Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

tim123

New Members
  • Posts

    3,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tim123

  1. Only if the did "break and enter". They know the tricks "sorry officer we were passing by and someone else had broken the door open so we just walked in - you can't nick us" I repeat: this is not a crime and all your comment about the property being "occupied" making it one, are false. tim
  2. She isn't changing the quantum of her assets, just moving what she has between asset classes tim
  3. 1) OK 2) Not if she has 50K in the bank she won't be. (Which she must have otherwise should wouldn't be in a position to pay off the loan) 3) This is for her to decide on her own. It is not a decision an FA should make for her (or even advise her on) IMHO 4) But it won't be 3% will it. Where can you get a 3% mortgage, even with 50% (or more) equity. Espically if you are of retirement age. 6% minimum I would have thought
  4. They don't get a choice to relax the rules. If they placed her in a 2 bed property they could be prosecuted for doing so. (Though I agree that it was silly) tim
  5. But they won't be doing that. They will be knowingly putting down an untrue answer to the question "How are you funding the remainder". Quite why it is not clear to people that being untruthful is not a fraudlent act is beyond me. tim
  6. And how many people will be doing that. You'll also have to not have: 1) any sort of rent receipt. Just who hands over cash for rent (for a legit property) without getting one? 2) an inventory report. 3) Gas safety certificate 4) the proscribed details that proceed taking a deposit 5) a TDS certificate 6) any correspondence from the LL. The sort of person who a LL wants to evict like this is likley to be in arreers. They will likely have received threatening letters from the LL. Sorry, I think that people worrying over this possibility are just inventing a problem for an ulteria motive. tim
  7. No it's not, it's a civil offence. The police will not get involved and the householder will have to go to court and get a court order at their own not in-considerable expense and with several weeks (or months) delay. tim
  8. The police aren't idiots, that can usually tell the difference between a squatter and a genuine tenant. Rememeber we are only discussing a marginal case here - A LL who has tried to pull a fast one by pretending that his tenant is a squatter so that the police will evict him, plus a tenant who has been stupid enough to throw away every bit of correspondence that they received from the LL when the tenancy started. Even if you didn't receive back the tenancy agreement, the deposit protection certificate (which IS sent directly to the tenants) will be enough. Personally, I can't see too many people trying this. As soon as the police knock on the door and the occupier proffers a copy of his tenancy the LL will be on a charge of wasting police time (or worse) tim
  9. Me: 1999 Purchased 82K 2006 Sold 175K 2009 Sold by purchasor 181K 2011 Back on market at 225K removed when no interest! Neighbour did sell in Jan 2012 for 220K. I don't see any downward movement tim
  10. The evidence that you have been paying rent will be enough to prove a tenancy (in the asbence of anything more robust) tim
  11. No that isn't the arguement. The point is that without ASTs there was almost no market, so there is no possibility of things being equal. The choice is: Little security of tenure and a supply of houses to rent or Security of tenure and little choice of houses to rent tim
  12. They won that concession three weeks ago. They wanted 17K off.
  13. Of course not. "rich" people keep properties empty for one of two reasons: 1) They have so much money they can afford to do so. They have a house in every port so to speak. Abramovich has four yachts for example. WTF does someone need with four yachts, surely it can just be moved to wherever he wants it, but that's just how rich people live. It doesn't entitle anyone to steal one of them from them. 2) It's awaiting redevelopment but that hasn't started yet. Arguably such property ought to be on the rental market but the uncertainties of getting people out to a deadline make that difficult
  14. What utter ******! People are perfectly entitled to keep their houses empty if they want to. Individuals have absolutely no right whatsoever (legally or morally) to just decide that they can occupy someone else's properly just because they think it might be unjustly empty (even if they are right). Properties can be empty for all sorts of reasons and these freeloading scum make absolutely not attempt to find out why before moving in, causing untold inconvenience to the owners. Obviously the above doesn’t necessarily apply to government owned property. HMG should be encourage to make use of its empty buildings, but that still doesn't make it right for squatters to move in.
  15. Which is not a problem if you have a well constructed cesspit. Used to lodge (weekdays) in a house with one and the girl that owned it paid a fraction of the sewerage charges that I paid at home tim
  16. Of course, that's the inevitable consequence of pretending that the ex-techs are real unis. tim
  17. And mostly world renowned, in their specialisation. The chances of some micky mouse tech being allowed to join, when more established Unis like "City" aren't, is slim. Merger with Donald Duck uni: N London (or South Bank) looks the most likely option.
  18. The catch is that they have more cars than they can sell and making zero on the credit is better than having the car sit on the forecourt. Of course this means that you could probably get a good deal for "cash", but some people don't like negotiating tim
  19. There's a huge difference between having to make one (or two) free workers productive and running a complete factory with them tim
  20. We're not putting "free" workers in that position. they're given shelf stacking, cleaning etc jobs to do tim
  21. Where is it you guys live that you are seeing this? round my way nothing like that happens, over priced property (usually) just sits on the market for 9-12 monts at its hopeful price until the vendors get fed up waiting and put it up for rental. Here's the sort of thing: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-23428707.html. Doesn't look overpriced until you read that it only has a 50 year lease left. The last one in this street sold for 90K and was in better condition. I reckon the right price for this is no more than 85K I confidently predict that this one will sit on the market at that price for many more months waiting for that one person who falls for the EA's nonsense that a new lease will cost 2-3 grand (if it is that little why isn’t the vendor paying it?). Of course this one person will have to be a cash buyer as the property is un-mortgagable, and their chances of finding such a gullible cash buyer is slim. tim
  22. Rubbish Any manager who can't get value out of a "free" employee is an incompetent manager. tim
  23. so you make the balloon payment and keep the car. I don't know what it is that you are looking at, but there was an example in the paper this week for a car that retailed at about 10K and the deposit, 36 monthly payments and the final payment worked out at about 200 pounds more than the cash price. Even as someone who has cash in the bank, that looks a good deal to me tim
  24. The contract wont be written like that If the trust can't pay the finance company will own the hospital, which wont help anybody tim
  25. Options usually work by you losing your stake money if you don't take them up. But at 100,000 to 1 that doesn't seem like much of a risk to me. A normal ratio would be about 10 to one. 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.