Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cashinmattress

  1. 1 hour ago, Tes Tickle said:

    Either it's an outright swindle or, at the very best, a very overpriced and hazardous way of buying a flat, which will still be leasehold at the end of buying it.

    Whatever it is, I don't understand why Property Exchange haven't told them they can't do this, or why Rightmove haven't removed it, or why nobody is telling Rightmove they shouldn't be advertising this sort of rubbish.  This is advertised as a house for sale, not to let, which is why I'm (falsely?) assuming that the ownership of something must get transferred at some point.  Who knows really though.

    As a recently interested buyer, I'm getting quite shocked by just how unregulated everything really is.  I've seen all kinds of dodgy stuff advertised.  I know that in general it's buyer beware but, frankly, there seems to be more regulation on the sale and advertising of pretty much anything else you can think of in comparison to what people get away with when selling houses.

    Perhaps its just to get your very real down payment into their pocket before they're off bilking the next fool.

  2. 1 minute ago, highYield said:

    Terrible example. The PR vote - decades promised by the Lib Dems - was horribly complicated by the Tories into AV - in a well judged effort to make it too complicated for the majority to vote for.

    I don't think it was 'horribly complicated'.... Scotland has a differing system and it works just fine.

    I think your interpretation of it may be horribly complicated.

  3. 1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

    I remember the American ambassador to the UK inferring the same thing in that documentary.

    BTW, this - out of the frying pan and into the fire.


    I put that link up earlier... its not good for the UK citizen.

    Brexit is the opportunity that big VC has been waiting decades for... an advanced economy to go into meltdown and force the hands of the politico to soften or abolish long standing policy on environmental and corporate liability.

    It's the worst of all scenarios... that has been forecast of course.

  4. 2 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

    Not at all. We voted to leave the EU - all of it. Single Market, Customs the lot. A50 should have been invoked the next morning and we should have been totally out on WTO rules 6 months ago. By now we would have had tariff free arrangements with the EU, they would have had to or no German car market anymore for them

    Scotland didn't. Northern Ireland didn't. Gibraltar didn't. We did nothing actually.

    No trade deal of this magnitude would ever happen in this timeframe; especially when you consider economy of scale of markets.

    And I think you'll find that people like German cars because they are hands down the best in market. Nothing's going to change that.

    Your overly optimistic and simplistic take on it is what drove similarly minded people like you to vote leave.

    Even our much demised Prime Minister understands it and has concocted this half-baked deal to try and save her political legacy.

  5. 1 minute ago, bear.getting.old said:

    Now come on. This has been put to bed last year by Gina Miller and co.

    "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide..."

    If you follow the advisory route there would be no point ever in having any referendum at all. And a huge waste of time, energy and money.

    Referendums should be simple, single issue questions and work on things like... AV voting for example. Or should we tax this for that amount, or the other thing? Do we want to change our flag to this or that?

    Brexit was going to fail from day one. It was black and white masking 1000's shades of grey. Impossible to implement without damaging (obvious now) the UK, and without due diligence from the state in terms of pro's and con's.

    FFS. Even now the government won't release it's own impact studies!!!

    Further, Parliament is sovereign, not the people.

    How much of a waste of time and energy has this whole Brexit debacle been? It's a lot.. not idea on how to quantify it.

    In a hard Bexit it will be peanuts compared to the damages that Britain will incur indefinitely.

  6. 48 minutes ago, Ignorantbliss said:

    Good to see some media coverage on the quality of new homes, pity nobody in authority does anything about it - the comments section in this article is also worth reading

    Is there a crisis of quality in new-build homes? - Guardian

    As it's a buyer's market round here these days, wonder if our local builders will bother to up their game in terms of workmanship.

    As example, had the local gas engineer in the other day for our annual boiler service and he was commenting on how he is getting plenty trade from the new build estates around Inverurie and Alford/Sauchen.  Apparently the builders have been installing the cheapest types of boiler they can get away with - with result that a lot of them are failing completely within 2 or 3 years.  Love to know what profit margin they are getting on the new houses.

    I've got some civil engineer types in my social circle who work for some local builders in the NE, in design and project management roles.

    They really recommend NOT buying anything from you know who and the other local brand names.

    They state the failings in engineering parlance... such as how minuscule the factors of safety are for structural members, or how unfit for purpose X material is in Y application. That kind of stuff.

    Cheapest of cheap crud, bordering on violation of building codes & regs kind of stuff.

    All gets passed because people are just thick and greedy.

