Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fiddle

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. sorry was not comparing to a house. Was comparing to caravan we also looked at flats in the area, £700 a month for a tiiiiiiiiny studio, plus £100 council tax + bills ++ I do agree when compared to a flat, let alone a house, canal boat is a lot cheaper so good(ish) value.. but then how many flats even are that small, even the smallest studios actually had more overall floorspace than the 45 foot boats we looked at, a hell of a lot of the size is taken up with engine and deck. renting (for me anyway) worked out cheaper still then drawing down on my mortgauge to buy another place so and when(/if) HPC ever comes, and despite being an owner i hope it does, then the losses would be comparable to the losses trying to sell on an old boat. problem is while caravans are a great option, there arn't many of them about to rent, i agree a boat would be nicer, would be great to potter around on the canals for holidays instead of camping in the rain somewhere, but it was not the cheaper option by a good margin
  2. Sorry it posted as I cut and past from excel, not sure how! Anywhoo my costs for 45 footer came in at 620 per month, (this was including moorings as I could not cope with a 55+ hour week and moving home constantly) without allowing much for incidentals . this was 3 yrs ago, can’t imagine prices have gone down. I rent a static caravan from a farmer for £450 a month with nearly double the internal floorspace , including council tax (its legit) water and some electric (i could use their washing machine in garage if i didnt have my own home to take washing to, unable to get a job near my mortgage, so lodger has it to himself weeknights) and don’t pay towards the cesspit being emptied. With gas and electric both cheaper than boat prices and thanks to a lot of skip diving a lot of insulation filling the now skirted bottom we live comfortably for around £500 a month. And the best thing is, whenever anything breaks it gets fixed. the boat option just didnt work out to be cost effective, and they devalue like a car, i'm personally much bettwr off having the extra money in the offset account even at these ridicarus interest rates
  3. ah sorry didnt realise you'd not be workng.. i'd love to CC if i had all the time in the world, but friends doing it and holding down a job are finding it very tireing, always moving, cycling back to get car, finding somewhere to park the car near new moorings. people are clamping down a lot more on period of stay. beg to differ on saftey cert, may just be friends had old boats but cost them a lot on the last two changes. if youve got enough moeny to get something relatively ned and look after it would be a lot better. these are people spending after selling up realising they were better getting a little equity and getting out before the bank forclosed, and now are not able to afford upkeep on the boats which will only lead to more severe replating costs in the future. one off per foot Repainting 72 4 yrly blacking 200 30 2 yrly servicing 400 yrly - engine + gas boiler survey 700 5 yrly - for insurance moorings 64.008 yrly/ft monthly electrics 20 monthly monthly gas 15 monthly liecence 681.43 yrly manual change -------> incidental 150 yrly insurance safety cert 145 4 yrly
  4. sadly the houseboat dream, even if you can stomach the continuous cruising is not really that cheap unless you want to do a LOT of upkeep work yourself extensively looked into a few yrs ago boat needs taking out of the water and bottom blacking (much more frequently if your moving it about but ~ every two yrs) + rubbing down and painting the outside frequently. if it's not realy quite new then you need to also have it surveyed every 5 yrs before you black it or your insurance is invalid. need regular safty certificates, and it seems quite often they change goalpost nessesitating expensive replacment of otherwise working equipment. engine and other bits need regular servicing, again the upkeep not great around all that water. doors windowledges anything wooden has a short lifespan and will leak, require replacement. you really need two loos, cartrige are a huge hassle, but pumpout is ipossible if the canal freezes. although there are whole periods of the year your stuck when the boards are up which saves n moving as much when theres high rivers, frozen canals batteries don't last long, have to factor in replacing them, you need to keep it heated, even to a degree when you are out, worst cade -pipes freeze in winter, damp and mould set in easily. generally the water in the air around don't help much with electrical items which tend to need replacing far more frequently, as do the gas boilers etc. i've yet to see one thats well insulated, though if you use scrap wood and a woodburner (more time collecting wood) then you can again keep costs lowish. liecences for the river/canal are not cheap, rivers marginally lower than canals, but the variable levels of water on them make them worse places to live. did wonder about buying some land, digging a pond then craneing a narrowboat on, less liecencing fees at least, problem there would be lack of facilities to connect to eg water, pumpout, man comming down canal selling coal and gas. in the end caravan was much cheaper option.... can ge the bigger 47l gas too which makes life a lot lss hassle for changeovers, and you can insulate the bottom... the floor is still freezing, but nothing like as cold as it is in friends boats.
