Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sleepwello'nights

  1. They probably would if storage wasn't such a problem. Look back to 2008 - 10, most of the buyers at property auctions were property developers and speculators. They had the cash resources to buy and rental yields were better than they are now if they had to rent the property if it couldn't be sold. It didn't look to me as if it were aspiring property owners who were buying. They were more concerned about their employment prospects. The posters on here were still waiting for the HPC, even those who had STR'd.
  2. If house prices do fall, do you think that the majority of the priced out will be able to purchase a house because they are cheap(er)? I think it more likely that ​the cash rich will be able to garner a bigger share. That may be one or two of the posters on this site but I doubt it will be the majority of those who want to purchase now.
  3. Oh well it that case it has to go the House of Lords. That'll teach 'em to try and fleece the poor motorist. They'll probably increase the penalties afterwards to recoup their costs.
  4. I see so I was just looking at it from a contract law perspective. The parking case astounds me though. Who would take a case to the Court of Appeal for the sake of £85? I wouldn't bother with the fast track for that, just pay it and move on however indignant I felt.
  5. We're going off the response I made to the poster demanding compensation for the deposit not being protected. My reply pointed out that in my opinion his demand for compensation should be restricted to any loss that he may have suffered; I couldn't see that the landlord returning his deposit because of a failure to protect the deposit would have caused his tenant any financial loss. The deposit regulations in question allow for up to 3 times the deposit to be awarded if the deposit hasn't been protected. In no way does that represent any loss the tenant may have suffered by it not being protected. So it seems that it is a penalty, not liquidated damages. Its a long, long time since I studied law and I was never curious enough to follow the reasons why penalties could be imposed when penalties were prohibited by the general principle. Obviously a penalty is a punishment to deter non compliance but in contract law the idea of a penalty clause – very roughly, a clause that is unenforceable because it imposes an exorbitant obligation to pay on a party that breaches a contract was a fundamental concept. I haven't read the judgement you quoted, a comment I saw when I googled it mentioned that there was a dissenting opinion from one of the three judges.
  6. Would you like to comment on this quote from Eversheds: "The primary remedy for breach of contract in English Law is damages to compensate the innocent party for the losses it suffers as a consequence of the breach. Clauses designed to deter parties from breaching a contract by penalising poor performance (known as penalty clauses) are unenforceable under English law. On the other hand, clauses providing for payment of a pre-determined sum by way of compensation for a breach of contract (known as liquidated damages clauses) are generally enforceable."
  7. Yes I accept that in general new houses and plot sizes are smaller, although it is quite common to see three storey houses to maximise the living space of the house on a smaller plot. The old rule of thumb used to be that you could borrow three times your salary plus one times your spouses salary. If those multiples still held would it not mean that house prices would be lower? There is another poster on this site who is adamant that it is the lenders willingness to lend, the availability of credit that is the driver of HPI. I agree with him.
  8. Well its your lack of comprehension skills that leads you to believe that I didn't understand the basics of BTL. My disdain at the bankers is how they can change the rules with impunity when it suits them, not an irritation as it never affected me. If you look through my posts you'll also find that I have commented that most mortgages contain a clause allowing the lender to call in the loan whenever it suits them. But them what would I know compared to a high flying professional like you!
  9. Not that much in the grand scheme of things though is it? My son has just moved, he rented a van for 4 days, I helped for 2 days and friends of his helped out on the other days. The cost was about £200 for van hire and a few packs of beer for his friends. If you can find a new rental without going through an agency and contact the landlord direct you can avoid agents fees. I always used to advertise privately and only used letting agents when I first started renting. Is there any reason your present landlord would give you a poor reference?
  10. I'm flattered you so assiduously follow and keep my posts, how do you get time to pursue your self acclaimed high flying professional career. I do find your posts hard to follow, you seldom use grammatically correct sentences and now it seems your English comprehension is not fully developed either. Keep trying you may gain a basic grasp of English in a while, although I doubt you'll ever become proficient.
  11. Compensation is to recompense you for the losses you have suffered. What loss have you suffered? You're not out of pocket in any way. If the house is in as poor a condition as you say why don't you look for somewhere better to live. Can you not find somewhere suitable in near proximity?
  12. You still seem to overlook the point that even though someone may be prepared to pay an ever higher price it is the lenders willingness to lend at those ever higher prices that is driving the increase. In this case she can't get the mortgage she requires so she cannot drive the price higher. It may well turn out that this is an indicator that prices will not be able to keep increasing. On another issue, I've never been to Chadwell Heath, I've driven through Stockwell, and it didn't seem to be a very appealing part of London. I would think Chadwell Heath would be a more pleasant place to live.
  13. You need to look at some of the case law that illustrates the logic as to why ordinary commuting costs are not deductible. Start at HMRC's manuals and follow the cases they cite.
  14. Well I tell you what, there was a lot more work involved in renting houses than in deciding what shares to buy or investment brokerage to use. Its one of the reasons I decided to sell my rental properties. First you have to prepare the property, even a new build, then you have to find a tenant. This would involve advertising, showing prospective tenants around the property, taking references, arranging insurance, tenancy agreements. During the tenancy collecting rents, arranging tradesmen to carry out repairs and routine maintenance. At the end of the tenancy making good dilapidations administering the return of deposits. And then the cycle starts again for a new tenancy. It was much easier to be a wage slave, even if commuting costs weren't tax deductible. It certainly isn't as one sided as you seem to think, just collect an extortionate rent and wait for the property to increase in value.
  15. Maybe, but the point I'm making is that we do manufacture goods, there is domestic supply. Perhaps our economy would be better if we produced more and imported less. I don't agree that we're *******ed. I still believe the UK is a good place to live.
  16. I do not see what is incorrect in my assertion that tax is in most situations payable on profit not turnover. The NIC issue is not directly related to my assertion. You are using it to claim that income from renting a dwelling house is not a business income, as it is unrelated to the point about turnover or profit I have not addressed your assertion.
  17. Now you've made dig up my old tax books. I'm not certain but allowable deductions under S 72 of Schedule A permitted the deduction of certain types of expenditure for tax purposes, my text book mentions "Rents, etc. paid by the landlord". My logic tells me that this would include interest paid on a loan to acquire the property. My logic seems to be borne out because in stage 2 of calculating tax payable then interest on borrowed money is allowable as a deduction from gross income. So even back then under Schedule A you were taxed on profit not turnover.
  18. Why just pick on that old chestnut, have a look at the rules for entertaining. They used to be allowable in some circumstances. There is a logical argument that travel costs are not allowable in certain circumstances because they enable you to be in a position to be able to perform your duties and they are not incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of your duties. There are masses of case law on the issue, the most important cases demonstrating the logic concern professionals such as teachers, doctors and barristers. However the point I raised was that interest costs incurred to acquire an asset to derive a profit are legitimate costs allowable in arriving at the profit. To take a simple example if a taxi driver takes a loan to purchase a vehicle to be used as a taxi should he not be allowed to deduct the interest in calculating the profit made?
  19. I don't disagree with what you've posted, all I'm trying to point out is that despite popular misconceptions the UK does produce a large volume of goods, including manufactured products.
  20. You're being somewhat disingenuous here. For a self employed person their income is turnover less expenses. The argument being made, whether you agree or not, is that interest costs are part of the expenses. In most trades and professions interest costs for the purposes of the business are recognised in tax law as a cost. This is regardless of the business structure, it makes no difference whether the trade or profession is incorporated or not. Taxable income is profit not turnover.
  • 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.