    And will keep going on as builders never get their comeuppance in the UK.

    Profits? They are sickening. Like 1:4 or 1:6  depending on the build and financing deals the builders strike up.... ie: 1 house built and sold covers all the costs of four to six to follow... which are pure profit.

    Ask a tradesman about it... they routinely put in gear that has been languishing in some dodgy bonded warehouse for years because it was non-compliant or faulty for one reason or another. Builder buys up this crap for pennies and flogs it at market rate.

    Or ask a decorator what they are paid to hide.

    I think this is a UK wide problem really.

  7. 5 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

    Under TM's deal we will only be able to leave the Customs Union with the EUs permission. Currently we can leave the EU by giving 2 years notice. How can anyone support a deal that hands more power to the EU?

    Apparently with heaps of room temperature cider? Not sure how else anyone leave or remain can get behind this crap deal.

    There's no friends in geopolitics...



    Spain has threatened to reject the Brexit withdrawal agreement unless the European Union gives Madrid a guaranteed veto over a future trade deal between Britain and Europe.

    Talks between European governments and Michel Barnier, the EU’s Brexit negotiator, over a blueprint setting out the broad terms of Britain’s future relationship have run into trouble.

    Josep Borrell, the Spanish foreign minister, said that his government was ready to block the agreement at a summit this weekend unless it was given a cast-iron promise that no future trade or security deals would apply to Gibraltar without Spain’s consent.

    Talk about having a gun to your head. It's Spain's way or you crash your economy in a Hard Brexit scenario.... not predictable at all. /s

    Then the DUP from the other end...

    And turncoat comrade Corbyn...

    Utter clusterfvck.

    All this was forecast and poo poo'd repeatedly by the hardline Brexit brigade.

  8. https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/11/18/matthew-sarah-elliott-uk-power-couple-linking-us-libertarians-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-brexit


    Matthew and Sarah Elliott: How a UK Power Couple Links US Libertarians and Fossil Fuel Lobbyists to Brexit

    If you have detected a distinctly American flavour to the rampant lobbying in Westminster corridors over a Brexit deal, there is a good reason why.

    A close look at the transatlantic connections of the London-based groups pushing for the most deregulated form of Brexit reveals strong ties to major US libertarian influencers. These include fossil fuel magnates the Koch brothers — known for funding climate science denial around the world — and the man who bankrolled Donald Trump’s campaign, Robert Mercer.

    At the heart of this network lies a little-known power couple, Matthew and Sarah Elliott. Together, the husband and wife team connect senior members of the Leave campaign and groups pushing a libertarian free-market ideology from offices in Westminster’s Tufton Street to major US libertarian lobbyists and funders.

    Collectively, the network aims to use Brexit as an opportunity to slash regulations in the UK, paving the way for a wide-ranging US-UK free-trade deal that could have disastrous consequences for the environment.


    The committee report found that the government had still not committed to replacing around a third of all environmental rules governing air, water, chemicals and waste disposal that cannot be copied over into UK law from the EU. It added that the lack of clarity about a large chunk of environmental regulation was “deeply worrying”.

    That UK-based think tanks are not compelled to reveal their funders has cast a veil of opacity over the Brexit policy debate, with huge private interests being presented as the defenders of free-market ideology.

    But the US libertarian influence on Brexit is not only a battle of ideas and ideology but is backed by millionaires and billionaires with fossil fuel interests who saw the referendum as an opportunity to open up the UK market to US exports.

    These mega-donors’ influence has been channeled to the UK through networks such as Atlas and individuals such as Matthew and Sarah Elliott, who wield power through their connections — all in the name of pushing for deregulation post-Brexit, which would put profits before the environment.

    Interesting and entirely predictable.

  9. From across the pond...



    It's good for America that Brexit work — and it can work for both Britain and the European Union.

    With our national interest in mind, President Trump ought to energize his administration toward aiding the process of Britain's exit from the EU — a process that is presently in trouble.

    This week, unveiling her draft Brexit deal with the EU, British Prime Minister Theresa May met a whirlwind of ministerial resignations and parliamentary ire. Led by the enigmatic former foreign minister and ardent Brexiteer, Boris Johnson, many Conservative members of Parliament claim that May's deal is unacceptable. Claiming May's deal would fail to re-establish British sovereignty, they suggest it would represent a betrayal of British popular will as rendered in the summer 2016 Brexit referendum.

