Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tired of Waiting

Members
  • Posts

    12,917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tired of Waiting

  1. Call me cynic but I have been suspecting that the VI's lobbyists could have inserted some loopholes in these new rules. I may have just found one:

    Mortgage Advice Regulations

    From April 2014 mortgage sales will have to be advised sales, barring a few exceptions:

    "Internet sales" are exempt?? :huh:

  2. Official releases from the FSA.

    Policy Statement:

    Mortgage Market Review - Feedback on CP11/31 and final rules (PDF)

    And also the most comprehensive collection of charts on the UK mortgage market you're ever likely to come across:

    Mortgage Market Review Data Pack (PDF)

    The Times: "Mortgage Market Review (MMR) takes effect in April 2014"

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/mortgages/article3858393.ece

    Only 6 months to go now.

    The question is by how much the new rules will affect lending? Like, what share of mortgage applicants will be blocked by these rules, or by how much their "budget" ( = maximum they can get) will be reduced. But per usual I can't find these types of analyses in our media.

  3. True....people have always moved away from home, living in tight knit communities where there was a high proportion of inbred and few people moved anywhere happened in centuries gone by....why, if people hadn't moved away from home London and the south east would not have become as crowded as it is now ....many of the people who now live there moved there from somewhere else, and many of the people who were born there now live somewhere else. ;)

    Sure, I have nothing against people moving when they want to, or based on normal, sensible "pros -and-cons" choices, but housing costs for the working young in the South went up well beyond and sensible level. And these are the most productive people. It's irrational to keep prices this high, via too much credit + strangled supply.

  4. ........The greater number of people that want to live in certain areas ie London and surrounding areas the higher the prices will be pushed up.....many wealthy people bringing with them foreign money and lots of new people from all over the world bringing with them energy, skills, talents and their youth......many of these people will and do live in cramped and crowded places.....their choice....no gain without pain.

    The problem becomes greater when working single people want to settle down and have a family, in the past if they didn't want to live in crowded, cramped conditions they moved to areas and new towns in the shires.....so to help alleviate poor housing in already overcrowded places, move the jobs and more family friendly homes to new and good if not better other places..... ;)

    I agree with all that, in general, but in these past 10 years housing costs - for the working young - went up at a much higher rate than earnings.

    We had a similar chat some time ago: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=191387view=findpostp=909346766

    .

  5. Sorry, FAR too simplistic, the HB cuts and imminent threat of interest rates rising was not there in Oct 2010? Plus, if the UK economic situation deteriorates noticeably, far fewer people will be coming here to work and/or claim benefits, meaning even less demand for housing? And that is not including those on benefits who will no longer be able to live in the SE (until the proper collapse that is)

    I was replying to your point re. houses not being fully occupied, and now you reverted to population reduction, which is unrealistic. But I do agree with your new point, re HB claimants, I think they shouldn't have the automatic right to live in a given (expensive) London borough if they can't afford it, but then the political problems with it are huge.

  6. Why so? They could have died, it could be a home or BTL they don`t live in, they could have sold to go abroad, or go into care, they could have moved from London to the Highlands with their HPI gains, any number of reasons. The fixed number of houses for a fixed number of people idea doesn`t hold water IMO, the problem is that during the boom people bought multiple properties because they thought more property meant more gains. They will realise their folly and panic, more so if they are on hefty mortgage payments, when the rates rise. In London I would guess a great many people have loaded up on debt to buy BTL, not to mention their primary residence :o , they will be the first to go pop. We will see how much "shortage" their is when rates start climbing I think?

    Most of your scenarios imply a reduction of population in the South, which is not realistic. Regarding BTLs, there are people living in them too. But you do have a good valid point: many of these BTLs will be sold to owners occupying, eliminating the current insecurity from AST. But the cramped and crowded aspects will remain.

    .

  7. ....Norman Tebbit told people to 'get on your bike' to find work.......today it is more appropriate to say 'get on your bike' to find an affordable home that your work will pay for....... ;)

    People have not only jobs, but much more importantly family and friends in the area they grew up in. Forcing them to move far away is a cruel solution. A much wiser solution would be to allow more homes to be built in the South.

