Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Quicken

  1. I did a cash purchase this month in Scotland (different system from England) with funds from sale of gold bullion. I stated sale of investment gold as the source of funds and my solicitor wanted to see the gold account statement showing the the bullion sale and transfer of fiat. Then a bank statement from the account I would be paying from showing the transfer coming in so they could match it up. If they want to know the original source of wealth, you can state savings from salary.

    You will need long term records to declare capital gains on your SATR.

    Hope that helps


  2. 27 minutes ago, kzb said:

    University staff strike over pensions and pay


    The UCU is angry that members are now having to pay 9.6% in pension contributions, up from 8% and wants universities to pay the full increase instead.

    But the University and Colleges Employers Association and Universities UK say employers have increased their pension contributions from 18% to 21.1% of salary, paying in an extra £250m each year.

    Please notice that no-one is saying, we shouldn't be having such generous pensions.  Cut the contributions I want the money now.

    No, they are defending their pensions.


    The USS is a funded scheme, unlike the state pension. It has been downgraded from final salary to career average, and then the people running the scheme wanted to convert it fully to defined contribution. That was rejected. The current controversy is over the proposed compromise involving massively ramping the contributions to keep career average defined benefits. So, yes people were saying the pensions shouldn't be as generous and making them less generous has been the very definite direction of travel for the last decade. Pay more, get less.

  3. 12 minutes ago, HowMuch! said:

    I thought this was killed off last year



    compensation awarded, even though no actual loss suffered?

    Yes, but the court of appeal says it's back on.


    Two years ago, the Competition Appeal Tribunal threw out Merricks’s claim, ruling it would not grant an order for the case to continue to trial. In a dramatic turnaround, the court of appeal has ordered the tribunal to reconsider what has become the biggest class action in British legal history.



    The tribunal originally rejected Merricks’s claim partly because it could not find clear evidence about how the Mastercard fees had been passed on to consumers – or absorbed by retailers – and how individual losses could be calculated. But the court of appeal found that was not a basis for rejecting certification for a court action.


  4. Quote

    Almost every adult in the UK could receive a payout of up to £300 from Mastercard after a court ruling paved the way for a £14bn class action lawsuit.

    The legal action taken by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks claims that 46 million UK consumers paid higher prices in shops over a 16-year period because of allegedly excessive transaction fees charged by Mastercard.

    Merricks said the maximum payout would be about £300 for anyone who can prove they were in the UK in the 16 years between 1992 and 2008.

    In total, Merricks said 46 million adults could qualify and they need never have held a Mastercard. His case rests on the fact that higher prices would have been paid by all consumers during the period.


    Nice little spending stimulus

  5. On 07/04/2019 at 13:59, spyguy said:

    The big change for me, personally, will be removal of small bus tax relief for furnished holiday lets.

    Ideally id like these ffers to oay full rates.

    Id settle for ctax X 2.

    I've always found it strange that income from furnished holiday lettings get a specific mention in relevant earnings for pension contribution tax relief:



    I wonder how long this can survive in the current environment (airbnb, s24 etc).

  6. London Capital and Finance is toast. Sounds like a pretty dodgy company. ISA not ISA. Marketed by a guy called Careless. Oops


    "In December the FCA froze LCF's activities, pulled the adverts and in January found that LCF had "made communications in relation to its fixed rate ISA or bond which were misleading, not fair and not clear".

    The FCA findings included that LCF's bonds did not qualify to be held in an ISA account and therefore investors were being misled by being told the interest they earned would be tax free.

    Independent financial adviser Neil Liversidge wrote to the FCA in 2015 warning it about the scheme.

    Mr Liversidge said: "The way it was promoted, a great many people could have fallen for this."

  7. On 04/03/2019 at 16:13, Freki said:

    Isn't the parliament part of the problem here? Or do we need a gvt defeat just to show how far the arm of money launderers and tax evaders can reach?

    I am not sure I understand you. The government could have clamped down on the tax havens themselves. They chose not to.

    So now parliament is pushing the issue. The government could then have accepted the amendment to clamp down. They chose not to.

    They will only be dragged to this kicking and screaming - scum bags. 


  8. Quote

    Despite the hype, very few people actually put their money into this kind of unregulated investment, according to the Financial Conduct Authority's research. Its findings suggested:

    • Only 3% of those asked in the FCA's survey had ever bought cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin
    • Those who do buy cryptocurrency tend to spend less than £200
    • Just one in 100 people who have not done so said they would in the future
    • Cryptocurrency is primarily understood by men aged 20 to 44, but 73% of all those asked said they could not define it


    For those who think the Crypto market has hit peak awareness...


  9. Quote

    Ministers have pulled a financial services bill from the House of Commons, fearing the government was almost certain to be defeated on an amendment requiring Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to clamp down on money laundering.

    The Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour’s Margaret Hodge want the crown dependencies to introduce public share ownership records by December 2020, which the three territories are resisting.


    Ministers not exactly covering themselves in glory here.

  10. Price of flats fell in England last year, says Land Registry




    Buying a flat or maisonette in England is cheaper than a year ago, according to official figures, with the cost of semi-detached homes rising fastest.

    First-time buyers have been buying later in life and a number of buy-to-let investors have pulled out of the market owing to tax changes.



  11. 27 minutes ago, Tes Tickle said:

    Of course all lenders are free to charge whatever amount they like, and market forces should prevent them from charging excessive rates.  But... for this one lender, they have absolutely no competition - basically they have captive customers.

    The borrowers took a mortgage at whatever rate for whatever period but assumed they could remortgage AND assumed that there was some kind of relationship between the SVR they'd revert to and BOE base rates.  To be fair, these assumptions were probably shared by the majority of the population.  It turns out they can't remortgage so have to go onto the SVR - plus the SVR has increased massively.

    Of course all lenders have to make profits, and interest rates have to reflect the risk.  But the former NR mortgage rates are way above what's needed to cover any risk.  In fact there's almost no risk, as all these mortgages were taken before 2008 so all should be in positive equity by now.

    I'm generally in favour of free markets, but to my mind this sort of runaway capitalism fleecing of the masses does need controlling in some way.

    If they had plenty of equity then they would be able to remortgage. Clearly they do not.

  12. 16 hours ago, Kosmin said:

    It was not very well known in 2015 but we have been bombarded with adverts and discussion over the last few years. I think anyone who uses the internet, reads newspapers or follows financial news will have come across it by now.

    You'd be surprised. I was at the bank yesterday and the employee serving me at a desk looked completely blank when I mentioned Cyptocurrency, then asked how you spell that - Kripto..?

  13. 12 hours ago, Ah-so said:

    Obviously not literally retrospective, but when these people took out their mortgages originally they would have assumed that they would have been able to remortgage when their mortgage fix was up.

    MMR - rules that were brought in to protect consumers from not being able to afford repayments on the future if rates rise. By being stuck on these mortgages, they are worse off and peversely more likely to succumb to rate rises.

    For this group of borrowers the MMR rules are not having the intended effect. 

    It isn't retrospective in any sense is my point. It doesn't matter what the customer assumes. Just as with savings accounts with teaser rates that drop to zero, short term fixed rate mortgages have a teaser rate followed by SVR. They are priced accordingly.

    The assumption that you can just sign up to another fix, as good or better than your old deal, when your teaser rate runs out is just an assumption - and one that was suitably demolished in the Big Short.

    The FSA describes the MMR as: The reforms introduced under the Mortgage Market Review deliver a mortgage market that works better for consumers and is sustainable for all participants.

    It isn't just to protect consumers - it's designed to make the market sustainable - i.e. constraining risky lending and protecting the taxpayers.

  • 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.