  5. also women joined the workforce during/after the war because there were no men to be in the workforce.. subsequently we had a few other minor wars we got to ship out our menfolk to.. death reates were a lot higher then . i suspect this absorbed a lot of the unemployment. even if it didnt. wage to life cost ratios certainly went down.. there was once a time a large family could be completely kept on one mans wages, no government handouts necessary. now adays the average couple struggle to make ends meet with one if they didnt take advantage of tax breaks and handouts..
  6. yes pretty much tho often indirectly through energy: plants are grown ever intensively using machinery forged out of metals dug up from the groud or recycled from old machinery.. using a lot of energy seeds are shipped from big facilities in machinery plants are fed fertilisers .. made chemically using ingridents form oil and chemical produced using a lot of energy. plants are treated with pesticides and fungisides, made chemically again entailing energy. these chemicalls are transported to site using machinery for transport and application. the plants are harvested using machinery, processed using machinery, sent to us (or to feed intensively reared animals for our consumption) products are treated to stop them rotting as quickly, kept in refrigerated areas/tinned etc all using energy, they are then transported miles to distribution centres then on to local shops. some plants are even treated to artificial light and carbon dioxide to bring them on quicker.. the amount of oil burned (or equivalent gas... even if that energy comes form solar or wind, the solar or wind took a lot of enery to make) per kg of food (a tenth of which the supermarkets throw away because we don't buy it in time, then a third of whats left we throw away because we don't eat in time) is astonishing and how little viable food the land around us produces without this imput is astonishing in the opposite direction.. land outputs even worse than organic. we've built on on the best farming lands.. afterall thats where the towns all started. we may not physically drink oil.. but we need it to eat and drink now.. or a massive population fall to a sustainable level try http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159# for a lighthearted but scary explaination jump to 39 mins 10 secs edited to addd. ooops forgot the OP¬! what i think is soooooooo wrong about this older retirement, aside from the joblesness it causes and all the other valid points people have made.. is the quality of life.. it just isn't there for more than most.. there are a few very luck exceptions.. but mostly longer life just seems to mean longer time in carehomes wasting awa either mentally or physically unable to fend for oneself... so really all that these etra years give people is prett shit, yet govenment keep chiseling away from the other end. also i think it will lead to a lot more people being sacked at earlier age. sadl a lot of people already loose it before retirement, but companies tend to hold out, lowering their responcibility so that they can leave with dignaty.. the prospect of being stuck with someone those extra years will make the decisionmakers/purseholders less likely to wait for them naturally leaving.. not good for someone psyche going into old age being essentially told your useless.
  7. no but they push up the requirements for the places, pushing out some less achedemically endowed Soctts, and push up the rental costs in and around the university, because they can afford to pay more for crummy S^$t holes, which locals then can't afford to live in. making it buy to let heaven, and pushing out local non students too. having said that i lived and worked in scotland for a while and loved it there, no hostility at all.
