Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

tim123

New Members
  • Posts

    3,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tim123

  1. No, in those circumstance it counts as breaking and entering and the police would be instantly involved.

    To count as squatting it has to be clearly unoccupied. If a house was full of furniture and it didn't have an inch of dust on it the police would have no issues arresting the crooks.

    You've fallen for the Daily Mail claptrap again.

    The laws as they were were perfectly adequate, they simply needed enforcing properly.

    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. It may be better for her to use her capital to buy an annuity, the rate of return could be higher than the mortgage rate she is paying

    It may be that she is getting income support on the interest

    It may be that she would rather spend her capital on living rather than paying off her debt, in the sure and certain knowledge that the state will be there to pay for her mortgage when her capital has run out.

    £50k at say 3% costs her £1,500 per annum £125 per month she may earn almost the same in interest but mnay feel happier having £50k sitting on deposit.

    It is not as simple as it first seems

    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

  3. My first thought on seeing this was that almost certainly all the tenants would be paying cash and the slumlords will not have declared any of it. Should imagine there will be a few investigations in that department.

    Talking of 'overcrowded' accomm, don't know whether anyone else saw 'Neighbourhood Watched' the other night.

    Woman having split up from parter, 2 kids maybe 3 and 11 or 12 (boy and girl) moved in with her parents in their one bedroom flat. All 3 sleeping on airbeds kept under folks' bed in daytime.

    She was there for many weeks - council regs saying that the kids must each have a room of their own meant she wasn't allowed to apply for 2 bed council properties (which she'd have been perfectly happy with) but had to wait for a 3 bed, of which there were very few compared to the 2-beds.

    So council perfectly happy for 3 adults and 2 kids to live in a one bed flat for weeks on end, rather than relax perfect-world rules. It was ludicrous.

    In the end she rented privately.

    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

  4. Let's say you have an AST but no copy of the lease.

    let's also say you've been paying cash since you moved in.

    How are you looking now if the LL lies?

    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

  5. How exactly do you prove that with the police at your door?

    That's the whole point. The protection that court gives you (the right to bring your own evidence to prove you're not a squatter) has now gone.

    If the police "believe" you are a squatter you get arrested and removed. What if your landlord is mates with a policeman?

    So you prove your not a squatter and the charges are dropped. Do you get to go back to the property? I doubt it.

    As i said it's about the strong and the rich sh1tting on the weak and the poor.

    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

  6. Does this happen specifically to keep rents high? Any evidence would be welcome.

    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

  7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/31/charities-end-squatters-rights-homelessness?newsfeed=true

    The government needs to go, they prefer to attack the poor again and again, and allow the rich to keep homes empty, this is going to turn into another mess.

    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.

  8. Yep, virtually all of Gower is heating oil... Large parts of Mumbles also... and some EAs are notoriously sheepish when you ask them whether such and such house in Mumbles is on mains supply or heating oil. Lots are not on main drains in Mumbles either and, like the Gower, rely on having a bloke turn up to empty your cesspit a few times a year.

    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

  9. Oh, er, fairy nuff. That list includes some places with reputations.

    On a tangentially related note, this revocation of a license is, in principle, exactly the right thing for government to be doing. They should certainly be clamping down on 'bogus student' immigration, but at the same time it's wrong to put barriers in the way of legitimate foreign students. So provide student visas for anyone backed by an appropriate institution, but revoke the license of any such institution found to be abusing the system and effectively selling visas.

    If London Met was indeed abusing the system then they've done the right thing twice over, once by stopping them, and again by firing a warning shot. Though unfortunately it will inevitably mean some collateral damage, as prospective real students lose confidence in real unis.

    Of course, that's the inevitable consequence of pretending that the ex-techs are real unis.

    tim

  10. I'm not sure I agree, the colleges of UoL are mostly older and of a pretty decent standard. Why would they want to let a failed institution like London Met into their club?

    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.

  11. Trouble is, some of the free employees will become saboteurs (frankly, some paid ones are like that). And worse.

    My Dad went on the Employment Training scheme way back when. Some of the classes available included welding. On the first day, one of the trainees was sent to hospital for attempting to weld his steel toe cap boots together....while he was still wearing them. Needless to say, he wasn't asked to return. Maybe he would have made a great welder, he certainly showed some creativity - but no supervisor is going to make the effort after an incident like that.

    We're not putting "free" workers in that position.

    they're given shelf stacking, cleaning etc jobs to do

    tim

  12. talking to a family member at the weekend, who put an offer in of 115k on a house about a year ago, house was priced at 140k was way over priced, i thought 115k was too much, i bet them that it would not sell. (no money involved in bet) was reduced about 6 months later to 120k, and today doing my usual rightmove addiction looking 20 times a day, it is on for 95k !!!!....

    Just going to call them and let them know, will tell him if he is still looking to offer 80k :D

    even at 95k it is looking over priced in todays falling market :)

    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

  13. Yes, I suppose it is. But looking at the leasing sites, it is close to £400 when you include the VAT and a chunk of the down payment. So you pay £5000 a year for 4 years, and at the end of it you have spend £20K and have absolutely zip to show for it.

    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

  14. The thought had occurred... how do options normally work? Surely, unless the cost of the option is high enough to be worth it to the seller on its own, it's always a lose-lose? (price goes up, you sell for less than the market value, price goes down, the 'buyer' just doesn't take up the option).

    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.