laughing_goat

Me too, even without any debt and outgoings far below my income, I 'should be careful'. I'm going to send it to some people I know can't handle their debt (they of course think it's all fine a dandy).

Bodie and Doyle, You seem to assume most of the STRs have sold purely to speculate. This assumsion is wrong, a thread was knocking about a few months ago asking the position of the posters on this site. The majority of STR's had done so because they had either moved to a different area (within or outside of the UK) or had sold because they needed to move to a bigger house but couldn't afford to buy one due to the rungs of the ladder moving too far apart. I STR'd my studio flat 2 years ago because I wanted to move in with my boyfriend (who has never owned a home and rented a 2 bed house for £50pcm more than I paid in mortgage). We couldn't afford to move up the ladder and certainly couldn't have fitted me, him and all his junk into my tiny studio flat. So this was our best option, to pay cheap rent, while we save and decide whether we could live together. Only a small number of posters sold to speculate and I would never describe them 'totally immoral and unethical'. That, like using the same words to describe the BTLers, is way OTT. I suggest you get your facts straight before you rant and rave, a common myth by those who don't do their research is that once you are on the property ladder, you can shimmy your way upwards easily. This is rubbish, if prices rise by 20% the difference in price between a £100,000 home and a £250,000 goes from £150,000 to £165,000 and extra £15,000. Personnally, an extra £15,000 isn't something I would find easy to make materialise. LG MODERATOR: You might want to remove this as all the other related posts on this thread have now gone. [Moved to the new thread with the other posts]

I know what you mean about the talking about salary thing. I too come from a background where everyone knows everyone elses business. I have to admit, I was never comfortable with it other than in a close working enviroment where I think it should be discussed. In a non-working enviroment it can be used to riducule or force someone on a bigger salary to pay for drinks/meals etc, which I have never agreed with. But one of my colleges managed to get a decent payrise last year because he knew he was getting paid less than the rest of us.

This and TTRTR's comments are worth noting. If this instance was just a hiccup and you are seriously wanting to look at a place, then take the advise given and try and contact the EA then vendor. But don't go to the trouble of contacting either of them if you aren't seriously interested in the property, it does waste everybodies time. I went to view a place about a year ago only to find when I got there the vendor had gone out (1/2 hour walk to get there). After waiting a while, I phoned the agent on my mobile, got an answering machine and left an "I'm not happy" message and went home. The next day I was called by the agent and asked why I hadn't turned up. When I explained (with gritted teeth) that I had turned up and had stood out side the house for 1/2 hour (in the cold), she told me I should have knocked on the door (like as if I didn't knock on the door!). Eventually after about 3 or 4 weeks of being refered to as a liar and unreliable, the vendor did the same thing to another couple and the managing director of the EA firm was forced to write a letter of apology to myself and Mr Goat, but it was too late and I 'unsubscribed' as a buyer from their agency. This was a year ago and it still makes me seethe anger when I think about it, if you had cost an EA/vendor money then I guess they would be even more angry.

It seems to me that those most in danger of buying just before the crash are those earning £40,000+, as anyone earning less than that has the decision taken out of their hands. Here are main camps for my friends; 1) Cannot and don't come close to being able to afford so don't think/worry about HPI; 2a) Can just about afford but not an adequate place, unwilling to comprimise pension/retirement savings to buy a home. 2b) Can just about afford but not an adequate place, will scrape together anything and everything to buy a place. 3a) Already bought and have MEWed to buy an extention (on their house that is) or various 'luxury' items. 3b) Already bought a home and bought a BTL property (in last 12 months) which is not making them any money. 4) Bought but not MEWing or buying BTL properties. I would say the majority of my friends are in 1, closely followed by 2a, bear in mind that I am in my thirties and most of my friends are too. There are of course a few who have used their homes as ATMs and I have several BTL friends, only one of which is making a profit, he however bought his BTL place 4.5 years ago. However, in catagory 2b, I have a classic example, which will sadly almost certainly end in tears. A friend has just bought a house for £300,000, she also owns a flat that she presently lives in but plans to rent it out via the local authority. She needs to do some work on the new place before she, her partner and kids can move in. Her total borrowings for the project are £350,000, £50,000 more than the place was bought for and many times her and her husbands joint salary (their joint salary is no more than £60,000). I did try and reason with her but it was frankly hopeless. During the discussion she (and she was backed up by another 'home = cashcow' numpty) could make £2,500,000 by renting out her ex-LA flat over 25 years. This is when I realised their was no point in arguing and let her dig her own grave.

I'm not sure about where the EA stands legally, I know they are legally abliged to pass on all offers but this is a request for a viewing. If he passed you off to the vendor as a timewaster, then I would be willing to bet the vendor would not question it. In my experience as someone who has sold a place (only one mind) the EA will advise the vendor on who is the most reliable buyer, most vendors will take this with out question. If the house had been on the market for sometime then I would definately approach the buyer directly by way of a short note through the door. This would then challenge the EA's testiment that you are unreliable and it is none challenging to the vendor (they don't have to rely). It will of course get the EA's back up even more.

A few years ago I somehow managed to get involved with a seller/EA dispute (I was the buyer). The Seller was not happy with the service from the EA and was planning not to pay him. I told my solicitor about this and he told me to run for it as the vendor could get taken to court and I could get dragged into it big time. So I did. Anyway, the solicitor told me that if the EA can prove that the buyer 'found' the property as a result of their companies marketing, then the vendor is obligued to pay the EA, especially if they have a contract, in some cases even if there isn't one. What I suggest is that you aproach the EA, if he turns you away, then contact the vendor sayng you would like to view but the EA is unwilling to deal with you (be honest with vendor). The worst the vendor can say is sod off, and if he/she does then wait, if the place is still on the market 6 months later pop another note through the door. To be honest, I wouldn't be supprised if the EA does welcome you back with open arms, I'd be guessing they are short of customers at the moment.

