of N Rock doing it but that was before government take over). Do you have a link to an article on this? - I searched for this but couldn't find anything on BBC News or the Conservatives website...
  5. Whilst the 58,000 is wrong, the general principle of what you are saying could be right, but over a longer term. However we won't see it in two weeks that's safe to say. There is no pent up supply of already repossessed properties and it takes absolutely ages to actually repossess a property. If you are referring to builders etc then I doubt lenders will flood the market with builder's properties - they will manage this carefully (as they have done for example in Spain). It's still the same effect but over a longer term. I suspect even the recent Galliard's home sale was more of a marketing ploy than actual fire sale. Happy to wait two weeks on this one though. BTW I believe the CML figures to be more reliable than the government figures - having spoken to people involved in the production of both sets it's pretty clear for several reasons: CML has more competent people calculating the statistics (the government ones aren't bad but don't really understand the housirng market - it's amazing the questions they don't ask) CML and the government arguably both have vested interests but the governments one is greater. Why? Because CML also has a vested interest in people trusting its numbers in the long term. The government less so this close to an election they are likely to lose. CML has access to data from lenders that not all lenders are willing to share with the government (I'll let you work out who is willing to share and who isn't - shouldn't be hard!)
  6. I understand your logic but the term "repossession" is widely used in media, industry and by the government and so has become part of the English language. I note that you weren't too concerned about others using the term until I had the temerity to argue with you. Quite possibly. Though I've given up on short term predictions of the housing market. I wouldn't put it past the government to come up with new devilry to keep house prices up. Though I am interested in your statement about large number of Government supported homeoowners coming off schemes soon - which schemes are you referring to and why/ when are they coming off? The only one I can think of is SMI?
  7. That is the second time you have abandoned what you originally posted You weren't talking about forced selling originally: So I assume you accept that your statements on the 56000 repossessions in Manchester and 300,000 people who were not repossessed but should have been were both wrong? Incidentally I am well aware of what the government has been doing. Generally government schemes help very few people (did you actually read the article that you linked to?) but take a lot of work from lenders' collections departments. Work that can mean more fruitful possibilities go unexplored. And I would strongly suggest you don't trust government figures, particularly on a topic like this where they have a vested interest in taking credit for helping as many people as possible.
  8. Several people on here seem to be changing the goal posts. Your original post referred to homes that had been repossessed and were about to go on to the market. What has that got to do with "There was 300,000 people who were not, who should have been."? Maybe they should have been. But they weren't. Maybe the will in the future. Maybe they won't. But that isn't the point. I'm amazed by the fact that a couple of people seem to be treating the house price crash as a religion on this thread. Posting "facts" which aren't true and then when these are demonstrated untrue posting new "facts". I agree house prices are overvalued but some of the posts are nothing but wishful thinking. Incidentally where did you get 300, 000 people from (and are you referring to homes, or total number of people living in repossessed homes)? CML predicted 75000 repossessions in 2009. I think that was probably about right (and CML have access to a lot of data from lenders that you clearly don't). So that would suggest around 30,000 homes that should have been repossessed but weren't.. So did you make the 300 000 up or is it based on fact?
  9. There are no facts to back up OP's claim. I've pointed out that figure is wrong by almost two orders of magnitude. Sorry but I don't agree with you - now saying that perhaps the figure used (58000) and the words used (repossession) were wrong but there is something in the original claim strikes me as wishful thinking. Suggest you reread OP and my post. Both refer to repossessions in the past (the future was used in the sense of already repossessed properties hitting the market). No predictions there. If you're suggesting that there might be a wave of repossessions this could be the case, but it hasn't happened yet. Fact is that given how wrong everyone was about the housing market in 2009 I find it very difficult to believe predictions for 2010. It's clear house prices are overvalued but what happens in the short or even medium term is I think impossible to predict.
  10. If not CTL permission from lender or not BTL mortgage: The landlord obtained money from the tenant (rent) under the pretense of agreeing a contract with the tenant (an AST giving the tenant certain rights). However he had previously signed a contract with the mortgage lender which prevented him from giving the tenant these rights. Therefore the tenant has paid the landlord for rights (12 month minimum term, 2 month minimum notice) which the landlord was not entitled to give. So the landlord has obtained money by deceiving the tenant. This is fraud. I haven't heard of a prosecution yet though. As for placing the emphasis on the lender. Well that's a nice idea but this means that the lender will incur additional costs - and guess who pays? That's right the people taking out ordinary residential mortgages to buy a home to live in.
  11. Sorry to spoil everyone's fun but there aren't 58,000 repo'd flats in the whole of the UK let alone Manchester. There aren't even 5,800 in Manchester. There were only 46,000 repossessions in the whole country last year FFS! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8510077.stm What's more most of those repossessions will have been sold on over the year.
  12. A mortgage on a property (or other uses where the property acts as a guarantee) gives the mortgage lender power of sale over that property from the day you take the mortgage out. This is subject to certain protections, even more so in Spain than the UK. But if your gf can't sell the property at the moment then she does not have the moral (nor probably the legal) right to agree a contract giving a mortgage lender the right to sell this property. I think you need to explain a bit more about the family circumstances to see what the possible options are. It would be difficult (but I don't think impossible) to arrange this if the property was vacant or tenanted. With the circumstances you describe it may be impossible. However it does appear that the family members concerned are recieving a sizeable benefit. If this is a result of how your gf obtained the property (eg an inheritance and the way the will was structured) then fair enough, but otherwise it seems a bit unfair on your girlfriend.
  13. Their quote is for the June monthly survey (not yet published). The latest survey price of £173,583 is May's. So, presumably they are expecting house prices to go up to just over 180 in June. I would assume you could wait until June, but this is a way of crystallising your winnings.
  14. True for the ones without loads of branches; but not for the halifax (or other high street lenders). They were a necessary evil to maintain market share. Think about it - of course banks would want customers to come into their branch where they can cross sell them other products and charge a higher rate (harder to compare) than visit a broker who will search for the most competitive deal.
×
×
  • 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.