  8. sorry havn't readmost of the thread so i may be repeating someone. i graduated over ten yrs ago, at the time, loads of people in my yr were saying similar things about getting out of the UK (albeit economically things wern't that bad) for most it was a pipe dream, their student loans tied them here. taking a couple of yrs out to go to AUS and NZ was about all people could manage before realising that deffering their student loans just ment interest compounding and that they couldnt earn enough abroad to be able to pay off these loans... pipedream put on backburner,... loans finally paid off, most had "settled down" by then, and wer thinking about startign families.. moving away from home with or hopeing to soon have young children came in wanting to be near family and friends for advice/support plus the economic comparisons of free childcare from family/healthcare on NHS... backburner for when kids are older... now they talk of laving but have settled kids who they don't want to uproot form schoolwhere their doing ok and have friends.. pretty sure they won't ever make it.. and we were the days before tuition fees i imagine many who say they want to leave will be in the same vicous cycle, it's never a good time.
  9. my info is a tad out of date (circa 2002) however travel was considered a reasonable expence, as was smokeing.. we had several bankrupts who knowing the systme had written that they smoked 40+ cigaretts a day. none of whom ever smelt of ciggies when they came in for meeting, or when we had to chase them up at their homes. there were plenty of other "essentials" which i personally disagrred with like pets.. one ladys cat apparently ate 4 tins of food a day.. she even provided the reciepts, pretty darn sure whe was selling 3 of them to her neighbours people don't tend to give up work and do sfa, i think because they don't actually want to screw over their creditors on purpose, back then anyways people generally felt quite bad about it. not so much the banks but other people whome they owed money to. they may be the banks making loads of profit.. but most people with half a brain realise it's not the banks that suffer from their non payment, it's the other bank users. the banks rarely changes except to make up for money lost from then by charging other more. also people were very aware that as soon as the bankruptsy is over they get to keep whatever wage they are on, and will have little or no credit availaibility for sime time after they have been discharged. so while they can't save any money while interest is frozen on the money owed, so sometimes even if they couldnt have afforded to pay off the creditors under normal circumstances, this removal of interest can mean it is feasible, in which case any money left over at the ned of the bkr is given back to the bankruptee (minus the IPs fees of course) dropping to a non working position makes things very difficult post bankrupsy, if youve stayed in work the credit rating bounces back relatively quickly, but no income and zero credit + yrs of inactivity on the work front doesnt lead to much prospects in the future. part fo the benefit of a bkr is wiping the slate clean and starting again but from a vantage point of having income.. if you went unemployed you would literally be wiping the slate clean clean, so have less to build up from. still am sure some people would see it as the best option. in my experience very few did, if anythign they did better in work. loosing the stress of the money owed gave them a better ability to focus on their job, knowing that financially they were actually protected by the IP and theat although sparce they were guaranteed a standard of living. i was surprised how many got promoted.
  10. they seem to be heavily marketing new flats, houses and even plots in and around the south of england in southafrica at the moment as investment oppertunities. several freinds have got in touch to ask me if portsmouth southampton and brighton are good areas.. being hyped as the best time to buy as the pound is bound to come back up and english property has survived the crash.. hopefully i convinced them enough now is not the time. suspect they would (on buyin) be encouraged to keep the place empty so they can sell in pristine when the pound is strong again... do hope not to many fall for this melarky
  11. i still cant belive benefits are being "capped" at over 25k!!!! how can this be justified! just under half the population work to earn less than this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm - 2009 Average "And if you look just at the figures for full-time employees, that figure rises to £31,323" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285 i'm afraid i agree with many here, it's not worth working. after redundancy a couple of yrs ago my boyfriend had a "zero hours contract" job as a bank worker for the NHS admin.. some weeks he got a few hours, some weeks none, some weeks more than 16.. every time he did a week of 16 hours or more they took him off jobseekers, then the next week he had to fill in all the forms again and satrt it in order to get his wages topped up to the £65 a week.. after a few months of this he was sent on a compulsery training thing (basic numerousy and literacy - when he has a degree) which he was told he had to attend, and mandatory hours of some kind of work experience thing, which he also had to attend or he would not be able to recive benefits at all. so he had to turn down any work that came in in that time to essentially prat