    The core problem with the EU is how undemocratic it is. "Anti-democratic" would be a better word. The purpose of the union at times seems to be a thwarting of the will of the people, and removing power of governing as far away from the governed as possible. Brexit was supposed to be about restoring self-governance to the Brits, and that's why Brexiteers are extra sensitive to the possibility May's deal undermines the will of the public expressed in the 2016 Brexit vote.

    Led by ardent socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party opposition has also rejected May's agreement.

    This leaves the prime minister in a very difficult place: lacking the votes to win parliamentary assent for her plan, and apparently lacking the means to persuade the EU to give her a better deal that might pass domestic muster.

    This is bad for America. If Britain can't reach a good Brexit outcome, Britain will be less able to support American interests on the international stage, and less able to buy goods from American businesses. Trump's administration can and ought to step in to assist Britain. After all, we've got some experience in breaking away from unresponsive governments across the water.

    Here's the kicker: Helping Britain get a good Brexit will also help our other allies in Europe.

    Britain is a net importer of goods from the EU, and that will continue even if the Brits break out of the EU's customs union. But if a bad Brexit harms the U.K. economy, British consumers would suffer alongside European suppliers. Whether it be French cheese and wine producers, or German car manufacturers, Britain's economic malady would reverberate across EU borders. But we believe it's even worse than that, because major British economic instability also risks the election of Jeremy Corbyn as British prime minister. Seeing as Corbyn overtly preferences centrally planned economies over free markets, a bad Brexit risks redoubling the negative consequences for the EU.

    So how can we help our former oppressor free her own oppression?

    For a start, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should call the EU leadership and leaders in France and Germany. Trump should tell these leaders that the U.S. sees Britain as our most important ally and we believe the EU is currently behaving punitively with London.

    The administration should add that while we hope to rapidly conclude a U.S.-EU trade deal (a top EU priority), we won't accept a Brexit that metaphorically leaves Britain out to dry. If the EU ignores Trump's first airing of concern, the president should warn he will suspend efforts to broach better cooperation. Instead, Trump should make clear that he will entertain a continued cooling of U.S.-EU relations. Yet Trump should also make clear to Brussels that their more constructive action will result in his reciprocity toward London. Here, we believe Trump should pressure Theresa May to support retained EU fisheries access to British waters following Brexit. European fishing businesses have significant interest in the waters off the coast of Gibraltar in the Mediterranean and around the U.K. mainland. Trump should make clear that if May is unable to get a better deal from the EU, the US will support British efforts to secure its exclusive economic zones from foreign commercial intrusion. (h0rsh1t!!!!)

    Most importantly, we should redouble our efforts toward a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement. The expressed support of the world’s largest economy to Britain would signal to other nations that they should have confidence in Britain’s future. Alongside boosting British stability, a new trade deal would also offer improved American access to a high-value economy.

    Regardless, Trump should act and act now. Time is running out to reach a good Brexit deal, but Trump has means of salvaging something good.

    We're making fools of ourselves.

  10. 3 minutes ago, Tes Tickle said:


    Owner will finance with just £5,000 deposit, then £750 per month, £100 coming off purchase price. Purchase price £167,000. Suitable for self employed, new to the UK, un-established or adverse credit record.


    To be sold with a new 125 year lease ground rent 100 per annum.
    Service charge 1/3 of building maintenance etc per year.

    So the seller seems to be acting as some kind of landlord/sub-prime money lender?  They don't state the lending period, I had to calculate £162,000/750 to discover that you are required to "rent" it for 18 years before you'll supposedly own it.  I'm guessing that there are 3 flats in the building, paying a third of the maintenance each.  In other words, the landlord will not pay anything for maintenance.

    So many unanswered questions...

    • What happens if I move out after 17 years?
    • What if the landlord decides to increase the "rent"?
    • Does anyone actually monitor or regulate what's being offered on Rightmove?
    • Will estate agents market any old tat if there's a few quid in it for them?

    The agent is an online agent, Property Exchange of Newton Aycliffe.

    Devil will be in the details.

    That contract probably doesn't hold water... or at least it shouldn't.

  11. 1 minute ago, thehowler said:

    I'm a remainer, reluctant-leaver democrat.

    The deal means we are no longer a member state, so we'll be out of the EU. That enacts the decision of the ref.

    The deal then provides time for the govt to open FTA discussions, perhaps extending transition as past of this, and if that fails we go to CU/backstop until we can jointly agree a workable trading solution.

    The deal is fine for now, and might improve in coming weeks if the EU/27 agree to move in a few areas.

