Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

munro

Members
  • Content Count

    1,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About munro

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran
  1. That porch is monumentally hideous. We have clearly failed to evolve as a species if something so gob-smackingly ugly can be brought into being and put on public display like this. Add the Leyland cypresses and you have the hillbilly home from hell.
  2. It's being marketed by Pocock & Shaw but the photo shows a Cheffins board in the front garden! More twigs, Del boy, more twigs!
  3. The small print in the box by the article is a shocker - the rent was set at £1050 a week but it became £2000 a week when the benefit claimants moved in - the maximum allowed under the rules. So Brent council no doubt thought great, let's get them off our books by shunting them somewhere else, and the landlord no doubt thought fantastic, Christmas has come early - this year and every year. Even if they end up trashing it that's an extra £950 a week in rent, so £90,000 a year extra for the LL. That'll cover some redecorating later, in a tax-exempt sinking fund. Shame the Wail don't mention who really benefits from this - phuqing landlords laughing all the way to the bank.
  4. Riverside area - that's as close as I'm going to say! I gather they're going to rent it out if it doesn't sell. After all, one wouldn't give away one's property, would one? (Queue music hall exaggerated chorus - How much - how much? Phuq me you're 'avin a laugh, mate - I'm not giving it away!)
  5. Never seen that pop-up, thanks to Firefox, NoScript and AdBlock. Works a treat in cutting out the "you've just walked into a strip mall" effect.
  6. Hiya - do you think it's a BTL bailout? This one looks suspiciously similar - http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32215901.html Same wording of tenant in situ, same agent. The Seymour St house is a shocker - buy now so you can enjoy at least the next year of peeps putting up a house inches away from yours! No doubt with a squad of hard-working Eastern Europeans who will be on site by 5.45 am every morning and hammering away on the dot of 6 (speaking from experience here, of living on Devonshire Rd while they were infilling with four new houses near the youth hostel). Meanwhile my neighbours, after several months of trying to sell, have taken down their For Sale board (Riverside area), although it's still up on t'net with "offers in the region of". They should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky...
  7. Someone posted a cheat for FT articles a while back - click on link, get first few lines of article. Copy title, paste into Google, then click on article as it comes up there. By-passes the FT cookie on your machine, you get the whole article. Seems to work every time.
  8. Terrific. So this is much much worse than 1939, when the "truer model of capitalism" corrected itself via six years of global warfare, millions dead, whole cities bombed flat - sometimes with accompanying firestorms that left cellars full of dead people as the firestorm burnt all the oxygen in the air - and in a couple of cases with added radiation. Even Gordon Brown as PM might be preferable.
  9. OP bases figures on a household income of around £60k gross. This is well into the top 20% of all households - see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=334 Hence you can only afford this lifestyle if you are working class if you bought housing a long time ago. HPI has grotesquely distorted the picture. As someone said recently, why should someone on £100k a year be happy to buy a two-bed flat in Battersea?
  10. The flaw in the analysis is that it ignores costs spread over a lifetime. The lifecycle model suggests people are nett borrowers when the kids are young and their living expenses are high, and nett savers later in life when the kids have left home and inflation, even at relatively low levels, has eroded debt burdens. Of course this relies on being able to buy a house and have kids while you are in your twenties, so from age 50 or so you move into savings territory. If you have kids in your mid-late 30s and buy a family home in your mid-30s then you'll be 60ish before the kids are gone and the mortgage paid off. Which leaves very little time to save for retirement. Of course it's no coincidence that the retirement age is being scrapped just when the 1946 cohort hit 65 but that's another story. Point remains that what looks like a pretty unremarkable lifestyle is out of reach for all but a very small percentage of the population in 21st century Britain, and it's nearly all down to HPI.
  11. OTOH that could be the very best thing you could do, as your kids might be so delighted that they'll make a real effort to keep you warm and happy in your dotage. So you don't turn into a bitter old bat moaning about how they never see the grandkids and how other peoples' kids rally round and help them and make an effort to come and see their old parents. Not to mention that the house bought might look a lot less overpriced when you factor in the 40% death duty liability on the parental home when it's finally sold. There are more things to invest in than financial assets. Only I'm forgetting - we worked hard all our lives, harder than any generation before or after, we paid our taxes and we didn't waste our money on skinny lattes and foreign holidays!
  12. I've experienced this "insurance" first hand. Exactly how this works doesn't seem to be widely realised. You apply for your rental. The letting agent sends your details off to the credit referencing agency. If you score highly enough then the insurance is granted. In other words, the insurance depends on the financial security of the tenant. If the tenant is felt to be a poor risk then the insurance is not available to the landlord. Because I'm a freelancer and the referencing agency were absolutely phuqing moronic (that's another story) in order to pass the checks I had to get the people I work for to stand guarantee for my rent. The letting agent made it clear that unless I arranged this I couldn't have the flat - and he admitted that without this the landlord income insurance would be void. So the insurance "risk" was carried by the people I work with, and not the landlord. Many people would fail the referencing for this. And even if they pass initially, they can fall through the system later if their financial circumstances change. I don't know what the small print for the landlord insurance policy is but I'd bet that changes in tenant financial circumstances invalidate the insurance policy. The point is that it's like many insurance policies - you can only get insured if you are already such a low risk that it isn't worth getting insured. That's how they profit. And of course your credit referencing fee is effectively their administration fee for setting up the policy. In other words, it's a scam that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
  13. Looks like there's some dishonesty here. It's supposed to be a 12 year unsecured loan, but it's only available to parents who are homeowners with a good credit history - at 5.4%. Since banks seem to be able to go to court these days and get so-called "unsecured" loans turned into secured loans with no difficulty at all, it's effectively a secured loan - against the parents' home. Most creditworthy homeowners old enough to have kids looking to buy property on this basis will probably have £50k of equity in any case. So why not take out the cheapest mortgage available with no early repayment charges and do it that way? Probably get a better deal than 5.4%. HSBC have been offering deals around 1.89% over base with a £99 arrangement fee and no charges for early repayment. With the way things are that looks like a better bet, if you really really want to get into property.
  14. Without wanting to be too facetious (queue Mr Burns laugh, lots of schadenfreude and much rubbing of hands), it would be good to see some moral hazard reintroduced to BTLing. It's been a one-way bet for far too long. The "justification" has been that it's a business and not over-leveraged speculation, and the social/political justification is supposed to be providing goods or services at fair, competitive prices - as well as employment - that overall increase standards of living. That's long been the justification for legal protection for joint stock/limited liability companies. BTL fails every test one can think of for a fair, decent society. But then again, I'd be happy to see most BTLers rotting in the outer circles of hell for eternity along with their catamites, the letting and referencing agents.
×
×
  • 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.