around with a teacher who even said to the non educated people there that the course was a waste of time. luckily his boss at the time was very understanding and humoured the job centre only giving him shifts around the "training" on numerous occasions, from various sources in the jobcentre he was told/asked to quit his job, or at least minimise his hours. partially because as they saw it he was no better off, rarely getting the 16 hrs, but mostly because it was giving them a lot of hassle with paperwork. every day he went into work he was effectively loosing money, on bus/petrol etc. but it really helped him get current job that he continued to work.. had he listend to the job centre and not bothered to do the hours, or always kept it under the 16 i'm sure he wouldnt have got as good a reference.. and would still be happily playing PS2 in the lounge... oh wait no, had he stayed on the scrounge we may have had a ps3 by now, dammit! even the job \centre don't want to encourage you to work, i do sometimes wonder what the point is.. why oh why did i spend 7 yrs of my life at uni, getting in tonnes of debt. and after finally paying it off, only to take home less than benefits are currently being capped at. i do so hope the system gets a bit better sorted edited to add... by 2009 figures http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php ______________________________ Yearly_________Monthly_________Weekly Gross Income____________________£31,759.00____£2,646.58________£610.75 Take Home 2010_________________ £23,837.36____£1,986.45________£458.41 April 2011_______________________£23,988.12_____£1,999.01_______ £461.31 from 2009 bbc article " It's safe to assume that for many people, mere entry into the top half of the earnings pyramid does not mean you are earning a "big" salary. How about the top 25%? A gross annual salary of £31,759 - measured across all jobs - gets you into that club. " So even under the new system you can earn more than 75% of the population. not to mention paying concessions prices for getting into loads of places
  12. i say call his bluff, explain rental prices are soon to come crumbling down as the maximum benefits for housing is int he process of being drastically cut. point out (if you have) you have been a good tenant, have a secure job (even if you havnt) and that you like living there, and if he maintains the current rent level (or only say a 2% rise) you will be likely to stay throughout the turmoil that will ensue over the next year or so, rather than him loosing you and perhaps ending up with a chain of people not able/willing to stay where each sucessive time he has a period of empty property, and is likely to have to put the rent down to attract new tenants. most people i know havnt had a payrise at all during this recession, companies say they can't afford it, yet manage dividends, how strange, please don't feel hard doneby at 3% it's pretty darn good from where i sit. if you have to take the 4% then transfer onto a monthly contract (ie a months notice), and prepare to move out once rents begin to fall
  13. no idea when site started, but i've been waitng for the bubble to burst since around 2002.. bit of an ass really, hey ho. i do wonder if retiremnt is part of the key to this propping up.. the govenment is relying on the baby boomers equity in ther properties to fund their care when the state can't afford to supply it for all the masses that are comming of age. if they let the property prices slump then the money will have to come form somewhere else.. ie the young afterall/anyway if rents and properties stay high, then this care is funded in a more backhanded way from rentals/transferral of indebtedness to the young who seemingly walked into it of their own accord, or have no ther choice but to pay the rent however when propety crashes there are very few options but to borrow money.. wracking up more future debt, tax harder, upsetting the youth or other such. Now it seems to me the bank of mum and dad is a nifty solution to this.... kids now own properties, therby taking on the huge debts to their parents, rather than financial institutions, keeping the bubble up that little bit longer. the baby boomers sell up to others able to move up as the market is being stimulated, into their smaller retirement flats. Then when it comes to elderly care the state won't have to cough up because on the books when it comes to the means testing the elderly person is owed a lot of money, they can't right off that debt in order to get benefits, so it is left to the children to provide funds for care, or indeed the care itself. it can onl stave off the crash so long, and once the ball is rolling the older generation don't loose so much in equity from their retiremnt flat, but their kids are lumped with massive negative equity, not negative equity they can walk away from as easily as declaring bankrupt and dropping a bank in it.. but with the guilt of righting off money they promised their parent they would pay back. yes it'd mean the parent could recieve state care, but the animosity that care will envoke, even if equivalent to what they would have got if their kids could have afforded to pay them back, (and the guilt kids will feel at only being able to afford basic care if they don't go the bkr route) all leads to it being the kids not the states fault that the elderly arn't being looked after properly.. so less bad press from the middle classes at least.. who lets face it would be the ones up in arms at the govenments provision for them.