  8. They won`t build because they know that rising rates will kill a fair chunk of people with I.O mortgages (how many in London again?) BTL`s, 2nd homes, holiday homes etc. There will be plenty of supply when rates rises get going, if they built as well houses would be selling for 20k, and this it seems would kill the banks stone dead?

    I agree that prices will fall when IRs go back up. And that we'll pick some nice bargains, including many repossessions. But then the previous owners will be homeless, or, more realistically, forced to live in these crowded, cramped and insecure accommodation we now live in. The shortage will remain. The only solution is to allow more homes to be built in the South.

    Re banks, since the "crunch" most have been requiring at least 25% deposit. The banks have a good buffer there. Besides, fvck them. Some bailout or bail-in is better than to keep prices this stupidly high.

  9. See below a recent tweet from the worst NIMBY lobby group, the CPRE - Campaign to Protect Rural England, campaigning for a Guardian poll re. "green" belt:

    ____________________________________________

    CPRE ‏@CPRE 4m

    Should green belt land be used to meet housing need? Have your say in this poll via @guardian http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/poll/2013/aug/30/green-belt-land-housing-poll?CMP=twt_gu

    ___________________________________________

    I think we should vote too, and campaign as well. The new generations need houses as well!

    Final result:

    ________________________________________________

    Should green belt land be used for housing?

    50% Yes

    50% No

    This poll is now closed

  10. Five of my old school friends are still living in their childhood bedroom at the age of 30. All but one of them have full time jobs and have worked continuously for about a decade. They earn NMW so would struggle to rent a single room in a shared house in the area (southern England).

    Also many areas of London are now full of 2 or 3 storey family homes split into seriously compromised flats.

    I don't know about the rest of the country, but there are many hidden households in the south of England.

    + 1

    Also professionals sharing for more years, and with higher salaries than before.

    Another one: In London many 1-bed flats have been converted into "2-bed" by moving the kitchen to living room.

    Bottom line is, we have too little housing space. See below. Not to mention serious regional and generational inequalities.

  11. (...)

    This figure of up to 1m has been stated for 4 or 5 years.

    Surely there are accurate stats at the local council offices about what properties are empty and for how long they remain so if in probate?

    You are right, this "1 million" myth has been constantly peddled by anti-building VIs for many years. The main two tricks these VI use is to include all the short term vacancies (less than 6 months) in the total number, and then avoiding a regional focus.

    And you are right again regarding accurate stats by local government. In the quote below "DCLG" stands for "Department for Communities and Local Government".

    -----------------------------------

    "According to DCLG there were 737,491 vacant properties in Oct 2010. But many of these are not long term vacant. In fact, only 300,526 of these properties had been vacant for more than 6 months."

    And how many in the SE:

    "34,422 in London, 34,279 in the South East (25, 597 in the East of England)."

  12. The Guardian poll was going ok, with 52/48 in favour of building. But suddenly it changed back to 50/50.

    I had been suspicious about CPRE's silence the whole day, and have been wondering if they were thinking about doing the equivalent of an ebay last minute bid / campaigning. So, when I saw the poll change I checked to see if the CPRE was campaigning again on Twitter, and ... see below. The devious [email protected]

    _________________________________________________

    CPRE ‏@CPRE 3h

    6hrs left to vote in poll on whether to build homes on our Green Belts or use the 1.5m available brownfield sites http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/poll/2013/aug/30/green-belt-land-housing-poll?CMP=twt_gu

    _________________________________________________

    As if we had 1.5m available brownfield sites available in the South, and as if they are not expensive to clean, prepare, etc. I wonder if the CPRE members would agree to foot the bill to clean these sites, or if the young home buyers will have to pay for that too.

    .

  13. Might have been me. The 4% is the total required to get 1 million extra homes (existing stock of ~27 million). So not per annum, just the overall total. Sort it in 4 years by building 1 per year in the 100-home village. Seems unlikey to destroy the countryside as we know it even if all went on greenbelt (which I do not advocate in any case).

    Others have made good points about this sort of development not often being on offer. Serviced plots up for sale amongst private individuals who can have their name against 1 plot only, with a sunset clause on planning permission- start building or hand it back for resale within a suitable timeframe.

    That's it.

    About my "few years" for a million homes, I was thinking about London/SE/E.

  14. And what do we do with the estimated 1m empty properties?

    That is a myth.