    I don't understand all the fuss with the MPs, they don't have a better alternative, the deal gives most of them most of they wanted and puts the ref vote behind us.

    One thing at a time...

    The EU27 won't budge.

    That's been very clear.. and mind that this draft legislation is an EU one.

    Paying to be a non-voting member perhaps in-perpetuity is not a palatable Brexit for a leave or remain voter.

    And correct. There is no better alternative than the status quo. This is BRINO, the worst of all outcomes.

    Having the UK stay; perhaps acting on Britain's own exceptional clauses and uniqueness in the current set of EU legislation... with a Vote and Veto power is far superior to this dogs dinner. Rights and powers we've had, and failed to act upon?

    Further, this just adds to the air of uncertainty.

    Who's going to be lining up to invest in a Britain that can't offer stability within it's own borders?

    Ultimately... the citizens of the UK have a government who failed them.


  12. Just now, spyguy said:

    The car industry is the biggest threat to the car industry.

    Too much capacity chasing too few customers, so they get into stupid finance deals to paper over the very large cracks i nthe industry.

    Yeah. Pretty much. There's no money in building cars if you can't get them out the door on fat financing deals.

    Probably half of car makers are selling on low single digit positive or negative to very negative margins.. Telsa being the worst IIRC.

  13. 53 minutes ago, thehowler said:

    What's the big deal? If negotiations on a workable open-border FTA - if such a thing exists - are proceeding but need more time, why not have the ability to simply extend all current regs/standards/controls etc, with a payment for benefits of retaining SM access?

    Means business will only have to make one switch.

    What's the big deal?

    Aren't you a Brexit leaver?

    What was the point of Brexit if this 'deal'... which is crap... manages to get parliamentary approval?

    Where is the net benefit? I don't see any.

  14. 12 minutes ago, thehowler said:

    Up to 2022, should we desire it.

    Natch the reporters are all pitching in saying this means we will be in transition until then.

    Let's be clear here.

    From the draft legislation...


    ARTICLE 132

    Extension of the transition period 1.

    Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period up to [31 December 20XX]. *

    This is absolutely bonkers for the UK to accept it these terms.

    Absolutely shambolic.

    Brexit on these terms is a political blunder beyond any other before... factors of scale blunders!

  15. 42 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:


    In the largest November drop in prices since 2012, Rightmove said the average price of property coming to the market was down by 1.7%, or £5,222, on the month alone. It said the biggest falls were in London, where the typical asking price fell by £10,793 (a fall of 1.7%) and in the south-east of England, where prices were down £8,647 (2.1%).

    I saw this article too; however, a few percentage does not constitute anything remotely close to a 'crash'.


    ...the average asking price for a home in the UK is £302,023, with the price of newly marketed property now 0.2% (-£607) cheaper than 12 months ago.

    A bit of a blip due to the political uncertainty of Brexit, especially in and around London... where there is a real risk of a bad Brexit crashing the city... it's understandable surely?

  16. 20 hours ago, Dorkins said:

    Personally I would lower the school leaving age to 14 and let the 5% of the population who really get nothing from formal education at that age go out in the world and do what they want. I'd use the money saved from reduced special educational needs units in secondary schools to fund more adult education classes so if the early leavers do calm down by their mid-20s and realise they need maths and English GCSE to get where they want to go they could come back and study them at college for free.

    That would work fine if you enforced a parallel system whereby at a certain age people had to legally stop working... or you end up with it all bunged up like it is now.

  17. 12 hours ago, simon49 said:

    Instead of building more houses, there is an easier, quicker and cheaper way. Why not offer  immigrants a fixed cash sum for vacating their house and returning, permanently to their home country.  If you paid say £5000, that would be enough for them to buy a house in a lot of poorer countries. You cant build a house here for that ammount so it would be win win. 

       There would have to be an end to freedom of movement first as the vacated house would just be let to other immigrants. 




    I've worked with a fair few 3rd tier shippers in the Med running between Africa and Europe.

    They've got a constant outflow of cash to pay off career stowaways which usually ends up around a few hundred to a few thousand USD per head.

    A pay-off will will actually attract more 'immigrants' and become huge PR disaster for the UK politico... so no... that's not a good idea simon49. Not at all.

    We're not shengen and everybody is checked in... we don't have the cash or political capital to enforce our immigration policy now, then, or in the future. Brexit won't do jack squat for immigration. In fact, it may just accelerate it.

  • 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.