Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

We’re all in this together

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by We’re all in this together

  1. Thanks, Folks. I am moved (pardon the pun) by your good wishes and support. I wish you all the very best.
  2. I feel like a turncoat, or a scab, but isn't this what Housepricecrash is all about? Asking price £395,000 Offer £325,000 Deal £330,000 Mr O'Spawn £9,900 Now I've finally found somewhere to live after four years of derisory offers, I don't much care what happens to it's 'value.' But I wish you well at Housepricecrash, a beacon of sanity flickering bravely in a world gone mad. I can only repeat my advice - get out there and bombard poor deluded sellers with derisory (or realistic) offers. If enough of you do it their confidence, and prices, will start heading south. Good bye and good luck.
  3. From Global Meat news.com UK processors reject EU ban on ‘desinewed meat’ The British Meat Processors’ Association (BMPA) has criticised the European Commission’s ban on ‘desinewed meat’ (DSM), a product obtained using low pressure to separate meat from bones, calling it “a criminal waste of a valuable product”.
  4. Abolish General Elections and the Dissolution of Parliament. Instead limit each member of parliament to a five year term – eg, latest recruit George Galloway would have to step down in March 2017 at the latest. The result after a few years’ natural wastage would resemble any large organisation, with a relatively high but reasonable 20% annual labour turnover, and a couple of byelections each week. The greatest benefit would be continuity of policies rather than the current five year plan. The other fantasy (if I may, before I have to return to my cell) would be proper democracy, whereby the people elect their representatives, the representatives choose their leader, and the leader chooses their management team. The political colour of the House would reflect that of the voters, while the political direction of the country would be less subject to violent swerves for short term advantage.
  5. Who would YOU choose to lead us? I'll stick me neck out to start the ball rolling, and say, er, just a sec, no wait, there must be someone, hang on a minute I'll get back to you...
  6. What you're talking about sounds like democracy. A fine concept. I wonder where it's practised, and can only imagine what it would be like.
  7. Be careful what you wish for. Disability only happens to other people, until it suddenly happens to you. Sad fact is, it probably will. Nearly all of us will become disabled, instant death is for the lucky few. Think on, James.
  8. Thanks, folks Good advice, as always. I have written to the lawyer suggesting the money be split between two bank accounts, which seems the sensible thing to do, and of course, the lawyer is a sensible person. I guess I am paranoid. I wonder why. Of course the government would not let RBS fail. In an interesting change of emphasis, the current government said in the event of a banking collapse the banking act would allow it to lend money to the FSCS, which is itself a private comany whose website says "If a firm becomes insolvent or ceases trading we may be able to pay compensation to its customers." The operative words here being "allow" and "may." The previous government said it would ensure that the FSCS has access to enough immediate funding to pay out depositors in a timely manner, through borrowing from the Government or Bank of England. I hate lawyers too.
  9. Have had a cash offer accepted, lawyer says he will hold the money on my behalf, in one account in my name, to which the FSCS limit of £85,000 applies, in the "unlikely event the bank should fail." The lawyer will not be liable for any losses resultant from banking failure. So at some stage all the purchase money (more than £85k) will be sitting in the one account awaiting exchange of contracts and final handover. At this point the lawyer's bank of choice (RBS - 80% taxpayer owned, just to make things marginally more complicated) goes toes up (see Murphy's Law, Chapter One). Any advice would be gratefully received.
  10. I think your concerns are valid. There are interesting semantic differences between the previous and present governments' stance: In 2008 Chief Secretary to the Treasury Yvette Cooper said, in a statement responding to persistent questioning by Martin Lewis: "In the unlikely event a major bank became insolvent the Government would ensure that the FSCS has access to enough immediate funding to pay out depositors in a timely manner, through borrowing from the Government or Bank of England. The FSCS could then levy up to £4 billion per year from the financial services industry to cover the costs of compensation" So government policy was to underwrite FSCS "obligations" (the FSCS website states: "If a firm becomes insolvent or ceases trading we may be able to pay compensation to its customers." (my italics). Question is, does Ms Cooper's statement place the current government under the same obligation? And if so, do you think they would honour it? Update: I wrote to Yvette Cooper’s successor, Danny Alexander, asking if the coalition was bound by her guarantee. I got the following reply a couple of days ago: “The FSCS was created as a compensation fund of last resort for customers of authorised financial services firms that become