    "According to DCLG there were 737,491 vacant properties in Oct 2010. But many of these are not long term vacant. In fact, only 300,526 of these properties had been vacant for more than 6 months."

    And how many in the SE:

    "34,422 in London, 34,279 in the South East (25, 597 in the East of England)."

    http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/empty-homes-and-housing-crisis.html

    So, less than 100k in the London/SE/E. Out of how many? 4 or 5 million? Say around 2% of all properties? Many of these properties will be for sale, or being refurbished, owner died, etc.

  15. Is 3% such a concern when 4% seems to have been the rate for a few years?

    Well the gov's debt is some 300bn higher now, than a couple of years ago.

    I think it's around £1.4tr now, so each 1% extra increases the annual interest bill by some £14bn.

    Though around 30% of it goes to the BoE...

    .

  16. Agreed - although that raises the question of why businesses don't want to move to locations where costs are lower. It seems absurd that so much economic activity is being concentrated in one area, but that's another thread...

    Because we have so little infrastructure, like motorways, roads, trains, houses, etc., we feel "crowded", but if you have ever flown out of Heathrow or Gatwick, it is amazing how little populated even the south is. "Gone to Ireland" had many good posts about that, including with Google images and the like.

    Another poster (sorry, I forgot who), wrote that we could easily allow 4 new houses/year on a village of 100 houses, and so forth, proportionally, 4%/year. In just a few years we would have a million extra homes.

    .

  17. It's a bit like attitudes to sex IMHO - i.e. more complex and nuanced. You can be pro-sex and still be against rape or other forms of abuse. As others (possibly you?) have said, our planning laws perversely encourage the kind of building projects that everyone hates.

    I agree. I would much prefer smaller developments and self builds, spread around existing villages, towns and cities all over the country, like I said many times before. But considering how serious our housing shortage is, specially in the South, then even new council and Barratts estates are better than nothing.

  18. :ph34r: IDS gave them a vision that couldn't be delivered.He visited a few sink estates and thought he had the answer to all of welfares ills.

    Welfare can only ever be reformed by moving away from means testing and mainly from adding on elements to the basic amounts.

    It really is quite simple.If a single parent family or couple family with 1 child get 80% or more of what someone on NMW x 35 hours gets they will not work.

    Increase to 2 children and it goes over 100%.(of course some do work but the incentive is not too)

    There are 3 ways to tackle this.Cut means tested benefits,increase none means tested benefits (Citizens income/child benefit) and increase wages.

    Nothing else will ever work.UC even if it ever came solves nothing.IDS needs to resign or be sacked.

    Agree, though there is a 4th way: lower housing costs would help a lot too, in many ways.

  19. Given the more exotic lending available now that wasn't previously and the fact borrowing is now more often on 2 salaries. 20% from today may be correct.

    However that doesn't mean any correction would be limited to 20% - these things often get overdone once people start panicking.

    I suspect a lot of boomers thinking they'll finally convert their only asset in to an annuity in next couple of years are a massive panic waiting to happen.

    Those big hockey stick graphs of home owners over 45 compared to below 45 has to undo itself at some point and given where we are on IR - it's unlikely to be an orderly process.

    When we look at regional prices charts, it does look like in many regions (Midlands, North, NI, etc.) prices may be back near to their historical averages. It's London and the SE that are still near peak level. Though they should all fall when interest rates go back up to normal rates. As you say, prices will probably go below historical averages then.

  20. But as far as I can tell, VRM is running up against a stupid planning regulation, not NIMBYs.

    Yes, true, but our over-restrictive planning system is a consequence of this general anti-building culture in the country. BTW, nowadays I think the word NIMBY, regarding someone concerned only with their immediate surroundings, is too restrictive. We have a much more general anti-building culture in the country. And it supports the current planning system.

    Back to your original point, I think you may be right. Actual local NIMBYs would be less resistant to a few good quality houses than to a massive housing estate, either by councils or Barratts.

    Though the problem then comes back to this general anti-building culture. And "high-density" requirements, supposedly for "sustainability" reasons, but actually because councils want private developers to build the infrastructure, saving councils' money for their own salaries and pensions. It's all a horrible tangle of incompetence, short-sight and selfishness.

×
×
  • 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.