Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

dalek

Members
  • Posts

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dalek

  1. Oh, and what'sisname: 'Guess this is a much bigger problem for single people.' No it isn't. Many couples and those with children, are also in this mess. And Rented: 'If you think £71 a week is hard have a look at what people working full time earning NMW have left after rent and council tax, depending where they live they may be better off on the dole.' I was earning £38,000 a year. I am applying for similar jobs, obviously, but also for jobs with minimum wage - because even on that I would be able to just meet all my interest payments, so at least I wouldn't face arrears and reposession. I would be thrilled at the moment to have a minimum wage job! Redseller wrote: 'As a renter, where's my free cash please? I have savings over £15,000 so would get no housing benefit if unemployed.' More unbelievable ignorance. For the first six months, whether renter or mortgagor, you can have £1m in savings but you still get housing benefit or mortgage interest support. Equally, for both, after that six months, if I or you have savings over £15,000 it is then means-tested, and we say ta-ta to both housing benefit and SMI. Your free cash is that for the first six months, renters have no shortfall in rent, and do not go into arrears and do not face eviction. Mortgagers go into arrears and face repossession from Month 4. Rented, unbelivably, wrote: 'Why not sell the property and claim full housing benefit if it's such a perk compared to having a mortgage?' So then the state shells out more money to me! Where's the fiscal sense in that amid all the need for cuts? My full interest payments are about £400. The average London flat share with two people is £500 each a month upwards, all of which would easily be covered by housing benefit. And to all you renters, I take it most of you see your rented accommodation as your home, and have made it into a home. You don't face being kicked out if you lose your jobs. So why should I lose my home? And for the last time, I am not asking anyone to pay the repayment part of the mortgage. That will always be my responsibility.
  2. Sarah Bell wrote: 'The renter gets no long term benefit from renting other than a roof over their head. The home owner gets an asset.' Read my original post again. I am not asking that JSA covers any part of the repayment, only the interest to keep the roof over my head until I can find a job. If I go into rented sector JSA will have to pay much more. It doesn't even make financial sense. And again, Bloo Loo's ignorance romps ahead: 'I believe a renter gets no housing benefits if he has savings more than 6K.' For the first six months, for renters and mortgagors, housing benefit and mortgage interest is not means tested. But after six months, both are hit by the £6,000 cap on savings. Fair enough. Incredibly, See you next tuesday said: 'Genuinely unsure as to why any homeowner would feel hard done by ???????' What planet are you living on? As I said originally, on top of having to live on £71 a week, mortgage holders also face going immediately into arrears every month and then repossession (do not think lenders are pracising retraint, they are not). So let's turn the tables again: Renters who lose their jobs should have housing benefit capped by half - even those paying only £500 rent a month. They too then go into arrears and are evicted after five to six months. Does that sound ok?
  3. The ignorance continues: Bloo Loo wrote: '1. Your mortgage rate will change if you go into arrears...then theres the £20 per letter telling you every month you are in arrears.' No it doesn't. George Osborne on bringing in this mortgage interest rate has called on lenders to lower borrowers' rates to 3.65% while they are unemployed and until they get a job. Lenders, unsurprisingly, have told him to sling his hook. As to the £20 letters - if you are sensible, as I was, you contact your lender immediately you lose your job and keep them informed all along the way. They then, thankfully, stop any further fines or fees and don't send out these letters, which is something. I know, let's turn the tables here: I propose that all renters should have their housing benefit capped at half what they have to pay for rent a month. And tough titties to them - they should have had the foresight to save at least six months' rent in case they lost their jobs. How does that feel, renters? And let's face it, it should be easier for you to save as you never have to pay for repairs to your homes, as your landlords cover that.