I'm 31. Used to own a studio flat (the bank own most of it actually) but sold it 2 years ago to move in with my boyfriend who rented a 2 bed house for not much more per month than I was paying in mortgage. Have saved like a squirrel, can "afford" a cardboard box flat if we wanted to, but hedging my bets that this situation cannot last.

Oi!

Good old Cliff D'Arcy. I read this earlier, Cliff is a STR and has wanted a crash for sometime. You'll find a lot of articles from him about the housing market.

Yeah, he/she/it's quiet the comedian! I'm just worried we will put genuine posters off by not welcoming all newbies, some can be quite nervous especially if they haven't used a forum before (it took me 18 months after I found this site to start posting on HPC). We have quite strong views on this site and will always be a target for Trolls, I think it is best to manage it rather than legislate. I personally am not concerned about looking like a fool for replying or falling for a trolls line but I do get disappointed when AWOOGA is shouted simply because someone is a bull. EDIT: Pressed the post button too soon!

Darn guys, we were all wrong! HP's will forever rise! Can't stay and chat, must get myself down the local EA's to buy that cardboard box for £300,000.

This may discourage trolls but it will also discourage genuine FTBs who want to express views or need our advise. It would also make us appear like an unpenetratable club (think the posh golf club). I think we are all big enough and ugly enough to handle a few trolls (and IMO there are only a few).

I don't know if anyone has seen this, if so sorry, site run by an American guy with the same property ownership frustrations as we have, see graphic at bottom of the page. http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

This always puzzles me too, why would house prices going down be doom and gloom (apart for those who have over stretched themselves)? For me paying less for a home isn't doom and gloom at all, quite the opposite.

This poses a different question. Should you pay CG tax if you own only one property but don't live in it? It is quiet different to someone owning several properties. This could be done if you move abroad or to another part of the UK for a couple of years, where buying and selling (twice) would incur various fees. I found the 10% reduction on my local councils website, see the quote below;

I know it doesn't sound a lot, but imagine the effect it has on council tax bills in a town where there is a high percentage of empty BTL or holiday homes? If a council is loosing 10% of its revenue on empty properties, how will they make up the difference? I think they will raise the council tax for those who live in the area full time. Why would anyone do scenario B unless there was a difference in the size of the properties?

I'm not quite sure what there is to disagree with here (I know that sounds very arrogant, it's not ment to) The BTLer is owning a property merely to make money, for some LL's this is their job, there is no other reason for them to own the property. I have a job which I do merely to make money. Both myself and the BTLer are taxed on our income. The owner occupier, has bought a home so they have somewhere to live. Some people see it as a cash cow and some choose not to own a home and rent granted, but it's only 'real' use is as a home.

Hi (again) Zorn, You are right about the transactions but I think this also fits well with my arguement. High numbers of transactions and buyer interest will push the HPI upwards. I honestly can't blame the EA for his article, he has written what you would expect him to write. The Beeb, however, are the ones who gave hime the platform in which to do it. LG

Hi Zorn, I think your wording says it all. Someone who owns and lives in their own home is not an investor in the same sence as a BTLer who has bought a property for profit. If capital gains tax was slapped on 'every' house sale nobody would be able to move. I'm not just talking about moving up the ladder, what about moving to a new area? If you have to pay CG tax to do that then you would probably be moving into a smaller home (depending on the HP's in the new area). BTLers are paying tax on their income, just like everyone else does when they earn money whether it be from your job or the interest gained in a bank account. There is nothing unfair about it and it should definately not apply to owner occupiers. Just because the owner occupier and the BTLer have both bought property does not make it the same kind of investment. All, Anyway, I think the tax problems lie more in council tax than capital gains tax. If a BTL property is empty or a home is a holiday home only a percentage of council tax is liable (90% I believe). This in my opinion is a problem, it is effectively an unfair tax break to non-owner occupiers and it can be harmful to local economies especially where there is a large percentage of investor properties (think Devon and Cornwall). The sooner this tax dodge is removed the better. LG

It does seem that way and I can even understand them getting an EA in to write about how the house buying/selling process works, but still I'm finding it hard to accept the peddling of such a bias view without challenge from someone who is obviously going to profit from a rising market and potentially loose his job in a falling one. If a journalist had written it, I would have accepted it as someones view, not nessesarily one I share, but the view of someone to whom it makes no difference if the market falls. They did put a disclaimer at the bottom of the article but this (of course) was simply to cover their backs when people like me complain.

Yes and like with the Barbara Goldsmith fiasco, I have felt compelled to send my thoughts to them via their complaints proceedure.

Bubble pricker, Nice one BP, a bit of media exposure is exactly what we need. Sadly, I cannot listen to the interview, I know I'm a pain in the a** but could you give me an idea about what was said, etc? LG

So yet again the Beeb get their impartial advise from an EA! Some parts of this article are useful as it mentions comparing asking prices to land reg data, but I am very disapointed with the following statement. How many people who weren't going to buy a house are now going to panic buy some s**t hole? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4524450.stm

No, No, No, Tony Blair would never be part of this kind of decision making, that would be Gordon Brown.