Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

tim123

New Members
  • Posts

    3,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tim123

  1. Can you ecxplain what you mean by "withdrawing tax credits from savers" It makes no sense to me
  2. Anybody can get an offer for a house in two weeks if they market the house at a low enough price. If OTOH you want someone to ring around all their developer friends and get one of them to make you an insulting offer for a quick sale you will usually achieve a better price, at lower cost by sticking it in auction. tim
  3. Not sure what specific breaking of the contract you are referring to, but the general rule is no. A breach of one term of the contract does not void the rest of the contract (if it did, you would, for example, not have to pay rent even though you continued to remain in the property, which would obviously be a silly state of affairs) tim
  4. No, that's wrong. The notice period is always two months even for a longer rental periods, though it must still be for the end of a period tim
  5. when everybody bought their first house at 25 it didn't matter, now that some are in their 40s, it does tim
  6. But "Its logic seems to be that offering an interest-only mortgage to a mature borrower who can comfortably afford the payments is risky, but provided the same borrower is prepared to pay a higher interest rate, be locked in to early repayment charges and roll up the interest with an equity release mortgage that is fine." does seem to be suspect. Why should somebody who you *will* lend the money to when the interest is rolled up (as equity release against an already owned property), not be able to access the lower interest rates available for paying it back in-term, if *they* think that they can make such payments? It's shouldn't be impossible to assess them for the ER loan and then designate it as a normal repayment loan on the condition that they are making the payments and then switch to different terms as soon as they fail to (for more than a certain amount). There’s no extra risk to the bank here, in fact there’s less as some of the accumulated interest will have already been paid tim
  7. I don't see anything wrong with the "normal" houses in this picture http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/07/article-2199747-14E23E25000005DC-482_634x471.jpg
  8. I don't see it making much difference. All that (appears to be) changing is that the are doubling the size of a ground floor extension that can be built under permitted development rights I doubt that there are very many people who want to add the equivilent of a one bed flat onto the ground floor of their house without also wanting to extend the first floor, for which PP will still be required tim
  9. There's very unlikley to be an issue with the quality of the work. The problem will be that quotes often aren't competitive because they only come from large concerns that meet the council's various directives on things like having a diversity program Your small Father and son builder who could do the job perfectly adequately for half the price won't be allowed to tender because he won't have the resources to fill in the 100s of pre-tender forms that the council require tim
  10. How would they have done this? The Banks aren't lending to them (certainly not for buying up land) and with shareholder value decimated they won't be either tim
  11. I know that it's not definitive but, I reckon that I've watched over 100 episodes of HUTH and when the EA quotes (sorry guesses) the value with/without a possible extension I have never once seen the value change by more than a reasonable estimate of the costs of the work. tim
  12. Unless you want a ground floor bedroom the change in the rules doesn't allow that tim
  13. She can't, but you can rest assured that they won't charge owner occupiers a disproportionate amount, they have to apportion it fairly. But what they do do, is schedule works to a timetable rather than need, so expensive works might get proposed just because there's a spare slot in their diary for getting it done, not because it needs doing. Councils are notorious at giving private occupiers in council buildings big bills for works that would never get agreed in a wholly privately owned block. Especially in "lefty" areas who don't like right to buy who want to punish the people who have bought. I'm a fan of flats, but I would never buy an ex council, you have no right to vote for an RTM which is the "normal" remedy to avoid being ripped off by a freeholder tim
  14. If what Clinton did was so obvioulsy wrong, why didn't Bush undo it during his 8 years of command? tim
  15. assuming that it doesn't come stuffed with sitting tenants, to turn in 22 one/two bed flats :-) (I wish I had the money to do it!) tim
  16. For a studio - in Welwyn! You can have your choice of two bed flats for that rent. 450 pm at most I would have thought! tim
  17. Ground floor flats can extend into the garden Top floor flats can extend into the roof (if there is one). TBH giving permitted development rights for this to flats would be a cost free move IMHO, but as such extensions would still need freeholder approval (and in some cases attract a large fee to actually purchase the bit that you want to extend into it) won't help everybody tim
  18. do you know how much a 5 metre extension is going to cost would you have over 30K to someone in cash? tim
  19. Except that it won't be: Anecdotally, 99% of the time the increase in value is about the same as the cost of building the extension (assuming that you pay someone to do the build) The (cost) benefit of building an extension comes from getting that bigger house that you want without having to pay the costs of moving tim
  20. "affordable" in council speak means "social housing" usually given to the local HA at next to nothing tim
  21. It's partly because of the *one third* affordable (AKA Subsidised) housing that the developers have to provide. If you take that cost out you might have a development that is profitable at current values. tim
  22. Commercial property values are usually around ten times the rental achieved from a long term (25 years) tenant It's for this reason that owners would rather leave their property empty than accept a lower rent than previously obtained tim
×
×
  • 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.