  4. Russe11 said: 'The saftey net is that you can ask your lender for a repayment holiday, that you should have savings to cover 3 months living costs(which would include mortage payments). You can't start paying mortage interest for unemployed JSA claimants, or you could have a single person in a city apartment claiming far more in interest payments than they would be entitled to in housing benefit.' I was not given a payment holiday (Cheltenham & Gloucester), so you are wrong on that. You go into arrears immediately. However, they did allow me to change immediately from my repayment mortgage to an interest-only mortgage on the same rate without having to pay a fee, which is something. And I did have enough savings to cover the first three months of not being given any help towards the interest as I knew mortgage interest support does not kick in until after the first three months of unemployment. As to claiming more in interest payments than renters - housing benefit will not pay for you to rent a city apartment on your own any more, I was going by renting a room in a two-people share, which in London is £500 a month upwards - more than my full interest payments. And Russe11 added: 'But thats really the idea of the welfare system, to support those in need, not those who want their lifestyle to continue despite being reckless with regard to borrowing and saving.' I cannot continue my lifestyle on £71 a week!? In addition, how was I reckless with regard to borrowing and saving? Again, that would apply to everyone who decides to take out a mortgage! When I had a job I had enough to cover my repayment mortgage. Chairman of the bored said: 'It's a bit daft to enter into a mortgage which blows up if you lose your job.' That covers every single person or couple who take out a mortgage then! What you're saying is no one should ever have a mortgage! I guessed there would be a lot of rather bitter renters who would try and shoot me down in flames - and you're quite rightly bitter with house prices out of reach. But why is it ok to give housing benefit to renters to cover all their rent, ok to pay all the interest of those lucky enough to have interest rate under 3.65%, but not ok to cover those with interest rate above that amount? The reason my interest rate is higher is that I thought I'd be sensible and go onto a fixed rate - which is always higher than the SVR or tracker - just in case interest rates started to rise in the next five years. And, Chairman, I reiterate, I did have enough savings to cover first three months' interest. Executive Sadman said: 'Guess they should have bought insurance for this then, shouldnt they.' and 'Thousands get evicted by landlords every year, no one crys for them.' Read my post again - mortgage protection has long been discredited and banks have been fined for pushing it on people. As to setting money aside, how many of you have more than three months' in savings to cover everything if you lose a job? And thousands of renters may well get evicted - but not through being made unemployed, because then all their rent is paid by housing benefit. And finally, gf3 wrote: 'The house owner is discriminated against compared to the renter when it comes to the benefit system. I am hoping in the next two years to be in a position to pay my mortgage off but I will still have to pay tax to cover other peoples HB.' Ahhh! At last, a bit of sense! (sorry about all the editing, but I'm trying to wade through all the ignorance and lack of basic compassion and justice from many posters...)
  5. Anyone losing their jobs in the months to come can have no idea what is going to hit them. Dole (JSA) for a single person is just £71 a week - for food, other groceries (toothpaste, loo rolls, washing up liquid etc), gas, electric, water and building insurance, never mind contents insurance (lets hope they're not burgled), phone, broadband etc. But, on top of that, while unemployed mortgagees with interest rates below 3.65% will get all of interest paid by JSA, those with higher rates (most people), will find they have an average shortfall of £200 a month, meaning they will immediately start going into arrears every month and will after four to five months face legal proceedings for repossession. Apart from the inequity of some mortgage holders being fine and others in dire straits, the crazy thing is that once repossessed, those with higher rates will have to go into private rented sector, where JSA will cover all their rent, which in most cases will be more than the amount they'd have received if all their interest had been met - i.e., with no 3.65% cap. How short-sighted is that? So in addition to having the shock of suddenly having to live on £71 a week, they face arrears, loss of good credit rating - making life harder once they find, or if they find, another job - and repossession. And before everyone jumps on me - paying interest does not mean the JSA is paying for your asset. It is simply keeping the roof over your head, just like paying peoples' rent - which, lets face it, just goes to the evil BTL brigade's pockets. Paying the repayment part of the mortgage would obviously be wrong. As to baying HPCers who cry: 'Well you should have got mortgage protection!' - that was hardly an option when MPI has been so discredited, with the consequent hits to the banks who missold policies Couples, with children and otherwise, are also being hit by this, despite slightly higher weekly JSA. As are those on disability benefits. In other words, if you have a mortgage, and lose your job thanks to the current and previous government and the banks there is no safety net, no matter how much you paid in taxes over the years.
  6. Hewlett-Packard victims with mortgages, and indeed anyone else losing their jobs in the months to come, have no idea what is going to hit them - those that don't take early retirement anyway. Dole (JSA) for a single person is just £71 a week - for food, other groceries (toothpaste, loo rolls, washing up liquid etc), gas, electric, water and building insurance, never mind contents insurance (lets hope they're not burgled), phone, broadband etc. On top of that, while unemployed mortgagees with interest rates below 3.65% will get all of interest paid by JSA, those with higher rates (most people), will find they have an average shortfall of £200 a month, meaning they will immediately start going into arrears every month and will after four to five months face legal proceedings for repossession. Apart from the inequity of some mortgage holders being fine and others in dire straits, the crazy thing is that once repossessed, those with higher rates will have to go into private rented sector, where JSA will cover all their rent, which in all cases will be the same, or usually more than the amount they'd have received if all their interest had been met - i.e., with no 3.65% cap. How short-sighted is that? So in addition to having the shock of suddenly having to live on £71 a week, they face arrears, loss of good credit rating - making life harder once they find, or if they find, another job - and repossession. And before everyone jumps on me - paying interest does not mean the JSA is paying for your asset. It is simply keeping the roof over your head, just like paying peoples' rent - which, lets face it, just goes to the evil BTL brigade's pockets. Paying the repayment part of the mortgage would obviously be wrong. As to baying HPCers who cry: 'Well you should have got mortgage protection!' - that was hardly an option when MPI has been so discredited, with the consequent hits to the banks who missold policies Couples, with children and otherwise, are also being hit by this, despite slightly higher weekly JSA. In other words, if you have a mortgage, and lose your job - thanks to the current and previous government and the banks - there is no safety net, no matter how much you paid in taxes over the years.
