Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

D Vardy's Shadow

Members
  • Posts

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by D Vardy's Shadow

  1. That's what it is meant to indicate. It is no different from agents leaving their SSTC and under offer signs outside houses for maximum impact on the market. At the moment, it is any excuse to make a property look sold. But if you look at the mortgage approvals, it is telling the tale that it is the folk who sold at peak now coming back into the market, because they can take a profit and because they have done with renting. That will not last very long. Those who are buying, having sold at peak are to some extent taking a profit now, rather than waiting to take a larger profit. Falls in the market will hurt them less than if they had just stayed in their houses at peak. But any FTB who gets swept up in this will end up hurting themselves financially, badly so if they do not have a good deposit.
  2. There we have it. You are not giving us analysis, you are a VI I am not so sure. Most people have a healthy scepticism about political institutions, which I would not confuse with hate. It amuses me that people hate our own government, with good reason, but reserve special venom for the EU, when it is probably one of the best counterbalances around against our own government The EU certainly has been a positive factor. Most of the delusional apparent growth and prosperity arises from Anglo Saxon quarters, ie the US and the UK It is probably a good thing that the EU does not depend upon you. Let's hope that the German taxpayers remain generous, particularly if the alternative is a return to a pre 1939 Europe.
  3. All currencies are going down. Fancy that.
  4. S21 is a clear statement of LL's intent. Isn't it? The honeyed tones from the LA that an S21 as SoD at the start of a tenancy is just a formality might invalidate the S21 if they could be made to stand up in court. But, argued properly by T's lawyer, the honeyed tones of the LA actually put the LL in the position of being able to have it both ways at his choice at the end of the assured term - a court could not uphold this. LL's lawyer could argue that T is trying to have it both ways, again a court might find this difficult to uphold - but would be more inclined to allow T to have it both ways, because LL has brought this about by issuing preemptive s21.
  5. No, it is quite simple. Injin and B'stard appear to have different ideas as to what fraud is. You will never get any sense out of the argument until it is understood that they are talking about different [but related] concepts. So save the effort with long posts about the methodology of what is going on until the meaning of the term 'fraud' is either agreed or the differences understood. You can't agree on whether it is or is not fraud until you agree on what fraud is.
  6. ??? If they fall by the same %, the rungs will get closer together anyway, certainly in £££
  7. I think we can all agree that T is absolutely entitled to take s21 at face value. So what is an S21 at face value?
  8. No, it is not reasonable. You are not sufficiently committed to your lifestyle choice! Seriously, you should sell your house and be prepared to rent in order to get what you want - and probably not muddy the waters by making an offer at this stage on a house you are not in a position to complete on. As and when you get a buyer, you should make your offer based on going into rental: "I offer £x or £x+10,000 if the sale can be done so I do not need to rent."
  9. Too long , cut the crap. BTW, not good to put the agents name in your post.
  10. ... and because going on line is cheap for agencies, you find jobs which were filled months ago, but are left in place to gather candidate profiles or the same genuine job 1,000,000 times over from different agencies, which makes you think whay does nobody want that job. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it is on-line. Perhaps anyone who found a job this way would post to let us know?
  11. Apologies if I have missed something in the last few pages of this I think B'stard means Fraud as in criminal act which could result in conviction, whereas Injin means an Fraud as in an act of deceit which deprives someone of wealth. I understand these to be different things.What do the protagonists say?
  12. Interesting. I can see the sense in it too. ie LL can tell T to go but cannot insist on T jumping through all of the hoops that T must go through if it is T who decides to quit. Sauce, geese, ganders. The undefinable point should be identical - LL should not be able to tip T out on an S21 expired by an unreasonably long time - but then T would be expected to give notice if LL's S21 is well past its sell-by. But the argument would need to be made and sustained in court.
  13. OK, it ain't quite mutual agreement, but once T leaves, he has complied with the notice and I cannot see LL being upheld on "I didn't really mean it" - nor would LL organisations be too happy with one of their number getting the meaning of an S21 diluted in this way.
  14. Presumably, the discrepancy is between the LL's communication to T [by way of S21] and LL's intent, not communicated to T [because it would invalidate the S21]. There would be no discrepancy between T's actions [to quit] and LL's communication [to quit]. Arguably that would be mutual agreement?
  15. Agree. Particularly as it ends before it starts, there is very little scope for arguing that the intent was for a year and it's a typo. But even if it is interpreted as the dates the wrong way around for a tenancy of a day, the question a judge would ask is why have you stayed on after the day is up? Your adherence to the terms for 6 months is evidence of intent on your part. Just send a note to the agent noting the error and giving how you read them, if it is an issue. Keep a copy.
  16. So, the interesting question now is "who benefits from the loss of AAA rating? and how?"
  17. +1. But the problem with the poll tax was not the principle [no taxation without representation] <=> [no representation without taxation]. It was that as well as changing the means of local taxation, they took a lot of the taxation off business rates and onto individuals.
  18. +1 There really is no need for a guarantor. If anyone found it cheaper with a guarantor, they must have been well above 75% LTV. Plus if it all goes wrong, mother in law could help you more by providing you with a roof over your heads. There is no benefit to you in having her dispossessed too.
  19. Bad move. They will be back to try and get your £175k and a bit more - never let an EA know exactly how much you have to spend, the nearest you can go is "I will look at houses asking up to..." Your recovery from this is "I need £15k of that to put the place right.
  20. Following that one through will make you look as though you are stupid as well as obviously trying to get out of it. Grow up and take responsibility for having signed the contract.
  21. Accurate? Yes, go back in your tardis to 2007, knock on the door and make an offer and negotiate till you have a deal. That is then the value in 2007, but you need to hang around and see the deal complete to be sure it is accurate. You may have to pay a premium to the owners to get them to move if it did not fit in with their plans back in 2007. Anything else is guesswork. Zoopla is far from the be all and end all of pricing estimates. Bear in mind that there is no accurate science to this whatsoever - don't be deluded by any notion that there is a 'value' which experts would agree on and which would be vindicated in practice. All you can do is find comparables between now and then and between here and there and work out some rough estimate. But if you put in an offer, you need to work out the value to you now, which is probably £1000 more than the next most able buyer would offer.
  22. That is just plain barmy. You know full well how the banksters behave, any leverage they have on making money, they will do it, even at the cost of the whole economy. This will ensure that they go full bore to create house price inflation and they will soon lobby away your requirement of a min 20% deposit. And the overall effect will be even more transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the old and dead.
  23. See this thread. The notice to quit [sword of Damocles] is far from being an essential part of an AST.
  24. Nowt wrong with bare arms. It's bare legs, high heels and short skirts which threaten stability.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information