insolvent or cease trading. The FSCS is independent from the government and the financial industry, and was set up on 1 December 2001 under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. “The FSCS currently guarantees bank deposits up to £85,000. Further details on compensation can be found on the FSCS website via the following web link: http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/eligibility-rules/compensation-limits/ “If, in the event of a bank failure, the FSCS did not have sufficient funds to pay out depositors, the Banking Act would allow the Government to lend funds to the FSCS over a number of years. (again my italics) “The Financial Services Authority is responsible for the funding arrangements for the FSCS, and consulted with the industry before introducing the current funding rules in April 2008. These rules specify the levies that may be collected from firms in the financial industry. The FSCS is then responsible for setting levies on firms within these rules. “There is a limit to the amount the FSCS can levy on the financial services industry. For depositor compensation, the limit is set at £1.84bn per year. Further information on levy limits can be found via the following web link: http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/FEES/6/Annex2”
  11. Hardly a revelation. First you are shackled to a lifetime of debt, then you have to sell your house to pay for care. In each case the money flows from the poor (you and me, buddy, in case you thought different) to the rich. That's why they are rich.
  12. Thanks to both you and Silver Surfer for the detailed responses and good advice. I agree, it's a case of keeping one's nerve and not getting carried away. The reassurance is very welcome.
  13. Thanks, that's very sound advice. I also found this on the government website direct.gov.uk:
  14. Recently offered 90% of the asking price (more than my usual 'derisory' opening gambit). I am honoured with a call from the boss, who gives me some advice about what I should be offering. Apparently the vendor will not accept less than 95%, so would I like to think again? During the Christmas break it occurs to me that the estate agent has not actually passed on my offer, but is 'managing' proceedings in his client's interests (ie, wants a fat fee). Can anyone please tell me whether the EA is legally obliged to convey all offers regardless of his opinion, and also whether the EA is obliged to put both offer and response in writing to the buyer? I have had some run-ins with this estate agent, who clearly sees me as a time waster because I persistently offer 20-30% below the asking price, and they've no idea how to negotiate. Any advice would be gratefully received.
  15. Cameron's use of the veto has been greeted with dismay in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, who largely saw it as protecting the London bankers from European regulation, and not as acting in the interests of the wider union. He has damaged the cohesion of the UK.
  16. I was listening to Radio 5 "interview" of Professor Tonks of Bath University, who has conducted a study proving that bankers' bonuses had nothing to do with the financial crisis. I wonder who funded that, then? Found a link to Fundweb: http://www.fundweb.co.uk/uk/bankers%E2%80%99-bonuses-did-not-cause-crisis-claims-bath-university-study/1043288.article
  17. Sorry, been down the pub for some high quality debate. Well it seemed high quality after a few pints of Old Vermyn. 'Lie-bour' is a bit childish and diminishes your authority. Cheers!
  18. What I or anyone else would have done is irrelevant. Norman was supposed to be in charge and he fouled up. Whichever way one looks at it, his stewardship of the economy can hardly be described as a success, though I expect you will give it a try.
  19. Wonder why the Beeb repeatedly wheels out this twerp, whose hand it was on the tiller on the imaginatively named 'Black Wednesday' when Britain crashed out of the ERM with interest rates at 15%. Is it because he sounds plausible even when talking absolute blx? Oh yes, and he's a Lord, Lord knows why.
  20. I think the idea is debt slavery - the main thing is you owe the bankers a lifetime's debt, they own your house; house price inflation is a side effect, though seen as good for the banks' balance sheets, and good for the home 'owner,' who feels well off, but as you say, can't leave the game. All empires were built on slavery, and still are, the means of enslavement have evolved, become ever more subtle, from floggings, lynchings, mass crucifixion, to serfdom, tied housing, company tokens, and now the perpetual indebtedness of the poor to the rich. The 'trickle down' effect is a myth - it's more a case of osmosis: wealth accumulates greater wealth. Your house will pay for your care during the final few years before you finally do leave the game.
  21. My withdrawing all my money just in case is prudence. If you withdraw all yours it's panic. A bit like the fuel strike. It occurred to me after waiting two hours to buy a couple of litres, just in case, I was the only sane person in a queue of panic stricken idiots.
  22. During his statement last week (which was pretty scary stuff anyway), I am sure he said banks must increase both lending and their balance sheets. But he didn't explain how. Paul Daniels?
  • 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.