  7. Read especially this little gem: "Ed Mead from London estate agency Douglas & Gordon says "We have sold a one bedroom flat in Old Church Street near the King's Road, which would have been worth £595,000 to £600,000 at the peak. We put it on at £585,000 and thought we would be lucky if we got anything with a five at the front. It has gone to a German woman for £640,000 with four bidders competing. That would have been unthinkable two or three months ago.”" I'd like them to be forced to prove this actually happened.
  8. Apologies if this has already been posted - I received this email yesterday. Link: http://www.ludlowthompson.com/property_new...icle.htm?id=528 Hilarious!
  9. I asked what happens to the equally deceived applicant and his mortgage, not the broker.
  10. This fact has not been highlighted enough in the media for my liking. Especially the fact that he used taxpayers' money to pursue his bid through the courts to stop them getting the expenses information.
  11. So what happens to the original applicant regarding his mortgage and relationship with his lender once it has been found that the applicant's broker gave false information such as inflated income to the lender without the applicant's knowledge?
  12. You are such a tw*t. That is like saying 'anti-apartheid is the root of all evil'. Start liking women and respecting them as equals and you might finally get yourself a girlfriend, toss*r.
  13. Hi Fred, nice to have you back. Just to say - didn't I once tell you it would all come good in the end! I know it's all happening more slowly than we'd like, but I, like you in your heart of hearts, knew the house price crash would come, and the banks, and the economy. It was always obvious to me the Brown/Blair 'miracle' was based only on debt. Funnily enough, I used to work for Kelvin (I'm a sub). He's unpleasant, but very astute most of the time, and I can guarantee that very soon, although - again - the people are taking their time to fully wake up, the whole of Britain will wish Brown would take a gun to his head. It'll make the G20 protests look like a walk in the park. And by which time the police will have been neutered...
  14. I return you all to this first post. It's all got a little bit too jolly, talking about "beer and pussy". I think your post is very, very valid, and any other banter only hides your real and very commendable deep concern. It is so obvious the end if nigh for this greedy hpi culture, so much so that the banks have collapsed too - how many of us saw that coming! Keep strong all of you. It's all going swimmingly, if a bit slowly at the moment. I have to say though, please guys, remember that many on this site are women (some equally suicidal, no doubt, and some not), who feel exactly like you do about all this, who long for justice and for a return to sanity with regards to buying homes, but who do not appreciate being called "pussy', as if that's all we are. Sex is fun, but so too is love, so please try to respect women as human beings, just a little. We girlies on here were among those at the start who saw all this coming, and are as thrilled as you that it's begun to unravel, but at the moment we are as frustrated as you that it is not happening quickly enough. But WE ARE WINNING!!!!
  15. Oh God, I feel guilty now. You're not a loser at all. I was just getting my own back on all the card-carrying BNP misogynists who crawl over this site on a regular basis. Good luck to you.
  16. Ahah. So you are one of the third of young men who live with mummy and daddy. Jesus.
  17. Do you think you will EVER get a girlfriend with that attitude? You are such a freak.
  18. I didn't say just men, did I? Why don't these tossers share a house or flat with other young people and have fun out there. Most kids are raring to leave home for the big wide world.
  19. Right. I wasn't going to say anything, but as the woman-haters have crawled out of the woodwork yet again, the reason a third of men aged 20 - 35 live at home (the stats say only a fifth of women live with parents) is that a third of men are a bunch of pussies. Most of them are on this site. The remainder of men in that age group do what young people of both sexes have always done - share a house with two or three others.. and enjoy life. It has nothing to do with not being pregnant and getting a council house, nothing to do with dual incomes, blah blah. Hardly anyone, myself included, has their own place - rented or mortgaged - in that age group. It has everything to do with being pitiful, clingy, sad little boys who can't grow up.
×
×
  • 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.