  14. oops i'm going about this all backwards.. herrooo, errm, been lurking for yrs, was gonna post sommmet in '98 but didnt get round to it. stuck in hotel with work and a bit bored so posting a fair bit.. that and the other forums i uesd to while away my time seem to be on a loop that i've become bored of of late. + i havn't inflicted you poor souls with the contents of my mind yet, so thought i'd give it a shot am in an odd situation to say the least.. bought my dad out of parental home when finished uni. over 10 yrs ago, on interest only with an offset. want to build a hippy green eco house, but until the Nimbys calm down it's looking unlikely. can't bring myself to buy with what i have in offset while i know things should crash, so renting on the never never. fidds
  15. Funnily enough I wanted to post to this a while ago onto http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=159662&hl=shortage&st=0 having not ever felt compelled to actually post before. Yet didn’t get round to it to now as it entailed writing a bit more than my dyslexic mind could be assed with .. apologies if it’s not all that succinct. The thread seems to have died, and I haven’t read it all, and seem to have gone off on a tangent anyways.. so starting a newun: not for the faint hearted, feel free to cut to the bottom couple of paragraphs after line of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S SUPPLY Elderly people downsizing/ going into care/ having their kids (+ families) moving in to look after them or moving in with their kid’s families or indeed the newer phenomenon - house sharing.. Seeing it more and more, elderly folk being lonely and taking in lodgers, or when needing more care a lodger to help out around the house for reduced rent moving on to house sharing with another elderly person/friend to share nursing costs and not be so lonely when partner has died. Or the increasing trend of selling/renting out your home and cruising until the state will have to look after you anyway, as the care supplied on a boat is often better than in any home you could afford. reduction in away from home student numbers (both foreign and domestic as visas are restricted and tuition fees and living expensed go up + cutting of the era means less still will be getting there. far more kids who do make it will go to units near home to avoid excess living costs. Influx of foreigners declining.. and to be honest their increase in population was not pro rata to the amount of living space most brits want/demand. historically immigrants were more of the permanent type (apart from AUS and NZ) most came to stay set up family and join our multicultural society. new immigrants don't see England as a good place to settle, tend to be younger, work for a few years living in heavily populated shared accommodation and send money home for a few years then follow it back home once they want to settle down. more environmentally minded people are living in flat/house shares to cut down on emissions per person, also more stretched people are doing the same to save the money/meet their mortgage/rent bills. loads of old houses previously sheltering 2 elderly people kept (and keep) being converted into several small flats.. despite it being slightly hypocritical to the amount of space we demand, brits are taking up less and less space, houses/flats smaller and smaller (+walls thinner and thinner). increased access to work from home means people no longer have to live so close to a place of work, hopefully leading to some of the tonnes of empty places being brought back into usage. a lot of the population increase over recent yrs. has been more a result of a decrease in death rate, apart from this resulting in more elderly, which in care take up little space, this isn't going to be much of a future driver as the NHS collapses around us. Promises for people to becared for in their homes will soon bow to nurse can’t be in a car driving form patient to patient for ¾ of his/her working day and they will be moved into homes. cuts here there and everywhere are not going to help them maintain any degree of service. + increased food + heating combined with more severe weather conditions will ensure death rate doesn’t improve much. superbugs are becoming less and less treatable by our misuse of antibiotics. and super flus by underdeveloped countries may even cause a sharp shock to our population. hardly managed to contain the swine flu now did we, wait till it’s something really lethal. benefits system is changing.. lowering the rental money you can get.. and they say taking away the "unfairness" of being penalised for not living alone. so people will be less dissuaded from flat/house sharing with friends/loved ones. 40% cut in the help with mortgages to the unemployed (not that i know anyone who has actually managed to claim it after redundancy this recession- sooo much red tape) will mean many will have to sell up, similar decrease in rent will being down rental revenues and the BTLers will smell the roses and drop out as fast as they can. Tho’ repossessions went down last year, as government pressure to stop them dwindles and mortgage lenders see the unlikely hood of peoples situations being "short term" anymore I’m pretty sure they'll be up at record levels again soon. a number of initiatives to help people facing repossession are being scrapped, cost of mortgage and living are going up. people may just be scraping by now but as the year progresses for many this will change Home owners with low equity are finding it hard to find a new mortgage, so when their fixed term ends there stuck at extortionate rates (esp as interest goes up) and if they don't want to sell will need to take in lodgers. Homeowners who a few years ago bought into the more reputable equity release “we buy your house and rent it back to you” schemes are beginning to be turfed out for the houses to be sold before the real crash kicks in, or rental goes down, so that they can buy more, setting higher rents for the term during the next downfall.. despots in the middle east may soon be having to sell up their mahoosive portfolios of UK properties. Some councils are finally doing something about the tonnes of empty and derelict properties all over the place. recession as a whole will lessen the number of people who can afford that little place in the country, or extra flat in London to cut down the commuting for 3 nights a week. A lot of the big time landlords already rode the wave of buy to redevelop brought on by trashy DIY TV programs and offloaded their below average portfolio to people spurred on by the money they could make renovating. Then the midrange stuff to the BTL’s wanting to save for their retirements, and are now offloading the last of their prime bits and bobs left to those cash buyers left in the market. Most of these new property owners won’t be as able to sit on their assets as the big landlords were in the last crash, which they had not had as much time or media manipulation to prepare for. These people will have to sell when the going gets tough, because many of them will have overstretched themselves past the point of no return once all the factors above come to fruition.. And then there’s DEMAND Well what can I say.. there still seems to be a lot, despite my protestations several friends have bought properties in the past few years, many more have stretched themselves to upsize and even a few have upsized while BTLing their old place. The media has done a fantastic job of telling everyone it’s the thing to do. And there still believing it like sheep to the slaughter they make offers on piles of sh1te believing they can do it up and make a profit then move up to the next house and do the same. “getting on the ladder” seems to be the name of the game. But the banks can see it’s not a safe bet, and so long as they protect people from themselves and don’t reopen disproportionate credit lines it should allow the fall to happen, albeit slowly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Started as a side note BUT I GUESS THIS IS MY QUESTION NOW: One demand no one seems to consider is the demand for affordable social/council housing… what I see as a way to lessen the fall is the government taking the place of the “we buy your house and rent it back to you” yobs The cost of selling properties, and the damage done by previous ”owners” prior to eviction, the fact that a lot of them would become a strain on the housing benefits people anyways.. surely there’s a market for writing off the debt with the bank (at a reduced % of what it is off the money the bank owes the government) righting off the debt to the person, ie letting the negative equity go, or offering it as a small rise in rent until it is paid off if you really want to be tight. Then offering them guaranteed rental rates as per council housing, but without the right to buy for say 10 yrs instead of 5 (not sure what happened to the review of that lib dems were trying to get it extended/abolished anyways) Would certainly have less problems than building new estates.. even the “affordable housing” in the new builds stand out like sore thumbs, creating an “us and them” mentality. People in the road wouldn’t even know without looking that their neighbour was now in a council house, much better integration for people. Those who want to leave their house, or can’t afford the market rent on it can join the council house swap scheme thing so get to jump the queue of “expectant mums and immigrants” (tho’ I suspect the queue is far more diverse than that) and at least not end up having to stay in hostels for their complicity in the arrangement.. a v worthwhile perk imho. This could cut the supply to the market, lessen the crash, lessen to sting to millions, and get the government out of owning so much of the bank all in one move… I’m sure I’ve missed some negative points to this, so please anyone who managed to decipher my typoneese thus far feel free to comment/ schlap me back into reality if that’s even possible.
  • 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.